Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1915-09-17

their status in that regard cannot be
changed without the consent of the
state. Hence without the state s con
sent tney cannot be Incorporated in the
forest reserve or otherwise withdrawn
so as to preclude the state from dealing
with them as private property.
.'All congress can do is to consent
to modification of the restrictions,
on alienation, 1t could, of course, con
sent that the lands be disposed of by
the road on. terms different from the
terms specified in the grant, but can
not compel that. Assuming that some
adjustment between the government
and the railroad eaa be brought about
and will be broaght about, it is my view
that the lands shall be classified and
all those suitable for home making saall
be open to actual settlement and occu-
pancy by some home builders on the
cheapest and most favorable terms pos
sible.
can suitable for mining shall be
opened up to that industry.
sit is kroma that much Of the lands,
though not suitable in large way for
cultivation, are suitable for stock grow
ing, but probably one taking them for
that industry would require more than
l6O acres and provision should be made
thereto. The lands chiefly valuable
for timber should be disposed of at
actual value.
NY personal preference would pc 70
,et the iands suitable Tor nome building
oe taken ny acpual settlers Tor nom
.nul Priee, or Ior morning, making the
VimDereu laHds produce sum sutflci'
sht 10 compensate the railroad company
1or tnat loss
AiSo l WIN IaNor having con,
sresslonai coH''illttee TO come mere ana
eti 1ahe eNlugHte ana lhVestlgate the STU
atioh as l thlhk that VIII enable con
gresS TO understand tne views of the
peoPIe Oh oregon ana the Importance
ol having tneSe lanus continued IN pri'
Nate ownership TO assist IN our develop
ile"''
NaAiroau r1earo from'
Tnat the railroad company has com
plete right to the lands, by grant of
congress, and also has the right to do
with them as it pleases, was the theme
OF the address of f. p. Dunno, attorney,
who spoke for the Southern Pacific. He
defended the company's violations Of
the terms of the grant by saying it
had been done in the open without OBJ
lection and that services done the gov
ernment in transporting free of charge
munitions of war over the road had
more rhan met the difference.
''The supreme court has said that
the settlers clause was not a comdi,
ton subsequent, but covenant said
the speaker, ''and that tine lands are
not forfeited. We still have the lands
and the title. The only limitation on
the title is that if we sell the lands it
must be according to the terms of the
grant.
- AS to actual settlers the supreme
court held that the actual settlers con.
tention that the road was trustee fo.,
them is untenable. The supreme court
brought out that we are not compelled
to SELL but that if we do sell we may
choose the settler and the time of sell
ing. If we have an absolute grant and
are not compelled to SELL if that is the
olly restriction, what are our rights?
VIII anyone dery that if we wanted TO
lease the lands we would have that
right, that If we wanted to cut down
that J r;m%to an" re- ase tsa.n II We misnt Hav' %
than ,,,e ho,., 'noSo 1ninss pe tIue
DO 5o ~, go te a"u iei aDoVe any
ITnitod stotos naro NO o"V 'onsleSS aisr Vi M tn.
that timher without " oo,rona,t;. 49, 30 IAN. =.
would ba ooo e;aoat;. compensation II
"S".u w NViliioV"'iN.