Omaha daily bee., 1889-05-24
STATUS OF NO MANS LAND.
Indian Title to Portion of Me-
braslxa Not Extinct.
PROCLAMATION NECESSARY.
SO Says Attorney General Lccse-
Striking Plumbers The District
Court-LincolnC Council lnvesti-
CATION -wiloox's Deal
LINCOLN BUREAU OF THE OMAHA BEn, !
1929 Z STREET,


LINCOLN. May 80.
A Washington SPECIAL to THB BEE of the
10Th, contained an item regarding the lands
embraced in the strip ceded to Nebraska in
1852, by the government north Of and on the
Niobrara river. 1t may be remembered that
Mt the special session of the Nebraska legis-
laturc, in 1882, this territory contained
nearly 200, 900 acres, the best part of the
Sioux reservation, which was duly accepted
by the state in accordance with the pro-
visions of the bill The bill providing for
accepting this gift TO the state was senate
file No 6, entitled "a bill for an act declar-
ing the assent of the state of Nebraska TO an
act OF congress of the United States, entitled
An act to extend the northern boundary of
the state of Nebraska, approved March 2S,
lSS2.," 1t was passed at the special session
of the legislature, May 23. But the condi-
tion still exists, that before it becomes part
of Nebraska the Indian title shall become ex-
tlnct In its present condition it is not in the
jurisdiction of Nebraska, and may really be
called "No.Man s.Land."
With these facts in mind, suggested by Ed.
A. Fry, of Niobrara, The BEE representa-
tive called upon Attorney-General Leese, to-
day. for the why and wherefore. In reply to
the questions suggested by the existing facts,
he said
~ do not know about the No Mans Land
part OF it. In my opinion, the federal courts
of Dakota have Jurisdiction over the territory
in question, and will have until the president
issues his proclamation declaring that the
Indian title to said territory has been ex-
tingushed. This has never been done to
my knowledge. The state has done its part,
and it seems to me that the only thing to be
done is in the hands of congress. and that
our delegation there ought to attend to the
federal part of it. 1t is a nice tract of land,
and ought to be brought under the jurisdic-
tion of the state as soon as possible"
Wilcox's Deal.
The trial of the case of Hancock VS. Davey
in the district court, brought to light an item
of news that has been overlooked. Atten-
tion will be attracted when the statement is
| made that the defendant is w. H. b. Stout's
| right bower. The suit was brought for an
accounting OF the money expended during a
| partnership that existed between the parties
| prior to the suit at law. Among the items
! the defendent made in his statement of the
expenditures Of the firm was one of S100 paid
| TO Architect Wilcox. Investigation leads to
| the knowledge that the architect was paid
| this sum for passing" the class of lath used
on the new capitol building. In other words,
he hooded the manufacturers and patenters,
| Messrs. Hancock & Davey, for recommend
| ing this patent lath, which, as q matter of
course, the firm desired to have used. 1t
| turns out at the ninth hour that Hancock OBJ
| jected to this class of deals, and hence sought
an accounting in the public courts.
New NOtaries Public.
The governor to-day made the following
| notarial appointments Levi H. Eib, Min
den, Kearney county; d. S. Joseph, Elsie,
Perkins county; Marquis L. Depue, Nina
tare SCOTS Bluffs county; Milton M. Starr,
Madrid, Per kins county; j. j. Ochsner,
Sutton, Clay county: II. H. Buckley, Platt Q
Center, Platte county; Elva r. Kniffin,
Weeping Water, Cass county; William S.
11rhn nyf nd IN ID
Flick, Lincoln, Lancaster county; F.. g.
Holbert, Plainview, Pierce county; j. j. Nc
Carthy, Emerson, Dixon county; Alfred e.
Blaufuss, Omaha, Douglas county.
The District Court.
The case of Mllard f. Gould VS. Ada Van
Pelt and A. G. Rickets, was on trial be-
fore Judge Field, today. The action
was brought to settle the rights of
parties III the Railroad Remedy and Railroad
cough cure, invented by Mr. Van Pelt, de-
ceased. The plaintiff was in partnership
with Van Pelt and owned half interest in
his remedies. MIR. Van Pclt died, and his
widow, the defendant, purchased from Rick
cts, the administrator, her deceased hus-
bands interest. The question at issue in this
trial is to ascertain, determine and settle the
rights of parties in the remedies described.
The plaintiff claims that MIR. Van Pelt had
acquired her interest subject to settlement
he had made with the administrator, and
further claims that If the whole case Is
gone into he is entitled to $1,000, which he
advanced in the purchase of materials 20 Van
Pelt and for advertising, which is the great
cost for getting up a profitable business in
patent medicines The defendants generally
deny the allegations of the plaintiff and seek
to have full accounting, and the inquiry
promises to be protracted.
In the case of Butler VS. Baker the plain
tiff got judgment for 81. 1t will be remem-
bered that he wanted S25 for damages that
defendants cow did to his growing crops.
Testimony in the case of Bun VS. Lancaster
continues before Judge Chapman and jury.
That Investigation.
On the 14th of April, and on prior dates