The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-20

nart of the railroad then constructed and in opera ton were excluded from the for feiture, and by the cypress ss terms , Q, sala there was in the United States Govern ment was confirmed to the railroad com , pany or it's vendees: that the land In con troversy, being opposite to that poruon of tha Yailroad constructed and in opera tion at the date of said forfeiture act, ths title to the same remained in the original grantee under sald act, or II u has been previously conveyed, then ID such vendee, and could not oe divested bv inc conduct of the Land Commissioner of inc General Land Off1ce in leaving 1t out of the allotment made by him, as such Commissioner, under the provlslons of said Forfeiture act nor TocS tns os that act; that by the provisions of said act the title to the lands lying opposite to that part of the road constructed and in operation at the time the act was passed having Oeen confirmed to the grantee or his vendee, said lands were thereby withdrawn from the public. do- main, and could not, therefore, rightfully be opened to homestead entry. The able report of the Committee on Public Lands so clearly explains the
 status of this difficult and embarrassing land problem, I ask that the same be
 read. This bill alone can untangle the | complication. n coosa and the Mobile and Grard Rail- | roads, in the State of Alabama, have re- covered in the courts or that State and | in the courts of the United States lands which were or are in the actual posses sion of settlers holding them as home steads. These lands were granted by Con | gross to the State of Alabama to aid in | the construction of said railroads, which were completed and in operation on Sep l tember % 1890, the date of the passage of the forfeiture act. The lands were | opened by the Secretary of the Interior | to homestead entry after the passage of | said act of September 29, 1890; but the l courts have decided that they were not | forfeited by that act and that they were | the property of these railroad companies
 or their vendees.
 | "It Is clear that the settlers should not
 lose their homes, and 1t Is no less evident
 that the purchasers of the lands from | these railroad companies should have the l property which the courts have decided | belong to them The purpose of the bill
 is to permit the vendees of the railroads | to take lands in lieu of those recovered by them in the courts, in order to insure l to the homestead settlers the title to their
 homes, and the committee Is in sympathy | with that purpose; but as the bill con- | tained several objectionable features, the
 committee have recommended a substi- | tute therefor.
 ''The substitute limits the location of
 the certificates to be Issued to lands In | Alabama and provides that they must be | located within one year from their issu-
 ance. It is believed that the measure
 will satisfactorily adjust an unfortunate | condition for which neither class of the | claimants are responsible
 But. briefly to reiterate:
 | There are two classes of homestead set
 tiers in the Second Alabama District, | which i have the honor to represent in
 this Chamber. who are especially inter
 ested in this legislation.
 The first class are those above referred to, who, under the erroneous interpre- ! tation which was put upon the forfeiture act by the Interior Department, entered certain lands contiguous to that part of the Mobile and Girard Railroad, which had been constructed and was in opera ton as far as the city of Troy, prior to | or at the time of the passage of said
 act, amounting to about 5000 acres. l re- peat, the forfeiture act confirmed title l to the railroad company, or its vendees,
 in and to these 5000 acres, commonly
 known as learned lands"
 The Secretary of the Interior having au- | thoriZed these lands to be opened to homestead settlement, many of my con
 stituents in good faith made entries. paid | the fees and charges exacted by the Gov | ernment as incident thereto, obtained patents thereto In the usual manner, and placed valuable and permanent improve | ments thereon The Supreme Court of 1 Alabama, as above stated, in the ease of
 Van Kirk Land and Construction Com pany vs. Green, on appeal from the Cir
 cult Court of Pike County held that the purchasers from the railroad company | so far as these "earled lands are con
 cerned had a better title than the set
 tiers ever acquired: that their entries
 were illegal; and accordingly, writs of possession have already been issued and | are in the hands of a State Sheriff for
 execution, and unless I can obtain at the present short session of Congress this
 needed measure of relief the result will
 be to turn them out of their homes, en- l tailing upon them, in addition to the
 money they were forced to expend in purchasing their homesteads. the loss as
 well of the improvements they have erect | ed thereon.
 The second class are persons who located l their homesteads upon lands beyond the l Hint of the constructed road southwest | of Troy, acting likewise under an invita-
 tion from the Interior Department and
 who in good faith paid their entrance money and put valuable improvements
 on their homes. Messrs. Ewing, Bishop,
 and others, in whom title to certain of | these lands had also been confirmed by
 the terms of the forfeiture act insti- | tuted contests in the land office al Mont | gomery against these settlers. and, on
 appeal to the Interior Department in | Washington, a decision was rendered | against them.
 l It is believed that the pending bill Is broad enough in its provisions to em-
 brace and protect this second class of set | tiers.
 There can be no doubt that this measure
 of relief ought to pass. The Government l having sold to its own citizens for home>
 stead purposes lands to which 1t had no | title. and received from them the pur-
 chase price therefor. is now bound by 1 the plainest principles of common honesty
 to do one of three things;
 First-Refund to the settlers the money
 received from them together with the value of their Improvements; or | Second-Give them In lieu of their lost | homesteads other lands of the same qual- | ity and value: or
 l Third-Pass this bill, which enables the | vendees of the railroad companies to en- | ter and take other lands as a substitute | for those occupied by these settlers, and | thereby make an equitable adjustment, | in the language of the committees report, | of 'an unfortunate condition, for which
 neither class of the 'aimants are respon- | sibe"
 Mir. Speaker. the helpless but deserving constituents whom 1 represent here, | whether they come within either the one or the other of these classes. are not re | sponsble for the condition which now | exists arising from an hone3t difference | of cons truction placed upon the terms Of the forfeiture act by the Interior De pertinent and the legal tribunals of the | country. The law Is against the settlers, the deficiencies of the law, Is on thelf | side Of course every lawyer knows that | law court looks at legal questions only and not to the equity of a particular case.
 In actions of ejectment the question Is purely one of legal title, and the doctrine of equitable estoppel can have no appii- cation. It is, therefore, a well-settled proposition that an equitable estoppel can not he set nm against the legal titla in