The herald., 1893-07-27

1871, section 23, the Southern Pacific
Railroad company ie authorized to con.
etruct railroad from point at or near
Vehachipa pass, by way Of Los Angelef,
to the Texas Pacific railroad at or near
the Colorado river, with the same grant
of lande, etc, as were granted to said
company by act Of July 81. 1866,
"The company having filed diagram
designating the general route OF said
road, l hereby transmit map showing
thereon the line of route, as also the
20 and 30-mile limits OF the grant to the
line OF withdrawal OF the Southern Pa
ci6c railroad under the act OF 1855; and
you are hereby directed to withhold
from sale or location, ,pre.emption or
homestead entry all the odd-numbered
seotiene.ialiRsvitAbAhss limits.
sthsiins1t bfy3S miles you viii increase
in price to SO so per acre, and will dis
pose of them at that price, but only
andsr the pre- smptspp and honsss$ead
when presumption OF homsatead
entries have had legaIinceptlon pEior TO
the receipt of this order, the settlers
may, of course, prove their claims, either
upon odd Of even-nu mbered sections, at
the rate of $1.25 per acre.
"This order will take effect from the
date of its receipt by you; and you will
please acknowledge receipt by date.
"Ihe even-numbered sections between
the 20 and 30-mile or indemnity limits
are not affected by this ordor."
Ehe bill alleges that this order OF
withdrawal has ever since remained In
force. 1t alleges that the land In con-
troversy in the suit IL more than 20 but
within 30 miles ofthe said railroad, and
that 1t had not been granted, sold, res
served, occupied by homestead settlers
or prs;emptsd, or otherwise disposed OF
by the United States, for any pur-
p,se, at the time the line
OF the complainant's 4. road was
definitely fixed, and that the United
Statos then had full title thereto. 1t 10
alleged thArthe entire indemnity limits
fixed in the grant are insufficient to
supply the loss sustained;b by complain
ant within the granted limits, and that
the commissioner of the general land
Office, in his annual report for the year
1883 to the interior department and to
the president of the United States, at
tested and certified to the fact that the
land within the indemnity limits under
said set of March 8, 1871, will by no
means supply the loss of lands within
the 20-mile limits to said railroad COM
pany under said act" 1t is alleged that
on or about the Oath day of June, 1877,
the defendant entered upon the tract OF
land in controversy, and that Hubse-
quently she was permitted to enter the
land as a homestead, and that on the
9th day Of July, 1889, O patent therefor
was issued to her by tho land depart
ment. The bill alleges thst every step
in the land department eliminating in
the issuance of this patent was contest
ed by the complainant. That when the
president approved the construction of
the section OF the Southern Pacific rail-
road opposite the land in controversy,
that 10 to say, on or about the 25th day
OF May, 1883, complainant embraced the
land in question in its indemnity list
number five, and rendered to the officers
OF the local land Office all proper fees for
selecting and listing the land and secnr-
ing the patent therefor, but that the
officers OF the land department refused
to approve the selection, the reason,
doubtless, being that the defendant,
Araiza, had Heretofore been permitted
to enter the land a. homestead, upon
which entry patent had been issued.
From this statement ofthe avefments
of the bill it will be- seen that at the
time the line of complainant's road was
definitely fixed the land in controversy,
which was without the primary but
within the indemnity limits OF the-grant,
was'public land, to which the United
States Asd full titlsy and that at the
time the defendant first went upon the
land the order withdrawing it from
SALE, presumption. or homestead entry
was in force. And, further. that ct the
time Of the defendants entry upon the
land and at the time it wac awarded 70
her by the officers 81 the land dep1rt-
mont there had besn no HsttsmrtAon