Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/265/322.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:15:24+00:00

Document:
SWENDIG v. WASHINGTON WATER POWER CO.
[265 U.S. 322, 323] Mr. James F. Ailshie, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, for appellants.
[265 U.S. 322, 325] Mr. Frank T. Post, of Spokane, Wash., for appellee.
Appellee is a corporation engaged in the generation and distribution of electrical energy in Washington and Idaho. It has a high tension power transmission line extending from Spokane, Washington, to Burke, Idaho, in the Coeur d'Alene Mining District. The line was constructed in 1902 and 1903. A portion of it was located across certain [265 U.S. 322, 326] lands then unsurveyed and constituting a part of the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation. Telephone wires were strung on the poles carrying the power line for use in connection with the operation and maintenance of that line. And there was constructed a patrol road necessary for the maintenance of the power line. Ever since its construction, the power line has been used to furnish electrical energy in that district.
July 7, 1902, the Secretary of the Interior under authority of the Act of February 15, 1901, c. 372, 31 Stat. 790 (Comp. St. 4946), granted appellee a permit for the use of a right of way upon which to construct and maintain the power line through the reservation; and about the same time, he granted appellee a right of way for the construction and operation of a telephone line through the reservation, under authority of the Act of March 3, 1901, c. 832, 31 Stat. 1083, 3 (Comp. St. 4191).
An Act of Congress of June 21, 1906, c. 3504, 34 Stat. 335, provided for the allotment of lands within the reservation to members of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and authorized the opening to settlement and entry of the lands remaining undisposed of. Pursuant to the President's proclamation, this was done in May, 1910. Appellants respectively made homestead entries of certain of those lands across which the power line had been constructed, and later received patents therefor. 1 The patents are absolute in form and contain no exception or reservation in respect of the power line or privileges granted appellee. The appellants, denying the right of appellee after patents to operate and maintain the power line across the lands described in their patents, interfered with and threatened to prevent its use. Appellee brought a suit in the United [265 U.S. 322, 327] States District Court for Idaho against each of the appellants to enjoin such interference, and to have it decreed that the patents did not revoke or affect the permits, and that they are in full force and effect. Jurisdiction was invoked on the ground that the suits arose under the laws of the United States above referred to. The four cases were tried together. The District Court granted appellee the relief prayed. Its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 281 Fed. 900. The case is here on appeal under section 241 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. 1218).
The question to be decided is whether, as to the lands described therein, the patents issued to appellants revoked or canceled the permits theretofore granted to appellee by the Secretary.
Appellants contend that appellee acquired a mere license temporarily to use the right of way through the lands in question, and that the patents without more revoked the license and deprived appellee of its right of way over the lands therein described. In support of this contention, they stress the concluding clause of the act, stating that the permission given 'shall not be held to confer any right or easement or interest in, to, or over any public land, reservation, or park.' The purpose of the act is to grant to the Secretary power 'to permit the use of rights of way' through the lands referred to. And, in order that control over them may be retained, it is provided that the Secretary in his discretion may revoke such permits. The enterprises mentioned in the act involve expensive and permanent construction. The use of land necessary for the undertakings specified is to be distinguished from mere licenses to travel over, graze cattle on, or otherwise use or occupy land without investment for construction or improvements. Plainly, the piecemeal revocation of the right of way, whenever a patent is [265 U.S. 322, 330] issued to a settler along the line, would increase the financial burden and add elements of risk to the investments, and so be inconsistent with the purpose of the act. The clause above quoted should be read to promote and advance, not to defeat, the legislative purpose to permit the use of rights of way through public lands for the industries and utilities mentioned. It is included from an abundance of caution to support and safeguard the Secretary's power of revocation. It means that the permissions given shall not be deemed to confer any right that may not be revoked by him in the exercise of his discretion. There is no other enactment providing for the termination of the use of the rights of way. The right to use continues until the permission given by the Secretary is revoked by him.
'It discouraged development by making the title of the permittee subject to that of the final patentee of the land occupied under the permit. ... To effectuate the purpose of the statute it is necessary that a permit once given should be superior to the rights of the subsequent patentee of the land until such time as the permit is duly revoked by the Secretary of the Interior in the exercise of the express authority given by the statute. ... The regulations hereinbefore made [41 L. D., supra] will protect permittees from any demands that might [265 U.S. 322, 331] otherwise be made upon them by subsequent claimants of the lands over which the permits give a right of way.' Letter of August 23, 1912, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Commissioner of the General Land Office.
The regulation is still in effect. The construction and application of the act so made and provided for have been followed since that time. If the meaning of the act were not otherwise plain, this interpretation would be a useful guide to the ascertainment of the legislative intention. It is a 'settled rule that the practical interpretation of an ambiguous or uncertain statute by the executive department charged with its administration is entitled to the highest respect, and, if acted upon for a number of years, will not be disturbed except for very cogent reasons.' Logan v. Davis, 233 U.S. 613, 627 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 685, 690 (58 L. Ed. 1121).
Appellants contend, and it is true as a general rule, that when, conformably to the laws, entry is made and certificate given, the land covered ceased to be a part of the public lands (Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210, 219), and that, when a patent issues in accordance with governing statutes, all title and control of the land passes from the United States (United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 , 396). But we hold that, under the act and the regulation made pursuant to it and in force when the patents issued, these rules do not operate to strike down rights, subject to which, under the law, the lands are patented. Under the permission of the Secretary, the power line had been constructed and was maintained on the right of way over the lands in question for a long time before the reservation was opened for settlement. The entries were made subject to the regulations then in force, and were affected by the provision 'that any permission granted hereunder is also subject to such further and future regulations as may be adopted by the department.' The fact that the patents did not have thereon a notation of the prior permit [265 U.S. 322, 332] is not controlling. Under the regulation then in force, final disposal did not revoke the permit, but was made subject to the use of the right of way for the power line. It was intended that the patent should not extinguish the earlier permission given by the Secretary. The issuing of the patents without a reservation did not convey what the law reserved. They are to be given effect according to the laws and regulations under which they were issued. See Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284, 318; Jamestown & Northern Rd. Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 125 , 20 Sup. Ct. 568; Smith v. Townsend, 148 U.S. 490 , 13 Sup. Ct. 634.
[ Footnote 1 ] Dates of filings and patents are as follows: Swendig filed May 2, 1910; patent issued October 30, 1913. Miller filed May 4, 1910; patent issued January 23, 1913 [265 U.S. 322, 1914] . Grab filed May 7, 1910; patent issued September 24, 1912. Kerr filed December 22, 1910; patent issued October 15, 1918.
[ Footnote 2 ] The order with respect to notations was recalled and vacated by the regulations approved April 14, 1915 (44 L. D. 6). See, also, 45 L. D. 477.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.