Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1885-12-31

FTeWINT hgrMTN OF TUG EWFETWIITTTE, WN TTI--WW "
the desires of the citizens to obtain lands wher-
ever and whenever the same could be honoTably
had under the pre-emDtton and homestead laws:
and 1t is . notorious fact that a most vigilant
watch has always been kept, resulting, as the
records OF the land office show. in numbers OF
contests and reports by individuals to the gov
eminent OF those cases where lax and indlt
ferent compliance with the law has been Oh
served.
~Fourth-That the order OF the commissions
suspending the issuance of all patents has now
come to be q serious impeachment in abe way OF
all those persons who, having only final receiy-
ers' certificates, are from day 60 day, in the va
rious business transactions OF life, seeking e
convey their lands; and, by reason Of the sweep
ing character Of such order, IL /,
clear that unless the same be speedily
revoked or modified great hardships and
annoyances and serious losses will follow 10 tht
people, because said order Of suspension, taken
In connection with the other orders and rulings
OF the commissioners, ia an open and direct men
ace against the title Of every quarter section OF
course Of business been issued, and disastrous
results must follow TO many citizens in case the
same DO long continued in force, because of the
Inability 10 deal with their property and trans
fer the same as the necessities Of life may re
quire.
Fiflh-That said order suspending the issu-
ance, although Justiiiable when applied b.
an Individual case upon a proper showing made.
is wholly wtthou. law or rcaaau 10 ruslain Il
In its present sweeping and general form. cover
ing, Us IL does, alike the great number OF the
honest ana innocent WIN the rev guilty anu
fraudulent cases.
Sixth-That II is the undeniable law Of the
land as adjudicated by the court. that the final
receivers certificate issued upOn a final proof
operates as a transfer Of title to the proof claim
ant from the government, and having obtained
such certificate the entryman Is at once in the
due course Of business OF the land office entitled
to q patent for the land. unless for good cadsc
shown the patent may be withheld. In the
case of Meyers VS.. Croft, reported In 18th Wall
lace, page POI, in the supreme court OF the
United States, Chief Justice Davis says: The
object of congress was attained when the pre-
emptor went with clean hands TO the land ofice
and proved up his right aud paid the govern
menJ for his land. Restriction upon the power
n slieuation after this would iniure the pre-
smptor and could serve no iuipOrJant purpose OF
public policy" IL ia well known that patents do
not issue in the usual course OF bust
ness in the general. land office until sew
erai years after the certificate Of entry is
given: and equally we'll known that nearly all
the valuable lands in new states admitted since
lS4l have been taken up under the prc-emp-
ton laws, and the right TO sell them freely eSer-
ciscd after the claim was proved az. the land
paid for and the certificate OF entry received. In
view of these facts we cannot suppose, in the alb
sence OF an express declaration to that effect,
that congress Intended to tie up these lands In
the hands Of the original owners until the gov
eminent should choose to issue the patent II
II had been the purpose OF congress TO attain the
object cOntended FOR, IL would have declared the
lands themselves iDalienRble until the paten.
was granted. Instead of this, the legislation was
directed against the assignment or transfer OF
the right secured by the act, which was the right
Of presumption. leaving the pre-emptor free TO
sell his land after the entry, IL. at that time, he
was in good faith the owner of the land and had
done nothing Inconsistent with the provisions
Of the law on the subject. This right was yalua-
bic. and, Independently of the legislation OF
congress assiguable."
Sevcnth-That smother reputed decision Of
said commissioner is that In all cases where an
Individual may have exercised a committed
homestead right, the same person SaLu0t also
avail himself OF the presumption right; but In
order to obtain the same must have lived upon
and occupied his homestead for a period OF tve
years, and made proof by limitation OF time.
Aad we now call 9ttegt. n TO the fact that undeT
the rulings and practice of the department the
various land officers for many years past have
been accepting such ~pre-emption proofs and
issuing patents therefor, although the claimants
had already a homestead; and such
= radical reversal OF the policy of the depart-
ment is now causing widespread fear and appre-
hensiou az to ths titles TO all such
claims where the patents have not already been
issuel And We declare that sucI order should
be speedily reversed and the rights Of the people
established concerning such lands.
EighJh-Thg another reputed decision If S.id
eomm.ssionGr Is that any CONVEYANCE, d"ci or
mortgage 81 any Homestead or presumption
claim made after nual receipts and prior TO
patent issued IL an alienation OF the land and
therefore void because In contrayenti0n OF the
United States laws. And VIC now ali SttsntiOn
10 the fact that It has been the universal prac-
ticc TO convey and transfer such lands after
hual certificate had been issued, that the lands
nave always become taxable by tho territory
Immediately after Che issuance Of such csrtih.
