Hide Article Text (OCR)
Old Soldier's Contest for Valua ble Land in Tacoma. APPEAL TO THE HIGHEST COURT. He Says the Northern Pacific Subsidy Agents Got a Man to Jump His Claim—Land © fice Boasted. An old soldier's claim to 1,400 town lots in Tacoma is to be passed upon next winter by the United States supreme court, in the case of Anthony P. Carr vs. William H. Fife and others. It was be fore Judge Hanford in 189, and at that time the land was valued at more than $2,000,000. The present valuation exceeds $1,000, 000. The land was taken up as a homestead in 1871 by Carr, who was a Union soldier, and had served four years in the army during the civil war. In 1873 Carr's claim was jumped by Robert E. Sproule, the man who was hanged in Victoria in 1555, and over whose trial a great deal of diplo matic correspondence took place between this government and that of Great Britain, Sproule claimed that Carr had abandoned his claim, which Carr denied. Hon. John B. Allen, late United States senator, and his brother Joseph S. Allen, now a mem ber of the capitol building commission, were Carr's attorneys. When Sproule began his contest against Carr, the land-subsidy agents of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company— Gov. John W. Goonwi, “Skookum” Smith and others—were actively engaged in securing donations of land as a bonus for the selection of Tacoma as the terminus of the road. Carr was not a cheerful giver; in fact he was the most obstinate “kicker” on Commencement day, and the relations be tween him and the railroad men became quite strained. The latter proved an over match for him. He alleges that they got Sproule to jump his claim, and that they railroaded the case through the land de partment at a high rate of speed, defeating Carr at every turn. Carr was on the land one year and eleven months when Sproule initiated the con test against him; and, having served four years in the army, for which he claims credit as residence on his homestead, his contention all along has been that his five years of residence was completed (with eleven months to spare) at the beginning of the contest, and consequently that his claim was not liable to be contested for abandonment. The register and receiver at Olympia made this singular decision in the case: “From these occasional visits to the claim we can but draw the conclusion that said A. P. Carr did not wholly aban don his raid claim, but we are more strongly of the opinion that the utter dis regard of the spirit of this munificent law, which gives to the poor man, upon easy and reasonable terms, what he could not otherwise obtain, would, in equity, be suf ficient ground for cancellation of his home stead entry.” Carr and his attorneys cite a decision of the commissioner of the general land office, made in the case of G. M. Bur lingame about the time that Carr’s home stead was canceled, as follows: “If the period of a soldier's actual resi dence upon and cultivation of the land embraced in his homestead entry, the same to be in no event less than one year, added to the term of his military service in the United States army during the war of the rebellion, make up the five years required by the act of May 20, 1562, nothing further settlement and cultivation is necessary to enable the party to perfect his entry; and he will not violate any legal require ment if, in that case, he should apsent himself from the land. The final proof may be made at any time within seven years from the date of his entry.” On the refusal to give Carr credit for his period of service in the army, his counsel say: “This most important feature of the case was disregarded and ignored by the register and other officers of the land de partment, although their attention was directed to it in the evidence, and in the argument of counsel for appellant. © * * No attention was given to appellant's rights in this respect; and we regret to say that it appears from the proceedings in the contest that his right, from the in ception of the contest to the cancellation of his claim, were nowhere properly re garded or protected. The contest was commenced by a claim-jumper and fugi tive from justice, who was a bad and dan gerous man; and there is something—yea, a great deal—in the record which makes one feel that a powerful conspiracy existed to deprive this old soldier of his just claim, which he had entered for a home when there was no prospect of its future value.” The charge of conspiracy is pressed with great earnestness, and the register and receiver of the Olympia land office are scored in a style of which the following is a sample: “Their conduct in the case was so singu lar that nobody can examine the record without noticing their evident purpose to make out some sort of a case against the appellant (Carr). Assuming to have juris diction, and ignoring all limitations upon it, they cast out a drag net for the taking inef any ,and every sort of testimon which might help to prejudice appellant's case, and upon which they could make a text of ing pretended equitable pading against him. They ordered a contest contrary to law. They overrode all the statutory limitations upon such a contest; violated the established rules of practice in land office trials; invaded the province of counsel by personal examina tion of witnesses touching matters wholly outside the proper scope of inquiry; received and entertained evidence without the range of the issue before them; denied appellant credit for his service in the army; allowed witnesses to testify for the contestant as to the character of im provements, and refused to allow witnesses to testify for appellant on the same sub ject. Everything denotes a strong inten tion and purpose to defeat appellant. It is made very plain that he was not to receive justice or fair treatment before the land office. How can so violent an atti tude towards an impoverished and disa bled veteran of the war, striving to carve a home out of the forest, be accounted for? Very easily upon the testimony in the record as to the projected estab lishment, at the time the contest was instituted, of the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad in the vicinity of the land in contest. The land speculators set a covetous eye upon ap pellant’s claim. They induced a desper ate character to assume the role of con testant. They organised a fraudulent and wicked oncency to defeat the appellant and trample on his right. The tool of the conspirators, who was an employe of the Northern Pacific railroad, when he had no further interest in the land, ad mitted a part of the offense. ” ‘ A patent for the land was issued to Sprouse, and he mortgaged it to the wife of William H. Fife for $521 This mort gage was foreclosed in 1553, and the land was then platted as Smith Pife’s addi tion to Tacoma by the Fifes, “Sxookum” Smith and M. J. Cogswell. It is more than twenty-one years since Sproule began the contest against Carr. It is expected that the case will be reached at the ap proaching term of the United States Su preme court, and that the right and title to the lamd wall at last be settled. It is estimated that fully 2000 lie on the Smith £ Fite tract, most of that number are squatters. The most valuable building on the tract is the Paget Sound Methodist university, each were are other buildings of more or less pretension, residences, etc., and innumerable shacts. John Arthur, of this city, together with Thomas Carroll, of Tacoma, and Heber J. May, of Washington City, is counsel for Cass, and Gaiushi Parsons, of Tacoma, will present the Smith and Fife interests. Mr. Arthur has just finished a brief setting forth his side of the case.
Newspaper Details
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Seattle, Washington, US
Fri, Sep 21, 1894
Page 5
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
