The daily intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Territory [i.e. Wash.]) 1876-1881, 1880-01-21

must be considsred a. valid until
otherwise decided BY the Supreme
Court Of the Territory.
3. The CITY wss incorporated at the
time when the presumption claimants
made their settlements on the land in
questisn. and il was. therefore. impos-
sibls for them to have acquired any
vested rights within the incorporated
limits.
This principle was fully discussed
and decided BY Mr. Justice Swayue. in
1868, in the case Of Root vs. Shields
Il Woolworth. c. c.. p. S40.)
The oct Of 1873 vas . substitute for
the incorporation act Of 1869. and while
it repealed the former law. it also -.
tablished . new Law of incorporation.
which went into operation at The Same
moment Of time the old Law was repeal.
ed, thus leaving no period of time
within which On adverse right could
attach.
1. It 10 said that the pre.emptioo
claims are confirmed BY section 2 Of the
act Of Congress approved March 8. 1877.
Said section 10 in the following words:
. That where entries have been here.
tof"re allowed upon lands aftervard
a-caI tained 70 have been embraced inths
corporats limits Of any town. but which
entries are or shall b shown to tho sat.
isfaction Of the Commissioners Of the
General Land Office to include only Va
cant. uuoceupied lands of the United
States, not ssttled upon or used for
municipal purposes nor devoted to any
public use Of such town. said entries. il
regular in all respects. are hereby con.
6rmed and may De carried into patent:
Provided. That this confirmation shall
not operate to restrict the entry Of any
townsite to . smsller a,e. than the
msximum quantity Of land ~hich, BY
reason OF present population, it may be
entitled, ~ enter under section twenty.
three hundred and eighty. nine Of the
Revised Statutes" tl9 Statut.s, 1872. }
None of the pre-emption claimants,
except Rich snd Nipick, have entered
the land claimed by them. and their
claims are not therefore confirmed BY
ssid act. kich 10 not . qualified pre-
smptor, and his entry being illegal. is
not confirmed.
With reference 70 tho entry Of Min
ick, il will b observed. that the sec-
tion above qaotsd confirms such entrys
only - have bsen allowed for lands
''aiterward aseertained" to be within
the corporate limits Of town. The
testimeny in this case shows that dur
ing the most Of tho period Of Minick's 3
Alleged residence on tho land he was
the Marshal Of the City of Seattle. that
he voted in the city election in 1874,
and exercised al Of the rights and
privileges claimed and exercised BY
other citisens Of the city. His suthor-
ity % Marshal was confined to the COR
porate limits Of the city, and it was
impossible for him not TO have known,
% meter Of fact. that the land claim
Cd BY him WAS within the city limits.
This section was not intended to con-
6rm entries made within the corporate
limits OF the city, by persons who had
fall knowledge Of the fact that the
lands were 90 situated. at tho time the
entries were made, and said entry does
not fall within the remedial provisions
Of the section. and is not confirmed.
+ After . careful rxaminatiou Ut tho
testimony. am Of the opinion that
said pre- emption claios we're properly
rejected by you. and that they rre not
condrned b he oct Of March 8. 1877.
Your decision rejecting the application
OF Thomas B. Valentine. to enter cer-
tain tracts within the corporate limits
ofshe city vifh Valentine scrip u AZ
6rmSd on authority OF my decision OF
the 26th ultimo. in the case of Thomas
B. Valentine ~. The City OF Chicago.
The spplisation OF Mr. Valentine to
looAts Valentine scrip E. SOL. ON the
unoeeapisd esd unsppropristed tract
outsids Of tie corporate limits Of the
city b gfaatsd.
Your decision il Affirmed for the
reasons stated. and the papers trans.
mitted With your letter OF February 1,
1878, are herewith returned.
Very respectfully.
CARL 6cHURz, Secretary.
The Commissoner Of the General Land
Omco.