The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1907-10-16
WEDNESDAY, OCT. Is. 1907.
SQUARE DEAL FOR SETTLERS.

SQUARE DEAL FOR SETTLERS.
While it is proper that the unlawful
and fraudulent acquisition of public
land should be discouraged and pre-.
vented in every possible way, it APP
pears that the efforts of over-zealous
or incompetent federal officials
sometimes causes injustice and finan.
cial loss to honest and industrious
settlers. Some OF the special agents
or inspectors, upon whose recon.
mend alton the issuance OF land pat
ents depends, are apparently anxious
to make a record for vigilance in de-.
tecting alleged evasions of the law,
and do not give a square deal to
ranchers wholhave used every endea.
vor to comply with the requirements
necessary to give them title to their
claims. Unusual climatic conditions
have, in some cases, operated to the
dis adj antage of settlers who were at.
tempting in good faith to reclaim and
cultiva ate the land land due allowance
should be madelfor this and other cir.
cumstances over which the settler has
no control.
An illustration of the injustice that
sometimes results from the reports OF
special agents of the general land Of
fee appears in a Meagher county case
in which a settler secures title 70 his
land after expensive litigation. The
matter had been pending for several
years, the special agentlreporting that
the entryman had not compiled with
all the provisionslof the desert act, but
. final d~ecisionshas just been rendered
in favor of the!settler. In most cases,
however, the entryman is unable or
unwilling to:incur the expense Of ap.
pealing against the rejection of his
final proofifor land upon which he has
expended itsefull worth in labor and
money.
Another feature of the administra-
ton of the land laws that is unjust to
settlers appears in the complaint OF
northern Montana residents whose
entries were rejected after final proof
had been made. These entrymen state
that they filed upon land under the
desert act, endeavored in good faith
70 comply with the law, and made the
required cash payments amounting &c
el.25 per acre. Upon the report of ;
special agent, however, they have
been refused patents for their land
and arei unable to the cash
payments that were made. The latter
amount to 5000 for a claim of ign
acres, and the cost of building bitches
and other work required by the deser
act would increase the expenditures t
90 amount that approximates or ex
ceeds the actual value Of the land.
These settlers certainly have jus
cause for complaint. II, through som
slight technical defect, they have no
fully complied with all the provision
of the desert act and can be deprive'
of patent to the land they have en-
deavored to reclaim, they are entitle
to a refund Of the money they paid TO
it. The loss of the labor cost OF max
ing improvements and ~endeavoring I
comply with the requirements Of tn
desert act is sufficiently discouragine
without the additional unjust forfeit,
ure of the purchase price paid by tn
settler. II these settlers are the vic
Tins OF an error or oversight on tn
part of federal officials, the mistak
will be remedied in due course: but
it is the custom OF the land Office I
act upon such cases in the manner dc
scribed, there is urgent need for
change in its methods.
The matter has been presented t
Congressman Pray by some of hi
constituents who believe they have re
ceived unjust treatment, and it will b
submitted to the proper officials !
Washington. If other settlers hav
cause for complaint in this connectio
it would probably be to their advar
tage to make a statement of the cas-
and request that it be given prope
consideration. They are entitled to
"square deal,' and should not hes
tate to demand It..
TUE opAlpIE EIDE MENANE