The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-31
THE SALT LANDS DECISION,

Tho L. S. Supreme Court has ruled
against tho Utah University in the sa
line land case The University. under
section S of the Enabling Act, which
i prepared Utah to become State
claimed all the saline lands in tho State
The following is The section upon which
the claim is made:
Soc. s. That lands to lhc extent of
! two townships IN OIgniiIy authorized bv
the third section OF the act of February
| twenty-onc, eighteen hundred and fifty
! liNc, 10 be reserved for the establishment
! granted TO the State of Utah FOR univcr-
| siiH purposes to be hcld and used i'm ac-
cordance with tho provisions Of This sec
ton; and any portions or said lands that
| may not have been selected by said Ter
rltory may be selected by said state.
That IN addition 10 The above, one hun
drod and ten thousand acres OF land. 10
ne selected and located ms provided in
The foregoing section of this act and
! including all saline lands in said State.
arc hcrchy granted to said state. for tho
use oi said university. and two hundred
Thousand acres for tho use OF an scri-
cultural college therein That tho pro-
ceedS OF Tho sale of said lands, or any
portion thereof. shall constitute perma-
nent funds. TO be safely invested and
held by said Stale, and tho income there
ol 10 he used exclusively for the p,r-
l'SCS OF SnCil university and aGrlCul-
lural Collegc, respectively.
The salt company which took up the
salt lands in the western part Of the
State on the line Of The Western Pa
clfic Railroad. made its location on the
hypothesis that tho language quoted
restricted The university TO 100000
acres of saline lands The university
claimed that the 10000 acres were SIM
ply basis for original selection. and
that ali other saline lands were to be
added. CONSUMING the grant 10 mean
that II was 10 have all the saline lands
in the state The salt company in in
tercsi held, on the contrary, that the
10000 acres was restrictive and moi
core around which accretions were
10 attach. This latter view appears to
be the one taken by the Supreme Court.
The text OF the decision is not yet re.
ceived, but enough is known of lis
tenor 10 Indicate that this is the con
struction which the court placed upon
the language. The university gets its
10000 acres Of saline lands, the court
holding evidently that Congress sup
posed this 10000 acres to comprise all
saline lands in the State. This guam
tity Of saline lands is therefore con
tirmcd to the university, but all other
saline lands in the State are released
from It's claim.
1t is easy TO sec how thc court came
10 this conclusion, and that conclu-
sion doubtless settles the matter for
good and all, We note the claim Of the
possibility Of a rehearing which might
result more favorabIy to the university,
this because of certain admissions made
in the pleas for the purpose of argu
mcnt. We Judge, however. that this is
n futile hope, because the court cvi
dcntly made square construction of
the language of the section quoted, That
construction was probably not based on
any admissions made in the pleadings,
and ii is not likely to he changed by
any alteration In them. The court evi
dcutlr went direct 10 the law, and
made lis construction Of the language
used by Congress, this construction linn
iting the saline lands which can be
claimed by the university TO the no.
900 acres specified III the law. 1t is easy
10 see. on a careful reading of the sec
ton, how the court arrived at this con-
cluslon. 1t is conclusion unfortunate
for the university, and doubtless those
having the enabling act in charge could
at the time of its passage, have so writ
ten the grant as TO relieve the purpose
of Congress of all ambiguity, and Sc
cure for tho university all Of Utah s.
saline lands. We have no doubt that
Congress would have been quite as will
ing 10 include all the saline lands of
the State In 'hc university land grant
puttIng the grant in unmistakablc
terms, as to put in the words which arc
now found to limit the grant 10 no..
600 acres; but that was not done.
We therefore consider the matter to
be entirely closed, and the university
70 be barred from any claim beyond the
10000 acres. The court ruling appears
10 have been on an absolute and clear
construction Of the statute, from the
point of view adopted by the court.
The likelihood of this point of view be
ing changed is so extremely small,
that We should doubt the propriety Of
any 1uri nor litipation in thn paSo