United States v. Healey
| Citation | 160 U.S. 136,40 L.Ed. 369,16 S.Ct. 247 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 378,378 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HEALEY |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge, for the United States.
Harvey Spalding, for appellee.
On the 5th day of February, 1889, the appellant, Benjamin Healey, filed in the local land office at Visalia, Cal., a declaration of his intention to reclaim a tract of land containing 639.20 acres, and belonging to the United States.
The declaration stated all the facts required in the cases embraced by the act of congress of March 3, 1877 (chapter 107), providing for the sale of 'desert lands' in certain states and territories. 19 Stat. 377; Supp. Rev. St. (2d Ed.) p. 137. That act fixed $1.25 per acre as the price of such lands.
The lands described in the declaration constituted one of the alternate reserved sections of public lands reserved to the United States, along the line of the railroad extending from the states of Missouri and Arkansas to the Pacific coast, for the construction of which provision was made by the act of congress of July 27, 1866. 14 Stat. 292, 294, c. 278.
At the time of filing his declaration, the plaintiff, 'being so required, without protest, and without taking any steps for relief against the demand of the receiver,' paid the sum of $319.60, or 50 cents per acre, for the lands described. He made, September 21, 1891, satisfactory proof of the reclamation of the tract in question, and, without protest, paid for the land reclaimed, in addition to the amount paid at the time of filing his declaration, the sum of $1,278.40, or $2 per acre,—in all, $2.50 per acre. A patent was thereupon issued to him.
This action was brought against the United States to recover the sum of $799, which amount, it is claimed, was in excess of what the receiver was entitled to demand from the appellee; his contention being that the statute only required the payment of 25 cents per acre at the time of filing his declaration, and $1 per acre more when making his final proof,—in all, $1.25 per acre.
The court of claims sustained this demand, and gave judgment in favor of the appellee for $799. 29 Ct. Cl. 115.
An examination of the statutes regulating the sale of the public lands is necessary in order to determine the question now presented. That question is, whether the act of 1877, providing for the sale of 'desert lands,' embraces alternate sections reserved to the United States, along the line of railroads for the construction of which congress made a grant of lands.
By the act of April 24, 1820, making further provision for the sale of the public lands (3 Stat. 566, c. 51), it was provided that from and after the 1st day of July thereafter no lands should be sold, either at public or private sale, for less than $1.25 an acre.
The next act referred to in the opinion of the court of claims is that of September 4, 1841, appropriating the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, and granting pre-emption rights. 5 Stat. 453, 455. That act allowed every person of the class described in it to enter not exceeding 160 acres, or one quarter section, of public land, upon paying the minimum price therefor, subject, however, to certain limitations and exceptions, one of which was that 'no sections of land reserved to the United States alternate to other sections granted to any of the states for the construction of any canal, railroad, or other public improvement,' should be liable to entry under that act. Section 10.
By Act March 3, 1853, c. 143, the preemption laws of the United States, as they then existed, were extended over the alternate reserved sections of public lands along the lines of all railroads for the construction of which public lands had been, or might thereafter be, granted by acts of congress. But that act contained a proviso declaring that 'the price to be paid shall in all cases be $2.50 per acre, or such other minimum price as is now fixed by law, or may be fixed upon lands hereafter granted.' 10 Stat. 244.
Other enactments show that congress steadily held to the policy of requiring double the minimum price for alternate sections of public lands reserved to the United States in grants to aid in the construction of railroads. In the first grant of this character (that of September 20, 1850, to the states of Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama of alternate evennumbered sections in aid of the construction of a railroad from Chicage to Mobile) it was provided 'that the sections and parts of sections of land which, by such grant, shall remain to the United States, within six miles on each side of said road and branches, shall not be sold for less than double the minimum price of the public lands when sold.' 9 Stat. 466, c. 61, § 3. A similar provision will be found in nearly all, if not in all, subsequent acts making grants of public lands for the construction of railroads.1
An examination of these acts makes it clear that, up to the revision of the statutes of the United States, it was the settled policy of the government to hold for sale, at a price not less than double the minimum price of public lands, all alternate reserved sections on the lines of railroads constructed with the aid of the United States.
