The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1914-06-22
SOUTHERN PACIFIC
RETAINS OIL LANDS
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLDS AGAINST CONTESTANTS
TO VALUABLE TRACTS.
More Than Half Billion Dollars InvOlv-
ed In the Suit Company Has Sc
cured Patents to Land.

| WASHINGTON, June 22.-The Uni
ted States supreme court today de-
cided in the Southern Pacific rail-
ways favor in the two test cases OF
Edmund Burke and J. j. Lamprecht
attacking the railroads title to 200,-
900 acres of California oil lands es-
|timated to be worth half billion dol
lars Besides Burke and Lampracht
there were involved in the litigation
california, Detroit and Cleveland cit
liens who sought mineral patents
grants.
Fresno Oil Belt
Several CALIFORNIA; Joined with De-
| troit and Cleveland, O., citizens in test
| ing the title of the Southern Pacific
railroad to land, mostly situated In the
California "oil belt" near Fresno. The
Iclaim of the railroad, with the Kern
Trading and Oil company known as
the ESP" oil subsidiary concern, dat
ed back to the original charter given
the old Atlantic & Pacific railway by
the government in 1866 This grant
gave as bonus for construction eve
ry alternate section of public land
not mineral up to 20 acres per mile
on each side of the railroad, with
the provise that "all mineral lands
be and the same are hereby excluded
from the operation of this act" The
Southern Pacific company took over
the Atlantic & Pacific franchise and
property.
Railroads Got Patents.
In 1884 patents to the disputed land
were taken out by the railroad. The
land is rough mountain country, and
alleged to be wholly unsuited for ag-
agriculture. Edmund Burke, ]. J. |
Lamprecht, and other plaintiffs based
their claims upon "relocations" of old |
mining claims, in the disputed :Crri-
tory, upon which the owners had de-
faulted. That the land, because of its
petroleum oil contents, is mineral"
and not agricultural" was alleged by
The contestants of the railroads title.
They charge that the lands were
known mineral lands prior to the
railroads patents and patented fraudul-
emily by the carriers. Deciding in favor
If the railroads title, the federal court
n California held that the U. S. pat
,nts given the railroad were absC-
utely conclusive of the title of the
.ailroaads and that the lands, when
were in fact regarded as az
'icultural and not mineral. The court
leld that the federal paents were con-
,lusive against the claim of the
strangers" as the contestants We're
because of the previous
laims of the railroad, and because the
plaintiffs claims were asserted 10
ears after the railroads secured the
Lower Courts Reviewed Case.
The federal court in California,
vhich reviewed the decision holding
|
he federal patents, certified seven
uestions to the supreme court. Brief
Y they were: l. Did the grant of
he Southern Pacific railroad include
mineral lands which were known to
Q such prior to the patents of 1884?
Does the patent under grant ex-
luding mineral land, but which Is is
ued without any federal investigation
8 to whether it is agricultural or lnin
raj operate to convey lands after
ards found to be mineral? 3. Is the
lineral reservation and exception of
le patent void? A. II the reservation is
Did, then is the patent conclusive
vidence that the land is agricultural?
Is the product of petroleum within
le meaning of the word mineral?
Is the plaintiff barred on account OF
aving no interest At the time the
ailroad's patents were granted? z.