A-40900, JUNE 1, 1932, 11 COMP. GEN. 455

A-40900: Jun 1, 1932

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

WHERE IT APPEARS THE WATER RIGHT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AMMUNITION DEPOT BUT THAT IT IS PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED MERELY TO EXTINGUISH SUCH VESTED RIGHT OF THE OCCUPANT OF THE LAND IN CONSIDERATION FOR HER PEACEABLE REMOVAL THEREFROM TO OBVIATE THE COST AND DELAY OF EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS FOLLOWS: REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED MAY 29. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF A NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT IN THE VICINITY OF HAWTHORNE. IN THIS CONNECTION YOUR DECISION IS REQUESTED AS TO WHETHER THE NAVY DEPARTMENT HAS AUTHORITY TO PAY OUT OF THE APPROPRIATION "AMMUNITION STORAGE FACILITIES.

A-40900, JUNE 1, 1932, 11 COMP. GEN. 455

WATER RIGHTS APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT ON PUBLIC LANDS, WITHDRAWN FOR THAT PURPOSE FROM SETTLEMENT, LOCATION, SALE AND ENTRY, MAY NOT BE USED TO PURCHASE A VESTED WATER RIGHT ENJOYED BY A PERSON IN CONNECTION WITH HER ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PART OF THE LAND, WHERE IT APPEARS THE WATER RIGHT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AMMUNITION DEPOT BUT THAT IT IS PROPOSED TO BE PURCHASED MERELY TO EXTINGUISH SUCH VESTED RIGHT OF THE OCCUPANT OF THE LAND IN CONSIDERATION FOR HER PEACEABLE REMOVAL THEREFROM TO OBVIATE THE COST AND DELAY OF EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, JUNE 1, 1932:

CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 13, 1932, AS FOLLOWS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED MAY 29, 1928 (45 STAT. 908), UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF A NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT IN THE VICINITY OF HAWTHORNE, NEVADA. IN THIS CONNECTION YOUR DECISION IS REQUESTED AS TO WHETHER THE NAVY DEPARTMENT HAS AUTHORITY TO PAY OUT OF THE APPROPRIATION "AMMUNITION STORAGE FACILITIES, NAVY" THE SUM OF $500.00 TO CAROLINE STEVER IN FULL SATISFACTION OF HER CLAIM TO CERTAIN WATER RIGHTS AS HEREINAFTER INDICATED.

BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 4531 DATED OCTOBER 27, 1926, ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED JUNE 25, 1910 (36 STAT. 847), AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 (37 STAT. 497) AND SUBJECT TO ANY VALID EXISTING CLAIMS, CERTAIN LANDS IN NEVADA WERE WITHDRAWN FROM SETTLEMENT, LOCATION, SALE, ENTRY AND ALL FORMS OF APPROPRIATION AND HELD FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE U.S. NAVY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AND USE AS AN AMMUNITION DEPOT. WITHIN THE AREA THUS RESERVED FOR THE NAVY IS TOWNSHIP 8 N., R. 29 E., MINERAL COUNTY, NEVADA.

THE NAVY DEPARTMENT IS AT PRESENT GIVING CONSIDERATION TO THE DESIRABILITY OF EXTINGUISHING CERTAIN MINING CLAIMS AND OTHER EXISTING RIGHTS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE SAID RESERVATION. IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NAVAL RESERVATION THE NAVY DEPARTMENT DESIRES PARTICULARLY TO EXTINGUISH A CERTAIN WATER RIGHT THAT IS CLAIMED BY ONE CAROLINE STEVER AND SITUATED IN TOWNSHIP 8 N., R. 29, , MINERAL COUNTY, NEVADA, WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT.

