Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-05-15


aaxg g lzp = spaeag ssmp.saAop u
Ths psrIs f1sa b. ths eth - ssslf,n
81 - Efansing 49, aboea qantsd, within
wklah ne Foad Waa rsa aifaa q D. 1nm.
r1etEd, waR Ent Quenflr exlended 10
TIE ~ daF q JusI, 1873. - appaars
ff1m rs fe1o9ine lantss The ioint res
uinfIon az MGg 7, 1864 IA Ssnt, 800
sxfna1ed tha tine two yeara. and tha
ioial resolution q 9nIF /. ie5. us
S1af.. 255l amendsd seotssn s. he orr
nfnal afanainn ae4. 80 AZ 30 re4a 5uiy
4. 1877. Ca Jnne II. 1873. fGensrai
Land OHoa kepoft. 1874 ID, tes-1l1l
9ha 6esrnEarR nf fha Enlaxi0r had THAT
ths eHscs of fhe6e gmp joint resolutions
was 10 exfend IT, tine % Juiy & 1873.
In khis FieB youf nommiftes cuaouEs
AID ws adopf thai date q ths expiration
Of ne period % limi1nfaon.
Ihe total lsnath Of fhs line ns Io1ated
and proposed. fnclndinz the Wnshina-
tan ferrisof4 Bfanrh. VS. 270 milsa
Prfcr 70 July 4. 1873. there HIS heeu
oompis4sd ssl miles Of road, Saving
17s9 miles unconplefsd 81 the expira-
tioa Of the time limited (Sea repcFl
81 Secretary Of the Interior 10 Forty
ssxenah Congress. Tx. Dos IA .. 40
In r1aud numbers and sssima1ed. 10.
conceded ta the company. and II 50 $40
acres subisef 50 forfeiture.
The consideration Of the case involves
two general and leading Questions:
FIRST. tbs power Of CanEFaR 10 declare
grant Of poblie lands forfeited for
breach Of eendition auhsequent; SEQ
ond, whethar, this power being estab-
lished. there are any features ID this
partieular ease excepting the grant from
fhe eeneEal rule
The power oil Congress e declare for
feited q grant cf the pablio lands. made
% either & corporation or 3 State, By an
act containing q clause pFsFidinR that
the lands should revert upon failure 70
build the road within q specified time.
Is established beyond al controversy
nT Fspeated decisions Of The Supreme
Ooart.
Il L Specifically 50 held in Unitsd
States W. RepentiRny Is Wall. 2ll)
and schulonbaEg Va Hartman l2l
Wall, al.
Following these eases is another which
even mere unequisooaIgy defines the
power of Congress 10 this regard. 10
Farnswerth Va Ainueaota and Pacific
Railroad Company, (93 q. s., 661 the
court, considering the question, said:
A forfeiture b The State Of an in
terest in lAnds and eonneczed franchises
granted for the construction Of g public
wnFk may Be declared for non-o0mpli-
anoe WITH the conditions ANNEXED TO
tneir grant or thaiF possession, when for
feitare IL provided b. statute, without
Judicial proceedings 30 ascertain and
determine the failure Of the grantee to
perform the oonditisns.s
Following these authoritative exposi-
tionB Of the Law. as well a. the reasons
and sense OF the principle involved, your
committee have uniformly held that
Jurisdiction existed IN Congress 70 de.
clare these grants forfeited, and have
reported several bills to accomplish
that purposs, some Of which have al
ready passed the House. We adhere 10
this position in the case ander consid-
Grafton.
Your COMMITTEES are also clearly Of
The opinion that there IL nothing IN the
provisions Of the Northern Pacific acl
which takes II out Of the category Of
granite upon conditions subsequent, lia-
bic 70 forfeiture for breach Of condi.
ton.
The question turns upon considera-
tioa Of sections 5, 5, and 8. hereinbe-
fore quoted. The company claim that
they constitute an absolute dedication
OF the lands TO the purpose Of construct
ing the road; that there ia no condition
subsequent whatever, and that the emily
power in the United States Is the power
through congress to adops such measures
as may be necessary TO insure the oom
pletion of the road in case the company
does Hot build il.
On the other hand, your oommittee
regard this construction IS utterly IN.
tanable, and are clearly Of the opin-
ion
/. That section 8 Of the act declares q
condition Subsequent, viz, that the road
shall be eInpleted within certain time
upon breach Of which the grantor may
/ declare forfeiture.
2. That section Il IL no way repug-
nant to section 8, bat while embracing
all that IL included therein, and 20 that
| extent perhaps cumulative, Is also, in
| connection with section 5, q declaration
Of further and additional conditions
subsequent, for breach Of which Con-
Rress may interfere to protect the rights
Of the United States.
5. That under either Of said sections
or both together, the United States, By
Congress, has the right 70 declare tAs
grant forfeited fog failure to build the
road within the limitation.
L
Section 8 il perfectly plain in the Ian
Ruage used and the purpose eontem-
plated. Il declares IN 90 many words
that the grant made is given By the
United States and accepted By the CON-
pany "snbieol 70 the following c0ndi-
lions, namely, shat the said company
shall construct, equip, furnish
and complste the whole road. Do. Thia
Is teo plain for any misconstFuctiou.
Congress intended 20 provide, and did
provide, tAat the road Should be com
pleted within a certain time, and that
that should be a condition OF che grant.
II q condition, the grant is determina
bic upoa It's bFsach, 81 the option Of the
gFAntoF.
The argument Of the company rests
upon ths absence OF express words de-
claFinR q reTsgsi0n in case Of the breach
Thar, In the judgment Of your commit
Tee. vas entirely unnecessary tn order
10 create an estate upon condition sub
seqaent. The estate, 90 conditioned, Is
created BY declaring the condition, not
b. declaring the result Of its breach.
The latter, Fe-entFy or its equivalent,
fellows 80 matter Of legal efeol. Every
lawyer knows the result Of q breach Of
condition snbsequsnt, and the state
msnt Of that result In any grant adds
nothing 10 the previous description Of
the estate created. The land does " re-
Rnra hN nnarafinn 81 lam man ahn