The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-04-24
THE LANDS MUST PAY
Thousands of Acres That Are Made
Subject to Tax.
ONE MORE FOR THE PEOPLE
Nevada Carries a Test Case
Against the Railroad to the
Highest Court and Makes
Winning here.

Following is the text of the decision
rendered last Monday by the supreme
court of the United States in the mat
ter OF the refusal of the Central Pacific
company to pay taxes levied under au-
thority of the state of Nevada:
There appears to be within the coun-
ty of Lander four classes of lands en-
braced within the Pacific land grants
or 1852 and 1864: Patented lands to the
amount of 24.123 acres, assessed at 81 .25
per acre, concerning the taxability OF
| which there is no dispute; unsurveyed
lands to the amount of 1876, 200 acres,
assessed at so cents per acre, and held
both by the district court and by the
supreme court of the state not to be
subject to taxation; surveyed, but I'M
patented, lands, upon which the costs
of survey have been paid. $500 acres.
| These would, of course, be subject to
| taxation IL the following class was ad-
judged to be so subject: Surveyed, but
unpatented lands. upon which the costs
of survey have not been paid, 122, S24
acres. The principal dispute is with re-
gard to the fourth class, that is, un-
patented lands which have been sur
veyed but the costs of which survey
have not been paid.
Apparently to render these lands sub
1ect to state taxation, congress, on Jul
ly 10, 1886. passed an act to provide for
the taxation of railroad grant lands
and for other purposes, the first section
of which enacted: THAT lands granted
to any railroad corporation by any act
of congress shall be exempted from
taxation by state, territorial and NUM-
cipal corporations on account of the
lien of the United States upon the
same for the costs of surveying, Sc
lecting and conveying the same, or be-
cause no patent had been issued there
fDTs. hut hi let ~l..II
to lands unsurveyed; provided that any
such land sold for taxes shall be taken
by the purchaser subject to lien for the
cost of surveying, selecting and con-
veying, to be paid in such manner by
the purchaser as the secretary of the
interior may, by rule, provide, and to
all liens of the United States, in re-
spect to such lands. Provided, further,
that this act shall apply only to lands
situated opposite to and co-terminus
with the completed portions of said
roads and in organized counties; pro-
vided, further, that at any sale of lands
under the provisions of this act, the
United States may become the pre-
ferred purchaser, and in such case the
lands sold shall be restored to the pub
lie domain and disposed of as provided
by the laws relating thereto"
That by Section 1858 'It is the duty
of the assessor to prepare a tax list or
assessment roll in which shall be listed
all real estate, including ownership, or
claim to. or possession of, or right of
possession, to any land and improve
ments, etc.
1t is true that, with respect to I'M
surveyed lands, the supreme court held
that the railroad company had no such
actual and substantial possession as
would justify their taxation under the
statute, and that it does not expressly
appear from the opinion that the court
put the right of the state to recover its
taxes upon surveyed lands upon the
ground that the railroad did have pos
sessory claim thereto; but IL does not
necessarily follow that any federal
question was thereby raised. or that
any right, title. privilege or immunity
set up under the statute of the United
States was denied to IL.
1t does explicitly appear that author
ity was given by congress to the state
to tax these lands; but whether under
state laws. the railroad had any taxa
BILE interest therein, or whether the
decision of the court that Ii had no
such interest in unsuryeyed lands is
consistent with its opinion that IL had
such interest in surveyed lands, is inn
material so long as no federal riPht
was denied to IT. 1t is perfectly obvi-
Gus that no attempt was made TO tax
the subsection of these lands to taxa
ton by the state must have rested up
on some theory that the railroad had
a taxable interest in them. What that
interest was does not concern us so
long as ii appears that so far as CON
gress is concerned, express authority
was given to tax the lands. No action
on the part of the state or its legisla-
ture was necessary to signify it's ac-
ceptance OF authority conferred by fed
eral statute
Where a grant of lands is made by
congress TO a state for the purpose #
building railroads 1t has been Gus tenn
airy for the state to accept sIch grant
as authority for the conveyance of
lands to the designated railway com
pany; but where simple power is given
no acceptance of such power by the
state is necessary as preliminary to its
Nor. concerning that the /
general statutes of Nevada were mop 4
srative to authorize the taxation of
these lands prior to the act Of congress
IF July, 1896. was any reenactmant of
these statutes necessary, since the ef- 4
'eet of this act was merely 10 remove +
The only obstacle to their enforcement
As was said by this court with re-
;pect to an act of congress declaring
liquors to be subject 10 the
avs of each state upon their arrival 4
herein, congress did not grant permits
sion TO the state TO act. but simply re-
moved an impediment to the enforce
nent Of the state laws with respect TO
packages in their original
condition. created by the absence or a
specific utterance on its part
IL is further claimed that no lands
granted to this road can be taxed prior
o the issue OF the patent. because the
rant excludes mineral lands not only B
Minerals. but mineral lands-that the
light and power to ascertain which Of
he lands are mineral and which are
lon- mineral is vested exclusively in
he officers Of the government and can
,e proved only by the issue Of patent.
Is held by this court in Barien VS. the
Northern Pacific Railway company /
1 is argued that If the railroad com