The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1891-06-13

Tor the land during the three months
mentioned, but it does not appear that
he would have been allowed to do SO at
any other time between April %, 1866,
the date of your order of withdrawal,
AMI October 1887, when the tract was
restored to settlement and entry, for it
was understood by the local land of
ficers, at least, that the tract was in
cluded within the withdrawal, and
therefore, during that time, not subject
to Papin's fling.
His application was rejected by the
register and receiver becl luse of ct nfiict
with the prior entries of Mauger and
Fooie, and his application for heariag
was refused on the showing made by
said affidavit
Mauger Sc Foote gave notice that
they would each submit Communication
proof on their respective entries before
the clerk of the Circuit Court
of Houghton, on August z, 1889. Pa
pin appeared and fled his protest
against said proposed proof, bnt by
stipulation of all parties it was agreed
to have said proof submitted lcforo the
Register 81 Receiver at Marquette,
M chigan, on September 6, 1891, tn
pin again appeared with his witnesses,
bnt the said entrymen refused to sub
nit their proof; no hearing was, there
fore, had. Thereupon, Papin filed af-
fidavIt of contest against each OF snid
entries. These are shown to have
been filed in the local land Office on
September 6, 1889, but it appears that
they were not transmitted to Your
office until after your decision was rend-
cred on October 18, 1889, that they
have not been considered by you.
Neither of these aflilavits are any new
or different grounds of contest, but are
substantially similar to the affidavit
filed by Papin with his application for
entry.
Alter the adverse fading by the local
officers was made, refusing to order
hearing on Papin's original application
and affidavit for homestead, he appeal
ed to your office and on October 10,
1889, considering said appal, you af-
firmed the finding below and refused to
order hearing. From this judgment
an appeal has been taken to this de-
partment. If the facts set out in the
application are trle it is evident that
Mauger & Foote knew the fac,s con-
cerning the settlement, long residence
and improvements made by Papin. In
fact, all this must have been apparent
to them when they took possession of
the tract. They may have found no
one there, yet the cultivated grounds,
the out buildings and the houses, even
if they had not been acquainted with
the proprietor indicated that it was
some ones home; besides it is asserted
that they forced open the door of the
house and threw out the household
effects, in order that one of them might
use the mouse. The supreme court, in
Rector vs.. Gibbons Oil e. S., 27,)
speaking Of the system Of the pubic
land laws as whole, says: ats aim
has been to protec thoset who in good
faith have settled upon public lands
made improvements Is thereon, and not
those who by violence or fraud or
breaches of contract have intruded up
on the possessions of original settlers
and endeavored to appropriate the
benefit of their labors. There has been
in this respect in the whole legislation
of the coundry consistent observance
of the rules of natural right and justice"
1t was in pursuance of these gen
eral principles of right and justice
that this department, in the cise of
johnson VS.. johnson a. L. d. 1881 said
that "the wrongful act Of an entrymen
whereby the settlement rights of another
claimant for the same tract were not |
protected by fling or entry, will not be
allowed to insure to the benefit Of such |
entryman," adding that, "this depart
ment, under no circum stances will per.
permit it self knowingly to be made an !
instrument to further the fraudulent de-
signs OF an individual who is seeking 10
acquire title to land to which he has no
right 1t is not shown that the tract
covered by the application of Papin
was abandoned by him, and he states
affirmatively that he never intended to
abandon it and that his absence during
the time Mauger & Foote got posses
sion was caused by the sickness and
death Of a daughter, and was only tenn
porary.
TWAS not intended by Congress to
allow entries on the public land where
the possession thereof was gained by