The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1889-11-29
Prescriptions All Right.

me telegraphlc statement which
appeared yesterday morning in
the acknowledgement to the
effect that the question of the re-
peal of the presumption law has
been INFORMAL y raised at the land
office at Bismarck, N. Oak, was
shown to Register Reed and his
opinion asked Mr.. Reed said he
did not think the act of congress
providing for tie admission Of the
four new states repealed the pre-
oinption law. That law had been re-
enacted by the revised statutes O.
the United States on March 3, 49,
73. However, there was a cues
ton about it, and the general land
office in Washington had been
asked for it's opinion.
The enactment made an en-
tiraly new law. Secretary Teller
held this to be the case where a.
presumption had been filed under
the act OF September 4, 1911, and
afterwards attempted to file anoth-
or pre-empt.on under the en- ct nent
or the United States revised stat
utes. The secretary he'd that this
could be done, as the revised stat
ute was a re-enactment, and the
man filing under the first law did
not lose his right under the re.en.
actment.
in the meantime,,' said Regis
ter Reed, "we will go on receiving
prescriptions under the usual form,
under the provisions Of the act of
September 4, 1871, as if nothing
hal happened. If the law were
really repealed, as alleged, it would
affect hfty prescriptions filed in
this Office since November II, the
date of the proclamation.
1.-The class of lands subject to
pre- emption are public lands of
the United States to which the In
dian title has been extinguished,
and which are not included in any
reservation by any treaty law or
proclamation of the president,
tor any purpose, which are not in
cluded within the limits of any
incorporated town, or selected as
The site of city or town; which
Gre not actually settled upon nor
occupied tor purposes OF ira lie and
business and not agriculture, and
on which there are not situated
any known mines or salines.
These are our instructions and
they are from the act of Septem-
Der 4, 1871, chapter 16, page 455.
1t Is question to be sure, but we
will wait to bear from the general
land office"
Judge Orange Jacobs was asked
what was his opinion of the sub.
ject. He said:
Il have considered the matter
somewhat carefully, after discuss
ing it briefly this morning. | be-.
io''o ~ Is de nonstrabie that the
seventeenth section Of the enab-
ing act did not repeal the pre-
emption law first passed as the
tenth section Of the act of congress
OF September 4, 1871.
"1u 1874 the revised statutes of
the United States was passed by
congress. contained all of the
living general laws of congress
from the foundation of the gov
ernmsnt up to 1874. The pre-.
emption law had been amended.
corrected and added to before the
revision. In the revision itself it
was corrected and revised so as tc
make it full and complete as pub.
iished therein.
''ln section $500 of the repeal
lag provisions of the revision are
found these words: 'All acts Of
congress passed prior to said LIST
day of December, 1873, any Dor.
ton of which is embraced in any
section Of said revision are hereby
repealed, and the section Tin revis.
inn) applicable thereto shall be in
force in lieu thereof
This likes the matter, and | am
OF The opinion that there is abso.
intely nothing i'll the objections Of
Mr.. Dudley, raised at the land
office at Bismarck.
1.-The act of 1871, ST. far as pre-
emptlon are CONCERNED, was re-
pealed in 1874, and tie provisions
OF the revision substituted there
Tor. No, there is in my judgment
nothing in the point raised. "-P.-l.