The Tacoma times. [volume] (Tacoma, Wash.) 1903-1949, 1916-08-03
By Basil M. Manly

In his attitude on the public
land question, Charles e. Hughes
sides with the great corporations,
and against the homesteader and
the state.
This Is dedueed at least by his
decisions in the two land cases
on which the court has decided
since he became a member of the
highest tribunal.
AS governor of New York, when
conservation was In the ascend
ant, Hughes announced a water
power and public land policy still
viewed with pride by Pinchot's
followers.
In messages and speeches fol
conservation, he went beyond
Roosevelt.
But as a supreme court
Justice i'm these two cases his
sympathies appear with the
corporations and against the
genuine homesteader, and
the state.
The first case was that of Wey.
erhaeuser Climber king") VS.
Hoyt. This particular case in
volved only 40 acres; but it estab'
lished railroads claims to thou
sands of acres and resulted in the
ejectment of many homesteaders
The facts follow:
Dec. 7, 1897, r. B. Jones, orig
inal settler, entered his claim to
the tract, and complied with all
formalities.
March 81, 1898, no adverse
claim having been filed, Jones
paid the full purchase price, all
fees, ETC., and in December, 1898
took possession, receiving the of.
fial receipt and certificate Of
purchase.
Dec. Q, 1901, nearly THREE
YEARS after Jones got his GER
tificate of purchase and after ne
had sold the land to Hoyt, the
commissioner of the land offict
cancelled the Jones entry as voit
on the ground the land was Sc
lected in a list filed by the North
ern Pacific railroad, Oct. II
1888.
This selection by the railroad
had been cancelled In March
1897, as being east of Duluth, a
that time held to be the easter
terminal of lieu land territory
The railroad secured a rulini
from the supreme court that tn
eastern terminal was Ashland
Wis. But this decision was no
handed down until after Jone
had actually perfected his CLAIM
and entered upon possession. Fur
thermore, the list filed by tn
railroad was not approved unit
many years after Jones receive,
his certificate of purchase, no
was the railroads patent issue,
until October, 1905.
In this case Hughes found i
favor of the railroad, along wit
White, Van Devanter, LurtOn, an
other standpat Justices.
No difficult question of LAY
was involved; Justice Day an
Harlan dissented vigorously
Hughes consider the filing b
a railroad of its desire for piec
of land, even though that choic
was not approved, superior to tn
bona fide entry of a homesteadel
The important case is that @
the Montello Salt Co. VS.. Utaf
This case dealt with a clause i
the enabling act of Utah whic
granted to the state, for purpose
of establishing a university, Ian
to the extent of two township
CAS-, $50 acres), and in addition
1000 acres of land
Including all saline lands in tn
state"
The state, assuming that tn
act, in saying ALL SALINE
LANDS, meant what 1t said, sue,
to recover 10000 acres with i'm
mensely valuable salt deposit
taken up by the Montello Salt CO
The state courts all foun
against the salt company, whic
appealed to the supreme court
urging that the act did NOT Civ
the state ALL the saline land.
but only allowed them to lnclud
saline lands in their 1000
acres.
The opinion of the suprem
court in which Hughes cor