The Dalles daily chronicle. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1890-1948, 1892-10-07

all corporations and other clients. My.
brothers. firm, with whom never had
any connection, some years ago gave up
the business of the o. r. & N. Co. and
the Union Pacific Company as lessee of
its road.
Paul Mohr claims that appeared In
suit to prevent the government from
getting right of way for canal and
locks, and SO attempted to defeat the
project. Every one knows that the suit
to condemn a right of way over the
lands of the .. S. n. Co. was brought
many years ago, before l had any con-
nection with the o. r. & n. Co. and
while Judge Strong was counsel for the
o. S. n. Co. The suit referred to by Mr..
Mohr was brought to condemn addi-
tional land which was desired for the
canal and locks while was mem ber of
the firm of Dolph, Bronaugh, Dolph and
Simon and before entered the Senate,
and was never tried. It was settled upon
my advice to Mr.. Prescott to take the
amount offered by the government, to
show that the company was making no
factious opposition to the improvement,
although neither he nor believed the
amount offered was the value of the
land.
But l did once figure in a suit for
right of way over the lands of the o. S.
n. Co., now owned by the o. R. & n. at
the cascades. 1 appeared with Col. w.
w. Chapman in the suit of The Dalles
and Salt Lake Railway Co. VS.. the o. S.
n. Co., to secure a right of way at the
dalles, and spent nearly week in the
trial of the case without compensation
or hope of reward, my services being
free gift to the enterprise for the benefit
of the people of the state.
Another charge Is that l have repre-
sented the 0. r. and n. Co. in the SUI
preme court in some litigation. AL
though other senators take suits in the
supreme court for land grant railroad
companies, l have always refused them.
| have not sought legal business, pre-
ferring to devote my time to the bust
ness of the people of Oregon. / was
vice president of the o. r. K n. Co.
when it leased the narrow guage rail-
road lines of the Oregonian Railway Co.
The lease was executed under the direc-
ton of the president and executive
committee of the company in New
York by the Portland board with much
hesitation. We believed it to be i'm
provident. When Mr.. Willard failed,
and the management of the road chang
ed, the execution of this lease was the
cause of great complaint against the
Oregon board, The other members of
the board acted largely under my ad-
vice. 1 defended them in correspond
ence with the officers of the company,
and informed the company that in any
controversies with the Oregon directors
l should defend them for all acts done
while l was connected with the COM
pany. l gave an opinion that the lease
was void, and the company repudiated
it. The Oregonian Railway Co. brought
suit for the semi-annual installments of
rent, and the litigation was carried to
the supreme court. In the first suit in
great Massachusetts, lawyer, and Mr..
Carter, the leading lawyer Of New
York, were employed. The company
desired me to file brief, setting forth
my views of the validity of the lease;
and having, as you will see, NOR than
pecuniary interest in the litigation,
on account of the part / had
taken in the execution of
the lease, I did so. The
fact of my employment and the decision
in the case was telegraphed to Oregon
and no one thought l had committed
any great iniquity until Paul Mohr un-
dertook to make mountain out of a
mole-hill. This one case settled the
question involved. No other suit for
rent was ever argued; no opinion was
ground, as matter of accommodation, as
copies of my brief in the first case in the
supreme court.
I think should ask pardon for taking
so much time upon so trivial n matter:
but felt that some statement was due
to my friends concerning the attacks
made upon me.