The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1880-05-21
SWAMP LANDS.
Dcelsson or she secretary or the Interior
Reversing she eOmElisSioaer Of the
General Land OIliee Ia relation
% swamp Laads Ia
oregon.
DEPARTMENT or Tng INTERIOR, i
WAsnINoroN, April Is, 80. |

Laad Office, C.S.d.
Sir 81 have considered the case OF
Dennis Crowley rs. the State Of oro-
gon. involving the title to the S, W. !
of N. L. ], the s.E. of n. w. ], and
Lots 6, s, . and 10 of Section 10,
Township 80 South. Range East, and
Lot 1, Of Section -, Township 80
South, Range East, Lakeview Land
District, Oregon; on appeal by the
State fcom yenr decision of january 9S,
1879.
The State claims the land under the
Act of March IL, 1850 CI2 U. S. Stat.
utes, -, Il is clearly swamp and over.
flowed within the meaning of said Act,
and is virtually admitted to be such by
Crowley.
These tracts were returned by the
Surveyor General in 1853 as a part OF
Little Klamath Lake, but on re-sur.
vey, made in 1872. plots of which were
approved and fled in April, 1873, they
were returned as public lands Tracts
of the same general character in Town
ships SO and 40 South, Range East,
and which were returned in the same
manner by said surveys, have been pat.
ented to the State as swamps I.ist
Linkville, approved January Tth, ls76.)
In September, 1872, the Governor of
Oregon filed notice Of The States claim,
and list Of swamp land selections, eui-
bracing said tracts, in the office Of the
Surveyor General, and on December l ,
1872, he iled Il similar notice and list
in the proper local Land Office.
From a stipulation filed since the
rendition Of your decision. it appears
that the Governor afterwards fled du-
plieates Of said notices and list in the
local Office on june IL. 1873. and No
vrm''er -, 1875.
Evi'l"ncr in support # lbe claim of
he State was filed in due time in the
otIiee Il the surveyor Cene,nl, ta,t IT
mas NOT yet lretn acted pl.ois ~ ,uur
,iIis,e.
Crowley claim. 'tndrrlbr rre-erol,,ion
law. lie has The legal qualifications cf
pre-emptor.
lie settled September l, 1873, with
full knowledge of the claim Of the State
and Of the character If the land. lie
died his ,lrclaratory statement in time.
On the 18Th Of March, 1876, he af,-
piled to make proof and 10 enter the
land, and asked tiat the State slo,ld l..
notified and day set for hearing
lie also set firth ia hi. application
the following:
You will also take notice hat /
hereby waive all question as to the
swampy character of said land, and
base my claim on said land upon my
residence, cultivation aud Improvement,
in good faith, as required hy law"
By consent, the case was set for hear
ing on March e0th, 1876, and formal
notice Issued accordingly.
Il is not necessary TO ,eeite tue pro
eeedings ha,! at the trial.
1t is sufficient to say that Crowley
virtually admitted the land to i.e swamp
and oveiGowe,l, but insisted, neverthe-
less, that it was subject to disposal un-
der the pre-emption law, and that he
had legal right to enter It, and be
thereupou submitted liis proof and ten
derel payment.
HIS Propf shows that be has done all
that the presumption law requires to
entitle Il settler 10 an entry aud patent
for land subject to pre-emption disposal
From the foregoing it is apparent that
the case should he treated as if the
swampy character of the land had been
fully and afiirmatively proven at the
trial and it follows that the State is
not in default in completing the selec-
ton under the present arrangement
with your Office, within the time lin
tied by the second section of the Act of
1860, so far as anything she could do is
concerned, the period limited having
expired Oct. %. 1876
The question for determination upon
the facts is whether or not the land was
subject to disposal under the pre-emp.
ton law.
You held, in effect, that Crowley's
compliance in good .IaitL with all the
requirements of the pre-emption law,
including tender of payment, consti-
tuted a sale or disposal Of the land
within the meaning of the proviso to
the Act of 1860, and tbereupon award
ed the land to him, citing as precedents
therefor the decisions Of my predeces-
sors, in the cases Of the State Of Oregon
VS.. stott and Waggoner, (Copps 4. L.,
475) and State of Oregon vs.. Pre- Emp
TONERS, (oopPs l. o. for No,epber,.
1876, page l49l.
Your decision, in effsot, is that the
lands in Oregon actually claimed by the
State as swamp and overnowed, and
proven to be identified as such. are new