New Britain herald., 1917-04-23
SOUTHERN PACIFIC
 FORFEITS HOLDINGS
Railroad Loses Appeal to Supreme
 Court in 0re.- Gal. Case
LAND WORTH $so,ooo,ooo

Timber and Minerals i'm Property Which Must Be Given Up Are Alone
 Worth $24,25O, ,0O0-Must Pay $1,- 3OO,OOO i'm Back Taxes.
 | Washington, April 23.--In deciding the Oregon California land case today the supreme court affirmed the: Ore- gon federal courts decree enjoining tho Southern Pacific railroad from dis posing of timber and minerals on it's land received by congressional grant. By the same decision the govern ment won it's suit against the South ern Pacific to retain nearly 2,3OO,OOO acres of Oregon and Washington land worth $sO.000,0O0.
 The Ferris law of 1916, forfeiting and divesting the railroads title to the lands granted by congress in 1866. and providing for minerals was upheld as constitutional. Heavy Loss For Railroad. At stake in the Oregon-Californi land cases, twice before the supreme court, was title to almost 2,30O,000 acres of land worth, including timber and minerals, about $3O,OO0, 900, along the Southern Pacific line in Western Oregon and Washington. Specially in volved were the timber ard minerals, alone estimated at $24,25O,00O. A decision by the supreme court sustaining the governments claims en- tailed:
 Forfeitins the railroads title to land, timber and minerals, with fu- ture payment to the railroad of $2.50 an acre for the land only.
 Denial to the railroad of any pro- ceeds from timber and minerals.
 Disposition of timber, mineral, pow CT and agricultural rights under direc- ton of the interior and agricultural departmentA
 Payment to Oregon and Washing ton of about 1900, ,0O0 in taxes due.
 A decision in favor of the railroad involved receipt of the proceeds by the railroad instead of the government from the lands. timber and minerals. with the government receiving but $2.50 per acre, and also annullment Of the Chamberlain Ferris law of 1916 which forfeited the railroads title and provided for the propertiea' dispod- ton by the knvernmAnt.
 Justice McReynolds took no part in the case, having participated in it's prosecution when attorney general.
 Forfeiture of the railroads title was sought because 1t charged more than s2.5O an acre for the land granted in 1866 by congress to induce construc- ton by the old Oregon-Cahfornia railroad of railroad extensions into the then new northwest territory. The old grant fixed this maximum ngure ] at which the grantees should sell to actual settlers. The government al- leeed gross and continuous violation of the $2.5O price restriction, for forty years. It charged that the railroads had sold land for prices greatly in ex- cess of that sum.
 Before Court in 1915. When the case was first before the. supreme court in 1915, the court re- l versed the Oregon federal district courts decree forfeiting the lands. but directed an injunction prohibiting future sale by the railroad at more than $2.50 per. acre pending action by Congress to provide regulations for propet disposition of timber and min erals thereon.
 ! Upon this suggestion. congress passed the Chamberlain-Ferris act of | l3l0, AOSOkuI01y 4OA OAAOAIAAA6 0AAA ~ ,yestinR'' the railroads title for breach of the settlers sale price ofR2.50 pro- viding for disposition by tne federal government and for ultimate payment to the railroad of lands forfeited at $2.50 per acre.,
 I That the government was entitled merely to 'regulate" sale of it's granted lands, timber and minerals. but could not forfeit and keep the proceeds was contended by the rail- road upon the second appeal to the supreme court. The railroad claimed all proceeds from timber and miner als, being willing to sell ''stumpage" or other land alone-exclusive of timber and minerals-at the $2.5O
 acreage price .
 The Chamberlain Ferris act, the railroad contended, was unconstitu-
 tional and void. and not authorized by
 the supreme courts first decision. It
 provided that proceeds from timber
 minerals, power and agricultural
 land sold should be divided as fol-
 lows: 25 per cent to Washington and
 Oregon state school funds; 25 per cent.
 for roads, highways, bridges, common
 schools, etc, 40 per cent for reclama-
 ton work, and 10 per cent to the
 federal treasury.
 As the holder of mortgages on
 the railroad property, the Union Trust
 company of New York also opposed
 the governments claims. in behalf of
 European bondholders, principally in
 Germany and Holland.
 In the proceedings, the ninth fed
 eral circuit court certified number
 of law questions to the supreme court
 asking whether the Oregon district
 courts decree was in accordance with
 the first supreme court ruling; if not
 whether the railroads proposed decree
 enjofning merely future sales at over