The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1891-11-26
PRINCETON COUNTY, THURSDAY nov 26 1891
MILE Laos SETTLERS.
Register Gottry Explains His Po-
sition as Regards Final
Proof Notices.
The True Intent and Spirit of the
Law Must be Taken Into
Consideration.

Commissioners Carter Sustains the
Union by a Common Sense
Interpretation Of the Law.
Editor Uuion::
| have before me copy of the Kama
bee County Times of the issue of Nov
ember IL, 1891, in which the editor OF
that paper devotes about column and
a half to discussion of the question OF
the publication of notices for final proof
from the so-called Mile Laos Indian
reservation. The article is prefaced
Dy copy of circular "a" dated
April 2lst, 1887, issued by the general
land Office under the administration of
VIM. A. J. Sparks. AS to the author
ity OF such a circular there is no cues
ton until such circular shall have been
overruled by the Hon. Commissioner
OF the general land Office. These cir
culars are not issued as the laap, as Mr..
Stafford would seem to have the settlers
believe, but merely as the construction
placed upon the law by the general
land Office, and are issued for the
guidance OF the local land Office and for
the purpose of securing uniformity.
In this circular ex-Commissioner
Sparks says the register has no dis
erection under the law, and so long as
that circular remained in force, I. as
an officer under the general land Office,
was bound by it, and as soon as it was
called to my notice signifed my will
ingness to be governed by it, although
at the time Mr.. Stafford called nv at
tention to it, I informed him that I
considered it unjust and inconsistent
with 1.-The spirit and reason Of the law
requiring these publications.
The Times says, Register Gottry
knows of his own knowledge that the
Times is entitled to the notices X X
X and has officially recognized the
right of the Times to publish notices as
far back as July 10Th, 1872 Mr.. SAT-
ford knows very we'll that told him in
the hearing Of two witnesses that I did
not believe the Times had any legal
or moral right to these notices. Ihave
published few notices in the Times
because the claimants had made a con-
tract with the publisher in these cases,
but at the time was not clear as to nv
legal right to do so, nor do to-day
think under a careful legal scrutiny
the publications made in the Times
would be held as good as those made
in the UNION, still, in the presence of
the circular above referred to, I felt
compelled to respect the construction
placed upon the law by my superior in
office, whatever my personal opinion of
that construction might be.
The matter has been laid lefore Hon.
Thos. H. Carter, commissioner of the
general land office, and from the tone
OF his letter SAP dated Nov. 10th,
1891, 1.-THE latest authority on the
subject) the register of this Office feels
himself sustained in the construction
he has placed on the law referred to.
The Hon. Commissioner says: 'sIn
this matter au1,ich is committed to the
discretion Of the register, he should bear
in mind that the true intent and pur-
pose of the legal requirements is, to
have such notices so published that
they will best serve the purpose con-
templated, . which is in substance the
exact construction placed on the law by
the register in his conversation with
the editor of the Times
1t is my opinion that the ''true in
tent and purpose of the law' is most
fully met by the publication of the
notices in the paper to which the set
tiers as well as the public generally
look for legal notices affecting lands
in Mile Laos county-the Princeton
Union, and it is in that paper that
notices will be published until we are
advised OF the overruling Of the letter
OF Nov. 10th, 1891, above referred to.
We write this that settlers on the
so-called reservation may not be fright
ened as to the validity of their publi-
cations, by any articles they may see in
the said Times, and not because we
wish to rush into print In taking
this course we are not governed by any
personal interest or prejudice, but by a
realization Of our duty and response
bility as a public officer, and had the
decision Of the general land Office sus-
tanned the circular issued by Mr..
Sparks we would have acquiesced as
cheerfully as we now do, but not with
as hearty approval of the construction
placed on the act of congress approved
March Bird, 1879, 10 Stats 472 as we
now do. Very Respectfully,