That policy was recognized in section 2357 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that 'the price at which the public lands are offered for sale shall be one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre; and at every public sale, the highest bidder, who makes payment as provided in the preceding section, shall be the purchaser; but no land shall be sold, either at public or private sale, for a less price than one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre; and all the public lands which are hereafter offered at public sale, according to law, and remain unsold at the close of such public sales, shall be subject to be sold at private sale, by entry at the land office, at one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre, to be paid at the time of making such entry: Provided, that the price to be paid for alternate reserved lands, along the line of railroads within the limits granted by any act of congress, shall be two dollars and fifty cents per acre.'
It is to be observed, in passing, that this proviso applies to all alternate reserved lands described in any act of congress, and makes no exception of any lands of that class on account of their fitness or unfitness, in their natural condition, for agricultural purposes.
Thus the law stood at the date of the act of March 3, 1877 (chapter 107), providing for the sale of 'desert lands' in certain states and territories. 19 Stat. 377, c. 107. That act is as follows:
'That it shall be lawful for any citizen of the United States. or any person of requisite age 'who may be entitled to become a citizen, and who has filed his declaration to be- come such' and upon payment of twenty-five cents per acre—to file a declaration under oath with the register and receiver of the land district in which any desert land is situated, that he intends to reclaim a tract of desert land not exceeding one section, by conducting water upon the same, within the period of three years thereafter: Provided, however, that the right to the use of water by the person so conducting the same, on or to any tract of desert land of six hundred and forty acres shall depend upon bona fide prior appropriation: and such right shall not exceed the amount of water actually appropriated, and necessarily used for the purpose of irrigation and reclamation: and all surplus water over and above such actual appropriation and use, together with the water of all lakes, rivers and other sources of water supply upon the public lands and not navigable, shall remain and be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining, and manufacturing purposes subject to existing rights. Said declaration shall describe particularly said section of land if surveyed, and, if unsurveyed, shall describe the same as nearly as possible without a survey. At any time within the period of three years after filing said declaration, upon making satisfactory proof to the register and receiver of the reclamation of said tract of land in the manner aforesaid, and upon the payment to the receiver of the additional sum of one dollar per acre for a tract of land not exceeding six hundred and forty acres to any one person, a patent for the same shall be issued to him: Provided, that no person shall be permitted to enter more than one tract of land and not to exceed six hundred and forty acres which shall be in compact form.
It is said that the administration of this act by the interior department for many years succeeding its passage was upon the theory that 'desert lands,' unless they were timber and mineral lands, included all public lands in the states and territories named that required irrigation, even if they were alternate reserved sections along the lines of land-grant railroads. The object of this suggestion is to bring the present case within the rule, often announced, that when the meaning of a statute is doubtful, great weight should be given to the construction placed upon it by the department charged with its execution, where that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. City of Cheyenne
...be given to both. (Kuchler v. Weaver, (Okl.) 100 P. 915; Ry. Co. v. State, 82 Vt. 145; Jessee v. De Shong, (Tex.) 105 S.W. 1011; U. S. v. Healy, 160 U.S. 136; Morris Hitchcock, 21 App. D. C. 565; U. S. v. Greathouse, 166 U.S. 601.) Opposing counsel have not pointed out wherein the two statu......
-
Frank Fairbank v. United States
...Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 34, 39 L. ed. 601, 610, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 508; United States v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136, 141, 40 L. ed. 369, 371, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247. But this court has often said that it will not permit the practice of an executive department to defeat the......
-
Rogers v. Clark Iron Co.
...have grown up under the practice adopted. Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 34, 15 Sup. Ct. 508, 39 L. Ed. 601;U. S. v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136, 141, 16 Sup. 247, 40 L. Ed. 369. But this court has often said that it will not permit the practice of an executive department to defeat......
-
Rogers v. Clark Iron Co.
...when important interests have grown up under the practice adopted. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 34; United States v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136, 141. But this court has often said that it will not permit the practice of an executive department to defeat the obvious purpose ......
-
A Hail Mary for the Administrative State: An Originalist Defense of Chevron Deference
...governing the exercise of these powers is ineliminably vague. 163 As Professor Solum notes, the 160. See, e.g. , United States v. Healey, 160 U.S. 136, 145 (1895); Merritt v. Cameron, 137 U.S. 542, 552 (1890); Bamzai, supra note 95, at 944–45. 161. Healey, 160 U.S. at 145. 162. Chevron , 46......