Continued from page 1
the act of June 11, 1906. He was
not willing to accept the listing
survey by metes and bounds made
by the forest officer. He desired
to have the matter of listing held
in abeyance to await the General
Land office survey, in order that
the tract might be listed by legal
subdivisions. But for such delay
on his own motion, the tract could
have been listed with the Secre
tary of the Interior and Jeter’s
preference right of entry acquir
ed prior to withdrawal by execu
tive order which has intervened
and nowr defeats the acquisition
of such right.
"Mr. Jeter’s application was
finally rejected by this office by
letter of Oct. 6. Mr. Jeter’s home
stead application has been a diffi
cult one to handle, since it has
been impossible to adjust the
boundaries of his claim in such a
way that it would be satisfactory
to him and yet come within re
quirements of the law. ’ ’
In effect, all of the efforts of
the defendant to make a valid
homestead filing or location
of said premises amounted to
no more than an attempt to
buy land w7hich the owner was
not yet ready to sell.
Something was said at the
hearing of this case with regard
to the delay, either by the Secre
tary of the Interior or the Secre
tary of Agriculture, or some one
authorized to act in the matter
of eliminating lands from nation
al forest reserves which is very
prejudicial to the defendant.
, This may, all be true and still the
' defendant is in no position to
claim a legal or valid right to
said land until such time as the
officers authorized by law7 to dis
pose of said land, performed the
various administrative acts dele
gated to them by the public land
laws of the United States.
During the eighties and up to
the late nineties, the public land
laws of the United States wrere
very much more liberally, or as
may be said, loosely administer
ed. To such an extent wras this
true that the settlers upon the
public domain in the western
states and territories came to
feel and believe that they had
almost a vested right in and to
all public lands upon which they
might settle or establish a physi
cal possession. When the most
of the public lands were disposed
of, and land became scarcer, the
policy of the government became
stricter. National forest reserves
were established and the oldtime
settlers and squatters upon pub
lic lands or those w7ho had lived
in the newer states and territo
ries, desiring to make such set
tlements or locations, felt very
much aggrieved, as though their
personal liberties and rights had
been infringed and invaded.
During the past thirty years I
have had an intimate personal
knowledge of this transition and
understand and appreciate fully
the view point of the ‘‘old timer, ’ ’
especially those in a mining coun
try, long used to the free appro
priation of mining claims by
right of discovery and location
only.
This may have nothing to do
with this case, any more than it
serves to illustrate the position
of the defendant. w7ho strenuous
ly insists upon his right as against |
the government and against any
body else, because he settled upon
and took physical possession of a
certain tract of public land. Be
cause the government for many
years was very lenient in admin
istering public land laws and
even permitted acts of occupancy
and trespassing upon the public
lands, without objection, is no
more reason why one could ac-1
quire a valid or legal right there
to, without full compliance with
the public land laws, than that a
guest in the house of a tolerant
and generous host should, after a
long period of entertainment, feel
that he was unjustly treated by
being requested to leave.
The remedy sought here, that
of mandatory injunction, has
been sustained and upheld by de
cisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States, which is the
highest law in our land.
It follows therefore that the
relief prayed for by plaintiff must
be granted.
Mandatory injunction will be
issued requiring the defendant
forthwith to remove from the
said land both himself and all
structures erected by him there
on, and upon his failure to do so,
that the United States Marshal
for the Third division, or any
deputy of said marshal, be com
manded to forthwith remove said
defendant and all structures
placed by him on said premises.
Fig sultanas, fancy cakes and
Swastika sodas at Pilgers.
“The Peoples Line”
The fast and commodious pow
er boat Red Fish. Capt. Jack
Hadland master, will make two
trips daily from Anchorage via
Goose Bay to Knik. Round trip
fare $1.50. For further informa
tion see Franklin Johnson, gen
eral freight and passenger agent.
Inlet Soda Co.
Diedrick & Taylor, Proprietors
W. A. Taylor, Manager
Manufacturers of all kinds of
SVSineral Water
Soda, Cider
Syrups
Agents for Grape Juice
Anchorage, - - Alaska
BRICK YARD
At Chester Creek.
Chas. J. Young announces that
he is now manufacturing, for the
market, a good quality Brick, for
building, chimney and other pur
poses. He invites you to visit
the vard at Chester creek.
The Perkins Paystreak
Bakery and Coffee House
Bread, Pies, Cakes, Etc.
a Specialy.
LUNCHES SERVED
Opp. Pioneer W. S. Perkins,
Office. Propr.
| Bank of Seward |
Established 1905
| Depository for j
I Territorial Funds I
| Seward, - Alaska |
%ll!lli!lll!liillilllllllllll!llllllllllllllllllillillllll!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV#'
PACIFIC GROCERY
COMPANY — WHOLESALE
Our Goods will Be Found Reliable
Anchorage
Alaska
The Herning Family
Continue to Dispense
General Merchandise
At the Old Stand in Knik
Whatever You Want We Have
Whatever We Have You Want
Knik Trading Com’y
0. G. Herning, Manager
As mute evidence that Knik Arm is navigable during the win
ter, the above picture shows the popular launch Traveler, Captain
S. S. Cramer, owner and master, on one of its mid-winter trips.
The Traveler is on the Anchorage-Goose Bay-Knik run.