The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1881-07-01
The northern pac,nc Rieh, 81 way.
From fhe Heienn Herald.

We perceive by the NEW NORTH WEST
that question has arisen as to the right of our
farmers 20 compensation for damage done to
their patented lands by the Northern Pacific
Railroad company In running Its road across
such land and taking the right of way aud
lands for depots, machine shops, etc. We
took occasion, on recent visit in Washing
ton, to examine decision of the Supreme
Court Of the United States early last month,
which to our non-professonal eye seemed to
settle the question adversely to such right OF
compensation. IL was an act Of ejeciment
brought by the patentee Of ranch against a
railroad company, which, without compensa-
ton To or license from the owner Of the
land, had constructed its road-bed across his
farm. IL appeared, however, that Congress
hand given the railroad company right of
way over the public domain before the land
had been flled upon under al.y act of Cor
gress by the private owner. The Supreme
Court, Associate Justice Field delivering his
opinion, held:
LIST. That the grant OF the right of way by
act of Congress and by patent were equally
effective To convey the right defined.
I'd. That the grant Uf the right Of way
| took affect from the approval Of the act
I'D. That IL was to be- considered a con-
tract between the Government and the cor
| portion by which the Government had parted
with It's title To the railroad company, and
| that as TO such right Of way IL was in the
| railroad company aud not in the Govern
ment, aud therefore the assumption of the
United States to again convey the same
premises as agricultural land conveyed no
title.
4th. That IL was well considered princ-
pie applicable to government grants OF lagd
that they were not To be interpreted as con-
tanning any warranty of title, but the glantee
took what remained in the Government.
9th. That 10 was ali equally we'll settled
rule of Interpretation that from any SUISSE
quent grant, the description of which was
bread enough TO exclude former grants. such
former grants were excepted by implication
OF law.
9th That, as result. title 20 lands by au-
ricultGral or mining pateats were held by
the owners subject 10 such former grants as
the sovereign had made, and that therefore
here was no question Of condemnation of
lands involved, and that the principle Of EN-
ineht domain was not involved, and iudg-
ment was for the railroad company.
AS no ranches IN Montana were filed upon
| In any United States Land Office until long
after the grant of July 2, 1864, to The North
ern Pacific Railroad Company of It's right of
way, IT follows that all LANDS here are held
| subject to the right Of the Northern Pacific
Railroad to the rights defined in its charter
as TO way. depots, machine shops, etc, but
not To granted alternate sections, Is there are
| special provisions in the charter governing
| such lands. We do not concea our judg-
ment that there is serious inhrm W of title
! and one greatly to he regretted by our land
owners within the probable line Of construc-
tion; but inasmuch as IL is the opinion of
competent professional men that this decs-
ion applies with full force to this company
and our lands, IL is we'll that IL be known. 1t
seems to place even the valuable improve
ments upon our lands at the mercy of the
engineers, who, of course, will endeayor TO
avoid all damage not absolutely necessary.
We suppose 1t is not necessary tor us TO say
that this rule does not apply 10 the Utah and
Northern Railroad, whose grant is subse-
| quent to the patents on our lands. The i'll
evi.abe result must be endured, aud it
seems that the railroads even do bring dis
| advantages.