, 1872-03-14
The Maynard Claim.

The fact of the arrival of Lydia A.
Maynard to attend the hearing before
the Land Officers at Olympia, has occa-
stoned some comment by the press, and
an attempt has been made to mot only
throw discredit upon the e1aim of that
lady and her assignees, but TO iMpute
unworthy motives to the counsel who
are retained in the cause
A correct knowledge of the facts will
not only conclusively refute such impu-
tation, but will satisfy all reasonable
men that the precise and only steps are
being taken, which it is possible 30 take
to remove an insuperable objection to
the title as it now stands.
The facts are briefly these : In April,
1852, DR.. Maynard settled upon his
claim (now an integral part of Seattle)
and claimed $40 acres of land under the
Donation Law, as married man. His
then wife was the Mrs. Lydia A. May
nard who has recently come to this
country.
In December, 1852, the Doctor pro-
cured divorce from the Territorial As
sembly of Oregon, and in January fol-
lowing married his present wife, Cath
arine.
The attempt was then made, in good
faith no doubt, to substitute Catharine
for Lydia in the subsequent papers in
the case, and this was rendered, it was
thought, more feasible because of the
runored deceasa of Lydia on Dec. oath,
1852, and from the fact that this pre-
sumed event was incorporated in the
papers.
In August last, Col. Larrabee was ap-
piled to by purchaser Of portion of
the claim, to procure patent, in order
to make the title good of record. In at
tempting this at Washington, the Com
missioner of the General Land Office re-
fused to issue the patent TO David and
Catharine, but had sent the case back
with instructions to the local Land Off
GERS to take proof of the first marriage
and issue the certificate to the heirs of
Lydia. 1t then became necessary to find
these heirs, but in the search it was dis
covered that the 1umor of Lydia's death
was false, and she was and still is alive
The questions presented are not with
Gut interest, in fact, the case is, as the
awyers say, SUI generis:
Did the Legislative divorce dvest Ly-
dia of her estate
Could the heirs, had she died, take
any greater estate than the ancestor pos
sessed, and could the fact of death Gre
ate an estate which could not exist with
out the death ? If not, then does not
Lydia, living, possess all the estate which
her death would have transmitted
Was it necessary for Lydia to reside
upon the land-for she has not only not
done this at any time, but has never
been in Washington Territory until
within the last week.
1t has been uniformly held by the De-
partment that the wife takes one-half in
her own right because of her wifeship,
and it has been repeatedly decided by
our highest Courts that the Donation
Law is grant IN praesenti of an estate
in fee eesin,ple, subject only to be defeated
by failure on the part of the husband
to comply with the eprovisions OF. the law.
That nothing is required to be done by
the wife-neither settlement, cultivation
nor residence.
What will be the ultimate decision
cannot be forseen. This, however, is
very certain. The question has to be
met at some time, and the sooner, the
better for the growth of the city.
There is no good ground for charges
against the good faith of either claimants
or counsel. So far as Col. Larrabee is
concerned his interest in the matter is
that of lawyer. When the counsel for
some owners of improved property in
the Northwestern portion of the claim
expressed solicitude to the Land Officers
at the hearing, Col. Larrabee promptly
said-"We viii coneede the North half
to the husband'-and made his offer a
part of the record, thus relinquishing
the claim to the settled and valuable por-
ton Of the land.
When told that certain minor heirs
had property on the South half, he at
once told their agent that his first en-
deavor would be to secure them their
property.
When told that a laboring man with a
large family owne a hundred feet square
on that half he said" Bring him to me
and will give him personal obliga-
ion which will secure him his proper
fy."
Spectators who have bought the de-
Sective title, who have no lot or part
with the citizens in building up the city.
who do not reside here or improve, we
are inclined to believe, will be dealt with