The sun. [volume] (Morris, Stevens County, Minn.) 1882-1895, 1888-10-25

very important decision was fled at st.
Paul in the United States circuit court by
Judge Brewer relating to the second imdem-
nifty belt Of the Northern Pacific Railroad
company. The case il Northern Pacific
Railroad Company ys. The United States.
Peter Johanson, Andrew Johanson ct al. and
was argued in st. Paul on the last day of the
June term by James McNaught for the COM
pany and c. ID. Kerr for defendants. The
charter OF the Northern Pacific passed by
congress in 1864 granted the company
twenty alternate sections per mile on each
side OF the road in the territories, and ten
alternate sections per mile on each side of
the road in the states. For any lands
otherwise occupied before the line was def
initely located the railroad company was
allowed to select, in lieu thereof. "odd-
numbered sections not more than ten miles
beyond the limit of said alternate sections"
This ten miles beyond the main grant is
known as the indemnity belt. In a joint
resolution of 1879 congress authorized the
company to mortgage itslands and provided
as follows:
In the event of there not being in any state
orterritory in which said main line or branch
may be located, at the time of the final lOca-
tion thereof. the amount of lands per mile
granted by congress to said company within
the limits prescribed by it's charter, then
said company shall be entitled. under the di-
rections of the secretary of the interior, to
receive so many sections of land belong
ing to the United States and designated by
odd numbers, in such state or territory,
within ten miles on each side of the said
road beyond the limits prescribed in said
charter as will make up such deficiency, etc.
1t was the question of a second indemnity
belt which was at Issue in this case. In 1887
Secretary Lamar held that the joint resolu-
tiOn of 1870 did not create second indem-
nifty belt although it had been recognized by
his predecessors for sixteen years. The de-
fendants in this case other than the United
States are settlers on lands selected by the
Northern Pacific in the second indemnity
belt. When these settlers began to cut tim
Der O temporary injunction was obtained by
the company. The defendants demurred to
the complaint, and denied the right of the
railroad company to second indemnity belt,
this being the sole defense. At the outset of
his decision, which is in favor of the railroad
company, Judge Brewer says:
The single question in this case is whether
the Joint resolution of congress of May 81,
1870. gave to the plaintiff an additional ten
mile indemnity limit. In an opinion filed
Aug. Is, 1887, Mr.. Secretary Lamar, then
secretary of the interior, held that it did not.
The reorganized ability of the distinguished
secretary, now one of the justices of the su-
preme court, compels a careful consideration
of his views and reasons.
Judge Brewer then reviews at considerable
length the charter of the company and the
joint resolution, citing the pertinent parts
of them. Secretary Lamar's decision is then
cited and thoroughly discussed, and the
Judge gives at length his reasons for differing
with Mr.. Lamar. He cites the contempora-
ry construction of the interior depart ment
and attorneys general of the United States
in official opinions, He cites extracts from
speeches made on the resolution by congress
men showing that they understood second
indemnity was granted; and holds that
there being no express provision for the
peal of the prior grant it was not repealed,
us the two was not consistent.