The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-07-06
The Land-Granr Fort

preparation bill, and Senators Plumb, Allison
and Beck were appointed Adjourned till Mon
| day.
The Land-Grant Forfeiture Bill
WASHINGTON, July Bills were reported as
| follows:
By Mr. Herbert. of Alabama. from the COM
/ mittee on naval affairs: To authorize the ap-
poinsment of an Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
By Mr. Jackson, of Pennsylvania. from the
| commmittes on public lands: To authorize the
establishment Of land Office at Folsom, N. NJ
| By Mr. Crisp, of Georgia, from the committee
| on commerce.: The Senate bill to perfect the
| quarantine service Of the United States and to
authorize the construction of bridge over the
/ Arkansas river near Cummings Landing, Ark.
The House then won't into committee Of the
| whole on the bill for the settlement OF the
| claims of the State of Florida. account OF ex-
| penditures incurred in suppressing Indian hos
tilities and for other purposes.
| The morning hour expiring, the bill went over
| without action.
Mr.. Holman. of Indiana. then called up the
| Senate land-grants forfeiture bill. with the
amendments made by tho House committee
| As amended by the House committee the bill,
which. as it came from the Senate. proposed to
forfeit grants applying to lands lying opposite
| portions of the aided roads not now completed
declares forfeiture of the lands lying opposite
| the portions Of the roads not completed at tho
time specified in the granting acts.
After the substitute had been read, amend
| ments were offered, SIS follows:
By Mr.. Stone, of Missouri: To declare COM
plete forfeiture of the entire grant where the
| road was not completed In time.
By Mr.. Payson. of Illinois representing the
| minority Of the committee): To confine the
forfeitures TO the lands opposite the portions of
| the roads not now completed.
| MIR. Holman explained the nature Of the prop
ositlon before the House, coming from the COM
mittee. and pointed out the difference in effect
between it and the Senate bill He said that
the Senate bill would declare the forfeiture Of
5.62l .436 acres. while the pending bill would
| work the forfeiture of "a 1913 $50 acres, subject
to bona 6de sales TO settlers. AS he was argu-
ing that the railways had no right TO sell lands
lying along the uncontrolled portions Of their
| lines, Mr.. Payson interrupted him to ask if he
! did not know that the Supreme Court had laid
down the precisely opposite doctrine.
Mr.. Holman declined TO De interrupted. and
! continued his exclamation of the features of the
| bill. He held that the lands were sold, in many
cases. to spectators. but even though it was GO
| ing further than justice required the committee
| had recommended that TO the extent that the
| roads had been completed, the sales made to
| bona fde purchasers should be confirmed. This
would leave the declaration OF forfeiture solely
as Q matter between the government and the
corporations who themselves had no claim on
the forbearauce Of Congress. He then
went on at length to defend the course OF the
Democratic party in the matter of granting
1
Mr. Stone, of Missouri. spoke to the amend
ment submitted by himself with the concurrence
Of Mr.. McRae. of Arkansas, (also q member of
the public lands commttee,) accommodating the
forfeiture of the entire grant whore there had
| been failure OF compliance with the terms and
conditions of the grant He proposed to 60
further than the majority in this matter. Their
substitute was a benefcent and meritorious
proposition 1t meant something; but. for all
that it did not 60 far enough. The Southern
fir Ray nad hU IF inypr,
over mountains and bad lands. had, within the
time allowed by its grant, endeavored to cover
and secure the most valuable lands In the grant.
The Senate bill would forfeit only the rough
mountain lands; the substitute would take. in
addition, the lands lying along the 242 miles
constructed since 1873. But this was of little
value as compared to those lying along the 232
miles constructed prior to 1878. That was the
cream OF the grant. The Senate was accommo-
dating; its measure gave the roads ali that they
claimed.
Mr.. Payson, of Illinois, denied that politics
had anything to do with the question. and depre-
Gated what be described Mr. Holman's long
political speech. His Mr.. Paysons course now
was perfectly in line with his previous conduct;
he wanted the public domain to be reserved for
the use of freemen. After stating the general
rules which bad governed Congress in making
grants, be declared that, contrary to the state
ment Of the chairman Mr. Holmanl. the decis
ion OF the Supreme Court never changed but
had affirmed the right of the railroads to go on
with the construction Of their lines after the ex
piration of the date fixed in the granting acts. in
the absence of a prohbtive clause, and fast
IS their road progressed and the selections were
made to sell their lands This had been the
policy of every administration down to and in
GLIDING The present time He was for q practi
cal measure; he was weary OF waiting here fol
years for something to be DONE Here was az
opportunity which should be availed Of
Mr.. Townsend. of Illinois, recalled the fac,
that Mr.. Payson had signed q report, several
years ago, declaratOry OF the power to make to-
tai forfeitures
Mr.. Payson replied that he mad never denied
IT. but the gentlemen seemed to be unable 70
distinguish between power and policy. To the
gentlemen who talked of Democracy, he would
say that Secretary Lamar had recommended the
con f1rmat.on Of the Backbone grant, while the
Judiciary committee. through it's chairman Mr..
Randolph Tucker, had declared against uncon-
ditional forfeitures. The gentlemen knew that
the majority bill could never pass the Senate,
and delay was costly Since the last Congress
the Northern Pacific had constructed enough
road to cloud the title TO 000, 600 acres of land
and the process would 60 on, unless the House
accepted the Senate bill. Having done much,
1t might go on aud pass another bill covering
the remainder Of the land.
Mr.. McRea, of Arkansas, said that of two
things ought to be dons-either all of the land
should be forfeited where the terms OF the
grants had not been complied with. the com
panies should be forced TO complete the roads.
Inc people should not be trihed with. IL the
Senate. as constituted now, refused to pass a
total forfeit, 5 the House should join 10
sue and 60 TO 10 country. which would elect a
Senate TO pass such bill.
Mr.. Weaver, Of Iowa, said the roads had not
complied with the terms Of their grants. and
never would. The people would be justified in
ressserting their rights
10 conclusion Of the debate Mr.. Holman ad
vised the House that the Senate bill meant