The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-04-12

A decision In the noted Eisbert-Davis
land case was received at the local United
States land Office yesterday from Wash
snxton. d. C. The government. accord
ing to the decision, has decided that the
widow Of Rabbi NJ. Eis5ert Is entitled to
certain land on Maury island. so long in
dispute.
Nearly every newspaper reader In this
state remembers the Eisbert land case.
Rabbi Eisbert took up certain lands on
Maury island and devoted much Of his
time, money and energy to improving It.
Charles II. Davis was q lighthouse keeper
on the Stand. and he claimed possession
OF the property. including house. shed
and other buildings on the ground that
the premises had been abandoned by Els
bert. Davis has since held possession.
but il the findings Of United States Com
missioner Hermann are not changed ne
VIII be compelled to vacate and make
room for Mrs. Eisbert and her children.
Eisbert devoted the last years Of his life
In lighting for the possession of this land.
and he died on March Z. 1885. at Butte,
Mont, while on the way 10 Washington
to make personal appeal for his rights
to President Cleveland. 1t Is said by
many people that the death Of the rabbi
was due to a broken heart.
According to the contents or the de-
cision, the principal issue tried was
whether Eisbert was bona fide resident
on the laid prior TO the removal Of his
family thereto in October. ISIS. 1t IS
admitted that from the date of entry.
April %, 1856. to October, 1855, period OF
over three yeans, Eisbert's wife and chill
dren did not live on the land, but in Sc
attic in a house which they rented from
month TO month. but that Mrs. Eisbert
and her two sons visited Eisbert on the
land. It was proven that Eisbert built
double log house, one-half of which was
situated on his claim and the other half
on the claim of his daughter. The latter
had a presumption claim adjoining on the
nerth. This was in 1894. The land was
heavily wooded, and Esbert began 10
clear II off. grubbing out the stumps and
burning the brush, afterward cultiyating
such parts of the land as he had pre-
pared, in oats. vegetables, etc. 1t Is n
evidence that Eisbert was not a
skilled farmer. but the proof showed that
he used considerable diligence in his ef-
forts 10 make a farm.
The land is situated on Maury island
and IS about a nile from Port Robinson.
From that landing Eisbert and others car
ried lumber on their backs to the house
and put down floor. Much trouble was
experienced in securing water and Eisbert
dug In four different places 1t is claimed
that Eisbert commenced to dig In 1855. con-
tinued until 1887. and finally secured a
well 200 feet deep. for which Eisbert paid
George w. Britain $500 in cash. Brit
tain was one of the witnesses. and he
testified that the well added no value to
the land, because It furnished no water.
While that Is true, the commissioner
says. 1t speaks eioQuently for Eisbert's
good faith.
The testimony shows that Eishert did not
bring his family TO the land ony sooner
because OF his inability to get water. and
that he finally dug and cemented els
tern. Eisbert then brought his family to
the island Z
The amour. of clearing was small. con-
sisting OF from four TO six acres How
ever this may be. there can be no ques-
ton as to the amount OF money expended
by Eisbert. which was in excess of that
expended by any neighboring homestead
ers. Ii Is acknowledged that Eisbert was
frequently away.
Being a Jewish rabbi he was frequently
called TO Seattle and Olympia to perform
the rites Of the church and remained away
few days at time. Jewish HOLIDAYS
were also observed by the rabbi once or
twice year, and he also visited his fam
ily I'm Seattle on Sunday occasionally
DAVIS also made strong effort 10 show
that Eisbert was engaged in the business OF
tailor In Seattle in the years 1885, 1856
and 1887. In partnership with his son-in-
Law. one Fsnkelstein. and that his real
business was In Seattle and not on the dis
puted land. The commissioner held that
EisDert nigh. have been I'm such bus-
ness. but that. he says. would not show
that his home was not on the land. The
testimony failed IN its purpose. The com
missioner called attention to the fact that
Eishert transmitted his filing into a home
stead entry in 1885, which makes IL appear
a. though he intended 10 live there tor at
least i've years Had he lived under his
fling only few months ana purchased
the land. which he might have done with
less than half the money which he fruit
lessly expended In digging for water ne
might have obtained the land much ear
Her and with much less expense Tire
TACT that he did not do So but voluntarily
changed hrs fling TO an entry and thus
imposed upon himself the obligations
which the law prescrihes indicates the
commissioner SAW. that Eisberi intend
ed TO make the land his home. and that
the entry was net made for speculative
purposes. Evidence showing the actual
presence of the rabbi on the island, and
the testimony OF employees that he was a
resident en- the land. and this con cl,lave
proof that his family did not arrive sooner
on account or the failure 10 secure water
was strong argument In favor of Widow
EisD~rt in the eyes OF the commissioner
The commissioner in his decision says
that Davis. the lighthouse keeper testified
Ia the presence Of Eisioert on the island in
INN Qua tina, he saw no one around the
Rouse and shed on the disputed land The
Commissioner adds that Davis postponed
tae hhng OF his contest sasntii August "a
lsy' moro than two years after he sup
posed that no one was living there. While
alleging. In his affidavit that Eishert did
nos establish a residence on the land un-
III on or about October 15 1855 Davis also
alleges Eis5ert's absence therefroFn ana
after ina. date AZ being more than half OF
the tine, and that the tract is not settled