The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-08-05
EASILY MADE MONEY.
Fifty Thousand Picked Up by
the Railroad.
1T SOLD UNPATENTED LANDS.
Twenty Thousand Acres to Which 1t
Had No Title.
SOME QUESTIONABLE TRANSACTIONS.
An Ocean Of Litigation Promised to the
Settlers Who Have taken Up Gov.
ernment Ground.
SOME QUESTIONABLE TRANSACTIONS.

4
County. 1t has been put there by the rail-
road.
Who will finally get title to the land al
| fected by the forfeiture act?
IF the land ever was ours" say the rail-
| road people, ''it is as much ours now rs II
was before the passage OF the forfeiture
| act"
| They declare that the act Of July q. 1866.
| under which they received the grant. con-
tanned no forfeiture conditions. 1t was,
| they say. contract between the Govern
| ment and the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company.
| Congress cannot invalidate a contract.
| Therefore the forfeiture act of September
| %, $780, is unconstitutional The only title
to the land vests in u.s. or will vest In us
when we shall have completed the 90 miles
| of road from Tres PinOs to Alcalde."
True enough-there is no forfeiture clause
In the act of 1866. 1t merely states as fol-
| lows, the words Atlantic and Pacific be-
| ing interchangeable for Southern Pacific,
according 10 a subsequent act:
| SECTION 9. And be Il further enacted that the
| United States make the several conditional
! grants herein and that the said Atlantic ana
| Pacific Railroad Company accent the same upon
| the further condition that II the said company
| make any b. each of The conditions hereof, ana
| allow he same To continue Tor upwards OF one
| year. then. such case. ar any Time hereafter
| The United States may do any and all acts and
| things which may be needfu and necessary TO
| insure speedy completion OF the said road.
The railroad land authorities deny that
| forfeiture of the lands is one of the 'acts
and things needfui and necessary to insure
a speedy completion of the said road. ;" ana
| say the forfeiture cannot be based on that
! clause. The forfeiture act violates con-
| tract, they insist and the courts, when
| appealed to. will declare the act unconsu-
| tutional.
All this is anything but assuring to the
| many settlers who have lately flied on what
they believed 10 be Government land.
They are very nervous, and lcok ahead
to future litigation with a good deal OF
| apprehension.
They have one hope. The land. along
| the unfinished road between Tres PlnOs and
| Aleade have never been patented TO the
railroad, Here IS what the granting act OF
| 1866 says:
| And from time TO time whenever % additional
| consecutive miles shall have been constructed,
| verified by said Commissioners 10 the President
| OF The United States, then patents shall be
| issued to said company conveying The additional
| sections OF land, aud so on "a fast as every %
miles OF said road is completed as Aforesaid
But although the Southern Pacific Rail-
| road Company had no patents 10 the lands
between Tres Pinos and Alealde IL has sold
| by its own admission %, go acres OF them.
-
the newspaper reader who runs upon that
bare, bald fact for the first time.
| Twenty thousand acres sold by com
| pany that has no title to IL!
| And yet ii is all easily explained.
The railroad had mortgaged these roads
| as we'll as others TO the bOndhOldeTs of the
road. aud ID. o. Mills aud Lloyd Tevis held
the property in trust. subject TO sale by the
| railroad.
The 10000 acres were sold in large and
small tracts at 50 30 an acre, or just twice
| the Government price.
For instance, among other transactions,
| Robert Ashurst took the southeast quarter
OF section 81, township 10 south, range IL
| east.
What kind of title did the railroad give
him?
None ut all. Ii had none 10 give.
i 1t merely released AMI Quitclaimed all
the right. title and interest which il then
| had or might thereafter require from the
| Government of the United States"
And then Ashurst went into possession
| of the land. Many others took lands on
| the same terms. Some Of them took whole
| sections.
Now in the forfeiture act Congress de-
| clares that the holder Of railroad lands prior
| 20 September %, 1890. may hold not 10 ex-
| coed go acres OF them under the pTe-emp-
ton laws.
| Under this ruling the man who bought
| $40 acres from the railroad at So 80 an acre
could hold but one-half of his land, and
| would lose $500.
win the railroad return the land-b buyer
| his money?
| No, indeed.
VIII it return any Of the $4,000 that 1t
| acknowledges having received from the
| sales Of land In the forfeited grant?
Not one cent. 1t regards itself as ex-
ceedingly generous. because it enters no
protest against settlers going In upon the
unoccuped lands in the odd sections.
But here is a question. Who is entitled
| to that $4,000?
Does it really belong TO the railroad2
| III so. by what right?
| The lands were not patented to it. What
right had it 10 give any one possession of
| them on any terms?
1t sold its title What was that titleP It
| was not grant, because there were certain
| conditions to fulfill-certain miles of rail-
way to build, and it did not build them.
Another thing There has been so much
| shifting OF these lands OF the grant, as a re-
suit of changes of route, that it is not clear
where the grant really lies anyway, and
those settlers who have gone in on indem-
nifty bonds find themselves beset by the
| question OF who they are getting their land
| frOm-the railroad or the Government.
The railroad people are swift to assert
| that Congress has no right to invalidate a
contract, but did not they themselves break
the terms OF the contract by not com pleting
| the ROAD they undertook 10 Duild-which
| they contracted TO build?
If man contracts TO build house and
leaves out one end of il he is not entitled TO
payment for the work or any part of 1t.
IL a railroad company contracts TO build
line between two points, ana In payment
therefore is to receive large grant OF land
is IL really entitled TO that land If ii leaves a
90-mile gap In the line?
The Government patented the lands as
far south as Tres Pinos to the railroad. 1t
would not give patents for the rest. But
the railroad laid claim to il and sold 10000
acres OF ii.
Now. if it owned the land it must have
paid taxes on 1t.
Where is there to be found any record of
| such paYmentP
} After all that has been done the railroad
J people now say, IF We should build that
! road, as we may yet do, we Will lay claim 10
all the land in the odd sections that We have
not sold and the courts will sustain US in
our claim"
, 1t Is the policy of the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company, as shown In previous
cases. to let the settlers 90 upon the land
and begin suits against them instead oil
against the Government.
] General John 4. Sheehan said yesterday
! that he did not doubt that there would ct
much litigation concerning tile forfeited
) | lands, but that his branchjof the Govern
ment service had nothing to do with that
I'VE have our Instructions, said ne
| land all we can do is to obey them. We
: are letting settlers make filings on those
3 lands"
AS showing the stand taken by the De.
partment of the Interior, here is the follow,
ing extract from letter from Acting Lane
Commissioner w. NJ. Stone to settlel
upon railroad land:
Under the decisions OF the department the
I | Southern Pacific Railroad Company can assert
| no legal claim 10 the land.
, But here comes the point most interest
/ ing to the settlers who are cherishing tn
+ | hope that the Government will back then
| against the claims of tle railroad.