The morning call., 1893-09-29
THEY ARE BEATEN.
Decision of the General
Land Office.
PRIOR CLAIMS RECOGNIZED.
The Cases From San Benito and
Monterey Counties Go Against
the HomeSteaderS.

A letter from Assistant Commissioner
Ed A. Bowers of the General Land Office.
just received by Registrar Sheehan and
Receiver Shannon of the local Office, settles
great many land contests which have
arisen under what is known as the for
feture act of Septemb Der %. 1890. All
summer cases of this kind have been lis
tened to by Messrs. Sheehan and Shannon,
those officers giving them their personal
supervision rather than leave them to
deputies; and there have been some very
Intricate points to determine.
The first of these cases to come up was
that of Mariann Mercy VS.. Bridget Miller
over piece of land in San Benito County
By the forfeiture act large tract OF South
ern Pacinc Railroad land in San Benito
and Monterey counties was declared open
Tor settlement, and there was a great num-
Der OF hllngS made little over year ago.
The consequence was that there was a
general conflict between the homesteaders
who filed upon the land and the claimants
who had held possession by reason of their
expressed Intention to purchase of the
railroad company when the Southern Pa
cific should get title. Section 3 of the
law read:
Whenever persons who are in posses
sion OF any of the land affected by any
such grants and hereby assumed TO be re-
stored TO the United States under deed,
written contract with or license from the
State or corporation to which such grant
was made, or its assignees, executed prior
10 January l, 1883; or where persons may
have settled said lands with a bona-fide
Intent 10 secure title thereto by purchase
from the State or corporation, when
earned by compliance with the conditions
or requirements of the granting acts of
ha hn ont fInh IN
chase the same from the United States in
QUIZ sissss not exceeding 800 acres to any
one tlch 0arSon at the rate of 81 % per
acre"
Mss. Mare 3 title to the land was based
upon her sIsht under the section, she hav-
ing bad possession great many years, but
Mrs. Miller fOrciDiy entered upon a por-
ton Of it and built a residence. The
Registrar and Receiver decided that Mrs.
Mercy was entitled to purchase her $40
acres and recommended that Mrs. Miller's
| homestead filing be Cancelled. An appeal
was taken to the General Land Office, but
the information comes by telegram that
the position Of the local Office is sustained
by the Commissioner. This establishes
the point OF priority in favor of the claim
ants who located upon the land with the
Intention OF purchasing from the railroad
company.
There WAS another case, however, about
which MessrS. Sheehan and Shannon were
in doubt.
1t seems that the applicant, James
Cochran. had purchased his right from an
other man who had applied to the railroad
and got possession. Iuasmuch as the
party who so purchased was not in pos
session of the land on the date fixed by the
law, January !, 1888, the Registrar and Re-
ceiver were very much in doubt as to
whether he ought to be given the land ;
but they finally recommended that, seeing
that he had secured peaceabe possession,
he should be permitted TO purchase the
land. In this case the homestead contest
ant settled upon the land subsequent to
the passage of the act-namely. September
20, 1890. The Assistant Commissioner of
the General Land Office sustains the
recommendation of the Office here by a
letter. as follows: