Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-06-05
.,,rr BRANCH DIscrssioS.

a Hh>
.,s cougrsssio'sdI Record of May
i take the following report OF
| W p.s;pps in the Senate the day be-
the Van wyck resolution re-
60 the Interior Department to
| e.: 80 from the Northern Pacific
,,sDsny .ssoals patent. for lands en- a.7 aeOoon'
| ! ,bs construction OF tue ru'ahup
ssl TO g'ssantiraed from yesferday.I
s.,a.or from Alabama thinks
l .bould be action on this matter:
as;niy. but be expresses a doubt
Il gn'S at all events he thinks there is
ss'u' deIay. 1 say 50 too. There
w. p M Injustice done to this North
sb pe.,6c Railroad by this resolution.
~ Iii not lose their lands In the
1 fne, Nc, tbey are entitled to them.
aa lands nov are conveyed and In
"A Il should be found they were
es,,,Ied. then the Government would
s@ssst I'm the settler would lose; and in
-, nosition have these Rentlemsn
- themselves that they can come
,d ask as TO allow them tn take
~ III these lands for road which ex-
~ ;tself from taxation In all the
s,,or,ss through which 1t passes, rs |
l',,avs nav friend from Oregon will con-
- road which exempts itself from
ovation for its immense domain
eor its valuable franchises and
:. ..s,tSin all the Territories through
psIrh Lh Il passes? Am | not correct in
AsE
.,sSare. | wish to say, if the Senator
m rarmit me, that stated in the out
- ,Sat do not propose now to discuss
Z. noeer or the policy of Congress in
| -. natter. When the time comes and
~, 4 something before the Senate to
IN about, | expect TO be heard on that
shisct. merely rose to state matter
| . t,c.. do not understand that what
4. ssnstor has read from the report Of
~ president and vice president of the
.rupapy has changed that particle.
Rcsuse YOU call a branch thirty one
rlI,s long the Puyallup branch, and say
nat Il is constructed to reach coal mines
sxued by the company, does not show
/ ,ha, that particular stretch of road was
/ "A intended to be and will not become
,oart Of the Cascade branch.
A said before, do not propose to
aiseass either the propriety of instruct
! no the Secretary of the Interior on
| NV legal question connected with this
1 ubject, or the policy of ferfeiting these
1 and grants; nor do | care now to be
daxn into the question In regard to the
hgslion of land Ia the seveial States
1 and Territories. 1t is a question with
which have ne concern. / merely rose,
a | said before, 10 set right the ques-
/ uon Of fact, and | cannot see that the
I pmpany il here asking anything of
I Congress. Ii IN the Senator from Ne
i b,aska who il moving in this matter
uoposlng to instruct the head of De-
pariment, proposing To interfere with
iAe rights or supposed rights of this
Nnpany under the law to be passed
spon by the head of Department, and
lannot see that anything would be lost
by sending this resolution To a commit
NJ that will pass on the question of
fact between these gentlemen and the
Snstor from Nebraska and myself, If
here is difference, and make report
fully upon the facts and the law OF the
ease.
That is all there In in the matter IA
M as | am concerned: and do not
saoose to catechised on the question OF
The right of taxation, or whether or not
the company pays taxes, or how much
land Ii received from the grant.
merely rose To- state what | thought "a
BE- nv duty. being somewhat familiar
With the facts and the history Of this
matter
ssy now that understand this road
vas constructed within the life Of the
grant, that there is no committee, no
party in Congress or anywhere, that pro-
poses to forfeit 1t, and see no reason
Why We should act hastily on insufficient
testimony.
Ids not know how shall vote upon
The resolution when 1t is finally reported
BY the committee, but think 1t proper
b send il To the committee, 80 that
We may be fully informed in regard
hlt
MI. Van Wyok--I Of course knew that
be Senator from Oregon was familiar
silh the facts of this case, and there
lme Il was that | appealed to him ID
ln0w If the statement made was
nfrect.
Mr. Dolph--I will state that | under
sand, but from hearsaS, that the Lepis-
klare of Washington Territory passed
10 act TO tax this railroad company up
% iss receipts in the Territory, and ex-
snpt II from other taxation, and that
Montana has passed similar act, and
do not know but that the Idaho Iegis-
hlurs has done 80. The Legislatures of
kveral Fl the Territories have proposed
htax tho gross earnings OF the road.
icnly speak of that, not havirg seen
We acts, from newspaper reports. That
AAll know about ".
II has come tn my knowledge, also
Nom mere hearsay or seeing the brief
counsel sent To me as compliment,
hat IN some cases the company has
en'ended that It's ri lht of way WAS ex-
sRpt from taxation under act Of Con-
gfess IN the Territories, and in some
Instances the lands until patented: but
do not understand that that has any
@alg to do with the merits of this case.
suppose anybody, whether n corporation
an individual, can resort To the courts
ascertain whether under the law his
Hooperty is taxable.
MI. Van wyck. In that connection
sOe Senator speaks of laws passed by the
territories to reach this property by tax
aaOn. Does he know whether this rail-
s'ad has antaeoniZed those acts of the
legislatures of the ferritoriesg
ar Dolph-The complaint is that tkey
ss'e made at the instance of the rail
nad company.
af. Van Myck-Have they antagon'
1sa The acts IN the Territoriesr
af, Doiph - No; | understand the
~uplalnt Is that the laws were passed
Eany.
he starr
NJ. Dolph--I do not know about that
Sf' Van Wyck-l suppose not.
h poiph-lhe gentleman seems u
Sorlter informed than am Ia regard
10 these matters.
nj Van Wyck-No, | do not claim
s @ claim to have read from a re-
y ss'.oi The president and Woe president
~ sue read, and think that they pros'
Aaew more about this than Others
a. ay that their reports are irrecon
Asa. with the proposition that the,
~ !, 'nese thirty-one miles as branct
me Northern Pacific Railroad wher
~ expressly said they had no freigh
back on these tolrty-one miles
nas & htlle surprised at she anxiet,
s,,aaed sasssed In this question. | an
ashai 4 surprised that there shoule
'4on antagosism 10 the proposition.