The Railroad's Land Grab: How Northern Pacific Hoarded Snohomish’s Future

To the Editor:

There is, in my opinion, no one thing which more hinders the growth of our country and the development of our natural resources than the hold that all the lands north of Tacoma are with drawn from public. And this can be obtained to the even evasions only under the pretense and dishonesty, and these are now advanced in price to $2.50 per acre without any prospect of the settler ever receiving any of the benefits of the railroad communication for which he must pay in the purchase of his land.

Again, the fact that no title can be obtained from either the Railroad Company or the Government of the state sections, not only prevents in a great measure settlers living much in communities near enough to each other to enjoy this benefit of a district settlement, but actually promotes the settlement of our fertile lands by chains or agrarian communities, which is the worst economical and practically manner of founding settlements.

The Homestead, whose basis was very well on the side of the Government in the late civil war, is restricted to 80 acres of land, valued at $160, and the pre-emptor must pay $200 more than he would were it not for this withdrawal of these lands.

We are told by some, that this state of affairs will all be remedied by the non-fulfillment of the conditions of the grant on the part of the Railroad Company, and that these lands will all revert to the Government by the first of July next. In the new bill drawn by the Attorney for the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, which has been pending before Congress in the last session, the Railroad Company did not ask for an extension of time on the lands subject to the withdrawal north of Tacoma; but it is decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Schallenberg and others vs. Harriman (reported to 216 Wallace) that such grants convey a real vested interest to the Railroad Company which cannot be determined or revoked by non-compliance of a condition subsequent on the part of the Railroad Company, for there must be some action on the part of the grantor (the United States), either legislative or judicial, in order to divest the Railroad Company or their vested right in their lands. To the light of this decision, the mere fact that the Railroad Company does not ask for an extension of time on these lands will not forfeit them to the Government nor are they restored after the first of July next, even though the bill seeking an extension of time on the remainder of the grant should pass Congress in the present term at the special session. The condition of these lands will remain unchanged after the first of July next, unless Congress passes some Act declaring the grant forfeited by the Railroad Company, and the lands annexed to the Government.

On the part of the Railroad Company who employ lawyers are employed to represent their interest, and secure the passage of such measures as are deemed most beneficial to the company, while on the part of the Territory the many workers interested needing Congressional or executive action is intrusted to one man, who has not even a vote in the House whereon, to name only, he is a member. When a question like this, of such vital importance to the present and future prosperity of our Territory, is to be settled, either by extending the shadows than unlimited period, which now deters every builder from prospect of the community, or by throwing off the fetters which have so long bound us in the interest of the railroad.