THE SOURCE OF TITLE OF CAROLINE STEVER APPEARS TO BE AS FOLLOWS:

ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1915, THE STATE ENGINEER OF NEVADA APPROVED THE APPLICATION OF CHARLES FRISTOE AND F. B. HOUSE AND ISSUED PERMIT NO. 2491 GRANTING PERMISSION TO APPROPRIATE THE PUBLIC WATERS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN TOWNSHIP 8 N., R. 29 E., IN THE AMOUNT OF 1.6 SECOND-FEET FOR IRRIGATION AND DOMESTIC PURPOSES. SAID PERMIT WAS RECORDED AMONG THE LANDS RECORDS OF MINERAL COUNTY. THE PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION UPON FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF APPLICATION OF WATER TO BENEFICIAL USE. APPEARS THAT CAROLINE STEVER PURCHASED WATER RIGHT NO. 2941, KNOWN AS HOUSE SPRINGS, ON JANUARY 3, 1928. THE REASONABLE AND FAIR VALUE OF THIS RIGHT IS ESTIMATED TO BE $500.00. THE RECORDS INDICATE THAT CAROLINE STEVER HAS NO TITLE TO THE LAND, NOR COULD SHE HAVE ACQUIRED ANY INTEREST IN THE LAND SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED EXECUTIVE ORDER. FURTHERMORE THE ALLEGED WATER RIGHT UNDER EXISTING LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA APPEARS TO BE SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION.

IN VIEW OF THE DOUBTFUL CHARACTER OF THE CLAIM OF CAROLINE STEVER, CONSIDERABLE CORRESPONDENCE PASSED BETWEEN THE NAVAL AUTHORITIES AT HAWTHORNE AND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA. HAVING A BEARING ON THE EXISTING RIGHTS OF CAROLINE STEVER, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN HIS LETTER OF APRIL 24, 1931, TO THE INSPECTOR OF ORDNANCE IN CHARGE, NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT, HAWTHORNE, NEVADA,STATES:

"AS SHE (CAROLINE STEVER) HAS NO RIGHT OR TITLE TO THIS LAND AND IS PRACTICALLY A TRESPASSER THEREUPON SINCE THE WITHDRAWAL ACT OF OCTOBER 27, 1926, AND HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY LAND WHATEVER, CONSEQUENTLY, SHE COULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO ANY WATER NOR COULD SHE HOLD ANY WATER FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES UPON LAND THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE.

"SECTION 7894 OF THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA READS: "WHEN THE NECESSITY FOR THE USE OF WATER DOES NOT EXIST, THE RIGHT TO DIVERT IT CEASES AND NO PERSON SHALL BE PERMITTED TO DIVERT OR USE THE WATER OF THIS STATE EXCEPT AT SUCH TIMES AS THE WATER IS REQUIRED FOR A BENEFICIAL PURPOSE.' AS SHE HAS NO LANDS UPON WHICH TO USE THE WATER THEN THE NECESSITY FOR THE USE OF WATER DOES NOT EXIST AND SHE HAS NO BONA FIDE WATER RIGHT AT THIS TIME.'

ON NOVEMBER 12, 1931, ALL PAPERS WERE TRANSMITTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE REQUEST FOR HIS OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE SAID WATER RIGHT CONSTITUTES AN ENCUMBRANCE ON THE TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND, IF SO, WHAT STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO REMOVE THE SAID ENCUMBRANCE.

IN HIS REPLY OF NOVEMBER 28, 1931, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATES:

"THE MATTER OF THE PRECISE PRESENT INTEREST OF CAROLINE STEVER PRESENTS SOME DIFFICULTY. SHE APPEARS AS THE ASSIGNEE OF STATE WATER PERMIT NO. 2941, ASSIGNED BY EMIL ANDERSON WHO HAD ACQUIRED THIS PERMIT BY ASSIGNMENT FROM CHARLES FRISTOE AND F. B. HOUSE. THE STATE ENGINEER ADVISED ON OCTOBER 29, 1928, THAT THE PERMIT WHICH HAD THEN BEEN ASSIGNED TO MRS. STEVER, WAS IN GOOD STANDING.

"HOWEVER, MRS. STEVER IS APPARENTLY A MERE SQUATTER ON THE LAND, AND AS SUCH IS SUBJECT TO EJECTMENT WHENEVER THE UNITED STATES CONCLUDES TO MOVE TO THAT END. IF SHE IS EJECTED FROM THE LAND HER WATER RIGHT WOULD SEEM TO NECESSARILY TERMINATE, AS THE USE OF SUCH WATER IS, UNDER THE LAWS OF NEVADA, APPURTENANT TO THE PLACE OF USE. A PRACTICAL SOLUTION OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, MIGHT BE HAD THROUGH THE CONSUMMATION OF EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MRS. STEVER, LEAVING HER CLAIMS OF WATER RIGHT TO BE ELIMINATED AS A RESULT OF EJECTMENT.'

