The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1897-12-16
WHAT MORRIS SECURED.
Full Text of the Secretary's Decision in
Mile Laos Matter.

:.
Full Text of the secretary's Decision in
Mile Laos Matter.
The decision of the land department.,
which was noted in these columns last
read with interest by those interested
in Mile Laos county. In connection
with this the following letter was re-
ceived by l.. S. Briggs which shows
that Congressman Morris is doing all
he can for the settlers:
L. S. Briggs, Esq:-I wrote you sew
eral days ago in reference to the Mile
Laos reservation situation, and now
enclose to you copy of the decision in
the case of which I spoke. This de-
cision clears up the matter for large
number of settlers, possibly the greater
ma ority of them, and as to the others
you may be assured that I will do
whatever I can for them. Senator
Davis is also thoroughly in sympathy
with them in this matter and will
render every assistance in his power.
] intend to go over the matter with
him very fully in a few days. and we
will then determine what had best be
done if auy further legislation is neces-
sary. Yours very truly,
PAGE NORRIS.
son February, 1891, Harvey M. Ben
nett made homestead entry No. 1869
(TaylOrs Falls series) for the tract Of
land described as lots l, 2, 3 and the
net of the SET of Sec s, T. AZ NJ, r. rs
w., now in the St. Cloud, Minnesota,
land district and on April l, 1896, final
certificate No. 1861 was issued to him
for said tract. On August Is, 1896,
your office decided that Bennett must
pay for the land at the rate of one dol
lar and twenty-five cents per acre, un-
der the provision of the sixth section
of the act of January Il, 1889 Us Stat,
642), and held his entry for cancella-
ton, subject to payment as required,
or to appeal, within sixty days from
notice. He has duly appealed from
said decision, contending that under
the joint resolution of December 10,
1893, rs Stat, 576), he is relieved from
the payment required by your Office.
'The LAID in question is within what
was formerly known as the Mile Laos
Indian reservation. In the case of
David H. Robbins 40 L. D., 81 and
Amanda j. Walters ct al. III L. D., 52),
the history of legislative and depart
mental action, concerning the lands in
said reservation and other lands of the
Va'i 'us bands of Chippewa Indians in
Mimi sofa, is quite fully set forth,
commencing with the treaty of Feb
ruary -, 1855 10 Stat, 1861. 1t is
only necessary, however for purposes
OF the present case, to consider such |
action affecting the Mile Laos lands |
as is Of paratively recent date. |
Provision for the disposal of these
lands was made by the act of January |
II, 1888, supra. BY section six of this
act the surveyed agricultural lands
on said reservation, mot allotted I'M
der this act nor reserved for the future
use Of said Indians,' were made sub
ject to disposal by this United States to
actual settlers only under the pro-
visions Of the homestead law: Pro |
vided, That each settler under and in
accordance with the provisions of said |
homestead laws shall pay to the United
States for the land so ia ken by him the
sum Of one dollar and twenty-five cents
for each and every acre, in five equal
annual payments, and shall be entitled
to a patent therefor only at the ex-
piration of five years from the date of
entry, according to said homestead
laws, and after the full payment OF
said one dollar and twenty-five cents
per acre therefor, and due proof of oc-
cupancy for said period of five years. !
THAT section contains also certain
other provisions, but they are not per-
tinent to this case.
'Under the decision of the depart
ment in the case of Amanda J. Walters
ct al, supra, dated January 8, 1891, and
departmental letter Of January Fl,
1891 (unreported). which, together
held in effect that the Mile Laos
lands we're not in a state of reservation
at the date of the passage of the act of
January 8, 1891, and were therefore
not within it's provisions and should
be disposed of as other public lands
under the general laws both pre-
emption and homestead entries for
these lands were allowed by the local
land office (then at Taylors Falls, Min
nesota, upon the same conditions and
subject to the same requirements, only,
in every respect, as were contained in
the general presumption and homestead
laws, on and after the receipt by the
local land Office, February 3, 1891, OF
the said departmental letter. Suisse
quently, however, by departmental let
ter of April %, 1892, IA L. D., 1917,
your office was instructed that these
lands were not subject to disposal un,
der the general laws, but under the