The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1899-10-27
SCHOOL LANDS.


Two Opposite Decisions on tho Subject OF
state School Lands.
A local United States land office de-
cision of considerable interest and i'm
portance was made Friday by Regis
ter Culkin and Receiver ]. NJ. Smith.
The case will be of special interest to
people have disputed claims to school
land. The case In question is en-
titled State OF Minnesota against
Alvah Mason Sisler. The land is
situated in 16-60-24.
Sisler claimed to savc occupied the
land for five years and offered final
proof last May. The state entered
protest alleging that Sisler had not
earned the land. The testimony at
the hearing showed that Sisters
family had resided at La Prairie.
Itasca county, more than go miles
from the land, and that he had spent
two or three weeks a year on the claim.
The local officials support the states
contention In this case and recon-
mend that Sisters application to
make final proof be rejected.
The following paragraph In the de-
cision will set forth the attitude OF
the officials In contests involving
state school lands: "The claim OF the
state in this case Is one OF high order.
Section 80 has been set apart for the
benefit of schools Of the state and In
order to defend this claim no more
colorado occupancy OF the land, or
any occupancy. except one made In
good faith for the purpose of establish
ing a family home, ought to be accept
ed and admitted to overflow the rights
of the state"
The state was represented In this
case by W. Donnahower, assistant
attorney general, and Skuse & Nichols
represented Slsler. s. f. Fullerton
and Bernard Keegan were sworn on
behalf Of the state.
The secretary Of the interior has
made a decision in the case Of the
state of Minnesota against James w.
Neff. involving homestead entry for
school lands in l6. COLL. The decis-
ion is In favor Of Neff. The case
was never heard in the Duluth office.
When Neff offered to make final
proof in September. 1897, Attorney
General Childs of Minnesota entered
protest against the acceptance of
the proof on the ground that Neff had
not settled on the land in good faith
but to obtain the timber. The local
United States land Office officials rec
commended that the case be referred
to special agent, which was done by
the commissioner. hecommissioner
of the general land office, In connect
ion with the final proofsubmitted and
the report Of the special agent, con-
sidered the case and decided in favor
of the state. The secretary of the in
terror reverses Shis decision. 1t ap-
pears from the decision Of the secre-
tary of the interior that the commits
sioner of the general land Office gave
small weight to the testimony Of one
of Neff's witnesses. H, d. Glow, in
support of his final proof. The Sec
rotary of the interior says that there
is nothing to show that the reputat-
Of Glow for truth and veraclty Is bad,
although it is alleged lie Is gambler
and saloonkeeper. Neff alleges that
he has lived on the land for six years
almost continuously, that he has been
absent from the land from two to four
months, with the exception of one
year that he lived on the land con-
tinuously. Two witnesses beside
Glow support this testimony in gen.
eral way.
This case, while not a PARALLEL of
the Sisler case which was lately de-
cided by the local officers of the Unit
ed States land Office, will be of special
interest to men making claim to
school lands. 1t is claimed in GER
tain quarters that there Is great
deal of fraudulent work done in the
matter of getting hold of school lands,
but that great difficulty Is experienced
In disprOving any false claims that
may be made.