Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1879-04-30

lads granted which shall not be sold
or disposed of by the company within
three years after the entire road shall
be completed shall be subject to pre-
emption and settlement like other
lands at price not exceeding ST. rs per
acre. The secretary of the interior held
that Nelson Dudymott had the right to
pre-empt in the usual manner any lands
originally contained in the grant to the
company but remaining unused three
years after the completion Of the
road. When this decision was made
swarms of settlers located on the COM
panys land. The Union Pacific COM
panv at once prepared to test the valid
ity of Schurz' decision in the courts.
VIM. H. Plat preempted a quarter
section of the compsny's land in Ne
braska. The company refused to re-
ceive the payment rendered, and
brought action against him IN eject
ment. Platt filed bill in equity
against the company to restrain them
from prosecuting the action Of eject
ment. The company filed an answer,
setting forth that mortgages had been
made to secure their landgrant bonds,
and that the mortgage was disposal of
the lands within the meaning OF the
act of 1862, incorporating the road.
The case was argued in the United
States circuit court in Nebraska, and
Judge Dundy decided in favor of the
company. Platt appealed to the SUI
preme court. The case was argued
about two weeks ago, and to-day Judge
Strong delivered an opinion af-
firming the decision of the lower
court, Justices Bradley, Miller and
Clifford dissenting. Justice Strong in
his opinion, which is a very elaborate
one, recites first the statutes giving the
land grants to the Union Pacific rail
road. After citing the statutes he pro-
ceeds to dwell upon the circumstances
under which this aid was given. The
country was greatly interested in the
completion of q railway across the con-
ttnent. The distance was SO great and
the country through which it was to
pass was SO barren of support that the
construction of the road was clearly
beyond the reach of private enterprise
1t was for this reason that congress was
both willing and anxious to extend such
aid to the company as would aid 1t to
construct the road. The lands were to
be sold or disposed of within certain
time or else the lands were to revert to
the government. Justice Bradley de.
livered the dissenting opinion.
In it he claimed that the
execution Of the mortgage on
the lands was neither the sale nor dis
position of them. The intention of the
act of congress making the grant was
to encourage settlement after the COM
pany had been given a reasonable time
in which to dispose Of the lands. The
object of the act was defeated by cover
ing the grants with a mortgage. The
mortgage would prevent settlers from
occupying the lands at the ordinary
price per acre under the homestead
laws. In answer to the plea that the
company could not have built its road
without mOrtgaging the lands Mr..
Bradley said that according to the pro-
visions of the act the lands were not
patented to the company until after a
certain amount of track had been laid.
The company had control Of the lands
to that extent, and if disposed of &C
cording to the intention of the act the
lands should be thrown open to settle
ment. The mortgages took their
mortgages subject to the provisions Of
the act of congress and the mortgages
were entitled to the proceeds of the
sales of the land.