Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-05-16

s,.oua0u OF the ieRai
isLt I'M he eavs the conclusion to
we; |. i. lad been brought by the con,
~ s..~n If the case. II was a fatal
s 80 10 the pretension OF the Ne"
/ 80. Pacific hallway to the convey
u ,be land, that it WAS buiit over
ALTERING materially from the
pe shieh the conditional grant OF
80 wss made. Tne constitutional
20 70 company whose chartered
~, "a from New Orleans to Baton
:, tbe east side of the III Issis-
- ,,,e, and was not transferable to
sm.any whose line started at a
=, nsar New Orleans ON the west slde
4 Il ~ Mississippi river, and did not
- ~ vest side in any part OF Its
II Was also fatal objection to
=. - -s,.,.nsions Of the New Orleans Pa
4. Pailysy that it had not yet com,
80 its line, and, so far as known, did
= a,ooose 10 complete its line TO the
..i,u tsrminus of the Texas Pacific
s.lssy which was fixed by the act OF
v.,.h A 1871. This attempted transfer
sn,he frst case of the kind. the legal
y. Il vbicb had received favorable
s;sioo from the Attorney General. The
siaop cf Attorney General Brewster
n favor was not biHcing on the In
sSor Department; and, not only so, but
/ : srseu.lye officer could not shield
.,u,elf from responsibility by taking
siups behind the opinion of the Attor-
Z, General. No law or practise CON-
r5sa the SecretarJ of the Interior to
ssul tbs cpinion OF the Attorney Gen
nd Heads OF Departments had the
Aht 10 ask opinions OF the Attorney
susrsl. bat we're not bound to accept
IN, ard, in fact, had no right to ae
y ihem unless satisfied Of the cor
stbses Of the reasons upon which they
nm based. They were no more bound
s,ccept them than clients were to ao-
II .hs views Of lawyers whose advice
j III ssueht and paid for. There WAS
mhing judicial in the function of Civ
n opinions which the Attorney Cen
el possessed, and nothing Judicial ia
1 ss manner In which the function was
uacssd. He es nerally heard only one
sis, and always acted upon case made
yiof him to act upon. In this case the
sAin oi the New Orleans Pacific com
4 my vas supported by elaborate briefs
iad Arguments from astute, experienced
ud highly paid railroad lawyers--Dil-
20. Green. Swigler and Pierrepont-
Stis the other side, which was that of
hs Government aid country, whose
Ands we're the prize ia controversy, was
spnwnisd by nobody. The Attorney
6snsfal's mind might have been con-
iasxd 70 an opposite conclusion II he
4 ioi h facts from versions there given
4 y both sides, and If he heard counsel
nployed by the Government to look mp
'sd present all precedsnts, Gases, prln-
cps and authorities adverse to the
pessnslons OF the New Orleans Pacific
lsisay. The Attorney General was in
" same Unfortunate prcdicament In
.alsn committees OF the Senate and
n0lx md themselves in hearing rdIl-
Ma ahd other cases where great aud
Ha''ny corporations were interested on
ws zoe and the opposing interest WAS
4 nAtof the pu0lio. Hill had, he
40 1ne experience in that, and there
VT oaef Senators who had had a good
lnofe. The best legal talent, stim.
snaa oy munisicent fees, and with am
ame 70 hunt mp all favoring prece
~ sna authorities, appeared on the
.s ~ y lhe corporate interest. while the
ssac interest was not represented NJ
Im leRaI points. With no disposition
hTpfoaeh our predecessors In these
~ A ana making all allowances for
,.a ~ Wef-estlmates of the real cost oI
saloaus, aud their under. estimates OF
@Ipdisy with which railroads become
w ss4.safeisiive, must express a feeling
~ y nov universal, that grants oi
~ 70 sid the construction of rail
- nave been enormously, nigh,
Smaniully, excessive. The methods
sleo tnese grants have been admin
20 20 by executive officials have also
~, Isa iioefalisy TO the verge of down
~ noetness and waste. Reversing
ss..,s sss iule that grants TO private cor
~ si.ons On should be construed s;rictl,
e. saa careful attention to limita
- M conditions, too many of then
/ s.. y y nave strained every point II
( ~ y tsiifoads, and to have struggled
sns,,s eow large an Interpretation
k acts would possibly admit of
- " mat spirit that the rights OF
~ sofs we and persons seeking to 40
- s we ~ under the homestead provi
kn sase been dealt with, but the,
sas;s - required to bring themselves
- at only all substantial condi
4 ~. ss .ne almost rigorous formali
sioed ~ IN the laws under which
~, aae \ tnear claims. do not mea,
ia ~ 80 Interior Department is NOR,
ss.n soan Official duty compels il TO b,
,,;,saaa With individuals, and its re
4 ,as5 's 49,, nom pre- emptors and home
1 "a tsslsfs and Others of the stric
/ "A ssai sai proof and most compiet
/ lsh~s 1'cA !. compliance with ali con
nl.ss. =. acts Of Congress before th,
Il. ~. sn issasd. Nevertheless IL i
Ihness.l individual casea are hung n
aersss antiianything lacking whicI
esks ~ IN bold to be necessary lin
L. n -. o. evidence Ia Supplied, tn
\ nns aaze saze OF Rrat railroad corpora
rsaas saloing s.s millions of acres eve
u hses Ssnas to be presumed in thei
e91l,,;.sss ~ inquisi.ion is made into th
Nj ~, y transactions in the mos
/ a,os,s ,s.'uenlars; aud when two con
Ass,s.s. are possible, the one eivin
anfish,. scope TO grants seems 10 b
solmssy pfefsrred. In this case th
Aisaps = sRal existence of the Ne,
NJ sa,n. na'on Rouge 4 vicksburQ Raj
i kA a ny, Notwithstanding the n
tscslstn,s - .asrter years ago by th
chs OF Louisiana, was assume
nd s.a Ground Of a Judgment OF
. sahoai =. us Argument AID rendere
&ss cons Ia a subordinate Unite
bod ~s. . and which, however oh
ARs pss.d - Ahd 10 binding on nebod
Nlkst aes .aes TO IL. II Ia TO be regret
M h.s OF that care and cautio
kt q, oeeh exercised in giving d.
- 49, qeartsr sections Of land hs
Ahssss s0oxn In giving patents ,
hssrfel rs ros Areas exceeding those {
Anslss. aIopean naonarchies. Ii ms
nply ,,,o ~ feoret the past, but il
- sssan e 20 call halt 10 loose gran
hpps,a constructions of grants
Abuss,s0 0onain 10 corporations whis
- plcS. y their ownership, Q ,ntr
Hs1 however useful the euts