The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-08-05

such occupa ncy was had, not exceeding
one hundred and sixty acres, for q.
sum not less than the appraised val
uaJtion thereof. Then follows several
proyisos prescribing certain limitations
upon the above; one, that this prefer
ence right shall not be given if the
party owns more than one hundred
and sixty acres Of land; another, that
parties who settled upon school lands
granted to the state prior to the ex-
tension of the governmental surveys,
or those holding possession thereof by
purchase from the original settlers or
their assigns, exc, shall be permitted
to purchase such lands at a price not
less than twenty-five per cent of its
appraised value, but in no case the
price to be less than one dollar and
twenty-five cents per acre. From the
above it woui1 appear that this pref
eTence right would attach to all state
lands which we interpret to mean all
lands granted to the state under pro-
visions 3, 6, and of the enabling act
and accepted in section l, article 20, of
the constitution
The first question to be determined
in relation TO these various classes of
lands is, are they state lands within
the meaning of said section 49, supra;
we find by reference to the enabling
act that sections 2, 16, 80 and Sc, in
every township of this state are grant
ed to the said state for the support of
common schools; this language points
out definitely the lands granted, and
so far as its provisions are concerned,
nothing further is required to be done
to render these state lands; these
classes OF lands without question
would come within the purview of the
statute, giving to persons whom you
suggest, a preference right to pur
chase; all other classes of land men
toned in your question, when finally
selected and set apart to the state by
the interior department, would come
within the same rule, and persons who
were actual and bona fide settlers or
occupants on January l. 1894, having
improved said lands. would be enti-
tied TO a preference right to purchase
the same under the conditions pre-
scribed in said section.
Question 2-'Does a mans wife have
preference right to purchase one
hundred and sixty acres of land in adj
dition to her husbands right?'
The proper answer to this question
would depend largely on the facts IN
each case, and 1 therefore suggest that
it would be quite satisfactory 10 at
tempt to answer without knowing all
of the facts and circumstances upon
which an opinion could be predicted.
Question 3-"Can she purchase one
hundred and sixty acres of land (at
auction)?"
Inasmuch as the law provides that
the board shall offer at public auction
and sell to the highest bidder, I am of
opinion that no restriction is laid upon
anyone in becoming a purchaser at
such sale, except that not more than
one hundred and sixty acres shall be
sold to any one individual, company or
corporation. Under our law the wife
does not lose her identity, and if she
has money to pay for it, she is as
much entitled to buy one hundred and
sixty acres of the public land as is
her husband; under the law she is en-
titled to own and hold property, sepa-
rate and apart from her husband, and
may sue and be sued and defend for
her own right, Independently of her
husband, and her rights, insofar as
her separate property is concerned, are
not in any sense dependent upon the
fact that she is a married woman.
Question 4E"Does the state board of
land commissioners determine disputes
as to who shall have the preference
right to purchase state lands?"
1 am of the opinion that this ques-
ton should be answered in the af
firmative, otherwise the board would
be powerless to carry out the pro-
visions of the law.
Question 8. Can a person purchase
less than a legal subdivision Of and
under a. preference right?'
In answer to this question, am of
opinion that person who is entitled
to a preference right may purchase
any tract of land CT which he is an
actual and bona-fide settler or &C.
cupant, without reference to the
quantity thereof, provided it does not
exceed $50 acres.
The law which forbids the purchase
of less than a legal subdivision re-
lates to the sale of state lands at
public auction; see section IS, page 241
of the laws of Utah of 1896; to say
that a person who had settled upon
lands prior to the extension OF the
government survey, as provided in sec
ton 10 should be deprived of their
preference right to purchase same,
simply because the tract SO occupied
and settled upon was less than a legal
subdivision would work innumerable
hardships upon the owners of small
tracts, and would be clearly repug
nant to the provisions of that section.
Question 6. Can a person assign mis-
preference right acquired since sur
vev?''
I think this question should be
answered in the negative. The pref-r-
ence intended to be extended by law
is a personal one, and not such one
as would invest him with the right
to subject il to bargain and sale.
Question, T. Can a person assign
(and have the same recognized by this
boardD any land he was occupying, in
EXCESS of $50 acres, on January L,
1892"
For the same reasons as suggested
in the answer to the last question, this
question should be answered in the
negative.
Question 8. Hes a person any pre-
ference right that he can assign. to
land Re was occupying on January 1,
1894, if he was at that time the owner
of more than $50 acres of land in this
state?"
No, for the same reasons as last
above set out. l have the honor to
be, very respectfully yours.
a. c. BISHOP,
Attorney General.
AS TO SALARIES.
Auditor Richards yesterday sub
mitted the following question to the
attorney general:
Salt Lake City, Utah, Aug. 4.
A. G. BISHOP, Attorney General.
Dear Sir-Permit me to submit the
following question, which please
answer at your earliest convenience:
Where the offices OF assessor and