The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-28
IT IS SCHOOL LAND.
Rejection Of Entries on In
demnity Sections.
LOCAL DECISION IS AFFIRMED.


In letter received yesterday BY the register
and receiver Of the local land ONCE, William A.
stone acting land commissioner, afirms the
decision Of the local ONCE In rejecting the
applications Of ninety-one applicants to make
presumption ding and homestead and timber
land entry on school land. The local ONCE
rejected the ninety-one applications. on the
ground that the application was In conflict with
school indemnity selections embraced in lists
Nos /, . g. 40, 9, 10 and IL; and some OF the
applications were found by you to conflict with
prior applications for the same land.
The many applicants for fling named land IN
various sections in townships 10. II, Is. 10, q, u
o5 Is, n, q, %, 90 81, 81 80 and 81, Of this dis
trict: and the names of the applicants are -
follows:
Albert r. Lavering, John F. Hunter, James W.
Moore, John Stanton, Frank s. Stanton, Charles
W. Coriiss, George A. Cornwell, Charles g. Patters
Lyman F. Hastings, Robert r. Stanton, Sumner
S. Franks, Gilbert y. Anderson, Marion LAvey,
Andrew Johnston, Anton Johnanson. Fred 6.
Ray, William H. Pettis, Frank Grimm. Richard
g. Strobhart, John w Phebus Oscar W. Brad
shaw, Iivert Johnston, Matilda Bonquist, Henry
Yandeli, Norah johnson, Lottie Johnson. Sum-
ner s. Anderson, George B. Blanchard, Henry
+. Cohrs, August McAulay, Augustus NJ.
Moore. J. Frank Martip, Samuel 7.
Weston, Charles q. GilchfDk, Lawrence Z.
Thompson. James F. Pike, Jasper n. Turner,
Ohlin n. Adsit, Charles L. Pattern, Edgar H.
Campbell, John F. Hunter, Dana NJ. woodin,
Chiley E. Bedding, William A. Hasbrouck,
William A. Hardy. Phiness {. Ellworth. Alfred
L. Guy, Frank C. Clark, Frank w. Felt, James
Z. Crichton, Adolph l. Cedarholm. Edward A.
Atkinson, James G. Kidwell, Jonas J. Dali, Sid
ney Coyle, Frank H. Rennick, Thomas A. Gar
rett, William r. Hudson, James G. Richardson,
II. Dudley Field, Owen McElroy, Albert !. Ad-
ans, Albert ". Gray, John A. Ames, John Dug
gan, Charles W. Cobb, James ODonnen, Oscar
J. Trcen, John W. Warner, jacob C. House,
James /. Seward, Albert C. Edwards, Joseph
Nicolas, J. Wesley Mahon, James A.
Miller, Harry f. Stevenson, Bion B.
Brockway. viii D.. CLARK, Eden NJ. Gordon.
James D. Moody, Charles c. Woodhouse. IT,,
John O. Howell, William C. Hemensiey, Francis
w. Pettisrcw, Benjamin L Miller, Edward l.
Lake, Frank A. Bartlett, Charles n. Gerrish,
Herbert l. Burkett, and Newton A. Thompson
: The decision, which il of great moment to
people who contemplate making application for
fling in certain sections where the boundaries
of school lands are disputed. is here given:
The material point, and the sole one which
will be considered in connection with this ap-
peal at this time, is whether the indemnity &C.
lectlons constitute bar TO the adj
mission Of applications to die for. or
enter, the lands embraced therein. The ap-
plications appear to be in conflict with school
indemnity selections, - stated by you, either in
whole or in part 1t Is not deemed necessary for
the purposes of this decision to describe the
selections in detail, rs that would be q work OF
great magnitude and the material points at issue
may be decided without so doing. fail TO find
in any of the appeals an allegation that the Sc
lections are in excess Of the quantity of indem-
nifty allowed where the grant for schools is OF
two sections to q full township, although In
few cases it is gathered from the appeals that the
appellants regard the principles of adjustment
contained in the act of May 20, 1876, adopted in
the act OF February Is, 1859, and carried into the
revisal of 1874, (section 76 Revised 6tatutes) a.
allowing maximum quantity of only one sec
ton instead Of two, which point win be dis
posed Of further on. Neither do find that there
il any allegation such a., II proven, would rem
der selection either void or voidable in any
public land state having grant OF two sections
70 the township for schools, outside of the new
states admitted in 1889 and 1880. This narrows
down the issue to q question of whether the
conditions are 30 peculiar and exceptional in
the state of Washington that these selections
must give way to applications, although In such
states ~ California and Oregon, for instance,
they would be valid
cit is found that indemnity was taken
principally because Of DEFICIENCIES caused by
bodies of water, but some of the defects were
caused by the Oregon and Washington state
boundary and by donation claims. The points
of exception scattered through the appeals,
elaborate, may be summarized al follows:
81. The territory of Washington was not
entitled to select school indemnity in lieu OF
deficiencies from natural causes under the act
Of March 2, 1850.
'.2 II wss not entitled to Indemnity on the
basis of townships rendered fractional BY the
state line under the act OF 1858.
49, The county commissioners, who, under
said act, were authorized to select indemnity in
lieu of lands found, upon survey, to be In sec
tions 16 and %, and covered by subssting settle
ments, had no authority to select land in lieu Of
the deficiencies referred to under exceptions
numbered above and
~ The county commissioners could not dep
utize or empower any persons to make the Sc
lections for them.
as Admitting that selections in lieu of such
deficiencies as those above mentioned could be
made under section 2,276 of the Revised Statutes,
the selections, to be valid, should have been
made by the secretary Of the treasury.
SC Making the same admission as that men,
toned in exception 5, not more than one section
of school land should have been allowed to any
township as the maximum Quantity authorized
to be held and taken under the principles Of
adjustment set forth in the statute
IA. The act of February 30, 1889, admitting
Washington, % United States statutes SIC, re-
pealed sections 2,2215 and 2,216 of the Revised
Statutes, so far as the states mentioned in the
act, including Washington, are concerned, and
rendered null and void all selections made by the
authorities of the territory OF Washington there
under.
as. The state may only obtain indemnity for
losses of land in sections is and So in place I'M
der the act of 1859, and may obtain indemnity
alone under this act.
40. The selection of indemnity for losses of
land in place stood as barring adverse appropria-
ton while the state remained in n territorial
condition, but upon admission of the state in
November 1852, all the selections of the territory
failed, and the state must commence anew to
select in lieu OF such losses under the act of 1882
'The last exception was taken in o few of the
cases because the losses were of lands in place.
and because prior applications for the selected
tracts had been preferred before the admission
OF the state. To the extent that this exception
is intended 10 defeat prior applications it will
not be considered at this time for the reason
have given; the point involved as to the validity
Of the selections is met by the authoritative de-
eisious hereinafter cited.
al VIII notice two OF the exceptions as OF ex-
traordinary character before proceeding further
"Seleetions by the secretary of the treasury
(see exception 81 were made while this offiee
was in the treasury department, under the act
OF May 70, 1876, which applied only to those
states in which lands had heretofore been
pledged for schools. II selections were author
lied in Washington under sections a,275 and
2,256 of the Revised Statutes, il would be absurd
10 hold that they would have been made BY the
secretary of the treasury, for in carrying the
principles Of adjustment of the act OF ISIS into
section 2,2276 the requirement. that selections be
made by said officer was omitted, and although
the act OF 1859, adopting the princi-
rlcS Of adiuSfnenf of tho srf ~ iSas