Cottonwood report. [volume] (Cottonwood, Idaho) 1893-1901, 1895-12-20

tlemen:
AN OPEN LETTER.
Spokane, Wash, Dec. 4.-To His Ex-
cellency, John H. McGraw, Governor of
the State of Washington, and to Hon. w.
c. Jones, Attorney General of the State
Sirs: 1t is reported in the daily press. and
the report appears to be authentic, that
Judge Hanford has decided that the UNI
pantented lands of the Northern Pacific
Railroad Company are not taxable by the
state or its agencies, such as counties,
cities and school districts.
The cause in which this opinion was pro-
nounced appears to have been a. bill in
the federal circuit court by the receiver
of the road to restrain the authorities of
Lewis county from collecting tax duly
levied on such lands.
In the case of Northern Pacific Railroad
Company VS.. Trail county, lis u. s. 600,
decided at the October term, 1886, the SUI
preme court of the United States, follow
ing previous cases as to other land grants
to railroads, held the unpatented lands
of this company not taxable upon the
ground that congress had retained the
title to the same to secure to the United
States the cost Of survey necessary to
the location and aScertainment of these
lands; and that to permit the states to
tax and enforce a lien therefor would have
the effect to deprive the government of
its security. At the same time the court
expresses regret, in closing its opinion,
that the law is SO, and hope that
congress would remedy the difficulty by
| appropriate legislation.
On July 10th, 1886, and apparently pur-
suant to the suggestion of the supreme
court, congress passed an act on the sub
| ject. By this act it is provided that none
Of the lands granted to railroads shall
| be exempt from taxation because of the
| lien of the United States or because no
| patent has been issued therefor.
| To my mind and, I doubt not, to the
| minds of the people of this state, the
above statute is too plain for bubble.
| All that is needed to subject these lands
| to their just share of the burden of taxa
| ton is an efficient administration of the
| plain, written law of the land, not refined
away or evaded by hair~splitting distinc
| ton.
therefore, as a citizen of this state,
| call upon your excellency to exercise your
statutory duty of bringing the attention
| of the attorney general officially to this
case and directing him to see that either
| it or some other, as he may be best adj
| Vised, be carried to the supreme court of
the nation, and the hearing in that tri-
| bunal set for the earliest possible day.
And call upon you Mr.. Attorney Cen
eral, to take steps to portect the people
of this state from SO open and disastrous
| evasion of the law. Very respectfully
yours, FRANK H. GRAVES.
THEORY OF THE DECISION.
1.-THE theory of Judge Hanford's de-
cision," said Mr.. Graves to Spokes-
man-Review reporter, sis this: The
| Northern Pacific Railroad Company
has been claiming that by the grant
| they obtained all odd sections not at
the time occupied by settlers, irrespec-
| tive of their mineral or non-mineral
character. Under this claim they were
proceeding to grab the most valuable
| gold and silver mines in the northwest.
| The people of Montana concluded not
| to submit to this. Litigation resulted,
and the supreme court of the United
| States decided that mineral bearing
| lands did not pass by the grant That
whether land was mineral or otherwise
could only be determined by an actual
| investigation of each piece. That the
United States land department might
make that investigation for themselves,
and that their determination of the
question would be conclusive, subject,
of course, to the usual rules that they
must proceed in accordance with law
and must give hearing, etc. But that
as to that date the land department
had not done so, the courts would de-
termine it.
subsequently the land department
engaged in examining lands claimed
by the railroad company to determine
as to their mineral character and speci-
fly what odd sections within the limits
of the grant are mineral and therefore
exempted from the grant. Now Judge
Hanford seizes upon this situation to
rule in suit brought by the receiver
of the road, and therefore by the road
itself to all intents and purposes, that
the lands can not be taxed because the
railroad does not know what it owns
yet. In other words, he says that the
railroad can stop the state taxing lands
that it does not own, because it does
not own them, and also stop it taxing
lands which it claims to and confess
eddy does own, and which it is in pos
session of and using, because, forsooth,
some time in the future it might be de-
termined by somebody in the interior
department that it did not own them.
That is to say, fertile farming lands of
the Palouse owned, by the railroad
company, by them sold on contract
and the money diverted to its own use
and the use of it's officers can not be
taxed until such time in the dim and
distant future as some commissioner
shall declare they do not bear gold and
|
the United States will never listen tc
such nonsense. Put the question there
and it will be determined in short or.
, DER
? ATTORNEY GENERAL JONES
A reporter of The Spokesman-Review
showed the foregoing letter to Attor.
ney General w. c. Jones, and asked
/ him what action, If any, he would take
! in regard to the matters therein men
, | toned.
I'm the first place, I have no officia
I information that such decision ha.
! been made" was the reply. "Of course
/ I could take no official action in the
: matter, whatever my views might be
f until the question was properly brough
. before me. Again, this particular sui
is one in which Lewis county alone Il
! directly interested. The balance of tn,
ctate is not interested excepting as
precedent has been established which
being followed by the court, will pro
duce the same result elsewhere as Il
d Lewis county. The case is entirel.
z under the charge of the prosecuting
5 attorney of Lewis county, who ha
not communicated with me as yet con