The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-03-10

Office millions of acres Of landissued under exact
" the same situation as that under which this
land was issued
Mr.. Teller summarized as follows the action of
the legislative and executive branches OF the
government with relation to this road:
The lands were withdrawn in 1871 and 1873.
The validity of the grant and of the assignment
thereof was recognized by tho Commissioner
general of the Land ONCE, Hon. j. A. William
son, by his letters of Feb. II, Il and 26, 1881;
by Secretary Kirkwood in the proceed
lngs TO appoint a coMmission to ex-
anime the road; by the President
In appointing a commission to examine the road;
and theapproval of the report made by said com
mission by the Encouragement to- whom the
question of ownership and right of the company
to receive patents was submitted Jan. ., 1882,
by Secretary Kirkwood; by the judiciary com
mittee of the Forty seventh Congress, In the
refusal to entertain a resolution to forfeit said
grant by the judiciary committee of the House
of Representatives. May II, 1884, by a vote of
Is to-, having been instructed by the House to
inquire AS to the validity of the grant and the
right of the New Orleans & Pacific to said lard;
by the House of Representative on the 26th Of
June, 1884, when the bill for forfeiture of the
land was defeated on a direct vote by a majority
of AZ; by the House on the following day, when
1T refused, by an increased majority, to recon
slider the vote by which the forfeiture bill had
been defeated; by the Senate committee
on railroads. in its report Of June Z,
1882, and by the action of the Senate
NAASLSOAiJ Oy GlC u vi UliC OAaL cNlJ u
1884, to investigate the manner in which the
company had acquired its right to the lands
claimed, and finally, by the report of the Senate
committee on public lands"
Mr. Teller gave the history Of the road, re-
cited the conditions of the grant and its assign
ment, which he declared legal and regular in
every particular. MY predecessors said Mr..
Teller, "had submitted to the Attorney-geGeral
the question whether the company had the right
claimed to this land. Courtesy and common
decency demanded that, when an executive Off
| Ger asked for the Attorney-generals opinion on
a point of law, he should respect that opinion"
If that was not so, then all departments of the
government for eighty years had been proceed
ing on a false basis. 1t was left for the Senator
from Nebraska to say that when an officer asked
the Encouragement for his opinion, and after
receiving it, the officer making the request
should turn around and say to the Attorney
general: Your law is bad, and [ shall decline to
be governed by it," That had never been the
practice of the government. But Mr.. Teller did
not desire to shield the Interior Department
under any such defense as that. He relied abSo-
lutely on the law of the case. Did any man
having knowledge of the facts deny that the land
was assignable! When it became apparent that
Congress would take action upon this matter,
then, and not until then, did the Interior De-
partment issue patents. An attempt, MIR. Teller
continued, had been made to make it appear
that this was a peculiar case, and there was
great anxiety shown about the settlers.
Why had not that anxiety been shown
90 w ObhS4 SIdulS8 LIZ LCiu Al
his hand lists of grants issued to roads completed
after the expiration of the allotted time. Among
them was a Wisconsin company that had re
ceived 800, 900 acres of land for a line completed
many years after the expiration of the time al
lowed, and that had not been done under the
administration of the late Secretary of the In
terror. Settlers had gone in on the lands Of the
Northern Pacific railroad, which has since per-
formed the conditions of its grant. Had the
Senator from Nebraska ever attempted to pro-
tect those settlers? Had anybody else in Con
gress attempted to do it, Not one man. This
talk about settlers was blood and thunder for
the public. If MI. Teller might be permitted to
refer to himself. he would say that by his rulings
in the Interior Department he had done more
for settlers on public lands than the Senator
from Nebraska had done in a lifetime of
public service. What was the secret,
he asked. of the hostility TO this company? Was
it that Jay Gould was interested in it, There
wag nothing in the Interior Department to show
that Jay Gould was interested in it. Was it that
Mr.. Barnum, q prominent Democrat was inter
ested in its Barlumis and Gou!d's rights, so far
as the Interior Department was concerned, were
not affected by the question. Whether these
gentlemen were Democrats or Republicans, rail
road specuiatlors, or anything else, the law fixed
their rights, and it would be a remarkable thing
if the executive department should mete out it's
justice in accordance with politics, or the char
acter of the men to whom it is melted out. What
difference did it make whether Gould or Hunt
ington was interested in it, Was it n
pISpCL IlluS " oCuALOES W Stduu
here, and attempt to excite the preiudices Of the
masses, because some unpopular men may have
a case that is being adjudicated by the execu-
tive department of the government! He Mr..
Teller insists that, by the rules of law and just
ice, the railroad company was entitled to the
lands, and it was upon that fact that he rested.
Ithad become a custom to allow a resolution of
inquiry to pass without examination. He would
call attention to a thing done in 1882. An old
man, who had served his country in two wars,
who was covered all over with wounds and
glory, had received from Congress a pension of
$72 a month The general law decided that a
man with like in6rmities should receive $50
more-$122-for a man who had served in
Mexico with gallantry and covered himself
with glory; a man who never dressed
or undressed without an attendant, and $122 a
month was being paid to him. The question
arose, was he entitled to it, 1t would not have
arisen had he (the ~speaker) been Secretary of
the Interior. 1t would not have besn questioned
had he had the opportunity to say then what he
had the opportunity tosay subsequently. The At
torney- generals opinion was invited, and he said
this man was entitled to 1922 per month. By that
time there had been a change in the department,
and it was his (Mr. Teller's) duty to enforce the
opinion of the Attorney general. He accepted it
as the law OF the case, and he accepted 1t with
alacrity. He said 1922 a month was q b~agatelle.
1t was a dEsgrace to the Nation that it was not
more, and he ordered it paid. 1t was paid. but
in the meantime a distinguished senator Mr..
Van Wyckl had introduced a resolution requiring
LudI Juc OcCEeldEy VI tuo 1utcflOr SuOulu pay Uub
one of these pensions. That resolution had
gone to the committee on pensions. But there
was opportunity now for somebody to pose as a
watchdog of the Treasury. Here was money
forbade the payment of double pensions. He
1.-THE speaker) did not withhold the pensions.
With his eyes open, with proper respect for the
Senate, he denied the right of the senator to in
struct him. He denied the right of the Senate
to do so, and if the Senate had said. by it's vote,
that he should not pay the money, he was free
to say here that he should have disregarded
that. Such resolutions were not introduced for
information, but for the express purpose Of
making an attack, in a cowardly way, Of skulk-
ing behing charges; but he feared he
should be out of order. When such resolutions
were introduced they were seized upon by the
enemies of the administration, and the news
papers were in the habit of making a great deal
of them. On the 4th of last February a resolu-