The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-30
Too Early Yet for the Salt Com
pany to Announce Plans
for Future.
ATTORNEY FOR STATE
DISCUSSES THE CASE
Opinion Is Passed on Grammat-
ical Construction of the
Enabling Act.
Continued From Page One.

Continued From Page One.
| 200. 600 acres for the use OF an agricul-
| tural college therein, That the pro-
ceeds OF the sale of said lands. or any
portion thereof, shall constitute perma..
| nent funds TO be safely invested and
| held by said state and the income there
| OF TO be used exclusively for the pur-
| poses of such university and agricultural
| college. respectively"
On this question the United States
supreme court said.
In determining the meaning OF the
word Including which means. according
to the Century dictionary. to conflne With
! in something. hold as an Enclosure, TO in
close, 10 contain, to comprise as part.
to take in, as the greater includes the
is a participal In the nature of an adj
jcctive and is modifler, In section 8
of the enabling act Ii modifes the sub
stantive phrase. One hundred ten thou
sand acres of land and this in har-
mony with the grants OF saline lands TO
other states" The court says further
that IL does not concur with the contcn-
ton of the state that the word 'includ
ing is used in the enabling act word
Of enlargement Such n construction is
exceptional. as dictionaries and cases in
dicate,
The grammatical construction. therefore,
OF the plaintiff in error, the Montello Salt
company. was sustained, and based upon
this construction the court held that the
lands in question are not included In the
| university land grant from the govern
ment to the state.
Land Has Been Located.
Some years before the discovery and
location OF the salt bed the lands grant
ed by the federal government had been
located ,f, and nd, selected or within few acres
never been established the state in sub
mltting Its demurrer to the claims of the
salt company admitted this fact. Even
the grant Of the two townships that
amount had been located Following the
grant and the additional land referred
10 in the enabling act. of which section
s describes the additional amount OF
land. 10000 acres. the additional land
was selected and located. or this was the
contention OF the appellant In the case
and which was submitted TO as Il fact
by the state. In support OF the argu-
ment the salt company held that the act
| by It's very construction meant that all
10000 acres. In taking the case through
the district and supreme courts OF the
state the fact OF the actual time OF dis
covery Of the saline lands subsequent to
the lime the state had exhausted It's
| selection OF the 10000 acres grant was
not established. In the arguments before
the supreme court of the United States
this point was brought up by some OF
| the judges on the bench.
Courts Intervention.
The case came into being when the re-
gents OF the state university applied for
an Injunction In the Third district court
against the Montello Salt company, ask
ing that the company be enjoined perma
developing the saline properties This
| action was begun on the ground that tho
company had no right TO file on the land
inasmuch as under the enabling act thu
land Salinn land halonge1 IN
state.
The case passed from the Third dis
trlct court, George G. Armstrong pre-
siding. to the state supreme court. where
tie judgment was for the state. In the
salt company's brief the allegation was
made that the state had no right 70 the
land under the construction OF the en-
abling act. The state in its reply to the
company's brief. using as n supportlve
argument that the intent OF congress In
passing the enabling act was 10 make
nous with s'slso." citing other cases al
ready at that time having been settled
by the supreme court. the former deci-
sions taking the liberal construction OF
the word, In the end. an opinion was
rendered by the supreme court OF the
state on November q. 1908. This opin-
and ooncurred in by Justice w. NJ. Nc
Carty and Justice j, L. Frick. affirmed
the judgment OF the lower court in favor
OF the state. AS soon possible the
salt conpany's attorneys. Judge ". l..
Msginnis and Judge Corn OF Ogden. for
the 1000 stockholders in the Montello
company carried the case to the supreme
court of the United States.
Realizing tho Importance of the case.
the attorneys looked for some special act
OF congress whereby they could ask Tho
supreme court to advance tho case To
the top OF the docket. This was not
found possible and the case was allowed
to take its course; In the beginning OF
the case. Major Rrceden was attorney
general of Utah A. II, Barnes, present
attorney general. at that time assistant
attorney general. took up the states part
Of the case with the assistance of w, u
Ritor Four weeks ago the case was
called before the United States supreme
court and Mr., Ritter for the state and
Judge Corn OF Ogden and Jesse Barton.
n Chicago attorney. for the Montcllo COM
pany argued IT,
Ritter Discusses Action.
Speaking of the case in its entirety
and the decision OF the highest court Mr..
pected a different decision. However. all
cases are more or less chance. felt
that the state had reasonable chance To
receive the benefit Of the decision. In
presenting the case before the United
Staes supreme court / appeared for the
state. and with Judge Corn and Mr.
Barton, who represented the salt COM
pany. had due and courteous recognition
before that august body The Individual
members OF the supreme court took oc
themselves as to the material points In
contention. We were interrupted bv
them at intervals 10 20 into detail on
certain points And right here let me
tribunal intending 10 make set argu
Incntatjve speech he Is doomed to disap-
pointmcnt. as the keen questioning OF tn
justices will upset al efforts 10 procec"