The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1877-01-25

land shall have once been legally appro-
priated to any purpose, from that moment
the land thus appropriated becomes
severed from the mass of public lands, and
that no subsequent law, proclamation or
sale, would be construed to embrace it, or
to operate upon it, although no reservation
were made of it" To this the company's
attorney made a reply, which | thought it
then unnecessaryEto notice, but upon which
1t may be proper on this occasion to
submit few remarks.
With regard to the decision of the Su-
preme Court just cited, he says: THE
Court is speaking of the disposition of the
public lands, in the manner prescribed by
general law, the law authorizing it, the
proclamation of the President, and the
sale under it; and says nothing more, in
fact, than that.no such Law, proclamation and
sale would be understood to embrace a
tract once legally appropriated to any pur-
pose, even if no reservation were made of
it."
This is followed by an argument to show
that the law meant by the Supreme Court,
was law for the sale of land. think it
obvious that if law for the sale of public
lands would not include lands held by this
Department, law to give away public
lands would not but the decision of the
Supreme Court is not restricted to either
case. The plain meaning is, that land
thus appropriated becomes severed from
the mass of public lands, and that no sub
sequeDt law, proclamation or sale (of pub
tic lands would be construed to embrace
it" that is, that no land so held is en-
braced by the terms, public lands,
and alone and in a general sense.
He further asserts that the land aodS
military site in 1919, and quotes a report
OF General Jessup that it was occupied in
1915. and probably during the war OF
1912. | have no doubt that troops were
stationed there at various times prior to
1919; a company took post there IN June,
1916, and again in 1917, but it was not for
several years after that it was occupied
permanently, or continuously, as a regular
post. 10 hold that a temporary camp OF
summer cantonment in the Indian country
would effect such an appropriation of the
land as to except it from the operation of
all laws relating to the public lands, would
dot the whole body of public lands over
with military reserves.
He cites the order for the removal of a
| squatter, in 1925. as evidence of military
jurisdiction before the formal reservation.
That, however, was after the establish
ment of a permanent post, and, besides
| being in the Indian country, the military
had power to remove trespassers from any
Indian lands, All these considerations.
however, must have been before the De-
partment when the question of the power
to sell was determined by Mr.. Secretary
Cass, as early as 1926, and by other Secre-
tarles whenever the question has been
brought before the Department by the So
ictations Of interested parties.
There can be but little doubt that. had
the Department possessed that power, it
would ut some time have yielded to the
pressure and been induced to exercise it..
! Pursuing the subject, the attorney then
contends that site once become useless
can be held only for sale, and that the in
| tent or effort to sell such site, although
not lawfully to be accomplished, brings the
land within the description of the act of
1852, as held for sale" | presume it re-
qUlres no argument to show that land can
not, in contemplation Of the law,
be held for an unlawful object. Granting
that the site is now useless for military
purposes, it is held, not for a purpose
which cannot be lawfully effected, but for
such purposes as are now lawful.
The attorney submits thai, after formal
abandonment of the site, some similar act
TO that by which the reservation was orig
lnally made is necessary to its reappro.
prlatlOn, and the mere impression of q
public officer, however strongly entertained
that it might be usefully occupied fol
some military purpose, is not of itself re-
appropriation,
In reply to this it may be said that every
act Indicative of az. abandonment has been
followed by some act Of contrary ten
dency equally formal
Having reported, in lS47, that the site
was no longer necessary, the Department
has subsequently stated that it was nee
cessary.
The site being rendered by letter 10 the
Department OF the Interior, that Depart
meDt, by letter, declined to receive it; an
order having been given for the sale oil
the site, another was given, which
whether 1t operated IS a reservation OF
pOstpOnement, a distinction which the
attorney thinks material had certainly the
effect to prevent the sale as etfectuaily as
il no such order for it had ever been given
All these took place prior to January 81
1854, which is fixed upon as the date
when the company perfected their right
La my opinion, therefore. the distinction
between the degrees Of formality with
which the acts indicative of abandonment
and resumption were accompanied, cannot
be maintained, and when it is added that
the Department, throughout all of them,
has never Invested itself of the actual pos
session of the land, that. ! think, will be-
conceded to be formality of as high de
gree as any other that has had place in the
matter,
The attorney adds that there is ne
reason of public policy which should in
duce any restricted Interpretation of the
act of 1852, In my opinion, on the con
trary, no consideration presented under iht
act is more susceptible of demonstration
than the impolicy of giving it the inter
probation contended for.
In various parts of the country the De-
partment holds tracts of land acquired By
purchase, cession Of states or reservation
which are not now occupied or used fol
any military purpose, nor so far as cal
certainly be toreseeD, will ever be required
In one or more cases the lands are held TO
Concluded on next page.