The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-14
CHICAGO LIKE FRONT CASE
INVOLVING FROM TWENTY-FIVE TO
FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS,
To BE Heard Over Again Because LAM
cisiOn Before 1t Was Promulgated.
peclal to ,he indianapolis Journal.

| by Secretary Bliss annulling a queer de-
| cision by General Land Commissioner La
| moreaux in the Mckee scrip case, wherein
| he held for the applicants and placed
| cloud on the title to about 2t5 acres or
| choice Chicago real estate, worth from
| 100000 to 100000 an acre, or between s2o,-
600 900 and $50000,0O0. The commissioner
| proceedings were grossly irregular as to
| call for a terrific arraignment by his su-
| peror, the secretary of the interior, in
which fraud is all but openly charged This
| is the case in which Harvey NJ. La Toilette
former superintendent of public instruction
| for Indiana, is interested as one of the APP
! plicants and as partner in the scrip own
| ership Neither La Toilette nor his coun-
| sel Messrs. Dudley & Mlchener are
| charged with Irregularities, but the govern
ment official who first passed on the case
stands indicted by Secretary Bliss with i'm
proper official conduct and scandalous ir-
regularities. The land scrip case is set for
| a hearing April 5.
Judge Lamoreux left the national capital a
| week or more before the change of admin
| istration, the statement being made that he
| was in a critical condition from nervous, ex-
| haustion, and before he departed he ten
dered his resignation to the President. In
view of to-day's developments it may be
| the order, Ito the commissioner of the Gen.
eral Land Office" canceling the proceed
ings. signed by the secretary this morning,
| follows:
| "Sir-It having been made known to me
that there is in your office what purports
| to be an opinion signed in the matter OF the
application of Matthias Benner and Harvey
NJ. La Toilette to locate Mckee scrip on
| what is known the lake front of Chi
cago and that a copy of said paper has
4 haar oil fO n no n
controversy before its rendition and pro-
mitigation, In fiagrant disregard of right
and justice, and in violation of the express
order of my predecessor, and the usual and
just rules of procedure now, therefore, in
the exercise Of the discretion and authority
order rehearing of such application at
such time as you may designate, not later
to immediateiy notify ali parties in interest
of this order anf me time fixed for the
hearing. All orders and acts OF your de-
partment heretofore made done in the
matter OF such application are hereby re-
scinded vacated and annulled, TO the end
said said msy e DC 6enn DE
the parties"
REVERSED HIS OWN DECISION
The decision formulated and promulgated
by Commissioner Lamoreux, and which
resulted in to-day's scathing rebuke, IL is
said at the department, is directly contrary
| to a decision rendered by him on Aug 81
last, involving the same lands and identical
except as 10 parties with the present case.
This decision was rendered on an applica-
ton by Martin M. Cooney and others to To-
cate Mckee script on identically the same
ground and, it is said, under the same cir
cumstances as the present case. The appli-
cation of Cooney ct al. was rejected. while
the application of Harvey NJ. La Toilette
| and Matthias Benner was allowed by COM
missioner Lamoreux in the decision which
has been repudiated by Secretary Bliss to-
day The department to-day made the fol-
lowing official statement of the matter:
"On the 22d day OF February Secretary
Francis directed that judgment In the case
be suspended until the further order Of his
| lished. The secretary was thereafter in
| formed that no decision had been rendered;
| none was found in the proper Office or the
| Land Department: none appears in the
| letter press book where all decisions are
required to be copied pr11p 70 pd th
. ant attorney general asking Commissioner
Lamoreux if he had given out a copy of
| when, and TO whom. Mr.. Lamoreux re-
| piled:
| had a number of copies made the same day
| TO be given to the press on the 23d, which
date had announced that the decision
| would be promulgated. One of the copies
on the 10Th l gave to a party with permits
sion for him to use it after the decision
should be promulgated. but in no case to
be used until promulgation. This was done
on the goth. ON the 22d the secretary sus-
| pended PRONUNCIATION.
Although il does not appear to whom
the copy was given. yet as Mr.. LamoreuX
did not disclose the name of the person. al.
though requested TO do so, and reported
5 | merely that he gave ii TO a party ii is tC
| be presumed that such party was with
out interest in the controversy. Moreover
| before this department was advised that
any decision had been signed. counsel for
the scrip holders requested that such ar
: opinion be promulgated. knowledge OF the
opinion is therefore traceable TO them
| The improperly of giving out a copy of ar
unrendered unpromulgated decision to one
of the parties to a controversy in advance
| of the day set for its formal announcement
is too obvious to require comment. Mr.
p Lamoreux states that he gave copy TO "a
| appointed by himself fer its PRONUNCIATION
| in the usual and proper way. Neither
faith nor credit can attach to an opinion
| under such circumstances. Since il was
| never properly filed, IL was deemed best tC
disregard it and direct new trial. Thi:
The law which justifies the action of tn,
department may be found in the statute:
| of the United States and the decision of II:
subject. Knight vs.. Land Association. i!
found in 142 r. s.. Page Us. wherein Mr.
= ing the whole business OF the department
y under the supervision OF the secretary in
vest him with authority TO review. reverse
amend. annul affirm all proceedings il
the departmeM having for their ultimate
object 10 secure the alienation of any por
tion of the public lands, the adjustmen
!. OF private claims TO lands, with a just re
gard 10 the rights of the public and o
private parties. Such supervision may b
exercised by direct orders or by review OF
appeals When proceedings affecting title
TO land are before the department tn
power of supervision may be exercised b!
The secretary. whether these proceeding
> are called TO his attention by formal notic
= or by appeal. The rules prescribed are de
signed 10 facilitate the department in tn
dispatch OF business not TO defeat the su
pervision of the secretary.
CASE OF COUNTY EFT AL.
C The decision Of Commissioner Lamoreau,
in the Cooney was rendered Aug. 3
| last. and in il he said. addressing Messrs
j Dudley K Michener. Washington
"Gentlemen-T am in receipt of your lette
of July 10, 1896 wherein you inclose an ap
plication. with ACCOMMODATING papers. b
! Martin NJ. Cooney ct al. TO locate McKe
| scrip Nos &c, 2-D, 3-B and &C for "A trae
of land on the Chicago lake front. Illinois
adjacent 10 that included In the patent Is
p | sued in 1887 10 Robert Isinzie, and in vie,
OF the magnitude OF the case You ask Del