Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-02-12
THATGRAzING LANDS DECISION.

4 CORRESPONDENT writing from
Littleton, Morgan County, pro
pounds the following inquiries re
speeding the scope OF the decision ir
the case Of Buford ct al. VS.. Houtz,
ct al, lately rendered in the SUI
preme Court of the United States:
''various opinions being entertained
over the decision OF the Supreme
Court OF the United States in the mat
ter Of stock running on railroad lands
purchased by private parties, we
would like some information on the
subject. In times past parties from
| other counties have driven their stock
and sheep on our range and almost to
our very doors, until our range was
oversiscked and destroyed.
'our people in this place have con-
tracied with the Union Pacific rail-
road for four sections OF railroad
lands, and az sacrifice have made the
first payment. Now those same par
ties, with others, say that under the
recent decision they can drive and
pasture their stock on our land, and
we cannot sue for trespass, but that
we must fence our lands to receive the
benefit OF our purchase The infor-
nation we desire is-can those parties
or others do this, or to what extent
can they drive or pasture on those
lands before they are committing n
trespass? Have the people who have
contracted for the purchase Of those
lands more rights in pasturing stock |
on those same lands than strangersf
again, we have no fence law. II /
the people should cultivate any par;
or portion Of said land by sowing varI-
Gus kinds Of grass seeds, could stock
be taken up for trespass IL there were
no fence around it' These are matters
Of interest to many"
Ii will be remembered that the
plaintiffs were the purchasers OF a
large number of sections of c. p.
railroad land, and that the defend
ants were sheep owners. The action
was brought to prevent the latter
from driving their sheep over the
lands belonging to the plaintiffs in
order to pass from one section OF
government land 10 another. The
sase was first decided by Judge
Zane, whose decision, we under
itand, is affirmed throughout.
The effects Of the decision, as we
inderstand it, are as follows: Private
'arties who have purchased or
eased from railroad companies the
Of land which alternate
With government sections must
ence their claims, In order to have
right Of action for trespass when
he stock Of other parties are ,
riven over them. In fencing
he private sections of land, a
light Of way must be left open that
ill admit Of stock being driven !
'om one government section to Z
mother. If private sections are Z
OF fenced, stock may be driven !
yer them and may Craze to a rea- :
unable extent in passing. but may '
OF be herded upon them. V
1t should be remembered that this {
1plies only to ,aacultiuGted graaaq :
islds, and not TO lands upon which n
ny kind Of seed or crops have been y
'wn. II the sections referred to o
our correspondent are included in ;
precinct in which a no fence law "a
'evails, such portions of them as
ave been sown to any kind Of a u
on come under the operations OF :.
e no fence law, and damages NAV s
recovered for trespass upon the Il
livated portions. But such parts u
the sections referred to by our s
respondent as still remain un- "
ltivated grazing lands do not IA
me under tine operations Of the X
al no fence law, but under the - -
les lai d down in the decision here n
ierred to. h,