The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1884-02-22
NORTHERN rAtn1c LAND GRANT.

congress, some years since graneeu
4S.2l3,040 acres of land to the North
ern Pacific Railroad company t. aid 1t
in building its road across the continent
II was stipulated and provided in the
congressional act that the road should
be built 10 certain specified times and
under certain other conditions. The
Railroad company complied with the
terms of the grant to the extent OF
acquiring title to 10,675,200 acres of
the land, but they failed to comply with
the law as to the remainder, 81 ,631 $40
acres. The feeling in congress is that
this unearned remainder of the grant
should be declared forfeited.
The 0regoaiaa says that the boards
of trade as representing the mercantile
classes have petitioaed congress- to not
proceed against this grant. That paper
is of the opinion that the body of the
people of Oregon and Washington Ter
ritory are opposed to any further favors
being granted to the company, but that
they would oppose any effort to deprive
the company of any Just right which
they possess. The 0regonia'a, however
takes the position that the company
has an equitable right to the unearned
part of the grant. Those conversan'
with the 0regoniaa aud the manner ID
which that paper is. conducted, will moi
bs surprised that that journal takes
sides with the corporation as against
the people. The truth is that the
company acquired no equitasle right te
these unearned lands in consequence ol
having built the road, though not in the
time prescribed BY congress. If we
understand it, the position of the Ore
goaida is this: If the company had
completed the several parts of the road
within the time and times provided fol-
by congress as the terms upon which
the company should acquire title to the
lands granted, then the company would
have beceae possessed Of the iega'
tital, but iaasmuch as the company
completed the road, but not in the time
provided for by congress, then they
became possessed of an equitable inter
est or title to the land. This claim is
based upon the mere quibble that when
the company failed to build the road in
the time provided for, congress neglec-
ted to declare the grant forfeited. Con-
grsss and the great body of the people
of the country believed when it
made this grant to the Northern Pacific
company, that if it failed to comply with
the terms of the grant then the lands
remained in the government.
We see no soundness, not sense for
that matter. in the views of the Orego-
nian that the railroaI has an equity
in the unsarned land grant. Congress,
as the agent of the people, said to the
Northern Pacific company : 1t you
will build certain portions of the North.
ern Pacific Railroad in certain times
prescribed by us, then We viii give you
certain of the public lands. The COM
pany built the road, but not all portions
in the time prescribed. The company
had full knowledge and notice of the
terms and conditions upon which they
were to acquire the land, and If they
failed to comply with these conditions,
we hold that they could acquire no
equities in these, simply because it built
the road after the expiration Of the time
in which congress specified that the road
shouldsbe built. If is is the duty OF
congress, as has been held by the SUI
preme Court, to declare the forfeiture
iu such cases, then We hold that con-
gress should do 90 now, as the time
elapsed is not unreasonable. And
further, if allowances for the railroad
are to be claimed by its friends and
paid agents, then we think that allow.
ances should be made to congress for
not declaring the forfeiture sooner. It
is unmistakable that the Oregonian
speaks emily for the railroad side of the
question, and the people must speak out
boldly in sustaining Ssnator Slater in
his attempt to get congress to declare
tbeae unearned lands forfeiked