The morning call., 1894-01-05
ONE POINT DETERMINED.
Railroad Indemnity Lands Cam
not Be Withdrawn.
CORPORATIONS WILL SUFFER-
When Poor Men Are Dispossessed
the United States Must Pro-
tect Their Title.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4.-R6preSentatlVe
Bowers resolution calling upon Attorney
General Olney TO appear in defense of the
settlers of Southern California In the suits
brought against them by the Southern Pa
cifc Railroad to dspossess them of land
purchased from the Government still slum-
bers in the House Committee on Judiciary,
although Bowers has appeared before the
committee and delivered a strong argu-
ment in favor of its adoption. The CON-
mittee referred the matter to the Secretary
of the Interior for his opinion and he
turned the case over TO the Commissioner
of the General Land Office for an examina-
ton and report, which is as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
WASHINGTON.
To the Honorable Secretary Of the In
terior-DEAR SIR: l have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt, through refer
ence by the First Assistant Secretary of
the Interior, for report of a copy of the
House joint resolution authorizing and
directing the Attorney-Generalt to appear
for the settlers in the United States courts
in the cases of the Southern Pacific Com
pany against certain settlers on public
lands in California, accompanied by a
letter from the Hon. Case Br0derick ask
ing about how much land there is in con-
trOversy, and such suggestions as in your
judgment will aid his committee-the
Judiciary Com mittee of the House-in the
performance of its duty in the,matter.
Assuming hat the decision by a Judge
of the United States District Court at Los
Angeles referred 10 was that made by
Judge Ross on July "a 1898, in the case of
the Southern Pacific Railroad Company
against one Juana c. AraiZa. l Rave to
report that the decision held in effect that
while an indemnity withdrawal made
under the grant OF the Southern Pacific
Company was still in force. the with
drawals generally of indemnity lands
under railroad giants were revoked in
1887 by Secretary Lamar with the ap-
prevail of the President, and since that
time such lands have been open to settle
ment and entry under the laws of the
United States by the first legal applicant.
excepting those covered by selection or
application to select by the land grant
companies. In cases where selection or
applications to select were pending. IL was
necessary to show that the company had
no right of selection in the land before
entry could be allowed, aud that rule is
still enforced.
The question. therefore, as to the effect
of the order of indemnity revocation by
withdrawal in the cases of the Southern
Pacific Company was not involved in the
Araiza cases. as the company had applied
to select the land in controversy in May.
1885, before the revocation, and its appli-
cation was rejected by this Office, and the
department upnn evidence ruled that said
land was covered by a settlers claim at
the time of withdrawal and was not af-
fected by it. For more than six years this
office has been dispO sing of these lands to
settlers, and il the ruling announced by
Judge Ross in the decision aforesaid is to
hold the hardships to these settlers which
will result are in calculable, as all grants
to aid in the construction of railroads will
be affected and millions OF acres of land
will be involved.
This Office has no hesitation in saying
that in its opinion it is the plain duty of
the Government to defend these settlers
and at the same time its own rights
against the claims of railroad companies,
and that the President, through the Secre-
tary of the Interior, had power to revoke
an executive withdrawal as was the case
of the indemnity withdrawal of the South
ern Pacific Company.
Authority for the revocation of legis-
tive withdrawal of indemnity lands will
be found in the fourth section of the act
of September %. 1890, Twenty-sixth Stat
utes, 4S9. Very respectfully,
S. NJ. LAMoREUX. Commissioner
There is an amended demurrer pending
before Judge Ross at Los Angeles, and
whoever loses, the Southern Pacific or the
settlers. the case will be appealed. So
there is no reason why the House of Rep
resentaliyes should further delay action
on the Bowers resolution.