Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1884-01-15
PACIFIC RAILWAYS.
ifs
The Question Of the Forfeiture lPlEr
Texas Pacific Land Grant Ar
gued by Counsel
Before the House Committee on Public
Lands-The Ccmpany's Side
q she Case.
4 Report Favoring the Forfeiture of a
Number OF Grants Ordered TO be
Submitted to the House.

WASHINGTON, January 14.-At meeting
OF the House Committee on Public Lands
to-day, Chairman Cobb submitted a report
declaring forfeited the land grants to the
Gulf and Ship Island, Tuscaloosa and Mo-
bile, Mobile and New Orleans, Elyton and
Boards Bluff, Memphis and Charleston,
Savannah and Albany, New Orleans State,
and Iron Mountain Ark railroad COM
panies that have not complied with the
terms OF the grants by building roads. The
report was adopted and ordered presented
to the House. Van Eaton read dissenting
opinion in the special case of the Gull and
Ship Island railroad. He held that the
condition OF the Southern States for seven
years from 1871 was such that no railroad
enterprise could be carried on, was not an
era of railroad building, and since the
lapse OF the grant the State OF Mississippi
ito which the grant was made) had,
through conventions and the Legislature
applied frequently for the renewal of the
grant. The land involved only amounted
to about 100000 acres, but without that
subsidy the road, which will be one of great
Importance and utility, could not be built.
In that case, therefore, there should
be no forfeiture. Van Eaton's paper will
be considered in the minority reports.
The question of the forfeiture of the
Texas Pacific territorial land grant was
then taken up. Roger A. Pryor, on the
part OF the Southern Pacific Railroad Com
pany, made an argument against the for
feiture. He contended that as question
of law Congress had no right to declare
the proposed forfeiture, that being a Judi
cial proceeding and argued that as a ques-
ton OF fact it would be an act of injustice
to do so. The original grant Of the Texas
Pacific Company did not contain a pro-
vision for the right Of forfeiture, but pro-
vided that If the road was not completed
within the time and manner prescribed
by the act Congress should have power to
adopt such means as it might deem proper
to secure the building of transcontinen-
tai road from New Orleans to San Diego.
The same act made provision for an extern
sion of the line of the Southern Pacific
from San Francisco to Colorado river. The
Texas Pacific Company, after constructing
line as far as FL Paso westward, ceased
further construction. The Southern Pa
citic, when it reached the Colorado river,
found a gap of 500 miles between that
point and Ell Paso, so, unless the gap was
filled, the money spent extending the
Southern Pacific to Colorado river had
been thrown away and was dead
loss. Then it was the assignment was
made by the Texas Pacific to the Southern
Pacific, and The latter company went to
work and completed the line of railroad
by the 1st of May, 1882. The object,
therefore, which Congress had in view IN
making the land grant, in express terms,
'to the Texas Pacific Railroad Company,
its successors and assigns" was thus at
tanned, and the conditions OF the act fnllv
complied with. Logan argued that the
Southern Pacific Company assigned
to the Texas Pacific, fairly earned
the lands, and it was entitled to
them. 1t could certainly, he argued,
make no difference to the government
whether the great object contemplated in
the original grant was accomplished by
one company or the other. Even if there
had been no assignment at all, and if it
were the original question, he argued, in
concurrence with the policy OF the gov
ernment since1S54, Congress should make
this grant. He did not, however, put the
claim of the Southern Pacific Company on
any such ground, but on the legal right as
assignee on the faithful performance of
the work for which the land was granted.
Another meeting of the committee was
held this evening, at which D.. Robb, of
Arizona, made strong argument against
the transfer OF the grant t. the Southern
Pacific,