The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-02-19

servs9 aad secured, and the grant OF
iaE@1s was made, and has thereby ior-
feItsG AL right 10 such lands.
copy o. Senate Resolution Is. tff-
ty-fo2rtA congress. arSt session, IS at
tAeaed 10 one OF the communications.
which resolution il il aFerrs4. was drawn
and urged for passage ~ the parties IN
ierested in the purchase at foreclosure.
as Aforesaid. but congress refused 10 pass
IT. THIS merely serves TO show thai The
desire Of the purchasers was 10 have a
Federal charter for the Iew company and
that they resorled to tie state charter
ofaly upon their failure 10 secure one from
congress. Although the joint resolution OF
lsle. supra. authorized mortgage on all
the property Or the company. including
Its franchise as q corporation, the coan-
Sci IN charge Of tAe reor ganization Was
certainly Justified under the decisions in
advising new act Of Incorporation In
stead or sIldsasoring 10 work out a trans
fer OF the corporate existence OF the old
company TO the rev one through the fore
closure proceedings.
III is not suggested that the new COM
pany has. IN fact. in any wise denied
repudiated, or threatened TO deny or re-
pldi2te, It's obligations 10 perform all the
duties, and fulfill al the obligations inn
posed by the original act. Such repudi-
alton is charged only as legal conse-
Quence of the succession OF the new cor
poration to the old.
The new company having asked for the
patenting OF IL. or 10 purchasers from 1t.
Of certain lands granted ~ the act OF
1854 objection is made hy the eommuni-
cations aforesaid 10 your issuing such
patents. The reasons are in a word. that,
as the government has lost, against
the aew company. the rights which il re-
served against the old one in considera-
ton OF which The lands were granted It's
obligation TO patent the remainder Of the
lands covered By the grant has also
ceased.
Grant Was Earned.
~ deem 1t necessary TO, follow in de-
tail the numerous and highly technical
arguments filed with you in support OF
the above objections, because they ap-
pear TO me to have no bearing on the
question 10 be answered. The considera-
ton for the grant of lands was the con-
struction and maintenance OF railroad
and telegraph line across the continent
In which enterprise the government had
an interest on its own behalf as Well as
long since been completed and In opera
ton. The condition OF the grant. there
fore, has been fully performed and the
rlghs tG have tie lands patented was
original act above eitedl. find no fur
ther condition Ia any OF the laws that
the right to the lands. when so perfected
by the completion OF the enterprise
would be lost by denial or attempted de-
rial TO the government OF any OF its con-
tinuing rights III or TO the property. Con
gress conteated itself with reserving such
rights without making their unquestioned
enjoyment condition of forfeiture Of the
lands granted
by its consent to the issuing of bonds
secured by mortgage on the railway and
Geographic lines. congress necessarily
consented TO their transfer TO the pur-
chaser IN case Of foreclosure who. how
ever. By operation of law. whether a nat
trai or artificial person. and IL the lat
ter. no matter how or by what authority
treated would take the property sub
tect 10 all the continuing rights of the
Federal government. Just as the original
company held IL / kpow Of no reason
tho rights reserved 10 II by the particular
laws in question. or those which IL has
generally with respect ~ post routes and
interstate commerce. quite as we'll against
the state corporation which now owns
and operates the property. as il could
have done against the old company Ger
tainly in It's assent 10 the mortgages con-
gress made no condition as to the cor
poTate character OF the purchaser In case
o: foreclosure.
I'm short. the argument presented to
you Is that the company which now an
fiys for the patents has no right to them
because the government has lost. as
sEaSnst IT. the rights In consideration Of
which II granted the lands The argu-
nent Is unsound. for two reasons: First.
the premise Is rot true: and second II II
were true, tire result would not follow
for the reasons given above. The RICH,
az the old company 70 the lands granted
which was perfected bv the corr pietfon
der foreclosure II all its property and
rights. These lands wera already earned
They were subject 10 no condition suhse-
MY opinion is that Won are not fus,i.
rcd IN refusing ~ issue patents 20 the
Northern Pacific Railway Germany for
the reasons stated In the commitment fors
submitted ~ ne but that YOU should nc.
upon applications for patents by the new
comrany upon exactly the same consider
atoms which govern you in case there
had been no foreclosure and the applica-
tons were made by the old company Re-
spectsuNy.
|EFOS0N HAPNON
Attorney General
=" The Secretary % the Interior
- The cnin3nr o. the attorney general
above set forth must stand as the correc;
Interpretation - the law governing the -
tls to the lands granted 70 the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company until II Is dis
tnrNea or set aside BY 4 United States
court