The Helena independent., 1894-12-24
LAND OFFICE CASES.
An important Decision by the Secretary OF
the Interior on the Northern Pa.
elie Contest.
THE SETTLER HAS WON HIS CASE,
Other Contests Decided in Various Ways at
Washington and in the Local
Office Hero.
THE SETTLER HAS WON HIS CASE

A decision ~ the secretary OF the In
trrior ana one which contains som,
interesting remarks by that ufs,er. hn.
b'cn received by the local land office
II involves tract ~ 100 acres OF land
neer Augusta, william A. Convers,
hlfd a pro-emption deelaatory state
'arnt for 100 acres on April eS. 1879
which was cancelled on rellnuuishmcut
| Nov g. 1850. on Aug. -, 1891, Conyers,
fllcd application for reinstatement ol
his prv-cmptlon right. and the Local
land Office allowed it. Meantime tn,
company nled an indemnity list en-
| hracing the tract covered by Converse 5
new entry. Converse was living on the
land at the time and the application for
his second prv-cmption filing was pend
ing. The railroad held that the local
office should have ruled that Converse
WAS not "A qualified settler having cX-
hausted his pre-emptlou right by his
previous nllug. The company also held
that Convorse's application for restoro-
ton OF his right was not nled till after
the repeal of the prc-emptiOn law, and
that the department had no right 10
restore. The secretary in his decision
says:
These were matters wholly between
the pre-empto- ana the government,
with which Il Is not competent for the
company 10 interfere. 1t is not 10 be
supposed that the United States govern
ment intended 10 raise up In antagon-
ism TO all the actual settlers on the
soil whom IL had invited to its occu-
patton, this great corporation. with an
interest 90 defeat their claims and 10
come between them and the government
nS 10 the performance OF their obliga-
tions"
IL was held that Converse should not
have been allowed 10 hold land reserved
for indemnity purposes when he settled
ON Ii; also that selection by the company
was not necessary 10 give IL right
because there We're not enough lands
In the indemnity limits To satisfy the
losses of the grant The secretary says
this contention has been frequently
passed on. and makes no further COM
ment. He afiirms the decision of the
local land office and orders thnt the
company'e entry be held for cancel
lation. and that Converse be allowed TO
perfect his claim.
In decision in the case OF Eli Risley
versus the Northern Pacific, the secre-
tary decides I'm favor OF the company
Risley appealed from the decision OF
the local office cancelling his timber
culture entry near Helena because IL
was within the primary limits of the
grant. A valid pre-emption filing was
made on the land by G. c. Winslow In
1870, but at the time of the definite lo-
cation Of the road Risley had possession,
The land Office held that he could not
legally claim IL under the settlement
laws, as he was living on an adjoining
tract. for which he had made home
stead entry. The land office found that
the tract was free from any claim at
the time of the filing Of the map OF
definite location OF the road, and held
that Wlnslow's entry had technically
expired July IA. 1872. The land there
fore passed 10 the company. The secre-
tary sustains the local Office.
A tract of land adjoining the prop
erty Of the Castner Coal company ut
Belt, where the Anaconda company Is
operating, was involved in the contest
OF George y. Seifred versus Lorenzo
Minelli The local office decided In fa-
yor OF seifred, holding that the land
was more valuable for coal mining
than for farming