The Arizona champion., 1886-06-26

 [ in all cases these reports and recom- nehddtions were approved by the 1 President and returned to the Irteri IT Department for appropriate action, The following extract from a letter dated Jan. 3rd, 1882, witten by Mir. Klrkwood, Secretary of he Interior. accompanying the submission of the Commissions report to tn. PfeSId :nt, will more clearly explain the status oi the claim of tlie \. X P. k. k. Co. and the 5ht in which 1t WI, then re- glrded by the Gpvernm mt. "lI dc- cordance to what understand tD uc the ruling of the Supreme CJprt Q the Unued States, The oplnlon ot the Attorney General and the action Ui ttis depar,Tent heretofore, l reIuri mend that said se"'ioNS of rIilroId and telegraph lIne b. at cep'ei, and that ihe lands enned by their con struction be patented to the Atltntlc & P., fife Railroad Co. pu;sulut tC law"
 We al,o call your, attention to the following decisions of lhe Supreme Court of the United States. wn,ch has uniformly upheld the ral't of the various railroad companies C ia ,da granted 10 them 5y the varlou; Ats ot Congress, where there Ia, been no clear anu pOsltve act declaring for irilure thereof, and has deCla,ed all the conditions IL the clause, ln the various land grants which provide for forfeiture m cases of def.ult't 'tU De con- ditlonS subsequent.
 U. $. V. :ntiyney.) 5 Walt 567, 263.
 Schuienbergv. (tiarrinan. Wall, 6.
 FArnsworth V. R, R. Go. 92 U. s. G.
 McAGlcker V. U. 5. 97 U. s. at7. 2I8.
 Van Wyck v, Knevll,. ro5 [. g. 55o.
 S'. Loui, & [. NJ. By O. vs. Me. Gee, (DeolI+d Nv. s3rd, lSS5.)
 See also the cases Cileu in the brief made by Col. Gray with regard to tn, Northern Pacific land grant, copy Uf which We enclose.
 The enclosed copy oi the bill which has jus; passed the House will show yon that II |, not at all the intention of Cjngless to forfeit land already earned by the construction of the road.
 You can thus safely assume tho. the right ot lh: Atlantic & Pacific Co. t0 the lands sold by Ii to the Aztec Co. lo p"rtrct, although the patents tn rc- to have not vet been issued by the United States, ami as the Aztec Co paid for the lahIs il iuli and obtained possession there ot, 1t can clam them against anyone not showing a super ior utle and certainly against mere trespass-rs who have no tluc or claim whatsoever.
 It appears that the County of Apl che is exempt rom the provisions cf the sc.cailed "Shc,p Htrdlng Act" Compiled Laws ul Arlhona, Ch. %, but we think that Section IT of Nu. 30, Llws of 1885. applies tn the case> of these t:erpas,ers, ani Tn the event of their diving any of the Aztec Compauy's oa,lie of the ranch they would bring themselves under section I5 of the same Act.
 While the Aztec company does not dispute the rigat Oi any one tu herd ms animals on the puoic land, yet II objects most slrenuJuSly 10 the entry upon l,s lands of any herds or drove, winch must necessarily occur when they cross from sect,un to sectlon. rlerderS must prevent their !lJcks or droves from. wandering off from the puOIIc highway and grazlng on the Aztec company's lands and are not only guilty Uf d mlsdemeanor but are also liable to .he Aztec company for damages tn case they allow or attemp, such a tCcspa,s and when the ohense Is continuous, they Hay also De en- joined.
 However, as your knowledge of the territorial law, as we'll as of the nj ,n- ners and customs of the country, would make you the best judge ot what is the proper remedy to be pur sued by the Aztec company in these cases, we shall leave 1t to vour discre lion, only urging you to act with the