Omaha daily bee., 1874-07-04

Section 3 Of the original act Of 1867
made . giant of lands to the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, within
certain limit, on each side of its
road, with . proyiso that "all such
lands 80 granted by this section,
which shall not be sold or disposed
by said company within three years
after the entire road shall have
been completed, shall be subject to
pre-empti0n and settlement like
other lands, at . price not exceed
ing SIPS per acre, to be paid to the
company"
This proviso was under considera-
ton by the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the case Of the
ease Of the Kansas Pacific Rail
road Company versus Prescott,
ne Wall. 6O3). 1t is maintained
by the plaintiff that the effect Of
that provisO, as construed by the Su-
preme Court is to exempt from state
taxation all lands granted to the
companies by the acts Of 1862 and
1854, which have not been actually
sold or otherwise absolutely disposed
OF, add 1t is also maintained that
the mortgage of the lands by the
company is not such q s'sale or dis
positiOn" of them as will defeat the
right to settle upon and pre-empt
them. After q careful consideration
Of the language Of sections ii, l9,
and 20 Of the act of 1864, upon
which the rights of the Burlington
company rest, and a comparison OF
1t with the language used in respect
to the main company and itsbranch-
es, our judgment is thai the grant
to the Burlington company is an in
dependent grant, not made by refer
ring to the grants to the other COM
panies, and, therefore, that section
8 of the act of 1852, whatever may
be its scope and effect, has no appli-
cation to the Burlington company.
This last road was not part of the
original scheme; 1t was to have no
government bonds; and was simply
aided "a many other roads in Iowa,
Wisconsin, Minnesota and other
States had been, by a grant of pub
lie lands. As to the effect of the
proviso in section 8, upon the status
Of lands to which 1t applies see the
case Of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company vs. McShane, ct 81. deci-
ded 1t the same time with the pre-
sent case.
The other alleged ground Of ex-
emptiOn from taxation ia that, at all
even.s the lands were not taxable for
1872, because tho o0mpany's right
to them was not perfected until at
ter the time when, under the laws
of the State. property can be taxed.
The proofs show that the road of the
Burlington company had been con-
structed and accepted IS being COM
plete for the distance of 40 miles
BY December 10, 1871. The balance
Of the distance 500 miles, was &C
cepted as complete November 4th,
1872.
On the It'll day Of March, 1872,
the company paid all the costs OF
surveying tho lands including field
work and office work, for the first
lao miles, and the cost Of surveying
the balance of the lands on the 9Th
day Of May 1872.
The plaintiff claims that under
the revenue laws of the State, no
property can be taxed which be-
comes taxable after the third Mon
| day in April, and that this time
! closed by the 18th day of that
month, in 1872, when tho Board of
Equalization closed Its session.
| And his further claim Is, that ~ the
REGISTERS and Receivers fees were
not paid until the l8th day Of April,
1917, the company had no taxable
interest In the land until this date,
which was too late to make the land
taxable for that year, and to sup
port this position the case of the
Railway Company vs. Prescott, 10
Wall COS, is relied on.
Section q Of the act Of 1894, Is in
these words: "RefOre any land
granted by this act shall be con-
veyed to any company or party n
| titled thereto under this act, there
shall first be paid into the Treasury
of the United States the cost of sur
veying, selecting and conveying the
same by the said company, or party
in interest, as the titles shall be re-
quired by said company; which
amount shall, without any further
appropriation, stand to the credit of
the proper account, to be used by
the commissioner Of the general
land Office, for the prosecution ofthe
survey of the public lands along the
line Of said road; and so, from year
to year until the whole shall be
completed, as provided under the
provisions of this act"
The proofs show that the lands
for the first l4O miles were fully
earned In 1871, and that the COM
pany were then entitled to patents
therefor, on the payment of "the
cost of surveying, selecting and con-
veying the same" and that this
payment was made on March Z,
1872; and il the right Of the compa-
ny to the lands was then perfect, it
is conceded that, II taxable at all,
they are taxable for the year 1872.
1t IL said, however, that because the
registers and receivers fees were
not paid until April 10, the lands
were not before that time taxable.
It does not appear from the proofs
when the certificates and patents
were dated or delivered to the COM
psny, and whatever may be the
( fhcts In this regard, I am Of the
opinion that the fees to the regis
tefs and receivers of the local land
~of1oes, under the act Of July ], 1884,
as Stats. 1T L., 1885, are not en-
brsced within those required to be
paid by the aforementioned sec-
ton II Of the oct Of 1854. These
arc fees for Nocation," not for "'se-
lecttng and conveying the land.
But again, IL may be remarked that
the cost Of surveying was paid In
dime to make the lands taxable ;
the work Of selecting the lands was
done by the company without, 30
fAr - shown, any eXpense to the
government, and for the cost OF con-
veytng It does not appear that the
government makes Dr. has any
claim.
The result Is, that the bill In No.
"a, which relates to counties along
the first 40 miles Of the defendant
oompany's road must be dismissed.
and the bill In the second case, a.