The DeSmet leader. (DeSmet, Kingsbury Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1885-12-12

From The Land and Labor Spy.
BY his order of April7 lSs5, the Com
missioner suspended final action III his
office upon all entries Cf the public
land in Dakota. and certain other Ter
ritOrics and states, except private cash
entries and scrip locations not depend
ent upon acts of settlement and culti-
vation. The object Of this suspension
was TO afford time and opportunity TO
enable him to have his special agents
investigate each entry with Il view to
discover whether or not fraud existed
therein; the presumption being that Il
uicntly made and in cases where such
fraud should be round the entries were
to be cancelled. In consequence of
such orier, there now lies suspended in
the general Office more than 30 900 en-
tries, which have been examined and
approved for patenting, and await only
tie reports Of the special agents in or
der 10 be patented or cancelled.
That these nvestigaiionS by the
agents may become effective, the Com
missioner Oh the Sth of April. 1855. is
sued a circular, directing the local Of
iicers TO order hearings upon the COM
plants Of such agents, and serve notice
on the claimants: and in addition it
was provided in such circular that the
claimants, AT such hearings will be
required 10 submit their testimony first
subject To cross-cXaminatiOn and re-
bultal.
There vever was such IN attempted
outrage on the private rights of indi-
viduals rs contemplated by this proyis-
ion. 1t is contrary to all the rules of
evidence, as recognized by all the courts
OF every civilized country. and the won.
der is that amy person protesting IA
knowledge OF the rudmentary princi-
pies of the law Of the rights of proper
". would essay to issue and enforce
such an order.
But, further than this. the circular
provides that where claimant fails TO
appear at the hearing. then upon such
default his entry will be cancelled thus
depriying II man Of his property upon
the mere charge of special agent that
his entry was fraudulent.
OF course claimants would not submit
TO such a deprivation of their rights,
without making an effort TO have such
rights fully presented 10 the Secretary
for his consideration: and in the case OF
George L. Burns. the Secretary consid-
cred this matter and rendered the fol-
lowing opinion
The Commissioner If the General
Land ONCE.
Sir have considered the appeal of
George T. Burns. from the decision Of
your office, dated December l6, 1884, re-
tusing 10 set aside the order holding
for cancellation his prc-emp,ion cash
entry No. li,lG6. covering the WI of the
nw4. and the W! of the Swt of sec. Is.
Tp. IS H.. Range - W, Marquette land
district. Michigan.
The records ShCW that Burns filed
his pre-emption declarato:y statement
No. $40 upon the said tract on February
y. alleging settlement on February !,
lSs2 ard. after due notice, made his final
proof before the Register on September
q. les2. and on March T., lsS3, made his
final affidavit, before deputy clerk
OF the circuit court for Delto county,
in sald state. and final certificate issued
same day. On March 81, ISsi, a special
agent Of your Office reported that Burns
had failed to cultivate any OF said land;
that he had made no Improvement on
the land, except one end OF log build
ing which was put up for the occupa-
ton of persons engaged in getting out
logs: that he had never actually resided
upon the land, and had only been on the
same few times since the date Of his
filing. Upon the agents report, your Of
fee on April IL, 1881, held said entry
for cancellation. and allowed Burns
sixty days within which TO apply for
hearing. Application was made and
hearing was duly had before the Regis
ter and Rt tciVer, on September l3. 1881
Upon the testimony submitted tht
Register and Receiver rendered then
/ ioint opinion that the residence anC
cultivation OF tie tract in question, bS
; the said Burns. were not Of such extent
and character as constituted full com
plance with thc pre- emption law, Oh
December Ii. 1854. your Office eXaminet
the record and testimony in the case
and leld that the evidence showed tha
Burns did not act in good faith, in max
ing said entry; that he had not com
piled With the law as regards resi-
dence and cultivation, and that hi
entry should be cancelled.
Tie testimony shows that Burn
was duly qualified pre-emptor. that Ii,
had paid for said land at the rate o
$50 PEI acre OH account OF the sam
being within the limits of railroa'
grant: that he is single man, and was
at the time of his alleged settlemen
and entry. general manager FOR the y
Ludincton Lumber Company, in carry
ing on an extensive lumber business =
several points.
1T appears from Burns testimon
that he served as a soldier in the lat
war. forty days less than three years
and tla, he made pre-emption instea'
Of homestead entity because he conl'
not live on the land continuously 70
the time required by law to perfect hi
homestead claim. He swears that h
settled upon the land in good faith, am
inter.ded to cultivate after clearing OF
the timber. and make il his home. ii
admits that lie put mp the dwellin
house and other buildings with the me-
in the employ of said company, for tn
double purpose Of making home fo
himself and furnishing "A sleeping plac
for the men i'm the employ Of said CON
pany. while working on adjacent land
of the company. The fact that only
portion of the building was upon tn
tract. or the additional fact that h
purchased the improvements from tn
: company, can make no difference.
Lindsey vs.. llowes q Black. 55al; Silvt
I