The Timber Grab Controversy
The Secretary of the Interior rejects a homestead claim, ruling that the land was sought for timber rather than farming.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A decision of the Secretary of the Interior was received yesterday at the United States land office in Seattle, reversing the decision of the commissioner of the General Land Office. The case involves Napoleon Brunet and A. McKeown versus Henry J. Twindle over the right to the northeast one-quarter of a section in township 38. The Seattle land office had previously ruled in favor of Brunet and McKeown, holding that Twindle's homestead entry was made for speculative purposes to obtain the land for its timber, rather than for a bona fide home. The Secretary of the Interior sustained this local decision, noting that the testimony regarding the agricultural quality of the land was conflicting, but the surveyor’s field notes and reports showed the entire township was mountainous and unfit for agriculture, confirming Twindle’s claim was merely a 'colorable settlement' to secure the timber.
“The secretary concludes that Twindle's settlement was not bona fide for the purpose of establishing a home, but that it was a colorable settlement, made with a view of securing the timber upon the tract.”
This case highlights the Gilded Age tension between federal homestead acts designed to build farming communities and the extractive industries—like logging—that sought to control public lands for profit. It mirrors ongoing contemporary debates regarding public land use and the privatization of natural resources.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.