The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1875-01-07
government Gibson Is. Choutsdu Ii
Wallace 100.

government. Gibson Is. Choutsau Is
Wallace 100.
On the authority of this case, and ap-
plying the principles there ennuciated
to case similar to the one under con-
sideration, the Supreme Court Of Wis
consin recently decided that settler
holding lands entered by the location
Of a spurious land warrant, had no
taxable interest which the State could
reach before he had perfected title by
the location of a valid warrant or pay
ment to the Government in money, and
that tax sale for taxes during the
time Of the suspended entry and before
the patent issued was void. Calder Us.
Reagan, 30 Wis 1873.
In Railway Company vs.. Prescott
Q6 Wal. 608), the State of Kansas
taxed the lands of the Kansas Pacific
Railroad Company. and sold them for
the same. The tax title thus given by
the State was held invalid because the
State had no right to tax the land S un-
til the right to the patent was complete
and the equitable title fully rested in
the party without anything more to be
paid, or any act to be done, going to
the foundation of his right In that
case the cost of surveying, selecting,
and conveying the land had not been
paid into the treasury of the Q. S. as
required BY the law. and the company
consequently had not taxable inter.
est in the same.
The main ground on which the deci-
sion was placed was that it is the policy
of the government to encourage settle
ment on the public land w the pioneers
of emigration: that it was to the inter-
estiof all who own adjacent lands that
all oft should be open to settlement
and cultivation; that looking to this
policy Congress had declared that if
the company did not sell these lands
within time limited by the act they
should then, without further action OF
the company, or of Congress, be open
to the actual settler, under the general
laws, and if these lands were permitted
/ to pass under title derived from the
State for taxes, it would certainly de.
feat this intinct of Congress. So here
if sale were made of the improvement;
which are called by the law persona
property" the State would have
, to deliver possession Of them tt
the purchaser, and thus GUST the settler
5 who holds his right of possession under
. the act of Congress. the fee beng il
! the United States till complete compli
: ance with the conditions imposed BY
S the act. This clearly would not onl.
7 be an interference with the disposal o
the soil within the meaning of the Con
e stitution, but would, as in the case Q
r the Kansas railroad lands, defeat tn
d intent of the homestead law: that tn
c land should revert on breach Of cond
r ton and be open to settlement AGAR
r and the title of the United State
:, would be dives,ed in the same way
e We are aware of the ruling Of oui Su
s preme Court, that sale and releas
d of homestead settlers right to tn
3, possession Of land entered under til
IS act, will form a good consideration f
Of promissory note or other contrac
y and we do not question il
soundness. Any loss or injur
lie to the party to whom promise is mad
n or benefit or advantage accruing
he him who makes it, forms sufficiel
:, consideration, and Of course reled
u of right to the possession of proper,
e. would come within either branch Of Il
he rule.
al The case we refer to is that of Lin
" ersmith VS.. Schwiso, Il MINI. %.
er was claimed that the sale Of the rigl
ID was against public policy. because.
ill tho land is not taxable till the patent
issues, one settler after another mig
is in this way prevent the land from ev
u. becoming taxable. The court reptile.
tn such . result seems rather imaginal
he than real, but in any case the immur
d, ty from taxation is not the result oft
BY sale, but Of the fact that the fee is
u the hands Of the United States. Cul
of walton Of and residence ursn land is
public benefit. 1t will be . greater o
to when such land and Improvements
an come liable to taxation, but lift be des
.c- ed for purposes Of tdration to preve
Id successive sales Of this character {
IN act [of Congressl ,sust be dmsnde
ofI As the act now stands where hon
ed stead claim is abandoned or forfeit
IS by change Of residence, new cla
he may be made on it,
ers This language implies, and the Wit
case shows that it is taken for grant,
me that the Improvements are not =
he more than the lands, the subject
ate State taxation, particularly if so az
Of to the soil IS to have become part