Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1883-03-08
-
N. r. n. II. WITHDRAWALS.

Ii is sometimes asserted that tho 1o9
terror Department is slow to see any.
law not in favor Of the do,nands Of rail-
road corporations.
As an instance Of right and right.
eous decision in which the law 10 fairly
stated and intelligertly and honestly
construed, We reproduce the following
paragraphs from the decision OF Sscss-
tary Kirkwood 10 tho case Of TrepP y.
| tho Northern Pacific Railroad Con-
pany.
1t will bo seen that two principles
are distinctly set forth and positivsly
stated.
lst--That Withdrawals are limited.
by law to lands within granted limitst
that there is no legislative withdrawal
and no authority for an executive With
drawa, Of any other lands. !.
2d.-That the rights Of settlers q
granted lands are protected BY the Iax.
UP to the date Of the definite Locations
Of the line Of the road.
This decision annihilates the wholo.
business Of indemnity Withdrawals Tor
this company. and further declares that
Withdrawals even Of granted lands -.
! g.. A.. ~ y srita lnaat;nr : - smSaN.
erative asainst the rights Of settlers..
OF course the rights cf settlers within,
indemnify limits are good TO date q
actual selection, aud Withdrawals NM
lawfully made to defeat such rights
can be no longer recognised.
"In the first place the legislative
withdrawal which occurred upon ths
acceptance OF the withdrawal Of the
map of general route, February q, 1672
or the executive withdrawal Of April
22, 1872, e,nbraced and attached only
to the odd sectioDs granted BY act ce
IIS64. The Withdrawal was limited 10
such by the express action Of the sixth
section. Aud the odd sections Of land
hereby granted shall not be liable %
sale, etc, and the provisions OF the
pre.emption law, shall be and the same
are hereby extended to all other lands
on the lice Of said road, when survey
ed, excepting ,hose hereby granted -
said company is tbs language Of ~
act.
"There was no legislative withdraw
al, and no authority for executive With
drawal, therefore. of other lands than
those granted by the act. It follows
that the right If prc-emption could net
be denied to any 'oshsr lands on the
line of said road, when surveyed Nov
it is obvious that the withdrawal was
to protect the company, and to preserve
TO i, al, lands to which its right might
attach and vast upon definite location.
! (Copy's Land Laws, No. 400, p. 377.
What those lands are, the third section
Of this act specifies. They are every
alternate section of public land not
mineral, designated by odi numbers,
to the amount OF twenty alternate seo.
tions per mic, on each de Of said
, railroad Inc, as said company may
adopt through the Territories Of the
/ United States 4 whenever on The
4 line thereof tie United States have fall
$ title, not reserved, sold, granted or 9th
9 erwise appropriated, and free from pre
e EN- ation or other claims or rights at th'
d time tie line Of said road is definitely
}, fixed, and plat thereof filed in th'
!. Office of the Commissioner OF the Gen
IS eral Land Office.
y CLEARLY, the object of Congress .
/. expressed in the act was to Withdraw
it the l,uds intended 20 be granted upo'
il the fling f the map Of general roats
y so that they should maintain their q
i isiing status from the time OF with
drawal TO the time Of fling map Of de-
-e mite location. Hence the condition
is OF the land at date Of Withdrawal VII
Of determine whether it vas granted .
e, Intended to bs granted or not, aud y
C, withdrawal would attach to snch iaad
n. only as, maintaining the same stafs
A. of time of definite location, would Ras
ne to the company under th, grant