The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1901-08-15
HEAD KNOCKED l.]'lIll OUT.
The Secretary Of the Interior Rules
Against Henry c.Head In
His Land Contest.
The Department Holds That Head Did
CO. Not Fully Comply With the
Homestead Laws.

OF " p. Anderson VS.. II. G. Head, in
voollylng the ownership Of valuable
pine claim at Mile Laos, and the decis-
ion is il favor of Anderson.
The reasons for the action are set
forth at great length and are as fol-
lows: y.
On September %, 1891, Henry G.
Head made homestead entry No. 1852,
for lots, Sec. II, and lot 1, Sec. Is, T..
IN, r. Is w, ST. Cloud land district,
Minnesota: +. z
On October Is, 1894, Alfred Nostrum
initiated a contest against said entry
sthe ground of failure of the entry
man to reside on the land. A hearing
was had, and the case was appealed to
your office and finally to this depart
ment,: where, on October 8, 1896, a
decision was rendered mot reported)
holding the entry for cancellation as to
said lot 5 in Sec. 17;sand allowing Head
to- hold lot in Sec. Is under said entry,
inScase he should elect to do so. Heads
excuse for not having resided on the
land more than he did was that he was
intimidated by an Indian, called "Big
Pete" who, he said, destroyed his
house when it was in process of con-
struction, and threatened him with
violence if he attempted to rebuild it
or live on the land. It was thus
brought to the attention of this depart.
ment that portion of the land en-
braced in Heads entry was occupied
and claimed by said Indian, and in
view of the circulars of May 81, 1884,
81. D., 371,) and October, 26, 1887 Is
I'D. 541,) and in order that the de-
partment might be fully advised as to
the nature and extent of the Indians
claim, the commissioner of Indian af-
fairs was.directed to cause an investi-
gator thereof to be made by an Indian
agent of his office, which was done, and
the report OF said agent, with the rec
ommendation of the commissioner of
Indian affairs thereon, was filed in this
department, showing that ''Big Pete"
was full blood Indian of the Mile
Laos band of Chippewas, that he had
lived upon said lot for about, fifteen
years, and improved and cultivated a
portion of it; that he did not claim to
occupy said lot in Sec. 10: that Head
had attempted to build house on the
cleared land (which was on lot 5, and
that the Indian had opposed and peace
fully protested against Heads entry
and occupancy of the land. y
In consideration of this showing the
department rendered said decision of
October 3, 1896, canceling Heads entry
as to said lots, but allowing him, at
his option, to still hold his entry as to
lot ms Sec. 10. -s=s:s. *. ~.
Head elected to retain lot in Sec.
Is, and his entry was Cancelled as to
said lot S, in Sec. II. ~ ~ *,
On August l, 1898, Thomas D. Ander.
son filed his affidavit Of contest against
said entry, alleging that Head had
abandoned lot in Sec. Is, and changed
his residence therefrom for more than
six months next prior thereto. =, =.
A hearing was had before the receiv-
er and a special agent of your Office,
who was designated to act.instead of
the register, who was incompetent by
reason of having been of counsel to the
defendant previous to his appointment
as register. The receiver and the
special agent found that the case
against the defendant was no stronger
on the proof than was the previous case
of Nostrum against the defendant: and
inasmuch as this department. had de-
cided upon the proof in that case that
Head was entitled to hold said lot in
Sec. rs, they recommend the dismissal
of the contest. Pa, rs
The contestant appealed to your Of
fee, where, on October 6, 1900, decis-
ion was rendered reversing. the action
of the local officers and holding the
entry for cancellation, and from that
decision the defendant has appealed to
this department.. .
The proof clearly shows that the de-
PENDANT has not maintained his resi-
dence on the land as required by the
homestead laws. He attempts to set
up the same excuse offered by him in
his former contest with Nostrum, viz:
intimidation by theIndian, s'Big Pete"
but it is. not believed that he has shown
such intimidation as to excuse him
from complying with the requirement
of the law as to residence on the land
1t is shown, and the fact was SO found
by the; department in the case OF Nos
trum VS.. the defendant, that the In
dian never set up any claim to theslan