The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1895-03-02
In FAVOR Of THE SETTLER.


dlction for the reason that no proper
notice OF the hearing had been served OH
other parties who claimed an interest In
the lands. These conclusions were held
TO be untenable, but were again urged
in the final argument made by counsel
after they had participated the trial Of
the case, and had been permitted TO
cross-examine witnesses at length. aud
also TO produce witnesses asd submit
other evidence In behalf OF said coul-
pany.
We were forced to the conclusion at
the outset that proper legal and sur
iiclent notice had been given all parties
in interest. We had considered that the
instructions issued to us on the 18th day
OF December, 1891, with reference TO
the claims presented by the cash pur-
chasers and others for confirmation OF
title or under said act of congress were
applicable In these cases. Said instruc-
lions only require publication OF hearing
for the period OF thirty days; whereas
notice of hearing was Published in these
cases six successive weeks, as before
stated. But IL Is urged that under said
instructions different ruling would APP
ply to the Canal company, that while
service by publication for "a period of
thirty days would be sufficient as against
settler. personal evidence woulu be re-
quired as against said company. We d.
not 50 understand; we do dot think said
instructions contemplate giving any SUI
perior rights TO any one particular
claimant with reference To service. In
other words what would be good service
as against one claimant w"uld be- good as
against any other. We believe, as stated
before, that good and sufficient service
had been had on the Canal com pauy. both
by publication and personally on its AT
torneys, aad this belief was strengthened
by Its attorneys participating in the
trial Of the case in fact. II any doubts
had existed before as to the validity of
the service, they were dissipated there
by. We do not feel at liberty TO call at
tention ia the many decisions upon Tins
point. (See 10Th L. y. T.. 407.)
IL Is also well 10 note that counsel ap-
pears IN this case as attorneys for the
Lake Superior Ship Canal. Halfway and
Iron company, that there were no re-
cords on file in our office Chat we are
aware of showing that said company
has any interest in said lands or ever did
have. The records in this Office show
thai the Portage Lake and Lake Su-
perior Ship Canal company had an in
terest therein, but are silent as TO the
other companies, and prior TO the trial
of this case we had no record of the
other company al all. Surely personal
service would not be required on u
stranger To The records. even If a.
stranger to the records could DO heard
TO complain of improper service on any
party. which is exceedingly doubtful.
1t is also urged in behalf OF said com
81, . -
these lands in 1871 to the Portage Lake
aud Lake Superior Ship Canal company
wo are entirely without jurisdiction over
them, bat inasmuch us the supreme
court of the United States in case Of
Walter Cunningham VS. The Lake Super
Tor ship Canal, Railway and Iron com
pany. held that said approval was of no
validity whatever. and was not merely
vodabe, but absolutely void; and since
the date OF said approval congress has
declared said lands to be part of the
public lands. and has disposed of the
same without any recognition whatever
OF the validity OF said approval, nol-
withstaDding it had all the facts before
IL, we are not prepared to say that this
absolutely void certification can be erect
ed as iDsurmountabe barrier 20 prevent
people who have the legal title TO the
land from obtaining record evidence OF
the same. 1t will he observed that tho
contentious presented by the Canal COM
pany as against the settlers in these
cases, have practically all been disposed
OF adversely To them by the Supreme
court Of the United States In case Al
ready mentioned, December 10. SoI. !
aud that Cunningham stands In substan.
tally the same situation, so far as the |
claimant In this case.
To the insistence, therefore, o! counsel |
for the Canal company, that said ap-
prevails passed a legal title TO said land |
or at least voidahle one. it may be said |
that the highest tribunal in the land has
held differently. 1t IS also insisted that I
because counsel for the claimant asserts
that under and by virtue OF the cnnfirm-
atery provisions OF the act of congress
March 2, 1889, his client is entitled TO
have The land 10 dispute certified to Der,
provided that she can successfully show
that she comes within its provis ons;
without payment TO the government OF
: he purchase price OF the same at any
rate OF S.125 per acre, we are without
jurisdiction In the premises because the
United States has no interest Ia the land;
that all questions between the parties
hereto are solely and exclusively for the
determination OF the courts. But il
seems To us that counsel forget for a
moment that patents from the United
States have a dual capacity and are fire.
Quently issued when the United States
has parted with all intel est in the lands
des .ribed therein. In many cases patents
are simply racord evidence of a title
created before their issuance. Whom
ever lands have been certified to the
grantee In present grant such Is the
case, and the title passes net by the
patent or certificate but by the grant
itself.
We understand the interior depart
ment TO be clothed with the authority to
execute 10 the grantee of the United
when the conditions OF the grant
have been complied with, record evil
dence Of ownership OF the thing granted
II IL be real estate. That this practice
has been followed admits Of no question.
We are about to certify by direction OF
the honorable commissioner of the gen.
eral land office l,uds, the legal title VI
which passed out OF the Uuited States In
1886. and 10 which they ass r. no ciaim
whatever. We do not think 1t necessary
10 call itientisn to u long line OF cases
4. n. I