The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-27
LamOreux's Secret Ruling in Favor of
the Ex-Indianian Reversed by the
General Land Office.
MILLIONS WERE At STAKE
16S ACRES OF CHICAGO LAKE FRONT
PROPERTY INVOLVED.
Holders of Titles Under the Kinzie
Grant Confirmed in Their Rights
Trial of II. o. Havemeyer.
Special to the indianapolis journal.

Special to the Indis napols Journal.
WASHINGTON, May 26.-Harvey D. La
Toilette, Indiana's former superintendent
of public instruction, not present in
person or by attorney this afternoon when
General Land Commissioner Binger Her.
mann knocked his pretensions to 16S acres
of Chicago lake front real estate, worth
GOO to $30,000000 into a cooked hat.
La Toilette had expected an adverse de-
cision in this office and will appeal to the
secretary of the interior and from him to
the Supreme Court. Meantime he will press
his case in the federal courts at Chicago
for the land. The commissioner decision
revokes every act of his predecessor,
LamoreuX in the Mckee scrip case in
Guiding a questionable survey of the con-
troVerted land In this contention
Professor La Toilette seems to be
up against a stone wall. The decision
allows the patent rendered to Robert A.
Kinzie in 1921 to stand for the benefit of
the grantees. The commissioner holds that
the Kinzie patent applies to all lands in
= tract stretching to the shore line; that
the accretions inure to the benefit of those
who hold under the KinZe patent, and,
thirdly that there was ample justification
for directing and holding a rehearing. The
decision involves many millions of dollars
worth of property along the shore front of
Chicago and is the most stubbornly con-
tested case that has been before the de-
partment for years. 1t will be appealed
Immediately to the secretary of the interior,
which decision, however, in any event. will
not be final as the case will be carried
through the courts, it already having been
begun in the courts in Illinois.
Mr.. Hermann's decision is a long one
and is technically described as involving
title to land alleged to be opposite Section
10, Township 80 north, Range IA east, SO M,
Illinois. The decision holds that no consid-
Grafton is deemed necessary to the pro-
tests of Peter T. Johnson, in which he asks
permission to renew his former application
to make homestead entry, and also to file
valentine scrip in case the Mckee scrip
owners were sustained. The same disposal
is made Of the protest of George w. Street
er who asserts claim in himself under
his application to locate military bounty
land warrant, and also to make homestead
| entry on portion of the land involved
and who asks that he be allowed TO inter-
vene and to renew his said application IN
lands to be subject to disposal by the
United States. The appearance of w. II.
| Cox in this case and the arguments sub
mitted in his behalf are not referred to in
this considerations as as it is ya fSa tne o
| an amicus curiae in these proceedings.
THE LAND AT STAKE.
The decision says: THE land applied for
is within the city limits of Chicago, and
has been subdivided into blocks, lots,
streets and alleys. Private persons and
corporations claim and occupy this prop
erty. For over forty years much of this
| occupancy has continued, and extensive and
valuable improvements are upon the land.
portion is occupied by the Michigan, the
Chicago 6, Northwestern Railroad, the
docks and shores of the Chicago DOCK and
| Canal Company, and the United states
pier and the protestants claim the United
States lighthouse to be on it also. Inc
! land also embraces brick and wooden build
| ings of great value, used for residence, puSI-
| ness and manufacturing purposes ana one
of the parties protesting and contesthg the
application of the scrip owners IS the state
| Of Illinois through the commissioners OF
Lincoln Park in Chicago, who appear as
| the agents of the State. "A portion or thls
park, which stretches along the shore OF
lake Michigan, with connecting pouleVdrus
| and driveways, is involved.
The first official survey made Oh 1oWH-
ship 80 by the land department OF Ine Ine
United States was on June ~, ISL ms ms
distinctly i9eatesf IS tba afT fTactiona Section 10
north of the Chicago river and the Chlcago
river to be its southern boundary, Wnlle M 599 tn4
and north The river is represented as
flowing out in nearly direct line east INTO
the lake On May Z, 1881, Robert A. Alnzle
made pre-emption cash entry for the 10, lot
! on north fraction of section NO. 10 OF the
township, containing 1O2 acres on Iie March
9, 1897, patent issued for said entry; descr1p-
| ing the land distinctly. The official plat eX-
| hibits the water line of Lake Michigan ana
the Chicago river as marking the pounuary
| of said lands, respectively, on the east ana
the south, at the time of the survey Among
the entry papers of Robert A. Kinzie is
found an affidavit by him dated June 10,
| 1886 showing cultivation of and residence
upon the land embraced In his entry, ana
boundary thereof From evidence on file
the conclusion is irresistible that the north
pier has been the cause of some of the addi-
| tion made and now found to be a part of
the mainland and of the land in contro-
versy In 1891 parties under contract with
| the Lincoln Park commissioners hlled III on
the bed of the lake a large body OF land adj
joining the land lying east OF the survey
line of 1921 ana the addition as formed. such
filling in has continued to such an extent
that there now exists opposite said east line
of survey 1922 acres of land.
THE TERM "MEANDER.'
1.-THE scrip owners contend that Kinzie's
| eastern boundary was the survey line run
| west of the shore line, and that at the time
of patent there remained vacant and un-
appropriated over sixty acres between these
two lines, and that Kinzies entry did not
touch the waters OF Lake Michigan at any
point; that the land of the first survey has
constantly increased by accretion to the eX-
tent of 100 acres, all of which is vacant pub
lie domain of the United States. A care
full examination fails to sustain this conten-
=
line run from one corner to another follow
| ing the water course as near as many be to
define the stream or lake by boundary lines
| or, as the manual states, taking the gem
eral courses and distances of their sinuosi-
ties Section 10 is described fractional
| What made it fractional? Most assuredly
! the lake shore-the water line of the great
| lake. The bank alone did not make it frac-
| tional. Observations from authorities eX-
| amined being in accordance with my find
/ ings of fact, and with the law applicable
| thereto / must hold that the patent TO Roo
| ert A Kinzie conveyed to him all the land
| to the waters of Lake Michigan as the
shore line existed at the time of his entry
| and purchase, and decide accordingly.
| ''As TO any land which may have formed
| after the entry and date of patent. it must
| be held that such Injured to the owner of
the mainland. since the title by patent re-
| lated back and took effect from his entry 1t
is immaterial 10 consider the rights between
those who claim through the original ri
! parian owner in this case TO lands
! formed by accTetion since the KinZie entry
! and the claimants who darraign title from
the State of Illinois, and who are also par
| ties 10 this hearing, since il is the province
! of this Office al this time 70 cOnfine it's at
| tention To the question whether the land in
! dispute is vacant, unappropriated public
. land of the United States and subject 10 en-
! try Having found that such lands are not