The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-01-22
DEALS A CRUSHING BLOW
TO BIG COAL COMPANIES
In Sweeping Opinion Judge Marshall
Overrules Demurrers of Utah and
Pleasant Valley Concerns.
Title to Mineral Lands Cannot Be Passed by State
May Affect Millions of Acres.

state of California the court said: AS
we have already said, congress. after
keeping this matter (the disposal OF
mineral landS) in allegiance for about
sixteen years, enacted I'm 1866 a COM
piete system for the sale and other
regulations of it's mineral lands so to-
tally different from that which governs
other public land. as To show that IT,
could never have been intended to sub
NIT them TO the ordinary laws for dis
posing of the territory of the United
States Taking into consideration what
IS Wei known 10 have been the hest
tation and difficulty in the minds OF
the congressman in dealing with these
lands. the manner i'm which tho
question was suddenly forced upon
them, the uniform reservation of them
for survey, frcm sale, from prs-en,p-
ton and above all from grants. wheth-
G: Tor railroads, public buildings or
ether purposes, and looking To the fact
that from all the grants made i'm this
at they are reserved. one Of which is
for school purposes besides the six
teeenth and thirty-sixth sections. we
are forced to the conclusion congress
did not intend to depart from its uni
form policy in this respect IN the grant
or these sections of the state"
The department of the interior.
charged with supervision of this mat
ter. has constantly ruled that the stale
of Utah. had no right to select known
mineral lands in satisfaction OF its
grant
%. -
State of Utah. 90 L. D.. 50: State Of
Utah, 80 L. D., sol; State of Utah. 90
l. D., III.
The opinion in state of Utah. 30 L.
D., 3Oi. was written by Assistant Al
torney General Nandevanter and it is
there said on this point: Many of the
general land laws. such as the home
stead law, desert land act and timber.
culture law, authorize the entry and
disposition of public land pursuant of
their provision, but those laws do not.
any OF them. contain indications that
the method of disposition therein au-
thorized is exclusive of others. ITpon
the other hand. the mining laws and
similar statutes OF local or restricted
application contain provisions unlfis-
takably indicating that the method OF
entry or disposition therein authorized
is exclusive of all others. Lands thus
set apart for disposition in particular
manner to the exclusion of all others do
not. in the absence of some declared
purpose to the contrary, fall within the
operation of subsequent laws which IN
central terms authorize the disposition
of unappropriated public lands Such
| lands are in sense appropriated. the
special provisions of the mining acts
being held to engraft an exception or
subsequent general law providing for
the disposition of public lands. Be
sides this the act of Feb. rs. 1891.
amending sections 2275 and 2276 Of the
! revised statutes was enforced when
the Utah enabling act was passed. That
act authorized the selection of land by
states having grants Of special sections
before survey and mineral land was.
! in the act, especially revised from such
indemnity selection.
To Provide Uniform Rule.
That this act was intended TO pro-
/ vide a uniform rule for the selection
I Of indemnity OF land applics bic to all
the states and territories having grants
of school lands"
/ 1t would seem then. that this act
should read as a part of the cOgnate
provisions OF the Utah enabling act
and with the same effect as this in
cOrporated in il so far as it is consist
ent with the other provision of that
act. This being done. the case. I think.
{ is brought within the principle of Min
! ing Company vs. Consolidated Mining
Company.
] There seems no reason to impute to
/ congress An intent to reserve mineral
Z ldnuS IIOlQ du INDEMNITY StitCllOn ana
at the same time 10 subject il to selec-
ton in satisfaction OF the grants OF I'm
specified land. There is further legis-
latiOn that seems TO me leads TO the
( same conclusion. Section of the act
of July 4, 1866, IA St Sc. provides: 'In
all cases lands valuable for mineral
) shall be reserved from sale except as
otherwise specially directed by law"
and the resolution of Jan 30 1865. u
d dc a sod ssf = 1..a
first session of.sthe thirty-elghth con-
I gress grant lands TO states or corpora
tons TO aid in the construction of roads
or for other purposes, or to extend the
time of grant prior to July 90, 1865.
shall be construed so as 10 embrace
4 mineral lands, which, in all cases are
reserved exclusively for the United
States unless specially provided in the
act or acts making the grants" To
ccnstrue it as simply affecting the
grants or extensions made at that ses-
sion is to ignore the language. which
in all cases are reserved exclusively to
the United States" etc.
Intent of Congress.
This phrase is purely Pathological
with reference TO the specific former
acts. The intended reservation as 70
these acts is complete without it, In
my opinion congress intended to lay
down the same rules for the interpre-
tation of land grants to states as it
subsequently enacted with respect to
laws providing for the sale Of public
lands. In no other way can full effect
| be given TO all the language used. 1t
{ follows that the state of Utah had no
, right TO select known mineral lands in
satisfaction to the grants to il.
Coming TO the other objections. going
to the equity of the bill. it may be that
il cannot be maintained as a bill TO set
aside the certifications for fraudulent
misrepresentation or for plain errors OF
fact or errors OF law committed by the
land department in its determination