Show HUGHES SIDES IDE WITH GRABBERS I OF LAND AGAINST SETTLERS AND STATES SAYS MANLY I By BASIL M. M MANLY Noted Economic and Political Expert for The Telegram This is the fifth in Manly's series of articles breaking the silence of Silent Hughes In these articles Manly by quoting verbatim from speeches and supreme court decisions of Hughes lays bare the actuating principles by which the mind of Charles E E. E Hughes operates operates Editor In his attitude on the public Hugh with question Charles Charle E E. sides eldee I the great corporations and against the homesteader and the state This is deduced at least by his decisions In the two land cases on doh the court has deci decided led since he became a member of the highest tribunal As governor of New York when conservation was in the ascendant lushes Hughes s announced a water power and public land policy still viewed with pride by Pinchot's followers In messages and speeches for conservation he went beyond Roosevelt tIn v t BUT as supreme court justice In these two cases his sympathies I appear WITH the tho corporations and AGAINST the genuine homesteader and the state The first case was that of Weyerhaeuser timber king vs Hoyt This particular case Involved only forty acres but it established railroads' railroads claim I to thousands of acres and resulted In n the ejectment of many homesteaders The facts follows December 17 1897 R R. B B. Jones original settler entered his claim to the tract and complied with all an formalities March 27 1898 no adverse claim having been filed flied Jones paid the full fun purchase purchase- price all fees etc and in December 1898 took possession receiving the official receipt and certificate of purchase December 2 2 1901 nearly THREE YEARS after Jones got his certificate of purchase and after he had sold the land to Hoyt the commissioner of the land office canceled the Jones entry as void on the ground the land was selected In Ina Ina ina a list filed tiled by the Northern Pacific railroad October 17 1883 This selection by the railroad had been canceled In to March 1897 as being east of ot Duluth at that time held to be the eastern terminal of lieu Heu land territory The railroad secured a ruled from the supreme court that the eastern terminal was Ashland Wis But this decision was not handed down until after Jones had actually perfected his claim and entered upon possession Furthermore the list filed by the railroad was not approved until many years after Jones received his certificate of purchase nor wa was wag the railroads railroad's patent Issued until October 1905 N NIn In this case Hughes found in favor of the railroad along with White Van Devanter Lurton and other justices No difficult question of law was Involved Justices Day and Harlan dissented dissented dissented dis dis- dis- dis vigorously Hughes considered the filing by a railroad of its desire for tor fora tora a piece of land even though that choice was not approved superior to the bona fide entry of a homesteader The Important case is that of the Montello Salt company vs Utah This case dealt with a clause in the enabling act of Utah which granted to the state for purpose of ot e a establishing a university land to the extent of ot two townships acres and In addition acres of land Including all saline lands in the state The state assuming that the act in saying ALL SALINE LANDS m meant ant what It said sued to recover acres with Immensely valuable salt deposits taken taleen up by the Montello Salt company The state courts all found against the salt company which appealed to the supreme court urging that the act did NOT give the state ALL saline lands but only allowed them to include saline lands in their acres The opinion of the supreme court in n which Hughes concurred found in favor of the corporation In the words of the court And so construed In favor of the state the grant of acres will be increased acres and as the demurrer concedes concedes concedes con con- cedes the deposit of salt is from four to eight feet teet thick there will be further Increase of two or three millions tons of salt worth in the aggregate an almost fabulous sum Such consequences of the states state's contentions at once challenge Its soundness In plain language this is what the court means It is wrong for a state university to have lands worth millions but the plain language of the act may be strained to give this fabulous sum eum to a corporation |