The Athena press. [volume] (Athena, Umatilla County, Or.) 18??-1942, 1906-11-16
SUPPLEMENT

s
in the case of Clarissa Fauber (22d
l.. D., p. 3l5) that while the commits
sioner might withhold patent for a
failure to make proof of residence
and cultivation, as required by the
original act. still If all payments were
made on the land the entry could not
be voided The sale of the lands be-
came complete when payments were
made; in other words, when payment
was made the purchaser was entitled
to the use of the land, though pat
ent would not issue to him until
such time as he could make
proof of residence and cultivation.
Many persons bought relying upon
these decisions and relying upon the
use of the land, even we'll knowing
that they could not receive patent
without proof of residence and culti-
walton, which they also knew to be
/ impossible, owing to the character of
the land. 1t was also generally un-
derstood that a bill had been pre-
pared and would, in all probability,
pass congress, providing that in cases
of that character, where the lands
were not susceptible of residence or
cultivation, patent would issue upon
proof of the real condition of the
land. This was subsequently done by
an act of March 3, 1905, which has
been known and referred to as the
Fulton act and which reaGs as fol-
lows:
Terms of the Fulton Act.
"That all persons who have hereto
| fore purchased any of the lands of the
Umatilla Indian reservation and have
made full and final payment thereof
| in conformity with the acts of con-
gress of March 8, 1885, and of July
1, 1902, respecting the sale of such
lands, shall be entitled to receive
patent therefor upon submitting sat
lsfactory proof to the secretary Of the
interior that the untimbered lands so
purchased are not susceptible Of cul-
tivation or residence and are exclus-
lively grazing lands, incapable of any
profitable use other than for grazing
purposes"
This act, known as the Fulton act,
was first introduced by Senator Nit
chell during his time in the senate,
and passed the senate, as l was in
formed, but failed of consideration in
the house, consequently did not pass
until taken up by Senator Fulton
later. A draft of this bill was sub
mitted to Special Land Agent McNutt,
who was in charge of this district at
the time, and met his approval. Later
on, after Captain Alexander was
placed in charge, copy of this bill
was submitted to him. I cannot say
that it met his approval Captain
Alexander simply remarked that he
did not consider himself in a position
to advise one way or the other as to
the merits or necessity for the bill.
After the passage of this bill very
many of the purchasers advertised in
the regular way for making final
proof, and at the expiration of the ad-
vertised notice, went before the reg
lister and receiver at La Grande, in
each case with two witnesses, and
submitted proof of the character Of
the land, II the land was capable Of
residence or cultivation the proof so
showed and, if not, to the effect that
It wdas not susceptible of agriculture
nor residence, proof was submitted.
Secretary of Interior Suspicious.
1t will be remembered that the bill
provided that proof should be made
90 ficfo pfn 70 In nf tho
interior. So many of these proofs
being submitted apparently created a
suspicion in the mind of the secretary
of the interior that the law was being
abused and, as I have been informed
by some of the specials" here, they
are here directly under instructions
from the interior department to inVes-
tigate each separate purchase and
entry as to the character of the land
and as to whether or not it is, in fact,
agricultural or is only susceptible of
grazing.
The statement in the Journal that
these lands are producing SO bushels
of wheat, or any other amount Of
wheat whatever, is absolutely false.
know from my personal knowledge
that no proof has been submitted to
the register and receiver at La
Grande, showing the lands to be
grazing lands only, upon which there
has been any crops of value raised.
Some lands squatted upon upon the
hig ridges along the creek bottoms
produced crops, but in each instance
proof has been made upon these
lands showing residence and cultiva-
ton, as required by law.
Col. Raley's Individual Purchases.
Now, with regard to my own pur-
chase of these lands at the first sale
under the act of 1885, I bought 100
acres of untimbered land near Pen
dleton, upon which I resided continu-
ously for nearly 10 years and received
patent. At such sale I did not pur-
chase any timbered lands. At the last
sale I applied to purchase 40 acres
of untimbered lands and 40 acres Of
| timbered lands. The interior depart
ment decided that having made one
purchase of untimbered lands at the
| first sale, was not again entitled to
/
ond sale, but might at the second sale
purchase 40 acres of timbered lands
to go with my first purchase of un-
timbered lands. This question was
taken before Judge Wolverton at
Portland, of the federal court, in the
case of Hoover VS.. Jones, and the
ruling Of the interior department was
confirmed by the opinion of Judge
Wolverton. l thereupon relinquished
to the government the 80 acres pur-
chased by me at the second sale and
for which l had made payment, and
applied to the government for the re-
turn of the purchase money on the 40
acres so relinquished. and on day be-
fore yesterday received notification
| from the interior department that my