Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1903-02-05
LAND DECISION
BY TIE UNITED STATES SU-
PREME COURT.
A Far Reaching Decision Affecting the North.
ern Pacific Land Grant. A Settler on
Unsurveyed Land Within the Grant Limits
Holds His Land.

The United States supreme court last
week rendered, through Justice Harlan,
an opinion affecting the Northern Pacific
land grant The case was that of Peter
and Henry Nelson, who located upon I'M
surveyed land within the Northern Pacific
grant, in the then territory of Washing
ton, in 1881. This was after the railroad
company had filed its general map show
ing its proposed line, but before it had
filed its map Of definite location. In the
opinion handed down it was held that
the title of the settlers was better than
that of the RAILROAD company, and that
until the definite map was filed congress
had control of the lands within the grant,
regardless OF the general map. In dis
senting opinion, Justice Brewer said the
opinion reverses the judgment Of the
court OF twenty years ago. ny which the
interior department had ever since been
controlled in dealing with disputes be.
tween the railroad company and settlers
like the Nelson's.
The land in question was located in
Kittitas county.
Justice Harlan said h Vt tn government
certainly had not intended that the rail-
road company should acquire any vested
interest in The lands with its grant prior
to definite location. In support OF this
statement he cited the language OF the
act OF 1880, excluding from the grant all
lands occupied by homestead settlers at
the time of the definite location of the
road. Until this definite location was
,,ade, me said, "the land covered in the
map Of general route was 'afoat > that
is, land at large. and subject to the en-.
tire control OF congress"
Coming definitely to the Nelson case,
he said:
Gas the railroad had not acquired anv
vested interest in the land when Nelson
went upon it, his continuous occupancy
OF it, with a view, in good faith, to ac-
quire it under the homestead laws as
soon as it was surveyed, constituted, IN
our opinion, a claim upon such land
within the meaning of the Northern Pa
cfic act Of 1864, and as that claim
existed when the railroad company def
nitely located its line, the land was, by
the express words of that act, excluded
from the grant"
Ii it be said that the Nelson claim was
t lat OF mere occupancy, unamended by
fcrmal entry or application for the land +,
the answer, SAYS the opinion, is that this
WAS condition Ct things for which Nell
son was not in anyWise responsible, and
his rights in law were not lesseneG by
that fact. The land was not surveyed
until 1898, twelve years after he took up
his residence on it, and under the home
stead law he could not initiate his right
by forced entry of record until the land
was surveyed. He acted with as much
promptness as was possible under the
circumstances.
Justices Brown and Shiras united with
Justice Brewer in his dissenting opinion.
The chief point of the dissent was that
the courts decision clouds the title to all
lands granted to the railroad company.
At the time the map OF definite location
was fled as we'll as at the time the road
was completed, there was not, said Jus.
tice Brewer, in the records of the land
department single word or mark which
indicated to anybody that Nelson was on
the land or claiming it, or that the title
of the railroad was other than perfect.
Yet" continued Justice Brewer, "be-
cause Nelson was on the land it is held
that the patent of the government to the
railroad conveyed to it no tile, and that
the occupant, by oral testimony, may
show the fact Of his occupancy and
overthrow the record title. If such
occupation is sufii cient to void the patent
of the United States, has the company
sure title to any lands?"