The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1914-03-26
MARBLE SETTLERS
WIN FINAL DECISION
DECISION BASED LARGELY UP
ON RULING OF STATE 81.
PREME COURT.

John X Booth, one Of the Marble
creek settlers, who returned recently
from Washington, D. c., where he
spent several weeks in presenting the
claims Of the settlers to title to their
land as against the claim Of the state.
was in the city several days last
week Mr.. Booth Is enthusiastic In
his praise Of t Idaho delegation in
congress and says that Senator'S Bor-
ah and Brady and Representatives
Smith and French showed him every
possible courtesy and assisted him In
many ways in getting the case up for
a hearing. Without this assistance 1t
would have been practically an i'm
possibility to have accomplished what
he did. He with all other settlers who
have made the stubborn fight for their
rights covering long period Of years
are much elated over the favorable de-
for it clears the way for issuance Of
patent to the land without delay.
The Decision.
The following extracts from the de-
csion of First Assistant Secretary
Jones, of the interior department,
cover the main points:
"rhe department has had frequent
occasion to consider the conflicting
claims of the state and many settlers
to lands in township "A. range and 8
east. the state asserting a preference
right to select under the provisions Of
the act of August 1S, 1894, (2S Stat.
39D, predicated upon supposed with
drawal for it's benefit. As to the lands
in township "A north, range 2 east the
state filed school indemnity selections
in lieu of parts of sections 16 and &c.
then within the Occur d'Alene Indian
reservation, and as to the lands In
township A north, range east, like
selections in lieu of parts of unsurvey-
ed sections 16 and SO, within a national
! forest"
Where Battle Is Lost.
Then after reviewing the Marble
creek land muddle and following 1t
through all It's ramifications, Mr.. Jones
turns the decisions Of the supreme
court of Idaho against Idaho in this
way:
"But the supreme court of the state
of Idaho in the case of BalderstOn vs..
Brady >uO7 Pac., 493). held that the
state board of land commissioners had
no power conferred upon it, either by
the constitution or the statutes Of the
state, to relinquish the states right OF
title to sections 16 and 36, and hat any
acton taken by the board or under Its
authority attempting to relinquish OF
waive the states right to such lands
was void In the case Of Rogers VS.
Hawley ct al. U15 Pac., 6S7), the same
court held that the Legislature OF Ida
no had, by an act approved on Febru'
airy 8, 1911. ratified and confirmed thu
unauthorized acts Of the state lant
board referred to in the case Of Bal
derston VS.. Brady. supra.
Idaho Behind Time.
These two opinions of the court o
last resort of the state are precisel!
pertinent to the case here under con
sideration and determine, beyond
question, that me states selection!
! had no validity until their ratification
and confirmation by the act OF Febru
ary s, 1911. Prior to that time, the!
were void and of no effect, having beer
made in the face Of the constitution
and laws of Idaho. The act OF tn
legislature of, Idaho, ratifying and con
frming the selections, had no retroac
tive effect and in no wise impaired tn
rights Of bona fde settlers upon tn
lands whose claims had attached Ion,
before"