Bismarck weekly tribune., 1888-09-21
JOHN WALDRON WINS.
The Winona Townsite Awarded to
the Homestead Claimant by Sec.
retary Villas.
An Unexpected Decision from q
High Authority-Everybody
Knocked Out.
The Republican County Committee
Meets and Decides Upon the Ap-
portionment and Convention
Waldon's Luck.

4
Waldon's Luck.
The United States Land Office has re-
ceived very important decision affecting
the indemnity limit rights OF the Northern
Pacific Railroad company and particularly
the rights of the owners of the townsite of
Winona, opposite Fort Yates. Messrs.
Douglas and Mclaughlin, the leading
men in the Winona project, are the most
surprised men in the country, but not
much more than their attorneys. It was
almost taken for granted that the alleged
erratic award of Sparks would be reversed
by Villas, but the Hon. secretary seems to
agree with the late commissioner, that
WaldrOn was bona fide settler and not a
speculator as charged in the affidavits
and argument of the appellants. Waldrons
entry is Of record and has been since the
commissioners decision. This decision
leaves it of record and affirms the validity
of the entry, and incidentally the action of
the late register. The townsite people say
that Waldron went there as hotel keeper
and not as a homesteader. 1t was alto
gether in their opinion an afterthought.
The Northern Pacific company, however,
have warranted the title of this land to
Messrs. Douglas and Mclaughlin and of
course are still in the fight, either in the
land department where he applys to prove
up or in the courts where he has received
his patent. In the meantime titles, lots
and houses are in q tumble and property
owners are mad all through. This is the
decision in full:
Northern Pacific Railroad company VS..
John s. Waldron on appeal of said COM
pany from your Office decision of June II,
1886, allowing homestead entry to be made
by said Waldron for the west15 of the
southwestA of section s, township 80 north,
range 79 west, Bismarck Oak. The said
land is not in the granted limits of the
said railroad company. but IS within the
fifty mile indemnity limit and was in
cluded in the land selected by the company
January 5, 1885, under the act OF july q
1854. On April 6, 1885, ,Waldron, who is
qualified to enter, applied TO the local Of
ice to make homestead entry of said land,
dering the proper fees. His application
was refused by the local officers for the
reason that said land had
been selected by said raileoad company
on March z, 1885. From Waldron's affidavit
filed with saia application, it appears that
for the purpose of affecting settlement
and began his improvements thereon, and
that he began the erection of his house
thereon August 2, 1884; that said house is
two stories high and twenty-fOur by fifty
feet; that he dug and curbed we'll, built
stables and made other
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS
amounting in value to $25OO. That said
land had not been surveyed at the time of
such settlement and improvement and was
not in fact surveyed until December 1S.
1884, township plat being filed December
26, 1884. That at the time he made such
settlement and improvement he intended.
said land his permanent home and resi-
dence and to enter and acquire title thereto
under the homestead law. The claim of
the railroad company is based upon the
fact that WaldrOn failed to make his entry
within three months after the filing of the
township plat in the local Office and that
his right so to do became extinguished.
The township plat was filed December Is,
1884, and consequently no question of Wal
drOn's rights could arise before March 26,
1885. The railroad company made its Sc
lection OF indemnity lands, including the
land in controversy, January 8, 1885, within
a few days after the filing Of the township
months allowed the settler for making
entry. Waldron being settler upon said
land at the date OF its selection by said
railroad company, and there being at the
time no legal reason why his settlement
should not ripen into title, said land did
NJ TO In eo;l
the same being included in their list Of
selections No. 26. A settlement right, ex-
isting at the date when the grant became
effective. eXcepts the land covered thereby
frcm the operation Of the grant.
THESE PRINCIPLES
are so well settled by decisions of this de-
partment that the citation of authorities is
unnecessary. While the same rule is not
declared by the statute to apply to select
ions, yet it is provided that no selection
shall be operative until approved by the
department., and it may be we'll laid down
as rule that what was esteemed by the
congress as sufficient to prevent and pass
ing by the grant shall be sufficient to deny
approval of a selection. The fact of Wal
drOn's bOna-fde settlement and actual resi-
dence upon the land at the time said rail
road company made its selection, which
fact is practically conceded by the railroad
company, with q legal right at that time to
make homestead entry, is sufficient to deny
the right of selection claimed. and the con-
siderati0n of other questions raised become
unnecessary.
Your said decision is accordingly affirmed
and the papers transmitted with your letter
Of June IL. 1887, are herewith returned.
Very respectfully,
VIM. F. Villas,
Secretary.