Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-06-22
government LOSES
OIL LANDS SUIT
UNITED STATES AND INTER.
EsTED INDIVIDUALS DEFEATED
IN SUPREME COURT.
TRANscoNTiNENrAL RAIL.
ROADS WINS s7oo, ,ooo, 900 DISPUTE
Valuable Oil Lands in California
Granted to Southern Pacific Re-.
claimed by United States Because
Of Mineral Desposits-court Hold.
Time Had Expired.

Washington. June 22. Transcon-
tinental railways won their fight for
title to some s7O0.O00.OO0 worth of oil
lands when the supreme court today
held void the clause in the patents
making the land revert to the govern
ment il found to contain minerals.
The court held that the patents were
irregular but that they could not be at
tackled collaterally-by other claimants
but could only be set aside by direct
attack by the government
Justice Vandevanter, for the court
incidentally emphasized the claim that
the governments time in which it could
attack the patents had expired in 1900
OF 1901.
Southern Pacific Grant.
More than 500, 100000 worth Of oil
lands owned by the great transcon-
tifentai railroads are involved in the
supreme courts decision in the case of
Edmund Burke, who claimed title to
part Of the lands which We're granted
by the government to the Southern
Pacific railroad in California The gov
ernment contended that when 1t gave
the lands to the railroad II did not
grant valuable nHaerals not then
known to exist
The government issued q patent in
1894 to the Southern Pacific in aid Of
Its construction OF transcontinental
line. Patents were issued likewise to
the Northern Pacific and other lines
traversing the plains and Rockies to the
coast Each patent contained an ex-
ocption and reservation reading as fol-
lows:
Excluding and excepting all mineral
lands should such be found In the tracts
aforesaid. but this exclusion and ex-
ception, according tc the terms Of the
statute,e shall not. be construed to In
clude coal and iron lands"
In Controversy For Yesrs.
For years fierce controversy has
been waged as to the effect Of the dis
covery of oil.
The railroads oontended that oil was
not mineral and therefore oil lands
were not excepted from the grant.
Furthermore, the railroads contended
I. that the exception was void under the
| law governing realty.
The government took the position
that 1t could show at any time. even
after the Insurance OF the patent that
he lands were oil in nature and thus
prevent their remaining in the hande
| Of the railroads.
Miners Filed Claims.
Previous to the government suit. a
three -cornered nature Of the con-
troversy was emphasized by Burke and
others laying claim to a portion OF the
oil lands under the placer mining laws.
They contended that the Southern Pa
cific had no title to the lands on much
the same grounds as the government.
and asserted affirmative title for them
selves.
| Northern Pacific lntervenss.
| The Northern Pacific obtained leave,
because Of Its indirect interest in the
litigation, TO present an argument in
the case. II contended that other land
! grant railroads would be affected vital
! ly by the decision upholding Burke's
| claims.
The value Of the property at stake
has been emphasized by showing that
1t Is more than the valuation placed
upon both real and personal property
for taxation in either Louisiana, Rhode
Island Virginia. North Carolina. OF
Nebraska. ard nearly as great as that
in Georgia, Kentucky or Oregon. The
value Is said to be seven times as great
as all the gold coin In the United
States and about three times the COM
bined public debts OF the various states
Can't Tie String to Grants.
I'm every case before this court,
said Justice Vandevanter. we have
held that where the law says that only
/ mineral or homestead lands are to bt
granted by the land officials the Of
ficials must do their duty OF ascertain
Ing whether that land came within tn,
! law and that they could not perform
! their duty by inserting exception!
that the land should not pass IL found
later not to be within the law"
This was precisely pointed out tina
all the land patents granted to rail
roads since 1866 contained a clause de
i claring the land should not pass from
the government II later 1t was found t
contain minerals.
Many Would Be Affected.
! 'T1et us see what this would mean II
the case OF the Northern Pacific" salt
he. "The Northern Pacific got ever.
alternate section of land in forty mil
wide strip from Duluth to the Pacifi
Should these clauses be held valid tn
i question would arise as to whethe
those who long ago purchased from tn
railroad and created farms. rancho
and towns on them. had any rights"
i The company contended evidenc
could not be presented at this day t
show that the lands were mineral AM
that the issuance OF the patents wa.
conclusive proof they were not. 1t ais
argued that the exception was void.
! Must Decide Beforehand.
Justice vendevanter held that
general statute made 1t the duty OF tn
secretary OF the interior to inquir
! whether the lands were Of the class 10
which a patent could be issued
4 Referring to the practice OF the LAM
4 Office, Justice vandeventer said, II: ha
il been the uniform practice to dectd
y whether the land was within the limit
Of the application when the application