The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-11-17
SMILE WON'T SIGN.
The Courthouse Contract to-
Binding for Him.
r. WILL NOT Be MODIFIED.
II Re Censnmmates tie AEreemnnf wora
WIN cemmenes ~ ones-0thsr
Bids Opened.

The fesexrsphie statement which ar-
psaTe1 In the ozT-Ixxxx1zsxxcAR ysxfsr-
Car morning. 10 the eEeeg that the aszes-
ton q the rHpeai az the rre-emIR5on iAw
h1d nsssn Informally raised 1t the land
osfics at Bismarck. ~ OAK, was shown
. Register Reed and his cpanAn asked.
Ar. Feed sad hs asd not think the &C.
e congress proTiiing for tie admission at
the four new states repealed the pre-euap-
ton law. ThEt lax had hesn fe-enaeted
% The revised statutes oE the Tnii&d States
On March ;. 1gz3 However. thssre was .
question aaoat il. ssi the general land
cfsaee IN Washington had heen aslsed toEits
opinion.
The rs-ensckraent made an entirely new
law- Secretary Teller he'd this no be the
case where d pre-enaptzon had keen fled
under TIE act of September 1. ISL, and
afterwards attempted to ale another pre-
eHpston under the enactmentof the United
States revised statutes. The secretary
held that this could be dane, Is Tire revised
Statute was REINSTATEMENT and the man
nstng under the first Law did not lose his
right under the rec aacfmens
Receiver HAYDEN said be did ret think il
vas the intention OF sne enabling act TO re-
peal the presumption Law, bit Il may hare
been 20 10 certain extent. should sach q
construction be prokanse. correction
would be made. The FIRST infinlafson be
and Receiver Reed had OF snca : point
being raised vas when they reza the Pos1-
lSYELIfeEsexK. Whenever shey were In
doubt about point they always asked for
information from their superior o1iicer. and
they had forwarded q letter 10 the commis-
sioner Of the general land 01Eice &sklng
what should be done.
In the meantime said Register Reed
we viii so Oh receiving prescriptions
under the usual fern, under the provisions
OF the act a September 4. ISL. as IL nothing
had happened. II the law we're really re-
psaled, as alleged. IL would affect fifty pre-
enptions Eled At this land once since No
Eenlber Z, tlse date Of the proclamation.
The class q lands subject ~ rsre-ensp-
ton are pubic lands Of the United States
70 which the Indian title has been exfin-
gaished. and which are not included in any
reservation by any treaty. LAM. or procla-
nation Of The president for any purpose.
which are not included within the limits Of
any Incorporated towns, or selected as the
site OF = city or town; which ave not ae-
tualiy settled upon nor occupied for pslr-
poses OF trade and business and not agri-
culture. and on which there arc rot situa-
ted any known mines or salines. These
are our institutions ard they are from the
act OF September 4. ISL. chapter Is page
455 It's question. to be sure, bat we viii
wait to hear from the general land Office. =
Judge Orange Jacobs was asked shat
was bis opinion OF the subject lie said:
II hare considered the matter somewhat
carefully. after discussing it briefly this
morning. believe 1t Is demonsfsable that
the seventeenth section OF the enabling act
did not repeal the presumption Law first
passed as shs tenth section Of THE ACT Of
congress al September {, ISL
In 1871 the revised statutes Of the United
States was passed by congress. IL con-
tanned all Of the living general laws Of con-
gTess from the foundation OF the govern
ment up 10 Ig7a The presumption Law had
been amended. corrected and added 70 BE-
fore the revision. In the revision itself Il
was corrected and revised 50 as 30 make Is
fail and complete IS published therein.
I'm section 5,aJs OF the repeating pro-
visions OF the revision are found these
words: All acts of congress passed prior
TO said Ist day Of December. Isis, any
portion Of which Is embraced in any sec
ton OF said revision are hereby repealed,
and the section lin revtsi0nl applicable
thereto shall be in force in lieu thereof
This fxes the matter. and am Of the
opinion that there Is absolutely nothing in
the objections Of Mr.. Dndley. raised II The
land Office at Bismarck
'.The act Of isii. 80 far - Prescriptions
are concerned. was repealed in lss4. and
the provisions OF the revision Substituted
therefor. No. there is in my Judgment
r,safl.fr.ar &, fi.r mint rasssla y