Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1888-08-08
AGAINST RAILROADS.
An Important Land Decision by tho
Secretary Of the In
terror.
Rulings That VIII Cover Nearly 5000
Cases Settlers Have the
Advantage.
washington ID. C., specially

The Secretary OF the Interior has rem
dered Il decision in the somewhat cele-
brated case of TIE Northern Pacific Rail-
road Company against Guilford Miller.
The history of the case briefly stated is as
follows
In lS4 Miller made homestead entry OF 100
acres OF land wit Ia the i,idem-ity limits OF tle
Sorthern Pacific Raiir I'd in Washington Tsrri-
tory, al sins settlement in 1873 The date of
entry wns subsaqnens to tho date OF the with
drnwni fer and SELECTION by the railroad COM
lany. Tl.e entry was allowed by the local land
offccrs, who subsaqutn " notified the General
Land Office that the alinwA1sH was an error Z,
the land entered had already b ,en withdrawn
from settlement, ami advised that Ii be can
ce,ei. This the Commissioner Of the General
Land Office refused to do, upon the grou I'd that
ths withdrawal OF this land was conrtary to
express prohibition In tho grantin! act itself.
aud that the land WAS subject TO settle.
nent up to tho date cs selection. The rniI-
ROAD company appealed to the Secretary
torney General Carl nd In his opinion tho
At.olnNy Conceal held tn ths withdrawal was
valid and effective as AZ ainst subsequent settle
III Mt, nutl that Millers sett ement ma 10 after
the withdrawal was Illegal so,u thereafter
the Pros dent, in II letter to the Soere ary took
ID position that us the selection OF the company
tion of the Secretary of the Interior the secre-
iary should require the company to release the
tract claimed by Miller an select another il,
lieu tn arcof, The, the case rested
In the decision the Secretary holds briefly that
when the map of the main line was filed and &C.
cept d In 1879 the general route was fixed and
tn, tMutory withdrawn, under Sec. OF the
granting act became inopera i've. The statutory
withdraWRi having once been put IN operation
could not again be exercised its authority being
exhausted. This general route being thus Rxed
could not be amended or ch lnged exc pt by leg
islative authority. As no such authority was
given, the attempt to chang. the general route
by the map OF 1872 was without authority OF law.
As Mi lers land was not within the limits OF
the statutory withdrawal unde- the lawful map
OF 1870, ii remained public land subject to set-
OF 1871 and the attemp eli wi h1rawal OF the land
by the Commissioner OF the General Land Office
was OF no effect TO change the status. The Sec
tary holds that Sec Of the granting act to the
company absolutely prohibits the withdrawal by
the Executive OF the lands thu line of the
road from III, operation Of tho homestead and
pre- tmp ion laws, and that i'm attempting to
make withdrawal of lands for indemnity pur-
poses the Commissioner did that which was pro-
hbited. The railroad company selected MiiIer's
land rs ind :mnity for lands within the Yakima
Indian rcserya ion, but the Secretary saws
that inasmuch the Supreme Court
said in the Buttz case that the foe
Indian reservation passed by the grant to the
company, subject to the right Of occupancy by
the Indians. tho company is not entitled to In
uemnity for lands within said reservation and
which have passed to IL by its grant. The effect
nbout so cases now pending In the General Land
Ofiice, and probably the claims OF many settlers
which have not reached there. The denial Of the
right OF the company 10 indemnity for lands
within the Yakima Indian reservation 10 said to
bo equally applicable to other Indian reserva-
tions along the line of the road and will have the
snJct OF reducing tbs indemnity claims Of the
company largely, probably TO the extent Of
General Land Office will be affected by this dc.
cision.