The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1886-01-01
DAKOTA LANDS.
Resolutions Prepared by the Sioux Falls
Committees Protesting against the
commissioners Orders.
An Exhaustive Review OF all Questions
At Issue.

p01NV6U 0y u mass me6LluR VI Uu0 ~
Sioux Falls. called for the purpose OF con.
sldering the various orders and decisions OF
the commissioners OF tho general land Office,
and the effect thereof upon the mateatai
welfare Of onr people, and are addressed to
Hon. L @ GsSFLamar. secretary Of the
interior:
Whereas, The honorable commissioner OF the
general land office, ". A. J. Sparks, has In the
administration OF the affairs OF his Office seen
proper 70 charge that great frauds have been
committed in tbs matter Of obtaining titles to
government lands In Dakota, and presumably
P gsqioas Onze app and in dsc, s ! ali has Of p, whish noa
seriously sGect the interests nf the citizens OF
this territory: therefore be It resolved,
7A Ftrst-ThRti 1t Is tho sentiment OF this people |
that the rights OF the pre-enlptors and home
steaderss as also all the bonn fide owners OF lands
and farms by purchase in this territory, are not
fairly understood and appreciated by the COM
mfssionef.
Secondhand although we recogniza tho fact
that Individual cases of fraudulent entrieshnder
both tho hoinestcad and pre-e1nptton acts are TO
be found, yet these are but insignificant IN num-
her whaP cnnlpared with the whole, and the
greater Md by far tho vnster number of such
entrie8 have been hoforably and honestly made.
and This fact has been welrdemhnstrated by the
very few fraaldrlent cases that have in truth
and fact been discovered and proved by the
sDkcial agents OF the government in the past two
years.
Thiri4-Tha these matters Of fraudulent en-
tries have been more carefully looked after by
the people Of Dakota themselves than by the
special agents of the government, by reason of
Tho desires ofsthe citizens to obtain lands wter-
ever and whenever the suTne could be iionDfabiy
had under the nre-enntion and homestead laws:
and it is n notorious fact that a most gigilant
watch has alwaya been kept, resulting, rs 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 indif-
ferent compliance with the law has been OBJ
served.
Fourth-That the order of the commissions
suspending the issuance of all patents has now
10 A,.x. - ~ = nIs0,r S~., ,, ls ,,xN- "a H. Z, 49,, .-gr
all those persons who, having only final receiv-
ora ccytiticates, are from day to day, in the va
rions bnsiness transactions of life, seeking to
convoy their lands; and, by reason OF the sweep
clear that unless tho same be speedily
revoked or modified great hardships and
annoyanccs and serious losses will follow to the
peeple. 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 tho title Of every quarter section OF
land In Dakota where patent has not yet in due
course of business been issued, and disastrous
results mast follow to many citizens in case the
same be long continued in force. because of the
inability to deal with their property aud trans
for tho same as the necessities Of life may re-
Qnire,
Fifth-That aatd order suspendins the issu-
81 Anoe, although justihable when applied to
Z q individual case upon o proper showing made,
IL wholly without law or reason to sustain IL
In It's present sweeping and general form. cover
ing. asi 1t does, alike the great Number OF the
honest and innocent with the few guilty and
fraudulent cascs.