Gates. and which certificate ia further entitled
to be recorded as an evidence OF title; and we
refer particularly to the decisions Of t.e courts,
which are equally In conflict with and against
this decision Uf the commissioner; and upon
such decisions OF the courts we submit that the
people have the right 60 fully rely upon the
proposition that the final certificate con-
yeys title, we wonld call attention TO the
following cases: Carroll vs.. Stafford, 3 Howard
~. 81, p eco; Myers vs. Croft, - Wallace ~,
81, Z. 29i; Lyle vs.. Arkansas. o Howard ~. 81,
y. 81; Levi vs.. Thompson, 4 Howard ~. 81, p
Is; Brush VS.. Ware, 10 Peters ~. 81, p %.
United States VS. Fitzgerald. Is Peters ~. 81,
y. 4OG; Bernard VS.. Ashley, Is Howard ~, 81
I. ~ -; I cams w. vs. s hSSiloy N Mlp Msl,a3s ~ Is5 s.
Cornelius VS.. Kessel, IS Wisconsin, p. 237: Bril-
vs. Styles, 80 Illinois, y: 800; slllyman Va
kaing, 80 Iowa. , 2o7; Mover VS.. McCuilough
1st Indiana, y 800: United States VS.. White
I,7th Federal, D, SOL: More W.. Robbins, 90
Emitted States, p 53S; Robbins vs.. Bipu, 81 I'LL
nnis, 2. IS; Watson vs.. Voorhees,, IA kansas, p
ler vs.. Hunt. Lewis Leading Land Cases. y. 1872
Smith VS.. Ewing, % Federal. J. ;ll
The former secretary or the interior, Hon III. NJ
Teller, abiding by these decisions, and wishing
70 set the matter at rest, In March. 1892 quoted
the language OF Mr. Justice Davis in 18th Wal.
lace, above Cited, and prescribed H. as q rule oi
action for his department, The department
evidently entertained the, same idea as 20 tn,
title conveyed by a final certificate when II
issued les "Rules OF Practice" Of Aug g, 1850
wherein IL was required that in the case of al
application for the return Of money erroneousll
paid, the applicant must tender TO the United
states a deed To the premises described In the
nnal certificate, accompanied by an abstract Of
title showing his right TO convey; and our legis'
lature, following the line of these precedents
has required all ands 10 he faxed upon which
hnal certificates have been issued.
N~inth-Ihat the doctrine announced by said
commissioner In his letter OF Jnne q, 1855, u
Ella nj. HOiCOmh a.1riufnR that removal from
homestead after final pro I was primd Jdcte ev.
idence OF fraud when carried 10 its logical END
Il apernicious one, and must inevitably lead q
trouble and great expense TO the people by rea-
son of the encouragement to contests and
attacks upon many lands where the entrymar
has made his final proof and then ceased TO oc.
cupy the land. And we declare that the burden
of expense entuiled upon the people growing
out Of attempted forfeiture OF their lands 10y
reason OF this letter is unjust and oppressive
and and calls Tor a retraetion or modification o.
further submit that when a person Ia.
fauy and fairly complied with the Law
OF the United States In obtaining a tract
that then. having fulfilled his part OF his con
trnct and proved the fact to the satisfaction OF
the locsl land ONCE, the tribunal provided by tn,
has become his own, TO do with as his nocessi-
ties, the demand OF business or his desire may
Gictate, and the removal tAerefrom Of residencs
or improvements, or both, Is his perfect right
" " ~ W.
T~enth-TbHt the policy that has boen pur.
sued OF making a cancellation and forfeiting the
proyed-np lands upon the mere report and OK.
animation OF a special government agent, and
without giving the entryman or present owner
an opportunity TO first be heard, Is q travesty
upon Justice, and said practice ought at once tC
be discontinued, for the reason that the same II
devoid OF every principle Of right snc justice
ana cannot be sustained when bought before
the courts, and only servef to entail endless ex-
pense and annoyance to the people.
Eleven b THAT we call the attention OF the
honorable secretary TO the fact that very many,
and probably a majority OF the CHARGES that have
been presented to the land Department. alleging
fraud In obtaining government land In Dakota
are against indiyiduals, and there Is scarcely an
Instance 70 be found where more than a QUAR-.
ter section IN invols ed In any one charge, aud in
the larger number OF such cases the complaints
are made by persons who are seeking TO obtain
the land by reason OF contest and cancellation
Aud " IL further snecia1ly ns1iced that the rec
ords az the lana ONCE show that . very large