CONGRESS. (FORFEITED LAND-GRANTS.) 



245 



fifty miles from Portland, and through the in- 

 fluence of the late Judge Olney, of Astoria, and 

 other persons interested in getting a line of road 

 from Portland to Astoria, the bill was amended 

 so as to include a grant of land from Forest 

 Grove to Astoria, a distance of about ninety- 

 seven miles. 



" Shortly after the passage of that act the 

 Oregon Central Railroad Company of Portland 

 constructed about forty - eight miles of road 

 from Portland to St. Joe, a point about a mile 

 and a half distant from McMinnville, and then 

 failed, and have been unable to continue the 

 construction of the road. The constructed road 

 and the earned and unearned land-grant was 

 transferred to the Oregon and California Rail- 

 road Company, a company which has succeeded 

 to the ownership of the grant under the act of 

 July 25, 1868. That company has also acquired 

 fifty miles of additional road from St. Joseph 

 southward upon the original projected line, and 

 is devoting all its energies to the construction 

 of its main line, and nothing has been done to- 

 ward the construction of the line from Forest 

 Grove to Astoria. Nothing, in fact, has been 

 done in regard to the matter except to make 

 preliminary surveys. 



" As I stated upon this floor on a previous 

 occasion, I intend to vote for the forfeiture of 

 this unearned grant ; but as this is an impor- 

 tant bill to the people of the State I have the 

 honor in part to represent, and as, if it becomes 

 a law, it will undoubtedly have no little effect 

 upon the future settlement and development of 

 portions of my State, I do not feel like letting 

 the opportunity pass without saying that I 

 have come to the conclusion to vote for the 

 forfeiture of this unearned grant with a good 

 deal of reluctance. I do not share in the views 

 of some that the forfeiture of this grant will aid 

 in securing the early construction of the road. 

 I do not see how we can expect to secure the 

 early construction of the road without con- 

 gressional aid when we have not been able to 

 procure it with the aid of a congressional 

 grant. A railroad constructed from Forest 

 Grove to Astoria would pass through a mount- 

 ain-broken, timbered country; it will be dif- 

 ficult of construction, quite expensive to build, 

 and when built will have to compete for its 

 traffic with river transportation on the Colum- 

 bia river." 



The spokesman for the opposition to the 

 measure was Mr. Morgan, of Alabama. He 

 said : 



" I am following the Supreme Court, which 

 has decided that a grant precisely of the char- 

 acter, as I understand it, of the grant in ques- 

 tion in this bill, was a grant in prcesenti of the 

 legal estate to the railroad company; that it 

 passed every right and every title that the 

 United States had in the land, subject only to 

 be forfeited upon the breach of the condition 

 subsequent. That is what I understand. If it 

 is not a good title as against everybody but the 

 United States, I do not understand what a good 



title is ; and if it is not a good title as against 

 the United States until the declaration of for- 

 feiture, I do not understand what a good title 

 is; and therefore I would maintain that if the 

 railroad company had a tenant in occupation 

 of any of this land, and the United States were 

 to-day to try the title in im action of ejectment 

 with that tenant, the tenant could set up that 

 he held under this grant and under the railroad 

 company, and would have a perfect title against 

 the Government of the United States in the 

 action of ejectment. 



" We have got something to do before we 

 resume this title. What is that? We must 

 have what is equivalent to office found under 

 the British law ; that is to say, we must have 

 a repossession of the land either by an actual 

 taking of possession or by a constructive legal 

 possession ; and we must do it in virtue of the 

 sovereign power of this Government, exercised 

 either through the Legislature or through the 

 judiciary. But these conditions we must com- 

 ply with before we can resume the title which 

 we have granted out of us and which now rests 

 in the railroad company. It seems to me that 

 is a pretty clear proposition, and therefore if 

 the Government of the United States were to 

 sue a tenant in possession of this land, holding 

 under this corporation to-day, in an action of 

 ejectment, the forfeiture not having been de- 

 clared, the proceedings to make the forfeiture 

 perfect not having been executed or carried 

 into effect, the title of the plaintiff would fail 

 because it had granted the title out of itself. 

 I do not think it takes a very wise man to see 

 that. It seems to me that if there is any propo- 

 sition settled in this country in the shape of 

 law, that is settled ; and therefore I do not care 

 to waste my time and strength in trying to 

 debate horn-book law in this country, which 

 everybody understands except the few gentle- 

 men who do not want to understand anything 

 about it. 



" Now, sir, how are we to get hold of this 

 title ? Shall we do it by an act of legislative 

 confiscation ? Shall we attempt to do it by an 

 act of legislative confiscation, which the hon- 

 orable Senator from Indiana foresees would be 

 entirely unavailing ? Shall we attempt to march 

 over the ground that separates us from the do- 

 main of the judiciary, and usurp to ourselves 

 the power of ultimate and final adjudication 

 upon the rights of property of this railroad 

 company ? I maintain that we ought not to. 



" I have taken a position a little further in 

 advance, just a little further in advance than 

 that which has been taken and adhered to by 

 the Judiciary Committee of this body, after fre- 

 quent and close and earnest investigations of 

 this question. That committee, in its previous 

 recommendations upon several bills, as Senators 

 will well remember, had asserted that it was 

 the duty of the Government of the United 

 States, when proceeding to declare a forfeiture, 

 to go to the courts, and the duty of Congress 

 to empower the courts to make the declaration. 