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO TRANSMITTED A MEMORANDUM PREPARED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SUBJECT MATTER, AND IN THAT CONNECTION ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE SUGGESTION MADE THEREIN AS TO WHETHER THE NAVY DEPARTMENT WOULD CONCLUDE TO PROCEED INEJECTMENT WITHOUT FIRST MAKING SOME EFFORT TO DEAL AMICABLY WITH MRS. STEVER. THE SUGGESTION REFERRED TO IS INCORPORATED IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:

"ASSUMING THAT MRS. STEVER HAS A WATER RIGHT OF SOME KIND THE GOVERNMENT IS IN A POSITION TO CAUSE IT TO BE OF NO POSSIBLE VALUE AND FINALLY TO CEASE ENTIRELY BY EVICTING MRS. STEVER IF SHE CONTINUES IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DO THIS BECOMES A QUESTION OF POLICY. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LADY HAS SOME EQUITIES AND THAT WHILE THE GOVERNMENT MAY DEAL HARSHLY WITH HER BY REMOVING HER FROM THE PREMISES AND THEREBY DESTROY HER RIGHT, ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE WHEREBY COMPENSATION OF SOME KIND, BASED UPON EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS, SHOULD BE GRANTED. SUCH ARRANGEMENT PRESUPPOSES A FUND FROM WHICH AN AWARD COULD BE DRAWN. IF THERE IS NO SUCH FUND THEN THE ALTERNATIVE APPEARS TO BE TO APPEAL TO CONGRESS.

"WHEN I SPEAK OF MRS. STEVER AS HAVING SOME EQUITIES I HAVE IN MIND NOTHING MORE THAN MORAL OBLIGATIONS. IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL THAT SHE WOULD HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO BE COMPENSATED FOR ANY OUTLAY OF MONEY IN THE MAINTENANCE OF HER WATER RIGHT. IT WAS HELD IN ELLIS V. SUTTON, 126 MISS. 102, 88 SOUTHERN 519, THAT THE TITLE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PUBLIC LANDS CARRIES WITH IT EVERYTHING GROWING OR AFFIXED TO THE SOIL, AND THE FACT THAT ONE IN POSSESSION CLAIMING TITLE PLANTS SUCH LANDS TO CROPS GIVES HIM NO RIGHT TO SUCH CROPS, HE BEING ONLY A TRESPASSER, AND THE LAND AND CROPS BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT.'

THE VALUE OF THESE WATER RIGHTS WAS ARRIVED AT BY CONSIDERING PRICES PAID FOR PROPERTY ON THIS RESERVATION IN THE SAME GENERAL VICINITY AS MRS. STEVER'S CLAIM. THE VALUE OF $7.50 PER ACRE WAS CONSIDERED AS THE VALUE OF THE LAND IN AN APPROXIMATE VALUE OF THE WATER INVOLVED IN THESE PROPERTIES WAS DETERMINED AND BY COMPARISON OF THE ESTIMATED VOLUME OF WATER IN EACH CASE, AN APPROXIMATE VALUE OF MRS. STEVER'S WATER RIGHT WAS ARRIVED AT.

THE FAIR VALUE OF MRS. STEVER'S WATER RIGHT DETERMINED IN THIS MANNER IS $500.00. THIS IS THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BY MRS. STEVER TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY HER FOR THE WATER RIGHT AND THE POSSESSORY RIGHTS TO THE LAND. SETTLEMENT WITH MRS. STEVER FOR THE SUM OF $500.00, AND PERMISSION TO MOVE HER HOUSE FROM GOVERNMENT LAND, FOR ALL EQUITY SHE MAY POSSESS IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS CONSIDERED A FAIR SETTLEMENT. THE NAVY DEPARTMENT PREFERS TO EXTINGUISH THIS CLAIM IN THIS MANNER BY PAYMENT OF $500.00 TO MRS. STEVER IF SUCH PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED RATHER THAN BY RESORTING TO EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT WILL ENTAIL NECESSARY COST AND EXPENSES AND PERHAPS RESULT IN CONSIDERABLE DELAY IN QUIETING THE TITLE IN THE GOVERNMENT.

IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM YOUR SUBMISSION THAT MRS. STEVER'S WATER RIGHT IS EITHER NEEDED OR WANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT NEAR HAWTHORNE, NEV., AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF MAY 29, 1928, 45 STAT. 908, BUT THAT IT IS PROPOSED TO PAY HER $500 IN EXTINGUISHMENT OF SUCH RIGHT AS CONSIDERATION FOR HER REMOVAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S LAND. IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT MRS. STEVER'S WATER RIGHT IS A VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHT AND THAT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2339, REVISED STATUTES, DERIVED FROM THE ACT OF JULY 26, 1866, 14 STAT. 253 (43 U.S.C.A. 661), SHE IS ENTITLED TO BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED THEREIN, BRODER V. NATOMA WATER COMPANY, 101 U.S. 274; ADAMSON V. IRRIGATION CO., 12 FED.REP./2D) 437, AND THAT SUCH WATER RIGHT WOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR INURE TO THE GOVERNMENT AS APPURTENANT TO THE LAND MERELY BY THE REMOVAL OF MRS. STEVER FROM POSSESSION OF THE LAND WHERE THE WATER IS USED. (IN THIS CONNECTION, SEE SMITH V. LOGAN, 18 NEV. 149, CITED IN THE ANNOTATION TO ISAACS V. BARBER, 30 L.R.A. 665-678, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE A PERSON HAVING NO TITLE TO LAND APPROPRIATES WATER FOR ITS CULTIVATION, HIS APPROPRIATION DOES NOT BECOME APPURTENANT TO THE LAND SO AS TO INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF ONE WHO SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASES THE LAND FROM THE TRUE OWNER.) HER VESTED WATER RIGHT, HOWEVER, GIVES HER NO RIGHT TO CONTINUE HER UNLAWFUL OCCUPANCY OF THE LAND, AS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF THE WATER RIGHT, AND, THEREFORE, CAN NOT SERVE AS A BASIS FOR PAYMENT TO HER FOR REMOVAL FROM THE LAND. FROM YOUR SUBMISSION IT APPEARS THAT THE VALUE TO MRS. STEVER OF HER WATER RIGHT, AND PROBABLY ITS VERY EXISTENCE, DEPENDS ON HER CONTINUED OCCUPATION OF THE LAND WHERE THE WATER IS USED. IF, AS APPEARS, SHE HAS NO TITLE TO THE LAND OR RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, HER POSSESSION, ON WHICH THE VALUE AND EXISTENCE OF THE WATER RIGHT IS PREDICATED, IS A TRESPASS, AND, AS WAS SAID IN SNYDER V. COLORADO GOLD DREDGING CO., 191 FED.REP. 62, 70, INVOLVING A CONTROVERSY AS TO WATER RIGHTS BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE PARTIES:

THE LAW NOT ONLY LOOKS WITH GREAT DISFAVOR UPON CLAIMS WHICH ARE GROUNDED IN AND SUSTAINED BY A TRESPASS, BUT REGARDS THEM AS OF NO VALIDITY AGAINST THOSE WHOSE PROPERTY IS THE SUBJECT OF THE TRESPASS, SAVE WHEN BY ACQUIESCENCE OR NEGLECT THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO IT IS WAIVED OR LOST. * *

AS TO THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF ANY ACQUIESCENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN MRS. STEVER'S OCCUPANCY OF THE LAND OR ANY POSSIBLE MORAL OBLIGATION TO HER BASED ON ANY SUCH ACQUIESCENCE OR ANY EQUITIES CREATED IN HER FAVOR BY REASON OF EXPENDITURES BY HER IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH OCCUPANCY AND THE INCIDENTAL ENJOYMENT OF HER WATER RIGHT IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH OCCUPANCY, ATTENTION IS INVITED TO UTAH POWER AND LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 389, 409, WHERE MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, DELIVERING THE OPINION OF THE COURT, SAID:

