The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-04-15
SOME LAND QUESTIONS.
THEY HAVE ARISEN TO vEx
THE BOARD.
Answered by Attorney General
Bishop-Applications For School
Lands.

When the state board of land commits
sioners was in session some days ago
several complicated questions arose. and
the attorney general was requested to
reply to the following:
F'irst-Whether or not, inasmuch as I'M
der section II of the land law granting
all settlers claiming a preference right
until July l. 1897, within which to make
their applications. this board can finally
pass on any applications and dispose of
any school lands until after expiration
of time above mentioned.
-Second-What would be the status of an
applicant who had applied for school
land under q preference right and who
was, at the time of the application, or on
January /. 1874 the owner OF more than
100 acres OF land. The land for which
he applied also having been applied Tor
by another settler.
transmitted TO the board an opinion
covering both queries, and therein says:
As to your first inquiry l am of the
opinion that the board IS not legally pro-
hibited from passing upon pending aDDii-
cations before the expiration of the time
in which applications for preference
rights are to be made. Should the board
decide TO do SO, however, and award a9-
plicant the right to purchase land under
a preference right application, and after
ward. and before the LIST of July. 1897,
another person should make application
for the same land. and should clearly es-
tablish to the board that he was en-
titled thereto 2S against the IrSl dD-
plcant. the former action of the board
would have to be set aside and the certi-
ficate of sale annulled. This would I'M
dOubtedly result in complications and per-
hapS litigation which should be avoided.
About the only way to avoid such cOmpii-
cations would be for the board, if it has
the legal right to do SO. to postpone final
consideration of these matters until
after the limitation has expired in which
such applications should be made. to-
wit: July l. 1897. That the board has the
no x-a1-f tn. HaFn M 7
think there can be no question. and it
undoubtedly would be the safer course to
pursue in the premises
Under your second query, I assume
that the applicant referred to is one
who has made application for the pur-
chase of school lands under the law of
1896. and who at the time of making his
application. and on January fst. 1894 was
the owner of more than 100 acres of land
The question being, whether the appli-
cation made under the old law which was
clearly Objectionable because of the fact
that the applicant was the owner Of
more than $50 acres could now be taken
up and considered by the board by reason
of the fact that the limitation had been
increased so that the entire holding. in
GLIDING that applied for, should not ex-
coed 80 acres
1.-THE application as it stood. under the
Old law of 1896 would abstractly speak
ing. be vulnerable to the technical OBJ
lection that the party at that time owned
more than one hundred and sixty acres OF
land and strictly construed. might be
held to be insufficient on this ground
There is no legal reason. however, why
the same application could not be relied
under the law of 1897. and if it appeared
to the board upon the hearing thereof.
that the party on January 1. 1894 or at
the time of making said application was
not the owner of more than $50 acres Of
land including the land applied for: that
he was an actual and bona fide settler
or occupant thereon: that he had i'm
proved the land in question: and that he
was on January l. 1894 an actual settler
or occupant thereon. he would be entitled.
under such application to purchase said
land The fact that the same land had
also been applied for by another settler
would not change the rule above stated.
inasmuch as there can be but one actual
and bona fde settler on the same tract
of land as provided by law. And it would
therefore follow that there could be no
other settler upon such land who would
be able to bring himself within the pro-
visions OF the law relating 10 settlement
and improvement so as to entitle him to
the preference right to purchase the
same.
THE right of one party to purchase the
land in question depends wholly upon the
strength of his own proof to bring him
within the provisions of the law, and not
upon the weakness or lack of strength of
another whose application covers the
same land. Therefore if more than one
person applies to purchase the same tract
of land, it clearly follows. that upon the
hearing of their applications the board
must determine as between them and
accord the right to purchase to one OF
them only.
There are two ways in which such APP
plications might be treated by the board
First: To notify all persons having
made such applications. as would, under
the law of 1885, be vulnerable TO the OBJ
iectiCns above set out. to ask leave OF
the board to refile them under the law
of 1897.
Second: I am of opinion that the
board possesses the power to regulate the
whole matter by the adoption of a rule
or resolution spread upon its records by
which it would consider all such applica-
lions as having been relied since the
taking effect of the law of 1897. Such q
rule of the board properly adopted ana
spread upon its minutes would have the
same effect as refiling of each appilca-
ton by the parties thereto and would
be preferable to the first inasmuch as II
would simplify matters and save. 10 the
board a very great amount of labor ana
expense in ascertaining just what appii-
cations would come within the rule. anu
the notifying of such applicants TO reHie
the same within the limitation OF unae
prescribed by law