East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1915-09-23

date of all lands fit for settlement
and actual settlers now on the lands
will undoubtedly be given the pref
erence when the time arrives foT
making entry
1t is argued by friends of the rail-
road company that although congress
may have power to regulate its fu-
ture sales from the grant 1t can
neither resume administration, turn
the lands over to the state, or seri-
ously interfere with the railroads
control; that the fee simple title, hav-
Ing vested In the company by virtue
Of the grant, cannot be taken and
vested elsewhere and that the rights
of the railroad are protected by the
constitution
In advancing this argument the
friends of the railroad have evidently
overlooked the next to the closing
paragraph of the courts opinion. 1t
is there said:
"The lands invite, now, more to
speculation than to settlement, and
we think, therefore. that the railroad
company should not only be enjoined
from sales In violation OF the cove
nants. but entoined from any DISPOSE
tion OF them whatever until
congress shall have a reasonable op-
portunity to provide the legislation
for their disposition In accordance
with such policy as II may deem fit
ting under auch circumstances and at
the same time shalfsecure to the de-
PENDANTS all the value the granting
acts conferred upon the railroads"
Here is language as plain as day
from the highest court in the land
a court which has the last word when
il comes to interpreting our federal
constitution-tellIng us congress may
legislation for the disposition of the
lands "in accordance with such pol
icy as Il may deem fitting" so long
as 1t provides for protecting the rail-
road company to the extent of the
equity or value conferred upon 1t by
the granting acts which is $3.50 per
acre.
Through the whole opinion 1t is em-
phasized that the situation involves
more than a private grant; that the
acts under which the railroad claims
have the effect OF laws and must be
construed as such.
From a constitutional standpoint,
then. the question is whether these
laws can be modified or repealed and
the administration OF the grant re-
sumed by the government or given
over TO the state upon the payment
to the railroad company of its mon
oy equity in the lands.
I have no doubt this can be done
for no substantial right of the rail-
road company would be thereby in
frlnged. Substantial justice IS all the
guarantees to any one.
The supreme court OF the United
States has held that the guarantees
Of the federal constitution as TO prop
erty may not be read with "delusive
tAdCNu6S5s LAWS NhhN uo SupSNahNAoA
justice are to be upheld and "if al
particular case OF hardship arises un-i
der any such law in Its natural and
ordinary application that hardship
must be borne as one of the imper-
fectIons OF human things
It should be remembered that title
10 the lands passed TO the railroad
only as a means whereby 1t was to
be subsidized TO the extent OF $3.50
per acre and as to that amount 1t
must be protected. Substantial Jus
Ice will thus be done and no eonsti-
utlonal right of the railroad company
Will be infringed upon.
Equally fallacious is the argument
hat the interest which the railroad
las In seeing the lands disposed Of
o actual settlers" to the end that
raffic may be created, justifies its