The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-01
IL WAS SCHOOL LAND.
Application Rejected for the
States Prior Claim.
THE LOCAL OFFICE SUSTAINED.
commissioner Reverses Decision of Reg
ister and Receiver in Another Case
Coal VI. Agricultural Land.

The register and receiver of the local United
States land Office yesterday received decisions in
tue cases OF three appeals which were taken be-
iore commissioner Thomas Il Carter, at Wash
ihglon City, short time ago. The most import
ant one OF the three cases is the one wherein the
commissioner sustained the decision OF the
locaI once, rejecting the application of William
houfKe 10 purchase quarter section of land
III township thirty-nine, which had already
oeen selected by the state for the establishment
OF scientific school, In accordance with an act
OF congress made in 1889. The full text of the
decision, which has been the subject Of coasid-
cradle discussion and is considered q very i'm
portant matter, is given as follows. -
have considered the appeal of William
y houTke from your rejection of his application
10 purchase the southeast q uarter of section S.
township 50 north, range east, under the pro-
visions OF the act OF congress OF June 5, 1873.
IL appears by the papers in the case. trans
United with your letter OF October 6, 1891, that
y Rourkes application was rejected because il
CONNECTS with the prior CLAIM of the state OF
Washington, as show in list No. / OF lands Sc
iecLei Tor the establishment and maintenance
oil a scientific school, under the provisions of
section IL OF the act OF congress, approved
February y, 1889. said List, according to the
registers report, having reached your Office
through the mail at 9 o'clock a. m, August 10,
1891 while 0 Rourke's application TO purchase
was not presented until twelve minutes after
a. II. the same day
The applicants appeal is based upon the fol-
lowing grounds, to-wit:
l. That at the date and time OF his said appli-
cation Tor the southeast quarter OF section 8.
township SO north, range east, the files and
records OF your said Office did not disclose or in
anywlse show that said lands had been appro-
prlated ~ the state of Washington as per list
No. /, for the purpose OF maintaining and estab-
lsning school for scientific purposes or any
other purpose at all.
2. For the reason that this appellants applica-
ton was prior in time to any other application
Tor said land.
3. Tor the reason that said pretended list No.
j, showing the reservation OF said land for the
purpose OF maintaining and establishing a
school Tor scientific purposes, was not on file at
the time OF the application Tor said land, and al
the time OF this appellants application for said
land, there had been no legal reservation of the
same.
4. That there was not at the time of the appl-
cation of this appellant for said land any legal
reservation OF the same, and there was no au-
thority vested in the state of Washington or any
oIncer thereof, BY virtue OF said act of February
%, 1889, section IL thereof, to select or reserve
said lands, or by virtue of any other act.
B. That at the time OF this appellants applica-
ton there had not been by any person or per-
sons, or by the United States or the state of
Washington, any reservation of any kind, le-
gal or otherwise, of said land, which was prior
to the application of this appellant.
Notwithstanding the seeming import of these
allegations 1t Is scarcely to be presumed
that the appellant desires to be understood as
seriously denying the statement of the register
as TO the time when the conflicting claims un-
der consideration were presented at your Office
4 prefer rainier 10 cOnetrue the appeal as cOnstt-
tuting denial OF the validity OF the claim of
the state, and viewing 1t as such, / must hold
that IL is not well taken.
The act of congress above cited, grants to the
state of Washington for the establishment and
maintenance OF q sscienttfc school, 100000 acres
OF class of lands in said act specifically desig-
mated, and provides that all lands granted
thereby shall be selected under the direction of
the secretary OF the interior.
The said list No. purports to exhibit certain
tracts Of public land selected by the state of
WASHINGTON under
Of February q, 1889, in conformity with the
regulations of the department OF the interior
of the state of Washington. After due examn-
alton see no reason why the selections thus
exhibited should not be accepted as implicitly
t 6e tract. S the lis, s esnno. be-
awarded to the state because of adverse rights
acquired prior to their selection, but the south
east quarter OF section s, township 80 north,
range east, is not shown to be of that sort.
You will notify Mr.. ORourke that your action
in rejecting his application to purchase said
tract is sustained and advise him also of his
right to appeal.
The commissioner reversed the decision of the
register and receiver of the local land Office in
the case of Ole Benson, who, october 10, 1891,
made application to file presumption deelara-
tory statement for a quarter section OF land in
township 80. The decision of the commissioner
in full reads as follows;
By letter dated October Is, 1891, you trans
m1tted the papers in the appeal Dy Ole Benson
from your action III rejecting his presumption
declaratory statement for the southeast quarter
OF section Is, township 80 north, range east.
The appellant states that he made Il personal
settlement on said land or about June 80,
1890, with the intention of filing upon and en-
.ering the same under the presumption act of
September !, 1871; that he has erected thereon a
comfortable house into which he moved with
hs household effects on about August 20,
1890, and that he has continued to reside thereon
ever since; also that his improvements on the
land are reasonably worth 500.
On August 10. 1891, the plat OF survey OF said
township was filed in your Office and on Septem-
Der 10, 1891, Benson offered his said declarstory
statement which you refused "because the same
conflicts with the state selection filed August 10,
1891, for same land, and further because the land
is reported by the special agent TO be land unfit
for agricultural purposes and valuable chiefly
for Its timber
Your objection to this filing because OF the re-
ported uniitness of the land for agricultural
purposes is not regarded as valid, and inasmuch
as the claimant alleges settlement prior TO
the repeal OF the presumption law, and
offered to file his deearatory statement
within three months from the date of the re-
ceipI OF the district land Office of the approved
plat of the township, his right appears To be
pr.mia facie paramount. You viii, therefore,
call upon the state Of Washington by notice to
the proper officer To show cause within sixty
DAYS why the list No. l OF selections filed in
your Office August 20, 1891, should not be eau
celed a. 10 the southeast a of section Is, town