Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1890-08-29

Ill broken, rugged or mountainous
regions, for it is Il matter OF history in
this country that settlements and i'm
provements usually precedc the sur
veys, and it Il matter of continual COM
plaint that the government fails to
extend its surveys as rapidly as the
agricultural, numbering and mining
industrial enterprises OF the country
demand, and it is matter of common
knowledge that the remote and more
inaccessible regions, where the land is
unfit for cultivation, have not been
surveyed, and no provisions for the
survey thereof appears to have been
contemplated.
4 The most valuable timber, however
grows upon hilly and stony land. FIJI
and cedar stumps and roots will remain
many years without decaying, and can
not be got rid OF without much labor
or great expense; and the soil Of such
timber lands is not so rich and will
not yield so abundantly rs that which
| have previously described, yet will,
when cultivated, produce the same
kind OF crops; after removal of the val
liable timber and while the stumps re-
main, it is readily converted into pas
turc, but is unfit for cultivation because
it cannot be at once made tillable
without an expense greater than its
value for agricultural purposes. Such
land is chic fly valuable for its timber,
and vast areas of it are TO he found
within the limits Of the surveys. 1t is
the character of land contemplated by
this statute and is as much subject TO
sale under its provisions, ii situated in
near proximity to navigable water, or
a farming community, or city, or a
railroad, as if it were in some remote,
broken, rugged and mountainous re-
giOn. TO n person acquainted with
this country, this class of land is as
readily distinguishable from the alder
bottom and ALLEY lands, which are
considered valuable for cultivation, as
a forest is distinguishablc from d
prairie.
The evidence before me leaves no
uncertainty or doubt as to which class
the tract conveyed by the patent to
Budd, belongs to. On the part Of the
government eight witnesses have tes
titled, proving that the land can be
cultivated after the removal of the tim.
Der and stumps; that it is similar to
other lands in the immediate vicinity
occupied by settlers, who each cult
vatc small tracts thereof; that in their
opinion the land is valuable for agri
cultural purposes and that the LAID is
covered with q crust Of leaf mould
which is an excellent fertilizer. And
to confirm this testimony, samples oi
the soil and specimens of the grain
and grass grown by the settlers have
been introduced.
These witnesses show by their evi.
denCe that the tract except about fifteen
acres, is timbered, and show nothing
as to the value of the timber, except
that there has not been any mari ct OF
demand for it. This evidence is insult.
ficient to warrant the cancellation of a
patent. But the defendants have been
not content to accept Scotch verdict.
They have met the issue with evidence
OF the most conclusive character.
Thirteen witnesses were called who
testified that the soil is stony and in
ferior for farming purposes, and that
it contains excellent ilr and cedar tim
Der, besides hemlock and an under
| growth OF various shrubs and brush
that the trees are large, tall and straight,
and sound and will yield from $4,000
to 10000 feet Of the best quality of
lumber per acre, and this testimony
and estimate is not controverted. The
field notes made by the government
surveyor ut the time of surveying the
land more than twenty-five years ago
describe the land as being stony and
second-rate, and the timber rs fir, ce-
dar and hemlock, and the most con-
vincing testimony of all is series of
twelve photographs taken near the
center of each legal subdivision of the
tract. These pictures exhibit with un-
erring certainty and f;.ithfulness mag
nificent trees standing so near together
as to force each other to grow straight
and tall. They satisfy the court that
this tract is valuable and desirable for
the timber upon il, ard also that ho
man would be willing to subjugate this
piece of forest for the mere sake of cul-
tivating it.
But few words are nncded to dispose
of the third proposition. The evidence
shows there we're no va. '.bie improve
ments ON the land at the time Mr.
Budd purchased it. Mr.. Doherty, who
at one time settled upon and attempted
to improve the land, soon became dis
couraged and abandoned it, his cabin
became dilapidated and worthless, and
all his other improvements disappeared
long prior to Mr.. Budd's entry.
The fourth reason for cancelling
this patent also vanishes upon an ex
animation of the evidence, for there il
nothing to support the charge made
in the bill and explicitly denied in the
answer, that prior to his application te
purchase this land Budd entered into
an agreement with Montgomery to ac
; quire the title for him. If such al
agreement was made, the evidence
certainly fails to show how, when O
where it was done. There is no direc