USE FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES 279 



before such filing. 1 It was held that until the adjacent 

 portions of its road were constructed, the Northern Pacific 

 Railroad did not have such an interest in the odd sections 

 granted it under the act of July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. L., 365) 

 as to authorize it to license others to cut timber therefrom. 2 

 However, another decision declared that the same railroad 

 had a sufficient equitable interest in the unidentified odd 

 sections of unsurveyed public land within the area covered 

 by the primary grant to the railroad to maintain a suit 

 against a trespasser upon such unsurveyed land, the United 

 States having refused to j oin in a suit. 3 The grant to rail- 

 roads under the act of 1875 operated to transfer to a rail- 

 road company such timber as it should rightfully take ir- 

 respective of any regulations by the Department of the In- 

 terior, and an agent of the railroad engaged in cutting such 

 timber was not guilty of trespass, 4 nor did such agent ac- 

 quire any interest in the timber cut. 5 



An act of February 8, 1905 (33 Stat. L., 706) authorized 

 the use of timber from public lands and from the national 

 forests in the construction of irrigation works under the 

 reclamation act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. L. 388.) 



1. U. S. v. Eccles, et al., Cir. Ct. Dist. Utah, (111 Fed. Rep. 490). 



2. U. S. v. Ordway et al., Cir. Ct. Dist. Oreg. (30 Fed. Rep. 30) ; U. S. v. Montana 



Lumber & Mlg. Co., (196 U. S. 573), (1904). 



3. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., v. Hussey, C. C. A. (61 Fed. Rep. 231) Of. U. S. v. 



Childers, 12 Fed. 586, (8 Sawyer 171). U. S. v. Eureka R. R. Co., C. C. Nev. 

 (40 Fed. 419); U. S. v. Loughrey, 172 U. S. 206; Great Northern R. R. Co. 

 (14 L. D. 566) ; Construction of term "adjacent" (1 L. D. 610) ; Report G. L. O. 

 1889, p. 291. 



4. U. S. v. Chaplin, 31 Fed. 890, 12 Sawy. 605. 



5. Falke v. Fassett, 4 Colo. App. 171, 34 Pac. 1005 



