The Sun. [volume] (Price, Utah) 1915-1932, 1915-10-01

nc the circuit court has reversed
Judge John A. Marshall on the law.
as I believe II has. Il II the most Inn
!. Portant legal decision that has hap
pcned In Utah since go coming 80 80. 80
pioneers" declared Russell q. Schulz
der of the law firm OF Dickson. Ellis.
Ellis a schulder last Monday nc Salt
lake city when shown the above dis
patch. The firm OF which schulder II
n member conducted the ease for
the Sweet interests and was later en-
gagged by the state OF Utah as special
counsel TO carry the appeal 20 the ctr
cult court Continuing, Schulder
aald:
III the case has been reversed on
the law u will mean that II will be
but n few years before Utah will not
know what school tax II. for the
simple rcaGon that no school tax will
be necessary. The funds from the
state school lands will meet all re-
uuircmcnta for school purpoHca. not
alone for n few years. hut for genera
lions 20 come.
Effect of the Decision.
III will mean that. thousands OF
acres OF land that are known 90 be
NNNNNNAN NfNNNNH wiz NfANAtN' wv HNNHH
crty OF the state and may be sold az
mineral land. There has never been
any question In my mind aA To- what
that part ~ the Utah enabling act
meant II follows the exact wording
% the enabling act OF Michigan and
other states which gave all OF certain
lands 10 the state Tor school purposes.
The supreme court 81 the United
States has held that the Michigan act
was legal. as well aa the same kind OF
a clause la the enabling act OF other
ntatca There IL no reason 10 believe
that the court will reverse itself In
the case OF Utah" The cnae n one
OF long standing la the United States
courta A brief history OF the case II
given by Frederick A. Sweet. admin
istrntor OF the estate OF Arthur A.
sweet. and by schuider.
The late A. A. Sweet purchased the
land In dispute. go acres In Carbon
county near the Emery county line. In
1905. The purchase was made from
parties who had purchased the prop.
erty from the state a. possible public
school land granted TO the state under
the enabling act. In 1903 the United
states brought suit against A. A.
Sweet 10 quiet title Co the land on the
ground that II was mineral or coal
land and that the state had no title
Go the land and therefore could not
pass title 90 another. In the trial OF
the case the government was repre-
scented b. John A. Maynard. as special
counsel for the department OF Justice.
The defendant was represented by
Dickson. Ellis. ellis and schulder.
The defense admitted that the land
was coal land. hut argued that az the
time OF the enabling act and even az
the time that the state sold the land
it was not known Go contain coal
Judgc MarshaIis Ruling.
Judge Marshall held that the state
did not have title 10 the land, that
Il belonged Ia the government as min
eral land. In view of the fact that the
state had sold many acres OF land 20
which the title might be In question.
20 any nothing OF thousands OF acres
Of land. especially In the central aud
southern part Of the state. which was
and Is still claimed by the state as
-schol land under the enabling act, the
state. on Recommendation OF Attorney
Sensral Barnes. made an appropria-
lton of five $780,
= 80. ...sasanu collars and en-
pioyed the firm OF Dickson. Ellis. Ell
lis a sehulder 90 carry the case TO
the circuit court OF appeals. The case