The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-12-11
CANNOT TAKE OATHS.
Notary Publics Are Not Recog-
nized by the Government.
RULING or Y. S. JUDGE HANFoRD.
1t Affects Titles to Government Lands
Federal and Superior Courts at Cross
Purposes--Court News.

decision of great importance was rem
dered by Judge Hanford in the United
states court yesterday, which viii inval-
ldate large number of land entries and
affect the title to thousands of acres of
coal and timber lands in this state where
the oath of the locators and proofs were
made before notaries public. The ruling
was to the effect that notary public is
not recognized by the statutes of the
United States as an officer authorized to
administer oaths. 1t was made In sus-
tanning demurrer to the indictment in
the case of the United States against Nor
rls Shannon and others.
Shannon and three others were members
OF the Miners Coal Mining Association,
which entered several sections of coal
land in King county. They were indicted
III the United States court for perjury, in
making false statements as to amount of
money expended in improvements of
claims IN their oath OF entry of these
lands. Mr.. James Hamilton Lewis was
employed TO defend these men, and on
Tuesday he filed Il demurrer to the indict-
ment on the grounds that notary public
not being authorized TO administer
oaths or entry of government lands,
the indictment was not good. He claimed
that notary is merely commercial
oificer appointed by the governor of the
state for the convenience of business; that
this Office was established in conformity
to the doctrine of the early English law
known as the law of merchants, which was
simply for the purpose of enabling bust
ness men to protest notes and drafts.
mat the laws OF congress punish for per-
jury those who falsify under oaths taken
before competent person, but state
odlcer Is nothing more than private indi-
yldual, so far rs the power to administer
oaths IS concerned, except where an act Of
congress has provided otherwise. Every
other state officer, except notary public,
who is authorized to administer oaths has
been adopted by acts of congress ut differ
ent times, and as a notary public has not
been SO adopted an oath taken before him
Is as If taken before a private person, so
Tar Us United States land matters are con-
cerned, and oaths taken before a notary in
these cases are invalid.
Mr.. Lewis read several authorities to
sustain his point, and after carefully con-
sldering the matter Judge Hanford said:
THE heads OF departments may make
regulations for their various departments,
but do not think any OF their regulations
Will have the effect Of making a law. Per-
jury can only be committed when an oath
Is taken under the law before person
competent to administer it. 4 law of the
United States Is q rule OF action adopted
by congress, and nothing else is law. In
this case it is admitted that there is no
statute prescribing for the taking of these
eaths before 4 notary public, and under
the decisions of the supreme court of the
United States on the subject, this court is
compelled TO set aside these indictments
and order the defendants discharged.
This decision is ofgreat Importance, espe-
cially in new countries where the oath
of entry of public lands is SO frequently
administered by notaries, and thousands
of titles to land will be affected by it; and
in this particular case 100000 worth of
coal land will have to be re-entered and
the oath administered by a competent
officer
This case is but sequel to similar one
which awakened considerable interest in
this city in 1856, when the notorious Ben
son frauds were first made public Benson
was surveyor general of California, and it
being shown that the government was
charged thousands of dollars for surveys
never made and for false entities, Benson
was indicted, and Sawyer, one of his sur
veyors, fed to Seattle, where he was ar
rested for perjury. Mr.. Lewis, as his at
torney, got Sawyer out on writ of habeas
corpus, and tried TO have him released on
the grounds that notary public was not
competent officer under the United
States statute to administer oaths, and
therefore no perjury had been committed,
since the false entries made had all been
sworn to before notary public. Judge
Jones, before whom the ease was heard,
held that the indictment was good, and
Sawyer was sent back to California. Hall,
another surveyor indicted for the same
offense with Sawyer, took his case to the
supreme court on this point, and the in
dictment against him was quashed and