Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1885-07-24
Indemnity Lands.
o." uati'"pd '"mpsny View Out
un"d D., L"nd tg-n' >'huiIc.

VA pU.naor, trpuIicr gives the
lowing ~ accoun, # an Interview
Wllh NlI Nchu,le i.gnrGiug the late
,l,.i~l.u of tpmml,-iuucr Sparks
H. at-Nct 10 question, Mr. : said
Iflt h,s any eject at all, it will
lo ,ciN ,hsht There seems to he Il
st,u dcul Il huncombc IN tins dcci
SION Il has been heraldcd with Il
sieh flourish Of trumpcts by All am
llnous Noung politician. Shor'd
Mr spark, decision stand its effect
Will be- tha' parties who have settled
upon Indemnity lands before selec-
uon 10y the company and who have
not exhausted their Governin ant
ught.. O. e. the right Of homestead
or pre- cmption, will be allowed to
homestead or prc-empt lG0 acres
each Tho number 6 settlers upon
indemnity lands who still hold their
Government nights is small. Rail
Ilal le'ldS are gchtrully sought by
clplo who have exhausted tho priv
i'ese II DEMONSTRATING and !li-empt
ing. and thoeo Ail bc benefited by
tia. decision AnOtaor effect Will
10 numotOu, attempts at land Jump
Ing. consequent litigation and dis
trces among settlers. am confident
that the promoters of this decision
viii cnisc thc day that they took
holl of tins business; it VIII serve as
"a boomerang In the crd it may
wolh t. nd the country of an organ
ihsd gang of land jumpers and land
sharks winch has It's headquarters at
a town ia Eastern Washington, and
do some good, after all.
BY this decision Commissioner
Sparks attempts to upset what has
been the practice Of the General
Land Office and the Department of
the Interior ever since 1850, when,
II remember right, the first land
grant bill was passed that to the
Illinois Central The same practice
and tho Same rules in regard to
Withdrawals within limits of land
grant railroads have prevailed, with
very Sigh. notifications, under the
Administrations of Presidents Fill
more. Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln,
Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield and
Arthur, and their respective Secre-
taiies of the Interior and Commits
sloncrs Of the General Lard Office
prominent among whom is Thomas
4 Hendricks, now Vice President.
Under tnis practice the indemnity
limits were fixed simultaneously
with the granted limits upon the I'll
ing OF n map Of definite location, and
tho lands embraced therein were
held IN state Of Withdrawal until
tho respective railroad companies
could ascertain their losses and
make indemnity selections. In the
case ot the Northern Pacific, the var
iaus Secretaries have followed this
rule. and the lands in the indemnity
limits were withdrawn whenever the
granted limits were fixed upon filing
If map Of final location.
I,cportor-How then is it that the
Commissioner Of the General Land
Office can make decision ignoring
ur reversing decisions Of all his pred
,cos.ors Answer Tat is a ques-
iiun whichit is hard 10 answer. /
may ho for apolItlcal effect or it MAJ
he that tho Conn is,ioner was ill-ad
,lscd The question of the indem
n,iy Withdrawals for the Northern Pa
ciiic ltailroad Company contiguous tC
anl cotorminous with the construct
q parts Of the railroad aud as far
1t ls definitely located is not an open
one. /. IL res Judicatd. This matter
came up before Secretary Teller il
the spring Of 1888, and was argued
hy able counsel on both sides. AL
points that have bearing upon the
case were then raised, and after full
consideration Seci etary Teller decid
) cd. under date of May II. 1883. thai
the withdrawal of indemnity land.
fer the Northern Pacific shoulC
stand for reasonable length of time
~ as to give the company an oppor
tuni,y to make selections and get thu
land to which il is entitled under it.
charter. The company has since Sc
, lectcd the greatest portion of the in
, iemni'y lands in Oregon and Wash
, lng,on Territory which it desires t,
select, so far as these lands are sur
veyed, aud the company can lool
with oquanimity upon this attemp
: To- wrest from It what it has fairly
q Justly and legally earned.
, q For what reason do you holt
, that this matter has been adjudicat
% cdr Cannot the Commissioner re
verse decision OF his predecessor
A-les and no. An executive Cffi
! Ger Of the Government may revers
decision Of his predecessor upol
reconsideration If the whole case hat
I not been presented in the first in
stance, but when, as was the case il