New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-04-01
THE HOMESTEAD La W.

| THE SOUTHERN HOMESTEAD LAW BETTER THAN
THE GENERAL LAw-INJUsTIcE TO SETTLERS
| II.-TREATMEN1 OF ALLEGED sQUArTERS-TIIR
| REMEDY.
| TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: In recent letter ! think | presented
strong re. why the Southern Homestead law
should not be repealed, and why its policy should be
applied to all the public lands Of the United States. But
this done by positive legislation thus dedicating
TO actual settlement In small homesteads the whole OF
remaining public domain which is fit for tilage, the
rights of the settler would still require further proec-
ton. Let Illustrate this and point what that pro-
lection should be.
The fact is remarkable one, that during the past ton
twelve years all the departments of the Government
have taken their stand against the just rights Of our
pioneer settlers. Tn recent ruling OF the Secretary Of
the Interior, which would deprive large numbers Of
e settlers under the Presumption and Homestead laws
homes is novelty in the action OF that De-
partmcnt. The ruling is outrage upon Justice
| well law, and Senator Harvey is
| titled to credit for securing tie passage of
his bill to confirm preGmpton and homestead
entries within the limits Of railroad grants but the
debate the bill in the it have
been fOrg0tn TO have been unknown, that similar
outrage upon the rights of settlers had been committed
by the same Department more than ten years ago I
allude to the Of Whitney who preGmpted quarter
OF land in the Spanish grant known the
Ranch California. 1862, after the Supreme OF
the United states had declared the grant to be Invalid
aud the land open to presumption. FTIsbe claimed title
portion OF the ranch. including Wbitneys preGmp-
ton under act OF Congress subsequently passed
through MS agency. The General Land Office sustained
Whtneys claim as valid under the Presumption law, he
being settler in good faith lands then legally subject
presumption. The Secretary of the Interior however
Oycrruled the decision Of the Land Office the ground
that preGmptors the public lands acquire rights by
their preliminary acts OF settlement and improvements,
being tenants at Will, whom the Government may
eject in favor OF another claimant any time before
they have completed the conditions OF title The fact
controversial that Whitney preGmptor nor
that tue right OF preGmpOn extends TO unsurveyed lands
but his right the land claimed denied because
he had paid for IT, which he could not do till It
surveyed. This decision threatened the title Of every
preCm pon aud homestead settler in the nation. Ii
far sweeping than the recent ruling Of Secretary
Dclano It's immediate effect to deprive some
hundreds Of precmptOrs Of the homes and when they
appealed Congress for relief the House of Represen.
tatiyes on the 9TH day of July, 1866 Overwhelmingly
sustained the ruling of the Secretary. Whitney still in-
ssting upon his right brought suit against Frsbie in
the Supreme OF the District OF Columbia, which
decided the his favor but Frisbies appeal 10
the supreme Court United States, the principle de-
cared ruins OF the Secretary Of the Interior
sustained This decision perfect surprise 10 the
people OF the Western States ana Territories, and
especially to the great arg Of occupation made up OF
pioneer settlers. IL naturally excited their ALARM
because il unsettled all then li,ts g--eaG yer be-
could be any sort OF danger long they continued
in good faith 10 comply with the preliminary conditions
Of final title which the Presumption law prescribed. But
here the judgment Of the highest court IN the UnOn
that when this law invites settlers TO the public lands
and offers them homes ON certain specified conditions,
with which they willing and anxious to comply the
Government at any time prior to final payment, may
rob them the lands they nave selected nd the money
and labor expended upon them in good faith When this
decision made think was justified in characteFz-
ing the bred Scott decision Of the American pO-
neer."
must refer TO another and later case Hutchings
prempted tract OF land I'm the famous Yosemite VAL
ley in California. He built him house planted orchards
and vineyards. ana expended thousands of dollars
in making for himself comfortable home subsequently,
Congress granted the valley the State of CAR!
foma. perpetual! reservation as pleasuiesround and
spectacle OF wonder appealed Congress relief
on the ground that Congress should not and could not
rob him Of his nome, acquired In good alth as pre-
cmptor His application met with favor III the Senate,
and In the House when earnest effort was made IN his
behalf that body, the I'd day Of July 1870 by its
recorded 107 against 81, declared that Hutch
mgs should bc dspOsSes>ed lie then sought rc!e! Ia me
courts California In which he failed, and his appeal
the Supreme Court or me United states the ruling IN
the OF Whitney agt. tske was relfirmel and his
remedy thus exhausted In the debate i'll the Senate to
other ay Mr. Haryeys bill for the relief OF settlers
along railroad lines IL was said that II preempon
right attached, the Government, with al rs power,
backed by 10 millions of people. take thar pre-
emptors right away" have shown that the Govern
judicial departments concurring. II has deliberately
Violated It's pghed faith In the senate debate inst
ferred 10. asserted, and not denied that Whitney
and HutchingS were not preenplors, but merely
squattes" but the truIh Is directly otherwise The
lands they claimed subject 10 presumption when
they entered upon them They mad done and were dong
everything they could do in compliance with lhe laws
under which they acted, and they lost their rights solely
because they practically treated as trcspassels,
| with whom faith To be kept.
late ruling Of the secretary OF the Interior. there
fore is by novel in principle powerful land
ring in California had been able secure nom Secretary
Harlan, ten years before ruling lar more STARTLING
be as well served now by Secretary Delanol Why not
the old days Of slavery 1T used 10 be quite fashionable
| for respectable people 10 damn the nig-c" IL
was pretty thoroughly done. in words merely, but
by law ana public opinion. why should prttmpti)n
and homestead set ers who are called "SQGaierS' by
felUwcltiltns used 10 dof lave sch coarse fellows y
rights all which the Government Is bound To rcSpecl
Have they ever done anything for their eountryi
But come now 10 lno tV.e'.S iiuN 7n.l iAc pre-
cmptor ana h0mescadcr tor they both stand on the
posscssionsi How shan tey De projected against no
| Judicial decisions referred To, ant the departmental
rulings which may be made AGAINST them ~ the biddi
OF corporate wealth or poWetn! tihssl Ihe answer -
suggested by the facts have stated Let II b. enacted
| as q part OF tho new homestead bill now pending
In the House OF Rep~sentaiNts, that Nheh a person
shall seek title under It's provisions bis bona Hdc settle
ment shall be deemed TO create contract BE- tween the
Government ana himself ANA vested ilght OF property
when shall only be Invested by his Failure 10 comply
with the conditions Of rte prescribed by the law ris
would bind the Government 10 maintain its good .aita 10
| the settler aud realrm the principle winch has been
generally II not universally understood 10 be me 'W
tll the late rulings ana decisions, cuch PROVISION
passed the House seven years ago aud was favored
by of the ahest men IN the Senate. Win such IN
enactment, ana the further provision pOhteo cur IN my
last letter. deyotug,the whole remaining pu9lc domain
to actual seltemcntln limited quantities, Tins putting an
| end 10 the curse OF land speculation and making tao
homestead Motley what il should have In the u, .n-
ming, tie Land question would b. hited uU or poAics,
and policy at last based upon justice a1I ne ingo
| good. Very respectfully, GLo. W. JULIAN
| LUlhGtOa, hd, MaIch D. 1876.
---------------------