Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1910-07-08
CAN'T HOLD UP CLAIMS
SUPREME COURT MAKES RULING
IN OREGON CASE.
Secretary Must Pass on Entries Within
Two Years When Receipt
Has Been Issued.

| Under a decision rendered Wednes-
| day by Judge Anderson, of the Su-
preme Court of the District of Colum-
bia the Secretary of the Interior will
not hereafter be permitted to hold UP
indefinitely land entries against which
specific charges are not pending, but
whenever a receivers receipt has been
issued, must pass upon the issuance OF
patent within two years.
This decision was handed down in
the case of the Grand Rapids Timber
Company VS.. Secretary of the Interior,
the timber company having purchased
several Siletz entries in Oregon in
1903. In the Fall of that year spec
ial agent of the Land Office reported
that there was reason to believe this
particular land was not taken in good
faith by the homesteaders, but no
evidence to sustain this suspicion was
presented. Nevertheless the depart
ment has since refused to issue patent.
Secretary Can't Hold Up Claims.
Recently the Secretary of the Inter
ior directed the cancellation of these
particular entries and the Grand Rap
ids Company, an innocent purchaser,
through Attorneys Duane e. Fox and
Franklin Boughton Fox of this city,
filed suit for injunction to prevent can
collation., asserting that no protest
had been made against the entries
within two years, as required by the
act of March, 8, 1891, for the special
agents report, while made within two
years from the issuance of the re-
ceiver's receipt, was not sufficient in
law, in that it failed to show wherein
the entries were made in violation of
law.
The Secretary filed a demurrer
alleging that title to the land was in
the United States, which cannot be
sued, that the courts cannot interfere
with the Secretary while the land re-
mains unpatented and that the report
of a special agent was filed within the
meaning of the act, and that "if the
argument in support of the Secretary's
demurrer were allowed to prevail, the
act of Congress would be without
force or meaning" The demurrer
was overruled.
Lafferty Loses; Will Appeal.
Judge Anderson also dismissed an
injunction suit brought by A. w. Laff-
erty, of Portland, on behalf of Hol-
verson and IL other Siletz entrymen.
In IL of these cases the receivers re-
ceipts had not been issued as required
by the act of March 8, 1891. This ac-
tion leaves the Secretary of the inter-
ior at liberty to cancel the entries in
question it, in his Judgment, the evil
dence warrants.
I'VE have already wired money to
Washington to appeal these cases."
said A. W. Lafferty last night. Il am
at loss to understand why or through
what manner of reasoning any such
decision ever was handed down. In the
first place no question arose as to the
validity of the claims within the time
limit, upheld in the decision quoted in
the Grand Rapids cases. The only
point then involved was as to the work
done on the claims. The Government
asserts that a sufficient amount of
work was not done to establish the
sincerity of the settlers. That would be
impossible in the specific cases. The
timber is very heavy and though they
are classed as homesteads they are
nothing less than timber claims.