Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-10-22

tisu4. 10 Dzke hi gf&ud ~ M o4mpAxn
With the party favoring tbs forfeiture
Of ihe koFthexn Peciiz1 EailFoad Com
psny's land grant. asks me certain quss-
tions rsspecsina Mr.. goOfhses's argu-
msnt IN tks lad s4ss, vhich. With yonf
lsays, win nDw proceed 20 apswsr.
Flrsf--Tbe cass which Mr.. VOORHEES,
argued before The Collar Land Once
vss this On January Z. ISIS. one ChaA
8. Chase fled his prerempeion DECLARE
tory staternsnt IN the proper land ofiioes
Tor tbs north half Of the southeast quar-
Ter and tbs southeast quarter II the
sonfheask quarter 81 oeotjou . 1cun-
ship rs north, range - east, W II He
alleged settlement prior 30 the with
drnwel Of the lands in favor Of the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company.
He subseqaenfiy abandoned his pre-
emption claim- In the meantime the
lands. inciuding this section Is, had
been withdrawn from settlement in
favor Of the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company. and upon the abandonment
By Chass Of ths land above described IL
vas commended By the company that,
being on an odd section and within the
company's grant, the land could not be
taken up b. any one else under the
homestead or pre-emp(ion laws The
company completed the = miles Of rail-
road with which this sscki0n Is Il CO.
terminus, and altar this portion Of the
road had becu completed William 5.
Ladd attempted 70 take up this land
undsr the pre-emption Law. OF course
the railroad company contested his
riQhf 10 do %, and engaged Mr.. voor-
bees 70 resist Mr.. Iadd's application at
the CoIfax Land Once. IL vas in the
course OF this contest that Mr.. voorhees,
filed the objections published In the
Posr-INrx1Lz0Escxs last Sunday morn
inc. 81 M
Ssoond-1r. VOORHEES, took the posi-.
ton In this case that after the abandon
msnt Of thu land By Chsse, IL was not
open TO -emption or homestead set
tiement. This position be maintains by
q oopious citation Of authorities; and
this was the only issue In the case. II
will be seen, from She statement Of
facts, that the question Of the forfeiture
or nom forfeiture OF the land grant to
the Northern Pasific Railroad Company
could by no possibility have been drawn
In issue In that case and before that
tribunal.
Third Bat IL IL suggested that Mr..
Voorhees,, in arguing this case, suffered
his zeal for his client 70 carry him too
far; that he gave utteranoe 20 senti-
meuts In that argument that are incon-
sistent with bis present position. Under
ordinary circumstances this criticism
would be unworthy Of notice; but, on
the eve Of election, the merest cant, the
smallest tribe, the vericst claptrap often
compel serious attention. The heresy
charged against Mr.. voorhees, is to be
found IN the following paragraph taken
from his "objectionsn In the Ladd case:
"While the grant OF lands 20 the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company il
not o grant is presssti and did not at
tach 90 insfaHfe when the lands were
Withdrawn from sale, yet the company
did &C that time acquire an equitable in
teFest, which it IL entirely incompetent
for the United States 70 abroeate or de-
stroy. This equitable interest Is an in
ter6st in property, and after the CON-
pang has pesJormed Me condition upon
sehich the legal fsfie depends, 70 deprive 1t
Of the title which 1t has earned by a
heavy investment Of capital and acting
In the faith Of decisions repeatedly
made, would be to impair the obligation
Of q csntsaet and render insecure the
title TO q large portion of the property
Of this company, the right to which has
been the result of an honest fuifiIment
Of the condition Of its contracts.
Now, then, let rs figure to ourselves
the actual situation at the time of this
argument. The twenty Eve miles of
road were completed. The lawyer
would naturally make use of the strong-
est language he could command to for
tify his position. IL was his sworn duty
TO make ont the best case he codld for
his client. BY this do not mean to be
yer may resort to any means TO win his
cause. Nobody outside of the peniten-
tiary holds such doetrine as that. Every
law, TO be truthful to the court in his
statements Of fact and Of law. But the
lawyer doesn't make the Law, and If the
Legislature makes bad law, and the tri-
bunals administering IL make it worse
by construction, the lawyer is not te
blame who quotes the law as he finds it.
! have thus referred briefly to lawyers
duty merely to brush away the rubbish
which seemed to be gathering around
the main question. An analysis, thea
OF the paragraphs from Mr.. Voorhce9
argument qaoted above shows:
First-That be did not maintain that
the unearned lands Of the Northern Pa
cifie grant could not be forfeited. Mr..
Armstrong, on the other hand, has main
tanned. and still maintains, thas Con.
gress hiss no power to forfeit either the
earned or uDearned lands.
Second-That the paragraphs quoted
must be read together, and being 20
read. they plainly say that "qftsr ths
company has performed fhe condition
spoa .sehieh the legal title depends," the
lands could NOS be taken by the Govern
ment without impairing the obligation
OF the contract. This ID the extent of
this obffsr dictan-this heretical doc
trins--uttsred in the course of argu.
ment before q local land office. And
nov the supporters OF Mr.. Armstrong,
including the officers of the Coifax
Land Offies. profess to believe that Mr..
Voorhees, is not sincere when be advo-
platform and jet this saule land Office
decided the Ladd case in favor Of the
railroad company.
the trial Of this LAdd case Mr.. Yoor-
A&EE8 AGf4 4AnNtCAt NA&WS Qu tIB LHAQ
grant question from those he nov
holda- Msy he not have been honest
and sincere then, and honest and sin.
ceFe nov, also May NOT an honest
man change his mind upon q question
hike this Ii not, what il 20 be said of
some of rs here in Seattle
But what proof have We, outside Of
bis declarations, that Mr.. Voorhees, IA
heartily In accord with the principles
laid down in the waila walla plat
form ! he has given rs more sslid
proofs OF his sincerity and fidelity 10
those principles titan any other man in
Washington Territory. Here are some
Of them:
Firss-After the trial OF the Isadd case
be voluntarily reiinquished his employ
ment as attorney for the Northern Pa
ciae Railroad Company.
Seeond--He took up the cause Of the
ssstlers, who had neither wealth, infiu-
snce nor power 20 give him.
Third-Hs spent months Of time and
$3.50 in money in UNFOLDING the cause
Of the people Of this Territory against
the Northern Pacific Railroad Com
pany.
Fourth-Hs prepared Q bill for the
forfeiture of the n. p. land grant, and
caused 10 10 be introdaoed into the
United States Senate, containing for
4affss~. xsxx~~3at.ssxa aw...& x..s~.