New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1888-10-31
Important Railroad Decision.

avery Important decision was ifilaf3 az ca
Taul IN the United States circuit court by
Vuase brewer relating to the second imdem
pity belt of the Northern Pacific Railroad
company. The case is Northern Pacif ac
nsliioau company vs.. The United States
6 feter j ohanson, Andrew J ohanson Of al and
vas argued IN st. Paul on the last day of the
Sune term by James McNaught for the com
paHy ana y u. Kerr for defendants. The
charter OF the Northern Pacific naased by
congress in 1864 granted the comnany
twenty alternate sections Der mile on each
sl 1l OF the roadin the territories and ten
aioerhaIe sections per mile on each side of
0n is road IN the states. For any lands
g ~ sger"ise occupied before the line was def
Stnlteiy located the railroad COMPANY was
allo%ed TO select, in lieu thereof, Todd
numbered sections not more than ten miles
geyond the limit Of said alternate sections. .
ihls ten miles beyond the main grant ia
known as the indemnity belt. In a Joint
resolution OF 1873 congress authorized the
as follows: - !
In the event of there not being in any state
OF terrltory In which said main line or branch
may be located, at the time of the final loea-
Cion thereof, the amount of lands per mile
GRANTED by congress to said company within
ohe limits prescribed by it's charter then
SAD company shall be entitled. under the di-
rections of the secretary of the interior, to
receive SO many sections OF land belong
E1ss2g TO the United States, and designated by
Stsdd numbers, in such state or territory
Wlbhlns ten miles on each side of the said
road beyond the limits prescribed in said
quarter as Will make up such deficiency ETC.
u was the question of a second indemnity
Selo winch was at issuein this case. In 1887
secretary Lamar held that the Joint resoll-
tlon OF 1870 did not create second indem-
n!by Delt, although it had been recognized by
JUS predecessors for sixteen years. The de-
Enn04ntG tfJc tbo,, = o,, L, I !
states are settlers on lands selected by the
Nofthefn Pacific in the second indemnity
Delt. When these settlers began to cut tim
per a temporary injunction was obtained by
the company. The defendants demurred to
Ine complaint, and denied the right of the
Nrallfoad company to second indemnity belt
TINS 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
Che Joint resolution # congress of May 81, ,
1880 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 ofthe company and the
JOINT resolution, citing the pertinent parts
3 Ot 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 department.
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 re-
peal of the prior grant, it was not repealed,
as the two was not consistent.