It ia objected by the Government that appellant is not entitled to the relief he prays
because he does not come into court with clean hands. It is urged as a ground of the
charge that the testimony exhibits his purpose to V e to use his lands as a basis and the
toll roads as a means to make wholesale trespasses upon the park lands. If the fact
were estal lished it might be hard to resist its effect, but it is not estal^lished. The
evidence cited in supjiort of it, and of which we have given the substance, refers to a
period anterior to the time when this controversy arose. Indeed, anterior to the time
when the regulations were established by the Secretary of the Interior, which was
April 22, 1905, and the ol ject of the testimony was to account for the regulations and
not to show the special and immediate justification of Benson's orders, ^\'e can not
now extend the evidence beyond the special and limited purpose of its introduction.
We do not think the case, as it was submitted to the circuit court, showed the ulterior
purpo: e on the part of appellant to l:e a willful trespass upon the lands of the park, but
to be an honest assertion of rights.
On the merits of the case we may concede, arguendo, as contended by the appellees
and disputed by appellant, that the United States may exen-ise over the park not only
rights of a proprietor but the powers of a sovereign. There are limitations, however,
upon both. Neither can be exercised to destroy essential uses of private property.
