The Union Veteran Who Sued the Railroad for a Million-Dollar Tacoma

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 before Judge Hanford in 1890, and at that time the land was valued at more than $2,000,000. The present valuation exceeds $1,500,000.

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, and over whose trial a great deal of diplomatic 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 member 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 N. Goodwin, 'Stookum' 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 Bay, and the relations between him and the railroad men became quite strained. The latter proved an overmatch for him. He alleges that they got Sproule to jump his claim, and that they railroaded the case through the land department 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 contest 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 abandon his said claim, but we are more strongly of the opinion that the utter disregard 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 sufficient ground for cancellation of his homestead entry.'

Carr and his attorneys cite a decision of the commissioner of the general land office, made in the case of G. M. Burlingame about the time that Carr's homestead was canceled, as follows:

'If the period of a soldier's actual residence 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, nothing further of settlement and cultivation is necessary to enable the party to perfect his entry; and he will not violate any legal requirement if, in that case, he should absent 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 department, 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 rights, from the inception of the contest to the cancellation of his claim, were nowhere properly regarded or protected. The contest was commenced by a claim-jumper and fugitive from justice, who was a bad and dangerous man; and there is something—yes, 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 singular 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 jurisdiction, and ignoring all limitations upon it, they cast out a dragnet for the raking in of any and every sort of testimony which might help to prejudice appellant's case, and upon which they could make a pretext of basing a pretended equitable finding 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 examination 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 improvements, and refused to allow witnesses to testify for appellant on the same subject. Everything denotes a strong intention 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 attitude towards an impoverished and distressed 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 establishment, at the time the promise was made, of the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad in the vicinity of the land in contest. The land officials set covetous eyes upon appellant's claim. They induced a desperate character to become the contestant. These fraudulent and wicked conspirators conspired to defeat the appellant and rob him of his rights. The tool of the conspirators, who was an employee of the Northern Pacific Railroad where he had no further interest in the land, admitted part of the offense.'

A patent for the land was issued to Sproule, and he mortgaged it to the wife of William H. Fife for $750. This mortgage was foreclosed in 1891, and the land was then platted as Smith & Fife's Addition to Tacoma by the Fifes, 'Stookum' Smith and others. It is more than twenty-nine years since Sproule began the contest against Carr. It is expected that the case will be reached at the approaching term of the United States Supreme Court, and that the rights and title to the land will at last be settled.

It is estimated that 1,400 people live on the Smith & Fife tract, and most of that number are squatters. The most valuable building on the tract is the Puget Sound Methodist University, and there are other buildings of more or less pretension, residences, etc., and innumerable shacks. John Arthur, of this city, together with Thomas Carroll, of Tacoma, and Heber J. Key, of Washington City, is counsel for Carr, and Galusha Parsons, of Tacoma, will present the Smith & Fife interests. Mr. Arthur has just finished a brief setting forth his side of the case.