The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-01-23
A VICTORY FOR ALGER.
6he Famous Timber Land Contest De-
cfded I'm His Favor.

The famous Alger timber land cases have been
1ecidcd in favor OF General Z. 4. Alger and r.
9 Hswley, the transferees of S. s. Bailey, by
be commissioner OF the general land office The
announcement was received by c. K. Jenner,
ue Of the attorneys for the transferees, in the
hIlowing telegram from his associate, Colonel
n. ". Dudley, of Indiana:
\ sAger cases decided wholly in our favor on
bfe. Browne joins me IN congratulations De-
anoa mailed. viii send copy
n This decision establishes the validity OF twelve
nties made under the timber land Jaw in the
sar lsSa, the land lying near samish lake In
6kagt county. Soon after entry the twelve
aims were purchased by stephen S. Bailey,
sho sold them in lss7 to Russell A. Aiger, of
Michigan. and Rayand X. Hawley, of Cleveland.
bon after this sale the land department OF the
United States held all the entries for cancelia-
bon upon the report of Special Agent J. NJ Car
bon, who reported that the lands embraced in
be entries were fine agricultural land, mostly
dTer bottom, and not subject TO entry under the
timber Land act; also that the entries were
fraudulent for the reason that they were en-
kfed in the interests of stephen S. Bailey and
tr bis benefit The hearing TO determine these
Qnestions was set for August 26, 1889, Hawley
md Alger appearing by Eben Smith and c. X
knner, their attorneys, and defending against
ne allegations, and c. VI. Ogden, acting as at
nfney for the government The hearing was
lee longest on record, lasting just three months.
7he testimony occupied 1880 pages of typewriter
Zpeper and was bound into six volumes.
4 LIST september the local office decided the
oss. !. u. Reed, register, awarding between 500
ssd GO acres OF the land to the trapsfcrrees
nd the balance, about 400 acres, TO the govern
nent Major Hayden, the receiver, decided
wholly in favor of the transferrees, awarding
aem all the land, upon the ground that the
eoyernment had failed 70 establish its claim by
Eeponderance of evidence.
j The case went without appeal to the commits
4noner OF the general land Office on the divided
opinion Of the local Office. Mr.. Jenner immedi-
{aNly went to Washington and called il up for
Ic'al argument before the commissioner, which
sss held on October 10 and Is, 1880. 1t has been
uncer consideration by the department since
md has just been decided. This decision prac-
Efaily anirms the decision of Major J. L.
hayden
/ The only writted argument made in the case
Fes prepared by Eben smith and c. X. Jenner,
khich was the one considered by the local OF
peers IN their determination of the case. When
~ Jenner went to Washington City he had as
eciate counsel, who decided to rest the case on
9e original printed brief. This Is Il final de-
aslon OF the case and the patents will now be
[ksued
The points made for the Defense" said Mr..
eaher 70 OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES reporter yes
eiaay, were that the evidence showed the
MIC 10 DC chiefly valuable for timber, and as IL
socd unit !or cultivation; that the timber land
- IN defining what land could be entered
aeIeunder contemplated the condition of the
~ a. ~ ~ IN q state OF nature, ana tnat,
Esoush II might be made tit for cultivation by
ae expenditure Of labor and money upon it, the
eau was unnt for cultivation within the mean
~ o. tne law II that expense cqualed or ex-
esoed the value of the land for agricultural
Bsiposes when put in such condition; that the
siaence as 10 the fitness or value of land
essfed tor any purpose must be confined to
as value OF the land for such purposes at the
NC o. entry. The testimony of the government
" tnis case was entirely based on the value of
&c land IN lsS9, after the grading and building
ue fairhayen Il Southern railroad, which
aas Immediately adjacent to it and has, of
eufse greatly enhanced its value, II WAS con-
eaoeu by the defense, and so held by the COM
.isioner that such testimony was immaterial
uu irrelevant and should not be considered. |
L4ppose the decision was rendered on these
points"
7 eolonel W. w. Dudley, OF Indiana, and A. Is.
+vWne, OF the firm of Britain & Gray, Were
sSiatec with Mr.. Jenner, but Mr. Browne and
~ 'enner made the oral arguments