Madison times. (Tallulah, Madison Parish, La.) 1884-1???, 1885-04-04
Senator ElEtiS'
SPEMCW
On the Backbone Grant,

claiming The InuUl gcnce O. inc SCH
ate tOr few mOmer.s. II this were
an ordinary case, as was stated by
| the Senator from Colorado Nj.
! ioNcry, if il lid not present YER
exceptional feature, c! hardship t.
honest settlers in nay state, und i
It were merely & question between
! the New Orleans Pacific Railroad
! Company and the government -
/ the United States, 1 shot!d leave
the defence of the rights u I'll" GOV
eminent in much ADLER hands. But
being personally cogIizaat that
/ great wrong ha. been done to the
the people of Louisiana; that an
INJURY almost irfcpagablC has been
inflicted upon apoOr class OF people
in that State, | wish TO refer To one
OF two points i'll this controversy
to sustain my protest against the
issue of the patents by which the
rights Of these poor settlers are t.
. be disturbed, if they are not TO be
entirely dcspoiled Of their present
hOmcsteadS.
I'm order To understand whatever
/ may he said upon this subject il IS
necessary TO bear in mind two I'M
portant facts. First, thai the gov
eminent OF tn United States made
IN orr ginal grant to the New Or
leans, Baton Rouge and Nicksburg
Railroad Company known as the
Backbone Railroad Company.
Secondly, that the grant Of land
was assigned by the Backbone Rail
road Company to the New Orleans
Pacific Railroad Company, and that
the only title which the New Or
, leans Pacific Railroad Company
claims is by virtue of that assign
ment, there never having been any
pivitv Whatsoever between Con-
ercss and the New Orleans Pacific
. Railroad Company, and there never
having been any contract of any
character whatsoever between
= them.
: Jfthe government of the United
I States desired to make an uncon-
ditional and Il gratuitOuS donation
, of these lands TO the New Orleans
t Pacific Railroad Company, con-
g tcmplating that the New Orleans
Pacific Railroad Company had ac-
complished work which the Con-
!; gress of the United States desired
G should be accomplished; if / say
! in spirit of liberality, the govern
ment Of the United STATES chose
{ to confer this bcneticnce upon the
: New Orleans Pacific Railroad Com
= pany, that would he IL different
, proposition from the one involved
in this controversy. lin that case
the beneiicencc would have been
" conferred by Congress. And in
- that case, while Congress conferred
;, this grant on the New Orleans
II Pacific Railroad Company, the
Of rights and the interests of these
& settlers would have been protected
e by the same act, recognizing th'
claims of the New Orleans
= Pacific Railroad Company, whereas
the present condition of affairs is
: and | say it with due respect t.
, the honorable Senator from Colo
/ RADIO. that this bcnehcence has beef
y conferred by 81 executive officer q
II the government, and thereby thcs
# poor settlers have been left - tn
:, mercy of this rich Railroad corpoT
II atoms, and we all understand tn
u full significance OF that statement
I'd This grant was made by Congress
ne and not by an executive officer Q
- the government The condition
: of the grant were imposed by cor
W gress, not by an executive officer
Whether or not these condition
had been fulfilled was a questiui
which I shall endeavor to sho'
10 was properly and was exclusively
within the jurisdiction OF Congress
III and was not within the cognizanc
an Of anv executive officer of this gov
n ernment.
toll Congress was the tribunal whic
~ all the parties III interest had sc
lected for adjudication of thei
III rights. Congress was the tribune
to whose judgment all the partic
no had appealed. Congress was tn
,rt tribunal which was competent I
!. Judge of the peculiar equities il
volved in this controversy; and "
Congress is not the tribunal whic
as has passed judgment upon thes
re- questions, and has adjudicate
nv these rights, but it has been dor
by the order of an executive ofiic
q of the government. Therefor
a these settlers have a right to d
mand, and / demand in their b
half, what is this title which "
have set up as q legal and val
title, and title superior to OF
- own, by which you propose to di
possess us of the lands which '
have acquired according to the LAY
On, of the United States.
Is it a legal title? Is it tit
free from fraud? Is it title tn
de- can stand the test of scrutiny al
investigation? Is it title th
can be exhibited in court of il
Iell tice? That title you must remel