Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1891-08-27
OF INTEREST TO SETTLERS.
An Official Letter from Mr.. Carter in Explana-
ton of the New Land Laws.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, ID. G.
August Is, 1891.

A. G.. Warner, Esq,
Ch~oteau, Mont.
SIR:-I have received your letter of the
10th instant, which presents the following
questions, viz
| LIST. Where settlement is made on unsur-
| veyed land prior to August 30, 1880, on
which no filing can be made until after sur
| vey, is the land so settled upon to be con-
| sidered a part of the 800 acres to which
| settlers are now restricted, or does the set
tier still have the right to 800 acres addi-
~tional?
End. Where such settler located intended
| to pre-empt after survey, can he still use
the presumption rights, if SO, can he also
use the timber culture rights?
| 3rd. Must the So per acre required to
be expended on desert land claims, be ex-
| pended for ditching and water only. or will
the cost of other improvements, such as
building, fencing, cultivating. ETC., count?
Must the entryman pay out the amount
actually in money, or can he value his own
time, and his teams time consumed in
work, at the usual wages of the country
and apply the same?
In reply / ave to answer your questions
in their proper order, as follows, viz
LIST. Under the presumption laws repealed
by act OF March 3, 1891, and under the
homestead laws, the right might be initial
ed by settlement and take effect from the
date of settlement, il the subsequent re-
quirements of the law were complied with
in good faith. Where settlement was made
on unsurveyed land prior to August 80,
1890. the right was then initiated by such
| settlement, and would not be affected by
the provision in the act of that date re-
stricting the requirement oftitle, under the
land laws, to 800 acres in the aggregate,
but the claimant would be entitled to enter,
if otherwise qualified, to the maximum ex-
tent of $50 acres independent OF the area
OF the tract of unsurveyed land SO settled
upon prior to the passage of the act OF Au-
gust 30, 1890, imposing the restriction.
(See secretary's decision of December 20,
1880, 12 l.. d., 3D.
End. If the settler. in the case supposed,
settled on the land in good faith, intending
To perfect title thereto under the pre-emp-
tion laws, his claim thereby initiated may
he perfected after survey, notwithstanding
NV i'lNh w Nv I'''
18th section of the act of March 3, 1891,
under the provisions therin contained,
that all bona fde claims lawfully initiated
before the passage of this act, under any of
said provisions Of law so repealed, may be
perfected upon due compliance with law in
the same manner, upon the same terms and
conditions. and subject to the same fimita-
tions, forieitures and contests, as If this
act had not been passed"
A timber culture claim could not he mi
tiated by settlement, but only by proper
entry at the district land office; hence, n
party claiming tn have settled upon land
before the passage of the repeating act
could not be permitted, on that account,
To perfect title thereto under the timber
culture laws after the repeal thereof.
:ird. The desert land law, as amended
by the second section Of the act ofMarch3 3,
1891, provides that before the patent is
sues for any entry under that law, the en-
tryman, or his assignee, shall have expend-
eel at least So per acre in the necessary ir-
rigation, and cultivation
thereof, by means of main canals, branch
bitches and permanent improvements upon
4 lit iihtI ihi u w If"tthttot '" "H'et
rights for the irrigation of the same.
| am not aware of any decision having
been rendered by the department in actual
cases in which the points you present on
thiss subject were passed upon. ! am OF the
opinion, however, that the law intends that
the expenditure shall be for main canals
and branch bitches, and for permanent i'm
p~rovements, contributing in some way to
the irrigation and reclamation of the land,
and for the purchase of water-rights for the
same end, and not forimprovements gener-
ally, or raising of crops after reclamation,
not contributing to the reclamation, which
is the chief purpose OF the statute.
am of the opinion, also, that the law
~contemplates an actual expenditure of the
amount per acre specified and think that
il the work OF the entryman, or OF his team
is employed, the proper valuation OF such
work may be considered in computing the
expenditure made under the statutory re-
quiremsnts.
Very Respectfully,
[Signed. THos. II. CARTER,
Commissioner.