The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1886-06-12
mo. 80.

company and it was further provided
that the whole road should be com.
pleted within five years from the
passage of the act.
/ The grant to the Texas and Pacific
company was by the ninth section OF
said act, and has of every alternate
section of public land not mineral,
designated by odd numbers to the
amount of twenty alternate sections
per mile on each side of the line of the
road, as such line might be adopted by
the company through the Territories,
and ten alternate sections per mile on
each side of the road in California not
sold, reserved or other wise disposed of,
and to which a pre- emptiOn or home
stead claim might not have attached at
the time the line of the road was def
nitely fixed, and provision was made
for indemnity for lands lost within the
grant in place to be taken within ten
additional miles.
The twelfth section of the act au-
thOrized withdrawal of lands as
follows: "Said company within two
years after the passage of this act
shall designate the general route of its
said road, as near as it may be, aud
shall file a map of the same in the
Department of the Interior and when
the map is SO filed the Secretary of the
Interior Immediately thereafter shall
cause the lands within forty miles ON
each side OF the said designated route
within the Territories and twenty
miles within the State of California to
be withdrawn. This is the only with
drawal provided for in the grant, and
it will be observed that it did not
authorize "a withdrawal of indemnity
lands. But Oh Oct. Is, 1883, after the
filing OF the map showing the con-
struction of the road opposite the
tracts in question, another order of
withdrawal was issued, and was re-
ceived at your office Oct. IL ensuing.
These Withdrawals Of the lands in
Louisiana between the twenty and
thirty mile limits are without authority
0f law. The supreme court of the
United States, in Cedar Rapids and
Missouri River Railroad Company VS..
Herring ct al (ll0 U. s., 27), held,
constituting the act of June 2, 1864. us
Stat, 95), which authorizes II with
drawal of lands upon filing certain
map, that until such map was filed
there was no obligation upon the Sec
rotary Of the Interior to reserve the
lands, and, Notwithstanding with
drawal was ordered, the lands were
subject TO entry until such time as the
law required their withdrawal.
In the present case the law did not
require their withdrawal, but, on the
contrary, specifically stated that twenty
miles in the State should he withdrawn.
The order of 1871 was therefore the
voluntary act of this department, and
could not have reserved the lands in
the indemnity limits from appropria-
ton under the settlement laws of the
United States. 1t served as informa-
tion Of the limit to which the company
could go in selecting its indemnity
lands.
No right in the company attaches to
such lands until the selection thereof
. made in the manner prescribed.
Ryan VS.. Railroad, 90 U. s., p. 382.
Leger in his application alleges set
dement, in the summer Of 1873, and
should il he held that the order of
of 1883 was n competant
'ct Of this department, it could not
lave affected the land claimed by him.
Therefore without at this time dis
ussing the compauy's right to inden,-
lily under the grant for its use, it is
lear that none has or could attach to
he tract in question. l accordingly
ward the land TO Leger subject to
ppeal within sixty days by the rail
Dad company.
You will so advise the parties in
interest. Very respectfully,
w. A. j. SPARKS, Commissioner.
Subsequent to the above and in
eply to the Register and Re-
elver's letter, asking instructions
elative to the treatment of in
emnity lands Of the New Orleans
'acific railway, the following letter :
vas received
DEPARTMENT or THE INTERIOR
GESERAL LAND OrFIcE.
WASHINGTON, d. G.. May 8, 1885,
egister and Receiver. New Orleans, La
Gentlemen Registers letter If Aug.
last, asking instructions relative to
10 treatment of the indemnity lands
the New Orleans Pacific railroad has
zen received. In reply you are adj
Ised that the Guilfnu Miller case
'ferred to by you has not yet been
sciled By the department. but is still
ending before it on appeal. In Office
tier to you of the 2:}d instant, it was
lid, IN the case Of Simon Leger, that
'e withdrawal Of indemnity lands tor
nd company was without authority
law, but it was not intended to
low entries upon said lands until the
apartment has had an Opportunity to
'ss upon the question. II, as you
ate, there are settlers upon the lands
DO went upon them prior to the grant