Fergus County argus., 1886-09-30
SCOPE ANOTHER FOa SPARKS.

A. will be seen 10y the following |
from the liusbandman. ''our friend
Sparks" has added another tally to hi, |
score in the contest for the prize to be |
given to the biggest ''damphool' in
America. The law is a. stated, that
final proof shall bc made before the
Judge, or in his absence before the
clerk. As matter of fact the proof is
always made before the clerk or dep
utv. as the notices read. Were there
any chance for fraud: or il the rights
Of any one were preju,liced by this
slight informality in the notice, there
might be some show Of reason or jus
tice in the ruling; hut as the only OBJ
lect Of the notice is to allow adverse
claimants an opportunity to contest the
applicants right to make final proof.
and rs this right Of adverse parties Is
preserved. and full notice given, so that
every object Of the notice is completely
met. the ruling resolves itself into the
most triiling technicality, only worthy
the attention Of "A demagogue or a pet
tfogging lawyer. Add to this the fact
that the error was entirely with the
land officers, and that the ruling will
entail thousands Of dollars additional
and needless expense to the best class
of settlers-the homesteaders-and its
injustice is greatly magniiied.
The Husbandman is inclined to think
that the proofs already offered will be
accepted, hut to be consistent Sparks
must reject the entire final proof pro.
ceedings, for il the notice under which
they were made was invalid, the proofs
themselves must he SO.
Is it any wonder that, with u long
list Of such idiotic rulings from Sparks
the platforms Of both parties through
out the west censure him unmerci
fully? The Husbandman says:
Owing to some carelessness in ths
United States land Office Of this terri
ritory. homestead settlers who have
, made final proof for several years pre-
, vious to 1856, will he compelled I,
again go through with portion Of thu
proceedings before they can Obtain
! titles to their lands. This is owing to Al
: error in the advertisement which is re
: ouired by law to be published. Tn
department ut Washington, in attem pt
, ing to accommodate the settlers II
;, sparccly settled districts where lam
|. Offices are few and far between, mad
h. a ruling that final proof might be mad
before the Judge of the district court
or i'm his absence before the clerk G
l. said court, but the land office failed
com prehend the Importance Of tn
wording Of final proof notices, an
l. those for Meagher county were wri
!. ten: "And final proof shall he mad
=" before l.. Rotwitt, deputy clerk Of tll
p third judicial district court for Meaght
Is county," etc, and those of other cOul
n ties were written the same, using I'll
name Of deputy clerk Of the count
whoever that chanccd to he. Is,
rs owing to the omission Of the wore
Il ''before the honorable judge Of the -
g. judicial district court, or in his absent
:, before the clerk Of said court" etc
u the chief of the department thinks
Is insufficient. hence the necessity Of ha
Is ing the advertisement republlshe
IN This is quite a misfortune to claif
n, ants and will entail an extra cost upt
them Of from ten to fifteen dollar
u hut there seems to be no remedy.
- we understand it the proofs alrea'
made will he accepted as suiiicie!
and only the republishing and atiid
or Wits he required. The land Office
!. responsible for the error but 1t cam
~ be held answerable for the extra co