The Arizona champion., 1886-07-03

struction of the various sections of the road, issue to the k. K. Co. and in all cases these reports and recon. mendations were approved by the President and returned to the Interior Department for appropriate action. The following extract from a letter dated Jan. 3rd, 1882, written by MT. Krkwood, Secretary of the Interior, accompanying the submission of the Commissions report 10 the President, will more clearly explain tue status ot the claim of the A. & P. k. K. Co. and the light in which it was then re- garded by the Government. "In ac- cordance to what 1 understand to be the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Un,ted States, the opinion of the Attorney General and the action of thls department heretofore, 1 recon, mend that said sections of railroad and telegraph line be accepted, and tha, the lands earned by their con struction be patented to the Atlantic x Pacific Railroad Co. pursuant to law"
 We also call your attention to the following decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which has uniformly upheld the right of the various railroad companies to la:!ds granted to them by the various Acts of Congress, where there has been no clear and positive act declaring for feiture thereof, and has declared all the conditions in the clauses in the various land grants which provide for forfeiture in cases of default to be con ditions subsequent.
 y. s. V. (Repentigney.) 5 Wall 267, 26S.
 SchHlenbergv. (EIarriman. ? Wall, 6.
 Farnsworth V. R, R. Go. 9a U. 5, 66.
 McMicker V. us. 97 U. s. 2I7, zI8.
 Van Wyck V. Knevals. Io6 U. s. 36o.
 St. Louis & I. NJ. Ky. Co. vs. Me Gee, Decided Nov. 2jrd, lSS5.)
 See also the cases cited in the brieI made by Col. Gray with regard to the Northern Pacific land grant, a copy of which we enclose.
 The enclosed copy of the bill which has just passed the House will show you that it is not at all the intention of Congress to forfeit land already earned by the construction of the road.
 You can thus safely assume that the right of the Atlantic x Pacific Co. to the lands sold by it to the Aztec Co. is perfect, although the patents there to have not yet been issued by the United States, and as the Aztec Co. paid for the lands in fuli and obtained possession thereof, it can claim them against anyone not showing super for title and certainly against mere trespassers who have no title or claim whatsoever.
 It appears that the County of Apa- che is exempt from the provisions oi the so.called "Sheep Herdiug Act, " Compiled Laws Of Arzonl, Ch. Co, but we think that Section Y of No. 30, Laws of 1885, applies to the cases of these t:espassers, and Tn the event of their driving any of the Aztec company's cattle of the ranch they would bring themselves under SeCtiun Is of the same Act.
 While the Aztec company does not dispute the right of any one to herd ms animals on the public land, yet Il objects most strenuous!y to the entry upon its lands of any herds or droyes which must necessarily occur when they cross from section to section. Herders must prevent their flocks ol droves from wandering off from the public highway and grazing on the Aztec company's lands and are not only guilty of a misdemeanor but are also liable to the Aztec company for damages In case they allow or attempt such trespass aud when the oHense Is continuous. they may also be en. joined.
 However, as your knowledge of the territorial law, as we'll as of the man. ners and customs of the country, would make you the best judge of what is the proper remedy to be ppr. sued by the Aztec company in thsse cases, we shall leave it to your oiscre- tion, only urging you to act with the