The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-29
INrogTaxT seHoor. LAND CASE


par Taane1sza Apr4i Tr.-$ressaA-- -
More fnAn q wsssIIsu collars werSh - EFoF
.vsw - fnwsaxess in a criminal case F-eFaAs
fzx sa tA4z ce1asy and fae eFlfeofiae =
Watched wtsh Fuuea interest X seerns
that oae Auarew Brandt = year - =
mo- ssxflsa o. . tract IS aana wsscn :
knoxn as ln4aGanlty sr Isea seaSal isua
A. tsEs cnuaty. TIE azEsa ~ w4ihsn me
city limits ard - xaiusale, Stssae sisns
ago he was arrested for uits3sueanor ~
Frsuzsass for cgfFsnE timber On the land
ard ssse fsraf lsE&l B&tgas aas eeEas eE a-s-
fore gatge faEIsagRr. OF The s1FcrsoT
oours 81 this coan;y. IEsasrsaeh a. ths
case Involves tSe title 20 several nluaFes'
thousand acres of Ech9o3 land Is Kas
st4ses 81 Washington. aonsasa, Norm
and South Dakota. the case wil eNeAsaE-
ally reach the auprsnss cours q TIE
United States
While there may - sogse question zs
q whether IN such ah action the title %
property can ~ brought into controversy,
ca request 81 the Defendant the tfils 81
tae state 20 the land was set forth ~ tAf
snfsrrna ton ard = demurrer vas inter
posed ard arguments were bad on Ens
Whals question sith she resEs& thas ne
court took the matter under ADJUSTMENT
II seems that The township IL which tAs
city % Port Townsena - situated Is a
fractional township. containing between
one-half and three-quaFters % fsl
township Prior 20 the government sar-
vey section Is had been taken up under
the donation claim acg and section - wss
almost wholly under water. n Is3 TIE
county commissioners appointed an agent
20 80 20 Olympia ard select lieu lands
for these deficiencies and he selected
eHsuKn Land 20 make the school reseFva-
fi0n amount 10 10 acres for the township.
z he sssect tons we're confirmed BY the sec
rstary % the interior and ever since the
land has been held 20 be reserved and all
filings offered on the tracts have been re-
yected b. the local land officers and up
on appeal these reflections have been ap-
proved BY the head officers Of che depart
Ineni. The questions are now for the frs,
time before q court.
The defendant IN hts demurrer raises
the potat that even II the law OF ixlS per-
hitting iieg selections for fractional sec
tons applies 20 the state % Washington.
twice as much lana wzs selected as was
authorized. This point the state meets
hR the assertion that the law OF lS59 d.
reefs that the selections he made upon
tue principles Of adjustment laid down
ln the law Of May ~. is-6. when a town
snip OF the same acreage az this could
select 40 acres OF lieu lands. Prior TO
ISIS every township had school reserva-
ton Of only one section and 1t h claimed
that IN the staaes and territories organ
i%ed since then the principles Of adjust
Tnent permitted a selection OF double
the amount named in the old act
II Is claimed also by the defense that
the act OF i&9 did not apply 20 the state
OF Washington. as the state had been
f3ily provided for In the act Of lSs3 or
Eanizing the territory. This point Is 20
the effect that the state might select
lands In lieu OF those which had been
taken ~ by settlers on either Of the
school sections prior to SURVEY but could
not make selections in lieu Of deficiencies
from natural causes. Prosecuting Attor-
hss ". 4. Rupert. who representa- the
state In the matter. contends that the
iaw or lS,9 is applicable to the state of
Washington As we'll as 10 other states
ana shows that II WAS the intent Of con
gross to give 70 states and territories or
Eanized since 1888 one-elghfeenth of the
public land for the support Of the public
schools. lie comedies THAI between Isz3
upon the approval and adoption OF the
revised statutes OF the United states.
and 1901 this township might have Sc
Iected only 10 acres OF lieu land bat
claims that In 1891 congrsss psrcetvfne
that the law Of iSs was not ia force bv
reason or the commissions In the revision
enacted Law which permitted a town
siilp similar 10 this 20 select $40 acres az
lieu lands. and thas by such act the law
OF 1Sa Vas revived
The point principally relied upon by the
defendant Is that the enabling act for the
admission % Washington as a state into
the Mon Is 70 he taken as the sols
schedule II grants Of public lands for
pubic purposes. II IL argued that the
enabling act hy Implication reueals ali
previous grants or reservations OF the
pueblo domain. This contention Is s1p.
ported hy decision OF Acting Commits
fionef Stone. OF the general Land oaien
VINO held In the Sllas 81 shipley case or
June -, lNa. that the enabling act 70.
peaie1 all previous acts authorizing IN.
selection 81 Indemnity lands In Washing.
Ton ana annulle9 all selections mad
Ifi'r % that date; that the state IL en-.
ited only tn such seieC lions as v-ers
made Ia compliance with the rev,,Is ,to,.
ana grants SCI forth IA said act ana thal
fstec tioas of Indemnity school lands mad.
pFior 10 lAS did not withdraw the la
from entry under tha homestead las
me commissioner also holds that M, IA =
@ 80 aid Rot apply To Washington an
ma tne right OF this state 10 select il,
"fnfal-y Sshoci lands Is xs-s forth oufv A.
TIE law OF ia 50 that .t,~h -S-sss = =
limited 10 cases whcrc the regular 49,.
sections mad been occupied ard taken -,
~ actual settlers prior TO the ftrne ~
survey ."
Ahls decision. y vas shown nv fba sfafe
Vas IN direct conflict wigh ard hat her
oferrnl"1 by several decisions - "a. -
iesafy ~ the Interior. and r. vvse cTsf,,,a5
'3A' ta.a hrlng the casa the r,,natr,,,,fs,-
taFsa the las BY the department sbo,,l-
- followed hy the court The state afs,
Y - tAAf II airy repeal vas enAoted .,
tAe enabling aot. * wsS only a -or.a-,r g.,
lNnl'ca ZION and such implied roneai ~,
Nlliatra ts the enactment of 1sai -.
numerous AZ harities were eitea - ~.
tha' wren The land IN contravsrs,, a..
iFst selected ant the Selection, was -,
proved hF the secretary Of tNa fyt.-t.tr
ne se'aefion became a rrsa-,,, ,i,,, =,
Pc reservation g grant fraf. ths a. =.
INC &FpreFal under the terms ~ sg..,t.,.
f7 ot the Rev iseH Statutes .ra'.s..
state r.Sht to the land ~outs ~, -. =,
Nestea even by subsequent lrrf.latf,,
several either Questions az r,,ir.,- a.
laf,Rhr~ were raised ln tAe a~e,,,.,..-. p.
t2c ease AM - VIII probably .,t. 80
''FFt some tlue 90 cVantne the 49, D.
citations referred 10 ana 80 80.
ieta Mr.. Corjlss tNr gpfrn.1,,t.s .'.'
heFs ana Prosecuting Attorna, W
announce ;hat ira questions Az, =, -.
rofi@nt that the case vii not ars 80.
oe9 decision % the Unstef s,s.ss -,
preine court Jaws 81
ffrc at shelton.
shelton. Anrii * -ce-s-tsf - e..