The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-02

provision for the assignment of army OFF,
GERS as Indian agents. Adjourned to Mon
day.
FORFEITED GRANT LANDS.
Senator Allen Makes . speech in Favor
OF Reimbursing Purchasers.
WAsHrSeroN CITY, March 23.-The Sem
ate had an interesting debate when the Dill
to amend an act entitled IAN act for the
relief of certain settlers on the public
lands, and to provide for the repayment OF
certain fees, purchase money and COM
missions paid on void entries OF public
lands" came up for consideration.
The bill proposes to amend section =,
approved June 16, 1880. 20 as to read ~
follows:
Sec . That in all cases where homestead or
timber culture or desert-land entries or other
entries of public lands have heretofore or SHAH
hereafter be cancelled for conflict, or where,
from any cause. the entry has been enormously
allowed and cannot be confirmed, the secretary
Of the interior shall cause to be repaid to the
person who made such entry, or to his heirs and
assigns, the fees and commissions. amount OF
purchase money and excuses paid upon the
same upon the surrender OF the duplicate re-
ceipt and the execution Of proper relinqulsn-
ment of all claims to said land, whenever suen
entry shall have been duly cancelled by the com.
missioner of the general land ONCE, and in all
cascs where parties, q pre-emptors or homestead
claimants, have paid double minimum price
from land which has afterwards been found NOS
to be within the limits of railroad land grant,
or which is within the limits Of any portion OF
a grant which has been heretofore or which
shall hereafter be forfeited by reason OF any fail
ure upon the part of the grantee to construct
hat o~<fr ,1Rx 49, .;fr I'M "A
grant was made. which 10 adjacent to and coter-
minous with such lands, the excess OF IL per
acre shall in like manner be repaid to the pur
chaser thereof, or his heirs or assigns: Pro-
vided, That no claim Tor any money under this
act shall be allowed unless the same Is duly
made and presented to the department OF the
interior OF the United States within the period OF
two years from the date when such claim shall
accrue, or from the date OF the approval OF this
act.
The bill is of great interest to settlers in
Washington, and Senator Allen took
leading part in the debate. During the
discussion Mr.. Allen said:
Mr. President, think senators will find by ex-
aiming this measure that down to line "a, on
the second page it Is literally a re-enactment OF
the act OF 1880, and that brings us down to those
persons who, under the homestead and pre-
emption laws, during q certain time acquired
their lands and were compelled to pay 81 so per
acre for them. The community in which live
presents this case in the concrete. Up to the
time OF the withdrawal of the Northern Pacific
Railroad Company, all homesteaders and pre-
emptors that acquired title to lands in Eastern
Washington and Eastern Oregon were purchas-
ing them and paying for them at the rate OF
Sl.25 an acre. By reason OF the extension of the
line OF the withdrawal of the North
ern Pacific Railroad Company, these
lands were advanced to $3.50 per
acre Upon the enactment of the law by
which the grant was forfeited from Wallula
Junction to the city of Portland, these lands
were restored so far as other entrymen were
concerned precisely to the status they occupied
before any withdrawal was made. SO the pur-
chasers under the homestead and presumption
laws acquired the lands at the rate of l.25 an
acre up to given time. Immediately after the
passage of the act OF 1889 they acquired lands in
the same locality at the rate of $1.25 per acre;
but those who acquired the lands from the time
of the location of this route until the act of for
feiture of 1859 were compelled to pay g. so an
acre. 1t is to place these persons on precisely
the same basis that this provision 10 inserted in
the BILL
1t seems to me nothing more than just or
equitable, there being no railroade there being
no resulting benefit that was contemplated in
this enhanced value OF 81 30 per acre, that these
acquire this portion of the public domain pre-
cisely as they acquired it before the location Of
this grant, or as they acquired it in the absence
of o railroad grant
White-In cases where these entries were
made and the road was actually built and the
land enhanced in value above the price where
there was to DO no railroad, are the parties who
have acquired the enhanced value to return to
the government that enhanced value1
Allen-I will say, in answer to the senator
from Louisiana, that the government of the
United States does not undertake to speculate
with any Of the purchasers of public lands. II
a man should go out and enter q homestead
claim and it should become the site OF q city, 1t
10 his good fortune, and the government en-
courages him in it. That has nothing to do
with the case here. We are only dealing with
the primary disposal Of the soil, and in this pri-
mary disposal of the soil the government
should deal equally with its citizens where the
conditions are alike. / differ from the senator
from Arkansas Berry in regard to the general
character OF tho men who constitute the pre-
empto-s and homestead claimants Of this coun-
try. freely concede that in certain cases there
have been frauds committed upon the law, but
the instances OF fraud as compared with those
OF bona fdes, the instances OF those who have
taken the lands in this manner for speculative
purposes as contrasted with those who have
taken them Tor actual homes and to build up
societies In the new country, is but the smallest
percentage of the great aggregate of men who
thus take claims under the land laws OF the
United States.
also differ from the senator in regard to his
view OF the manner in which the lands were ac-
Quired in this case in which we seeking to
give relief. Here were cases in which the gov
eminent mad made the grant, in which the rail-
road companies had accepted the grant and un-
dertAken 10 comply with it. / say the settler
who went upon these lands had the right to be-
lieve that the contract made between the gov
that 1t was no: made for the purpose of being
violated.
Where persons Inferred land in any other part
of the country. and the land became enhanced
to any possible degree. they had the benefit of
their opportunity. The government did not be-
grudge 1t to them, nor did il seek to crcumyent
them in it. Now, say these persons are placed
in just this predicament: In the faith, in the
belief, in the reasonable expectancy of the rail-
road being constructed along this line, and they
having the advantage OF it, they paid for their
land just double what their ncighbors paid be-
fore this expectancy and this agreement had
been entered into. They paid just double what
their neighbors paid for land after the land
grant had been forfeited. That being the case,
it seems to me it is nothing but equity that they
shall be placed upon a common basis with them.
Allen and Mitchell Argue Tacoma Case.
WASHINGTON CRY, April Especial /
The attention of the digniied supreme
court was taken up with the case of Gal
lagher VS.. Caldwell, which was brought
from the state of Washipotnp Sapator