Show t I 1 r I II c jlAnImportan Case WASHINGTON October 18ThejiStf I I preme Court5of the United States ri aaaembled at noon today and with put render ngl any decisiona took up the land grant case of the Kansas City Lawrtnce r Southern Kansas Railway Company against B H Brewster At tornegGeneral brought here by ap p sal from the United States Circuit i Court for the district of Kansas and ad jrancadon ihedqcket byreason of tbe importance of thee questions at issue Judge McSarey couns2lfor appellant asked the Court fbr an foclei son of time which was granted ana Mr M A T Britfaiu also counsel for appellant > l appel-lant opened the cr ument Bythe bill comp ainatt in this case the United States claims aa against defendants appeilknts in the case titles of 23733 acres situated in Allen County Kansas These lands all in otid sections overlapping twenty miles in the limits of grants made by the acts of Congress of March 3 1363 and July 281865 to the State of Kansas to aid in in construction of a railroad alon certain cer-tain defined routes in which the defendant defend-ant company by its former name the Deavenworth Eawrenceburg Sr Galye tJn Company and the Missiouri Kansas Texas iluflway Company constructeu their several roads These two roads have widely seperat d initial points viz Lawrence Junction City at or near ort Riley but came together down the valley of the INeosho river and cross each other at the town of Dhanute near the lands in controversy These lands are now claimed by the ailrj > ad company and persona deriving title through that company and by settler under the homestead laws of the United States The other United States Circuit Court where the case i wastried held first that the grants of 1863 and 1866 where wholly distinct second that the Neosho Vallhy Rofac Had not bepn constructed under the grant IJ63tfnd encethe legal title a3Qerted thercundermustfallthird that construction by the MissouriKansas tf Texas Company Under fchreTgrant of 1866 and the selection of lands in the suit by that company under the grant didnot give a suitable title because the lands thusaseleeted had never been indicated in-dicated bythVSecretary of the Interior as the act required These conclusi s are assigned for error in this court by counsel for he appellants In the argument argu-ment to nayMr Britton was followed by Mr Vm Lawrence for app llee and Mr John F Billion for appellant it |