AS PRESENTING ANOTHER GROUND OF ESTOPPED, IT IS SAID THAT THE AGENTS OF THE FORESTRY SERVICE AND OTHER OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE DOING, NOT ONLY DID NOT OBJECT THERETO BUT IMPLIEDLY ACQUIESCED THEREIN UNTIL AFTER THE WORKS WERE COMPLETED AND PUT IN OPERATION. THIS GROUND ALSO MUST FAIL. AS A GENERAL RULE, LACHES OR NEGLECT TO ENFORCE A PUBLIC RIGHT OR PROTECT A PUBLIC INTEREST. * * * AND, IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE RULE IS SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS, WE FIND NOTHING IN THE CASES AT HAND WHICH FAIRLY CAN BE SAID TO TAKE THEM OUT OF IT AS HERETOFORE UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED IN THIS COURT. A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE AND MAINTAIN ITS POLICY RESPECTING LANDS WHICH IT HOLDS IN TRUST FOR ALL THE PEOPLE STANDS UPON A DIFFERENT PLANE IN THIS AND SOME OTHER RESPECTS FROM THE ORDINARY PRIVATE SUIT TO REGAIN THE TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY OR TO REMOVE A CLOUD FROM IT. CAUSEY V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 399, 402.

IF, AS STATED, MRS. STEVER HAS NO LEGAL INTEREST OR TITLE TO THE LAND IN QUESTION, BUT IS A MERE TRESPASSER ON THE LAND, IT SEEMS CLEAR, HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 355, REVISED STATUTES, THAT NO PAYMENT MAY LEGALLY BE MADE TO HER IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION FOR HER REMOVAL FROM THE LAND OR AS A COMPROMISE OF ANY ASSERTED RIGHT TO REMAIN THERE BY REASON OF HAVING PURCHASED A "POSSESSORY" RIGHT (NOT VALID AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT), TOGETHER WITH A WATER RIGHT, FROM A PRIOR OCCUPANT. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF THE VESTED WATER RIGHT MIGHT NOT BE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE APPROPRIATION IN QUESTION IF IT COULD BE ESTABLISHED THAT HER VESTED RIGHT TO SUCH WATER, THAT IS, THAT ACTUAL USE OF THE WATER TO WHICH SHE HAS A VESTED RIGHT, IS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT, SEE 14 COMP. DEC. 724, EVEN THOUGH SUCH RIGHT MIGHT BE LOST TO HER AT SOME FUTURE DATE ON ACCOUNT OF HER FAILURE OR INABILITY TO MAKE A BENEFICIAL USE OF SUCH WATER, WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE HAVING AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE PRESENT REASONABLE VALUE OF THE WATER RIGHT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY NEGATIVE HER RIGHT TO BE PAID SUCH REASONABLE VALUE. HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION DISCLOSED BY YOUR SUBMISSION, FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PAYMENT IS TO EXTINGUISH MRS. STEVER'S CLAIMED EQUITIES ON ACCOUNT OF HER PURCHASE FOR $500 FROM A PRIOR OCCUPANT OF THE POSSESSORY RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY, TOGETHER WITH THE WATER RIGHT, AND AS COMPENSATION FOR HER REMOVAL FROM THE LAND TO OBVIATE POSSIBLE EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS, RATHER THAN TO SUCCEED TO HER RIGHT TO USE THE WATER, AND, ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT ON THE FACTS SUBMITTED, THE PROPOSED PAYMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE APPROPRIATION IN QUESTION.

WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST AND POSSIBLE DELAY INCIDENT TO EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SECURE POSSESSION OF THE LAND, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO UNITED STATES V. HODGES, 218 FED.REP. 87, GRANTING A MANDATORY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN CONTINUOUS TRESPASS AND WASTE UPON PUBLIC LANDS WITHDRAWN FROM SALE, ETC., AND DEVOTED TO GOVERNMENTAL USE, WHERE IT WAS SAID THAT---

* * * CLEARLY THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT IN SUCH CASES BE HELD TO THE SLOW PROCESS OF PROCEEDING AT LAW, THE TRESPASSER IN POSSESSION PENDENTE LITE, BUT MAY SUMMARILY ABATE BY ALL NECESSARY FORCE THE INVASION OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY AND PROPRIETORSHIP, OR MAY RESORT TO EQUITY FOR ITS SUPPRESSION BY AN INTER-LOCUTORY MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND A FINAL DECREE OF ABATEMENT. * * *

SEE, ALSO UTAH POWER AND LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES , 243 U.S. 389, WHERE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NOT ONLY AFFIRMED DECREES ENJOINING THE CONTINUED OCCUPANCY AND USE OF CERTAIN RESERVED GOVERNMENT LANDS WITHOUT ITS PERMISSION, BUT HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR SUCH OCCUPANCY AND USE IN THE PAST.