The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1902-05-10

In regard to United States homestead
matters, has been handed down
through the New Orleans land Office:
ION January q, 1902. Charles L.
Tully 6lcd in the New Orleans Land
Office an application asking to be al
lowed to purchase the N w or of sec.
26, tp. 8 N, range 2 west, La. Mer.,
under the timber and stone act OF
June 3, 1878. GO Statutes, 89.) On
the same date notice of publication
was posted I'm the Registers office
and copy of same was delivered to
Mr.. Tully for publication in the Peo-
pies Demands for the period of once
q week for 60 days. and April IA, 1902,
was set for taking testimony I'm the
case before the Register and Receiver.
ION April IL, 1902, Charles L. Tully
and bis witnesses appeared to give
time G. G. Lincecum appeared with
witnesses and requested that he be
permitted to file a protest against
the entry Of Charles L. Tully under
the timber and stone act, alleging
that the land applied for was at for
cultivation after the timber was re-
moved therefrOm. Said affidavit
was cOrrOborated by one G. b.
Starks. Mr.. William B. Clarke, at
torney-at.law, appeared in behalf of
protestant. Mr.. j. A. O'Shee appear
ed for defendant.
1.-The testimony was taken on April
IA. In accordance with rule of prac-
tice AZ, both parties agreeing that
the testimony be taken in shorthand.
1.-THE records Of this office show
that the N w or of sec. 26 was enter
ed as a homestead, No. 1890, on
February ii. 1896, by Herman Zappe.
On May n, 1900, said Zappe filed his
REIMBURSEMENT, and on the same day
the said tract was entered by Charles
L. Tully, as shown by Receivers
homestead receipt No. p, 5l4.
THE first witness crOss-examinetl
was Charles L. Tully, who, upon be-
ing sworn. testified that he was ia
miliar with the land In controversy;
that he had resided on said land for
eight months, and had built one
house with two rooms; that he had
cleared about three acres OF land;
that there was Il branch running
through said land; and that he did
not consider any portion of the land
fit for cultivation, nor did he believe
anyone could make a living on said
land. That he had tried to farm it,
at least n part Of It., but could not
succeed In making crops on 1t, and
could not make living by cultivat-
Ing the land, as 1t would not grow
anything prOfitabIy. That the land
was chiefly valuable for timber, and
II the timber were removed therefrom
he would be unwilling to pay the
makes for the land. Mr.. Tully's testi-
mony was corr0bOrated by several
witnesses.
THE protestant, G. G. Lincecum,
upon being sworn, testified that he
was familiar with the land In Ques-
ton; that the soil of said land was
of q black, sandy color; that 1t was
piney woods land; that he could
make a living on said tract II the
timber were removed, as it would
produce almost anything. Hefurth-
er testified that there were some I'M
prOvements made on the land by
Charles L. Tully, but none OF said
land was In cultivation. There was
none cleared except hall an acre.
which was under fence; the land was
timber; that In its present condition
than for agricultural purposes; but
II the timber were removed he could
be able to make livelihood for him.
self and family by cultivating the
said lOnd, etc. To the question put
by the Register, Mr.. Lincecum stated
that his object In fling the protest
against the allowance of the timber
and stone entry of Charles l.. Tully
was for the purpose Of making a
homestead. The testimony given by
the applicant and the protestant,
and their respective witnesses, does
not differ as to the value of the TIM
Der growing upon the land, but 1t
does differ as to whether or not the
land would be chiefly valuable for
agricultural purposes II the timber
were removed. Under these circum-
stances we have had recourse to the
field notes on file In the Surveyor
Generals Office, and find that the
land in controversy IL returned as
poor soil, part level and part undu-
lating, and densely timbered with
pine and oak. In view of the contra
dictory character of evidence as to
the character Of the land II the timber
were removed, and OF the fact that
the land IL Of the lowest quality of
soilindicated by the government sur
veys, we shall hold these field notes
to be decisive OF the case. In our
opinion we believe the testimony
submitted on trial day. conclusively
shows that the N w or OF sec. 26, tp.
8 N, range west, La. Mer., is OF such
a character as to come under the tim
Der and stone act of June 3, 1878.
I'm the case of Ward vs.. MOntgom-
cry, reported In Is l.. ID. $50, 1t was
held tina. the provisions Of the timber
and stone act are applicable to unof-
fered lands chiefly valuable for TIM
Der, where said timber is 80 Extensive
as to render the lands as a whole, at
the date Of the sale. substantially I'M
fit for cultivation"
The same opinion Is given In the
case OF Merritt va. Philip, Is l.. D., |
4W. In the case OF Robert VS.. Brown
ell, reported in 10 l.. D., 216, the hon.
orable Secretary of the Interior held |
that public lands valuable chiefly |
for timber but unfit for cultivation |
within the meaning of the timber and |
stone act, includes lands covered with |
timber, but which may be made fit |
Tor cultivation by removing the tim
Der and working the land" Again.