Peronto And The Theft of Fargo - Revision history

AzraelBrown at 01:20, 12 January 2015

2015-01-12T01:20:16Z

AzraelBrown at 01:19, 12 January 2015

2015-01-12T01:19:49Z

AzraelBrown at 21:31, 21 January 2011

2011-01-21T21:31:57Z

AzraelBrown at 23:15, 24 September 2010

2010-09-24T23:15:15Z

AzraelBrown at 23:10, 24 September 2010

2010-09-24T23:10:41Z

AzraelBrown at 23:30, 21 September 2010

2010-09-21T23:30:35Z

AzraelBrown at 23:23, 21 September 2010

2010-09-21T23:23:35Z

AzraelBrown at 22:46, 21 September 2010

2010-09-21T22:46:32Z

AzraelBrown at 22:52, 6 September 2010

2010-09-06T22:52:56Z

AzraelBrown at 22:45, 6 September 2010

2010-09-06T22:45:54Z

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Thus, the lower court found against Peronto's claim.   Although Peronto had pushed the land office in Pembina to accept his claim, the claim was cancelled by the court's decision.  The court found that when the railroad surveyed the path of the railroad in the fall of 1871, they immediately became next in line for ownership of the odd-numbered sections.  Any land ownership claimed as part of the reservation was wiped away with the treaty of 1873; the railroad's claims immediately took effect.  The court's decision meant Peronto was the one out to steal the land, grabbing it out of the hands of the rightful owners in the fledgling Fargo.
-Peronto passed away 30 August 1883 at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by two daughters who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref><ref>"The Town Site of Fargo Claimed", Sacramento Daily Record, [http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014381/1883-09-10/ed-1/seq-8/;words=Fargo+Peronto+Francis 10 September 1883].  The article indicates two daughters, five granndaughters, one of whom is the daughter of a Major Thorne of the US Army.</ref>  One daughter, named Julia, allegedly forced into marriage by conspirators wishing to claim the Peronto estate.<ref>Jamestown Alert, 1/28/1886</ref>  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Dakota upheld the lower court decision. Peronto's lawyer and executor [[Major C.W. Buttz]] appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in the decision ''Buttz v the Northern Pacific Railway Company 119 US 55''<ref>See http://openjurist.org/119/us/55 .</ref>.  The US Supreme Court again upheld the decision of the lower courts, and became a often-cited precedent in issues of land ownership regarding the railroad and vacated reservation land.
+Peronto passed away 30 August 1883 at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by two daughters who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref><ref>"The Town Site of Fargo Claimed", Sacramento Daily Record, [http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014381/1883-09-10/ed-1/seq-8/;words=Fargo+Peronto+Francis 10 September 1883].  The article indicates two daughters, five granndaughters, one of whom is the daughter of a Major Thorne of the US Army.</ref>  One daughter, named Julia, was allegedly forced into marriage by conspirators wishing to claim the Peronto estate.<ref>Jamestown Alert, 1/28/1886</ref>  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Dakota upheld the lower court decision. Peronto's lawyer and executor [[Major C.W. Buttz]] appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in the decision ''Buttz v the Northern Pacific Railway Company 119 US 55''<ref>See http://openjurist.org/119/us/55 .</ref>.  The US Supreme Court again upheld the decision of the lower courts, and became a often-cited precedent in issues of land ownership regarding the railroad and vacated reservation land.
 ==References==
 <references/>

