The power company, on the other hand, alleged that its rights 

 were secured and protected by the Act of July 26, 1866, now 

 Section 2339 of the Revised Statutes, The decision of the 

 court is that the later act repeals thrt of 1866, insofar as 

 it related to the subject of electric pov/er and that the com- 

 pany must acquire its rights of way in accordance with the 

 provisions of the later act. 



It was contended by tho company that it was pro- 

 tected in its tenure by the laws of the state of Utah. On 

 this point the court says, "The proposition that absolute and 

 perpetual rights in the public land.s may be acquired for pri- 

 vate gain by mere appropriation, without purchase or compensa- 

 tion, and in the exercise of a state sovereignty which 

 transcends the constitutional power of the Congress, is a some- 

 what startling one* :I 



Shorn of its legal phraseology, the court's decision 

 be summed up as follov/s: That the constitution provides 

 that Congress has the pov;er to dispose of and regulate the use 

 of the territory belonging to the United States, and that the 

 people of Utah, in forming their constitution and state gov- 

 ernment, forever disclaimed all right and title to the public 

 lands within their state until these have been disposed of by 

 the government. The terms of this provision were later made a 

 part of the cons titution' of the state of Utah, and the federal 



