Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-05-31
DESERT ENTRY sUsPEsIONs
Interesting Correspondence Between Judge Lighthizer and Secretary
 of the Interior Noble.

The following communication on the Irrigation Reservation act of Congress, Oct. ?, 1888, is self explanatory
 PHENIx, Ariz., April %, 1890.
 GENERAL JOHN w. NOBLE,
 Secretary of the Interior
 Washington, D. c.
 My DEAR GENERAL--I learn through private channels that you have now under consideration and unpublished order of Land Commissioner Groff, ar resting the issuance of patents on all desert land entries made since October 2nd, 1888. As to the particulars con nected with the making of the order and its presentation to your official notice, I am not informed, but my dread of the calamitous consequences of its approval by you to the material interests and prosperity of the com munity selected as my permanent home, urges me to the intruding upon you of my views upon the sub ject, in what may be considered a somewhat irregular and altogether gratuitous manner, which l trust to you, under the circumstances, to excuse.
 am aware, of course, that such an order must rest for its authority upon those provisions of the appropriation act of Congress, approved October 2nd, 1888, which were embodied in the order of Acting Commissioner Stone, of date August 9th. 1889, directing the cancellation of all desert entries made subsequent to the passage of the act, and which have up to the present time been practically dead letter, in so far at least as to any effect which they may have had on desert land entries in Southern Arizona.
 You are doubtless already sutfi- ciently informed as to the ruinOus re- suits which an enforcement of those rather peculiar provisions, under the construction given them by the orders named, would have upon those DOT tions of the Territory watered by the Gila, Salt, and Verde rivers, the wa ters of which had already, at the date of the passage of said act, been wholly appropriated by private enterprise to the reclamation of the arid lands dependent upon them for irrigation. I therefore contine my remarks more particularly to the legal aspects, not to say logical correctness. of such a construction of the law, without far ther reference to the injurious iniu- ences upon either individuals or local ities, than to merely suggest that com mon. justice would seem to demand, not only that those persons who have in good faith invested their capital in enterprises of such great public inn portance should be protected in their vested rights, but also that the thous- ands of home-seekers, who have ex- pended their all in their attempts to avail themselves of the opportunities thus afforded them for permanent location, should not be subjected to unnecessary disappointment with re- gard to the rapid growth and develop ment of the country of their adop- tion.
 It is, perhaps, needless Nor me to remind you in this connection, that II is fundamental and all-important rule in the exposition of statute laws that the real intention of the law | giyer, when accurately ascertained will always prevail over the literal sense of the term used and that the reason and intention of the law-givel will control the strict letter of the law, when the latter would lead, as in the instance at hand, to palpable in justice, contradiction and absqrdity and such intention Is to be taken ol presumed according to what Is con sonant to reason and good discretion having under consideration the Ob jects and remedy in view. But m. purpose in thus referring to funda mental principles is that 1 may re spectfully submit to you that, @hel subjected to the test of such rules, tn statute in question does not justii.
 the construction placed upon 1t b.
 the Land Commissioners order
 above mentioned. At the time o
 the passage of this law, it had becom
 the settled and generally recognizes
 policy of the Government to dlspos
 of its arid lands in such manner a
 would most certainly secure thei
 speedy reclamatiqn for agrioultura
 purposes. Hence the Desert Lam Act of March 3rd, 1877, through tn agency of which the Great American
 Desert of our hoyhood's geograph has rapidly passed from view an been transformed into mere memor of the past. And it is but fair for u to presume, at the outest of our rea' oning in the premises, that had been the deliberate and we'll considere
 purpose of Congress to practically II D peal the Desert Land Act by an ipdet , mite suspension of its beneticent fe; , ture, it would have chosen som other means of expressing an inter - ton of such vital importance to th general public, than by insertion of I vague, irrelevant and almost meal
 ingless clause in the General Appr priation Bill of the session. To m f mind, neither the surrounding ci i. cumstances of the enactment, nor u a strict letter of the act itself, indlca d anything more than possible chang r in the uncertain future, of the polio ', of the Government with regard n such of its desert lands as may rema A unreclaimed through private ente prise, and the present purpose of ma d ing government surveys with referen e to such possible change and as ? pE p liminary test of it's practicabifit V The strict letter of the act provides y y follows: And all the lands whit ,s may hereafter be selected by SUI .o United States surveys d are from this time henceforth herel ,e reserved from sale, as the property ,e the United statea, ard shall net r. subject after the passage of this act ,e entry, settlement or occupation un ,e further provided by law" Can it ,e successfully contended that such pl .h visions as the foregoing authorize rn direct the indiscriminate suspensi H. of all desert entries? Must not t ed selection by the surveys precede t m suspension of the entnes, in gfdef n- accord strictly with the exact letter he the law? It can make no differen nd that the suspension, whence on
 made, dates back to the passage n, this act and thus antedates the sel,