The Parker post., 1913-06-07
IMPORTANT
DECISION
u. S. LAND COMM SSlONER
RULES AGAINST "SOONERS"
ON LAND RESERVED FOR
COLORADO RIVER PROJECTS.

ing of Assistant General Land or
flee Commissioner PrOudfit in the
contested land case of Gus b. Cauld-
we'll VS.. VIM. S. Wells in which de
cision won by the latter in the Los
Angeles land office was reversed:
u. S. General Land Office, Washing
ton, ID. G..
Register and Receiver,
Los Angeles, Cal.
Gentlemen: BY letter of Decem-
her 3, 1912, you transmitted the
records in the above entitled case
together with the appeal of Cauld-
we'll from your decision adverse to
him.
The record shows that on May 49,,
1910, at nine o'clock A. NJ. Gus b.
Cauldwell filed homestead applica-
ton, 010569, for N e. a Sec. 2 r,
S. r. 22E., and with his application
he filed affidavit alleging that at
1905 O'Clock of the morning OF
April IS, 1910, he went to this tract
Of land to make settlement and
passed over the line for that purpose
when he was fOrcibly driven from
the land by William $. Wells.
On May Is, 1910, at 900 A. NJ,
William S. Wells filed homestead ap-
plicaation. Ol06l5. for the same tract
alleging that have established
actual residence on said land and am
now an actual settler thereon.
June 9Th, 1912, you ordered a hear
ing to determine the rights OF the
parties and trial was had on July 81
1912. at which the parties appeared
i'll person and by counsel
From the evidence adduced you
found for Wells and therefore you
recommend his homestead application
be allowed and that Of Cauldwell be
rejected
In reaching a conclusion you made
findings, both of fact and law.
1t appears that in the land dispute
with other lands was the department.
al order of Sept. 8, 1903. included in
withdrawal under the first form for
irrigation purposes, under the Act Of
June II. 1902, (32 Stat 1881. for
use in the Yuma Project Arizona.
Department vacated said order re-
storing the land to settlement on
April Is, 1910. and to entry, filing
or selection, on May rs. 1910. No
tice of said restoration was trans
mitted to your office by office letter
"K'', of Jan. q, 1910.
There is no conflict as to material
facts in this caes: Wells settled on
the tract in dispute in May 1908
thereon ever since, has cleared some
eight acres OF the land and has five
acres i'm crops He was on the land
on April Is, 1910, at the time Cauld-
we'll went there to begin his settle
ment Cauldwel admits that Wells
was on the land living there when
he arrived at 1905 on the day of the
opening. but CauldWell contends that
Wells was there unlawfully and by
Intimidation prevented him, Cauld
well, from effecting a settlement on
the land. Wells admits that he did
prevent Cauldwell from settling and
that he was there for the purpose Of
preventing anyone from Seettling on
that tract Wells contends that he
Went On the land in 1908, in good
faith, for the purpose of making the
tract his h0l4e and that he did no!
know such settlement was forbidden;
that he was the first person on the
land after it became open to settle
ment under the order of restoration
order of withdrawal nor in the act
authorizing the withdrawal which
forbade his going on the laand in
1908. The State of California claim
ed that these lands were included
in the swamp land granted to the
state and the states controversy de-
layed the adjudication the respective
claims of Cauldwell and Wells until
the year 1912. The Department held
that the state had no valid claim.
The facts not being in dispute, ap-
plicants assignments of error go only
to the question of law and are in
effect as follows:
The decision appealed from can
not stand because said land had been
withdrawn from all disposition in
cluding settlement, under the first
form, for irrigation purposes, under
the Act Of June II, 1902, and in
the order Of restoration all settle
ment or occupation prior TO April