The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1898-06-22
MORE OF SECTION 80.
Probably the Last Of the Famous Case
to Come up In q Few Days.

Probably the Last Of the Famous Case
TO Come up In Few Days.
Another page will be added in
Washington during the next few days
to the history Of the famous Section
30 case. Attorney P. HI. Seymour has
gone to that city to appear before the
secretary of the interior to take part
In the arguments that involve the
respective claims of Houghton E.
James and Morton Miller to three 40s
In the northeast quarter of 3O-63-I1.
Mr.. Seymour represents the interests
OF Morton Miller. AS has been the
history of the case in its various pre-
sensations, the matter to be heard at
Washington will be interesting. 1t
will be necessary to review this par
ticular case in order that it may be
understood.
The scrip that presumption entries
covering the northeast fractional
quarter and the northwest quarter
of the southeast quarter of 30-63-11
were cancelled Feb. 10, 1889. On the
following day Houghton E. James
made homestead application for the
northwest quarter Of the southeast
quarter and for three 40s in the north.
east quarter of section 80. On Feb
% Emil Hartman applied to enter the
three 40s in the northeast quarter
that James had applied for with sold.
ier's additional scrip.
Pending the subsequent litigation
and before the conflicting claims Of
James and Hartman were determined
a patent was inadvertently issued or
the scrip application of Hartman fol
the three 4Os. This took the three
40s out of the jurisdiction OF the lane
department..
The result of the litigation in the
land department was to award tt
James the right Of entry under his
application of Feb. 10, which was
held to have been prior to Hartman's
But, inasmuch as the three 40s applied
for by James had been patented, ht
could enter only the one 40 that hat
been patented. This 40 Mr.. james
entered under the homestead law
and subsequently relinquished hi
claim to it.
Meanwhile the government had in
istituted suit to cancel the patent issu
ed on the Hartman. soldier scrip, an(
this was done. After the patent haC
been set aside, Mr.. Miller applied tt
enter the three 40s with PorterfielC
and Valentine scrip, while james
applied to make homestead entry OF
them. The'commissioner of the gen
eral land Office denied the application
of Mr., James, and he appealed to thu
secretary of the interior.
1t is on this appeal that the argu
ments are soon to be made, The
questions involved are considered I'M
usual by land attorneys. 1t is said tt
be doubtful if similar situation was
ever before presented to the depart
ment. 1t appears that James was
only prevented from making an entry
on the three 40s involved by an error
on the part of the government, Many
people incline to the opinion that II
he not relinquished his right to the
one 40, his right to include the other
three 4Os, after the carelessly issued
patent had been cancelled, would
never have been questioned.
But, on the other hand, it is argued
that James relinQuished his entry be-
fore the other three were restored to
the public domain, that he thereby
elected to use his homestead right on
the single 40, thus waving all ad.
ditional homestead rights.
The secretary of the interior will
have to decide the questions involved
on his own judgement, for theSe is
said to be no precedent to guide or as.
sist in reaching conclusion.
The suit before the United States
court Ct appeals, involving lands in
section 80, is over the 40 that James
procured by his original application,
and which he relinquished.
To Resume Work.