The silver star., 1897-06-03
THE FENCES MUST GO.
= SUPREME covar DEc,s.oN
ramnsid and Drury Violated the Law by
Running Fence Around Governnent
Land-lt scared scttlcrn Away.

Denver May 2J.-The following spe-
cial from Washington to the Republi-
can gives synopsis of an important de-
clsion by the Supreme Court:
The United States Supreme Court has
decided the case of Daniel A. Camfield
and William Drury. appellants, against
the United States. In favor Of the gov
ernment. The case came to the Su-
preme Court on appeal from the United
States Circuit Court Of Appeals OF the
Eighth circuit. from a decree of the De-
cember term. 1894. affirming the decree
of the Circuit Court Of the United
4 States for the district of Colorado, and
from further decree of March IL,
1885. denying petition for rehearing
on the case.
The controversy was over the fenc-
ing of land In Colorado. 1t appears
that the defendants had acquired GER
tain tracts of land lying within the lin
its of the grant made to the Union Pa
cilic Railway Company by the act OF
| July l.. 1862. built their fence on such
numbered sections. and then, having
acquired from the owner or owners
permission to do so. built fence on the
adjoining tracts of land opposite to the
even numbered sections lying between
their odd sections, in such manner
that the section of fence 80 construct
I'd on their odd sections and on the
| land opposite 10 the even sections,
formed practically. although not ac-
tually. continuous line of fence.
which. being extended around the en-
tire body of land within which their
odd sections lay. embraced. necessarily,
the even numbered sections. which are
| the property of tile United States.
Ion vv-htn1,
| were made embraced townships Z and
s north. range 63 west of the sixtieth
principal meridian. 1t appears that the
defendants. Camfied and Drury, In
fencing the land. had built gates at the
corners. SO thar at each section line
there We're entrances. hut this did not
prevent from in a manner occupying
The land. The fence was built so as to
surround the townships. not enclosing
each section.
In defense Il number of propositions
were set up. among them being the as
sertion that they wanted to construct
large irrigation system.
The opinion of the court was rem
dered by Justice Brown. He cited the
law of 1885. which prohibits the uulaw-
ful enclosure of public land. He SAYS
that the defendants present nothing to
show that they had the right to en-
close the lands. While the lands are in
Colorado the United States government
has the right TO deal with them and
protect them as part of its property
rs long as they are Il part of the public
domain. II needed 10 argument. saws
the court. To show that the building Of
fence and the enclosing OF lands would
be a trespass. More than this. there is
an evil in permitting persons to build
an enclosure. frightening away intend
ing settlers with the idea that the lands
enclosed belonged to persons who had
required prior rights. There was no
objection TO building fence or wall
outside of the government lands. ex-
cep' where II WIS clearly the intention
10 enclose the public lands.
The court says that the fence is clear
ly Il nuisance. While Congress has not
the unlimited right to legislaie against
nuisances in the states. 1t has the
power TO protect the public lands.
In regard to the brief OF the railway
company. which filed brief in SUP
port of the defendants contention, the
court says that Congress did not grant
the whole of the townships 10 the road
but only the odd-numberel sections.
the balance being for the s. .neral pub
lie. The government has the right over
the Odd-numbered sections, II is no
answer to say that the fence was not
on the land of the government. but on
separate tracts when the fence opcrat-
ed TO exclude settlers. An individual
has the right to fence his own land,
bnf when under the guise Of fencing
his own land he builds fence for the
express purpose and which can only
have been intended To enclose govern
mcnt land. he is guilty OF unwurranta
BILE appropriation. II is immateriui
that they wanted to build reserves for
irrigation purposes. Congress reserved
the constitutional right OF protecting
the public lands from nulsances erected
upon adjoining property.
The Judgment Of the court is that the
act protecting the public from nuI-
sances erected upon adjoining properly
is valid and the decision Of the Court
| of Appeals is affirmed. The contention
that the fence was not Sbcated unon
any portion of the government lnnI il
not well taken: the fact that II sur.
rounded government land is sufficient
for declaring II nuisance.