The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-02-04
Mr., Walkers Fourth Chapter.

T. B. Walker is carrying on with n Q
Journal evidences Of one element IN
his great success in business-his faculty
of keeping everlastingly at it. The fourth
letter from Mr.. Walker on the timber
and stone question is published elsewhere
on this page to-day.
1t will be noticed that Mr.. Walker
thinks the editor was not strictly candid
in saying that there is not a word In the
majority opinion to the intention OF
congress in passing the act. Notwith-
standing Mr.. Walkers exceptions we
must stand by that assertion. When the
court says that the statute means so and
SO, it does not necessarily follow that
that Is what congress meant 1t to mean.
It would not be difficult to cite cases of
federal and state law where the interpre-
tation Of the courts is we'll known to be
in conflict with the actual intention Of the
men who drew and passed the bill of the
law in question. The dissenting members
of the court. on the other hand, do direct
ly speak of the intention of congress.
and to their minds that intention was in
conflict with the construction put on the
law by the majority.
We confess that when this discussion
was begun we were not aware Of the de-
cision in the case Of the United States
VS.. Budd, but proceeded the interpre-
tation evidently placed on the law by. Land
Commissioner Hermann. and our own un-
derstanding of the English language.
When we read in the law that the entry
man must swear among other things that
he does not take the timber claim ION
speculation we thought we had clear
cut conception of the meaning of the law.
1t seemed to us to cover the case of the
man who takes claim, for which he pays
the government $3.50 an acre, with the in
tention Of selling it the next day to some
one else at much higher price. But we
freely admit that the supreme courts
construction is entirely different. 1t
absolutely ignores the intention of the
entryman except as that can be proved
ia very difficult matter) by evidence OF
preliminary agreement to dispose of the
claim The result of the decision is prac-
tically to remove every restriction on
the taking of timber claims except thai
of single entry. person desiring tc
acquire an immense amount of govern
ment timber land has only to announce
that he is gong into a certain region tt
buy lands to have an army of men fol
low him to take claims.
1t is super f1uous to make agreements ir
advance, slight as is the possibility Of theil
detection, as to the purchase of the land
And if they are made, what is the sub
stantial difference in the effect between
doing so and merely announcing that pur
chases will be made? AS the supreme
court interrrets the law it is an invita-
ton for timber syndicates to raid tn
public forests and for individuals to hell
them for the sake Of the few dollars, o
the single nominal 81 of the man Budd il
the case referred to, there may be in
Tor them. It is possible that when congress
passed the law it intended that thousand
Of men should enter public timber land
and at once transfer them to great Ian
holders, but we doubt it. ~
The records Of the passage of the la,
through congress show that there wa
almost no debate, on the measure, an
such as there is gives the impression tia
it was regarded as a means of assistin
mining and other operations which needle
timber but had only the government land
to get it from. If congress meant it t
be the wholesale means of removing tn
forests that it has become why did it us
SO much restrictive language in the meas
ure, and provide fer punishment Of pei
jury in it's use?
AS for Mr.. Walkers dwelling on tt
subject of alienation Of the timber claim
he seems to be holding a joint debate wit
himself. We have at no time contende
that the entryrnan was bound to hold tr
claim in perpetuity, or for any specs
length of time. We have simply held thu
he could not rightfully take a claim, know
ing that to all intents and purposes
was merely a marker for some one els
We concede that mans intention is
very doubtful matter Perhaps that
why the supreme court has ignored
But If so, it is only another reason wi
the law should be repealed.
Regarding Mr.. Walkers reference to Il
absence of evidence of agreement in Il
particular case he mentions, we won
remind him that while the circumstanc
make strong a presumption of agreemen
there was no direct evidence on that poir
because the man who took the clail
.Budd, and the man he sold 1t to, Mon
gon1ery, failed to come into court al
testify. Naturally, if the witnesses "
not testify, you do not have evident
Why they refused to testify is not ha
TO guess 1--WE hazard nothing says t
dissenting opinion, ''in saying that t
first impulse Of an innocent man und
such circumstances would be to offer hi
self as a witness in his own behal
While Mr.. Walker is intimating that
Jour al is hardly candid in this d
cussion he would have done well to ha
remarked the conduct of Budd and MOI
gomery.
In winding up this controversy, we m
say that the situation is thus
The Journal and Mr.. Walker d
agree as to the intention of congress
enacting the timber and stone act
would have it repealed whatever the
tention of congress was; he would n
We think 1t an unwise measure and {