Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, D.T. [N.D.]) 1875-1878, 1876-08-02

iation, fled, in the Office Of the Register
d Deeds, Of Cloud county, Kansss. plat
loft the town site Of Concordia, showing
the lots, blocks, streets, alleys, &c, of
said town, situate upon the following de-
scribed land, to wit The S.vk Of S. E.
i, and the S. J of S. W. i Of Sec. 33 T.
| s S., and II. II Of S. +. u, n. u Of 8.
"a. 81, and lots and ! of Me- lot !,
and West y ofllot rofaN. W. lof Sec.
at. 6fS., Rs W., Kensss. usoI Dlo ea3
It futher appears that, on the 2oth day
Iapf July, 1871, ID. j. Fowler, Probate Judge
0f said county, filed "a declatoFB statoment
at the local office for said land (except the
Is. E. n ofN, w. II Of Sec. 4. r S.,
w. Aforesaid, private property, in trust
for The several use and benefit Of the ,oc-
llcupants Of the towns site Of Concordia, ,
according to their respective interests. n
August i, 1873. tie tie b city of ConcoaTsdIiia asdIi
-wwas sdniy ineof porated ander the laws of
the State-o Kansas as cityof the third
class. andlaA pfi the tracts .inol41e d,ip)the
plat aforesaid and the fling Of Tudge FoW-
ier, were WITH other lands Ihctnde ed WI HIN
THE corporate limitsaof saidocityhna lisR
June 4, 1873. R. p. Allen, arnayor ofthe
city of C0ncordia, in trust for the several
use and benefit Of the occupants Of the
townsi.e of Concordia, according to' their
|aespectitea interests, entered and llnnde
final proa and payment per entry No.
1880, for the S. E. i Of N. W. and S.
w. Il Of S. E. Of Sec. 33, T..5, s., r.
W., and -let2 OF N. w. ii of Sec. 4, T.
/ 6. S r. 3 W., aforesaid, containing in all
116 71-1co acres of land.
Onsth ssame day, but at a later hour,
Linney, Bufns, jenkins and Smith made
shorne entries Nos. 3o842, 9843, o844
land hoS45, r and R, including all sofathe
remaining tracts of public lands within
1.-the corporate limits of the city of, Con
cordia, not embraced in the entry of May
or Allen above mentioned. I t1.tl#
On the nth Of June, 1873 Mayor Allen,
+ by Instr tons Of the Common Council of
the City Of Concordia, applied at the local
Eofice to amend his entry so as to embrace
the Several tracts Of land included in the
homestead entries aforesaid His appli-
cation was refused by the! local officers.
An appeal was taken from the decision of
1.-THE local officers, and, upon considera-
! ton of the whole matter, you gordered a
hearing 10 determine the rights the re-
spectlve parties ii&8edf ,5iiitE e{l l1eif .
Id Upon an examination of the testimony
then taken, you, cancelled said homestead
entries, because within the. limits of an
incorporated city, and directed the local
officers to allow an amendment Of entry
No. 1880, SO as to include such legal sub
divisions within the Incorporated limits of
said city as, are actually occupied for town
purposes, and to which the town is entitled
By virtue of the number Of inhabitants re-
siding thereon tas23 % a9aa @a2 st'ft'>i
l. - 81
( 4 You also found that at.the date Of the
mayors entry, Jnnet i, 1873, a portion of
! the tracts IN question were used for fnuni-
cipal purposes, that more than two hund-
red people resided on the tracts covered
! by said entry and the lands in dispute,
4 that a portion Of the N. w. IA of Sec. 4
had been selected and used asa cemetery,
and dwelling houses and other buildings
i had been erected on the lots as laid down
in the plat and fronting on the streets in.
tended for public use, which were marked
on, the tracts in question. With this find
! ing I fully agree with you, except in the
| number Of people residing upon and oc-
cupying said lands. A re-hearing was
asked by the homestead claimants for the
purpose Of showing that said city was
fradulently ii,corporated,p and that not
more than one hundred and seventeen
persons nwere residing upon the townsite
of Concordia, June 4. 1873. This applica-l
ton was denied by your decision, s on May
The case now c,vy comes before me On APP
peal, and it is urged that your decision
should be reversed, and rehearing or
fdered for the following reasons, to wit
First. Because the simple act Of incor-.
poration alone does not except public
lands from the operation of the p. e.emp-
| ton and homestead laws and, second L:
Because the occupants of3a town site are
entitled to enter only so much land as
they actually occupy. ssa Ks .3 q
Upon the first point, I am of the opin-
ion chat lands within the limits Of an in.
corporated city or town, where part Of
such Incorporated limits is used and oc-
cupied for purposes Of trade, &C., as con-
l.templated by law. are not subj ect to pre-
emption filing or homestead entry, al
though unoccupied. The prohibition as
to pre-emption filing upon lands included
within the limits of an Incorporated town,
or selected as the site of any city or town,
is explicit. Sec. 2258, R. S.
It is also urged that more land was in
cluded in the corporate limits Of said city
than was actual v occupied and that the
lots and blocks indicated on the plat had
not been surveyed, and therefore the in
corpor alton was fraudulent. / am unable
to arrive at such conclusion. The city
was Incorporated by legal subdivisions of
the public lands, and the exterior limits
and boundaries of the city were surveyed