The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-09-24

the defendant answered denying the asts-
cations cf the complaint affecting him
pHd the cause proceeded - trial Juase
Hanfori held that there was no fraud.
that Hawley and AIger we're purchasers
in good faith and that the secretary OF
the interior bad 70 power 70 review the
decision q the commissioner. only as
nsenber OF the BOARD ~ equitable aa3udi-
eaton. consisting ~ himself. the com
missioner OF the general land Office and
the attorney general
This board was created by an act q
congress Of August g. 1Ss5- This act ex-
tended for q period Of two years. MAS
re-enacted IN 1Es and was incorporated
in the revision Of the United States sta
tues Of ISIS aud known there as sections
:, - 70 2f5T, inclusive.
OILERS Appeal.
Dille- appealed from the decision Of the
circuit court TO the court Of appeals at
San Francisco. alleging that the court
erred n holding that the secretary az the
interior had no authority 70 reverse the
decision Of the commissioner and that
Hawley and AlSer were purchasers n
good faith and that there was 10 fraud
n the original entry of Hackley-
ReverseS nanford.
The cause was argued before the Uni-
ted States circuit court Of appeals Octo-
Der 30. 1Se6. before Circuit Judges Gilbert
and Ross and District Judge Hawley. On
June g Iss7, the court. through Hawley
Judge. rendered decision reversing the
decision Of Judge Hanford- The opinion
was published September : and reach
ed Seattle few days ago. II says IN
part;
Did the land department have juEisdie-
III n 10 cancel the entry o. Henry y. hack
ley? This question must oe answered IN
the affirmative In Mortgage Company NS.
Hopper the court had occasion % examine
many OF the eases cited IN this case. he
principles there announced are fGiiy Sus-
tanned ~ the decision Of the supreme coaFt
in the case OF Orchard vs.. Alexander,
where the court held that the commission
er of the general land oiTlce may direct
the proper local land officer 70 hear and
pass upon Charges Of fraud, and the anal
proof u The presumption claim. upon wAIch
the requisite cash entry has Dsen made,
and has Jurisdiction 10 review the 1Udg-
ment Of the local land officer n respect
thereof: and the secretary or the interior
has jurisdiction 20 review such Judgment
OF the commissioner and 10 order sueh an
esied. -
( 1T Is argued upon behalf OF appellees
thai the decision Of the secretary OF the IN
terror ordering the cancellation Of the en-
try Is null and void This contention -
sought TO be maintained upon the ground
that sections ?. 80 ard 2, 45i OF the Revised
Statutes, require the adjudication 10 De
made by board consisting OF the secre-
tary OF the Interior. attorney general anu
commissioner Of the general land offic
Without a determination by the board the
secretary Of the interior could not lawfully
cancel the entry. We are Of opinion that
7 the views cOhtended for by the appelees
/ cannot be sustained. No authorities are
cited 10 support their contention, and We
apprehend that none can nc found except
( the opinion rendered by the circuit court
( in this case and the one rendered BY the
same court in Land Company ". HOLSTER.
THE next question for consideration -
whether or not the appelle5s were inne-
cent purchasers for value. and are entitled
as such 10 be protected. NOTWITHSTANDING
the fraud. IL any. commit ted by the entry
men. The certificate or receipt which
Hackley received from the land office in
land in controversy. BY this purchase he
obtained the right 20 A patent 10 the land,
provided his acts were in all respects Sucn
as under the law justified the issuance oI
( a patent 10 him. His purchase of the land
7 was necessarily subject to the rules and
I regulations of the land department. II was
subject 10 the control or the commissioner
/ OF the general land office. The decisions
4 Of the local land office and of the commits
sioner were liable TO be reversed by the
| action of the secretary of the interior.
This being true. Il logically follows that
when Bailey took the deed from HackleY
: and when the appellees took the deed from
! Bailey they only acquired A title TO the
( land which was subject 10 the nnai action
of the land department, and 10 such steps
and proceedings as might thereafter be had
! in the courts TO affirm. modify or annul
! the final decision Of the officers OF the land
! department thereto. Having purchased
/ the land before the issuance OF patent,
/ while the government still held the legal
| title, they obtained only an equitable title
and are not entitled 10 protection as bona
/ fide purchasers.
FINALLY. it IS argued on behalf Of appel
| lees that the decision of the secretary OF
! the interior canceling the entry of Hack
| ley was solely the result OF his misCon-
! struclon. n1isinterpre'afion and misunder-
! standing Of the law. and that it was not
| the result Of his judgment upon the facts
presented for consideration.
/ ''fn the administration and Opposition
! OF the public lands The decision OF the land
| department upon the questions OF tact are
| deemed conclusive. II is only questions OF
! law that are renewable in the courts. The
/ secretary OF the interior found as fact
/ that the entry was made by HackleY Tor
/ the purpose Of acquiring the land for spec
/ ulative purposes: that the entry was not
I made IN good faith in harmony with the
! spirit and letter OF the law. Did the sec
/ rotary Of the interior err In his construc-
: ton or Interpretation Of the law? We are
! Of opinion that this question must be an
/ swered in the negative. and that the Facts
/ ELECTED upon the trial Of this case in the
/ circuit court are not Of such character
/ a. 20 authorize the court 20 enter decree
I IN favor 81 the appellees (Hawley and Al
+ ger)
/ THE decree and judgment OF the circuit
court are reversed with directions 10 the
, court to dismiss the bill.
| In speaking Of the decision last night At
I torney Griffith said: This case is the irsi
/ one brought in any Federal court where
! sections ?. 40 and 245l Of the Revised stat
I utcs have received a construction. Under
I these sections Il has always been commended
. that the board Of equitable adjudication
/ created thereby was the only power that
+ had authority 10 review the decision Of the
4 commissioner in all suspended land entries
This decision completely overrulfs thai
/ contention. I think this case is decisive Of
/ all the cases known as the Hawiey- Algel
/ claims and Of all other claims where thC
| contention IS based on the transferees b.
| ing bona nde purchasers before patent. and
/ where the entries have been Cancelled and
| sustained by the secretary OF the interior
The spartan NirtHe of Fortitude
/ Must he possessed in no ordinary degree
I by those who boar the pangs ~ Tncu-
/ Watlsm without complaint We have
| never heard of such an individual. Bat
/ WHY rot. ere tie lifelong mar;yrdom he
| gins eNt.nguish the germs OF this afro
( ciDUs malady with Hostetter's Stomach
! Bittcrs the efficacy % which rs a pre-
! vertive % The disease, as wei as
| means Of relieving H. IS well estah!lRher
/ and amply zttested. during the last forty