Year: 1875

Campaign Telegram.


WAsHINGToN, November 29.-It Il
said upon apparently good authority, tina


President Grant has determined to re
move L. F. Dunn, Chief Justice OF tht
Supreme Court OF Arizona Territory, OF
account Of the position which he has as
sumed i'll public speeches on the schoo
question. He is an ardent Catholic, anC
has indicated his desire that his co.relig
ionlsts shall have share Of thhe com
mon school funds separate tor the specia
control. This places him in opeE oppo
sition to the Presidents Iowa speech on
the school question.


Decision Ia Union Pacific Railroad


Case.


The Supreme Court has sustained the
position of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company, by affirming the decision ot
the Court of Claims, namely: That the
company has the right So retain half its
earnings on account Of transportation
for the government Judge Davis de-
livered tho opinion, vicwing the road as
great national necessity and that the gov
eminent fully secured the payment of the
principal and interest on its bonds


The policy of the Government, to say
nothing of the supposed want OF power,
stood in the way OF the United States
taking the work in It's hands. Even il
that was So, reasons OF economy suggest
ed that it was better to enlist private
capital and Individual enterprise. True
the scheme contemplated profit
for individuals, for without rea-
sonablo expectation that cap
ltal could not have been obtained,
nor the requisite skill and enterprise,
but the government sustained the enter
prise to advance its own interests, and it
enlisted private capital Us means OF Sc
curing the building of the road, to be
used for government purposes. What
ever obligation, therefore, rested on the
company must depend on the true mean
ing of the enactment itself, viewed IN the
light of contcmpnraneouS history. The
court goes on tu construr the acts
Incorporating the company, even the
title Of tho original act of 1862, which
seem, to have been the subject of special
consideration, declares the national char
acter of the work. The body of the act
contains the expression that It's object is
to promote the public interest
and welfare, and to secure to the govern
ment at all times, but particularly IN time
Of war, the use and benefit Of the same
for postal, military and other purposes.
Ii this bill had been equally explicit in
relation to the bonds, there would have
no occasion for this suit, but even
in that particular there Is no
serious difficulty in getting at the true
meaning OF Congress. If tine proirred
inducement To build the road in tn" way
of lands and interest bearing bonds Of
the United States, there is nocuutrOvcrsy
about the terms on which the lands were
granted and the only point Is the nature
and extent Of oh lgatiUns OF the company
to pay these bonds. 1t is not doubted
that the government Is to be reimbursed,
principal and interest, but the precise
question for decision is whether the com
pany is required to pay before the matu-
rity OF the principal. The solution de-
pends upon the 9TH and 9th sections Of
the act OF 1862, and the 9TH section of the
act of 1851. The manifest purpose of
the 5th section Of the act of 1862 Is
to take lien Of the property Of
the company for the ultimate redemption
Of bonds principal and interest, but the
way and time are left to further provI-
sions. That the government WAS cX.
pcctcd to pay the interest is clear enough
for the mortgage wa- taken to secure the
repayment Of bonds together with all IN
tcrest thereon paid by the government.
When repayment Is spoken of 1t IS UNDER
stood that something advanced by the
United States is to be paid back. Had
it been the intention OF Congress that the
corporation itself should pay the interest
on the bonds rs it Tell due, the phra-
seology appropriate to such purpose
would have been used, but when and
how the reimbursement was To- be made
was to be IN conformity with the terms
prescribed IN other portions OF the act.
There are three things, and three only,
which the corporation Is required to do
concerning the bonds in controversy:


First, To pay said bonds at maturity.


Second To allow the government TO
retain the compensation due TO the cor
poratinn tor services rendered, and TO
apply the same TO the payment OF bonds
and interest.


Third. To pay over to the government,
after the road has been completed, b per
cent oft net earnings Of the road, to
be applied to the payment Of bonds and
interest.


1t is sought to give the word maturity
double sign,ticatlou, applying 1t
to each payment Of interest AS
1t falls due, rs well AS
to the principals, but tins is extending
the application OF the word beyond lis
natural and obvious meaning, and J.
contrary to all legal rules. Courts can
not supply the deficiency in legislation
nor airJrd rchci because Deficiencies
are supposed The phrase, "to pay
bonds at maturity does not bear the
-ense sought to be attributed to 1t. II
applies obviously to the obligation to pay
both principal and interest, but 1t docs
not imply the obligation to pay the IN
tercst rs it accrues and the principal
when due. The failure to perform tn"
conditions Is declared a forfeiture, and If
the natural meaning Is adopted for the
phrase maturity, there can be no for
ieitore until the bonds themselves muture.
Besides this, when Congress imposed
those conditions ii well knew that the
undertaking of the government bound 1t
to pay to holders OF any bond interest
every SIX months. and the principal
At the time the bond maturedl
The right to retain the amount due to the
company for services rendered, and to
apply it towards the Indebtedness of the
company, cannot be construed into a re.
quirtment that the company was to pay
the interest from time 10 time and the
principal when due. 1t is fair to infer
that Congress supposed that the service
to be rendered by the road to the GOV
crnment would be eQua, to the interest