The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-04-11
RIGHTS OF SETTLERS.
Honest and Proper Land En-
tries Cannot Be Annulled.
IMPORTANT LAND DECISION,
Claim Jumpers Cannot wrest From the
Locator the Fruits Of His Toil-Lim-
Its TO the Ccmmissioner's Power.

Ju0ge HanfOfd rendered q decision yes
ferday in the case of Thomas d. Stimson
against Joseph B. Clarke, in which he de-
fermined the rights of settlers on public
lands, and held that honest and proper
land entries could not be annulled by the
Officers of the land Office, and that the
powers of the commissioner of the general
land Office are limited and do not extend
beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. His
decision will tend to prevent claim jumpers
from wrestling from honest locators of pub
lie lands the fruits Of years of toll, and
VIII settle numerous land controversies.
The opinion is as follows
United States circuit court. district Of wash
ington, Northern division Thomas d. Stimson,
plaintiff, vs.. Joseph B. Clarke. defendant No.
=. Jacobs & Jenner, for plaintiff; D. o. Finch,
for defendant
The complainant claims ownership of certain
land by virtue of mesne conveyances from one
VINO entered the rame ~ public land Of the
tinted states, under the presumption law. and
obtained final receipt or patent certificate from
the land Office OF the district in which the lands
are situated, after having made the afidavits,
proofs and payment required by said law, and
he brings this suit for an injunction to restrain
the commission Of waste upon said land by the
DEFENDANT. The legal title to the land is in the
cove no patent having been issued. The
defendant is In possession, claiming the right
to acquire title thereto by residence and cult
walton under the land laws Of the United States.
As against the prior entry Of the plaintiffs
grantor the defendant in his answer makes the
following plea:
'sThat the special agent of the land depart
mcnt, In his report rs 10 said entry and filings
OF the said William Cariey, charged that the
same was not made in good faith to appropriate
the said land to his own exclusive use and
n
emptor William Carley had failed to comply
with the law, In the matter of the settlement,
cultivation and improvement OF the land.
THAT upon the investigation had upon notice
and appearance of the parties A hereinbefore
alleged, the register and receiver OF the land
ONCE found. ~ a matter OF fact, that
the charges so made by the special
agent OF the land department were true,
and held the Esid entry for cancellation, and
that upon appeal the commissioner of the gen.
eral land ONCE affirmed the findings OF the reg
lister and receiver, and that upon appeal to the
secretary Of the interior, the said secretary by
his decision rendered ON the I'd day of March,
1889, affirmed the rulings of the register an re-
ceivcr and commissioner of the general land
office, and held the entry of the said William
Carley for cancellation for the reasons:
"First-That said Carley had not made his fl
ing, application and entry in good faith to APP
propriate the land to his.own use aud benefit,
Is required by law.
second. That the said Carley had not made
the necessary residence, cultivation and ina-
provement to entitle him to enter said land;
and that. IN accordance with said findings, or
dered the said entry cancelled, and that the
same be restored TO sale to the first legal appli
cant, and that by reason of said findings, and
said order, the said entry was duly cancelled in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the
land department as prescribed by the commits
sioner of the general land Office and the secre-
tary of the interior
The plaintiff has fled exceptions to this part
of the answer for insufHciency; and upon the
questions presented the case has been argued
and submitted
By the above plea no issue is rendered as to
whether in fact the entry alleged to have been
cancelled was subject to cancellation by reason
OF any false affidavit or other representation
having been made by the entryman or any other
fraudulent act on his part in procuring the
allowance of his entry at the local land office or
by reason Of non-fulfllment on his part in good
faith of all the terms, conditions and require
ments OF the pre-emption law, but 1t is assumed
that the decision of the officers OF the land de-
partment set forth in the plea is conclusive.
The defense as pleaded rests, first, upon the
proposition that the officers of the land
department are by law vested with power to
decide finally and conclusively all questions of
fact affecting rights claimed under the land
lands; and, secondly, the assumption that in
deciding the main issue as to tie lawfulness of
the entry under which the plaintiff claims the
land in controversy in this case those officers
have necessarily passed upon and SO decided
finally and conclusively all questions of fact
touching the plaintiffs rights in the premises,
and that such decision therefore amounts to
finding of facts sufficient to warrant the cancel
ling of the entry. and. thirdly, the conclusion
that therefore the parties and the courts are
bound by the action OF said officers, SO that
there can be no further inquiry to whether
the plaintiff did or did not in good faith settle
and reside upon and cultivate and improve the
land: nor as to whether he did or did not. in
making mis- final proof, mske or procure TO be
made any false representation or statement or
commit any fraudulent act In obtaining the
patent certificate
No person viii seriously contend that any
scheme 10 obtain title to land from the govern
ment by fraud or without full compliance with
the requirements OF the land laws ought to sue
coed or be protected by the courts, and ON the
other hand the thought of judicial protection TO
fraud is not more abhorcnt to an honest mind
than the idea that an honest settler upon public
land. who in good faith has fully performed all
the conditions prescribed by law and paid the
government in full its price for a tract OF land,
can be convicted of fraud, snd on that ground
subjected 20 the loss OF the land and the for
fixture OF the money paid therefor without a
trial or opportunity for defending against
an unjust accusation other than q con-
test in the land department. In such
proceeding the officers have no power to issue
process 10 bring the witnesses necessary TO es-
tablish the truth, and the only evidence that
can be produced is that of willing or paid wit
ncsses. and the manner in which such contests
are conducted involves such enormous expense
that an honest man of moderate means cannot
reasonably hope TO prevail against an adversary
possessed OF greater wealth and not incumbered
with conscience.
The constitution OF the United States is the
paramount law of this land, and among the
most sacred OF its guarantees is the provision
that no person shall be deprived of lie, liberty
or property without due process OF law. The
decisions of the supreme court establish the
doctrine that a tract of land may be segregated
from the body of the public domain and become
the property of an individual and such, sub
ject TO all the incidents of private ownership in
Guiding taxation by the local gov
ernrnent. without q formal conveyance OF
the legal title. by the issuance of patent By
sull compliance with the requirements of the
statutes Oh the part OF q claimant or purchaser
from the government his rights and responsible
ities rs owner OF the land become perfect Now,
If afterwards he may be Invested of all his rights
RS owner OF the property, and also deprived Of
the purchase money by decision Of the officers
OF the executive branch of the government by
reason Of charges OF fraud supported only by
the testimony of volunteer witnesses, while he
is denied compulsory process necessary perhaps
to obtain the only testimony by which such vol
unteer witnesses can be coatradieted and the
truth established; and If upon an appeal TO the
courts he is denied hearing, can it be said that
lr.fr fAssL ..