New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-02-24
RAILROAD LAND GRANTS.
MR.. EvARTs IN OPPOSITION TO FORFEIT
URE
AN ARGUMENT BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE On
THE TEXAS PACIFIC BILL.

THE TEXAS PACIFIC BILL.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23.-The Hon. William
Evarts Of New-York, appeared before the senate
Committee on Public Lands this morning a. oouns o
the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, In oppoSi'iO W
the bill which passed the House short tlhe AEo' w
now before this committee, to declare ioiie - s.,
lands granted TO the Texas Pache kaiiroS" I'M ,
tha Act Of March g. 1871 and by smendatory ana sup
Elemental Acts OF Congress Senators fiuuip nm .i'
MORGAN Slater Gibson, and Walker OF Ine 0oiuini'V
were present and there were also IN aIenH@"ce -
,-i, ~ the southern Pccitic and others interest
cd IN railroads Mr. Evsrts began with the statement
-. oanoon Law has made manifest distinction be
the right OF forfeiture and Its approval OF the ex
ere OF that right that in the same breath in which the
bt ~ forfeiture and its means of execution were given
there was given the maxim that the law abho forfeiture
The whole course Jurisprudence in England and in this
country he said adheres closely TO this maxim He then
defined the common law term upon condition
as applied to the grant land the Texas Pacific Rail
way Company. As courts Of equity had come to be
more and important he said the tendency had been
and always will be, take every possible opportunity 10
declare what law would assert an estate
non condition 10 be an estate inTusted with trust He
did not think IL was saying much that IN the con
struoon private grants and OF private bequest every
estate upon condition In terms proposing TO be treated
as a common law condition, involving forfeiture VIII oe
treated resoutey and persstently by courts oil equity as
trusts or covenants that the estates may not Oe
resumed and yet the beneficial right Of disappointed
grantor TO have condition thus become trust ana
covenant may be maintained.
He said that the question presented for consuer
Ton IL whether this a grant condition The Northern
Pacific. and Atlantic and Pacific Railroad land grant
while they state the to be upon condition. also
contain some apparently important limitations
of the consequences that might otherwise
follow from the breach OF condition These acts contain
tire statements the grant on condition and an ex
press statement that II there shall be preach OF con
lion and this breach last for year that certain oonse
ouences shall follow But when the committee come 10
look AZ the Texas Pacific act he thought they woud per
ceve at once there no element either in expression or
in implication Of an estate upon condition
THE GREAT IMPORTANCE OF THE ROAD.
He did not need TO upon the importance Of the
rubc interests Involved in the construction Of inns ROAD
They are so vast that absolute donation OF Ihueh
greater value than lands. 1t we're necessary 10 Sc
cure such Public interests. would, he thought,
have been not only within the Just dlscre-
tim of Congress, but within its clear duty
The time wheu tn agreement FOR the construction Of the
road was made Drtwecn the Government ana Ihe ron-
~ any failure the part OF the company TO carry ou us
obigaiions But in the grant condition is assigned
The purpose OF the GcVernhhl j. ut.-s e a t, ~
OF Congress To take measures 10 Secure me ~ 1
the road the grantees do hot perform he dutes H al
'u@o H. The Statement OF the right granted by Con
ress 10 the company mortgage the LANDS granted MI
~ art W - tbot tbe cornanv gh raise the money
Ia carry ont agreement with the Government ana upon
The fact that company could have so dsord OF re
Lands 90 the very day aiterthe gnngact vent INTO eec
T bt ~ n6rt,a % ex ended 20 the total value OF the
lands He thought IL undispuable tnat TINS statue
should be construed would have been construed
win il was enacted lie pointed ont that the road con
tenplated the 32d parallel had been com e tt
s "itAn makRg the grant The interests OF the
Government in making the grant had been iuly met
WHAT TIE PROPOSITION Is.
And vet the proposition was made the Government
nov ENJOYING the benefits Of the construction OF tie road
I'd. afI.
DID not complete the road itself that the Government
shall execlse forfeiture and occupy the road and the
lands lie held that what had happened was this: That
these two companies expected by Congress COM
plete railroad communication between New Orleans
and san Francisco IL was expected tat the Iexs Pa
oae and the Southern Pacific would come together Ut
err Pacific the limitation is not that river but TO the
Texas Pacific Kar34d. Inc lands granted ne com
IJ H. ti1 IN l1ild their road or would build IL for
-, Where then ,yas the diligently Simply in the
fact that something IN the personality OF this
assignee thc southern Pacific which made the assign
mrnt objectionable. II said that the Southern
Pacific was the creature OF the Arizona, New-MeKico
limited states however, far from showing indis
position the endowment OF corporations by tne states
had always preferred Ihei "tiI tnc ultcu s..,H was
after was railroad This grantee was authorized 10
@ t VIII There WAS no re5ryatdn that the Texas
Pacific should swallow the southern Pacific and not the
good right To consolidate with the Southern Pacific Of
california and call the route by that name.
As to the question that there limitation In respect
p. The erty of consolidation In that there should not be
- u,,an with anv other competing through line did
ulou nom that thSre should be no consodaon with the
southern Pacific of California Why that was the very
IIeton Of the through line The prohibition related to
parallel lines Congress was not talking at large II
knew what competing roads were. II knew where |
the sd the 35th and the 42d parallels |
were The Southern Pacific this Arizona Complain
anything but the ga parallel route II was MOI quesI
ton OF stock ownership management. No law could
control that The act was not aimed at II. The road |
intended by Congress primarily to give that section
frontier had been consolidation ~ all with any
through competing line me committee asked |
Pacific. the Central Pacific, and the southern Pacific
why u would be gong outside me statute 'oASlt7S ne
line ould tie committee defeat that purpose because
The owners of the Southern Pacific were also owners OF
Tic other hines
MR.. nUNTINGToN's ARGUMENT.
Mr. Huntington also addressed the committee. lie |
aescried tine building OF the Central Pacific by
men four Of whom were now dead; the attempt Of other
parc, build the Southern Pacific failure and the
assumption OF the work by the managers OF the Central
Pacific: the progress Of the work enormous DIM
culues, and the completion at great expense. Tic |
motives which inspired the original To undertake
the southern Pacific grew Ia par nom ihen III lne
public welfare Inc government vas hol seehlhS 10 |
serve san Francisco which did not require The service
~ IN -. 80 Il, o,, fif.l, $50
per per mile. Herein was competition sufficient for
open the intermediate country and % protect ts from
Tier. distinguished army officer Lad recently told him
that be could guard the frontier with 1000 and |
the road better Aan with 10000 without IT, The alter
nae sections Of land retained nv the Government were
twice as valuable before the completion OF the road
than - 900 900 He said that 40 effort had been made
10 divert traffic from the Central Pacnc the South
Pacific and possible. There 1000 |
stockholders Of the former and only directors. II
the attempted 10 take away taffc lcgltimatcY
from the Central Pacific and throw IL upon "A
which the other 6993 sOckLOd had interest the
latter would elect directors manage their Affairs
ANY stOckhOider OF the Central Pacific could sell his
stock at VIII So much 0f the stock The original
had been sold that majority did remain II the
bands OF the management.
DELEGATES RIGHT TO VOTE.