The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-03-11
Washes Qrticl> 49,.
EMERALD
SOAP.
&c Bar- Washes Clean

tries and presumption claims referred to
In the letter Of the assistant commissioner
Of May ls. 1856 me; The SAM fate and the
inference is fairly de5uciole that the deci-
sion as TO each of the snsyies involved
vas affected BY testimony shs.wn 10 have
been exforted by threats Of erir7inal gro
secu..o1s, and promises Of imns9aiiy in
consideration Of testimony sausfacratY 10
the agent.
And II is further shown by the uncoa-
trEdieSei evidence that the taking Of tesli-
moay Before The register and receiver Of
the land office was continued during a
p' Rod OF about SIX weeks. and that during
that period. Indictments we're obtained in
ths district court Of the second judicial
district of Washington territory. holding
terms al Tacoma. against Orlando \.
Thompson. for perjury. ard against Them
as ID. stinson, Hugh Park and Orlando
A. THOMPSON. for un.awfully conspir.ng
together 10 dsfraud the United Sta IS
which indictments were founded in part
upon testimony of persons who had been
threatened with prosecution in the above
letter from the assistant commissioner Of
the general Lana Office and who were, pre-
vious to testlfying before the grand jury.
informed OF the contents of said letter ~
the same agent of the general land Office
demurrer TO the Indictment for perjury
was sustained by the court. and the con-
spiracy case was dismissed on motion of
the United States attorney. in compliance
With 4 letter from the attorney general Of
the United States. dster March 5, 1879. re-
citing that the secretary OF the interior
states that be sees no reason for the main
Nrance of criminal proceedings against
Stinson and Park
THE testimony and the record in his
case fails 10 disclose any foundation what
ever for the original attack upon the val
idity of the several entries referred 10 on
the ground that the same were made in the
interest OF the Muskegan Mill Company.
The complainant does not deraign title
through that firm or corporation, and there
Is no ground for an inference that the
complainant or its grantors were at any
time connected with safl company. What
ever may have been the motive Of the Ct
ficers and agents of the land depart ment,
the methods resoTted 10 for the purpose
OF obtaining the evidence upon which they
assumed to cancel the entries and conhs-
cate the money paid by the several entry
men. was unlawful, and the same cons.i-
tuted actual and legal fraud, sufficient 10
vitiate the entire transaction. The deci-
sions Of the land department as to ques-
tons OF fact affecting rights claimed IN
der the public land laws are not necessarily
conclusive. In all the numerous cases
which have been aajudged. the principle
is recognized that. decisions obtained by
"
be held by the courts to bind the parties
against whom such attempts TO defraud
may have been made. United States VS..
Minor. ia L. s. 233-2ii
THE Defendants claim to the land was
not initiated by an application TO contest
Smiths entry. but had rs inception after
the consummat{on Of the proceedings 10
cancel said entry. The case in the land
department must, therefore, be regarded
one 10 determine questions affecting
q suspended entry, of the character con-
templated by Sec. 2.i50. r. S. Such cases
are not left by the law to be finally deter
mined by the land department under the
general provisions of the statute. giving
to the secretary of the interior and the
commissioner of the general land Office
control of the administration OF the public
land business. and vesung those officers
with the powers of a specified tribunal to
determine disputed questions of fact On
the contrary. the law reqaiires eases of sns-
pended entries 10 be tried according TO the
principles of equity. and under definite
rules of procedure to be prescribed and
constitutes a different special tribunal, in
vested with power TO adjudicate in such
cases. Sec. 2.id r. S. reads as follows:
Every such adjudication shall be approx
ed by ~ secretary of the interior and the
attorney general. acting as a board; and
shall operate only 10 diyest the United
States of the title of the lands embraced
thereby. without prejudice to the rights
Of conflicting claimants.
The case Of Pierce VS.. Frace, ISL U. s.
372-3S6, cited AMI relied upon by counsel
for the defendant. appears from the state
ment OF fact 10 the report TO have been
contested between rival claimants IN the
land office, and IN that respect differs
from the case at bar. Which difference
perhaps accounts for the failure of the SUI
al ffa
decision. wherein the authorities and the
statutes relating to the organization ana
mower Of the general land office are re-
ferred to and reviewed at considerable
length Whether that is so or not, the
sections above quoted are upon the stat
ute book and no decision has been callet
10 n attention which seems TO afford
any ground for denying the force there
or nor the applicability thereof 10 the
facts Of this case. The argument OF the
defendant or this point, seems 10 ne con-
fined to a mere assertion that because no
preceding case has been cited IN which
effect has been given TO this law, and be-
cause the courts have many times decid-
ed that the secretary OF the interior and the
commissioner OF the general land office
have the power to cancel entries of public
land allowed by the local land officers.
therefore. this court should ignore Sees.
: sal in this case. I am not impressed
with the sOuuGuesS II this argument. al
though II must 10 admitted that the fail
IRE Of the courts hitherto TO notice SECS
2.l5n-1 except IN the one case or Foley vs.
Harrison Is How 4s3. does seem strange.
As the decision against the validity OF
Smiths entry has not been approved nv
the secretary Of the interior and the at
tornev general. acting as board. II can
not he regarded as a lawful decision nor
effective 70 deprive Smith ard MS ven
dees 81 the right 70 have patent for the
land. as provided nv the statute under
which the entry was made.
Tho complainant 10 obtain relief as
prayed = the t.ll. must show a good right.
af.irmativelv derived lawfully from one
who hal acquired a complete vested right
- the Land IN accordance with the pro
visions ~ fha law under which his entry
and purchase from the government was
n,sie. puget Nh Company vs Brown. "A
Eel Ren. ~. $ = "a Fol Rep. 3. The
necessary facts have been established in
this case by the averments Of the hll,
ra,- crrfr>yer..-f bv she answer ami ny evi-
aenea fully sustaining the alterations