White Oaks golden era., 1884-06-12
FROM WASHIN
Points for New Mexican Preemptors to
Consider.

Points for New Mexican Preemptors to
Consider.
CASE A man Il led enormously upon
one tract and actually settled upon an
other; discovering his error he at
tempted to correct the same by making
a now filing, but it was subsequent to
that of another person made upon the
same tract.
RULN-That an amendment of a
filing upon one tract cannot bc allowed
to embrace different tract, so as to
defeat an entry made upon the latter
tract subsequently, to the original filing,
but prior to the application to amend.
WASHINGTON, May 27.-Thc follow
ing pre- emption contest, decided by
the Secretary of the Interior and re-
versing a decision Of the Commissioner
of the General Land Office, involves
some points of interes st 20 all residents
of New Mexico: "a" filed a declar.
atory statement for q tract of land,
alleging settlement on March L, 1881.
May 8, 1882, he applied to amend his
filing, placing his location in another
section, alleging that former fling was
mista Ike and his amended location was
really upon the land he had originally
located and improved. The local Of
ficers allowed this amended filing and
this action was confirmed by the Com
missioner of tho General Land Office
Tho township plat was filed May H.,
1881. "D' made homestead entry on
the same section August 6, 1881. "B'
applied to make proof July II, 1882,
to which "a" objected, alleging his
own prior settlement. "a" applied TO
make proof August Il, 1882, to which
81 objected, alleging his own prior
entry anil that GA" removed from
other land to settle on that in dispute,
and therefor was no. qualified pre-
emptor; also that if "A" ever made
settlement upon the land in controversy
he forfeited his rights by failure to
ilc thereon within the legal period,
or not until after "D's" rights attached.
At Joint hearing the testimony dis
closed the following facts: That "a
settled Oh the section as he alleges, has
valuable improvements and has con-
tinuously resided thereon; that "B'
has also Improvements upon the same
land and continuously resided there
since January 1882; that each had
complied with the law and would be
entitled to the land in the absence of
the other. The secretary, to whom
the case went on appeal-the commits
sioner having decided in favor of "A''
and in favor Of cancoling "D's" entry
says "a" should have the land as first
settler Cf qualified pre- enptor), if
he had originally filed upon the tract,
or had his amendment been allowed
prior to an enteivening adverse claim
but that when "B" made his entry
(May ii, 1881 the tract was unappro'
priatcd on the records and he does II OF
appear to have known of "A's' settle.
mcnt until December following and
then going to the local land Office, and
learning that the land stood as vacant
upon the records, he proceeded with
the improvements.
The decision of the comm issioncl
presents the question whether al
amendment of filing upon one trac
can be allowed to embrace different
tract so as to defeat an entry made il
good faith upon the latter tract subse
quently to the original ing, but prior
to tho amendment, the land at the date
of the entry being vacant public land
on the record, and the entry man igno
rant of the prior settlement Of tho date
of his entry.
The secretary says: "Undoubtedly
such amendment is allowable rs be
tween the party and the government
merely but know of no principle ol
decision which vii! authorized il tC
Dust an intervening adverse right made
IN good faith and In this case "A" had