The Arizona champion., 1886-06-26

ln all CdSCS tlcSC lSl)OTtS ana fcCOtn- nendations were approved by the President and returned to the fntefi IT Department for appropriate action The following extract from letter dated Jan. 5rd, 1882, wutten by MT. Klrkwood, Secretary ot he Interior. accompanying the submission of the Commission , report to the Ptesd :nt, , will more clearly explain tue status ni the claim of the \. & P. k. k. Co. and the light in which it wis then ra- glrded by the GJvernm. q dc. Cordance to waat l HnderSta nl to uc the ruling of the Supreme Court 0 the Un.tcd States, the opinion of thc Attorney General ald the action os this department her"tutJre, l recrr. mend that sait SC, 70 rq of r,i!rold anl telegraph Ine b: accepe' !, and that the lands euned by their con, strunllon be patented to the Allmtic & P4tiIic Railroad Co. pJr4utn to law" |"
 We aho call your ,attentlon to the following decisions of tEe Supreme Court of the United States, which has uniformly upheld the rlght of the various railroad compLn'cs tJ la ids granted tH tnem by the varlou, Acts of Congress, where there q, ben no clear anu positive act drcIanas tor. tcsture thereof. and has de,Ia ed all the conditions in the cilu,e, m the varIous land grants winch ptov,de for forfeiture m cases of default lo Dc con dRlonS subsequent.
 U. $. V. (R.p :ntisney.) , Wall 267, a6S.
 SchIienbergv. Hartman. Wall, 6.
 Farnsworth v. R, R. @. 9a U. s, 66.
 McM.cker V. U. s. o7 U. s. aI7, 2IS.
 Van Wyck V. KrevAIs io5 U. 8 35o.
 af. Loui5& [. NJ. Ky C.. vs. Me, Gee. { DeclI:.l Nv s3'd. l8S5.) Sec also the cases cited in the Orict made by Col. Gray with regard to tn, Northefh Pac,hc land grant, cop of which NC enclose.
 The enclosed copy of the bill which has just passed the House will show you that Il |, not at all the intention of CJngrcss to forfeit land aireIdy earned by the construction of the road.
 You can thus safely Assume th1t the right of lh: Atlantic X PAci'Ic Co. t> the lands sold bf Il 10 the Aztec Co., is perfect, although the patents th re 10 have not yet been issued by the i United States, anI as the Aztec C. ! paid for the lands il fuli and oljtAin@C ! possession ;hcrl of, II can clam theQ against anyone not showing a super 1 tor tltIe ard certainly against mer, treSpassers w.IO nave DO tl,Ie Or CiaiI whatsoever.
 It appears that the C 'naty of Apl che l, exempt from the provisions oI lhe so-called "Shctp Herdlng Act, Compiled Laws of ArIzona, Ch. O. out We think that Section Y of No 30, Laws of 1885. apples tp the case, 1 oi these t;e>passerS, and Tn the event of their diivInS any or the Aztec company's cattle off the ranch the, would bring themselves under Scctior $ of the same Act.
 1 While the Aztec company does nor dispute the r'gat Oi any one t0 herd ms animals on the public land, yet Il objects most Slrenuous.y 10 the entry upon its lands of any herds or drove, winch must necessarily occur wher they cross from seCtwn to sectIOn HerderS must prevent their aJCkS oI droveS from wandering off from tht pnDhc highway and grazlng on ths Aztec company's lands and are nuj only guilty of a mlsdemeanor but art also hIbtc 10 !he Aztec company to damages in case they allow or atte'np sach q trtspass and when the ottenSt Is conlinuous, they may also be en joined.
 However, as your knowledge Of tht territorial law, as we'll d, of the nun ners and customs of the country would make you the best judge 0 what is the proper remedy to be pur sued by the Aztec company in thes' cases, we shall leave 1t to your OiScre lion, only urging you 10 act with th' greatest prompt,tud- and to alloy nc interference whlt4Vever With the Az tee coiuplny's rights. 1 L, ir--, nh ,h. r.n ic,t nf the \ ltef