The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1880-05-21

WtSht be ulaloseu OF unuef tue pfe-eulp'
tion law to persons making valid settle.
ments thereon, and who could afiirma.
lively prove that every step in compli.
arca with the law had been taken IL
perfect good faith, il is equally true
that, viewing those decisions in the
light Of the facts Of the cases and the
matters actually decided, doctrine or
rule is clearly deducible that seems to
me to preclude the possibility of palid
pre-emption settlements upon such lands
as good .jaiM in the performance Of the
requirements of the presumption law in
regard to the same.
The case Of the State vs.. Stott and
Waggoner was similar to the one under
consideration.
The land was fist returned as a part
OF lake, but in 1868 it appeared that
it was uncovered for nearly half of eacll
year; and yielding valuable past,,rage,
the lines of the public surveys were ex-
tended over it, and the plot was amend
ed accordingly. Tho pre- emptioners OF
tered their deelaratory statements Aug.
Goth and 9th, 1871, respectively.
The State asserted her claim by filing
list Of selections Sept. 10, 1871, aud
this respect the case was more favorable
to the preemption rights than the pres
ent one.
Crowley having settled subsequently
10 the filing Of the list by the Governor.
The claimants appeared at the local
Office and made proof of compliance
with the law and rendered payment.
Your office, finding that the State had
asserted claim prior to proof aud ten
der Of payment by the claimants, or
deied hearing. The local officers
awarded the land to the State.
You reversed their decision and
awarded the tracts TO Stott and Wag
gouer, holding that the land was not of
The character granted. On appeal, my
predecessor reversed your decision, aud
awarded the land to tile State, on the
ground that the claimants had not acted
ia good faith, and held that the rvi.
denec was such as almost "a 10 tats,lnde
the possibility Of the defendants being
claimants in good faith and this con-
cinsion seems to have been reached
mainly from the fact that Will, fun
knowledge Of the claim of the State
and the fact that for more than one-haif
Of every year the land was covered by
water. They moved upon the
,rasis and erected small honses o,
cabins"
Other circumstances leading TO lie
conclusion that the l,srti,s, were not
claiming in good faith aroae, 1t would
seem, out "f the ehararter :, E the land
itself
II was too vet to cultivate; aud Oh
acc"un: Of it being wet the cabins we're
erected on posts.
Crowley was little more fortunate
than Stott and Waggoner ia lhi.. ,kat
he fonnd u spot of about four acres
which, unlike the balance Of bis claim,
was not Submerged during the season
of high water, and which be could cuI.
tivate and upon which bo could erect
buildings.
But this fact by no means changes
the principal. which, If followed, would
defeat crowley's claim, as it did stotts
and Waggoner's.
In your decision of the other case
cited, in which entries had actualIy been
been made by pre-emptors, You stated,
This Office holds that a ralid settlen.ent
under, the e-emption law, followed by
cultivation, final proof, and payment, u
tender of purchase money, prior TO is
sue of patent TO the State, is such a
disposition of the land ss to bring it
within the exception Of the Act of
March l2, 1860, no matter whether the
land is really swamp or not"
Upon appeal, my predecessor dis
sented from this doctrine, and his decis-
ion was to the effect that valid settle
ment could moi be made upon swamp
lands in Oregon where the State had
given notice Of her claim, and it follows
indub;taLb that unless there is a valid
settlement there can be no disposal un-
der the pre-emption law.
lie held, '"To settle upon land of
swampy character would of itself, /
think, raise sufficient doubt Of good
faith on the part eof such settler as,
upon application, to Justify an order for
an investigation. and if, in addition to
the character Of the land, notice had
been received at the local Office that tue
State claimed said land as swamp, it
would be an additional proof Of the
want of good faith.g
Surely not from the fact alone that
the land was swampy.
In States to which the swamp land
grant has not been extended the fact
that land is vet or awampy raises no