The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-11-12
NOT PARALLEL CASES.

made application tor homestead entry
March %, 1889. He also filed corrobor ated
affidavit that the land was not swamp. but
high, dry and rolling. and that field notes
Of srrocys toerc traudulent
At the hearing, the State put in no evi
dence, but moved To dismiss the case on the
ground that the land having been granted
TO the State as swamp the government had
lost its right in lhe case. The Commits
sioner of the General Land Office decided
against the State and mis- decision is affirm
ed. In all cases hereafter ii is probable that
the State will have to prove that the lands
are actually swamp or lose them. The de-
cisOn is of vast importance, cOrrObOrating
as it does that of eX-Secretary Lamar on the
same ground, and indicating fixed policy
on the part of the government. The decis-
ion would seem TO be in the line OF justice,
for the government is not bound by the
fraud, intentional or not, of its officers, and
this it would be were tie .feld notes Of sur
oeys to be taken as final re90rts.-Duluth
(Minn) Evening Herald.
We had supposed that the old sys-
TEN of selecting swamp lands, under
the act OF 1850, by field notes had
been abandoned in all the States. 1t
was abandoned in Florida in 1878, by
order of Secretary Schurz, and ever
since, agents Of the Interior Depart
ment have been required to view every
piece of land selected by the State,
and no pieces are "apprOved to the
State unless the report shows them
to be in fact swamp and overlooked
lands"
As we have shown before, field
notes are u very poor guide for Sc
Letting lands. They never embrace
more than the exterior lines of sections
Of mile square and frequently only
the exterior lines of townships of six
miles square. Those exterior lines
give no accurate description of the
quality Of the land in the interior,
and when we remember that survey
ors are paid only by the number OF
miles run of those exterior lines, we
do not wonder that they give but
little attention to the quality of the
soil. Florida does not select her
swamp lands by field notes.
Then there is no resemblance be-
tween the mode of selecting lands by
Minnesota and Florida.
There is another important differ
ence between the two States. The
extract above shows that Minnesota
contests the claims Of settlers on any
lands selected by her, from field notes,
as swamp under the act Of 1850. The
very reverse of the proposition is true
in Florida. Settlers may homestead
any piece of land selected by Florida
under that act, and the State always
gives way to the settler, and does not
contest his claim. The two cases are
exactly opposite.
Again, the above extract from the
Duluth Herald has no reference to or
connection with patented lands, as
some journals seem to think, but only
to lands selected and claimed by the
State, awaiting patents. When lands
are once patented to the State by the
Secretary of the Interior, that ends it,
for cit is conclusive against collateral
attack as being the judgment of the
special tribunal on which such duty
was imposed" Wright vs.. Rosbery
l2l I. S, p. 488.
1t is no doubt gratifying to the In
terror Department to know that this
decision is endorsed as corrobora-
ting that of ex-Secretary Lamar" and
indicating a fixed policy on the
part of the government" Not only
endorsed by the Duluth Herald, but
by several Of Senator Calls support
ers in this State.
What will the Senator think of
such endorsements of the Interior
Department, when he exhausts the
l. I
ing it He says the Interior Depart
ment {" has always leaned against the
settler and in favor of the corpora
tlons of this country" and when that
department refused his homestead,
which he had sworn to, his denuncia-
tions were violent.
Who is right, the Senator or these
friends ?