The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-03-10
-ey? What right had even the Presi-

prey2 What right had even the Presi-
dent and the Cabinet to waive the
| broken conditions? That power was
vested in Congress alone. But why this
haste? Should the clerks work nights
and insult the religious sentiment of
this nation by working on Sunday?
| What the necessity, public or other
wise? This republic was not to perish
on the 4th OF March. Its continuity was
not to be disturbed by changing the
executive. There was to be no suspen
sion OF power and duties. Was all other
| business in the Interior department
concluded by March 4th? Did the other
executive departments work their forces
nights and Sundays so that the admin
istration might start with only new bust
ness? Was it dangerous to trust the
representatives of the people in the next
| Congress? Was it dangerous to trust
the incoming administration to do JUS
tice to the men claiming this grant?
Was there danger that the rights of
settlers on these lands would be recog-
nized and the public be protected
| by the incoming administration LII so,
then it evidently had not been installed
too soon. He desired to give public
notice, that the legality of the patents
would be contested, so that the pur-
chasers of bonds now to be issued
might not claim the protection of ac-
corded government. | never intend,
without at least protest, that that adj
ministratiOn shall be treated by this
Senator, or any other, by resolution as
the late administration has been
treated. Why, Mr. President, if you
were to believe all this honorable Sen
ator said to-day, you would sup
pose that in issuing this
patent certificate on this land
earned by this company, there
has been done something that never
has been done before. Every Secretary
that has sat in the chair of the Depart
ment of the Interior for the last eight
wears has done exactly what has been
done by the Secretary who has just
retired. During good portion of that
time the honorable Senator has been
member either of the House or this
body. There is on record in the land
Office millions of acres of land issued
under exactly the same situation as
thatunder which this land was issued"
Teller summarized the action of the
legislative and executive branches of
the government with relation to this
road, showing how the validity of the
grant has been established i'll Congress
and in the action of former Secretaries
of the Interior, etc. Teller then gave
history of the road, recited the condi-
tons of the grant and its assignment,
which, he declared, was legal
and regular in every particular. My
predecessors" said Teller, "had sub
mitted to the Attorney General the ques-
| ton whether the company had the
right claim to this land. Courtesy and
common decency demanded that when
an executive officer asked for the
Attorney Generals opinion on point of
law he should respect that opinion. If
that was. not SO, then all the depart
ments of government for eight years
had been proceeding on a false basis
But Teller did not desire to shield the
Interior Department under any such
defense as that. He relied absolutely
on the law of the case. Did any man
having the knowledge of facts deny that
the land was assignable? When it be-
came apparent that Congress would take
no action upon this matter, then, and
not tell then, did the Interior Department
issue patents. An attempt, Teller con-
tinued, had been made to make it
appear that this was peculiar case and
there was great anxiety shown about
the settlers. Why hads not that anxiety
been shown as to other grants? He
held in his hand list of grants, issued
for roads completed after the expiration
of the allotted time, among them was
Wisconsin company that had received
!, SOC, 900 acres of land for a line com
pleted many years after the expiration
of the time allowed and that had not
been done under the administration of
the late Secretary of the Interior.
Settlers had gone in on the lands OF the
Northern Pacific and the railroad had
since performed the conditions OF Its
grant. Had the Senator from
protect those settlers?" Had
ANYBODY else in Congress attempted
to do it2 Not one man. This talk
about the settler" was blood and
thunder for the public" If Teller
might be permitted to refer to himself,
he would say that, by his rulings in the
Interior Department, he had done more
| for the settlers on public lands than the
| Senator from Nebraska had done in his
life time of public service. What Is the
secret, he asked, of the hostility to this
company? Was it because Jay Gould
was interested in it? There was nothing
in the Interior Department to show
that Jay Gould was interested init. Was
it that Barnum, prominent Democratic
official, was interested in it2 Barnum's
and Gould's rights, so far as the Interior
Department is concerned, were not af-
fected by the question whether these
gentlemen were Democrats or Republi-
cans, railroad spectators. or any
thing else What difference did it
make whether Gould or Huntington
was interested in it? Was it proper for
Senators to stand here and attempt to
linclte the preludices of the masses be-
cause some unpopular man may have a
case that was being adjudicated by the
executive department. of government
He ('reller) insisted that by the rules Of
law and justice, the railroad company
was entitled to the lands, and twas or
that fact he rested.
/ After afew brief personal interchange
| between Van Wyck and Teller.
Adjourned.