Morton v. Nebraska

88 U.S. 660, 22 L. Ed. 639, 21 Wall. 660, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1402
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 29, 1875
Docket391
StatusPublished
Cited by52 cases

This text of 88 U.S. 660 (Morton v. Nebraska) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morton v. Nebraska, 88 U.S. 660, 22 L. Ed. 639, 21 Wall. 660, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1402 (1875).

Opinion

Mr. Justice DAVIS

delivered the opinion of the court.

The policy of the government since the acquisition of the Northwest Territory and the inauguration of our land system, to reserve salt springs from sale, has been uniform. The aet of 18th May, 1796, the first to authorize a sale of the domain ceded by Virginia, is the basis of our present rectangular system of surveys. That act required every surveyor to note in his field-book the true situation of all mines, salt licks, and salt springs: and reserves for the future disposal of the United States a well-known salt spring on the Scioto River, and every other salt spring which should be discovered.

These reservations were continued by the act of May 10th, 1800,§ which created land districts in Ohio, with registers and receivers, and authorized sales by them; the preceding act having recognized the governor of the Northwest Terri *668 tory and the Secretary of the Treasury as the agents for the sale of the lands. And the same policy was observed when provision was made in 1804 for the disposal of the lands in the Indiana Territory (embracing what is now Illinois and Indiana). * It was then declared “ that the several salt springs within said Territory, with as many contiguous sections to each as shall be deemed necessary by the President, shall be reserved for tlie further disposal of the United States.” Without referring particularly to the different acts of Congress on the subject, it is enough to say that all the saliues in the Virginia cession wore reserved from sale and afterwards granted to the several States embraced in the ceded Territory. Congress, in the disposition of 1he public lauds in the Mississippi Territory, and in the Louisiana purchase, preserved the policy which it had applied to the country obtained from Virginia. Over all the territory acquired from Prance the general land system was extended. The same rules which were prescribed by law for the survey and sale of lands east of the Mississippi River were transferred to this new acquisition. At the first sale of lands in this region which the President was authorized to make, salt springs and lands contiguous thereto were excepted. § And this exception was continued when, in 1811, a new land district was created. Prior to this time no portion of the country north of the State of Louisiana had been brought into market. The act of March 3d, 1811, authorized this to be done, but the President, in offering the lands for sale, was directed to except salt springs, lead mines, and lands contiguous thereto, which were reserved for the future disposal of the States to be carved out of this immense territory, which included the present State of Nebraska. || And so particular was Congress not to depart from this policy, that in giving lands, in 1815, to the sufferers by the New Madrid earthquake, every lead mine and salt spring were excluded from location. Indeed, in all the acts creating new hind districts in the territory now occupied by the States of Arkansas and *669 Missouri, the manner of selling the public lands is not changed, nor is a sale of salines in any instance authorized. On the contrary, they incorporate the same reservations and exceptions which are contained in the act of March od, 1811. In all of them the act of 18th May, 1796, is the rule of conduct for all surveyors-general and their deputies, as the act of 10th May, 1800, is the rule for all registers, requiring the'm to exclude from sale all salt springs, with the sections containing them.

In this state of the law of saline reservations, the act of 22d July, 1854, was passed. It is by no means certain that the act of March Od, 1811, did not work the reservation of every saline in the Louisiana purchase, but without discussing this point, it is enough to say that the act of 1854 leaves no doubt of the intention of Congress to extend to the territory embraced by the States of Kansas and Nebraska the same system that had been applied to the rest of the Louisiana purchase. There was certainly no reason why a long-established policy, which had permeated the laud system of the country, should be abandoned. On the contrary, there was every inducement to continue for the benefit of the States thereafter to be organized the policy which had prevailed since the first settlement of the Northwestern Territory. In the admission of Ohio and other States, Congress had made liberal grants of land, including the salt springs. This it was enabled to do by reserving these springs from sale. Without this reservation it is plain to be seen there would have been no-springs to give away, for every valuable saline deposit would have been purchased as ’soon as it was offered for sale. An intention to abandon a policy which had secured to the States admitted before 1854 donations of great value, cannot be imputed to Congress unless the law on the subject admits of no other construction.

But the law of 1854, * instead of manifesting an intention to abandon this policy, shows a purpose to continue it. It was the first law under which lands were surveyed in Ne *670 braska, offered at public sale, and so made subject to private sale by entry. By it surveyors-general for New Mexico, aud for Kansas and Nebraska, were appointed, with the usual powers aud duties of such officers. And although there are provisions relating to New Mexico applicable to that Territory alone, yet the leading purpose of this act was to bring into market, as soon as practicable, the lands of the United States in all of these Territories. In New Mexico this could not be done as soon as in Kansas, or Nebraska, on account of the policy adopted of donations to actual settlers, who should remove there before the 1st of January, 1858, and because of the necessity of segregating the Spanish and Mexican claims from the mass of the public domain. For this reason, doubtless, local land offices were not created in New Mexico, but they were in Kansas and Nebraska, and registers and receivers appointed, with the powers and duties of similar officers in other land offices of the Uuited States. And the President was authorized to cause the lands, when surveyed, to be exposed to sale, from time to time, in the same manner, and upon the same terms and conditions, as the other public lands of the United States. If there were no other provisions in the law than we have enumerated, we should hesitate to say, in view of the limitation on sales prescribed by law wherever public lands had been offered for sale, that they did not of themselves work a reservation of the land in controversy. In conducting the public sales the register always reserved salines, as it was his duty to do, when marked on the plats, and this was never omitted except by the neglect of the surveyors-general or their deputies. But the fourth section of the act removes all doubt upon that subject. That section declares that none of the provisions of this act shall extend to mineral or school lauds, salines, military, or other reservations, or lands settled on or occupied for purposes of trade aud commerce.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Brown
384 F. Supp. 1151 (E.D. Michigan, 1974)
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
297 U.S. 288 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Crowell v. Benson
285 U.S. 22 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Proctor v. Painter
15 F.2d 974 (Ninth Circuit, 1926)
Work v. Louisiana
269 U.S. 250 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Albritton v. Shaw
87 So. 32 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1920)
City of Lakewood v. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
21 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 289 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1918)
Dugan v. Montoya
173 P. 118 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1918)
United States v. Sweet
245 U.S. 563 (Supreme Court, 1918)
Milner v. United States
228 F. 431 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad
234 U.S. 669 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Anderson v. Woodward
57 Colo. 53 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1914)
Whitehill v. Victorio Land & Cattle Co.
18 N.M. 520 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1914)
Southern Development Co. v. Endersen
200 F. 272 (D. Nevada, 1912)
Montello Salt Co. v. Utah
221 U.S. 452 (Supreme Court, 1911)
Taylor v. Anderson
197 F. 383 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1911)
State v. Sooy Oyster Co.
75 A. 211 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1910)
Garfield v. United States ex rel. Cartford
31 App. D.C. 338 (D.C. Circuit, 1908)
Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Haverly
90 P. 333 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 U.S. 660, 22 L. Ed. 639, 21 Wall. 660, 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-nebraska-scotus-1875.