The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1917-03-20
FEDERAL LAW
is UPHELD
Public Land Is Not Under
State Sovereignty, Says
the Supreme Court
A FAR-REACHING
DECISION
Made in the So-Called Utah
Power Cases-Must Have
Federal Permits

Washington, March 20.-In sustaining
injumctions ousting Utah hydro electric
power companies from federal forest res
ervations, the supreme court yesterday
upheld federal and limited state SOW
ereignty in developing resources in west
ern public land" states. Regulations of
the agriculture and interior departments
conservation policy and DEGREES requir-
ing the Utah power companies to remove
their property from the public lands UNI
less they secure federal permits were
sustained.
The court maintained power of Con-
gress to regulate all public lands and de-
creed that its authority was limited to
lands actually used for fedora. purposes.
All government regulations were not
specifically upheld, but the court refused
to disturb any of them. 1t also held the
government entitled to reasonable COM
pensation from the Utah power concerns
for use of lands.
Far-reaching questions affecting cleo
trio power development in Utah, Col
orado Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Califor-
MIA and other "publie land" states, and
incidentally presenting some Of the most
fundamental questions of states rights
to come before the supreme court in
many years, were involved in the gov
ernments suit to GUST the Utah Power &
Light company and the Beaver River
Power company from public lands in Wa
satch and Fillmore forest reservations in
Utah. Both companies are Colorado cor
porations. The power companies had
permission from Utah to develop water
power in the forest reservations for pub
lie" purposes. In court they contended
the state not the federal government
had authority to permit use OF public
lands in developing public resources with
in their borders, even on government
land
Federal control as against state con-
troll was sustained in the Utah federal
which ordered the power compan-
les ousted from the federal domain and
removal OF their equipment I'M
less they receive permits under regula-
tions of the interior and agriculture de-
partments in accord with the federal |
policy Upon the appeal
similar proceedings against many other |
power companies in public land states |
we're held in allegiance,
Utah, Colorado. Idaho, Nevada and Ne
through their attorneys general,
interviewed in the cases because OF their |
fleet upon immense resources. II the /
.tates were allowed to develop those re-
,ources without federal supervision, the
contended, every valuable
lower site, and possibly timber, on west
I'm public reservations soon would be
,wned by private corporations and thus
lcstroy at one blow an important eIe
nent in the fedcTal) plan OF conserya
ion"
On the other hand. the public land
tates contended that, as sovereign
tates, they had authority, to the exclu
ion Of the federal government, in devel
ping resources for public purposes with
n their borders. even to the use of fed
raj land, and that denial of such author
~ would be an unjust discrimination in
avor of states not containing govern
lcnt land. II was pointed ont that so
or cent of Utah's entire area and a !
lrge percentage OF other western states
federal domain.
Judgments directing both companies TO |
amove their plants from the forest re- 8
arves. but refusing an accounting to the (
overnment, We're given on March 4, 1915, ;
Y the Utah federal court.