Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-07-18

1be power OF Congress to declare n
/ forfeiture IA snch cases is fully support
ed by the courts IN adiudicated cases.
Inc Snpreme Court, IN the case of
J Schulenberg W. Hartman. (2i Wall
ti3i g4,:
The provision Of the act of Congress
. of 1880, that all lands remaining 1nsold
after ten years shall revert to the United
/ States, II the road he not then cp.npIe'-
I'd. Is 40 more than A prov ision til Il the
grant shall he void If a condition sub..
/ quent be not performed
/ And as - the manner sf EXERCISING
tue power In tue same case the c.urt
/ saN:
/ In What manner the reserved rieht,
+ OF the grantOr for breach of the coud.
/ ton must be asserted 80 as 10 restoY..
ths e-tate. depends up1a the character
OF tue grant. IL II be private grant.
that right must be asssrlei by entry or
its equiv ,lent. IL the grant be "A public
Que, u mnst be asserted BY judicial pro
csedinRs authorized by law. the equiva-
lent of an inquest of Office found At
common law. fiHdinR the fact of forfeit
ure, and adludging the restoration of
the estate on that ground, or Ghere must
some legislative assertion of ownership
OF the property for beach of condi-
, ton. such ~ iii act declaring the Dos
session and appropriation of the prop
erty, or that it be offered for sale or
settlement"
10 an earlier case, United States VI.
Repentigny, % Wall, 25S) the court
say:
The mode of ascertaiaing or assun-
ing the forfeited grant Is subject to- the
legislative authority of the Government.
Ii may be after judicial investigation,
or by taking possession directly under
the authority of the Government, with
out these preliminary proceedings. In
she present instance We have seen the
laws have been extended over this Tract.
the lands surveyed and put on sale, and
confirmed To the occupants OF pur-
chasers, aud in the meantime An op
portuuitv given 10 all settlers and
claimants 10 come in before a board
of commissioners and exhibit their
claims. This IL n Legislative squlva-
lent for reunion re-entry? by uiiice
foznd."
II was urged before yoar committee
that "A distinction existed between n
grant like the one under consideration
| and grant where a reservation of the
right to re-enter for breach of condition
has been reserved by express words in
the grant; and that Congress could de-
clare n forfeiture by direct Legislative
enactment only in cases where there
we're express words used IN the granting
ACT reserving to Congress the right of
re-entry. This question was fully dis
cussed by your committee in n former
| report, submitted to the Senate at its
present session, (see Report No. 35S,
accompanying Senate bill as from
which your committee beg to quote AZ
follows:
"There il no foundation for such a
distinction, and from the nature OF the
case there can be- none. The whole
question Ia whether the grant Is a public
Que. IL a public grant, IL IT based upon
condition to be- subsequently, per
formed, and has there been breach of
the condition? These questions being
answered in the affirmative, there can
be no dOabt ~ 10 the power of the legis-
lature 20 declare q forfeiture.
! The authorities quoted go fully TO
this point.
The mode Of ascertsining or OF as
suming the forfeited grant Is subject to
the legislative authority of the Govern.
ment. Ii may be after judicial investi
CATION. or by taking possession directly
under the authority of the Government
without these preliminary proceedings,
say the court In United States vs.. Re
pentignv. And IN Scbulenberg W. Har-
riman the court say:
- Ii II be n private grant, that right
must be asserted by entry or its equIva-
lent. Ii the grant be public one, 1t
must be asserted by judicial proceedings
| authorized by Law, or there
must be some legislative assertion of
ownership of the property for breach of
condition, such N AN act directing the
possession and appropriation of the
property, or that IL be offered for sale or
settlement
Every inference Of such distinction
il negatived by the language of the court
IN the cases referred to. The PROPOSE
ton, az laid down by the court, IL that
in all public grants of land In the United
States. made npon conditions to be- snb
sequently performed. the granted lands
can Only be restored to the Government,
after condition broken, by Legislative
authority, either by authorized proceed
ings in the courts or by Legislative
declaration of forfeiture by an act of
Congress or 10y acts equivalent thereto
Thus il IL left in the discretion of Con
gress, in any given case, which "a wiser
whether it will by n simple legislative
enactment declare q forfeiture or pro-
vide for its asccrtainment and promul-
CATION by judicial proceedings.
Your committee are. however, fully
aud firmly persuaded that in all GASES
of grants of public lands of the United
States to corporations, or TO States TO be
transferred TO corporations, to aid IN
the construction of railroads aud 'ele-
graphs upon conditions subssquen
and the conditions have not been per
formed, the forfeiture of such grants,
il reclamation il to be made. ought tO
be made by act of Congress. and not be
devolssd upon the courts.
The act of declaring such forfeitures
! is essentially the exercise of a seIislA-
| tive power, and has been peatedly ex-
ercised by Congress, and IN no single in-
stance has Congress conferred the power
upon the courts.
| I'm the case of the United States W.
Repeuticny the forfeiture WAS effected
by the extension of the laws nj the
United States over the land IN question,
authorizing the disposal thsreo which
the court held to be equivalent 20 leRis
laiive declaration OF forfeiture.
In the case of Farnsworth ct al. ".
| Minnesota and Pacinc Railroad lompa
nv, I'd Otto the forfeiture had bsen
declared by the State Legislature, tAe
grant having heea made to the State and
by is to the railroad company.
The grants we're made by the ieRis-
lative department Of the Government In
the exercise OF its discretion. They are
OF q public character. and made TO fur
,hsr the public good in secaring better
facilities for communication, and also
IN aid of settling remote and Wild SEC
sions Of the country. or TO make 10 pos
sibls that these wild sections might be
settled. In many instances, IN fact IN
most OF the land grants, the reasons
operating upon Congress 20 induce u 10
| make them were the increased facilities
the construction of the roads AID tele-
} graph hnes would furnish the Govern
ment for The rapid movement OF troops
and munitions of war In case OF Indian
troubles or foreign complications; and
no department of Government, certainIy
no court, coald 80 well understand the
consequences OF failure - perform the
werk imposed upon the grAntee accord
inc ta she conditions of the grant ss
, | 9,ea.vr.s, tsa..lf M cofupeusatlau for