The Dickinson press., 1906-05-26
Communication Proofs
Rejected by Department
In Many Instances,

~ = 0SOUuO0O
Homesteaders who are making CON-
mutation proofs and who have not re-
sided upon their homesteads continu-
ously for a period of six months, as re.
CURED by law, are very likely to have
their proofs rejected by the department
Of the interior.
Register Schuyler Of the Fargo land
office has recently received a number of
decisions rendered by the department,
which show conclusively that the claim
ants who have not complied with the law
are receiving notice to the effect that
their proofs have been rejected.
The intent of the law allows parties
six months before they are required to
establish a residence upon their home
stead.
In case they remain upon their land
continuously for a period of eight months
their proof will be accepted but the de-
partment has ruled that where a claim
ant goes upon the land, remains for
shorter periods, the proof will be re-
jected and the homesteader must return
to the land and reside upon the same
continuously for a period of fourteen
months.
During the past few months a number
of communication proofs have been re-
turned to the local land Office, from the
department of the interior, marked re-
jected. In several instances the parties
had resided upon the land from eighteen
to twenty months, but the residence had
not been continuous and consequently
the department refused to accept the
proof.
Below are given the decisions in sew
eral cases, which should prove of inter-
est to h~omesteaders who are contem-
plating making a committed proof:
In the case of Fred c. Burghardt, un-
reported department decision, Feb. 2,
1900, when entryman showed no actual
residence upon the land, claiming that
his absence was necessary in order that
he might support his family, and that he
could not have made better use of the
land if he had been there every month
than he did, it was said:
moreover, parties committing entries
cannot be excused from any cause for
failure to live upon, improve and cult
vate the land for the required period"
In the case of Katie F. Brecht, unre-
ported departmental decision, Feb. u,
1906, the entry was made in November,
1903, residence established within six
months thereafter, and the claim made
that the same was followed by eight
months of residence, emitting her to
commute. The department held:
"ln such case the law not only requires
that it shall clearly and satisfactorily
appear from the proof that the bona
tide residence was established within six
months from date of the entry but also
that the actual residence upon the land
has been continuous from the time it was
established until the date of the final
proof"
These decisions are not construed to
mean that the claimant must he present
upon the land every day during the
eight months or fourteen months resi-
dence, as the case may be, which should
follow the establishment of the same. If
claimants in good faith 90 upon the land
with their household effects, take up
their actual residence thereupon and
should thereafter, by reason of necessity
of going to market, making a living, OF
by illness be temporarily absent, and
| should thereafter submit proof showing
the requisite period of actual residence,
exclusive of the period of absence, it
would appear that where good faith is
evidenced same might be accepted. But
where claimants go to the claim within
six months after making entry, stay from
three days to a week, then go away and
remain absent for a number of months,
making visits to the claim varying from
a few days to a few months, their &C.
tions do not indicate good faith, nor can
it be regarded as the maintenance of
continuous residence upon the land. 1t
rather evidences a desire to obtain title
by an evasion of the letter and spirit of
the law. Each case must, however, be
decided upon the facts therein presented,
and it is impossible to lay down a gen
eral rule which shall govern all cases
arising in the execution Of the laws.