St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1891-05-09

} that much nearer to the inevitabl,
final defeat. The people of Louisian,
: do not intend to be defeated in thi
matter, and be enslaved by the lotter,
gamblers. They will make determ
ined effort to defeat the lottery ane
J, its minions, by the ballot and if the,
should be swindled by bribery, they
may declare the lottery to be q poll
; / tical and moral Malta, and treat it ac
cordingly. In SO doing, they would
have the support of the moral senti
ment of the United States.
/ Railroad Lands-.-Indemnity Limits.
The following is my answer to the
appeal taken by the N. P. Railway Co
to the Secretary of the Interior from
the decision of the Commissioner oil
| the General Land Office in favor of Eloi
Bushnell
BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
In re Eloi Bushnell vs.. n. O. Pacific
Railway Co.
Involving NJ SW4 and 81 NW1 Sec.
80 Tp 5 S r l w.
Opelousas, La, March 10, 1891.
Honorable Secretary The New Or
leans Pacific Railway Co. appeals to
you from the decision of the Commits
sioner of the General Land Office,
holding for cancellation the selection
by the Railway Co., of this land, on
the following assignment of errors,
/ viz: Holding that title to the tract
| in controversy was in the State of
| Louisiana at date of selection by virtue
of the outstanding certifcation for the
benefit of the New Orleans, Opelousas
and Great Western Railroad Com
pany," and the following Argument :"
"The land in controversy was restored
to the public domain by the Act of
| July IA, 1870, and the outstanding
certifcation thereby nullifed."
Is this position taken seriously, or
for the purpose OF delay and prelimina-
lry. to a claim under the Act of Feb. s,
1873?
For the purpose of ascertaining the
rights of the parties it seems to me to
make little or no difference whether
the land was actually restored to the
Public Domain by the Act of July IA,
1870. At that date, or only after the
Governor of Louisiana had in 1888 re-
troceded to the United States the
title until then (Feb. 1885 vested in
the State. Say for example that the
restoration contemplated by the Act
of July Il, 1870 was to be immediate,
and that the land, if the railroad had
been built, would have passed by the
grant of March 3, 1871, to the New
Orleans, Baton Rouge and Vicksburg
r. r. Co. Can the New Orleans Pa
cifc Railway Company have a just
claim to this land? No, they cannot.
Because !: First,-No land was earned
the grant was entirely conditional on
the road being completed by the Sd Of
March, 1876. Not foot Of railroad
was built. Secondly.-They are not
the assignees Of said N. O., B. r. and
v. r. r. Co. Said company was er-
tinct and its charter forfeited previous
to the organization Of the N. @. Pacific
Co. Thirdly.-This land, now the
home of Eloi Bushnell was (and is)
outside of the granted limits and no
law has been passed giving either Of
these companies the right to take lands
outside. 1t is true that after the loss
in the granted limits had been ascer-
tanned, that the N. O. B. R.& Y. r. r.
was to have had the right OF selection.
This loss has never been ascertained. |
Thus the N. O. Pacific got nothing
from the obsolete N. O. B. r. & /
". r. r.
Still less can they claim any right |
in this land by the Act of Feb. 8, 1887.
Because First.-They have never ac-
cepted its provisions. We assert that
the N. O. Pacific Co., has not had d |
legal existence since previous to Feb.
s, 1887, and we defy them to prove
that meeting of its stockholders has
been had since that date, (See Sec. 3
Of said act providing manner of ac-
ceptance,) and Secondlv.-Even we're
they otherwise entitled, they cannot
take this land because it is within the I
indemnity limits of the grant, and
their selection of this land was not
made under this Act until long after
Bushnell had settled.
Nothing in our land system is more
clearly settled than the rule: that a
qualified settler may 60 on any land
to which there is no adverse claim, and
take and keep it Ito the extent of $50
acres) as his home one OF two things
alone can prevent him the actual
corporal possession by another, quail
[ied like himself or a,lawful claim on
record In the District Land Office.
Eloi Bushnell settled on said land I
IN the 4th Of April, 1889, and has
sith his iamiIy ever since remained
here The land was nnoccupied pub
ic land there was no lawful claim on {
record ii the Land Office this was
liter The unlawful selection of 1883,
liter tie restoration to the public do
main made ID October, 1857 after he
,,and W other qualified pe1sons had
1een by the offs sthe Interior d
nyited to settl y % ti1at lind and be-
or tlle tind, lly tho silnoad
asosnpany 81 Nox. He a him
llI DIN d the nAt tuxal DKIsers III tlie Ii
,.lbliss ~ M n u ~ md