The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-11-13
IMPORTANT LAND RULING
The Commissioner Of the General
Land Office Reverses a Ruling
Made in Helena
A Very Valuable Section of Land
Near this City In
vOlved.
j. g. Sanders Is Claimant and the Northern
Pacific Railroad the Con-
testant.

j. G. Sanders Is Claimant and the Northern
Pacific Railroad the Con-
testant.
The United States commissioner of the
general land Office has rendered his decision
in the land contest of Junius G. Sanders,
homestead claimant, VS.. Geo. p. Reeves ct
al. and the Northern Pacific Railroad COM
pany, which reverses the ruling of the Hell
ena Office. The case involves whether Me
mineral applicants or the homestead appsl-
cant should be allowed to enter the north
west quarter of section q, township 10
north, range west, or whether such tract
is reserved under provisions of the act of
congress approved July 2, 1864, being IAN
act granting lands to aid in the construc
ton of railroad and telegraph line from
Lake Superior to Puget Sound"
The land in question is about a mile and
half from the Northern Pacific depot and
contains 100 acres. But the decision also
involves three similar claims on the same
section and occupied by Wilbur +. Sanders,
James U. Sanders and Serepta Sanders.
Each of these occupy homestead and
have built residence on each claim. while
the entire property is fenced in. four miles
square. containing altogether GAO acres.
which to-day is estimated to be worth at
least $500 an acre, or nearly $2tO, GOO for the
whole section.
The decision OF Commissioner Croft.
while not final, virtually decides the con-
test, and the entire section will probably
revert to the Northern Pacific company.
In rendering his decision the commits
sioner has reviewed every record in the
case. Nothing could be found to show that
tha ND xvoc s1oSv, Nd
than the company when the map of general
route was filed, that being May 6, 1872. On
August II. $780, Geo. p. Reeves ct al, filed
in the Helena office mineral applica-
ton for a patent to the same tract. as
placer claim. October 8, 1890, the company
filed its protest against this applicant. The
decision then reads: Except by the filing
of said mineral application, / find no evil
dence OF an attempt by anyone to question
said company's claim to this land until
MAY IL 1888. when Junius Il. Sanders offered
an application to enter it under the home
stead laws, alleging settlement as of May 10,
1883. 1t appears that Sanders homestead
application was not received and filed by
you and that thereupon he files a protest al
leRing in substance that said northwest
quarter is non-mineral in character; that
the mineral applicants had abandoned their
claim by failure to comply with the law as
TO assessment work and improvements; and
that the Northern Pacific Railroad has no
right. title or interest in and to said section
of land, for the reason that at the date of
filing its map of definite location, the said
tract was not free from presumption,
homestead or other claims or rights, being
claimed at that time by the said Geo. p.
Reeves ct al, and for the further reason
that said company fled in your office its re-
linquishment Of said premises"
A hearing of the case was heard in the
Helena land Office Nov. II. 1883. On May
10, 1880, the register and receiver at Helena
jointly decided that the evidence submitted
Overwhelmingly decided the land to be ag-
ric1ltural in character; that it has no min
eral value whatever, and that the mineral
claimants have performed no work tending
70 develop 1t. They also decided that the
only lands granted to the company we're
those which were not reserved, sold or 9TH
erwise appropriated at the time the line of
the railroad company was definitely To-
Gated; and further, the said land being
claimed by mineral claimants it was there
by excepted from the grant, ''notwithstand-
ing" the commissioner says, lit has been
shown in this proceeding that the mineral
sion of the Helena Office decision was as
follows: 1--WE are therefore Of the opinion
that the mineral application should be can
celed, the right Of the company denied, and
that the homestead application of Sanders
The commissioner afirms the decision Ia
the extent of cancelling the mineral appli-
cation No. sos and with this elimination,
holding that the land in question is mineral
In character. the question remains: does 1t
revert to the public domain and become
subject to appropriation by claimant under
the homestead laws, or does it fall within
the legislative withdrawal claimed to be eff
fective in this case upon the filing of the
map of general route, and it being non.
mineral, 10 1t liable to sale, or entry or pre-
emption, except by said companies7
After further reviewing the case the
Helena Office pertaining to the respective
rights of the homestead application anl
railroad company, ia contrary to existing
law, land reversible by this Office unde
subdivision 2, of said rule 49,"
In conclusion Mr.. Croft says: II hold an,
here decide thst whom the map of general
route of said said railroad through Mon
tana was filed in this Office, viz: in 1872, tn
withdrawal hereunder of this particular
section became at once effective and re
served it from general disposal, there beinI
at that time no other claim or right to
alleged. I also hold, that this land bein
shown to be nom mineral in character, sal
mineral application. based upon an origina
location made in 1880, being after the ma,
OF general route was filed in this Office,
illegal and does not except land from tn
grant to said company, and l find tina
tending to show that said railroa
company ever relinquished its right O
claim to the land in controversy. It there
fore follows that the application of Nj.
Sanders to enter the land IN controvers
under the homestead laws must be re
jected.'
Many cases are cited which the commits
sloner believes sustains his decision. Al
appeal will now be taken by Sanders to tn
e9cretary OF the interior, but it is asserte,
shat the ruling of the land commissions
will hold good and that Sanders claim t
the land is to-day not worth ten-cen
piece. The case will undoubtedly wind ~
in the United States supreme court, befor
both parties are satisfied.
The j. Steinmetz Jswely Co.
Can suit you in diamonds or Jewels q
any kind. If competitors will tell strict
the truth about their goods, we have n
fear of them selling You. as we know ths
our goods for their respective qualities az
the lowest. As witness to this fact we nee
only mention that posted gentleman fro,