The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1895-07-31
TEXT OF THE DECISION.
Secretary HOke Smiths Latest Decision in
the "Section 80" Case in Full,

Secretary Hoke Smiths Latest Decision in
the "Sectfon 80" Case in Full.
The full text of Secretary Smiths
decision in the famous "Section 3O''
case, has been received at the Duluth
land office. AS the land involved is
located near this city, our citizens
take an anxious interest in the pro-
ceedings and await with perseverance
the time when the affair will be
settled. The land involved is valued
at several millions and has been in
litigation for good many years.
The records of the interior depart
ment show the course this case has
recently taken. The latest decision
is based upon a. motion for review of
previous decisions and is as follows:
Hyde ct al. VS.. Mcdonald ct al.
Motion for review.
The Commissioner of the General
Land Office: Sir-On Feb. IA, 1895,
there was filed in this case, on the
part of Emil Hartmann and w. w.
BillsOn, separate motions for review
of the decision in the above entitled
case, rendered by the department Dec.
Il, 1894. April II, 1895, said motions
were denied because not accompanied
by the affidavits required by the rules
of practice that they were made in
good faith and not for the purpose of
delay. The attorney for, said parties
now files an application in the nature
of motion for review, in which he
states in substance that the failure
to make. the affidavit required was
mere inadvertence: that he fully in
tended to execute said af6davits, and
that said motion was made in good
faith.
In addition to the above, he alleges
that when the decision of Dec. 81, 1894,
was promulgated, notice thereof was
given by your office to the Washing
ton attorneys Of several parties. in
Guiding Hartmann and Billson. That
the parties not SO notified were
notified by the local officers, who also
furnished with said notice synopsis
of the decision. That in promulgat-
ing the decision of April II, 1895, de-
nying the motion for review, Hart
mann and Billson be again notified of
the decision of Dec. q, 1884, and
furnished with copy of said decision.
He further AYERS that he has reason
to believe that said instructions have
been carried out, and that several of
the parties, whose right to file motions
for review have lapsed under the
original notices intended to avail
themselves Of the new notice to file
such motions. He insists that if the
original notices were invalid, for the
reason suggested by your office in
structions, as to the other parties
whose local attorneys were notified by
your office, they were invalid as to
Hartmann and Billson, who are alone
excluded from the benefit of the new
notices directed to be issued. And he
insists that if said motion for review
(the old motions for review refiled)
cannot be considered as originally
filed, they should be considered as
filed under the new notices which
Hartmann and Billson should, have
received in common with the others.
Your office letter "H'' of May 2,
1895, to local officers promulgating the
departments decision of April II,
1895, denying said motion for review,
contained the following:
In further reference to said case,
have to state that this Office is in re-
ceipt Of yolw letter Of April l., 1898. as
follows: Respectfully referring to
yosr letter of Ran. IL 1895, enelos-
ing copy Of the honorable secretary's