Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 August 1888 — FAVORING SETTLERS. [ARTICLE]

FAVORING SETTLERS.

A Decision by the Secretary of the Interior Adverse to Railroads. Nearly 8,000 Cases Affected, in the Matter of Indemnity. [Washington (D. C.) special.] The Secretary of the Interior has rendered a decision in the somewhat celebrated case of The Northern Pacific Railroad Company against Guilford Miller. The history of the case briefly stated is as follows: In 1884 Miller made a homestead entry of 180 acres of loud within the indemnity limits of the Northern Pacific Bailroad in Washington Territory, alleging settlement in 187 a The date of entry was subsequent to the date of the withdrawal for and selection by the railroad company. The entry was allowed by the local land officers, who subsequently notified the General Land Office that the allowance was an error, as the land entered had already been withdrawn from settlement, and advised that It be canceled. This the Commissioner of the General Land Office refused to do, upon the ground that the withdrawal of this land was contrary to express prohibition in the granting act itself, and that the land was subject to settlement up to the date of selection. The railroad company appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, who referred the question to Attorney General Garl nd. In his opinion the Attorney General held that the withdrawal was valid and effective as against subsequent settlement, and that Miller’s settlement made after the withdrawal was illegal. Soon thereafter the President, in a letter to the Secretary, took the position that as the selection of the company was required by law to be made under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior the Secretary should require the company to release the tract claimed by Miller and select another in lieu thereof. There the case rested.

In the decision the Secretary holds briefly that when the map of the main line was filed and accepted in 187 u the general route was fixed, and the statutory withdrawal under Seo. 0 of the granting act became Inoperative. The statutory withdrawal having once been put In operation could not again be exercised, its authority being exhausted. The general route being thus fixed could not be amended or changed exo pt by legislative authority. As no such authority was given, the attempt to change tho general route by the map of 18 1 2 was without authority of law. As Millers land was not within the limits of the statutory withdrawal under tho lawful map of 1870, It remained public land subject to settlement, notwithstanding tho filing of the map of 1872, and theattempi ed wl , hdrawal of the land by the Commissioner of the General Land Office was of no effect to change the status. The Secretary holds that Sec. 0 of tho granting act to the company absolutely prohibits the withdrawal by the Executive of the lands on the line of tho road from the operation of the homestead aud pre-emption laws, and that in attempting to make withdrawal of lands for indemnity purposes the Commissioner did that which was prohibited. The railroad company selected Miller's land as indemnity for lands within the Yakima Indian reservation, but the Secretary says that inasmuch as the Supreme Court bald in the Buttz case that the lee simple titlo to the lauds within tho Indian reservation passed by the grant to the company, subject to the right of occupancy by the Indians, the company is not entitled to indemnity for lands within said reservation and which have passed to it by its grant. The effect of this decision is far-reaching, and will affect about 800 cases now pending in the General Land Office, and probably the claims of many settlers which have not reached there. The denial of the right of the company to indemnity for lauds within the Yakima Indian reservation is said to be equally applicable to other Indian reservations along the line of the road, and will have the effect of reducing the indemnity claims of the company largely, probably to the extent of 1,500,000 acres. QAbout 8,00) cases now in the General Land Office will be affected by this decision.