The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-03-14

pears that an applicant To purchase lands
through state sleection may be defeated
in acquiring the lands by n person home
steading or filing desert entry upon the
same lands. and that pcrSon car pro-
tcct his rights of selection by doing.
or can defeat the right OF selection by a
person prior in time.
Anderson's S Denial,
Anderson denies that he informed Sor-
enScn. his brother-in- law. of the inquiries
that had been made In reference to this
selection. Soreusen denies that lie re-
ceived any information from Anderson.
althuSh he admits that Anderson swore
him TO his application and exhibited To
him the maps OF the land AZ the time of
making the same. Sorenscn owned no
other land in this vicinity and stated that
he applied to purchase the same for an
investment.
However the following appears TO be
sustained by the evidence of competent
Witnesses That shortly after Soresnen
homesteaded the land IN the United
states Land office inquiry was made by
Mr.. Dunn OF that office from Anderson
In reference to "A deficiency i'm the fees
which had been left with the homestead
entry. and that Anderson referred Dunn
to telephone number where Sorcnsen
WAS found That few days aftcrwnrd
when Dunn advised Sorensen that suff-
cient money had been paid TO complete
the homestead entry. and that a receipt
had been sent to Sorensen. Anderson re-
questcd Dunn not to say anything further
about the matter. II further appears
from the evidence of Mr.. Woolley, an en-
pIoyce Of the United States Land office.
Of Sorensen, Anderson told Woolley dur
ing conversation with him at the United
states Land office that he had put his
and that he tSorcnSen) would have TO
''divvy' up with him.
But Anderson Leaked.
Ia view Of the relationship of the par
and n b,. fliS baI
remained opcn for selection for q long
time. and thal the same was filed on
by Sorcnsen the day after the inquiry
had been made at the State Land office
of Anderson and in view of the state
mcnts made by Anderson 10 Dunn and
Wooncy. the committee are forced TO the
conclusion that Anderson disclosed To
Sorensen the fact that parties intended
to select said land. and had Sorensen
make. the selection for the purpose of
interfering with a bona iide applicant.
and for his personal profit and advan-
taSe,
The earns Collision.
What is known as the earns entry was
investigated by your committee, and II
appears from the evidence that some
time In the spring of 1906, one Thomas,
who was an employee Of the State Land
board al that time. wrote TO earns a let
ter OF inquiry In reference to lot %, Sec
ton .. township 81 south. range l6 east.
in the vicinity OF which earns lived. That
Thomas wrote 10 earns for the purpose
Of acquiring information In reference TO
said land. and that II the same was de-
sirable. he and Anderson intended To Sc
lect the same. earns did not reply TO
the letter. but on or about the 10Th day
Of March. 1906. he forwarded his applica-
ton To purchase through the State said
lot %. and paid a part OF the purchase
price.
1t further appears from the evidence
that Anderson, for the purpose OF pre-
venting earns from obtaining the advan-
tage Of his application to select. he CAN
dcrsom. on the 18th OF December. 1905.
attempted TO homestead the same in his
own naem and for his own benefit. but
that having exhausted his rights to home
stead and still with the intention of de-
featins the earns entry, he applied TO and
one of his personal friends one
tho same. That the same was done by
Pascoe wholly in the interest of Ander-
son, Anderson furnishing and paying the
fees required 10 make said homestead en-
try. and that he obtained and caused said
entry 10 be made for the express purpose
Of defeating the earns entry and ac-
quiring the land himself
The Doscher Accusation.
1t further appears from the evidence
that in the Doschar entry Anderson was
accused Of giving his brother in law
tSorensen) Information in reference
thereto and causing him To make the en-
try, and this accusation was brought 10
the notice Of William j. Lynch, the presi-
dent Of the State Land board. on or about
the LIST day OF August. 1905, by one Gibbs
who stated in substance the facts to said
Lynch and that tho claim was made that
Anderson had caused the Sorenscn entry
TO he filed based upon his information
that other parties were about TO apply
for the land. 1t appears from the evil
dencc that Lynch had a conversation with
Anderson In reference TO the matter:
That Anderson denied all connection
herewith and that Lynch did not lay
the matter before the Land board or
make any other or further examination or
whatsoever.
In reference TO the earns entry II ap-
pears from the evidence that on or about
the 20th of January, 1907. Judge w. &.
Hall acting as attorney for earns, made
"A complaint 10 w. ID. Candland5 a mem
Der of the board in regard to Andcrson's
Interference in the matter, and that An
dersou in substance admitted to Cand-
land that he had made the entry for
the purpose OF defeating earns that
The complaint was referred to I'm meet
Ing ot the State land board on or about
the Tth of February 1907 but that no
action was taken thereon at that time.
or any other time.
That after Judge Hall laid the Garns
objections before the board on the 10th
Of February, 1907: Anderson secured fr"m
the parties making the hom mast.ad en-
tries upon the earns land :eiuquish-
Inent OF the same. and that the same
was delivered To Judge Hall by Nh. Sc
testified that IT was not delivered upon
that the charges would be
by Judge Hall.
Investigation Dodged,
II further appears from the evidence
that both OF these complaints Were
laid before three members of the board
on or about February 16 1907, and that
the Board agreed TO call n meeting TO
consider the same. and that they did, on
the 26ih of February. l907. call a meet
ing, but that no investigation was made
and said meeting was adjourned for the
reason that a member of the board WAS
abeent, and that adjournment was had
until the 5th day Of March, 1907. and
there is no evidence before the commit
tee that the board at any time has in
vestIgatcd or acted upon either of these
charges.
So FAR as the committee Is advised
there Is nothing in the law prohibiting
q member or employee Of the board Of
land commissioners from acquiring State
lands In the ordinary and usual way
But IN CUR opinion, IL is a serious viola
tion OF public duty and contrary 10 the
duty and trust owing by employees and
officers OF the public, that an officer or
an employee Of the State land board
Ia inf,