The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-11-27
THE LAW NEEDS AMENDING.


The local land Office here made rni'
ING on the Interpretation of the en-
largcd homestead act, 10 the effect that
( where homcstcadcr cultivatcdea por-
tion of tract before it had been lcsiS-
mated for entry nnder that law, he
would have the irS, chance 10 file on
the tract after it had been. so thrown
open. This ruling WAS IN strict con
sonancc with the rules that have pro-
vailed hitherto with regard 10 the tax
ing of public land. IT has always been
held that the actual settler or oecu'
pant would have the first right oil en-
try when the land WAS thrown open
( for taking.
| In the old West where this practice
was enforced so long. the homeSteader
or setter actually settled on the land,
opened more or less Of il 30 cultivation,
and made his home upon II. Out here
the nearest analogy 10 that is where
settler already having his home ad"
iacent 10 a tract that may be taken nm
der the new homestead act files upon IL
and does what is required under that
act bv way of tillage within the time
limited. He gets his first right Of en-
try under the local ruling The next
nearest 10 that is whore person takes
up tract of arid land for dry farm
ing and does the best nc can by way
of reclaiming IL in ploughing or other
form of use without having the ad-
iaccnt home or residence. II seems TO
us that the local land Office. in so rul-
ing. was strictly in accord with the
precedents of the General Land Office,
as faithfully rs those precedents could
he applied TO the conditions involved.
But the General Land Office overrules,
and decides that such cultivation af-
foris no claim for prior fling.
II is explained that bur few eases
will be materially Affected by this
ruling, But a great many eases of en-.
try arc likely to be headed off by It.
Persons who wish TO open dry farms
might. under that enlarged homestead
act, make such cultivation as is pos
sible, but would not be able to settle
upon the land BY reason of the lack of
water for culinary. household and stock
purposes but would wish genuinely to
make homestead upon the land as
soon a. conditions would permit.
In the meantime, if they put the
land under plough as the law requires,
il would seem as though, following the
preccdentS of the General Land Office
for generations, the one making these
Improvements ought to be considered
a settler and homesteader in the full
sense of the term \ good many filings
have been partly made in Ctah and 1T
WAS announced not long ago that con-
siderable party from Los Angeles were
to come TO Utah and enter dry farm
lands, reclamiDg them as rapidly as
was possible. Under the ruling of dhe
local land office this would have been
quite feasible, aud the locators would
have been fully protected. But, under
the present ruling of the Interior De-
partment, which Is harsh and unprece-
dentedly adverse TO the actual tsker ot
the land all enterprises of that kind
would be headed off.
1t would seem as though the ruling OF
the Interior Department had been made
without due consideration of all the
facts and circumstances III the case,
but since IL has been made IN that way,
We can sec no better thing TO propose
than that the ruling made by the local
land ollico here should be Incorporates
iu the Law as an amendment thereof,
In that way the Nation will lose moth
ing, while actual colouists or indiYid-
uals who wish to reclaim arid land to
such tilage as is possible will be given
their fair opportunity TO do so IN strlct
compliance with the law. and IN accord
with the precedcnts which have SO long
prevailed elsewhere in the Republic IN
the disposal of the public land by pref
erence TO those who actually settled
thereon to use it. and give evidence OF
their good faith in bringing land under
tilaee and making homes as RAPIDLY al
the rnpdjiinns will allow