Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1886-11-04

lug facts as showing by the records IN
the case to-wit
That claimant was q native born citi-
zen of the United States, and woman over
81 years old at the date of entry, soon
after which she married; that her hus-
band was a mechanic and worked in Nor
ton, three miles distant; that claimants
statements are that she stayed in Norton
during the bad weather in winter, aside
from which she resided continuously on
the land; that the testimony of her wit
nesses makes it appear that she stayed
in Norton winters and on the homestead
summers; that she IVES never absent for
more than three months at time; that
she never moved Der household goods
from the land, and that the improve
ments, which are valued at $500, consist
of a house, a we'll, wind mill, sheds, an
orchard OF 12S trees, and fifteen acres
under cultivation. Without passing upon
the question of residence further than to
say that 1.-The testimony as 70 residence
is not very clear, except that it was es-
tablished in November, 1880" your de-
cision proceeds TO rule the case upon the
fact OF the marriage of appellant after
having made her entry. On this question
you hold that "a woman who makes a
homestead entry and subsequently mar
ries, before completing the same, for
feits her right TO acquire title to the land"
and for that reason you dismissed the
appeal from the action of the local Office
and hold this entry for cancellation.
Section 2,2S9, OF the Revised Statutes,
contains the following provisions as to
who may enter public lands under the
homestead laws;
Every person who is the head of
family or who has arrived at the age OF
81 years and is a citizen of the United
States, or who has filed declaration of in
tention to become such, as required by the
naturalization laws, shall be entitled TO
enter one quarter section, or less guam
tity of unsppropriated public lands, up
on which such person may have filed a
presumption claim, or which may at the
time the application is made be subject
to presumption at $l,25 per acre. etc.
Your decision tacitly admits that the
applicant, as a single woman, over "a
years of age, and native born, was at the
date OF her entry qualified und,r the law
quoted TO make such entry. The sole
question before me for consideration,
therefore, is whether the fact of her mar
riage after entry and before final proof
OF itself worked a forfeiture of such
rights rs she acquired by her entry. | am
unable TO concur in the conclusions Grriv-
ed at 10y you ON this proposition. The
| original homestead act OF March 20, 1862,
was entitled can act to secure homesteads
/ to actual settlers On the public domain"
/ That act, which is substantially embodied
| in the Revised Statutes, section, 2,2S9,
prescrihes certain prerequisite qualifica-
| tions which must exist in settlers under
the law. These qualifications have al
ready been mentioned. IL found TO exist,
then WHAT Actual continuous residence
and cultivation must follow, and no GER
tlticate shall be given or patent issued UNI
til the expiration of five years from date
| of entry, and then, or within two years
thereafter, proof mag be made showing
continuous residence and cultivation, and
that no part of the tract with refer
ence to whish the proof is offered has
| been alnenated, except as provided III
section 2.2SS of the Revised Statutues q, ..
29l X. s. From the foregoing it seems
clear that when once legal qualification
TO make homestead entry is established
and the land applied for is subject to sucl
entry, then the only remaining question,
for the land department TO consider are
those relative TO residence, cultivation
and alienation. This being true the fact
of the marriage of the claimant in this
case after she made her entry cannot of
itself work = forfeiture of any right which
she may have acquired by virtue of said
entry. II only remains for her TO show
compliance with the requirements of the
7 homestead law, which are conditions sub
sequent in order to ontitls her 10 full lie.
gal title by patent. Her marriage did
not of necessity prevent ner from remain.
ing on and improving the tract. The mar
rage of a woman who has made homestead
entry may result in her leaving the land
which she has entered and establishing a
residence elsewhere, and thus indirectly
furnishing reason for forfeiture, but thr
ground of forfeiture in such case would
be abandonment, and not the fact OF
marriage. am clearly of the opinion
that the fact of Maria A. Goods marriage
did not in any degree impair the right
which she acquired under her entry.
| Upon reference to the decisions of
your Office on the question herein in
volved ! find that the practice
has, so far as | have been ableto discover
/ heretofore, been uniform in recognizing
the right of a married women TO complete
a homestead claim initiated by entry
before marriage. On Feb. 10, 1874 your
Office, in passing upon this question, rul-
ed that a single woman who makes an
entry under the homestesd laws by MARI
age provided she fuflls the requirements
of the statute as regards settlement and
cultivation of the land embraced in her
homestead entry See also the follow
ing cases: Mary Lntt decided by your
office Aug. %. 1881 Herman l.. Phelps
I decided Jan. 9, 1888. In the case Of Ros-
anna Kennedy my predecessor Secretary
Kirkwood having under consideration
the effect of presumption entry held as
to homestead entry that "the marriage
of a single woman subsevusnt 60 her
entry is not waver or forfeiture of her
rights Believing as l do that the pra,
tice az indicated by the decision cited has
been in accordance with the law and that
appellant by her marriage Lost no rights
acquired through her homestead entry
must reverse your decision. | don't pass
upon the prof made, as TO residence and
cultivation. as that has not been acted up
on by your Office. The papers which ac
! Ompanlsd yOur letter Of the 9Th inst are