June 30, 1834 (4 Stat., 732), secs. 20 and 21, sale of liquor to Indians September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453), sec. 6, sur grant August 18, 1856 (11 Stat., 87), aban'd mil. ...... 149, 282, 307 March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251), swamp grant. 127, 223 397 117 100 83 136 270 August 14, 1848 (10 Stat., 233), mission claim.. 200 September 26, 1850, (9 Stat., 472), mineral lands... July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356), sec. 5, Cent. Pac. 100 July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 365), Nor. Pac... 189, 236, 532 sec. 3, Nor. Pac. 20 sec. 6, Nor. Pac. 87, 102 March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 520), Mich. R. R. September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496), donation. September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519), swamp 415 470 196 March 30, 1867 (15 Stat., 539), treaty with Russia May 7, 1868 (15 Stat., 649), Crow Indians.. 324 27 May 20, 1868 (15 Stat., 252), Mich. R. R. September 30, 1854 (10 Stat., 1109), 7th clause, 2d art. Chippewa treaty September 30, 1854 (10 Stat., 1109), art. 3, Indian treaty March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634), swamp grant. April 18, 1855 (12 Stat., 975), Indian treaty. August 11, 1856 (11 Stat., 30), Miss. R. R. July 9, 1870 (16 Stat., 12), mineral lands... July 12, 1870 (16 Stat., 251), sec. 5, appropriations.. 415 373 DECISIONS TELATING TO THE PUBLIC LANDS. RESERVED LANDS-ENTRY-SETTLEMENT. SETTOON v. TSCHIRN. Though the act of March 2, 1889, restoring to the public domain certain lands reserved on account of private claims, covers in its descriptive terms only a part of the Conway claim, the obvious intent of Congress was to embrace all the lands within said claim. No rights are secured, as against the government, by an entry of land withdrawn from such appropriation; but as between two claimants for such land, after it is restored to entry, priority of settlement may be considered. In the adjustment of conflicting settlement claims asserted for lands restored to the public domain by said act of 1889, the settler first in time must be recognized as having the superior right. A homestead entry irregularly allowed of land reserved therefrom may remain intact on the restoration of the land, and in the absence of any adverse inter est. Secretary Smith to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, July 2, (J. I. H.) 1894. (F. L. C.) The land involved in this dispute is lots 1 and 2, Sec. 7, T. 9 S., R.5, E., New Orleans, former South Eastern land district, Louisiana. The record shows that on August 7, 1884, Charles Tschirn, the defendant, made entry of said lots under the homestead law, and on January 9, 1888, he submitted final proof, after due notice by publication, setting forth therein that he had resided upon the land in question since 1874. Before your office had taken any action on the proof, Mary Settoon, the plaintiff, under date of February 26, 1889, instituted contest proceedings to set aside the entry, alleging in substance that the entry was illegal by reason of the land being within the alleged claim of John McDonogh and Company, or Conway grant; that said land was used for purposes of trade, and had been selected by the State as swamp and overflowed land in 1881, and that said land was unfit for cultivation and that claimant did not make the entry in good faith for a home. 1801-VOL 19—1 1 |