The Ellensburg dawn. [volume] (Ellensburg, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1903-01-29
SOME TITLES ARE SHAKEN
U. S. SUPREME COURT FAvoRS SQUATTER
On UnsurAeyed Land When Northern Pacific
Filed Definite Location Map.

|
Filed Definite Location Map.
WASHINGTON. ID. c. Jan, 26--The
United States supreme court today rem
dered through Justice Harlan an opin-
ion affecting the Northern Pacific land
grant. The case was that of Peter and
Henry Nelson, who located upon unsur-
vesed lands within the Northern Pacific
grant in the then territory of Washing
ton, in 1881. This was before the rail-
road company had filed its general man
showing its map of definite location.
In the opinion handed down today 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 dissenting opinion, Justice Brew
er said the OpiOnion reverses the judy
ment of the court Of twenty years ago,
by which the interior department had
ever since been controlled in dealing
with disputes between the railroad COM
pany and settlers like Nelson.
The land in question is located in
Kittiias county.
.Justic Harlan said that the govern
ment certainly had not intended that
the railroad company should acquire
any vested interest in the lands within
its grant prior to definite location.
In support of this statement he cited
the language of the act of 1880, exclud
ing from the grant all lands occupied by
homestead settlers at the time of tho
definite locating was made, he said, the
land covered in the map of general
route was "fOat," that is land at large,
and subject to the entire control of con-
gress.
Coming definitely to the Nelson case,
he said:
AS the railroad had not acquired any
vested interest in the land when Nelson
went upon it, his continuous occupany
Oft, with aview in good faith to acquire
it was surveyed, constituted, in our opin-
ion, claim upon such land within the
meaning Of the Northern Pacific act of
1864, and as that claim existed when
the railroad compny definitly locat ed
its line, the was by the expess words of
that act, excluded from the grant"
If it be said that Nelson's claim was
that mere occupancy unattended by
formal entry or application for the land
the answer, says the opinion, is that
this WAS a condition of things for VIII ich
Nelson was not in any wise responsible,
and his rights in law were not lessened
by the fact. The land not surveyed
until 1903, twelve years after he took
up his residence on it, and under the
homestead law he could not initiate his
fight by formal entry of record until
the land was surveyed. He acted with
as much prOmptness as was possible
under the circumstances.
Justices Brown and Shras united
with Justices Brewer in his dissenting
opinion. The chief point of the dissent
was tdat the courts decision clouds the
title to all lands granted to the railroad
company. AT the time the map of def
mite location was filed as we'll as the
time the road was comp eted, there was
not said Justice Brewer, in the records
of the land department single word
or mark which indicated to anybody
that Nelson was on the land and claim
ing it, or that the title to the railroad
was other than perfect. "Yet," con-
tinued Justice Brewer, "because Ne
son was on the land it is held that the
patent of the government to the rail-
road conveyed no title and that this oc-
cupant by oral testimony may show the
fact of his occupancy and overthrow the
record title. If such occupancy is suf-
ticent to void the patent of the United
States, has the company sure title to
any lands?-TacOma Ledger.