The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-04-23
THE r.lcItlc nttLRoAp LANDs
Carl sehurz's DrcisIon Reversed ny the u. >.
supreme Court.


WASHINGTON. April PA decision OF
great importance to persons who propose to
settle upon the public lands has been rendered
" the Supreme Court Last summer Carl
Schurz rcvcr-cd the decision OF the Commis-
soncr OF the Land Oilicc in what IS known rs
the Dudymott casr. The third section OF the
net " 1862 for the construction of the Pacific
Esbruuds provides that nil lands granted.
which shall not he sold or disposed OF by the
company within three years after the entire
road shall have been completed. shall be sub
iec, 10 preGmrton aud settlement like other
lands, Il; a price not exceeding sl.2j per acre.
The de fucto Secretary Of the Interior held
that Nelson Dudvmott had the right to pre-
cmrt IN the usual manner amy lands originally
contained in the grant TO tne company but re-
mining unsold three years after the compile
tion of the road
When the decision was made swarms Of set
tiers dropped down On the company land. The
Union Pacific Company Mt once prepared to
ties; the validity OF S'hurz's decision i'm the
courts. William II. Plat urrtnptel quarter
section of the compuny's land in Nebraska.
The company refused 10 receive the payment
rendered. ana brought action ngainst him in
clecimont. piatt flied a bill in equity against
the company, 10 r,sttai In them from prosecuting
the action OF rJrctmpnt
The company ntrd an answer. setting forth
that mortgages had boon nindo tO secure their
t ~ NV hi'tiTs tiiN NV ii ~ s~-''o Ntit
Ing ~ the net " 1862 incorporating the road
Tho cusn wis argued In tn" United States Cir
CUT Court IN e'lrasEn. ana Judge Dundy dc.
cided IN favor 0f the company liuit appealed
To- the supreme Court. Tho cusn was argued
about two weeks ugn. ana to-day Judge
Strong delivered AN opinion affirming the
DECISION Of tho lower court Justices Bradley
Miller. and clifford dissenting. Justice Strong
in his opinion. which is "A very elaborate one
To- tbo rmi"n p,ein. Hails1oIH 4ftnr mn, the
flft 1ta Ia at
stance under which this MD was given. Tho
country was greatly interested in the CONE
ploton of n railway ncross the continent. Tho
distance WIS great. and the country through
which II was 10 pass was ~ barren OF support,
that the construction VI the road was clearly be-
this reason that Congress was both willing and
anxious to extend such aid to tue company ns
would enable II 10 construct the road. Tho
certain time. or elsc the lands were TO revert to
the Government Now. IN constituting this
meaning OF Congress. II Il had meant that tho
lands must all b. sold within prescribed time.
IN order to prevent their rcverting to the Gov
crnmcnt, then there WAS no need for
the additional words disposed or In the
opinion of the court the issuing Of mortgage
bonds based upon this land WAS sufficient dis
pusal 60 satisfy the statutes. and for the rensOn
that 1t fulfilled the express intention OF Com
gross. The lands were given To- the roads to
really aid their WORK. and II tho company had
citlcdtino. il would have been n barren gift in.
II mortgage passed the title. while all other
authorities hold that It constitutes a lien upon
tie land that would forbid Us disposal not SUBJ
icct to this lien. Certain properties % railway
company. such as It's charter anu chartered
privileges could not lo sold or disposed OF: but
10 was not so with lis lands. These were given
to help and aid in its construction. and the
means for raising money unOn su.h KIT should
not lc narrowly crcumscrihrd. II WAS Tor this
reason that the court held thnt tho Circuit
Court below erred in deciding such lands SUBJ
lect TO entry. and its decision was reversed.
Aliunde Joe Bradley del vcrrd the dissenting
opinion. In il he claimed that tho execution Of
the mortgage on tho lands was ucnher the sale
nor the disposition OF them. Tho intention Of
the act OF Congress making the grant WAS TO
encourage settlement after the company had
been given u reasonable time in which To dis
pose oi the lands. The object OF the act was de-
irated 10y covering the grants with n mortgage.
Tho mortgage would prevent settlers from
occupying the lHnds at the ordinary price pr
acre under the Homestead LAWS. In answer to
the plea that the company could not have butt
It's road without moItgnging tho lands Mr..
bradley said that according To the provisions
OF the act. the lands were not patented to the
company until after u certain amount Of truck
had been laid. The company had control of
the lands To that extent. and If disposed Of ac-
cording 10 the intention OF the net the lands
should hc thrown open To settlement. Mort
gag"cs took their mortgages subject 10 the pro-
visions II the art 81 Congress. and the mort
gdgees were entitled TO the proceeds of tine
sales Of the land TO settlers.