The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-08

| those persons who had settled or resided
upon lands with a bona-fide intention of
securing title by purchase from the rail
road company.
The question at issue in all these dis
putes has been over the Interpretation of
the word license. In the case of Wiseman
VS.. Eastman the Secretary of the Interior
decided that q claimant must have a
license from the railroad company issued
prior to January /, 1888, the date called for
by the forfeiture act, and that the license
must consist of an application to the rail-
road company for the privilege OF buying
the land and an acknowledgment of its
receipt from the railroad company in an
swer to its application.
In the case of Moone VS.. Mcguire Secre-
tary Hoke Smith decided last June that if
that license were made at any time previ-
Gus to the passage of the forfeiture act.
September %, 1890, 1t was good, and under
that decision many entries were paid for
in the Land Office and the parties have
been expecting patents ever since.
Now the Secretary has reversed his own
decision, and he holds that no possession,
unless the party was an actual resident,
without the license from the railroad COM
pany prior to 1888, can constitute a COM
pliance with the act.
The attorneys for Moone have always
contended that the act of the railroad COM
pany in inviting settlers through their cir
culars issued in 1887 to go upon the lands
and cultivate them, and telling them that
when the railroad company came to sell
the lands they would be given the prefer
ence constituted a license, and that a
party who went on the land relying upon
those printed circulars, intending to buy
of the railroad company, were there by
license of the company.
The Supreme Court of this State has rem
dered decision on this point in the case
of the Southern Pacific Company vs.
Terry, holding that Terry's going on the
land under the very circum stances stated
constituted contract of sale, and that the
railroad had to give him title.
William A. Stuart, attorney for Moone,
said yesterday when shown the dispatch
from Washington: II cannot see how the
Secretary can have come to this decision.
Under 1t now only those can hold, their
lands who sent in written applications
previous to 1888, and those who have actu-
ally resided on the land all the time. A
large number of tracts have been entered
under this forfeiture act which now, unless
already patented, will under this decision
probably be held for cancellation, and the
money returned by the Government. The
decision involves many thousands of
acres, and in many cases will work great
hardships. Take the case of Moone, for
instance. 1t will probably ruin him
financially. He paid $1,000 for a possessory
County.
"Those who will gain are the home
steaders who have gone in since the passage
of the forfeiture act, taking their chances.
They will throw out many men who have
held their land for years and spent money
on it by improving it, cultivating it and
building on it.
"The decision is not an equitable one.
although it may be a strictly legal con-
struction of the law
M. d. Hyde of counsel for Moone was
surprised at the report of the decision and
said that he believed that there must be
some mistake.
| 81 think" he said. that it will turn out