The Daily Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Or.) 1876-1883, 1882-02-01
Unjust and Illegal.


ment pretends to justify the issu-
ance of patents to the Northern
Pacific Railroad company, for
lands on account of portions of
the road constructed long after
the time allowed by Congress, is
one of the many peculiar things
that have in late years and in a
prior Administration distinguished |
the methods of that department in
matters affecting the interests of
powerful corporations and especi-
ally the Northern Pacific Railroad
company.
The logic is this: All railroad
grants are present grants, and vest
in the grantee the legal title to all
the land contemplated by the
grant; and the title does not re-
vert to the United States on
breach of condition without a dec
laration of forfeiture by Congress.
Although the Northern Pacific
company failed to complete the
road within the time allowed, yet
there has been no declaration of
forfeiture by Congress on account
of this breach OF condition, there
fore the company still has title to
the land, and the Department may
lawfully issue patents to the COM
pany for the land.
No one but a railroad lawyer,
or partial Secretary of the Inte-
rior and subservient subordinates,
could have perceived any relation
between the premises aad the last
clause of the conclusion. The acts
of Congress authorize patents to
issue on account Of such portions
Of the road as were completedsbe-
fore July 4, 1877; and not for
such lands as the company may
possess the legal title; for if this
were the case and the premises
oolivess p...S...-- --.ioi.s - ;ea~aa
Immediately after the passage of
the granting act. But the prem
ises are false, the grant was not a
present one. The Department
knows that under similar grant,
the Union Pacific Railroad COM
pany evades the payment of taxes
= on millions of acres of land in
Kansas and Nebraska fully earned
by the construction of the road
years ago, but for which land they
do not call for patent until the
same is sold to a tax paying far
mer. The company is able to
sevade the payment of taxes on the
lands which it holds for higher
prices, because the Supreme Court
of the United States has three
times decided that the title did moi
pass by the granting act; that the
title and ownership is in the United
States until patents issue; that The
condition was Il condition prece
dent and not subsequent.
In every case where it has beer
held necessary.for declaration o
forfeiture to cause the title to re
vert to the United States, it ha.
been held that the title had ALREADY
passed from the United States anc
vested in the grantee, and that thu
condition was subsequent and no
precedent.
Every reason-assigned by The
court for holding that title did no
vest by the grant to the Unior
Pacific company, but vests only
when the patents issue, is equally
applicable to the grant to the
Northern, Pacific company; anc
several other valid reasons exist
not mentioned by the court.
No court has ever decided tha
a declaration of forfeiture is neces
sary to terminate the rights OF th,
grantee in case of breach of con
dition precedent. Whatever credi
is due for making such decision
belongs to Secretary of the In
terror who is now understood tt
be the recipient OF portion of it
logical results. 1t is one of rh'
achievements of the Interior De
partment. which department ha
solved the problem of re-investins
the United States with a title o
which it was never divested. Tha