The Daily Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Or.) 1876-1883, 1883-08-05

under the recent decision of the
Secretary Of the Interior in the
case of Wenzel VS.. St. Paul, Min
neapolis & Manitoba Railway
company.
Respectfully,
OREGON.
Following is the reply:
Settlement and entry is in our
opinion not allowable bylaw with
in the limits of any land grant
where the road was not completed
at the date fixed by statute. The
settlement and entry protected by
the act Of April 2l, 1876 (3d Sec,
10 Stat, p. 35), is that settlement
and entry which is required under
the usual rules and regulations
governing presumption and home
stead entries. Such entries, with
in the limits OF expired railroad
grants, are declared valid, and pa.
tents are to be issued thereon as
in other cases.
The act is mandatory, and in
its legal effect is Legislative dec
laration of forfeiture of al lands
within the limits OF land grants
where the roads have not been
completed in the time fixed by
the granting acts, so far as suoh
lands may be claimed by settlers
under the homestead or prc-emp-
ton laws.
1t is further in legal effect a leg
islative revocation for settlement
purposes of ali Withdrawals Of
lands made for such roads, wheth-
er the Withdrawals were originally
authorized by law or not.
Mr.. Carl Schurz, civil service
reformer and editor of the North
ern Pacific railroad company's
New York newspaper, attempted
when secretary of the interior to
nullify this act Of congress, but
Secretary Teller, who appears 70
have some respect for the laws oi
his country as well as for his own
official character and obligations.
and who is not very much en-
gagged in the notification business
for the benefit Of repuliatjng rail-
road companies, has found it to
be his duty to enforce the act his
predecessor ignored.
The decision TO which you refer,
and which was first published in
the October number Of the Re
porter (Wenzel VS.. st. p, Nj. & N.
railroad company, is a clear and
conclusive statement Of the law as
found in the act OF 1876.
We apprehend that the Law
was the same before the passage
of that act, particularly as to the
grants of the character of those in
Oregon. The inhibition of set
tlement by withdrawal Of lands
is an incident to a grant; where a
grant fails the incidents fall wit.
it. The land being freed from the
grant, becomes again public land
by virtue Of that fact. 1t only
wants little intelligence to see
and enough integrity to declare
and execute the law. The trouble
was that defaulting railroad COM
panies did not want the law ascer.
tanned or carried ont, and as they
ran and apparently owned the
interior department, from The
secretary down, it was not ascer.
tanned, and it was not carried out
= = :
Aud now comes the act oi
April 2l, 1876, which sweeps oui
of the way all the chicanery oi
railroad apologists and plainly and
emphatically commands. the de-
partment of the interior to respect
the laws and to regard bona fd,
entries within the limits OF railroad
grants as valid when made in the
usual way after the expiration oi
the grants, and issue patents ac-
cordingly.
Secretary Teller decides that
the words "the expiration of the
grants" mean the dates fixed by
the granting acts for the complet,
ion of the roa ds.
We see no good reason why
settlers should not present their
claims, under the Sd section of the
act of 1876, in every case of actual
settlement within the limits oi
such expired grants.