Hand County press. (Miller, Dakota [S.D.]) 1882-1893, 1883-12-26

'A '"n' WEN y lSSHt UDutG the
above heading We find di cussed at some
length what is supposed to be the law in
regard to the rights of Pre- -emptcrs. and
the modus opcrandi Ly which all disputes
must be settled
We think the gentleman, Judging from
the tone Of his communication. cares le,s
Tor Mr., Moore and his disputes than he
does that he should bc heard Cares less
Tor the interest of the public than he does
for the opportunity presented Of behttle-
ing IN the estimation of that public the
coltrt, ard the attorneys who had the au-
hcity to commence a legal prosecution
without consulting his honor. tha wool
sack at Huron.
Laws are enacted Tor the prot ection of
private rights and the redress OF private
wrongs, and if Mr. Armstrong had taken Il
little more pains to inform himself as to
what his duties are in the premises. and
! to have Informed himself little better aS
to what the law is as touching the case at
bar, he would have saved some valuable
time that he might have devoted to the
legitimate dut es of his office. and for the
benefit Of the public.
lie says the proper place in which to
settle disputes between claimants for same
tract Of hand, on VIII; ch proof has not been
made, Is in the local and GeDertl Land
Office. Now if he had said that it was the
ONLY place We should deny his PROPOSE
tlun.
He says, NO county officer has any ju-
u~dictiun over a tract Of hand when the
title has not yet passed from the govern
mcpt.' He might haysaidrd or ttrritorI-
al officers either and the announcement
would not have been more stunning.
Lit II, sec what :hr llw Is. SC 1918
Rev. Statutes rcpds: "All questions us 10
the right OF pr'-tmptlOnS arising between
different settlers shall be determined 10y
the Register and Receiver of the district
in which the land is situated" But this
law is not applicable I'd the case Of Moore
" BidlIc.
Mr Moore sued for the right ot posses
sion and no other question WAS involved.
Mr. Armstrong SAYS THAT Mr. Moore
should take some action before the lard
office, and not before Justice Of the
Peace.
Let US See what the decisions are On this
point. a prior pre-cmptor can not cite
subsequent claimant. See Hansen VS. Ber-
ry c. L. O. page G27: Sprague vs. Rob
inson 9th Copn. page III; Desarchey vs.
Jaurez 10th Copp, page 81 and very re-
cent case Cau.kins vs. Hall which if we are
rightly informed was decided by Mr.. Arm
strong himself according To the previous
rulings " the honorable commissioner
and which was also affirmed by Mr.. Mc-
Fariaul
How is that for relief. 1t reads some
thing like the story in the Old books, where
ont gentrmau offered another all the king
dOm> Of the world for his Worship when
the poor devil did not own foot of lard
on earth
But suppose fer the sake of the argu-
u
do and could 90 before the Reg ster of
hnG office. lie hears the case and then
what is he going Ia do about It. II" can
say who he thinks has the right Of posses
sion Just rs easily and rs gilbly as h" can
Instruct the local courts as to what the law
Is as 10 their jurisdiction etc. But how IL
Re going to enforce his order; What oif
ctr has he in such CmergCncleS To serve
his writS of restitution?
Now there is nothing in this case that
Mr. Armstrong can 10 to relieve either m
these parties II Is not rs TO Mr.. M"'Te :
or Mr. B,ddlc'S right to pre-cmptior OF
public lands They may both or neither
hive any rights under Ike pre-cnlptlon
law That will be for Mr.. Armstrong to
decide when he comes to hear their proof
d not before.
All pcrSnnS who are qualified are Cntl-
tied tu pre- -rmpt quarter section OF va
c,nt and unoccupicd public lands. MIR.
Moore ilnds slCh "a piece OF land, settles
upon and improves II, and causes record
t. be made Of ia" fact in the land office
and hy complying with the law IN thlS re-
SpeCt the government l'ut INN III the
praccahle possession of II and his right Is
lust a. sacred as though he had u title Ill
Zee simple until il is shown that he ac-
lllltt ltlil llShl .Hi' ''''''N
cannot come in and file his dcclaratory for
the same tract and put up his house and
move INTO II and acquire any right thereby.
In Hannum vs Linton, page 53i toprs
land laws: "A settlement upon land oc-
cupied and improved by another is IA mere
naked intrusion and in such wrongful
ATTEMPT tp sirze the fruits of smother
mans labor. there can DE no bona tde
claim of right whatever which doctrine
Was established by the l. :. supreme
Court. Atherton vs. Fowler 9th otto page
5l3.
Now we think We h&vc shown pretty
conclusivclv that Mr.. Moore could not
have obtained the relief he sought from
the Land Office in an action for thc right
If possession. or 10y any other proceeding
than offering to make final proof which
might be heard aud settled sometime dur
ing his natural life provided be was able
To meet the enormous sexpenseSatt'hdinSt II.
But let Us now see whether the
LOCAL COTETS
uova any Jurisdiction III they have