The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1916-08-03
BY BASIL M. MANLY,
Noted Economic and Political Elk
pert for The Times

(This Is the NTH In Manlys series
OF articles. breaking the silence OF
silent Hughes. In these articles Man
ly, by quoting verbatim from speech
Hughes. lays bare the actuating prin-
ciples 10y which the mind OF Charles
l.. Hughes operates)
In his attitude on the public land
question. Charles f.. Hughes sides
with the great corporations, and
against the homesteader and the
state
This is deduced at least by his
which the court has decided since
lie became a member OF the highest
tribunal
AS governor OF New York, when
conservation was in the ascendant
Hughes announced a water power
and public land policy still viewed
with pride by Pinchot's followers
In messages and speeches for con
servatiou. he went beyond Roose-
welt.
But as supreme court Justice in
these two cases his sympathies APP
pear with the corporations and
decisions in the two land cases on
against the genuine homesteader,
and the state.
The first case was that OF Weyer.
haeuser climber king VS.. Hoyt.
This particular case involved only
40 acres. but il established railroads
claims to thousands OF acres and re-
suited in the ejectment OF many
homcsteaders. The facts follow;
Dec. II. 1897. r. p. Jones, original
settler entered his claim TO the
tract and complied with all formal
tiles.
March 27. 1898. no adverse claim
having been fled, Jones paid the
full purchase price, all fees, etc,
and In December. 1898, took posses
sion. receiving the official receipt
and certificate OF purchase.
Dec. ., 1901, nearly three years
after Jones got his certificate OF
purchase and after he had sold the
land TO Hoyt. the commissioner OF
the land once Cancelled the Jones
entry IA void on the ground the land
was selected In list filed by the
Northern Pacific railroad, Oct. Ia
1888.
This selection by the railroad had
been Cancelled in March. 1897. as be
ing east OF Duluth, at that time held
10 be the eastern terminal or lieu
land territory. The railroad secured
a ruling from the supreme court
that the eastern terminal was Ash
land. Wis. But this decision was
not handed down until after Jones
had actually perfected his claim and
entered upon possession. Further
more. the list filed by the railroad
was not approved until many years
after Jones received his certificate
~ purchase. nor was the railroads
natent issued until October. 1905.
In this case Hughes found In Ia
vor OF the railroad. along with
White. Van Devanter, Lurton, ana
other justices.
No difficult question OF law was
involved. Justices Day and Harlan
d,ssented vigorously Hughes con-
sidered the filing by a railroad OF its
desire for a piece OF land, even
though that choice was not approx
I'd sunerIor TO the bona fde entry
of n homesteader.
The important case is that OF the
Montello Salt Co. VS.. Utah. THIS
case dealt with a clause In the enao-
ling act OF Utah which granted 10
the state for purpose OF establishing
university, land 10 the extent Oh
two townships H6.OS0 acres), and In
addition 10000 acres OF land
including all saline lands In the
state"
The state, assuming that the act,
IN saying all saline lands, meant
What Il said, sued to recover 4O,oOo
,cres with immensely valuable salt
deposits taken up by the Monteilo
Salt Co.
The state courts all found against
the salt company. which appealed 10
the supreme court, urging that the
act did not give the state all the sa'
line lands. but only allowed them
IA include saline lands in their no.
600 acres.
The opinion Of the supreme court
In which Hughes concurred' iouhu
I'm favor of the corporation.
In the words OF the court; Ana
so construed Tin favor OF the state)
the grant OF 10000 acres will be In
creased 10000 acres. and as the de