Omaha daily bee., 1883-06-06

THE BUFFALO COUNTY DECISION.
To the E litor Of the BAK.
Uader the head of Gan Infamous
Decision" last nights BEE published
an Item from some interior newspaper
with respect of a decision recently
rendered by Judge Dundy, In the
United States circuit court, In the
case of the q. P. r. r. Co. against
Buffalo county, and in the same ION.
nection tenders the opinion of the ed.
itor of the BEE In the premises. 1t is
clearly evident from the statement
made, and the conclusions drawn
therefrom, that both the country
newspaper and the editor Of the BEE
were ignorant of the facts In the case,
and while the writer, believing no In
telligent man will consider any sup
port of the purity Of Judge Dandy's
judicial character necessary, disowns
any effort in that direction, 1t would
be ur jus. to the judge not to make
public the true facts In the case from
the decision of which the BEE and
the papsr referred to draw arch
rude and Illogical conclusions.
The absurdity OF tho intimation made
that there exists between the Plat
case go called aud the case recently de.
oidsd any inconsistency sufficiently
elaring or ridiculous to justify any re-
faction upon the court, will be clearly
apparent to the ordinary reader when
the Two decisions are understood. The
Piatt case referred to was one In which
Plstt claimed ownership under the
presumption act, the railroad claiming
by virtue of Its grant from congress.
By the terms of that grant any of the
land covered by Its terms undisposed Of
by the railroad company sfter q certain
length of time, became subject to entry
by any settler undes the laws of thu
United States.
The time had elapsed; Platt tool
possession. The railroad had, befor,
the time elap,ed, mortgaged the lane
with Its roadbed, etc. The question
involved and decided was: Had tn,
road disposed of the land With,
the meaning of the lane
grant act. Judge Dandy hslt
that q mortgage of the land was
disposal within the act; therefor,
Plstt had no right of entry. The rail
road was the owner of the equity c
redemption like any other mortgsgor
but as between the government ant
the railroad company, the company
had complied with the terms of tn,
land grant purchase, which decision
was afterwards affirmed by the gu
preme court of the United States.
Now, what va, the question In
volyeo In the case of the railroad
company va. Buffalo county referre.
tol The county claimed the right t,
tax certain lands, and had exercised
their powers of taxation. The rail-
road company claimed that the Ian,
l wGs not subject to taxation, becaus,
the railroad not having yet paid tn,
cost of surveying the land 10 cues
tiop, nor the cost of the patents, the
: patents had not yet issued from tn,
government; that being so the gov
eminent had still an interest In tn,
land, and the legal title. The bill
was brought by the compan,
to restrain the collection of the tax
I The Injunction was granted on tn,
, ground that the land was not subiec
to taxation. The decision was based
upon and followed the decision of tn,
. Supreme Court of the United State
in the case Ct McShane, treasurer o
, Douglas county, VS.. U. p. railroad
; and in a later Ease taken from tn
. district of Kansas, where the highes
I tribunal In the United States held tina
;, until the cost of the patent and O
a surveying the land was paid the Unite,
States still had IN interest In tn
property and therefore the lands coul
not be taxed
t The lands In controversy In tn
Platte suit were not the same lands d.
scribed In the Buffalo county suit, an.
= II they we're the one case decided this
they had been disposed of within tn
Q apgusgs of the land grant and tn
second decided that as long as the Coz
Of the patent and fees for survey ha
u not been paid they Were not subjec
y to taxation. So 1t appears that tn
supreme court of the United States 1