The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-10-31
louis LANGIE LOSES.
sIoar Half-Breed Scrip Filing
Is Rejected.
noe LANDS AaE The STATES.
!. rnpsrtsns Desfsssn by Csnmfs-
6essr Lamsrsux-sradgsts Dfvsrss
cuss-ssw satss-Ths Eietser.

6pcisIon Of the commissioner Of tbs
|e1.ersl Isud ofics In the land contest Of
= 81 Dearborn sgainst Louis Langis over
a seres Of very valuable tide lands south
= .nd within the incorporate limits Of this
~ sas received ~ the local land ofslcs
weferdsy. The sppeal was taken by
f>nrie. whose application 30 file Sioux
f1lf-brred scrip Vas refused by the register
- receiver Of ths local Office. Their de-
1fon ia affirmed. Even this decision In
- fnal, as IN appeal 20 the secretary Of
- interior will lie. The ground Of tbs
mnmissiorer's decision was that the
Ea1led States had granted ali Its right 70
~ iend TO the state upon its admission
- hsd lost ali Jurisdiction X may ever
~ hsd over the land. Aside from tho
snlxs ~ the land in dispute the case IL I'm
fnusfing from the fact that Langie. the
sppdisnt VINO IL decided against BY the
sosnmissioner, came from Louisiana 20 Sc
~ soon after the tirs for the express pur-
- Of fling the scrip. He will un-
1oubodiy appeal again. The text Of the
bris,on 10 ~ follows, the facts in the case
Ine FIRST recitsd:
The record shows that on October ~,
~ Louis Lapgis filed In your Office APP
yIirssions TO locate Sioux half-brsed scrip
Soop the west half OF the northwest
cSxxfer and on the east half Of northwest
cpathwest quarter, all In section 8. town.
lip - north. range 4 east. unsurveyed.
fsing proof OF due notice Of claim. III. III.
Ae1rborn. John Farnham and the Seattle
Improvement Company filed protests, al
&rng the land 10 be tide land withIn the
~ limits and not public land. On April
1871. the application Was rejected for
~ reason that the lands were tide lands.
Eo appeal was taken, and thu local officers
&tered . hearing TO determine whether
~ lands were subject 70 Lsngie's applica-
t9ns stili. After the hearing, and on Feb
NGry q, 1893, they rendered decision. ~
6iiows. The testimony shows the lands 70
btide lands. The protestant eiaims prefer
nee as q purchaser. being Iiftoral pro-
4eiefcr Of adjoining lands. He also shows
Nat he has plated and sold o portion of
jAs land. There 10 no proof Of actual oc-
mpxncy adverse TO Langie's other than
5his. But the testimony as 10 whom and
by what claim, interest or title the lands
he held Is not material, for they are tide
binds, and this would in itself defeat
Iengie's application. We find that the
Application should be cancelled
LAngie Appealed April IL Of the present
PEAR. assigning the following errors:
IT was an error TO entertain such nc
ton, and the decision 10 erroneous because
~ rights Of the appellant herein having
1ecome res adjudicdta by the acceptance
y the application TO tile his said scrip. and
ne scrip itself. the local land Office no
ienser had Jurisdiction to pass upon the
nms de moro.
because the scrip and applications
having been accepted and entered of rec
ord BY the express instructions Of the
commissioner of the general land Office.
snd no valid appeal having been taken,
tbs rights OF appellant have become re-
edjnditata 90 far as concerns any action
upon Them by the general land Office. The
tltje 20 said lands vested in the applicant
nl1o3utely upon the acceptance Of his APP
piication and scrip a. effeciuaiiy as could
have been done by the issuance of patent,
md the interior department no longer has
Nrisdiction. Tho United States had the
}ower TO dispose of the lands so entered.
uhich was duly exercised and the title
Wsted In Langie, the scrlppee, under the
rovisions Of the act Of congress of July
tIs5l
" The protestant has shown no rights
n interest in the subject matter of this
nit and under the rules OF procedure has
70 standing in court.
asThe United States having failed to
UA0tkl0H tuH NtuTe84ku cHtfte3 ~ tSkOppSQ
81 repeated decisions and acts OF Its courts
kom questioning the same
Before these applications were fled In
tAs local land Office the enabling act was
possed and the territory Of Washington
sas admitted 20 the Union on November
u, 1859.
Nov, IN the case of Frank Burns, 10 L.
e. SO. involving an application 60 locate
ysisntins scrip on the same class OF lands,
u vas held that the location of scrip upon
unsnrveyed lands Is nothing more or less
han preference right TO perfect such To-
t1tion after ths survey Of the land as
1xainst all others, except the United
hsses. but until the location takes the
en.racter OF an entry. by having the scrip
hs United States has full power
asd thereby, as ID has ID dispose of the
pfussments have been made with . view
The admission 81 Washington as . state
grant Of congress, and, therefore, having
Gosersy By virtue OF her inherent SOW
sfslgnty prior to the vesting OF any right
u tAe locator, the rights of the state are
superior TO those of the applicant
The lands are undoubtedly tide lands
ne title to which has passed TO the state
q Washington. They are no longer
within the Jurisdiction Of tins Office for
usrosal, II they ever were. The decision
y NE local land Office L. affirmed aud the
eppiiestions TO locate the scrip are rejected.
sE NJ IsAppnx-x Gnrf1 fs.fan&r -