The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-22
50. PACIFICTO HOLD
%$7O,OOO,OOOI IN LAND
Supreme Court Decides Oregon
Grants Shall Not Be For
fcitcd TO /. s.
ROAD TO BE RESTRAINED

wAsuiNGrox, June 2i-Thc Supreme
Court in an opinion to-day by Justice
McKenna held that the 100000 acres o.
public lands. valued at from s5O,OOO,ooo
20 s70,O 0O. 900, now controlled by the
Sou hern Pacific Railroad under grants
from the Government. arc not to he for
felted to the United states for violation
or condition subsequent. This lani.
located In oregon. was granted 10 The
Oregon and California Railroad in sue
cessive acts by Congress. beginning n
little over n half century ago and passed
from the oregon and California Railway
to tire Southern Pacific az a successor.
While the supreme Court holds that
= the grant was absolute and the LAM
= carnot be forfeited. IL does not deny t.
s. ne Government a measure OF RELIEF
The case was rcmanded to the Federal
Court Of the District Of Oregon. which
rad decided the case at the outset ".
favor OF the Government. declaring a
forfeiture. In Remaining II the supreme
Court instructed tho District Court TO
enter an Injunction to restrain the rail-
road companv from disposing Of n OF
the land or taking any timber from 1t
or In any other way lessening It's value.
Inc injunction Will Fldlu lp' Sh
months from The date OF the decree OF
the lower court. Congress will have
an opportunity 20 take any action 10
sec that the railroad complies with the
conditions Of rs grant. Justice Nc
Kenna holds that there Is power =
Congress to deal with the situation by
legislation.
The six months limitation within
which Congress must act viii run from
the date the lower court returns lis
decree 10 conform TO the judgment Of the
Supreme Court. and this will not he
until after the meeting OF the Supreme
Court next October. for Nh" mandate
would not issue until that time.
The suit was begun by the Depart
ment OF Justice under authority of a
Congress resolution directing hat such
action be taken to forfeit the grants for
violation OF conditions. The laws maxi
ing the grants were passed in 1866 and
1868 and there was subsequent l~ecisla-
tion on the subject.
The condition imposed was that the
land was TO he sold IN tracts not exceed
ing 100 acres each to actual settlers and
at the maximum price OF $3.50 an acre.
Justice McKenna held that this grant
did not create a trust.
Justice McKenna declared that the
transaction vas to be regarded not only
as a grant, but as law. and was accepted
as such. He declared that the laws
granted rights TO the railroad company,
but imposed obligations-'rights quite
definite obligations as much So"
The first had the means OF acquisi-
tion the second OF performance. And
as We have pointed out, whatever the
difficulties OF performance. relief could
have been applied for and II might have
been secured through an appeal to Con-
gress. Certainly evasion OF the laws or
defiance OF them houl not rave been
resorted o."
Justice Mckenna pointed out that the
record showed gross violation by the
railroad company OF the Limitation in
the law as to the amount OF land that
might be sold TO n single purchaser and
that instead OF keeping these sales to
within 100 acres. the company had sold
In one case to "A single purchaser IS. 600
acres. in another 10000 acres and in
others as much as 10000.
Solicitor-Genera DAVIS asked leave
OF the court to-day for time IN which 10
consider the propriety OF fling a motion
for a r%eargument OF the case.