The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1912-03-13
HOMESTEAD ENTRIES.

.
the contrary Notwithstanding, the In
terror department is holding that
where q person qualified to make
homestead entry makes bona fde set
Element upon u~nsurveyed lands with
the intention Of making homestead
entry thereof when the land shall have
been surveyed, he may make such en-
try ever though the land settled upon
is found upon survey to be . portion
of section sixteen or thirty-six, and
that in such case the state may select
other land in lieu of that lost by such
prior settlement claim.
This has been the ruling OF the In
terror department for q number OF
years. The supreme court of the state
OF Washington on Jan. 4, 1912, held
that sections sixteen and thirty. six,
whether surveyed or unsurveyed, pass
ed to the state by virtue of the enabl-
ing act, and that the title of the state
could mol be defeated by a settlement
claim initiated thereon prior to sur.
vey under the homestead laws. The
supreme court of the state OF l Idaho
also ruled similarly and 80 have other
state supreme courts, but those deci.
sions have not been binding upon the
federal government. ana a fact have
been virtually ove:.G.e. by contrary
holding of the interior department.
Strange to say this question has
never been carried to the United States
supreme court from any state, and
therefore the decision of the interior
department is binding, unless reversed
by that court. The Washington case,
recently decided by the supreme court
of that state, cannot be carried to the
United States supreme court. as that
decision was rendered in reference to
the entry of a man whose entry was
Cancelled for failure to comply with
the law.
There has been considerable interest
in another Washington case involving
the right of the state to sections six
teen and thirty-six, prior to survey
the case of the state of Washington
VS.. Frank A. OF. OFT settled On q
quarter section of land in the Water
Vile land district prior to its survey,
and after the map Of survey OF that
particular township was filed, OF filed
homestead application. The state
protested, alleging that the lands be.
ing embraced in q school section, the
states title attached Is Of the date OF
admission OF the state. OF showed
that be settled on the land in 1905
resided thereon continuously there
after: made it his home, and improved
it, and filed his homestead application
July %, 1908, five days after the survey
was approved. The interior depart
ment, 10 December, held OTIS claim
good as against the state. Following
this ruling, the state submitted a copy
of it's supreme court decision In thu
other case and asked for reversal O
the decision OF last December, but thi'
motion was denied, aud the depart
ment stands pat.
From this record 1t is to be inferred
that the interior department Will no
recognize that a states title to
school section attaches until the par
ticular section is surveyed, and the
only in the event there Ia no previou
adverse claim Where the state lose
q section by this means, however, til
department holds it ia entitled to max
an indemnity selection, but cannot a.
quire the particular section on whic
q prior settlement was made.-An'
conda Standard.