The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1890-10-03
An Interesting Decision.


are generally understood to be definite
in the requirements they impose upon
settlers seeking title to public lands.
But within the scope of their applica-
ton they embrace wide range and an
intimate variety of circumstances.
The way in which they are applied
to the peculiar facts of particular cases
sometimes gives them the appearance
of f1exibility limited only by gen
eral discretion in the Department "a
which their administration is entrust
ed. This, however is erroneous. 1t is
simply an appearance. There is nc
executive authority to anhul or modify
the positive requirements of the law
Its explanation is found in regarding
he multitude of incidents to be con
sidered in determining the intent
which prompts II party's action. This
element of intent is of the essence OF
the settlement laws When by the
scrutiny of searching investigation, it
is found to he in spirit with the pur-
poses of the law. 1t supplies many
apparent defects in compliance with
the prescribed requirements.
This is illustrated bv two cases re-
Gently decided by the Interior Depart
ment. both on the same day, and each
relating to different requirements
The one under the homestead law,
which is explicit i'll the requirement. of
residence, and the other under the pre-
emption law in which taere quirements
of Improvement and cultivation are
emphasized.
In the case of the hOmesteader, en-
try WAS made IN January 1884, for
lands in IA prairie region remote from
timber, and contest for Abandonment
was Instituted in May 1886 1t was
shown, as stated in the decision, that
in the fall ct 1888, the claimant built ii
small shanty and dug a we'll, and in
December went to live with his sister
where he remained until late in the
spring of 1884. On his return he
found his house had been taken away,
and he secured material at considera-
BILE expense and labor and built another
small house, and Il stable of poles and
sod. He depended for support upon
such Employment as he could get, and
was absent from the land living and
working from place to place all the
time, except Il few days at a time which
were taken as often as possible from
his outside work and spent in improv-
ing the land. He claimed the place rs
home and it appeared that he had no
other. At the time contest was com
menced he had broken few acres Of
prairie and had secured wagon and
oxen and pillow and was preparing for
cultivation. Upon these facts it was
held that his residence was not salts
factory, but that there was not such
evidence of bad faith us demanded the
cancellation of his entry That he was
to be judged in the light of mental as
well as physical conditions for the
purpose of getting at his intent, and,
Judged by the guide of that principle,
he had, the exercise of his understand
ing and means, intended to honestly
comply with the law and rules of the
Department. His entry WAS allowed
to stand, subject to his making salts
Factory showing ut the time of final
proof. e:.<, : .-
In the other Case, the pre-emptor made
his filing June 9th. 1886, and offered
final proof December 9~h 1886, for
land i'll a timber region. Protest was
fled charging failure to comply with
the law. 1t WIS shown that, after
making his filings IN the same month,
the pre-emptor built a cabin of boards
with board roof and dirt floor, and fur
nished it with a bed, table, stove, cook
ing utensils and some dishes: and lived
there to the date of Offering final proof
That he was unmarried and worked
for the neighbors, but slept. generally
in his house and had cleared the tim
Der off of four acres of his land 1t
Was held that his improvements were
very meagre and the nature of them
not Ell rely satisfactory as Il compli-
ance with the requirement of cultiva-
ton, when considered independently ;
hut that they should. be. considered in
connection with his residence, and the
other circumstances of the case which
go to establish his intent. !: That the
right of presumption is n preference
given to settlement, inhabitancy and
cultivation; but that the law does not
specify the nature or extent of improve
ments and only requires that they
shall indicate the good faith of the
claimant. That it has been and still
is held that clearing away the timber
for.the purpose of planting the land. is
cultivation within the meaning of the
pre-emption laws. 1t was therefore
decided that the final proof of the pre-
emptor In that case should be accepted.
1t W II be observed. that these are
cases in which the element Of intent
was an important factor in sustaining
the claims of the settlers. 1t must not
be inferred, however, that mere intent
can be urged. in extenuation of an en-
tire or radical omission or. neglect. It
has been held that mere intent cannot
satisfy the legal requirements.
Subject: EFFECT of intent in com
pllance wlth the settlement laws,
reviewed for the JOURNAL by w. w.
Wiltshire, Attorney, $40 Butler Block,
Seattle. Late Examiner of Land and
Mining Claims and Contests in the
General Land Office at Washington,
d. c..
Senator Morrill, talks