Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-04-09
and final conditions subsequent, for
breach Of which Congress NAV interfere
TO protect tie rights Of the United
states; third, that under either of said

oreach OF which Congress NAV interfere
TO protect tie rights of the United
states; third, that under either of said
sections, or both, the United states b ;
Congress has the right to declare the
grant forfeited for faiiure to build the
road within ths limitations.
these points are argued fnllv and
with great length blythe committee, and
tuen the objections urged against de-
claring forfeiture are taken NJ. II is
argued that Congress. having by the
JOINT resolution Of May 81, 1870, aulhor-
izsd the company to issue bonds and
execute a mortgage upon its property
and franchise. cannot now do an act by
which the Interests of the hendholders
or others cpnDing under the mortgage.
Will be injurloosly AFT, cted.
PLAUSIBLE But NOT SOUND.
The committee SAYS that the nreu-
ment IL plausible. bat not soaad. II Is
incorrect IN theory and failacioQs IA to
all the facts IN the case uuder consider
tt"n. IL rests. It says. upon the false
hS'sunptiDn that authorized a mort
gage ut tae unconditional fee. whereas
1t did nothing of the kind. 1t ad-
mitted mortgage on the property and
rights OF The property Of all improve
ments aud selections Of the COMPANY
1t Is further argued that Congress
should not now declare forfeiture bs
cause the United States a. Is alleged,
did not seasOnably comply With what ia
deemed requirement of section of
the granting act relative To Indian
titles. The position of the company
upon this question means practic tily
that II claims that II IL entitled to the
assistance of the treaty and war-mak-
ing power of the United States wherever
aud whenever la completing Its road it
encountered opposition from tribes or
rowing bands OF Indians. In other
words, that Congress not only
donated the company 1900 90
acres of the pubiIc lands, with
out Limitation, restriction or condi-
tion. but Also gave 1t the use OF the
treaty making power aud tue army
wherever rowing bands of Indians inter
fere with ITS work. Inc cOn,nittee de
cilnes to adopt this view of the case,
AID on the contrary IL clearly of the
opinion that Congress had no surh in-
tent IN the p usage of the granting act,
and that no justification for such claim
car be found in its terms. 1t Is also
claimed that the United st ites govern
ment has nevsr c,used the lands along
the line Of road to be surveyed as re-
quired by law, for want Of which sur
voys, settlement is hindered and re-
tarde1, and the company prevented
from selling or realizing any benefit
frOm Its unsurveyed lands. Ibe CON-
mittee SAYS it is unable to soc, even if
all this We're true, how it in any way
touches the question Of the duty of the
company to construct its line within the
required time. But 1t is not true, the
committee claims, that the United
States Is in default In the matter. The
provision of the eot on this point il then
quoted. Tue committee continues that
the question t.s to when these surveys
shonid be made, with regard TO the con-
structlon OF the road, were left entirely
10 the discretion of tie president.
The lands were surveyed up to the
time of the default In 1879, as fast
a. in ANY reasonable Judgment, Ms
We're required, and tue cJumIttee
says it is satisfied that no delay in the
survey retarded or prevented the COM
pletion of the road. The company also
claims that the grant is non fUrfeitable
because of the action of Congress i'll tine
passage of the act approved July III.
1882. The committee says the granting
acts contain two donations affecting the
public lapds. First. the right OF way
through the pubic lands, and, second.
the grant of lands contained IN section
3. The tive grants are separate the
former applies to all lands described AZ
public. the latter only to certain odd
sections of such lands. Under the lat
ter it took no fee or designated sections.
June II 1881, the read was located
through the Crow Indian reservation,
shown not to have been included i'll the
grant of land. The committee is en-
tIrely satisfied that in thus trans iction
no intention of breach of contract eX-
listed in the minds of Congress that no
such understanding was entertained by
the company. and that Instend of doing
to its prejudice in consequences
of such proceedings the company OBJ
tanned new public lands and rights OF
great value. Under the very act which
ii says estops the United States. it lost
nothing On the other hand, it pro-
cured the right of way across the reser-
vation.