The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1891-02-07
An Important Decision.

cent d, cisicn rendered by the register
and receiver. Two important points
are clearly and decisively established,
viz First, that an applicant is not re-
qaired to maintain n residence upon
the land until his application has been
accepted. Second, that non-transfer-
rible scrip fsuch as sollier's additional
and Sioux haf-breed) cannot be legally
transferred by means of two powers OF
attorney as has bean the practice here
toforc:
UNITED STATES LAND OFFICE,
MARQULTrE, Mich. Dec. "a, 1890.
In the carc OF conflict between the
prc-cmption of Patrick Fogarty and the
entry made with Sioux half breed scrip,
in the name of El;ze Blake, involving
the Sci Of SEi of Sec TIP l2 n 80 W.
This came up for hearing on the
proof offered by Patrick Fogalty III
support of his claim to said land under
~. -. NO. -JlJ.
Under date of June %, 1873, Louis
ID. Cyr entered this land with Supreme
Court scr p, No. 037 Or. & Il. No 549)
and his entry was cancelled 40 L. d.
6I6.)
As the right of Cyr under This scrip
location have already been adjudicated,
it is unnecessary consider it in con-
nection with this case, and Cyr's right
to the land. if he has any, must inurc
To him through tho location Of the Sioux
half breed scrip in the name of Elize
Blake.
Patrick Fogirtv offered ID. S. appli-
cation claiming this land Ivy virtue Of
set lemcnt made Nov. Z. 1894. This
application was rejected Nov. 20, 1884
and from that rejection he appealed
Dec. 25, 1884
Oct. lS, 1887, Elize Blake (by her
attorney in fact, Dan II. Bald applied
to enter same land with Sioux half
breed scrip mo. 41G A.) and her appli.
cation was also re !ected.
From this decision appeal was taken
Oct. %, 1887, both of these cases were
finally acted upon l,y the Honorable
Secretary Of the Interior, Nav 2S 1880,
and the case reported GO l.. ID. 616).
This decision says "sn application to
file u pre-emption declaratory statement
docs not segregate the land covered by
it, aud subsequent application TO file
upon or enter said land should be re-
ceived aud held subject to the first ap-
plication to file. On the cancellation of
Cyr's location this course should be
pursued with Blake's application to
locate S oux half breed scrip, said scrip
being locatablc on any unoccupied land
subject to rre.emption.
In accordance wi Ii this decision the
Honorable Commissioner of the general
land office, by letter II" june II. 1890,
returned to this office the Eliza Blake
scrip with instructions to allow its loca-
tion, and the entry was made OF this
Office July l, 1890 (R Il No. p
On the same day we filed the ID. s.
of Patrick Fogarty and issued him pre-
emption certificate No. 2549.
Aug. 10, 1890 Fogarty made applica-
tion to offer proof and tho Register
desigua ed Oct. z, 1890, at this Office as
the time and place for such proof and
gave Dan II. Ball notice of same by
reg stored letter.
On the date fixed for said proof
Fogarty appeared with his witnesses
and was met by Cyr still claiming title
to tho land under his location made in
1878, aud nj king further claim 10y
virtue OF the location made with Sioux
half breed scrip, which he admits is
owned by himself and others (see page
1o1 OF testimony
In the commencement of the case We
decided that all testimony bearing on
the rights OF Cyr under his location
made in 1873 was not admissible for
reason already given.
IL now remains for us to Judge Of the
respective rights of Cyr and Fogarty on
tho basis Of the location made in tho
uamo OF Eliz, Blake and the pro-emp-
tion filing made by Patrick Fogarty.
We arc Of the opinion that the decis-
ion OF the Honorable Secretary of the
Interior already referred to 30 l.. d.
GIG practically decides this case.
He says "st the time Blake's spplica-
tion was filed, Oct. 18, 1887, and during
the period prior thereto when sho
claims Fogsrty forfeited his pre-emp-
tion right as against her by not estab-
fishing residence on the land, his APP
peal was pending from the rejection OF
his application. He had neither filing
nor entry OIL the land, and tho govern
ment, though its officers having juris-
diction OF the matter, had denied him
the right to ins itute claim thereto.
II would appear inconsistent to reject
an application to institute claim. and
ut the same time require the perform
ance OF the requirements Of the law rs
though the application had been grant
ed. To require party to expend time,
money and labor for an indefinite per-