Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-05-09
III RsQuIxEs rATIEseE.
Yakima Sicual. !

The Signal il free 70 eonfees that u
lacks patience 20 discuss calmly and Sc
riou=ly With those who assert on the one
hand that Congress has no power 10 de
eta re q forfeiture Of the uDesrned land
grant. and vet express Themselves on the
other hand a. decidedly in favor Of what
- known a. the BreHts compromise
There is such elaring lack OF consist
ency IN this attitude a. 10 raise qne<-
ton Of sincerity. They say. for instance,
that the power of Congress IN the prem
ises il defined and limited by the clause
in the granting act which prescribes
that in case of failure on the part OF
the company to build the road IN the
time specified, Congress may do any
and ali acts and things which may be
needful and necessary 90 insure speedy
completion of the said road 1hs &c
called Brents compromise propossss N
substance, 20 give the lands to the con
uany. bat TO limit the price Of them 70
40 70 an acre. Now, would this limit IN
price be one Of the things Beedful and
NECESSARY TO insure a speedy completion
az the road? II 20, perhaps the speed
would be even more accelerated By re-
ducfue the price TO still lower grade
Bot II Congress takes away the lands
Altogether, Il il said that We will get
lawsuit on our hands. such talk Is sheer
nonsense Congress either has rlgnt
70 legislate upon this grant. or 1t has
| not that right. II it has right TO limit
the lands ia price, IL has an equal right
to take them away altogether. III there
ia danger of litigation IN one case. there
\ is a. much danger in the other. In fact,
| Congress has even better right 10 de
clare a forfeiture than 70 iix price upon
the lands and leave them in the hands
| Of the company; for. while 1t may be
easily shexn that the road will be more
speedily completed by wiping out the
erans aud opening the country TO com
petition, II would be the acme OF ADJ
surcity 20 hold that any speed would be
secured by limiting the price OF the
com pany's lands. IL IL therefore SAFE
TO conclude that the company - In
hearty sympathy with the Brents sub
stitute. IL will be an ensy thing for the
company TO secure a decision from the
court that G. ngress had no right under
the constitution. and even much less
under the granting act, TO impose THIS
limit. II Congress should pass this
substitute, It must fall under some one
of the constitutional powers. Will some
i one explain under " hich of its powers
Congress would be acting in the passage
of this law The granting act itself
declares that the original object OF the
grant Was to secure 10 the United States
1.-The safe and speedy transportation OF
nails, troops, munitions OF war and
public stores" Would limiting the
price of the lands result in bringing the
mails through with more safety or speed
than il the company was permitted to
ix its own price! Would muEitions Of
war and public stores get here any
quicker with the price of land liked at
$50 an acre than they would II the
company was permitted TO sell at any
price they might see fit to charge! To
say that they would, would be simply
an expression Of nonsense: and yet we
are told that the original objects and
purposes of the grant must be adhered
to. We are told that tins land WAS APP
pfopriated and forever set aside for the
advancement of certain objects, and
that there is no power under the sun
competent to take any steps In the
premises which do not tend toward the
advancement Of these original objects,
Hence we remark that Il requires pa
thence, and vast deal OF II, to argue
seriously with those who hold tn this
absurd doctrine and yet insist that Con
cress has power go limit the price of the
commands lands.