Turner County herald. (Hurley, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-19??, 1884-11-03
FINAL PROOFS.

The question of final proofs is too seri-
Gus natter to be sneered down as an
election dodge. The present clerk of
co1st brings1o his aid q. K. W., with a
wordS Srigmarele in the New Era about
singing mud = and selling whisky
with a view to diVerting the minds of
the people from the real issue-the
validity of final proofs. taken elsewhere
than at the county seat. According
to z. r. W., the Judge of district can
hold court anywhere he pleases, the
court and county records can be kept
anywhere in the county to suit the con-
venience OF the officer. Had judge
Palmer only known this few weeks
earlier there would have been no neces-
sity for his camping out in the rain and
and cold and trailing his ermine in the
mud at Swan Lake when he might
have been comfortably fixed in cozy
quarters at the fremont House In
Hurley. z. r. w. has no use for a
county seat; this getting up petitions
and holding elections and setting 'em
up is all nonsense. All that is neces
sary is an "opinion fromZ r. w. But
unfortunately for those who have made
final proof at Parker there is authority
at Washington that don't agree with
z. r.. W., as the following will show:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
(rENERAJ, I,ANn OEEIrL
Washington, ID. c., Feb. 4, 1884 Sir:
In response to your inquiry of Jan.
1lth, 1884, you are referred to letter by
N. Copp, Washington, ID. c., Nov. g 1888.
lSee Copp's L.0. Vol. 10, p.256.i in
which it is stated "Under the act of
March 3, 1877 allowing final proof to
be taken before the Judge orclerk of
court, it is held by this office that
such proof must be made where the
court is held and the seal is kept.
Very Respectfully.
n. q. MCFARLAND,
Commissioner.
The following letter from L. ID. F.
Poore, eX-receiver of the U. S. land
office at Springfield and Watertown,
who is probably as well posted on this
question as any man in the territory,
speaks for itself:
1ANKToN, OAK, Oct. 25, 1884.
MIR. q. A. NEAR, Hurley, Oak.
Dear Sir: Your letter of the goth
inst. is before me. You ask for my
opinion rs to the "legallity of final
proofs taken at any other place than
the county seat"
The law requires settlers to adver-
tisc the time and place, and before
what officer they will make their proof.
in Il newspaper published nearest the
land, to be designated by the register of
the land office. The proof should be
made before the officer, and at the place
designated in the advertisement, and
cannot legally be taken before any other
officer or at any other place than that
named in the advertisement.
II the proof is advertised to be made
before the clerk OF the court, at the
county seat, OF course it must be made
ut the c6unty seat, and as the official
resideLea of the clerk of the court is
fixed by i::w ut the county seat, he has
no warrant in law to establish an office
elsewhere for the transaction OF his
official business.
L. ID. F. PoonE.
n That these proofs have been illegally
made there can be no question. Now
what is Mr.. Thielman going to do
about it? Through his official negli-
gence two years ago he Jeopardised the
title to thousands of dollars worth of
property in Turner Co. which the legis-
lsture had to rectify. To legalize these
proofs they will have to be taken over
again, or an act Of Congress, passed for
the purpose. But all. the while Mr..
iThielman sees fit to dance the people
have to pay the fiddler.