The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-02-07
FAMOUS LAND CONTEST AT
DEVILS LAKE IS DECIDED

# 4FE9H#s HH&#Aa.
Devils Lake, n. d, Feb. The
famous William Keogh VS.. Peter
Regan case has been settled, the de-
cision Of the commissioner of the gem
eral landofice ait washington AFFIRM
ing that OF the local ONCE, In many
Instances the points of the decision
are in marked contrast to that OF the
local Office. the same being cited as
examples. Following Is the word re-
ceiyed here:
Department of the interior, general
l%andofice. Washington, d. c., Feb. 8,
1912. William Keogh We. Peter Regan,
dislnissed-aff1rmed. Register ana
receiver, Devils Lake, N. d.
Gentlemen: William Keogh has APP
pealed from your decision in the above
entitled case, recommending the dis
missal Of his contest against III. H.
0s412, made Aug. ~, 1907, by Peter
Regan for the seA Sec. "a T. l56, r.
81.
On June 10, 1911, Keogh filed his
application to contest said entry, al
leging that:
Said Peter Regain has failed to Gull
tivate the above described land, or any
part thereof at any time since MAX
ing said entry up to the present time;
that lao acres of said land has been
fit for cultivation at all times since
said Regain made said entry up to the
present time, and is At for cultivation
now, and viii be in the future.
H. 4.
before you on Aug. s, 1911, at which
both parties appeared and submitted
testimony.
The sole charge in this case is fail
ure to cultivate the land, it being full
ly conceded that Regan established
residence on the land, a few months
after entry and has resided thereon
with his family TO the date Of the
hearing. II is also conceded that he
has valuable improvements, including
a comfortable house, barn, hay shed.
chicken house, well, etc; that a por-
ton of the land is fenced off separate
" and is used for pasture and the
greater portion used for the raising
of wild hay, 100 tons OF which was
cut in n year, and that he raised
and kept stock upon the land each
year, including horses, cattle, hogs
and poultry.
The record OF this case is voluminous.
the contestant having paid more than
$3.50 for taking the testimony. but it
appears to this office that the material
facts in the case are covered by the
was done on the land by the homestead
claimant.
1t is the contention of the contestant
that because cereal or cultivated crops
could have been raised on the land and
because the land is adapted to their
growth, the claimant has not complied
with the law requiring cultivation.
This contention cannot be sustained
under the circumstances of this case.
Cultivation is a broad term and, APP
piled to the homestead law, compre-
bends an agricultural use OF the hand
that will bring the best results to the
user under the circumstances in his
particular case. For instance, this
claimant is q stock raiser. He has
horses, cattle and hogs. He finds that
he can make a better living from his
claim by grazing his stock on a part of
his land and by reserving another part
upon which he raises hay to feed his
stock in winter. Surely it will not be
~contended that he is required to sell
his stock and raise cereal crops, simply
because the land is well or ven better
adapted to growing of such crops than
it is for pasture and hay. If this claim
ant had no stock to Craze and feed,
and used the land solely for cutting
the natural growth OF the grass, then
there might be some question as to
but in this case there can
be no question Of the fact that, sit-
uated as he was, with a large num-
Der OF horses, cattle and hogs to feed
he had a perfect right to use the land
for that purpose, il 1t seemed to him
that he could make a greater profit
in that way. That he did use prac-
tically every acre OF his claim except