The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1854-12-30

his right of presumption to his l6O acres and
every part thereof, and the Spectators be al
lowed to pre-empt las a fo,cn site) 700 acres
or 347 acres or even 800 acres by virtue of
proofs in all respects similar?
One claims his land because he has settled
upon and occupied it as farm-the other be-
cause he has settled and occupied it as a town
site. The instruction of your office requires
that the farmer shall prove his claim as stated
In the declaratory statement. Why shall it
not require that the claiments to the settlement
and occupancy of this town site, shall prove
their claims as stated in their "protest?''-
Both are claimants to the redemption of the
public lands at the minimum price, the one as
the cultivator Of the soil, and the other as the
nhabltant or occupant of town site. For
what reason shall the rule or regulation ap-
piled to one be not applied to the other? We
unhesitatingly but with great respect submit
that the "protest" which has caused this con-
troversy is illegal and void, because not au-
thorzed by law, nay because it is in fragrant
disregard of an express provision of the Act Of
Congress MAY 23, 1914, which contains the
following language
provided that the entry of the land intend
ed by this Act shall not, in whole, exceed 800
acres"
The "protest" being the only evidence your
Office has OF the character and extent of the
claim of the professionals, and that being thus as
clearly void as would be declaratory state
men. OF a pre-emptor describing and including
more than lG0 acres, we submit that it cannot
he legalized or made valid by any subsequent
amendment or REIMBURSEMENT. The protest
ants must stand or fall by it. You have, in a
former case, held that you have no equitable
powers, and that you are entirely bound by the
strict provisions of the Acts of Congress of
which your Office is the creature, and by which
it is regulated and controlled. To permit re-
linquishments or amendments, for the purpose
of patching acts clearly illegal and invalid,
would, VIC respectfully urge, be striking de-
parture from that stern but proper position.
There is another view of this matter, which
we deem worthy of consideration. 1t is this -
BrunsOn and Slaughter were never residenss of
this town site in any just andlcgal acceptation of
the term, and are therefore out of the case The
remaining four professionals each acquired pre-
emption right to 100 acres of the public lands
on the 7th day of March. 1854 and then eight
days after that time, claimed the presumption
to the land in question as town site. 1t is
surely in violation of the policy of the law to
sanction such acts. The 10th section of the
Act Of Congress of Sept. 4. 1871, provides that
no person shall be entitled to more than one
presumption right by virtue Of this Act"
! 1t was clearly the design of Congress to lin
! it the bounty of the Government to l6O acres,
and to prevent the pre- emptors from acquiring
more by virtue OF the beneficial enactmcnts of
that body.
How utterly regardless of that policy would
it be to allow these four men, who have just ac-
quired the presumption right to GAO acres ofthe
public lands to so. fresh from making the oaths
and proofs required by law, and grasp from
redemption, and appropriate to themselves,
! 200 acres more!
During the progress ofthis inquiry, the coun-
sci for the protcstants seemed to shun the Act
of Congress of May 23d, 1914, which limits his
clients to the Surveyed public lands, and to re-
y upon that older enactment in sec. 10 of the
Act of Sept. 4, 1871, which exempts from pre-
emption those portions of the public lands
(which have been selected as the site of city
or town."
He seemed to contend that all his clients had
to do, in order to keep the land in question from
being settled, improved and purchased by pre-
cmptors, was to so upon it, in anticipation of
the Government survey, and survey it, and
mark ont upon it streets, and blocks and lots !!
We submit that more grossly pettifogging
view of statutory provision, never was taken.
The term " selected" as used in the statute
has clear, significant, and easily understood
meaning. Technically. such acts as were done
by these professionals would be perhaps selec-
ton of this land for town site. But in the
sense in which Congress used the term, it
would be nothing of the kind. A bona .fde set
Element and occupancy of the land, by a sufi-
cient number of persons, to evince an honest
purpose. who with their families live upon it
and exhibit an intention to remain there, and
who have clustered themselves together at a IA
vorable point, with view to trade, and not
agriculture, is, we submit. the "selection'
meant bV the Act of Congress,
To some extent Congress has given its own
definition of the term in the Act of May 23d
1914, as follows :-"That where any portion of
the Surveyed public lands has been, or shall be-
settled upon and occupied as town site, and
therefore not subject to entry under the exist
ing presumption laws, it shall be lawful" &c.
Now if any person can believe that these pro-
testants ever settled upon and occupied tn,
fractional sections in dispute prior to the re-
spective settlements Of the pre-emptors in good
faith, for the purpose of making their homes
there and engaging in trade, or that they, OF
either of them, ever went there for any other
purpose than mere speculation, in a paper town,
that person must have the bump of credulity
very largely developed.
We submit to you, sir, that it is clearly cs-
tablished by the testimony of the protestants,
and by the records of your Office, that those
fractional sections OF land were not, prior to
the settlements of our clients settled upon and
occupied as town site, according to law, and
within the reasonable and just meaning of the
Acts of Congress, and that the sole object of
this movement on the part of these professionals.
is to wrcst from the pre- cmptors and from the
Government large and valuable portion of
the public lands, under false pretences and
for the purposes of speculation.
Very respectfully
Your obi. servants,
RICE, HOLLINSHEAD l. BECKER.
Loss of the Propeller Westmoreland-Seventce
Lives Lost.
P.c,Hp ncC