The Big Sandy news. [volume] (Louisa, Ky.) 1885-1929, 1908-08-21
Again Cause of Litigation To
Kentucky.
GRANTS MADE BY VIRGINIA.

Supreme Court of the United States
In the case in which Involves the
ownership of thousands of acres OF
the richest coal and timber lands In
The State. Involved In the action is
the question of the cons nationality
Of Article II. of the new revenue and
taxation act passed by the Legisia-
ture in 1906. The Court of Appeals in
a decision written by Chief Justice
ORear upheld the cOns'itutioaalily
OF the act. Behind the question OF
the Constitutionality Of the Kentucky
act lies the all-imRortant point of
whether the old Virginia land grants
remain valid or whether the subsC-
Quent Kentucky patents are legal, and
the retention or loss of over a million
dollars to those holding and claiming
these lands. 81.
Many other corporations besides the
Eastern Kentucky Land Company are
interested in the final outcome OF
that action, for the other corporations
hold titles TO other thousands of acres
in the Eastern part of the State OBJ
tanned in similar fashion as the hold
ings which the plaintiff at bar is
seeking to retain.
In the assignment Of errors prepar-
ed by the Eastern kentucky Lands
corporation 1t is complained that the
Court of Appeals erred in affirming
the judgment of the Pike county,
Floyd county, and Letcher county
courts, as the judgment of coach court
was reviewed and affirmed in this
appeal. 1t is also contended that he
Court OF Appeals erred Ia upholding
the validity OF Article Ill. OF thea ct
of March Is, 1906, of the Kentucky lie
islature; first because It violates the
compact between Virginia and Ken
lucky of December IS, 1889; second,
because it violates the provisions Of
the Constitution of Kentucky and
the Constitution of he Unied States
requiring due process OF law; third,
because Article H. violates Section 10
of Article |. of the Constitution of
the United States, which provides
that no State shall deprive any per-
son of property without due process
Of law, nor deny any person within
the jurisdiction the equal protection
of the law.
1t is also complained that the act
of 1906 is unconstitutional because
that irrespective OF the invalididiry
Of the provisions of Article III OF that
act this suit by the plaintiff against
the defendant has complied with any
and all Qf any Of the revenue act
of 1906 50 far as the same Is appllca-
BILE to the defendant, II any of the
provisions are valid with respect TO
the defendant has not been guilty
OF any wrong and has not omitted TO
do any act which would forfeit It's
title of claim to any of the lands ev-
erif the the revenue act is valid; and
because Article II is an act of spolia-
ton and lawless confiscation and is
revolutionary and subversive OF all
constitutional Oand orderly govern
ment. 1t is upon these complaints
that the Eastern Kentucky Coal Lands
Corporation expects and hopes TO
secure a reversal OF the decision of
the Court of Appeals. The corpora
ton is represented by former Attor-
rey General William J. Kendrick,
former Chief Justice James II. Hazel
rigg and other well-known attorneys.
representing the Commonwealth are
Attorney General James Breathitt,
Senator Thomas II. Paynter and
other attorneys. .'"
The suit with its various ramifi-
cations, had its starting point over
a century ago when what is now the
Commonwealth of Kentucky was a
part of the State of Virginia and was
known as the District of Kentucky.
Virginia issued land grants or sold
land patents to parties making sur
veys, much Of the land being given
as compensation for services dur
ing the Revolutionary War. Hun
dreds of thousands of acres were
granted in one survey to one person
and the land was considered of 50
little value that oftentimes thous-
aids of acres would be exchanged for
a rifle or powder flask. Large tracts
Of this land thus acquired are at the
made by Virginia, Kentucky became
Leadwaters of the Big Sandy River
counties.
A few years after these grants were
aade by Virginia, Kentucky became
a state and was admitted to the IN
ion, but before being admitted to the
Union compact, known as the "yir-
ginia Compact" was entered into by
the conventions by the State Of vir-
ginia and the district Of Kentucky
and among the things, agreed TO was
that Kentucky should respect the land
grants within its borders that had