National Republican., 1883-03-27
Land Office Decisions.

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune di-
reefs attention to the manner in which the
railway companies holding or claiming lands
in the west have operated to the injury of
eral years these companies have been making
to use the Interior department as an aid in
defeating claims of settlers to lands within or
near their grants. There can be no question
that for long time the rights of individuals
were held very lightly as against the claims
of railway corporations. Tho craze for
ran SO high in the western states not only
induced communities to mortgage them
selves and grant the most cXtravagant aid to
railway builders but by the power Of public
opinion that could not be ignored forced the
government into policy the evil fruits of
which have since become only too apparent.
been burdened with a load of rulings and de-
cisons that of itself it has little power to cure
The department practice is injuriously strict
The commissioner of the general land Office is
almost helplessly bound by decisions of his
predecessors, not only in specific cases, but in
classes of cases; and while the secretary of
tion, he too is limited in his authority
to pass outside of lines established
by former secretaries no matter
how obviously wrong those lines may be.
Thus it is, for instance, that the present Off
GERS of the department are poweress to correct
the decision under democratic commissioners,
loaded the books with rulings so extraordi-
nary in their nature that nothing less than
his high personal reputation has served TO
save him from most injurious suspicious
Until the present secretary assumed charge
very little was done to bring about an
interposition of the government in behalf of
cerned or to bend the department toward
n new policy suited to the condition of
| things that succeeded the condition
that produced the old The Chicago Tribune
has rendered the government service in
laying the state Of the case before the north
western public, where perhaps it has been
in error in most of its statements of fact; rs
for example, when 1t states that the Kniskern
case in Minnesota had been permitted tc
stand in favor of the railway company
whereas Secretary Teller overruled that
order and gave tho land to the settler; and
again, in stating that the lands in the lapscd
grant to the Gulfan Ship Island railway had
been withheld from settlement, the contrary
being the case But these are minor points
for tho misstatement of which the TriJ,W,
may readily be pardoned.
1t has never been pointed out that thu
present secretary has held as leading
proposition that in all cases of disput,
the presumption is to be in favor of the actual
settler. In following this Mr.. Teller ha
bound the department by number of dc
csions, which irrevocably settle several prn
cples. The decision in the KnislSern case Il
one of these, which will save their homes Il
hundreds of families. In the Graham cas-
(also in Minnesota) he has decided that land
in anywise appropriated at the date of tn
definite location Of the line of road do no
pass under the grant but are excepted, o
rather are not granted; and that until tn
date of the definite location of the line q
road a railway grant is only II float, and doe
not attach to any specific tracts so that a.
, entry, whether void or vodable, existing a
, the dato of definite location of a line except
) the land covered thereby from the operaHo
Of the grant
!. During the last year, being the year sine