Semi-weekly herald., 1907-12-26
rba decision was giyen in the New


Mexico Lumber and Pagosa Lumber
company and the ruling of the court
frees some of the wealthiest and most
nrominent citizens Of Denver Durango
and Pagosa Springs, while 1t was also
forerunner of the qpashing OF prac-
tically every Indictment secured by
the government at great cost for al
legged fraudulent coal and timber la1d
entries In Colorado. Government of
ficials declare, however, that they VIII
continue their Investigations and the
effort to secure further indictments in
the belief that the supreme court Will
not sustain the contention OF Judge
Lewis.
In the meantime the defendants in
the three cases--FTeeman, Biggs,
Nossaman, McGinnity. McPhee, Sullen-
berger, Hatcher, Hampton, Caldwell.
Sloan and Taylor-are released upon
their own recognizance.
The decision. federal attorneys say
is in direct variance with the policy OF
the United States land Office, and il
sustained will mean a revolution in
the acquisition of public lands. The
ruling does not AFFECT the equity suits
brought by the government, but attor
| neys in these cases say that by the
same construction of Judge Lewis
ruling he will stay title in the govern
ment lands in the parties who now con
troll them.
In effect the ruling is to the effect
that it is not crime or violation
Of law to purchase land after appli
cation for entry is made. which wai
the basis of the conspiracy charge il
all of these cases.
Ernest K1aebel. who appeared 70
the government in the argument o
the cases decided today, stated thi
| morning that an immediate appea
would probably be taken to the Unite'
States supreme court.
"The court recognizes the illegalit.
pective entrymen prior to application
said Mr.. Knaebel, "inasmuch as th
statute itself is explicit on that point
The decision on other points Is con
| trary to the holdings of the land de
partnent and raises question of sucl
Importance that it will be carried t,
| the supreme court to settle the issue
| involved for all time
Judge Lewis in his opinion asks
How can we say that 1t is crimina
fraud for an intended qualified entry
| man after his application TO contrac
| to sell in future the lands he ha
made application for with an homes
| purpose to acquire and TO obtain iron
his purchaser expectant the funds t
make payment? Such contract ha
| been held valid even before the veT
| der had entered or made application
| to purchase, he being in possession
| at the time
Judge Lewis further declared tha
the acts charged We're not prohibite
in the timber and stone act and "w
\ cannot by construction hold the act
to be charged in violation of said stai
ute. and therefore illegal or unlawful
for the purpose of constituting tn
fraud denounced by section 544O."
The court further holds that the er
| tIymen are not alleged to have bee
disqualified to act as such. Also tina
| the crime charged must he violativ
of both the words and of the spirit an
| policy of the statute" He expressl
| declined to be bound by civil case rul
ings- AS to the duplicity charge, tn
court holds that If there is no duplic
| itious charge, then the one crime o
conspiracy, which is alleged to hav
| begun in August, 1893. is barred b,
| the statute Of limitation.
Judge Lewis concludes Therefore
| II we take the first view, the charge /
duplicitious, and If the second, prose
cution is barred. The dilemma rer
| ders the indictment bad. The motiol
and demurrer are sustained"
| The rulings in No. 2027 and No. 2O2
are based upon the decision in Nc
POPS.