OCR Text |
Show UTAH 1ST JIT TITLE TO SCHOOL COiLID United States Supreme Court, Ruling in Jweet Case, Involving Carbon Car-bon County Grants, Says That Holdings Must Revert Back to the Government. SALES CANCELED BY BENCH DECREE Pyjhasers Must Look - to State for Recom-pense Recom-pense and Must Deal Tfth Federal Government Govern-ment Hereafter; Decision De-cision Far-reaching in Its Effect. Title to all 'he coal-beanr-s scl:ool laajt ir. Utah rests in the federal government ir.d not in state of Utah. Thousand, of acres of sach landB, valued val-ued at mli-Vn' of dollars, v.M'jh were included in-cluded in the or.gir.al school land grant to Utah, revert back to the government and the state must select non-rainera! lands in l:cu thereof. All sales of such ccai-bearirg lanis which have been made by the state are canceled and the purchasers pur-chasers ir.uat loolc to the state fcr recompense recom-pense for their purchases and must deal "ith the federal government in the matter mat-ter of further u?c of such lands. Such, in trief, is the scope of a decision deci-sion handed down in TTashington, D. C. yesterday tj- the supreme court of the United Slates. The opinion, which was THten by Justice Willis Van Devanter, is one of the most far-reaching land decisions de-cisions ever handed down by the highest tribunal of the country, and to the eta to of Utah and Its schools it is the most important im-portant ruling in the history of the commonwealth. com-monwealth. The state of Utah will, of course, re-t re-t ' "Ive other lands In lieu of the mineral "!s jt must give up, but the difference 1;Sie of these lands to the schools of he state is almoEt inestimable. It is eaid. Decision in Sweet Suit. The decision was handed down in the ease of the United States, appellant, against Frederick A. Sweet, administrator administra-tor and respondent. The case is a suit by the United States J? quiet title to a section of land In arrxjn county, the suit beinr especially cirected against a claim asserted by the pendant as juwignen of the tate of 1 '-ah, under the ncbool iaiid grant to the S'.e. Whether the land passed to the fTte or wis reserved to the United States mineral land i the matter in con-t'-ersy. In the district court the United States P'aiied to all but. forty acres, but in t".e circuit court of appeals that decree s reversed. The evidence shows that entire section excepting fjrty acres valuable for coal and known to be so ''ce before Utah became a state. The ' "oo! land grant to Utah, Justice Van -'svanter savs, iriust he read In the light ? ,c mining laws, the school land In-'ranity In-'ranity law and the settled public policy Jct;n? mineral land. When so read coes not disclose a purpose to include t.;rral lands. This conclusion is for--A by the fact that when the grunt I -tnar,e Utah was known to be rich funerals and ralines. upholds District Court. The grant mentioned saline lands, but is shent as to mineral lands, indi-at- j ' mineral lands were not includ- 'n the grant. urff(ir'?'?es ar") tne lan'3 department has rm i y I''06'' the same construction 4J ,n conclusion. Justice Van Lie-I 'titer stated that the decree of the cir-iri cir-iri ?"lrt of aPI'al niust be reversed ii-',? lrilt cf 'he district court affirmed, .c 5 "er-.-Ing title to the property in I-nited States. Hundreds of thousands of acres of 'h ii "lK ruh' aggreKatfriir millions j Hilars in value, are affected by the .-"on, which will bring heavy loss to , jjr. " We opinion of state offjelahi. particular cae in v.hlch this de-irc-lon Is rendered Is what has come lo be. known a-s I he "Sweet land case. ' in- (Contlnucd on Pace Tw i COAL LANDS REVERT TO 11TED STATES (Continued from Page One.) volving title to a school section in Carbon county. The contention of the state was that title to this land passed to the state under un-der the provisions of the Utah enabling act. passed July 16. 1S&4, granting to the state sections 2. 16. 