The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-05-26
Statement From the Governor
About Katy Land Case.
Full Responsibility and
Defends His Action.
ASSAILS NEWSPAPERS.
Says Present Agitation Is Due
to Political Denagogues.
Compliments and Defends John
Madden, "katy" Attorney.

Governor E. ". Hoch today gave out
fun and complete statement of his
connection with the Missouri, Kansas
& Texas railway land lawsuit, common
~ referred to as the Katy case
For some time several newspapers
have been lambasting the governor for
allowing the railroad company to use
the name of the state in bringing the
lawsuit to get possession OF thousands
of acres of immensely valuable land in
Indian Territory. The company had
tried to get the land without using
the states name, and had failed. Gov
ernor Stanley and Governor Bailey had
each refused the desired permission, but
after Governor Hoch's election, and af-
ter Hoch had helped to land the job
of Kansas attorney of the Katy for
his friend. John Madden, the effort on
the part of the railroad company was
renewed Ugly stories were circulated
to the effect that Governor Hoch had
/ pledged the company that it could use
Madden should be given the job of at
tOrney. To all of these charges the
governor makes reply in the statement
issued today. This is the statement:
ITO the People of Kansas:
My official action, the full response
bility Of which I unreservedly assume,
in ordering the attorney general to
bring suit in the supreme court of the
United States in the name Of the state
Of Kansas as trustee for the Missouri,
Kansas & Texas Railway company to
test its right to certain lands in the
Indian Territory, has been violently and
I viciously attached, chiefly by the Kan
sas City Star and by the kmporia Ca
zette. The motives of the Star are sad
I " discernible. for it is Democratic
paper thinly disguised with a mask Of
I c4r,o fr7r
to the ordinary tactics prevalent in poll
tics to elect the Democratic ticket in
this state. and of which perhaps I
should not complain. The motives of
the Emporia Gazette are not so plain.
| It assumes to be a Republican newspa-
I per, but its action in this matter is
[ incomprehensible.
1T is not my purpose to defend my
self against all the criticisms of op-
ponents, but in this case I desire to
submit to the candid reader few
plain facts.
Under the acts Of congress of March
8, 1868, February 3, 1866, July 25 1866.
and other acts. every alternate section
of land ten miles on each side Of the
right of way of the present line of the
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway
company through the Indian Territory
was granted by the United States to
the state of Kansas for the benefit of
the railway company named in the
grant, of which the NJ K. &. T. Ry.
\
of land by congress was by act of the
1 Legislature of the state of Kansas Off
ciaily accepted and Kansas became the
I trustee for title Of such lands and is
today such trustee. Each act of con-
gress in relation to this grant provided
that the grant should become effective
and title completely vest in the COM
pany whenever the Indian title should
be extinguished by treaty or otherwise,
provided said land became a part of
the public lands of the United States.
That the NJ. K. & T. Ry. Co. was the
first to build its line into and through
the Indian Territory and thereby earned
4 its grant subject to the conditions of
congress is not, I believe denied by any
/ one. The question IS, have the condi-
lions imposed by the government be-
fore the railway company could claim
/ these lands become operative. The right
/ of the company today in court to as
certain whether or not these conditions
have become operative cannot be de-
MED by any fair person, certainly not
| by the cOnpany's trustee, the state OF
Kansas
Sentimental Side to It.
'sThere are sentimental and patriotic
considerations as we'll as commercial
rights involved in this controversy. At
/ the inception Of this grant our country
was in the throes of civil war. Kansas
troops were fighting the bushwhac kers
of Missouri, Arkansas and the Indian
territory and making long toilsome
/
/ government was to secure railroad
| transportation for its troops and muni-
lions of war to protect the southW est
/ ern border against the disloyal ele~
ments of Missouri, Arkansas. Indian
territory and Texas and the whole
/ Confederacy, indeed, aided and abetted
! as they were at the time by the hostile
4 tribes of Indians to south OF US, and to
place us closer to the border land of
! Mexico to protect our interests against
] 1ta47 he mir he was
Haunting in the face of our Monroe
I doctrine.
ct was a condition of the grant that
United States troops and munitions Of
war were to be transported free Of
cost. While the government never had
occasion TO utilize the road for the
purpose for which 1t was built, yet the
railroad did its part.
''I submit that criticisms at this
1 time from states and persons whose
disloyal acts at that time made that
land grant necessary should not now
/ appeal strongly to loyal Kansans in
| whose interests and for whose protec-
ton this land grant was originally
made.
Make the Government Defend Title.
The state of Kansas or the railway
company could not insist upon the
terms of the grant until the whole
tribal relations and communal posses
sorry rights of the Indians were abro-
/ gated, and when that time came a res
quest was made by the company to the
| governor of the state of Kansas thar
the state as trustee bring an action IN
the supreme court of the United States
to at once and forever determine the
/ rights of the company under such
/ grant and settle the question without
any costs to the allottee or to the state.
4 This would compel the government to
defend title for the allottee. and If tbs
matter should be determined IN his
/ favor would remove the cloud of the
company title under the land grant,