The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1895-03-02
ANN PATTERSON,
LAKE SUPERIOR SNIP CANAL,
RAu,W AND Iron COMPANY.

hAllN.AH AND 4lspN NOMpAN1.
Involving tke northeast quarter Of sec
tioa 3, township "a north, range 35 west.
There are many cases of like character
now peEding Sefnre us. In all OF them
tho legai uestions raised by and in ee-
half OF the Canal company are idcntical
lnasmuch, therefore, as the casa Mt issue
Is the iiiss Of this series of cases to be
diSposedsf By ~, we feel justified IN
calling attention 10 the various conten-
lions, giyfs our opinion en- each qugs-
lion separt aly.
The latds Involved were originally
glantcd Jure >, 1856. to the state OF
Michigan, TO aid in tho construction OF u
rail:uad from Ont0nagon To tho WiScoD-
sn sat~ line, bv q grant IN piesentl.
which passed legal title TO The same TO
the state 81 Michigan in trdst to secure
the construction of said railroad. Sub
scquent!y aud While the legal title was
still outstanding in the state ef Niichi-
gau, as Aforesaid. in the year OF 1871, the
land was elected by the Portage Lake
aud Lake Superior Ship Canal company
IL inuriUg TO IL under the grant OF lands
made by congress in 1866 10 aid In The
cnustructjna OF a ship canal across the
Keweenaw peuinssla. This selection
was approved by the honor able secretary
OF the Interior. March 2, 1889, congress
passed an act declaring forfeiture OF
said lands in aid OF the railroad aud
resumed title to al unearDed lands
granted thereby. These lands were not
earned by thr railroad company.
b, this last named act, congress took
noticu CT the claim Of the Canal company
aud did not confirm It's title TO said lands
within tn. limits of the railroad grant,
which had been approved TO II. upon
watch there were no bona fide pre-emp-
ton or homestead claims on the first day
Of May, 1883.
Claimant la this case claims to have
had bona tide Dre-emption claim on the
first day Of May, 1SSS, to the land in
controversy; that she made settlement
GU the same about the Goth day Of March,
1883; she also claims the right TO have
said land certified to her under and by
virtue of said last named act Of corgress,
which provides, that the con6rma tion OF
the title OF the Canal com pauy and others
shall not extend to any tracts upon
which, as recited In said act, there
we're BONA Ode presumption or homestead
claims ou the first day of May. 1883,
arising or asserted by actual occupation
Of the land under color OF the laws Of
tue United States, aud all such pre-emp-
ton homestead claims are hereby con-
frmed."
The akidavit upon which the hearing
Ia this case was ordered was filed on the
30th day OF December. 1894. Soon after
aetice was issued to all parties claiming
an interesLin said land, to appear to as
sert their claims before US on the 18th
dav Of Fehruarv 1903
This notice was published in the news
paper nearest the land In controversy for
six successive weeks Immediately pre-.
eeding the date fixed for the hearing.
Soon after this nifidavit was filed, aud
prior To the publication OF the notices
aforesaid, counsel for the Canal company,
acting In It's behalf, appeared at this Office
and were frlly Informed as to each Of
these cases, including the case Of Issue,
OF the date set for the hearipk Of the
same. Counsel also took copi0us notes,
memoranda. etc., of the tract, pla., and
other books and records Of this Office
In relation thereto, together with the
copies 1T the affidsyits and notices Of
hearing. On the day fixed for the hear
ing cosnssLfer the said company ap-
peared specially and strenueusly con-
tended:
LIST That Va we're without 1uris-
diction to hear Snd determine the Gaze
for the reason that no proper service OF
notice OF hearing had been made on
them.
2ud. Tha. we were without 1uris-