The weekly true Democrat. (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1905-1912, 1906-10-12

trustees 'QecDne, as Jney nave at ali
times heretofore declined, to recognize
any of the so-called land grants to rail-
road and canal companies claimed under
the special legislative enactments of
1879 and subsequent thereto" Also,
that therefore, the lands q, 1862, $50
acres) known as the Everglades "are
not subject to any claim of any railroad
or canal company by reason of any
special legislative enactment granting
lands thereto, or certificates issued or
obligations entered into by the trustees
of said fund"
NOTES OF DECISIONS.
TENDER %, 1850, was, by the Internal
Improvement act of the Florida Legis-
lature of January 6, 1855, "irrevocably"
vested in the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund "a board created by
said acts), that, therefore, the Legisla-
ture had no authority to grant any Of
said lands to railroad companies, out
side of six-mile limit from their lines,
and has no authority or right to say
what shall be done with said lands, or
the proceeds arising from the sale
thereof. This theory appears to have
been considered, or anticipated, by the
courts:
Even n UcCu GAcCuISu ny JlS JEuSbSCS
docs not carry with it presumption
that the title was in them, or that they
could lawfully convey the premises. "
~Magruder v. Perpall, l3 Fla, 6O2.
The expression "irrevocably" in the
internal Improvement act, 80 much re-
lied upon to give color to the Jennings
Broward theory, means nothing, inso-
far as it may be supposed to affect sub
sequent legislation:
"The power of one Legislature is not
limited by the act Of an antecedent one,
unless the act of the is of such charac-
ter as to call into operation a constitu-
tional limitation upon the power of the
second. The Internal Improvement Act
is not Organic LdtU. Trustees Of the
Internal Improvement Fund vs. st.
Johns Railway Company. l6 Fla, SO Con
zales VS. Sullivan, l6 Fla, 791. And no
such Constitutional limitation has ever
existed in Florida to be called into oper-
alton. To support ats decision in the
case above named, the Supreme Court
cited case which Governor Broward
has referred to as sustaining his con-
tention, McGhee VS. Mathis, Wall,
los, where the U. S. Supreme Court
says:
"No more efficient mode of reclaim
ing them Swamp and overlooked lands)
could have been devised than that of
constructing lines of railroad and canals
through them, thus rendering them &C
cessible to settlers, furnishing trans
portation for their products, enhancing
the valuation of adjacent lands and
making them available for the funda-
mental and leading purposes of the
trust, which would otherwise be value
less to it. -
The idea that the grant of swamp and
overlooked lands TO Florida by the Act
of Congress of 1850 was hampered by
condition which has not been perform
ed, and that, after fifty years Of wise
administration by some of the greatest
men Florida has produced, it remained
for Jennings and Broward to discover
and insist upon the performance Of the
condition, does not appear to have been
recognized by the courts.
1.-The Act Of 1850 operated as a grant
in prdeseHti, to the states then in exis-
tence, of all swamp lands in their re-
spective jurisdictions Rice vs. Sioux
City and st. Paul Railroad Company,
ITO u. S.. sos; Michigan Land g. Lum-
Der Company VS. Rust, 1853 u. s., $50.
Although the grant, by the Act OF
September %, 1850, Of swamp and over
flowed lands to the states, is declared
to have been made for the exclusive
purpose of enabling such states, with
the proceeds thereof, TO reclaim the
lands by means of levees and
drains, they may exercise their dis
erection in this behalf without af-
ffecting the titles of the lands; and
Congress alone has power, in clear
case of violation of the trust, TO enforce
the conditions Of the grant, by revoca-
ton or otherwise American Emf
grant Company vs. Adams County, 100
u. S., 81
This Swamp Land Act Of Septem-
Der %, 1850, imported a present grant
10 the states, and the title TO the lands
passed 70 the states at once their iden-
LITIGATION TO be made by the Secretary
Of the Interior, but when identified (pa-
tented the title to relate back TO the
date Of the Act
Tubbs VS. Without, 1873 u. S, 1874; cit
ing Wright vs. Roseberry, l2l u. S.,
4SS, and Irwin VS. San Francisco Saw
ings Union, SO U. S., SIS.
"The proviso in the Act Of Septem-
bember %, 1850, that the proceeds Of
said lands, whether from sales or direct
appropriations in kind, shall be applied
exclusively 70 the purpose Of reclaim