Utah's Enabling Act Says No Such Thing

Is this possible? Arguably the biggest piece of legislation coming out of the Legislature this year called for many of the federal lands to be taken over by the state. From what I can find, the state bases its claim to the lands on a federal act from way back at the time of statehood, an act the state maintains gives the lands to the state.

But, the act says quite the opposite.

So, I'm sitting here amazed. This is not a small movement. It has been around for decades in one form or another. Surely, I must be missing something.

But, there it is, in the Enabling Act from 1894 when Utah was granted statehood.  "The people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof."

Sweet and simple and easy to understand. Utah forever disclaims right and title to the unappropriated public lands. That is quite a different thing than Utah getting the lands. It is the opposite.

I pointed this out to one of the leaders of the movement. "John Edwin Jackson," he replied, "You need to read the rest of the sentence that states 'until title thereto shall have been extinguished' by the federal government."

So, I have gone back to the Enabling Act and read it again. I remain more convinced than ever that the act is saying quite the opposite of what those who favor a state takeover want it to say. The rest-of-the-sentence argurment is not with them, but against them, for they are leaving part of the sentence out.  Yes, if we edited it down, we can get it to say the states forever disclaim rights to the lands only until the federal government extinguishes title, but we will have to erase parts of the sentence to arrive at such a meaning, and even then we will not have the meaning of turning the lands over to the states.

In front of "until the title thereto shall have been extinguished" are the words "and that," and after them are words critical to what is being said. Include all the pertinent parts of the sentence and it reads, "That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof . . . and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States."

At no time does it say the federal government must give the property to the states. It only says that until the federal government decides to dispose of the property, the property still belongs to the United States. That is quite the opposite of what those who favor a takeover want the Enabling Act to say.

Well, I remain skeptical. I must be missing something. Perhaps there is something else in the Enabling Act that I am not finding. Perhaps this part of the act only refers to ownership of the property, and there is another part that refers to jurisdiction.

'Tis late, and I have not time to read it, again. But, I will tell you, I do think I have read it well enough already, and do not expect to find more when I do find time to go back and read it top to bottom.

Yes, it does seem there must be more. There must be something I am missing. But I cannot imagine what it is.