The Monte Vista journal., 1897-05-29
THE FENCES MUST GO.
a SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Canasid and Drury violated the Law By
Running . Fence Around 0overnnsat
LAnd-ls scared Ssttlsrs Away.

Denver. May 25.-The following spe-
cial from Washington to the RepubN-
can gives synopsis Of nm Important de-
cisiOn 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
ernmcnt. The case came to the Su-
prcme Court on appeal from the United
States Circuit Court OF Appeals Of the
Eighth circuit. from n decree of the De-
cember term, 1891. affirming the decree
OF the Circuit Court Of the United
States for the district OF Colorado, and
from further decree OF March Is,
1S.tj. denying "A petition for rohcarins
on the ease.
The controversy was over the fcnc-
Ing Of land in Colorado. 1t appears
that the defendants had acquired GER
tain tracts OF land lying within the lin
It's OF the grant made 10 the Union Pa
cltc Hallway Company by the act of
July |, ls'i2. built their fence on such
numbered sections, and then, having
acquired from the owner or owners
permission To do so. built n fence on the
adjoining tracts OF land opposite to the
even numbered sections lying between
their odd sections. In such Il manner
that the section OF fence 80 construct
ed on their odd sections and ON the
land opposite To 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 the United States.
The land around which the fences
We're made embraced townships Z and
: north. range ~ west of the siNticth
principal meridian. II appears that the
defendants. Camflcld and Drury, in
fencing the land. had built gates at the
corners, SO thar at each section lire
there were entrances. but this did not
prevent from in n manner occupying
the land. The fence was built SO as TO
surround the townships. not enclosin.
each section.
In defense a number of propositions
Were set up. anon: them being the as
scriIon that they wanted to construct a
large irrigation system.
The opinion OF the court was rem
dered by Justice Brown. He cited the
law Of 1885,. which prohibits the unlaw-
that the defendants prcscn. 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
as long as they are a part OF the public
domain. II needed no argument. says
the court. To show that the building of
fence and the enclosing OF lands would
b. 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 hat
acquired prior rights, There was no
objection to building n fence or a wall
outside OF tn. government lands. cx-
cept where II was clearly the intention
TO cnc,osc the public lands.
The court says that the fence is clear
ly a nuisance. While Congress has not
the unlimited right To lcglslnie agains,
nulsanccs In the states. 1t has the
power to protect the public lands.
In regard to the brief OF the railway
company. which filed a brief in sup
port of the defendants contention. the
court says that Congress did not gram,
the whole of the townships 10 the road.
but pHlN 1ht puu-nuulbtTsSl ht'tipHs.
the balance being for the & neral pub
lie. The government has the right over
the odd numbered sections. II Il no
answer to say that the fence was not
on the land OF the government. but on
separate tracts when the fence opcrat.
cd 10 cNclt.dc settlers. An individual
has the right To fence his own land.
but when under the gusc OF fencing
his own land he builds fence for the
express purpose and which can only
have been Intended fo enclose govern
mrnt land. he Is guilty of unwarranta-
Ill. appropriation. II Is immaierlal
that they wanted to build reserves for
Irrigation purposes. Congress reserved
the constitutional right Of protecting
the public lands from nuisanccs erected
upon adjoining property.
The judgment ~ the court l. that the
act protecting III" public from nul-
sanccs erected upon adjoining property
Is valid aud the decision of the Court
Of Appeals Is affirmed. The contention
that the fence was not located upon
any portion of the government land Is
not well taken: the fact that 1t sur.
rounded government land IL sufficient
for declaring II a nuisance.
THE SUPREME COURT.