, 1862-10-11
Decision of the Register and Receiver.

Before the Register and Receiver of the Lane
Office at Vancouver, w. T.
This is a controversy between the above n amet
parties to their right to enter the land described
in their several decaratory statements now on file
in this Office
AS this case has more or less connection with
the contest between the city of Waa Wala and
the several parties claiming portions of the town
Site we deem it not improper to preface our de-
cision in this case by brief recital of the history
of the whole matter.
In November, 1858, E. H. Barron settled upon
a portion of unsdrveyed lands in Walla Walla
county, and as sovn as the. .Ge nment surveys
were extended over the same, to wit, in Novem-
Der, 1860, filed his declaratory statement, claim
ing the southeast quarter of the southeast quar-
tes of section 10, the southwest quarter of the
southwest quarter of section 20, the northwest
quarter of the northwest quarter of section 90,
and the northeast quarter of the northeast quar-
ter of section 30, in township north of range sc
east of the Willamette meridian.
Subsequent to the settlement of Barron, but
prior to the survey of the land by the Govern
ment John G. Sparks settled in the vicinity, and
after the survey filed his declaratory statement,
claiming the northwest quarter of section %,
township and range as above.
On the lst day of November, 1861, E. H. Bar
ron applied to enter the land claimed by him !;
to this John G. Sparks objected alleging,
1st. That he, Sparks, was the rightful claimant
of portion of said land-the northwest quarter
of the northwest quarter of section 20.
I'd. That another portion of said land-the
southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
section 29-was a part of and included in the
town site of Walla Walla.
Thereupon the whole matter was continued till
the 1st day of April, 1862, to give time for the
production of testimony in relation thereto. In
the meantime the county authorities were notified
of the facts in the case, and on the 18th Of De-
cember, 1861 they responded by filing in the Of
fee declaratory statement, claiming the south
half of the southwest quarter of section 20, town.
ship north, range SO east, under the act of May
26th, 1924
On the oath day of May, 1862, (to which date
the hearing of the case had been postponed by the
mutual consent of the parties,) the city of Walla
Walla, having been incorporated, filed declara-
tory statement claiming the northeast, southeast
and southwest quarters of section 20, and the
northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of
section 49, township north, range SO east, and
applied for time to produce testimony to establish
her right to the same.
Thereupon, the hearing of the several cases
was continued until the 18th of August 1862, at
which time the city, by her attorney, asked for
further time to take testimony. The hearing Of
the case as between the city and E. H. Barron,
was by mutual consent of the parties deferred un-
til the 9TH day of November, 1862, but John G.
Sparks objected to a further continuance of the
case as between him and Barron, and also as be-
tween him and the city, The application for a
further continuance was refused, and the trial Of
the cases proceeded with-the county having
withdrawn from the contest.
Z. H. Barron was the first to apply to enter
yet, his case cannot be fully disposed of until
the rights of the city are determined, we will con-
slider John G. Sparks as applying to enter, and
E. H. Barron and the city as resisting the appli-
cation.
John G. Sparks applies to enter the northwest
quarter of section 20, township north, range 36
east, under the act of 4th Sept 184l. E. H
Barron objects to the entry, claiming that he is
the rightful claimant to portion of the same, to
wit the northwest quarter, he being the prior
settler the city of Waa Walla claims the north
east quarter of the said northwest quarter, under
the act of May %, 1914.
John G. Sparks denies the right of Barron tC
the forty acres claimed by him.
1st Because his (Barrons) settlement was
prior to the extipguishment of the Indian title.
I'd. Because priority of settlement on unsur
veyed lands confers no prior right.
Sd. Because he had 70 right to cross quarter
section line to take a forty acre subdivision upor
which he had no imprcvem ents from another
(who also settled before the survey who had.
4th Because the lines of his claim do not cor
respond with the lines of his claim as taken prio
to the survey.
5th Because he is not bona .fde settler, hav
ing taken said claim for speculative purposes anC
not for his own exclusive use and benefit.
We will consider the objections in the order il
which they stand as above
1st. With reference to the settlement prior Il
the extinguishment of the Indian title, but littl
need be said on this point for without discussing
the question as to what rights are acquired b.
virtue of settlement made prior to that time, it i
certain that such a settlement would not preclud
a settler from pre-emptng the land after the ex
tinguishment of the Indian title.
See Lester's Land Laws, page 423, No 4Sz
also page 42O, No AIS and, as the Indian It'll
was extinguished in March, 1859, at which tim
Barron was claiming the land, and as Sparks wa
not settler until Nov 1860, Barron was still tn
prior settler.
3D. With reference to the rights acquired b
priority of settlement on unsurveyed lands, tn
authorities which have been cited to us as bearin
upon this point and which we have carefully ex
amined, are not to our minds sufficiently uniforr
and consistent to enable us to form a correct iudg
ment, and we must therefore turn to the law il
self. The act of 4th Sept. 1S41, certainly CAV
the preference to the prior settler, (see section
of said acD and the act of July II, 1854, extend
ed the privileges granted by the act of 4th Sep
lS41, to settlers on surveyed lands, to settlers o
lands in Oregon and Washington Territories
"whether surveyed or unsurveyed."
The law does not expressly say that settler
sLall acquire any rights by virtue Of priority