The Saint Paul globe., 1903-01-27
SETTLERS MAY KEEP LAND.
Supreme Court Of United States De-
cides Aqainst Northern Pacific.

WASHINGTON D. c., Jan. 26.-The
United States supreme court today
rendered, through Justice Harlan, an
opinion affecting the Northern Pacific
land grant. The case was that of
Peter and Henry Nelson, who located
upon unsurveyed land within the
Northern Pacific grant in the then ter
r1tofy of Washington in 1881. This
was after the railroad company had
hled its general map showing it's pro-
posed line, but before it had filed it's
map of definite location.
In the opinion handed down TODAY.
1t 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 no control
OF the lands within the grant regard
less of the general map. In a dissent
ing opinion, Justice Brewer said the
opinion reverses the judgment of the
court of twenty years ago, by which
the Interior department had ever since
been controlled in dealing with dis
putes between the railroad company
and settlers like the Nelson's.
Justice Harlan, speaking for the
court, said that the land in question
was located in KittitaS county. Justice
Harlan said that the government GER
tainly had not intended that the rail-
road company should acquire any vest
ed interest in the lands within its grant
prior to definite location. In support
OF this statement, he cited the Ian
guage of the act of 1880, excluding
from the grant all lands occupied nv
homestead settlers at the time of the
definite location of the road Until
this definite location was made" he
said, the land covered by the man of
general route was a f1oat;' that is,
land at large and subpect to the en-
TIRE control of congress" Coming def
mtely to the Nelson case, he read: AS
the railroad had not acquired any
vested interest in the land when Nelson
went upon it, his continuous occu-
pancy of it, with view, in good faith,
to acquire it under the homestead laws
as soon as it was surveyed, constituted.
In our opinion, a claim upon the land
within the meaning of the Northern
Pacific act of 1864; and as that claim
existed when the railroad company
definitely located it's line the land was.
by the express words of that act. ex-
cluded from the grant"
1t 1t be said that Nelson's claim was
that OF mere occupancy, unattended
Dy formal entry or application for the
land, the answer, says the opinion. is
that that was a condition of things for
winch Nelson was not in any wise re-
sponSlbIe, and his rights in law were
not lessened by that fact. The land
was not surveyed until 1898, twelve
years aIter ne took up his residence
on 1t, and under the homestead law he
could not initiate his right by formal
entry of record until the land was sur
Veyed. 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 dicision clouds
the title to all the lands granted to
the railroad company At the time
the map of definite location was filed
as well as at the time the road was
completed, there was not, said Justice
Brewer, on the records of the land de-
partment a single word or mark which
indicated to anybody that Nelson was
on the land, or claiming it, or that the
title to the railroad was other than
perfect. Yet" continued Justice
Brewer, because Nelson was on the
land, it is held that the patent of the
government to the railroad conveyed
to 1t no title and that this occupant,
by oral testimony, may show the fact
of his occupancy and overthrow the
record title. If such occupation is suf-
hc1ent to avoid the patent of the Unit
ed States, has the company sure title
to any lands?"