Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1890-10-03

Reported for the STANDARD by W. W. Wiltshire
AttOrncy-a Lsw, 90 Butler Block, seattle
late Examiner of land and mining claims and
contests in the General Land Office at Wash
iDgton, ID c.
One who occupies land as tenant
OF an entryman, acquires no right as
a settler, on the REIMBURSEMENT of the
entry that can be set up to defeat the
intervening entry of another. \ set
Element claim on land covered by the
entry OF another attaches instantly
on the cancellation of such entry.
No rights as against the govern
ment are secured by settlement
on land withdrawn from entry, but,
as between two claimants for such
land, priority OF settlement may be
considered. The consistency OF these
principles and their application in
practice are shown by two recent de-
cisions of the Interior Department.
In the first case the land was en-
hraccd i'll homestead entry which
was relinquished and Cancelled. The
party who filed the REIMBURSEMENT
mot the entrymer) at the same time
filed his application for q homestead
entry which was allowed. Eight days
later another party applied to make
homestead entry Of the tract, alleging
that he established his settlement
thereon seven months prior to his APP
plication, and this application was al
lowed and his entry recorded.
The entryman, who had filed the
REIMBURSEMENT, therefor applied to
have this last entry Cancelled, and at a
hearing it was shown that when the
last cntryman went upon the land, he
did 50 as the tenant of the original
cntryman, and continued thereon as
such tenant up to the time of the fill
ing of the REIMBURSEMENT of the origi-
nal entry. 1t was ruled in the deci-
sion that he acquired no rights by vir-
ture Of his occupancy of the land as
the tenant OF the original entryman,
while the land was covered by the
original entry, and, not having gone
upon the land with the intention of
making it his home and to acquire it
under the settlement laws, his right
as settler did not attach upon the
cancellation of the original entry !;
but could only attach from the mo-
ment he went thereon with the inten-
ton of making such settlement, and
performed some act indicative of such
intent. His entry was Cancelled and
the entry OF the party who filed the
REIMBURSEMENT allowed to stand.
In the other case the land was re-
leased from IL reservation made under
an executive order, and at the same
time Il party entered it as a home
stead, alleging settlement three
months before. The first party was
called upon to show cause why his en-
try should not be Cancelled for conflict
with this prior settlement claim. At
the hearing it was shown that ten
days prior to the day on which the
land was released from reservation,
and on which the first party made his
entry, the second party bought out
some improvements on the land that
he had Heretofore been occupying,
and using these improvements with a
brother, under lease from Il third
party, and took possession as owner of
the improvements at the date of his
purchase of them; that thenceforth
he continued in possession making use
of the land and improvements for
farming purposes, and established his
residence on the land about twenty
days after the date of the first party's
homestead entry.
1t was held that while the first
party's entry was the first and only
legal filing ior the land at the time OF
the release from the reservation, it
was not the only legal claim. That
where land, in anywise reserved from
application, is released from such res
ervation, settlement thereon prior to
such release, especially if attended by
the possession and ownership of valu-
able improvements, whether made or
purchased, is sufficient to constitute a
legal claim, and that such claim at
taches to the land on the instant it
becomes again subject to application
for entry. 1t was further. held that
while no party can secure any right
as against the United States by virtue
of settlement made upon a tract
withdrawn from entry, still it is a
proper matter for consideration, as re-
CARDS third parties, to inquire into the
priority of settlement in order to as
certain in which of contesting claim
ants is entitled to be recognized by
the United States as the first legal
claimant for the lands within the in
tent and spirit of settlement laws