, 1890-04-17

feat the railroad grant to the land
occupied, will be regarded MS another
radical change IN land department
decisions. Ap between the corpora
TONS claims and the claims Of
speculative persons seeking TO do
Feat the grant, the public have no
particular interest; but where such
conflict has been botwccn bona fide
settlers on the one hand and the
grasping corporation on the other,
the sympathy az tins public mas
always been with the settler.
In this case there has been dis
pute pending for several years be-
tween the railroad company and
MIR. II. 4. Cowley, of this city, over
a tractof land within the company's
grant, and now forming part Of
spokane Falls. Mr.. Cowley has
not been disputing tho company's
title, but has been contcndng for n
tltle to the land rom the company,
In accordance with contract un-
der which no claims the company
ngreed to sell him tho land many
years ago.
While the title to the land has
thus been In dispute, a large num-
ber ofsquatters have gone upon the
tract, while other parts OF the land
have been sold to citizens, who have
placed valuable improvements
upon their property. At the time
the squattcis went upon the land
and built shanties, they, of course.
had no thought OF owning tho land
or acquiring title by occupying 1t,
but merely Thought to abide there
until the dispute was settled be-
tween the company and Mr.. Cow
ley. Within the past year they
clubbed together and petitloned for
a hearing TO determine whether the
railroad grant was not defeated by
the occupancy ot the land several
years ago by an old Indian, who
sold his possessory rights and I'M
provements to the railroad company
In 1884.
At the time the company paid the
old Indian for his improvements, IL
did so after correspondence with the
land department and Indian depart
ment at Washington, and II does
not appear to have been then con-
sidcred that tho Indian had any
title whatever TO tho land itself.
The grant to the company was then
held to have attached to the land at
the date OF the original location of
tho road In 1879. At that
time there was no law under which
an Indian could hold public land,
and under the rulings of the land
department 1t required a valid, legal
claim to defeat the grant.
Little by little the land depart
ment has changed It's rulings rela-
two to the land grants, SO that now
almost any sort ofnn old fling or
claim or accidental occupancy of
land Is held TO be sufficient to de-
ieat the rights of those ac-
q,Iiring title from the railroad COM
Pany. Persons who acquired valu-
able property rights under the old |
rulings Of the land department have |
had their claims disturbed In many |
cases by the Intervention Of third |
persons who have taken advantage |
Of the changed construction of the
law and have initiated adverse
claims. In many cases these shift
lngs from fixed principles have
worked great hardship.
II would seem that congress
should have provided ere this for
some stable and equitable adjust
ment of such questions with
out leaving the property of
those wno have proceeded in
good faith under announced doc
trines to the capriclous rulings of
the different administration of the |
land department. IL would seeid
that where innocent persons have !
acquired rights, under former rulings
there should be some provision of
law for the adjustment OF each
mans rights in accordance with the
rulings in force at the time such
rights We're acquired. Better still,
there would appear 10 be need of
more uniformity in the land depart
ment's rulings and n moro strict nd