Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1884-03-14
Important To Settlers.

4.-IHe ScCIetdly vi tIlc lllUcFlOF UO-0tly
rendered very Important decision of
great interest to settlers in new coun-
ties proving up on their land entries.
1t reyerses the ruling of the commits
:oner of the general land office of Jan.
IS last, regarding the powers of clerks
of district courts in counties in which
no court has been held. The commits
sioner ruled that these clerks could not
administer oaths and take final proofs
under the presumption and homestead
laws, because the act of March 3. 1877,
provides that such proofs could be talk
en- before a judge, or, in his absence.
the clerk of the court, constituting the,
term, "in his absence" to relate to a
county in which a Judge had held court.
but was temporarily absent, and hold
ing that he could not be absent il h,
had never held court in the county.
This ruling was first retroactive iii it,
effect, and would have destroyed tn,
titles Of thousands of acres in Dakota
and other Western states and tertitor
ries. A second decision, however, mod
ified this effect, making it apply only in
The future. Even then it would hav,
been source of inconvenience and ex-
pense to settlers to 60 from counties in
which no court had yet been held tc
distant counties. The matter was push
ed through by Delegate Raymond, who
vas very earnest ard active in gettinl
the secretary of the interior to take II
up and make an early decision. Th
secretary discusses the status of clerk
Of courts in counties. He holds tina
the statutes in Dakota provide for th'
appointment of such clerks and pre-
scribes their duties. He says that the
act of 1877 in IT'S language, "in his alb
sence," contempIates the absence of =
Judge, whether any court has been hell
in the county or not. He holds tina
tbsence from the county on the part
judge applies to new counties wher
10 courts have been held, as well
counties where courts have been hello
The result is that clerks in new coun
ties can take proof il land cases: Thi;
view is sustained by d decision Of Judg'
Edgerton. the question having beel
raised before him on q motion to quasi
an Indictment on the groun11 that tn
perjury complained of was taken be
fore @ clerk of the court in count,
where no court had been helG
and therefore it was argued that nt
perjury had been committed within
Che meaning Of the statutes.
The following, which we find IN tn
Dakota City Advance is SO applicabl
to affairs in this county in, relation t.
Final Proofs that we publish it for th
purpose of correcting the idea that :;
county officer can do official busines,
awayfrom the county seat: The fol
lowing letter from commissioner
Mcfarland, OF the General Lam
Office, to one of the proprietors Of this
paper, doubtless invalidates final proc
that have heretofore been taken befor'
the Judge Of Probatein Memo. Shoul'
The ruling declare these proofs void, thu
work will certainly have to be gon
through with the second time. Will
the innocent people haveto suffer thus
!y, and lose their entire fees, simply
through the ignorance of this officer ?
As it is well known, an immense
mount of proofs have been taken in
,s!enno, and such proofs are probably
iod
DEPAHTNIELT OF THE INTERIOR. }
GENERAL LAND. OFFICE,
Washington, d. c., Feb. 4, 1884. )
Samuel George, Esq, Olivet, Dakota.
Sir: In, response to your inquiry Of
Jan. 1ith, 1884. you are referred to let
Ter by Act'g Commissioner Harrison to
Henry n: Copp, Washington, d. c..
NOV. 9, 1889. [See Copp's L. 0. Vol. 10.
., Psf in Which it IS state! "UDder the
-scS Of March 3, 1877, allowing final
oroof to be taken before the judge or
:ierk of court, it is held by this office
.hav such proof must be made WHERE
he court is held and the seal is kept.
Very Respectfully,
n. G. MCFARLAND, Commissioner.
Andrew Hessdorfer of 14-lO7-63
Fought to this office last week a piece
4 tamarack or cedar wood which he
'4ttnd while digging Well-thirty feet