Los Angeles herald., 1890-05-12
INDEMNITY LANDS.
A DECISION AGAINST THE RAIL
ROAD COMPANY.
Secretary Noble Sends an Opinion to the
Commissioner of the General Land
Of6ce-An Interesting Case.


Of6ce-An Interesting Case.
Below is copy of final decision of
the honorable secretary of the interior
in the case of the Southern Pacific
Company VS.. Julius Meyer, Sr. This
decision is against the railroad company,
and only settles one point in the many
sided questions arising in the railway
controversy. With the exception of the
cases of the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company VS.. Charles Meyer, decided by
the secretary August 10, 1889, and the
case OF Asa Lane VS.. the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company, decided by the hon
orable secretary April 10, 1890, they are
the only cases arising out of the order of
revocation of August Is, 1887, under the
act of adjustment passed March 5,
1887, that have been finally decided
in favor of the entryman and passed
to proof. All other decisions hereto
fore rendered in these cases were the
decisions of the commissioner, and
not final. Mr.. Savage, the attorney, who
conducted these cases for the entrymen,
brought them as test cases in 1887, and
Charles Meyers final proof was the first
one made and brought to decision under
the act of March 8, 1887.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, April II, 1S90.}
Southern Pacific R. R. Co.,,
VS..
Julius Meyer.
To the Commissioner of the General Land
Office:
SIR-Thls case comes before the de-
partment upon the appeal of the South
ern Pacific Railroad Company, from the
decision of your office, of December 27,
1888, holding for cancellation the selec-
ton of the railroad company for the S.
w. d of section 10, T, 6 n, R. 4 W., S.
B. M, Los Angeles, California.
The tract in controversy is within the
indemnity limits of the grant to the
Southern Pacific Railroad Company,
which, it is claimed, was withdrawn for
the benefit of the company in 1867, and
again in 1879.
All Withdrawals OF indemnity lands
for the benefit of said company were re-
stored to the public domain, and opened
to settlement and entry by the order of
huSoCt Io3 Ioof ICNOhliiS SdlQ OIutI VI
withdrawal, except as to lands covered
by approved selections.
At the date of the revocation of the
order Of withdrawal, this tract had not
been selected by the company, but on
October 7th, 1887 it selected the entire
section. On the same day Charles Booth
filed declaratory statement for the quar-
ter section in controversy, alleging SET
tlement August 49, 1887, and on No
vember 1, 1887, julius Meyer, Sr., filed
declaratory statement for the same tract,
alleging settlement September 6, 1885.
Pursuant to notice Meyer appeared
before the local officers on February 8,
1883. and submitted final proof in sup
port of his claim, when Booth appeared
and cross-examined the witnesses and
offered testimony for the purpose of
showing his superior right to the land,
and the railroad company at the same
time appeared and filed protest, claim
ing said tract under its indemnity selec-
tion of October Z, 1887.
The local officers found that the rail
road company lost any right that it may
have had by failing to select; that Con-
testant Booth acquired no right by COM
ing upon land occupied by Meyer, and
as Meyer had complied with the
be dismissed, and the final proof of
Meyer approved. From this decision no
appeal was taken by the contestant
Booth or the railroad company
Your office, by letter of December 27,
1888, held the selection of the railroad
company for cancellation and affirmed
the action of the local officers, and the
decision was declared final as to him.
1t also appeared that one John H. Quin-
ton applied to make homestead entry of
the tract August II, 1885, which was
rejected, and his appeal from said re-
lection was pending in your office at
date of your decision.
As to this claim, you held that as he
failed to appear when Meyer offered final
proof, it is presumed that he had aban-
doned all rights to the land. His appli-
cation was therefore rejected, subject to
appeal within sixty days, and the local
officers were instructed to notify all
parties in interest.
The railroad company alone appealed
from your said decision, and the COM
pany and Meyer are now the only par
ties to be considered before the depart
ment claiming said tract.
At the date of the revocation of the
order of withdrawal the land was occu-
it was in reservation, with permission OF
the railroad company, under an applica
tion to purchase, supposing that the
land belonged to the company.
If Meyer was qualified pre-emptor
and continued in the occupancy of said
tract after it had been restored to settle
ment and entry under the general laws,
and before selection by the company,
his rights would be superior to that of
the company. Under selection made sub
sequent to such settlement, the COM
pany having failed to. select the tract
prior to the revocation of the with
drawal, it had no right or claim to con-
vey, and when the withdrawal was re-
voked Meyer or any other settler was
free to claim and initiate right adverse
to the company.
1t is, however, alleged by the COM
pany that Meyer was not qualified
pre-emptor at the date of his alleged
settlement, for the reason that he had