The Evening critic., 1882-01-13
y.o yor,reru pnciao land Grant


TIE Northern Paciac land Erawt
The resolution of Senator Teller, relative
10 tie Land. Grant decisions Of Mr.. Schnra
when Secretary of the Interior, is likely to
oron discussion of several questions OF
iutcIcft II ~, he history of the
crc is as foloo The terms Of the
grants IN question prescribed certain condi
ions ard fixed certain limitations of time
for the construction of the roads Watcher
these teims could or would have been met
by The companies under favorable circnm-
stances, it is not pertinent to inquire, The
fact is that they succumbed to the panic Of
1873 and work on them was suspended. In
The ease of the Atlantic & Pacific il was
never fully resumed, aud the original de
sigD OF that enterprise was ultimately
abai doned, 50 far ms completion across the
continent was concerned.
But within a reasonable time after the
subsidoncc Of the great panic, work was
recommended ON the Northern Pacific, and
il has since been pushed with vigor Three
on four years time, however, had been lost
and the time of the grant had 50 nearly eN'
pirod that il was beyond the possibility OF
lupap endtavor to complete the road
within its remaining limits Some time
after the expiration of the time prescri bed
in the original act, resolutions were intro
tluced in both Houses of Congress to in
auire whether the grants had not been for
ieiture by the failure Of the company to
comply with the exact terms of the
law, and these were followed by
hill declaring such forfeiture aud
asserting the reversion of the lands
20 forfeited to the public domain. This
hill WAS referred to committee and there
substantially smothered. At all events
the bill never reached vote. It was as
serted, with what truth we do not pretend
to say, that the fate of the bill was due to
the astuicness of the Northern Pacific man
ayers of that time, ia selecting what was
then known as Samraudalls private lobby
to attend TO their interests in Congress
BE this as it may, the Northern Pacific
managers, having succeeded in staviug Oh
legislation for three years, at last con-
eluled that the Department of the Interior
had jurisdiction and appealed TO the then
Secretary. Carl Schurz, for decision.
Pending these proceedings - change had
occurred in the management of the COM
papy. Mr. Billings had retired, and Mr.
Henry Willard fellow -c0untryman of
SehuIz, and, if our memory serves us,
one of his revolutionary compatrots Of
ISis, had assumed control MIR. Willard, in
person and by coun el, asked Secretary
Scbnrz TO decide the question whether or
not the terlus Of the grant were self-opera-
tive. That is to say, whether the technical
failure Of the company to comply with the
terms Of the grant as to time of construc-
tion would itself work forfeiture without
further legislation, or whether in the alb
sence of legislation to enforce the pro
visions Of the grant the same continued il
Notwithstanding the technical laps'
in consequence of nOn-user Of its power by
the Government. The company held th'
latter OF the two propositions; and, afte
more or less pretense Of argument, anl
more or less pretense Of deliberation, Seere
tary Schurz decided that the company's it'll,
TO the land remained valid in consequence,
of the failure of Congress to pass Law
enforcing forfeiture.
IL is not our purpose to discuss eithe
the legality or morality Of this executive
act OF the Secretary. We understood tha
Schurz's decision was c0ncurred in by man
eminent lawyers. It is perhaps wei
enough for the sake of the pending argri
naent to grant that the decision so far as
applied to the time being was correct
TscIo are many sound legal reasons for tll
theory that no lapse under grant of thi
kind ean become effective in the absence d
fDrrnal declaration of rights by the part
beneficiary. And if this be true it natar
ally follows that as the title cannot rever
to- the United States without atfirmatiY,
legislation it mpst remain vested in tn
company for the time being at least b.
default.
As we understand Senator Teller's posi-
ton he Goes not propose to challenge. th
Legally Of sehurz's decision as primar
proposition, though the inqsiry institutes
by his resolution may incidentally redec
upon the morality Of the processes by whic
il was obtained. But he holds that th
power Sill resides in Congress TO correct b
the necessary affirmative legislation the d,
fault 80 far arising from noB-nser That
to say, that while, BY the failure of Congre
torct promptly upon the expiration Of Il
time prescribed in the grant for the con
pletiop Of the road, the title conferred Q
the grant remained vested in the c1mpau
by default, such failure did not permanent
forfeit the right Of Congress 10 act at an
subsequent time
According to this theory the case wou
row stand as follows;
The company holds the land in simp
possession by virtue Of the default Of Co
gress to act, the decision Of the Secretal
amounting TO nothing more than an e
eegtiye declaration that such default existe
but that the power and the right to ena
and eBfJTce ldll Of forfeiture nov or
any subsequent time still resides in Co
gress a. completely as it did ou the 4,
when the time Of construction prescribed
the grant exlire1
This, we understand, win form the piy
of discussion. OF ooulse. II the senator
theory prevails the conpany's title, to 4
practical intsnts, ceases, for land III
tenninable at any time by legislation Is
title st all. The country will watch q
discGssiol with atsoTbins interest. Its