The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1884-02-14
MONOPOLY IN THE SUPREME COURT
Significant Article from u Leading Re-
publican Newspaper.

Significant Article from Leading Re-
publican Newspaper.
from the Chicago Tribune.
1t is stated In the dispatches from,
Washington that Huntington will not
attempt to oppose the passage Of the
Texas Pacific forfeiture bill i'll the
Senate. "Hc relics" it is said, "on the
courts. This agrees with what we have
heard before from him Of his intention to
keep the land in question ont OF the
hands Of settlers for twenty years by
litigation, with confident expectation
that ut the end II this law.fight the
Supreme Court will decide TINT the
land is and has always been his.
We shall not attempt to conceal the
fact that We look on this appeal to the Su.
preme Court with apprch, nsion. There
is unfortunately too much in the record
of the decisions Of that tribn al of late
years to justify tho confidence of Hunt
inton md the lack of il on the part Of
the people whom he is etideatoring 10
deprive Of l5,OGO.O 900 vi aires OF South
western grazing land.
Huntington and his land grant rail
roads have been before the Supreme
Court many times, and lave obtained
from them nm extraordinary series Of
decisions - extraordinary b cause the
same facts have Mt different times been
made tho occasion of opposite decisions.
That il to say. the decisions have been
opposite in reasoning. They have al.
ways been uniform in one respect. The
court has taken the side of the railroad
syndicates against the settlers and the
people. There has Of late years been
no exception before that tribunal in
favor Of the PEOPLE against the corpo-
rations that we are able to recall.
The land-grant roa Is hold 100, &C.,
900 acres Of public lands in the West
ern States On which they refuse to pay
any taxes. Suits were brought and
carried to the Supreme Court TO force
these wealthy landholaers, including
Huntington. to pay their share of the
expenses Of the State Governments
which were protecting their property
and were building up civilized COM
munities around them to their great
profit. The Supreme Court decided
that the roads could not he forced to
pay taxes, because they had not yet OBJ
tanned al absolute title 10 the lands
The corporations are compelled by the
laws to refund to the United States
the cost Of making the surveys; until
they do so they are not given their title
by the United States. and until they
receive this they have not perfect
ownership. The reasoning sc ems good.
But. strange to say, the same court las
held that private individual, even
though he has not received his title.
must still pay taxes. The corporation
has an immunity that is not given to the
individual
But this is only half the story of the
strange Partially Of the Supreme court
some of whose members ride in special
cars and are dined and wiued by the
great men who constitute these power
full corporations, for their interests MS
against those Of the humber applicants
for justice. In order to prevent per.
petual monopoly of the lands granted
these companies Congress enacted in
their charters that any Of the lands not
SWIM NJ uAspoSSo VI iilS IOuu Ildel
been completed for three years should
be open to the people for prescription
and settlement at the regular price Of
Sl.25 an acre, all of the money thus re-
cciyed to be paid over to the railrc ads.
1t was in part to protect this sacred
right of reversion to the people that
the Supreme court ostcnsibly declined
to allow the lands to be taxed. Ii they
could I've taxed they could be sold
for taxes. and if they could I've sold
for taxes the right of the Government
to reimbursement for the trifiing cost
of surveys and the rights of the people
to re-enter the lands could he lost.
Such was the alleged reason for defeat
ing the purpose Of the law.
The three years limit fixed by the
charter passed away, only small part
of the lands were sold, and several
thousands of home-seckers settled on
it. They believes that the Government
meant what it said in its act when il
gave them the right to enter on the un-
sold lands, and that the Supreme court,
the highest seat Of Justice in the land.
supposed to know no difference be-
t"SVA lhS Itooi anu tlS Ill., tic ctAouS
and the weak, had spoken the law when
It pleaded this popular right of settle
ment after three years as one Of the
reasons why the lands should not he
taxed by the States. Again the rail-
roads went to the Supreme court, as
Huntington now SAYS he shall do. This
time. on precisely the same facts on
which the Supreme court had previous
ly decided that the railroads did not own
these lands, it held that they did own
them, and that the settlers were tres
passers and must abandon their homes.
The lands which the charters of the
Union Pacific and Central Pacific per-
mitted the people to settle on after the
roads had been completed three years
were Glands not sold or disposed Of"
The same Supreme court which had a
little while before protected the rail-
roads from the State taxes on the
ground that they had no title to the
land now fastened to protect them
from the honest settler on the ground
that they had title. Huntington 4
Co. had issued mortgage on the
security of these lands: hence, declared
the Supreme court, they are disposed
Of" and you farmers must 20. There
is no worse chapter than this in the in
famous records of Irish evictions.
Thus the same question was decided
two ways by the Supreme Court, and
yet the two WAYS We're but one way, for
both decisions were for monopoly and
against the people. When the State
wanted to tax the railroad lands the
Supreme Court came to their rescue
with decision that they did not own
the lands. When the people, in ac-
cordance with the rights reserved to
them under the deed of gilt, settled on