, 1884-10-25
The SPOKANE FALLS
aEEBLY%*REVIEm.
sATuRnAY..... ......oCr. %, 1854

SATURDAY, ..i..eOCT. ~, lsS4
The Post Inteli0enoey, Of Seattle,
has heretofore turned a cold shoulder
70 Mai. Armstrong and has never
failed to speak IN terms Of praise Of
his opponent, Chas. Voorhees,, al
though protesting to be a republican
sheet However, the III has struck
a lead that causes the paper 10 seur
on voorhees,, and the following ap-
peas as an editorial 10 the Issue Of
Sunday. This lnsuros King county
for Armstrong;
aFrom time to time during the
present canvass, rumors affecting the
sincerity Of the democratic candidate
IN his advocacy Of unconditional for
feiture Of tho Northern Pacific un-
earned land grant and the soundness
. Of his views upon that question have
aoated about To these no attention
las been paid by the ROst-Intelli-
qsnoer, because they appeared utterly
haselessand were strenuously denied
BY his sponsors and friends The
quassl support accorded Mr.. Voor-
heesBy this paper has been based
solely upon hisasserted and assumed
convictions m respect to forfeiture,
which as publicly declared by him
and rs cnnucIatodF In the democratic
platform, coincide with what we adj
vocate and believe to accord with
law and exact justice to the Northern
Pacific and the people Of this terri
tory. In short, we believe that the
Northern Pacific unearned land grant
Is forieitable and that It ought to be
promptly restored to the public do
main. The democratic platform and
It's candidate asserted identical
views Hence this paper has not
opposed the election Of Mr.. Voor-
hees
We have been furnished with a
copy Of a document-the original Of
which Is in the handwriting Of Mr..
Charles S. voorhees,, we have seen
to which, in Justice TO the public, we
give prompt publicity. 1t is a copy
Of a legal opinion, fled in the United
States land Office at Colfax, about a
year ago by Mr.. voorhees,, then act
ing as attorney for the Northern Pa
clhc nllroad company. The PROPOSE
tl0ns therein maintained are directly
IN conflict with the platform upon
which Mr.. Voorhees, claims to now
stand; they deny not merely the
right but the power Of the United
States government to forfeit the land
In questlon-land claimed to be earn
ed by construction Of railroad since |
the time fixed by the charter for
e0mpletion Of said road expired. In
this document Mr.. Voorhees, declares
unequivacally that the Northern Pa
cillc land grant is non-forfelfable,
claiming that at the time lands are
Withdrawn from sale the company
acquires an equitable interest there
in, "whieh Il is entirely incompetent
for the United States to abrogate or
destroy"
Mr.. voorhees, has publicly declared
that he was In favor Of prompt and
unconstitutional forfeiture Of the
Northern Pacific unearned land
grant The platform upon which he
stands demands the passage by con-
gress Of a law to that effect. How
can Mr.. Voorhees, demand Of con-
gress legislation which he maintains
would be unconstitutional, which
would nullify an assumed equitable
title that he claims the government
Is entirely Incompetent to nulllfy or
destroy2 II Is true that Mr.. Voor-
hees was then acting as an attorney
for the Northern Pacific. We must
assume, however, that upon a grave
question Of law, his opinion given
therein was sincere as well as profess
sionaL Has Mr.. voorhees, changed
that opinion? II 50, when and for
what purpose? Or, Is he to-day, as
a year ago, prepared to declare over
his professional signature and in his
as a lawyer that the land
grant to the Northern Pacific cannot
be forfeited, that 1t is beyond the
power Of the government to divest
that company Of its title thereto?
II looks as though Mr.. Voorhees, has
Been masquerading. Has the demo-
cratic partp nominated an anti-for-
feiture candidate upon a forfeiture
platformT'