32 and 36 in each township. The enabling act granted to the state for school purposes section 2, 16, 32 and 36. Sold at Auction. It was in 1302 that the state board of land commissioners appraised section 32 and sold it at auction to George T. Badger, Bad-ger, who made one payment of 25 cents !in aere nn his contract and then assigned ail aUJy LHI IIIO IUIJUUl emu n.ti. it to Arthur A. Sweet, who has since died. F. A. Sweet, a brother, administrator adminis-trator of the estate. tendered to the 6tate full payment under the auction sale contract and patent was about to issue when the United States district attorney at-torney brought suit in equity against Die state, setting forth that the lands were known mineral lands at the date of the grant, and therefore excepted from the grant made to the state. Mr. Sweet set up the contention that when title to the land passed to the state It was not known as mineral land. He also contended that while grants made to other states specifically excepted mineral lands, there was no such stipulated exception ex-ception in the grants made to this state by the Utah enabling act. Judge Marshall Decides. Judce John A. Marshall, then sitting in the federal court, decided that COO acres of the land in section 32 were mineral lands, and were generally known as such at the time of the survey ordered by the state land board in 1902, title therefore there-fore resting with the federal government and not with tlie state of Utah. This decision was made by . Judge Marshall In Hi 14. Legislative appropriation had meantime been made to defend the state'p title to all such lands. Dickson. Ellis & Sehul-dcr, Sehul-dcr, special counsel for the slate of Utah, appealed the case In behalf of the state land board. The circuit court of appeals, sitting in St. Paul. Minn., decided In favor fa-vor of the state of Ctall and declared Mr. Sweet to have obtained legal title to the land. "Questions of Taw involved In this case have been regarded both by the etate and the federal government as extremely Important," said United Stales District Attorney W. VV. Ray. last night, "and their final docislon by the supreme 'court of the United States will rather tend to the security of titles than to any disturbance. dis-turbance. The decision of the United Stares supreme court is in accordance with tile decision of the supreme court of the state of Utah, which has held that it was not the Intent of congress to include the known minerals within the grant of the land included in the enabling act. Other Titles Not Affected. ''It i? not the contention of the prov-crnmont prov-crnmont that this decision in ;iny way a ffects the title to minerals discovered after the date of the vesting of title in the state. In this case the Ktat sold to the predecessors in interest of Mr, Sweet tii) acres of known coal lands for The trovcrn merit experts testified thy I from the coal exposed, at 10 cents per ton, the Kind was worth $00 an acre. 'ruder the policy of the slate land ; honrd and of the depart men t of the in-i in-i t prior for many years after statehood it ! was assumed that the "onst ruction now ! pi;i.ced upon the enabling ftct wan lis Irnr I ine.'i ning. U is very probable that had the I fMiprcrrie court sustained the decision of the circui L court of appeal there would have been a far preater confusion of titles llian will he occasioned by this decision. "Utah was the lirst slate in the union In 1 e jrrant'-d four sections per township of public land. Tntil t lie admiHsioti of Oregon, no slate had been Kranted in excess ex-cess of one section per township. There .sr..'Mi''d no fcood reason why congress should have given the older slates but two Kect Ions and reserved the minerals In plates essentially nop- mineral and have granted I Hah, a mineral state, four sections, including all the minerals. Similar Suit Is Pending. "No Fiato since the admission of Utah has been viven ftn iuifuallf led grant of the minerals within the allotted section, though soiii'- have been granted the minerals min-erals with certain qualifications as to the riL'ht of sale. "If the -stale of T'tah will properly ron-Mrrve ron-Mrrve ilio vafd aras of a.oa laii'ls which have come to it under the enabling act. :md which ha vp bt en discovered atnce the vest it ure of title, t will not bt! em ha r-rassd r-rassd by the losy occasioned by this decision. de-cision. On t he. other hand. If known 'oal lands ai e i be sold by the state at an acre, the, state would not tain much, were it. pofse.'-'cd of ever ?o lai'gc an .area of -:. ". case similar I o I he our in rj nest Inn is now pending in Ihe I'lah supicmt court, being lhal of Ihe 1'nlicd Stale I'oel company h gal nut. T. A. Mlbjor, cm-I.. cm-I.. racing ;(.V0 scr-e.s of coal land." |