Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-12-11
SEE NO BAS|SF0R
| LAND CLAIMS HERE
Secretary Lane and Commits
sioner TaIIman Scout luea.
Latter Refuses Entries.


in the general land Office by + Nor
ris Wampler. attorney for Morris +.
Irwin ard others were refused bN
CuninIss .uner Talimau. Inc co"inlto-
stoncr. IN refusing the entries ut-
cIartd that even ii the law and many
opinions Of the Supreme Court OF the
United states as well as OF the gen
eral land office. did not support rtJec
ton Of the entries. the long continued
adverse posse ssion of persons own
ing the land. together with their
h.fhcrto urCuestioned titles and the
valuable improvements made on the
lands claimed. would s''ihcG TO ndhe
TIE attempted entry OF Such 'aius d,
81 an acre as public lands without
await. even so far as conccrheu 'lo"u
ing the titles to the lands
Land commissioners Opinion.
The cnivfo, Of General Land Com
missioner CLAY TallpIrn follows
Tho implications offered for dIinE IN
this uaice iy you. for Morris +. ~" ~.
and others. for warrants dlfectbS ,l'
sut-vt,vnT Of the District al t.oil'ihp.iL
to survey. under the joint resolution Oh
Congress OF February 10, 1913 - stat
:cSl certain designated blocks IN the
District OF Columbia. are hereby Gcnled,
and such papers viii he held SUBJECT 10
your order for two days, and If Wlthin
that time you fail 10 call for them theE
will be returned to you by mail.
"Sorne of the lands described by
such applications are situated in what
was formerly the city of Washington
and over such limits this office was
given no jurisdiction whatever under
the provisions of the aforesaid Joint
resolution of February 1t, 1889: anu
as TO those areas within the DISTRICT
of Columbia and without the limit
of the city of Washington 1T is noted
that the laws of Maryland continued
in force by the act or Congress oil the
9th Of February, 1901. and when
were imperative for the want or APP
propriate officers or authority in the
district of Columbia for their eXecu-
ton were acts of the state of Mary
land for securing title to vacant
lands whereas the lands described by
the several applications filed by you are
VIGOROUSLY claimed and occupied, ar d
are therefore not of the class contenl-
Plated by the resolution of February 10,
1880.
Maryland Grant Cited.
In the cession by Maryland to the
government of the United States of
that territory known and defined as
the District of Columbia, ii was not
intended by.that state in making the
cession, or by the United States in
accepting it. that private rights of
property to the lands included in such
cession should be in any wise affected
except by the change of political ju-
risdiction.
THE act of March ), 1907 g Stat.
445), has no application whatever.
First, because the lands affected
thereby We're those coded to the Unit
ed States by the several states, such,
for example. as the Northwest Terri
tory, by Virginia, and the lands now
forming the major part of Alabama
by Georgia. etc, or those secured from
\,
chase. But. even though it be con-
ceded that the act of March 3. 1907.
is broad enough to include the waste
of unappropriated lands coded by
Maryland to the United States, it must
be held that the said act did in no.
wise affect privately owned lands
within said District.
Form Of Warrant Prescribed.
at is interesting to note that short
ly after the adoption of the joint res
olution of February 16. 1899 the Sec
rotary of the Treasury issued regula-
lions for carrying into effect the pro-
visions of said act, and apparently
ontemporaneously. or nearly so. with
the adoption of such resolution, the
flee prescribed a form of warrant is
sued to the surveyor of the county
of Washington. In such form the
mandate was given:
Lay out. therefore. and carefully
resurvey, for and in the name of said
the aforesaid land,
according to it's respective ancient
metes and bounds: nevertheless COR
recting and amending any errors in
the original survey and by your out
lines adding any vacant land thereto
contiguous, not running your lines
within the lines of any former or
more ancient survey.
Applications Examined.
Il have examined at some length
the various applications acted on by
this Office running through the period
from shortly after the approval of the
joint resolution to within COMPARE
lively recent times, and it is discern
ible therefrom that in all the cases in
which favorable action has been
taken ii was established that the
lands Were entirely free from any
claim. or were small areas that tech
nically and legally did not form
part of any previous grant.
IF the joint resolution of February
Is, 1899, be regarded as a part of what
are commonly known as the public
land laws--in other words. if it is a
general act relating to the disposition
of the public domain-then the appli-
cations to purchase these lands at
private sale must be denied since by
the provisions of the act of March 9,
1883 t25 Stat, $50, Congress express
ly provided that no public lands of
The United States. except those in the
state Of Missouri, shall be subject to
private sale.
Legal Precedents Cited.
And again, if the lands described
by your several applications are of
the class public lands they would
not be subject to disposition under
the several applica tons. for as held
by the Supreme Court in the case of
Anterior VS.. Fowler go L. s 513)
any attempt to make entry of or Dur-
chase public lands occupied and i'm
proved by another person. under an
honest claim and color of title, will
not be permitted. The Atherton-FowIer
decision has been followed repeatedly
by the courts and the Department of the
Interior. See also Lyle VS.. Patterson
l22s |. s, 21D, Kruger VS.. United
States t246 L. s, go, Denee VS.. Ank-
eny t2i6 L. S, Posi- and Burtis VS. State
of Kansas ga l.. D., 304)
Grants Held Void.
IF, however. it be held that the
aforesaid resolution of February IL,
1899, was local act applicable only to
the District of Columbia, and that as
such IT was not affected by the pro-
visions of the act of March 9 1889. it
must be held that the aforesaid Joint
resolution OF 1899 was repealed by the
act of March > 1901 (31 Stat, 1883, 1437.
providing code for the District of Co.
lun1 bia.
THE Supreme Court. in the case of
Morris vs.. United States G74 u. s.,
1860, held that a patent for lands in the
District of Columbia issued by the COM
missioner Of the general land Office with
out express authority of law in contra
vention of the provisions OF the Joint
resolution OF February IS, 1889, was void