Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1886-11-04

| fee. Your decision sets out the follow
| lug facts as showing by the records in
the case to-wit:
That claimant was a native born citi-
zen of the United States, and woman over
p 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 TIE homestead
summers; that she was never absent for
more than three months at time: that
she never moved Der household goods
from tbs land, and that the improve
ments, which are valued at $500, consist
of house, well, wind mill, sheds, an
| orchard of 128 trees, and fifteen acres
under cultivation. Without passing upon
the question of residence further than to
say that 'Ithe testimony as to residence
is not very clear, except that it was es-
| tablished in November, $780," your de-
cision proceeds to rule the case upon the
fact of the marriage of appellant after
having made her entry. On this question
I y
homestead entry and subsequently, mar
rles, before completing the same, for
felts 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 the entry for cancellation.
Section 2,289, 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 a
family, or who has arrived at the age of
II years and is 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 a less GUAM
tlty of unappropriated 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 $1.25 per acre." etc.
Your decision tacitly admits that the
applicant, as single woman, over "a
years of age, and native born, was at the
date of her entry qualified under the law
| quoted to make such entry. The sole
| question before me for consideration,
| therefore, is whether the fact of her mar
rage after entry and before final proof
of itself worked a forfeiture of such
rights as she acquired by her entry. am
unable to concur in the conclusions arriv-
| ed at by 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, 2,289,
| prescrIbes certain prerequisite qualifica-
| lions which must exist in settlers under
the law These qualifications have al
ready been mentioned. If found to exist,
then what? Actual continuous residence
and cultivation must follow, and no GER
t1fcate shall be given Or patent issued IN
til the expiration of five years from date
OF entry, and then, or within two years
thereafter, proof may be made showing
continuous residence and cultivation, and
that no part of the tract with refer
ence to which the proof is offered has
been alllenated, except as provided in
| section 2,268 of the Revised Statutues o.
29l Il. S. From the foregoing it seems
clear that when once legal qualification
GO make homestead entry is established.
and the land applied for is bject to such
entry, then the only remaining questions
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. 1t only remains for her to show
| compliance with the requirements of the
homestead law, which are conditions sub
sequent IN order to entitle her TO full le-
gal title by patent. Her marriage did
not of necessity prevent her from remain
Ing on aud improving the tract. The mar
rage of 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, l find that the practice
has, so far as I have been able to discover
heretofore, been uniform in recognizing
the right of a married women to complete
homestead claim initiated by entry
before marriage. On Feb. 10, 1874, your
Office, in passing upon this question, ruI-
ed that single woman who makes an
entry under the homestead laws by MARI
age provided she fulfills the req uirements
OF the statute as regards settlement and
cultivation of the land embraced in her
homestead entry" See also the follow
ing cases: Mary Latt decided by your
office Aug. %. 1881; Herman L. Phelps,
decided Jan. 8, 1888. In the case of Ros-
anna Kennedy my predecessor Secretary
hirkwood having under consideration
the effect of a presumption entry held as
to homestead entry that "the marriage
OF a single woman subsequent to her
entry is not waver or forfeiture of her
rights" Believing as do that the prac-
tlce as 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. I don't pass !
upon the prof made, as to residence and |
cultivationsas that has not been acted up |