The End of the Railroad Land Grab
A trio of government decisions finally ends the Northern Pacific's long-standing practice of seizing settler homes in Washington Territory.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The three important decisions by the General Land Office will at last put the indemnity lands in the condition they were originally intended to be. The days when land grant railroads could withdraw large tracts of indemnity lands from settlement with every show of law, only to change their minds as to the specific lands, are gone, it is to be hoped forever.
The first of the three decisions denied the pretensions which the Northern Pacific Company had made to minor lands occupied by settlers who had settled upon them after the general location of the lien limits, but before the company had filed definitely upon the particular lands in question.
The second decision held that the line of the road was not legally fixed until the map was filed in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office. The importance of this decision is evident when it is remembered that the map showing the lines of definite location of the Cascade branch of the Northern Pacific was not filed until March 27, 1884, although for a long time previous the company had treated the lands within the grant contiguous to that branch as its own. Many, however, settled on the lands. Most of them were discouraged when their applications were not allowed at the land office and gave up their newly found homes. It is probable that some remained upon their lands in spite of the apparent hopelessness of obtaining title to them. According to Commissioner Sparks' decision, all such are protected in their rights.
The third decision puts an end to the custom of land grant roads, especially the Northern Pacific, to file applications for indemnity lands in large bodies without stating where the lands within the grant were located. Hereafter, companies can choose indemnity lands only after filing lists of the lands they claim to have lost and making oaths to that effect. Moreover, indemnity selections are required to be made from the vacant, unappropriated lands nearest to the granted sections from which the loss occurred. There is to be no more mining upon the choicest land within the indemnity limits in Washington Territory to indemnify the company for imaginary losses in Minnesota or the moon.
“How slowly but surely the corporations are being forced to a level with the people, the land robbers to a level with the settlers.”
This 1885 victory for homesteaders against the Northern Pacific Railroad highlights the foundational conflict between corporate land speculation and the right to stable housing in Washington. Just as 19th-century settlers fought against the 'land grabbers' to secure their homes, today’s Seattleites grapple with a modern form of concentrated ownership where institutional investors and large-scale developers exert immense influence over the local housing market.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.