Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1886-07-23
CALLS A HALT.

CALLS A HALT.
SENATOR DOLPH OBJECTS TO THE ORE
CONTAINS MISREPRESENTATION
OF HIS COURSE.
Senator Dolph, of Oregon writes to
the Oregonian, under date of June 80,
as follows:
was greatly surprised to see in the
Oregonian of the issue of June 10, the
editorial article under the heading of
Corporation Senators" and still more
surprised at the leading editorial in
the Oregonian of June 2lst.
have no interest in the attitude of
the Oregonian towards the Northern
Pacific Railroad Co. 1 do not ques-
ton its right to criticise public meas
ures, and will not in this communica-
ton impugn the soundness of it's views
upon the question of the forfeiture of
that company's land grant. do OBJ
ject, however, to its charging me with
relations to the Northern Pacific Rail-
read Co., which you yourself, upon re-
Election, will admit you have no suffi-
Gent reason to believe exist, and which
I think you have many reasons to
believe do not exist, and then imput-
ing my official action to such relations.
Your article of the 21st was writer.
after the Congressional Record con-
tanning the report of the discussion in
the Senate upon the bill-at least, dur
ing the first days it was under consid-
eration-must have been received by
you, and my position upon the bill
might have been ascertained. You
implicitly in the article of the 18th,
and directly in the article of the 2lst,
charge me with being an attorney OF
the Northern Pacific Railroad Com
pany. The charge is unfounded.
never was attorney for that company
except as member of the law firm OF
Dolph, Bronaugh, Dolph & Simon
and then only for very brief period
after Mr.. Willard succeeded to the
presidency of the company, and prior
to the dissolution of that firm, which
was in October, 1883. Since that time
/ have not been an attorney for that
company and have not been employed
by it in any manner or capacity what
ever.
You say in your article of the 21st
inst: I'VE are not Directing SO much
however, to its obtainment of million
or two of acres more, mostly in the
Cascade mountains, which is but {
bagatelle in comparison with the enor
nous empire covered by the whole
grant, as we do object to the greed o
the company in holding on to thu
grant along the Columbia river, wher,
there is no need of another road ant
where there is no intention on the par
of the company to construct another
and we do object further to the cours'
of the Oregon Senators, who, acting a
corporation attorneys might, are sup
porting the company in its purpose Il
hold on to the grant along the Colum
bia until REIMBURSEMENT Of it can b.
made condition of confirming to tn
company everything else it claim
from the Missouri river to Puge
Sound" A
There is not a single fact to justif,
that statement SO far as 1 am con
cerned. The bill first introduced b,
me contained a provision extendin,
the time for the completion of the Cas-
cade branch; but the bill reported b.
me by direction of majority of tn
Senate Committee on Public Lands
proposed the forfeiture of the gran
adjacent to and co-terminus with tn
uncompleted line of road from Wallul.
to Portland, and did not contain any
reference whatever to any other por
ton OF the grant. If it had beer
passed as reported by the committee
it would not, as every lawyer knows
have prevented any. future action by
Congress as to any portion of the
grant, but when it was suggested tina,
such construction might be contend
ed for, and Senator Beck proposed ar
amendment providing in substance
that nothing in the act should affect
the power of Congress to forfeit any
other portion of the grant not earned
IN accordance with the terms of the
granting act, said in the Senate that
1 hoped the amendment would be
adopted by unanimous consent, and il
was adopted aeM DIS.
In reporting the bill and contendine
for it, as reported, ! was striving to dc
precisely what believe / am correct
in saying the Oregonian has very re.
Gently adopted, namely, to separate the
question of the forfeiture of the grant
from Wallula to Portland from the
question as to whether portions of the
grant could or should be forfeited, and
thus secure immediate action hv I'm,