The Julesburg grit-advocate., 1913-06-05
LAYuN MAKES RUuNe
PERMANENT RicHY0 eoR NS0St.
WAYS ACROSS PUOllc LAMo0.
etsAss Alrssay Pssssss gassasas ~
csastrvetiea q RosAs ~ pvhiIs
Lands Net Aeoosvod.

~oo0 gave assurance tn1t 0l&1V3y8
seross tract OF public land which hase
become established through usaes ~
b held permanent rights Of vay ~
states or counties adopting them. II
. lsttsr to Taylor. Assistant Secretary
Of the Interior Laylin says the statas
already possess easements for ths ooar
struction Of highways over publts
lands not reserved for public usaa
snd unless 1t 10 deemed advisable -
secure IN easement or right OF way
prior TO construction and use. o. -
have such rights Of way noted upoa
the records Of the local or esaseal
land offices. additional legislatioo -
congress 10 unnecessary.
The coming activity of the state
Highway Commission In COLORADO
makes the Information extremely IN
portant. for there will be many u
stances. here and there in the ststs.
where 1t will be found desirable 70
straighten and repair long stretches q
road which leads across lands still
owned by the government. Unlsss
there 10 assurance that the state y
to have title to these highways aftss
they are rebuilt, and that they are
not to be seized and included in tAs
holdings Of coming settlers. there viii
10 naturally some diffidence on the
part Of the Highway Commission -
to proceeding with permanent works.
a query Of this nature having been ~
ceived from Charles w. Taylor. coun-
ty attorney OF Garfield county, Con-
gressman Taylor at once recognized
the gravity of the question and pro-
ceeded to lay 1t before the Interior D.
partment. The reply of Assistant
Secretary Laylin is recognized as Of
ficial In character. Section 2477 Of
the Revised Statutes is pointed out
As carrying the authority for the states
to construct and holds vested rights
in such roads as they wish over the
public domain, where it Is not r.
served for public uses. A case u
cited which involves the townsite Of
Creede. Colo, and holds that a vested
right Of way for a road is not de-
feated by a subsequent townsits
settlement. 1t is also noted that the
Department has held that a reservar
ton Of q right Of way claimed under
Sec. 2477, in a patent issued for lands
traversed thereby, is not necessary 70
the protection of such right.
Congressman Taylor asserts that the
ruling Of the Department will have the
effect Of assuring many localities In
Colorado Of their right to maintain
roads over the public domain. He
calls attention to the fact. however,
that the statute does not apply to for.
est reserves.
laylin's Letter.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
Warrington. May %. 1913-Hon. Ed
ward T. Taylor. House of Representa-
tives: My Dear Mr.. Taylor-I have
your letter of May 9Th. inclosing COM
munication from Mr.. Charles w. Tay-
lor. County Attorney of Garfield Coun-
ty, Colorado, asking whether there 10
any way in which the United States
can give permanent easement or
right of way to a state or county for
highways. You suggest that you will
be plensed to have a reference to any
laws or decisions which may bear
upon the subject-matter. and to be
advised as to whether or not additional
legislation is necessary or advisable.
In reply 1 direct your attention to
the act of July rs, 1866 "a Stat, 253)
carried into Section 2477 of the Revised
Statutes, wherein 1t is said
The right of way for the con-
struction of highways over public
lands, not reserved for public uses.
Is hereby granted.
Constituting this section: the Depart,
Road Company v. The ToWnsite % OF Of
Creede (2l L, D., 35l) that such vest
ed right Of way over public lands was
acquired by the location and construc:
tion of road as can not be defeated
by a subsequent townsite settlement;
and In the later case of Pasadena and
Mount Wilson Toll Fol Read @ ct al Y: schne!-
hered to the ruling in the case first
cited and further held that the reserva-
tton of right of way claimed under
patent issued for lands traverssd
thereby is not necessary to the protec-
tion of such right;
County q So Oak, u the object of
the section was to enable citizens and
residents to build and construct high
out making themselves liable as tres
passers. and the Supreme Court Of
North Dakota, in the case of Walcott
County V. Skague, held that the right
granted is not in the nature of IL
cense revocable at the pleasure of the
Erantor but that when highways are
once established over the public do
main under this section the public be-
comes vested with an absolute right to
the use thereof which cannot be re-
voked by the United States &C n. Dak..
Ss2). A number OF courts have held
that where right of way has, been
der the provisions of this section a sub
seQuent purchaser or grantee of the
land takes it subject to the easement
in favor of the public unless such
easement has been extinguished by the
operation of state laws See McRoss
v. Bottyer Isl Cal. 1927; Estes Park
Toll Roads Company v. Edwards fs
Colo. Appeals, 7D Tholl v Koles (ss
Kans.. SO2); Walcott Township v.
Skague t6 y Dak.. 3s2): Keen ".
Fairview Township Is S. Oak. 558):
Wallowa County v. Wade (43 Ore,