The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1893-11-16

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
Secretary Smith Holds that a Soldiers Adj
ditional Homestead Right is
sTt NOn-Assignable.

WASHINGTON, u. o., NOV. l1.-Sec-
Rotary Smith has rendered decision
in land Office case which, if applied
to the title Of a great many acres Of
land in Minnesota and the West would
render them void. The case is one in
which some prominent Minnesotans
are interested, and the allusions to
fraud are of such a character that the
decision is a sensation, although it is
coluched in legal phaseology. =
d. The case is the appeal Of the Mime
sofa Logging Company in the matter
OF the additional soldiers homestead
entry Of Geo.. A. Morris, upon the
Mile Laos reservation. Morris was a
member Of Company G., lst Arkansas
cavalry, from Aug. 3rd, 1862, to Sept.
18th, 1865. On Sept. 26, 1865, he en-
tered a homestead of 40 acres in Law
renee county, Missouri. Under Section
23O6 of the revised statutes, he was en-
titled to an additional entry of 12O
acres. April End, 1875, he and his wife
Joined in an instrument in writing
purporting to be power of attorney"
executed to T. B. Walker, of Mime
apolis, and transferring to Mr.. Walker
his right to additional entry. June
18th, 1875, Mr.. Walker made an ap-
plcation to enter in the name of Nor
ris, as his attorney-in-fact, lots and 6,
section Is, town ~, range 26, on the
Mile Laos reservation, and containing
l25 acres. This was rejected pending
the determination of the rights of the
Indians to this land. From this re-
lection Mr.. Walker appealed, but ow-
ing to the loss of some of the papers,
the appeal was never considered. On
Aug. 18th, 1877, Morris still living in
Missouri, executed an affidavit to the
effect that he had never knowingly as
signed his right to Mr.. Walker; that
he had never executed any papers be-
fore any officer authorized to admins
ter oaths; that he had signed some
kind Of a paper in blank, but that he
had never received any consideration,
and further that he had not constituted
Walker his attorney-in-fact, and pray
ing that his right be restored to him.
A certificate Of right was issued to him
II l1sle LIST, 1878, and subsequently in 1881
he.located an additional homestead Of
100 acres in Humboldt county, Cali
fornia, Morris never having resided in
Minnesota. Meanwhile, on March
18th, 1879, Mr.. Walker was allowed by
the officers of the Taylor's Falls land
office to make an entry on this land,
but in May the general land office in
Washington directed that the entry be
Cancelled.
In 1882, however, this entry was re-
instated, for the express purpose Of
examination as to its bona fide charac-
ter. In April, 1883, D. M. Sabin filed
an affidavit with the department that
prior to June 18th, 1880, he had pur-
chased the land and asked to be al
lowed to perfect his title. A pre-
cisely similar affidavit was filed by A.
H. Wilder, March 18th, 1885, June
10Th, 1891, this request was denied by
the general land Office on the grounds
that the entry certainly was illegal,
and possibly was fraudulent. From
this decision the Mississippi Logging
Company appealed, claiming that they
purchased the land for value and in
good faith. Their appeal is denied,
and the decision of the general land
office canceling the entry is affirmed.
In making the decision the secretary
makes use of the following languages:
The principle uniformly held by the
department is that the law forbids and
will not recognize the assignment of a
soldiers additional homestead right.
1t is a personal right, non assignable,
which can be exercised only by the
soldier. A circular of May 18th, 1876,
required the actual presence of the
soldier at the local land office to make
the additional entry. It was promul-
gated for the purpose of putting an end
to frauds perpetrated on the govern
ment by means of such instruments of
writing as the pretended power of at
torney executed by Morris and his wife
in this case. The entry in question
was not bona fide entry in this, it was
not made for the benefit of the soldier.
It was not made under bona fde
power of attorney. The rulings of the
department require an affidavit that
an entry of this kind was made by the
soldier for. his own use and benefit, and
for the use and benefit OF no other per-
son or persons whatsoever. If such an
affidavit was filed in this case it was a
fraud on it's face. The reinstatement
in this case was simply for the purpose
of examination as to its bona fde char
acter: It added nothing to its.
validity
So far as Mr.. sabin, Mr.. Wilder,
and the logging company are con-
cerned the secretary holds that they
must have known, Of the progress Of
the proceedings in the case and could