Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-05-01

Some time back the Secretary of the
Interior made a ruling which somewhat
restricted the purchase Of timber land
under the Act of Jone 3. 1878. 1t seems
that IN issuing instructions under the
Secretarys ruling, the Com II ,ssloner of
the General Land Office went even far
Their than the Secretary designed that
bis instructions should extend. In re-
ferrIng 10 the matter IN more recent
ruling. the Secretary addresses theCon-
missioner as follows: In Spithill vs..
Goven, it Was held by this department
that the act under consideration coz
tempiated the sale as timber land or
such tracts only a. had soil unfit for
ordinary agricultural purposes. when
cleared of timber To this ruling |
adhere: and may remark, in addition
to what WAS said IN that case. that the
settlement laws unquestionably author
lze agricultural claims 10 land covered
by timber. and that this act recognizes
them IN several instances. For e1-
ample. nothing herein shall authorize
the sale of the improvements of any
bona ri,fS settler. and the claimant must
prove that the land Is unoccupled.
and without improvements: the exist
ence of valid settlement or improve
ment is therefore fatal to tie timber
| claim, notwithstanding the land may be
| non agricultural. The Act evidently
dIscrIuiuates Ill favor of a bum fde set
| tier, irrespective OF the question OF the
character of the land. s. ctlon of the
act also provides that nothing herein
contained shall prevent any agricultur
! ist from clearing his land in the ordln-
AIRY preparing of his farm for tillage,
| and II has all the force of A declaration
| by Congress that tlmbered lands are
subject 10 agricultural settlement.
| Hence the character of the soil At date
of entity, apart from the character and
value of the trees then covering 1t. IS
the true test of its status as agricultural
land.
In ruling on Tipton's application, you
have held, | observe, that entries under
the act of June 3. 1873, can only be
made for land which is ,Cho(ty unit for
| cultivation, after the timber has been
removed" and you base the ruling on
the case last mentioned. This ruling
| carries that case beyond its letter and
spirit, which go no further than To hold
that the soil must be /" unit for ordl-
nary agricultural purposes, IN order to
subject it to sale as timber land. Such
is the correct standard. undoubtedly,
| dIlu Tue Oily one WHICH COtliu 10 pup
| erly adopted In view of the law. which
| Institutes comparison of values by
force Of the descriptive terms, "vaiu-
able cbi.fy for timber. but unit for cul-
tivation." A similar comparison Is
made in the mining law between the
value # agricultural and mineral land,
and its application Is not at all difhcult
in the administration of either law. For
instance, if timber application should
cover timbered land whose soil was so
thin or 40 poor, or whose sgrface was so
PERCEPTIONS. rocky or broken, as to unfit
IT for raising crops in the ordinary man
ner and quantity, it would be valuable
chiefly for timber. Or again, If scat
tered here and there were patches of
arabic land, but so that they aggregated
a less quantity than those parts unfit
for cultivation, the tract won q be val
liable chiefly for timber. But If all or
nearly all of forty acre tract we're ara
bic land. it should be segregated from
the quantity applied for. provided there
were a ssttl DESTROYS of taking 1t. The
burden of proof must be on the timber
applicant, where the issue IS on the
character If the lana for this law Is
AN excep' ion to the general settlement
laws. and the person claiming its bene
fits must show that his case comes within
the exception.