Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-02-12

son existed against the proposed change
The commissioner, Gen. Williamson,
replied that the best interests Of the pub
lie would be served by the change, but
suggested the questions: First, had the
grant to the company lapsed by reason Of
the failure of the company to perform
certain acts within the time specl1led?
and. second, if it has so lapseo, can the
department recognize any acts by the
company looking to the initiation OF new
rights or the enlargement Of old ones?
These questions were considered by the
secretary and the then assistant attorney
general for the department, who were
about to decide both questions against
the company, when the company, insist
inc on its legal rights, requested that the
Questions should be submitted to the at
torney general. This was done, and Gen
eral Devens, row on the bench OF the su-
preme court of Massachusetts,, decided
that the time specified for the completion
of the road would not expire until July
4. 1879: and, further, that if such were
not the true construction Of the various
provisions of the acts Of congress, 1t must
| be held that until congress takes steps to
declare a forfeiture of the grant 1t re-
mains in full force and effect; and that IN
either event the grant to-day must be
| held to be the same as it existed on the
day when it was made and accepted by
the company. Had it not been for the adj
verse views of Secretary Schurz and AS
sistant Attorney General Marble, the mat
ter would not have been urged by the
company to be submitted to the attorney
| general.
A similar question to the last was after
! ward considered by General Devens in the
case of the Atlantic & Pacific railroad
company, on its application to the secre-
tary of the interior for the appointment
of commissioners by the president to ex-
anime completed section of its
road. In that case Secretary Schurz
seems to have of his own motion request
ed the opinion of the attorney general as
to the power and duty of the executive IN
the premises. The attorney general held,
| in his opinion rendered October 26, 1850,
that the grant was present grant; that
| the conditions were conditions SubSe-
ouent: that the grant had not been forfeit
| ed by failure to build The road within the
time specified, no action by reason OF such
| failure having been taken by authority OF
! conc and that even if 1t be treated as
one liable to forfeiture the company has
still a right to proceed to construct the
road, and it is the duty of the executive
department to give it the benefit of the
grant Opinions OF attorney general, vol
ume Is, page 576). The grant to the At
lantic and Pacific almost identical in
terms with that to the Northern Pacific
company. These decisions are not only
in conformity to the common law, but are
strictly in accordance with the unbroken
series of decisions of the supreme court.
In the years 1878 and 1874 President
Grant approved $50 miles Of the Northern
Pacific railroad. In 1880 President Hayes
approved $50 miles, and in November and
December, 1881, President Arthur APP
proved 1926 miles. Before approving the
report of the commissioners who exam
ined 100 miles of the road in Dakota and
Montana Territories, President Arthur
submitted the matter to the acting attor-
ney general Mr.. Phillips: who,
on the 18th of November last
recommended the approval by the presi-
dent OF the report of the commissioners
and the ssue of patents to the company
for the granted lands coterminus with
the completed sections Of the road.
GEORGE GRAY.
No. Nassau street, New York.