Stevens County tribune. (Morris, Minn.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-13

We are indebted to Hon. SOren Listoe, of
the Fergus Falls Land Office, for the fol-
lowing decision of the Secretary of the
Interior:
SYNOPSIS.
A party who enters u homestead and at
tempts to acquire title thereto by going up
on the land and remaining over night once
or twice in six months fails to esta 1lish the
residence contemplated by the homestead
law; and where it is shown that such fail
ure to comply with the provisions Of the
law was not the result of ignorance or of
uncomfortable circumstances, the entry
should be Cancelled.
Such cases us the above should not be
submitted to the Board of Equitable Adiu-
dication Cases going before this board
are limited to those i'll which the good faith
of the claimant appears unquestlonabie.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WAsHINGTON, ID. o., Dec. 3, 1878. !
SIR:-l have considered the case of John
Byrne VS. Irwin Catlin, involving the ques
tion of aba ndOnment by the latter Of his
homestead claim upon the W of and
W of e / of section II, township 81,
range . east, Nlobrara, Nebraska, on APP
peal from your decision of February Ii,
| 1918, dismisSing the contest.
| Catiin made homestead entry April II,
| 1915. The evidence also shows
that from the date of making his entry, un-
| til the date Of trial, May %, 1917, the claim
ant has not resided upon the land. AC-
co ding to his own testimony, he has III
| no sense made the tract his home, or his
| residence within the true intent and mean
ing of the statute. as during that long
period he has slept in the house upon the
| tract but very few times. On the contra
ry, he resided with his father, at the house
of the latter, Il few miles distant.
Catlin asserts that one reason why he
did not reside upon his claim was that his
wife refused to accompany him.
He separated from his wife June 20,
1876, and from that time until the date ol
trial, he does not appear to have made any
attempt to reside upon his claim.
His wife testifies positively that she die
not refuse to reside with him upon tht
claim, but that she was ready to do SO
In the case under consideration it ha
been shown in the manner prescribed b.
statute, that the claimant has failed t.
comply with the law or the spirit of th'
executive officer, charged with the admin
istration of the law, and that is to execute
the same.
The homestead law is liberal in its pro
visions, and is literally construed by tn
Department, but the element of good faitl
in attempting to comply with the law mus
be apparent on the part of the claimant
The absense of it should in each case caus
forfeiture of the claim.
| am of the opinion that the rule pro
posed in your decision viz: TINT where
contest has been instituted by law, ant
the fact clearly established that the claim
ant has failed to comply with the require
ments OF the statute, that said contcs
should be dismissed, and the delinqu II
informed that if he, in future, compile
with the statute his Calm will be perfecl
ed, would not result III Il correct admins
tration of the homestead law.
From the evidence submitted it is Gle
that Mr. Catlin has for a period of NOR
than TWO years, utterly failed to compi
with the plain provisions Of the statntt
This failure was not the result OF lgNOl
! ance, neither was it the result of cirCun
stances which he could not control. O
l the contrary it appears to be an atteml
7 to obtain title to public lands without
z compliance with the requirements OF tn
4 law. In all such cases the claims shoul
be rejected.
Your decision is reversed and the entr
S of Catlin should be Cancelled.
S The papers transmitted with your lctte
of August 9th last are herewith returned
Very respectfully,
G. SHURZ, Sec, g.
The Commissaoner Of the General Lan
Office.