The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-02-28
LARGE LAND CASE
Hawley and Alger Bring Suit
in the Federal Court.
oeJecTTo HoKE SMITHS ORDER
VIII Test Eleven Other Entries OF SINH
lar Tenor-were the Lands En-
tered for Speculation

A land suit OF unusual interest has been
fled in the Federal court IN this city. the
legal title OF the suit being ''Ravaad X.
Hawlsy and Russell A. Algsr VS.. L. Edgar
DiIler" The suit Is important because of
the prominence OF the parties involved.
Mr. Hawley being one OF the most proni-
nent lumber mea.and one OF the wealthiest
men OF Ohio. while Gen. Alger, whose pa
latiaI residence in Detroit is known all
over the world. and who has more than
once competed for the honor OF Repub-
ucan nomination for president OF the Unit
ed States, is too well known to need furth-
or Identification. II Is also important be-
cause IL Is test suit. representing no
fewer than eleven other cases OF like tenor.
IL has already obtained some degree OF
celebrity from the fact that Its hearing
before the local land Office broke the rec
ord. consuming more than three months
IN the taking OF testimony and depositions.
The story of the case as given IN the
complaint fled with the clerk of the Fed
eral court in this city Is about as follows:
Henry g. Hackley entered a quarter Sec
ton OF land In Skagit county April %, 1885,
paying 500 TO the receiver at Olympia, and
taking out all necessary papers Hackley
afterward sold the land to Stephen s. Bal
ley. 70 whom he gave a warranty deed
When Mr.. Hawley and Gen. .Alger were
making their investments in Northwestern
lands they bought this tract OF Bailey.
Meanwhile the special agent, who has
given SO much trouble with reference to
land claims throughout this section. had
made a report adverse to Hackiey's entry.
and the commissioner OF the general land
Office at Washington City suspended the
entry August .. ISIS. and held IL subject to
cancellation. notifying Hackiey. Bailey,
Hawley and Aiger that they would be al
l.
a hearing to show cause why such entry
should be sustained.
Hawley and Alger first moved for dis
missal. but this motion was denied by the
commissioner: whereupon the case was
consolidated with eleven other similar en-
try cases, and a hearing was had in this
city nearly six years ago. which. as has
already been said. broke the record as to
length OF time consumed. AS a result OF
this hearing the register and receiver here
were divided in their opinions. Under the
rules OF practice obtaining in the land de-
partment, all the papers in the case were
accordingly forwarded to the general land
Office at Washington City. The general
commissioner, after considering the cases
at great length, held that all twelve OF the
entries were perfectly regular and legal
and ordered them removed from suspen-
sion. placed upon the records. and patents
issued therefor.
Prior 10 the issue OF the patents, how
ever. the secretary of the interior ordered
all the papers turned over to his office,
where they slumber,ed for about three
years. or until the expiration OF his term
OF office. Then came the order OF Secre-
tary OF the Interior Hoke Smith. dated Oc-
tober 10. 1888. IN which, after an elabor-
ate review OF the history and circum-
stances OF the case, and of the testimony
of j. Theodore Lohr. the only witness IN
the case, he concluded, while not denying
the right OF a purchaser in good faith TO
sell his land, that the entries m the cases
pending We're made as part of scheme
OF speculation. expressing his conclusion
In the following vigorous fashion.
II have thus stated In detail and at I'M
usual length the evidence relating to the
alleged fraudulent character OF these en-
tries for the purpose of making clear the
ground upon which my conclusion is based
At every point where Mr.. Bailey appears.
the oonveyaaces were made to him very
shortly after the entries were made; he
advanced the money to make most tx not
all Of the entries: he was a hotel keeper;
Lohr was to select the lands. find the per-
sons to make the entries. locate them
thereon, and Bailey was to pay the ex-
pensas; upon the purchase OF the land
Bailey was to receive deed for the tract.
and I4ohr and Bailey were to divide the
profits. All the circumstances satisfy my
mind that this was the arrangement: Lsohr
picks up clerks. bartenders. grocery men,
school teachers lawyers. IN a word, any
body who was willing to make the loca-
ton or be concerned IN IL for a consider
alton. They were mostly young men with
out any permanent abiding place.
at Is very strange indeed, II they en-
tered the lard for their own exclusive use
and benefit that they should have conveyed
it 10 Mr.. Bailey on the same day that the
entries were made. OF within day or
two thereafter, when the evidences shows
that he vas engineering these entries from
the time the parties made the first am
davft until they submitted their fnal
r,roof It Is very plain to my mind that
this was a scheme put up In the first IN
stance by Lohr and Bailey for the ptir-
pose of acquiring title to the land for spec
ulative purposes.
"T,ohr shows by his testimony that these
several entrymen were induced by him TO
make these purchases. he telling them
that he would buy their claims and give
them $50 more than any one else would:
that this promise was made 70 the parties
as an inducenient 20 take his word and
knowledge as TO the quantity and quality
of the timber and that while he does not
remember loansng any OF these eatrymen
money, yet that II is probable he did;
and when he dia so he sometimes took
notes and sometimes trusted to their
honor
by this and other similar testimony he
leaves no doubt in my mind that he pro-
cured these entries to be made purely on
speculation. Entries made In this way and
for this purpose are in violation OF the
spirit and letter of the law: for the appli-
cant 10 purchase is required to make af-
fdsvit that he does not apply TO pur-
chase the same on speculation"
The plaintiffs. who are represented nv
Ienner s. Leeg. OF this city. naturally find
a series of objections 10 the finding Of the
secretary of the interior. whose conclu-
s'ons and argument are Severely reviewed;
chief among the points IN the complaint
being that Hackiey perfected his original
entry, and that no part OF the entry fee
has ever been refunded to him. and that
the secretary has erred in his eonstruc-
ton Of the law.
Diler becomes a defendant IN the case
through having entered the same land last
October. Under permission from the land
commissioner and the land receiver in
this city