The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1895-03-22
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
No. 14s-ocroBER TERN, 1894.
March 4. 1881

HOW ueIenuaub III error, Claiming Title
to certain tract by deed from the
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway
Company, brought his action in the
District Court of Allen County, Kan
sas, to recover possession of the land.
Judgment was rendered in his favor
in that court, which judgment was
affirmed by the Supreme Court of the
State, and from that court the case
has been brought here ON a writ of
error
Mr.. Justice Brewer delivered the
opinion of the Court.
The land in controversy is an odd
numbered section, and within the
indemnity limits of the Leavenworth,
Lawrence and Galveston railroad, and
also within the like limits of the Mis-
souri,, Kansas and Texas railway.
The tract was selected, certified to
the State, and by it patented to the
railway company. The selection was
made on August 8, 1872, and approved
April 10, 1872, and the deed from the
State was on May 8, 1873. Within
the decision in Railroad Company VS..
The Attorney General Q1S U. s. 6S2,
the legal title passed to the railway
company. Mary +. Wood, the de-
fendanU, is the widow of G.. b. Wood,
who during his lifetime moved upon
the land with his family, and sought
to enter it as q homestead. But his
occupation and settlement, as appears
from the agreed statement of facts,
commenced on June 8, 1870, and while
this was prior to the selection by the
railroad companies, the land had
years before been withdrawn from
sale or location, presumption or home
stead entries. Two orders of with
drawal were made by the Department
of the Interior-one on March 10, 1867,
for the benefit of the LeavenwOrth,
Lawrence, and Galveston Railroad
Company, and the other on April 30,
1867, for the Missouri, Kansas and
Texas Railway Company. These or
ders of withdrawal were received at
the local land office on April 8, 1867,
and May 10, 1867, respectively. When
Mr.. Wood made application to file
upon the land he was informed that
the land had been withdrawn, and
his application was rejected. If those
Withdrawals were valid, no rights,
legal or equitable, were acquired by
his occupation and settlement.
1t was said in Wolsey VS. Chapman,
QOI U. S. 755, 1851 1.-The proper exc.
cutive department of the government
had determined that, because of
doubts about the extent and opera
ton of that act, nothing should be
done to impair the rights of the State |
above the Raccoon Fork until the diff |
ferences were settled, either by Con-
gress or judicial decision. For that |
purpose an authoritative order was
issued, directing the local land officers |
to withhold all the disputed lands |
from sale. This withdrew the lands |
from private entry, and as we held in |
Riley vs., Wells, was sufficient to de- |
feat a settlement for the purpose of
pre-emption while the order was in
force, Notwithstanding it was after
wards found that the law, by reason
of which this action was taken, did |
not contemplate such withdrawal"
This has been and is the settled |
rule of the courts and the land De-
partments. 1t is only a recognition of
the limitations prescribed i'm the stat
utes, for by Revised Statutes, sec,
225S, Glands included in any reserva-
tion by any treaty, law, or proclama-
ton of the President, for any pur-
pose" are expressly declared to be
not subject to the rights of pre-emp-
ton, and section 22S6, the one giving
the right to enter for a homestead,
limits that right to 'unappropriated
public lands" The fact that the
Withdrawals were made by order of
the Interior Department, and not by
of the President. is i'm
"A proclamation by the President reservinC
lands from sale is his official public announce
ment of an order to that effect No particular
form of such an announcement is necessary. 1t
is sufficient if it has such publicity as accom-
plishes the end to be attained. If the President
himself had signed the order in this case and
sent it to the registers and receivers who were
TO act nnder 1t. as notice to them of what they
were to do in respect to the sales of the public
lands, we cannot doubt that the lands would
have been reserved by proclamation within the
of the statute Such being the case, it
follows necessarily from the decision in Wilcox
VS. Jackson that such an order sent out from
the appropriate executive department in the
regular course of business is the legal equiva-
lent of the Presidents own order to the same
effect 1t was, therefore, we think. such a
by the President reseryIng the
ands from sale as was contemplated by the
act." (Wolsey VS. Chapman, 10l L : 755. 77Ol
These Withdrawals were not merely
executive acts, but the latter one at
east was in obedience to- the direct
of Congress. Section of
he act granting lands to aid in the
of what is now known as
he Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rail-
way IA Stat. 290) is as follows:
sec And be it further enacted. That as
oon as said company shall file with the Secre-
AIRY of the Interior maps of Ofits line, designat-
thereof n M |
aid Secretary to withdraw from the market the
ands granted by this act in such manner as
nay be best calculated to effect the purpose of
his act and subserve the public interest"
The map of the line of definite loea-
ion called for by this section was
lied on December 6, 1866, and the
followed in the succeed
ng spring.
Upon these admitted facts it il clear
hat Mr.. Wood acquired no equitable
lights by his occupation and settle
nent. He went upon lands which =
we're not open to homestead or pre- n
'mptiOn entry, and cannot make his
occupation the founda-
ion of an equitable title. He was not
Icting in ignorance, but was fully in L
ormed both as to the fact and the
aw. He deliberately took the chanc-
s of the railway coDpany's grant
'eing satisfied out of lands within the
lace limits, or by selections of lands
within the indemnity limits other than
his, and trusted that in such event =
his tract would be restored TO the4
ublic domain and he gain some adj \
antage by reason of being already
n the land. But the event he hoped
Or never happened. The party for
those benefit the withdrawal was
lade complied with all the conditions