Evening star., 1897-02-26
PERRiNE LAND CLAIM
The Senate Investigating Oommittss Lis
tened to Arguments Last Hight.
Claima' Of the Settlers and Thsse, OF
the Heirs Presentei-Mr. Ffil-
mans Statement. <tss

The Senate committee on public lands met
last night to hear arguments of counsel in
the investigation of the Perrine land grant
in Dade county, Florida c. W. Holcomb
appeared for the heirs to the grant. and
Messrs. Brookshire and Trevitt for the set
tiers, MI Lionberger. assistant attorney
general, being present in the interest of
the Interior Departments
Mr. Brookshire spoke first. He argued
that the Perrines had failed to comply
with the conditions specified in the act
making the grant in the time specified, and
had. therefore, forfeited all right to the
land, quoting extensively from the cases
under the Oregon donation act in support
of this claim. The material thing in any
grant of the character of this was, he said,
that all the conditions subsequent must be
compiled with. The only condition in this
case was that requiring that the lands
should be located within two years after
the passage Of the adt. 1t was safe to say
that for more than thirty years the United
States could have properly declared the
lands forfeited. The ISSUANCE Of the patent
could only be Justified on the theory that
the land department had a right to waive
any Of the conditions, a position that could
not be defended. ,-=ss
Mr.. L-fonberger said that the Interior De-
partment had been guided by the principles
announced in the Schulenberg case, In
Wn1Cn IL was neIQ tnat II was not neCeSSdTy
to comply with all the conditions to prevent
the reversal of the land of a grant to the
United States.
He said that a different course would
have resulted in the forfeiture of at least a
portion of the lands of the grants OF all
The land grant roads. He admitted that a
strict compliance with the conditions OF
the law would have forfeited the Perrine
grant after 1850. But in the Schulenberg
case it was held that where Congress did
not revoke grants once made they could not
be forfeited. This decision was by the Su-
preme Court of the United States, and 1t
was paramount authority In the Interior
Department. To refuse to issue the patent
would have been to assume greater wisdom
than the Supreme Court, and than all the
present officials in that office; The facts as
to settlement were established beyond
doubt, and without controversy as to the
facts.
He said that the settlers had appealed to
the department to revoke the patent simply
to compel the Perrines to give them more
land than they would get under their hrst
contract. which was contrary to the de-
partment practice. ,..--. -.
. Senator Tillman called attention to the
fact that the improvements on the lands
made only two months before the depart
ment had acted OH the matter, and he as
serted that there had never before been
such railroading of business in that Du-
reau. He added that he had received aff-
davits that many Of the trees set out mad
Since died. MIR. Tillman said he had no
attack to make on the good faith OF the de-
partment but that the only object of the
investigation was to determine whether the
department had been imposed upon. If
Perrine was getting the land. instead of
F'lagler, he said he would put shoulder
to the wheel
Mr.. Lionberger declared that the grant
was not expedited in any way by himself
or the Secretary, and that he had lever
heard of the case until 1t came to his
desk: nothing unusual had been thought Of
it until the intimation was made that the
beneficiary was somebody's relative" He
also asserted that the Secretary had not
heard of the case until ne had presented
the papers to him.
Mr.. Holcomb contended that -he railroad
company and the Perrines and the settlers
under them had acted in good faith.
After hearing the arguments the. commit
tee went into executive session. At the
adjournment Senator Tillman said, :he COM
mittee had decided not to make aEy recon-
mendatit n IN the matter. but would simply
report to the Senate the facts in the case
just as they found them. This he. said,
would show that there had been some
mug juggery'' and a very rapid way of
issuing grants up at the land Office.