The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1882-07-26

ltiCal. lie was thus prosecuted SIMPLY
and solely to defeat his denomination as
Marshal. The whole thing is an outrage
against justice and common decency, and
if there is any way to get at them the
perpetrators and instigators Of the out
rage should be made to suffer.
JUST WHAT relation the Newell disclos-
ure bears to the propositions now pending
before the House Committee on Judiciary
is matter of interest to the public. We
have endeavored to get all the information
possible under the circumstances.
Newell claims that the Texas & Pacific
land grant was secured by fraud, and in
his letter addressed to the committee he
proposes to prove his allegations by docu-
mentary evidence.
The Texas & Pacific makes no claim to
the land grant. 1t admits that it lost the
grant by failing to construct any part Of
the road to which the grant applied. 1t
will be remembered that when the Texas
& Pacific was urging Congress in 1867 to
grant aid to that company by Endorsement
of its bonds to enable the company to COM
plete the road in time, the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company opposed vigorously the
proposed aid. The latter company repre-
sented from day to day that it was
building the road from Fort Yuma TO
FL Paso rapidly; that it was able
and intended to complete the road
to FL Paso without aid from the
Government, either in lands or bonds. The
opposition triumphed and Mr.. Thomas
Scott failed to get his bill through Con-
gress. In the meantime the Texas & Pa
ciflc continued to build its road through
Texas and the Southern Pacific pressed on
with its road through Arizona and to FL
Paso under charter obtained from the
Legislature of Arizona. Having completed
the road over the line granted by Congress
to the Texas & Pacific, the Southern Pacific
Company obtained charter under the
laws of Texas to build its road eastward
from Ell Paso. Under that charter the
Southern Pacific built nearly one hundred
miles into Texas east Of El Paso and met at
that point the Texas g. Pacific. This juno
tion was effected in October or November,
1851. We understand that after the june
tion of the two roads contract was en-.
tered into substantially as follows:
Tho Texas & Pacific assumed one-hali
the cost of that part of the road between
the junction and Ell Paso, say one hundred
miles, and both companies thereafter are II
own and use that section in common
The Texas & Pacific also bound itself no
to parallel the Southern Pacific west of Il
Paso to the ocean, and also conveyed
whatever rights it might have to the LAM
grant west of FL Paso. The Southern
Pacific, on its part, undertook not to par
allel the Texas & Pacific east of FL Paso.
Thus, ii will be perceived, If the fore
going be true, and it seems well vouche
for, combination was formed which place
the two great railroads to the Paclf
Ocean virtually under the same control {
the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific ar
and under the same management.
Now there is a proposition to forfeit th
land grant because the Texas & Paclf
did not earn the lands. A question aris,
whether or not the Southern Pacific, ha,
ing constructed the road on the line an
having obtained transfer from the Tex,
& Pacific to all the rights 1t might ha,
over or to the grant, is entitled to bo sui
yogated to the rights OF the Texas & Pi
cifc.
Ifthe land grant to the Texas & Pacii
is void, by reason Of the matters set up
Mr.. Newell, then the claim Of the Southei