St. Landry democrat., 1885-03-21
THE GREAT LAND GRAB.
. Comprehensiye History Of the Whole
Affair.
SECRETARY TELLER's sPLEDGEs-- oNs
IN CoNGREss-ExPLANA OF THE
POSITION OF THE BIATTER-TEI4-
LER's SUDDEN CHANGE OF
FRONT.
N. O. States, March 13.

met by representative OF the States
The writer asked the gentleman for a
statement relative to the Backbone
Land GTG 1T, in the following language,
RepOrter-Gen. Lewis, the recent is
sue of patents by the Interior Depart
ment, in the matter of the Backbone
Land Grant, having attracted great
deal of attention, the Daily States, for
the benefit of its readers, would like
very much to obtain your views on this
important subject.
The General replied as follows:
''At the time of my election | was
instructed by some of my constituents
especially in the parish of st. Landry, to
use every effort in my power to secure
a forfeiture Of this land grant in the
interest of the settlers. For the pur-
pose of obtaining all the information
could upon the subject, visited the
City of Washington in September, 1888.
At that time | had an interview with
SECRETARY TELLER.
Ia that interview he said to me that
Attorney General Brewster having
given his opinion in favor of New Or
leans Pacific Railroad Company, in res
ponse to request from Sec. Kirkwood
/upon that subject, he felt it his duty to
execute and carry out the law as inter
preted by the Attorney General. |
asked him if he did not have the pOaCeT
to decline carrying out the views of the
ATTORNEY General He replied yes, that
he had the power, but that it was the
practice of the departments to execute
the laws as exp0unded by that officer.
He added that if he had been the Sec
retary of the Interior he never would
have submitted the question to the At
ntc 1ictJnafIxy
that his views differed from those eX-
pressed by him. He produced upon my
mind a decisive impression in that con-
yersatiom that he differed totally with
the Attorney General, and if the mat
ter was left to his decision he would not
have decided in favor of the railroad
company. | stated to him that | felb
a very great in nterest in the matter, be-
cause of the fact that great many of
my constituents had settled upon these
lands
IN GOOD FAITH,
and believed that they had a better right
to the lands occupied by them than the
railroad company had. asked him fur
tber if it was the intention of the de-
uartment at that time to proceed in its
ordinary course of business and perfect
the title to the railroad company. He
replied that it was. I then stated to
him that earnestly hoped that it would
not be done. He replied: Ii you, Mr..
Lewis, will address personal request
to me in your official capacity as mem
Der of Congress, asking that proceed
iugs in this case be suspended, | will
suspend them Adding in that cOnnec-
tion, that if the Forty seventh Con
Rress were expected To act upon the |
matter of land grant fOrfeitures, he was |
satisfied that no action would be taken
on this grant; that new Congress had
been elected to-wit: The Forty eighth |
Congress, which might do something |
in the matter, and therefore he would |
do nothing until had an opportunity |
to test the matter in that Congress.
son the 10th of December, at the
first session of the FOrty-eighth Con-
oress, [ introduced bill for the for
feiture of this entire land grant, which
bill was referred to the Public Lands
Committee Of the House, of which
was a member. In due cpurse of time
this bill was acted upon by that COM
mittee, and by majority the bill was
reported
INFAyoR OF THE FORFEITURE.
ain its discussion before the commit
tee, Judge Dillon, the attorney of the
Railroad Company, made a statement
in behalf of the American Construc-
lion Company. He said that the COM
Dany had expended in the construction
of the road some six millions of dollars.
[ asked him if the company bad been
paid for it's construction. he referred
TO some memoranda in his pocket. and
said that they had received stock, which
at the then market rate reimbursed
them the $6,000,000 which was expend-
ed in the construction of the road, and
gave them a profit of only $4,000 in
addition. then said to Judge Dillon
You want the land grant as an addl-
tional bonus.' The only reply he gave
10 me was that $4,000 was a very small
profit on the expenditure of $6,000,0OO.
The New Orleans Poetic Railroad
Company claims the grant OF land on
the ground that they constructed the
road, and this claim is set up 10 face OF
the fact that ON the goth OF June,
1881, they sold their rOad-bed, rolling
stock, appurtenances, and even their
franchises to Jay Gould, Teserving the
and grant, which they claimed was as
signed to them by the Backbone Com
Dany on the 5th of January previous,
ind in face of the further fact, well
known, that nearly the entire road,
Win the exception of sixty-eight miles,
from
ALGIERS UP TO WHITE CASTLE,
md small amount of grading work
lone by the New Orleans Pacific Rail-
sOnH xxyae concentrated hv %ha Tnvaa and 4