Sixth-That 1t La the undentahle law OF thu
land as ndjudicated by the courts that the final
receivers certificate Issued upon q final proof
operates as q transfer of title to the proof claim
ant from the government, and having obtained
such certificate the ertryman Is Mt once in the
dus course of business OF the land office entitled
TO q patent for the land, unless for good CAUSE
shown the patent may be withhold. In the
case of Meyers W.. Croft, reported in 18th Wall
United States, Chief Justice Davis says: -The
object OF conRress was attained whom the pre-
emptor went with clean hands to Tho land Office
and proved UP bis right and paid tho govern
ment for his land. Restriction upon the power
Of alienation after this would iniure the pre-
elnptor and c'.ald serve no tu,portant purpose Of
nsss N tho general land office until sew
given: and equally well known that nearly all
the valuable lands in new states admitted since
1S41. have been taken up under the pro-emp-
tion lave, and the right to sell them freely exer-
cdsed after tho claim was proved up. the land
paid for and tho certificate OF entry received. In
vtssT OF these facts we cannot suppose in the abb
sencc 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
It had been the purpose Of congress to attain the
object commended for. II would have declared tho
lands themselves in1ltenabie until the patent
was granted. Instead Of this. the legislation was
directed against tho assignment or transfer OF
tho right secured BY the act, which was the RICH,
Of presumption. leaving the pre-en,ptor free to
- WA I'm bonN AtsCA - 0AtAy Nv ~ tnbb tkNkcsl ut
was in GOOD faith the owner Of the land and had
done nothing Inconsistent with the provisions
q tho law on the subject. This right was yalua,
congress assignable.s
Seventh-That another reputed decision OF
sid commissioner is that In all cases where al
Individual may have exercised . M
homestead right. the same person cannot als
avail himself of the presumption right: hut IL
order to obtain the same must have lived upoI
and occupied hiY homestead for a period OF fv
years, and inadc proof by limitation OF time
And we now call attention TO the fact that unde
3 the rulings and practice of The department til
various land officers for many years past hay
been accepting such proofs an
issuing patents therefor, although the claimant
had already commu.ed a homestead; and sue
4 radical reversal Of the policy Of the depart
ment is now causing widespread fear and appre
claims where the patents have not already bee
issued. And we declare that such order shout
b speedily reversed and the rights OF the ueopl
established concerning such lands.
Eighth-ThaJ another rsputed decision OF sal
commissioner is that any conveyance, deed q
morscage 81 any homestead or p%re-emptio
patent issued is an alienation of the land an
therefore void because in contrayention of til
United States laws. And we now call attentto
to the fact that 1t has been the universal prat
ttce to convey and transfer such lands nftt
final certificate had been issued, that the land
have always become taxable by the territor
immediately after the issuance OF SUCH car.tf
Gates, aud which certificate is further entitte
ID be recorded as an evidence OF title; and v
81 pbhtkSut III W. Ia sSA5tcN " VIZ Sab
which are equally In conflict swibs, and again
this dectsipntof the commissioner: and upo
such decisions Of the courts we submit that 4
proposition that the final certificate Cpl
) yeys title, I'VE would call attention to Il
ii. ST., !. $50; Myers VI: Croft. IS Wallace Il
81. ID 294; Lytie va Arkansas. 8 Howard u. s.
p IA. Levi vs. Thompson 4 Howard .. s9o
. United States Va. Fftzcerald, Is Peters lU. s.
J. 406: Bernard VS.. Ashley. Is Howard tn.4S
!. ~; johnson VS.. Tousley, IL Wallace tU.,S
Cornelius vs.Kessel. So Wisconsin, p. 237: Bri
W. Styles. 35 Illinois, 2: 300: siIlyman Y
Kains; 80 Iowa. ! !, so7i Meyer y. Me g. sng
I7th FaiersI D SOL: More VS.. Robbins. /
Emitted States, ,. 53s; Aabbins vs.. Binn, "a III
sas;; Cheney u. White. S Nebraska. ,. asi: FL
lar vs.. Hunt, Lewis Leading Land Cases, p. %
Smith vs.. Ewing, 90 Federal. y. -
Teller, abiding by these decisions. and wishii
70 set the matter at rest, In March. 1882. quot,
the language Of Mr.. Justice Davis in 18th Wa
lace, above cited. and prescribed, it as a rule
action for his department. Tho departing
evidently entertained the same idea as to t
issued It's sRaies 81 PraoIice@ Of Aug s. iss
wherein >was required that In the case OF
Application far the returnpf money erroneous
pAiq the applicant must tender to the Untt
States . deedto the premises described In :
ss 6nal certificate, accompanied by an abstract
800 tfleAhoHftxw his right to convey: and our Icy
RGa bAAS AL Ol tAiCoo IicSCuuht
EaAfeNndreA N hknds TO be taxed upon viii
gex IT. ttas4fenA sye been issued.
aheA-1A tie doctrine announced by ii
commissioned In his letter of Jnno 8. lSa5.
Ella N. H0iComh deciding that removal iron
homestcads after final pro I was priDad facie (
ddanco OF fraud when carried to its logical e
il RperniciouB he, and must inevitably lead
q. trouble and great expaass to the people by IT
~ SON OF The. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT to contests q
attacks upon many lands where the entryn
has made his final proof and then ceased to
9 cupy the land. And we declare that the burc
al expense entniled upon the people grow
ont 81 attempted forfeiture OF thtir lands
reason OF thts letter is unjust and oppressi