St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-06-12
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC.
Debate i'm the Senate ON the Forfeit
ure Bill.

WASHINGTON. June lion motion of
Mr.. Dolph. the senate took up the Northern
Pacific railroad forfeiture bill.
Mr.. George addressed the senate on the bill,
commenting generally on the enormous guam
tty OF land-l79, 100000 acres-giYen by con-
greSS to the various railroad corporations
from 1860 to 1876. Mr.. George said it was
larger area of land than that constituting the
republic Of France, or the empire of Ger
many. The present value of the railroad
grants, at the average price already re allied
by the companies, was S773, 1876, $685. Mr..
Teller said he would vote for the forfeiture
OF all land terminus with uncOmpleted por-
tons of road. Congress, however, had to deal
with the law, and was bound by the law. AS
to the statement that the Republican party
had given away larger amount Of the pub
lie lands since 1860, Mr.. Teller said that it
was true that the number of acres given
since 1850 was greater than had been given
before but the money value of the lands
given by the Democratic party before 1880,
for railroads and under military and naval
Warrants, and the swamp act was fourfold
greater than what had been given since 1860.
The grant in the Northern Pacific case had
been held to be grant in presents, and
II the title had become vested by
law, congress could not divest it,
Mr. Sherman admitted that the company had
forfeited the grant of their lands so far as
they had not completed their road. He could
not in any case vote to forfeit grant where
the road had been completed, even after the
time fixed for It's completion. Such propo
sitiOn would be grossly ineQuitable, because
the rights of third parties had interviewed.
Congress not only did not forfeit the lands in
1S79,when it had an undOubted right to forfeit
them, but allowed the compa ny to 60 on and
build its road and the government had ac-
cepted the road, piece by piece, as it had
been built. The grant thus became complete
and absolute, and it would be a great wrong
now to forfeit the lands that had been earned.
Mr.Saulsbury did not see how the right to for
felt had been lost if it existed in 1879 for he
condition was broken. Mr.. Sherman replied
that the right to forfeit not having been as
serted at the time appointed, it could not
afterward be asserted to the injury of other
parties, whose money had been expended in
the enterprise. Mr.. Hoar regarded the fall
ure referred to as
AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.
Mr.. Van Wyck asked how it could be an
equitable estoppel when the company has re-
peatedly asked congress to extend the time
for building the road and congress had re-
fused to do so. Mr.. Sherman said the mere
failure to pass a law had nothing to do with
it. He believed Mr.. Van Wyck's amendment
would have an effect opposite to that in
tended. He (Mr. Sherman) admitted the
right Of congress to forfeit the land along
the uncompleted portion of the Cascade
mountain branch, but it would be bad policy
to forfeit it, because while that land was not
wo nth cent an acre its forfeiture would re-
Ii eve the company from building that branch
and so from building a tunnel through the
IN ountains-a tunnel the building of which
was of the utmost Importance to the growing
commerce of the Northwest, If this bill
passed as Mr.. Sherman supposed it would, he
placed on record the prophesy that it would
relieve the Northern Pacific company of the
expenditure of $4,000, 900 or So 1000, 900 while
opt q W. mo- nth
Thus the people of the Northwest would be
denied connection with the Pacific across the
Cascade range. AS to the great watering of
stock Mr.. Sherman said all the Northern Pa
cific stock would not sell for the $4,000, 600
cash actually paid into it. That road had
been a very bad investment. Mr.. Eustis said
this bill reported from the committee on pub
lie lands, was called bill to forfeit land of
the Northern Pacific railroad and the friends
OF land forfeiture were expected to exult
over it, Mr.. Eustis, however, considered the
bill no forfeiture of land. He would not Say
it was fictitious forfeiture, but it was
ONLY NOMINAL FORFEITURE;
it was not a substantial forfeiture of any
land of the Northern Pacific railroad Mr..
Mitchell asked whether, as a question of
naked law, congress could now forfeit the
lands if it had happened that the road had
now been entirely completed. Mr.. Eustis
said there was but one answer: Where an
estate was to be acquired by the fulfillment
of condition, there could be such thing as
the fulfllment of that condition by implca-
ton. The fulfllment must be full and COM
plete before thelegal estate could pass. These
railroad men, Mr.. Eustis continued, had
made fortunes as mushrooms grow in the
night. A coterie Of such men had enriched
themselves at the expense of the people of
the United States. They did not observe
equity, honesty or good faith, and only came
here to assert their legal rights, and to defy
the authority and power of congress and the
people of the United States to deal with them
The great question to-day whether the gov
eminent was superior to the corporations or
the corporations superior to the government
The corporations had exhibited shameless and
objectionable aggression and extortion as
well us effrontery in their dealing with the
people and the government of the United
States. Our people and our country were
only able to stand the drafts thus made on
their liberties because they were yet young,
strong and vigorous. Mr.. Eustis advocated
the forfeiture of every acre of land that had
not been earned according to the strict limi-
tations and conditions imposed in the grant.
The bill then went over till tomorrow.