Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-11-13

isanl. sd s.ssiess q ~ ian 81
f1ndaEsH1zl pzzaasa e 80 l11e laWz
= eo1ared Whaa sAa land gets tnta tbs
nands u2 N azsnzf innatitaut, Wh8 I'm
proves and nzltixa4e9 Il, haf i il also
an impnrtant puEposa OF tn tawa tnaa
sbs Hesll1F Raka rs land upsn tAs terms
ana q he rliss axed ~ iaw. i i ~
part Of he pnfpaos- q rntlio land Z RlB-
iafinn thas ths ssEtlsg shAi b compeltrd
- pay eoEpora1ion pries TOR CoEsE1-
n,eut l1nd. E i unnacezsaEy 8 bsstoW
inma1iiy upon railroad sempaniss, Or
- sapplsmeBl 1heiE grants D nezaKm-
mtQRy iaRielafions IN order % urefee1
bona A1e ss1tiefs who have been mlslsd
into paEch 1siaa lands - whioh tie esm-
pznies had - valid title. NsisheE -
additional legislation nse1ed fer tie
protection Of sash ssttiera- They are
alreadg protseaed. the KiGhi 20 acquire
legal sits undsr ths sss1lsmeaf laws.
o.. II disqualified under tbess laws. b.
pufchaas frosn fhe Uniiad States - .
n0miDai prics, being secured 90 them
Dy existing law. They sa0uld ao4. In
any event, Be deprived Of their Ree0aEse
against the companies.
Il has been 3 common practices with
many railroad companies 20 sell lands
claimed b. them IN advance of FeeeiT-
inR the isRal titse theFeto, AID merely
upon their assertion Of their elaim.
Ihis coarse has largely been purs1aa
By s1ma oornpanies in reEpact 70 lands
sah3sgt 80 foEfeitura and IA respec1 Of
tndomnity fauds % which title may
never be acquired, and tns prsfexf has
been aged that ths equities Of bona
IDS purchasers should bar ths forfeit
are, and that title 90 lands 20 sold. al.
though without the limifa e. beyond the
qaoka OF the grants, should Be passed
% such purchasers hg conarmat0Ey
leRislafi0n-
Ia 8 report upon senats BIZ 40. Ssh
Congress, connrminQ titles - certain
lands in the stats Of Florida. ] said that
she proposition 60 con6rm the title to
Purchasers fran ths State or railroad
company is q pF0position that, however
illegal or invalid q claim which is as
serted against the United States may
be il the hands Of an oriQinaI party,
should be made good IN the hands Of a
purchaser from that party, although
when She purchase Waa made the vandaI
did net have the legal title 80 the prop
eEty he attempted 20 convey, and the
Vendee vas charged with notice Of thai
fact. Under the operation Of saoh &
pEineiple it would only be necessary
that claim, however nnfenabIs or how.
ever fraudulent. should be asserted u
| public lands, when the claimant could
sell his asserted claim, ana the United
States, without reason, equity OF con
consideration, mus validate and osn
| fFm the tile Of the purchaser. Il i
apparent that only q very brief period
would be required within which the 70
naming public lands Of the United
States would be absorbed By Purchaser
Of illegal claima. II such Q doafrins
could be maintained.
Purchasers from railroad companies
are not inRooent purchasers They pur
chase with notioe Of the liability o
failure ef title, and have neither laea
nor equitable claim against the United
states. 10 they are actuai settlers Of
| the land, they are protected By genera
laws, as before stated, IN event Of 81
eRferoement Of the forfeiture Of CD
grants. To 20 further than this Is, il
my opinioRs 20 30 beyond the 70
quirements Of justice TO individual
and the bounds Of fidelity 20 publi
interests.
Not mneh progress has besn made
daring the past year In the adjustment
Of railroad land grants. Muca prelim
mary werk has. however, heeR done
and, when final decisions are Fsaehel
By the Department upon importan
questions involved IN such adiustmsDts
the work may Be rapidly pashed &
completion.
An ACT was passed by the House o
| Representatives, at the last session o
Congress, directing the adjustment o
land grants Ia aid OF tbs Q instruction
Of railroads in the State Of Kansas, Il
Preference TO which, IN response 90 n
inquiry from the Senate 0mmittee Of
Public Lands, observed that To
power and daty Of this Department {,
adiust railroad land grants Is 3 neoea
sary incidepE 70 it's administration o
the Law, and while. generally speaking
speciai authority Of Law 70 enable CD
Department 20 discharge its proper dufl
is unnecessary, there were considers
tions rendering the prOposa leRIsla
ton advisable" which we're stated q
folloWss
rhe atteDpt Of this ofass 10 adias
railroad grants is met By objection
from railroad companies. who iasist be
fore this Department that there Oagal
20 be no examination Of the mekhodi
BY which lands have been patented d
certified to them 10 apparent excess d
the amounts 70 which they we're legally
entitled; that the withdrawal limit
heretofore established as the limft.
within which the grants we're 70 be sat
isfied cannot be challenged for error Of
mistake. and that even an illegal oerti
iaation imports an adiudicstion whiek
prevsnts the Department from asosF
tanning how mach land they really yer,
entitled 30 receive. An act of Congress
requiring an adjustment Of railroad
grants 20 be maze would remove ths
question from tbs domain Of admins
lrative discfetioa and smooth the path
of daty from al cbstaeles.n
There could Be no e5ioetion to legis-
iative requirement. thai q duty imposed
should become a daty performed, al.
ihonQh obviously the duty would remain
the same 10 any event.
The objection made By railroad com
pauies 10 the proposed adjustment d, 81
eoursa, that the volume Of their grants
may uOt - found % great as has been
assumed.
As stated 10 my last annual report, q
reotiacaiien Of Withdrawal limits q
bring them 10 the exact lines oomors-
hended By the granting acts would resull
N large percentage OF saving % ths
| GoveEnment. These Withdrawals uers
made upon . theory which gave The
companies lands outside Of the pre-.
scFibed number Of sections on each sids
Of the road, with "a apparent viaw q
make up for sinunsitiea and dedsufinns
watch increased the lineaF length OF ths
roads beyond the geographical measure
Of the granted sections through which
the roads passsd. The FeotlHeatiou
/ proposed by me was By DEMONSTRATION,
nOt theory. Il Contemplated mathe-
natically aseeFtaining the exact limis1
Of Zach grant according 10 the pagtioa-
lar terms Of the granting act. Fol
example, the grant being for Q specified
numbeE Of sections on each aide Of The
line Of the road as definitely located,
The located line is the base line, from
which, 81 its intersection with ever
legal Subdivision Of . section % land
according 10 tie public surveys. dirsoi
line run 81 right aoRlsa 20 tie general
eouraa Of the road between tsrminal
/ points for the exact distance Of the
spocided number Of sections IDENTIFIES
the precise Humber Of sections aud laws
on tue Identical sections granted. The
ukrnliefnNfam fhua formal asnhrassaas Al