National Republican., 1883-01-03
LAND GRANT LAW.
The Senate Judiciary Committee Report a Plan
for Making Forfeithres.
A Substitute for All the Other Plans Pro
posed by Other Bills.
The Attorney General Authorized 70 Proceed Again5
Dolinquents by Legal Process.
The Roads May Then Test Their Rights
by Trial.


senate yesterday by Mr.. Garland, from the
committee on the Judiciary providing for the
forfeiture of railway grants in certain cases,
is as follows;
That in all cases where grants Of lands by con.
gress have been made to aid In internal improve
ments and said lands have not been patented by
tile United states to the grantee where the grantee
| was corporation, or where the lands were
granted to the state, and said lands have not been
dispoed of by the state, and said grants have be
| come subject TO forfeiture or resumption by the
| tied states for any cause whatever II shall be
| the duty OF the attorney general to cause suit or
| suits to be brought In the name of the United
States in the proper courts having jnrisdiction,to TO
obtain iud declaring the forfeiture or right
of redemption by the Untcd states of such lands
| as the case may be; which suit or suits shall be
subject to trial or hearing like other suits. with
rlgit to writ Of error or appeal by either party as
in other cases. This section shall not be con.
strued so as TO prevent the executive authority of
| the United States FROM tnking possession and dis
| posing of any such lands without judicial PR.
! ceedings in any case In which II could lawfully
| do go If this act had not been passed.
SEC .. That the provisions Of the first section of
this act shall not apply TO the of any railway
| Except as mentioned in section three of this acO
| in which, within one year preceding The passage
OF this act any substantial progress in building the
| same has been accomplished In good faith. and
shall be continued in the manner h reinatter- mem
toned orln which before the tlrst day OF Decemper
progress in the building thereof, and which
progress shall be continued In good faith. as here
mater mentioned. The foregoing provisions Of
this section, limiting the application OF section one
ofthis act shall cease determine, and be ofno effect
In the case of every railway affected thereby, the
| building of which shall not Le in good faith con-
tinued after the first day of December, 1852,
! TO the number of miles in each year required by
the act acts granting such lands, or act or acts
nmendntory thereof, and in the manner so re-
quired until such railway shall be entirely COM
SEC. 3. That nothing in this act shall be con.
strued to be performance or waiver of any other
condition or requirement. imposed upOn any cor.
poration in respect of any such grant by the act
or acts granting lands to or in aid OF IT, or amen
datory thereof In every case In which any cor.
poration, or It's lawful successor, being lawfully
entitled so to do. shall not do the cts mentioned
IN section Of this act II shall be tne lmpeIa;, lmp,
States to proceed against It, as provided in section
NJ / of this uct.
l IN THE REPORT,
(which accompanies the bill, after briefly dis
cussing the various bills, memorials, and reso-
lutions upon the subject of forfeiture, which
have been referred to them, the committee
say: "Upon full consideration of all these
propositions in connection with the various
Igrants to be reached in this way, we found
great difficulty in devising any one plan that
would bo etfectual. The grants themselves
are different, and do not, by any means, in all
cases carly the same meaning as to the rela-
Tive rights and duties of the companies and
the government. The committee is unwilling
to confde this vast power of declaring for
Hfeitures, to any one officer of the govern
ment. In its essential elements, it is n
Judicial proceeding; and while it is
within the power of congress in certain
cases to make this declaration, 1t is deemed
| best for the security and projection of all
4 concerned that some means of u judicial char
actcr should be devised to accomplish this
end. After quoting from the decision in the
Nj case of Farnsworth VS., Minnesota and Pacific
railway company, (92 United States reeort9l,
also Schulenbergvs. Harrison, and the United
States VS.. Reientigny, tho committees CIV
k"Thesc decisions, of course, are limited, hnd
: lthay carefully, to the language OF the gDnts
discussed, which provide clearly for the eXer-
bise of such power, and do not as they could
hot, embrace cases in which the grants were
lfupon different conditions Without under
taking to decide whether in all grants
Lof land by the United States to railways,
CONGRESS CAN DECLARE THIS FORFEITURE
Il The committee considered it best to adopt
N some measure that would avoid this question
: and place the parties in an attitude towards
each other that would insure to each fair
dealing and justice as far as can be done
r They propose to direct the attorney general
+ to institute proper Judicial proceedings
rl against any railway companies that he may
H have reason to believe are in default as to the
=, conditions of their grants, to bring about q
q forfeiture and secure the rights of the govern
+ ment to the lands. This proceeding, in the
r nature of an information, will bring the sup
o posed deiauting company into court
Y and the court can enter such Judgment Oh
{ decree as in its opinion will secure
( the government not merely in declaring q
: Aforfeiturc, il need be, but in declaring re-
D lsumption of the lands granted, appeal to be
, Yallowed as in other cases in the courts. Thi.
0 proceeding, however, is not to interfere in
@ any manner with any right of the executive
/ under his authority to enforce and execute
4 the laws to take possession and dispose of any
o such lands, without these proceedings, wherC
Q Ahe could have done so, if no act, as contem
o plated by the committee, had passed. While
/ The committee had no doubt at all that somI
1 lteps should be taken to declare forfcitures il
o hany of these cases, yet they were of opinion
= That in all cases where reasonable and pr0pel
: Ildiligence and exertions had been used by any
4 INpf these companies
= hHEY SHOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF TIL
: II SAME
5 in any proceedings against them and accord
. ingly the committee were of opinion, it woulI
v hbe lust to allow the companies to show in dc
s lfense, that for one year previous to the pas
: Usage of the act, any substantial progress il
II Ngood faith in the building of the roads, limit
!, ing this period to the first day of December
> tSS2 The substantial progress Is to be con
y 4idered and passed upon by the attorney gen
II kral first, before instituting proceedings ant
g Then if pleaded in defense of the proceeding
" instituted, the court is to pass upon it. q
~ YcOurse it is q difficult matter TO determin
what's substantial progress, and no general rul
u touching IL can be laid down. Therefore, tn
committee would leave 1t general in this way
\. to be determined upon in each particular ease
"a Some provision of this kind is necessary, a
u certainly the grants were made with vieN
& of securing the building and completion of tn
y. roads and when efforts looking earnestly /
p that end are being made, the government
. would not desire forieitures of the grants, an
10 this is in no sense waiver by the govern
tDc itinn M m
upon any corporation, and when this progres
is not known to exist, it is made
y THE IMPERATIVE DUTY or THE ATToRNE
5, GENERAL
lr to proceed againt the companies. IL is bC
=, lieved by the committee such law will en-
d able the government TO get rid of all thes
sr grants of lands to railroads that are not bein
s. used for legitimate purposes, or are misuset
or in which no efforts are being made
build the proposed roads; and at the sam
time to have carried out all these grants
r which the companies in good faith are tryiu
Mt to finish their roads. In other words, Will
20 such law would be protective of the righ
IT of the government, II would not be oppres
as ing the corporations that are working an
g. dealing fairly with the liberality of the gO'
ernment in trying TO secure the objects
these grants. And TO this end they haN
agreed on the bill herewith proposed and re
in ommen d its passage.
of Against the Union Pacific Railway.
NJ NEW YORK, Jan, 2.-Ihe suit brought
cvvua,,a ,n,,,.t A,uaId ao oo,o ~