The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-03
LANDS FOR SCHOOLS.
The States Selections Not Subject q
Homestead or Prescription.

The States Selections Not subject TO
Homestead or Presumption.
The appeal Of Jacob P. Trsnsue, wherein he
attacked the right Of the state Of Washington TO
make entry on certain lands for school pUr-
poses, b been rejected By Acting Commissioners
". u. stone. The land Office clearly estab-
fishes the principle that the county commits
sioners may make selections OF certain lands for
school purposes, and that after such selection,
the lands in question are subject neither 20
presumption nor homestead under tie laws of
the United states
Following is the fun text of the decision:
By letter dated September 70, 1se0, you trans
nltted the papers in the appeal oy Jacob P.
IrEnsue from your decision Of August 5, 1850,
rejecting his homestead application for the NJ
ne14, and M nw1+ of section s, township 3
north, range east. on the ground that TIE land
applied for had already been selected for the
use Of common schools, and therefore was not
subject 70 entry.
Tie appellant admits the fact of such selection
but denies that il is legally effective 10 reserve
ths land from entry under the Homestead law.
II IS OF record that on May "a. 1870, tie county
commissioners Of King county, in the then ter
ritory of Washington, by their duly appointed
agent, fled in the district land Office at Olympia
list No. 2of LANDS selected as indemnity for the
cehce neT IN school lands IN certain townshi ps
and fractional townships therein shown. Under
the law as construed by this department there is
no doubt as to the authority OF the said county
commissioners to make sc eetionG of the class
70 employ an agent Of their own appointing to
make them, and thence II the alleged defclen cy,
in lieu OF which the land involved in this case
was selected did, q matter OF fact exist, there
can be no doubt as TO the validity OF that par.
ticular selection.
Concerning this point the said list No. , sets
forth denc eDcy OF 2903 acres in the school
lands OF township 3 north, range east: also the
selection Of the north half and northeast quarter
o. the southwest quarter of section 6, iownship
20 north, range four east, S4s. 70 acres, in lieu
thereof, and the records OF this once corroborate
the allegation in said list TO the extent of the
dehciency in the school lands Of said township
and show that II was occasioned by settlers
upon section 80 prior - the survey of the land.
whose Claims We're excepted by law from the
reservation for schools.
It Is observed that the selection herein partic-
ulaTiy mentioned somewhat exceeds in quantity
the deficiency in lieu Of which IL was made, but
II Is also Observed that ii tie same list other Sc
lectIous are made tor quantities OF land smaller
than the corresponding deficiencies shown, 40
that said st No. ,, considere as a whole, shows
quantity 0! school land los. 10 the state equal
in quantity therein selected. This being the
case, hold that the land being applied for BY
Ar. Irsusue belongs to tae reservation for the
use OF the common schools In the STATE Of Wash
ington, and Is not subject 70 entry under the
homestead law.
Notify him that your decision rejecting his
application is affirmed, and advise him OF his
rlsni OF appeal TO the department As authority
for the ruling herein you are referred to the de-
ciSion in the case OF Frank B. sharpstein vs.. the
state OF ashIngton, handed down By the hon
orable secretary of the interior October 9, 1891
copy OF which was Transmitted to you by Office
letter tx Of October t. 1901
have not in this letter recited the lengthy
assignment of errors set forth by Mr.. Transue
because, all told, the appeal is noth.n g more
than an attack upon ali school indemnify Sc
lections made in Washington while the terri
torlaI government existed, and also because, in
the opinion l have referred TO and il the cases
therein cited, those selections are fully dis
cussed and sustained, and think il well to add
that the PERSISTENT attempts which have been
made 10 d!scredlt them had as well be aDan-
ooned, unless in cases where II can be shown
that the land was not subject TO selection by
reason OF adverse rights acquired prior 10 the