Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1915-03-04
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN T. f. GAME
AND SENATOR FRANCIS G. NEWLAND,

~ nv I dS1hC INdllIOdu
has passed congress, makes the fol-
lowing letter between E. E. Game of
this city and Senator Newlands, of in
terest to many persons in Elko.
The letter referred to was publish
ed in an official document Of the Uni
ted tSates senate and reads as fol.
lows:
Elko, New, November 20, 1912.
Hon. Francis u. Newlands,
Palace Hotel, San Francisco, Cal.
My dear Senator Newlands: Fol
lowing up our conversation in the
Commercial Club. in Reno, the other
evening, and in accordance with my
promise, / will now take up with you
informally as it were, the matter of
clearing up the titles to certain lands
within the business portions of the
towns Of Wells, Elko, Carlin, and as
l am informed, Golconda, Winnemuc-
ca, and certainly in the case of Love
locks. If not In that of Reno.
Without going into this matter very
fully at this time, desiring only to put
you In possession of sufficient of the
facts that you may arrive at a reason
ably definite understanding of the sit
uatlon, l will say that the grant of
the United States to the Central Pa
cifc Co. carried with it, besides the
alternate odd sections, a strip of land
200 feet in width on each side of
the center line of its located main
line. A similar provision was con.
tanned in the grants to the Northern
Pacific Railroad Co., and to the Union
Pacific, and probably to other roads.
In Nevada and in localities travers-
ed by the other railroads mentioned,
this extreme width of right of way
was not regarded as essential by the
railroads in all places for railroad pur-
poses. and in some places much of It
was alienated. This was especially
true where towns had sprung up.
l am not familiar with the titles in
Golconda, Winnemucca and Lovelocks.
but know that the railroad mpa
was primarily responsible for the
building of the towns of Wells. Elko
n Carlin, In Elko County, and that
the titles to the property on the main
business streets of each of these
towns Is deraigned practically direct
from the Central Pacific Railroad Co..
and l assume that similar situations
hold relative to the other places.
In Inc first instance, the Central Pa
/ Railroad Co., by a deed dated
January 81, 1870, conveyed to Charles
Croker the lands upon which these
three Elko county towns are located.
In the case of Elko, and, l believe
In the cases of the other two towns
In question, Mr.. Croker, by his decd,
dated August IA, 1871, con reyed these
lands to n. California corporation
known as the Contract C Finance Co.
On December 81, 1875, the Contract
& Finance Co., by It's deed, reconvey-
ed to Charles Crocker these lands,
or such portions Of them as had not
been sold in the interim. Later on,
to-wit, on October 81, 1888, Leland
Stanford, C. p. Huntington, Mary F.
Searles (Mrs. Hopkins), and the Char
les Croker heirs, trustees and exc.
cutors, conveyed the portions of these
lands remaining unsold to the Pacific
Improvement Co., and the Pacific In
provement Co. now holds the titles to
the lands in these three towns which
IN haQ mt o1roo1ry 1oI1 NIs-. -
a matter Of fact, that the Pacific In.
provement Co. has no holdings my
longer either in Elko or Carlin, but
that 1t still owns lands in Wells.
An examination of the records dis.
closes that the titles to the business
lots in the main portion Of these re.
spectiye towns come to the present
holders, through deed, either from
Charles Croker, the Contract & FL
nance Co, or the Pacific Improvement
Co. In either case you will readily
see the connection with the Central
Pacific Railroad Co., and the original
grant.
/ understand that similar conditions
and arrangements we're made by the
other railroads mentioned In the hand.
ling of their land grants. Later on, in
Washington and Minnesota especially
the question came up az to whether
the railroad companies had any right
TO ALLEVIATE, for any purpose, any of
the lands within the limits of their
right Of way, as prescribed In the con.
gresBional grant. Litigation ensued,
and some Of the cases went to the
United States supreme court, and IL
was held In a number OF cases that
the railroads title to the lands with
In the right OF way, limited as pre-
scribed by tho grant, was merely a
limited fee. and that the grant did not
vest in the railroad companies the
right to ALLEVIATE any portion OF this
right of way, and that IL II were alien
ated, and not retaken by the com,
pany, that It would revert to the gov.
ernment.