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Thus, the lower court found against Peronto's claim.   Although Peronto had pushed the land office in Pembina to accept his claim, the claim was cancelled by the court's decision.  The court found that when the railroad surveyed the path of the railroad in the fall of 1871, they immediately became next in line for ownership of the odd-numbered sections.  Any land ownership claimed as part of the reservation was wiped away with the treaty of 1873; the railroad's claims immediately took effect.  The court's decision meant Peronto was the one out to steal the land, grabbing it out of the hands of the rightful owners in the fledgling Fargo.
-Peronto passed away 30 August 1883 at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by two daughters who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref><ref>"The Town Site of Fargo Claimed", Sacramento Daily Record, [http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014381/1883-09-10/ed-1/seq-8/;words=Fargo+Peronto+Francis 10 September 1883].  The article indicates two daughters, five granndaughters, one of whom is the daughter of a Major Thorne of the US Army.</ref>  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Dakota upheld the lower court decision. Peronto's lawyer and executor [[Major C.W. Buttz]] appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in the decision ''Buttz v the Northern Pacific Railway Company 119 US 55''<ref>See http://openjurist.org/119/us/55 .</ref>.  The US Supreme Court again upheld the decision of the lower courts, and became a often-cited precedent in issues of land ownership regarding the railroad and vacated reservation land.
+Peronto passed away 30 August 1883 at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by two daughters who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref><ref>"The Town Site of Fargo Claimed", Sacramento Daily Record, [http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014381/1883-09-10/ed-1/seq-8/;words=Fargo+Peronto+Francis 10 September 1883].  The article indicates two daughters, five granndaughters, one of whom is the daughter of a Major Thorne of the US Army.</ref>  One daughter, named Julia, allegedly forced into marriage by conspirators wishing to claim the Peronto estate.<ref>Jamestown Alert, 1/28/1886</ref>  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Dakota upheld the lower court decision. Peronto's lawyer and executor [[Major C.W. Buttz]] appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in the decision ''Buttz v the Northern Pacific Railway Company 119 US 55''<ref>See http://openjurist.org/119/us/55 .</ref>.  The US Supreme Court again upheld the decision of the lower courts, and became a often-cited precedent in issues of land ownership regarding the railroad and vacated reservation land.
 ==References==
 <references/>

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Thus, the lower court found against Peronto's claim.   Although Peronto had pushed the land office in Pembina to accept his claim, the claim was cancelled by the court's decision.  The court found that when the railroad surveyed the path of the railroad in the fall of 1871, they immediately became next in line for ownership of the odd-numbered sections.  Any land ownership claimed as part of the reservation was wiped away with the treaty of 1873; the railroad's claims immediately took effect.  The court's decision meant Peronto was the one out to steal the land, grabbing it out of the hands of the rightful owners in the fledgling Fargo.
-Peronto passed away 30 August 1883 at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by a daughter who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref>  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Dakota upheld the lower court decision. Peronto's lawyer and executor C.W. Buttz appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in the decision ''Buttz v the Northern Pacific Railway Company 119 US 55''<ref>See http://openjurist.org/119/us/55 .</ref>.  The US Supreme Court again upheld the decision of the lower courts, and became a often-cited precedent in issues of land ownership regarding the railroad and vacated reservation land.
+Peronto passed away 30 August 1883 at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by two daughters who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref><ref>"The Town Site of Fargo Claimed", Sacramento Daily Record, [http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014381/1883-09-10/ed-1/seq-8/;words=Fargo+Peronto+Francis 10 September 1883].  The article indicates two daughters, five granndaughters, one of whom is the daughter of a Major Thorne of the US Army.</ref>  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Dakota upheld the lower court decision. Peronto's lawyer and executor [[Major C.W. Buttz]] appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in the decision ''Buttz v the Northern Pacific Railway Company 119 US 55''<ref>See http://openjurist.org/119/us/55 .</ref>.  The US Supreme Court again upheld the decision of the lower courts, and became a often-cited precedent in issues of land ownership regarding the railroad and vacated reservation land.
 ==References==
 <references/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:15, 24 September 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	In the 1883, the newspaper ~~The~~ [[~~:Category:Fargophilia\|~~Fargo]] ~~Argus~~ proudly proclaimed that the fair city had sprung up into a rich metropolis in record time. "In 1872," it claimed, "Fargo was the habitation of the wild Indian, and where her numberless business blocks stand today the tepee of the savage was the only indication of humanity's presence." Particularly, at the location of those numberless business blocks lived a Sioux man named Peronto.	+	In the 1883, the newspaper [[The Fargo Argus]] proudly proclaimed that the fair city had sprung up into a rich metropolis in record time. "In 1872," it claimed, "Fargo was the habitation of the wild Indian, and where her numberless business blocks stand today the tepee of the savage was the only indication of humanity's presence." Particularly, at the location of those numberless business blocks lived a Sioux man named Peronto.

	Before settlers were given broad legal permission to settle the Northern Plains, large portions of Dakota Territory were used as indian reservations. The land that the city of Fargo now occupies was within the Sisseton, Wahpeton, Sioux, and Bannock Indian Reservation until the 1873 treaty released the land to settlers. According to the original 1872-drafted agreement, indians interested in cultivating the land rather than moving to Devils Lake could get a pre-emption for land ownership and stake their claim, with similar rules as the white settlers, and get up to 160 acres of land if they cultivate at least 1/8 of the land "upon any particular location" for five years.<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio1059.htm, "AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN SIOUX INDIANS, 1873."</ref> On 14 February 1873, however, the US Government struck out the portions of the treaty which allowed land grants for homesteading. The first of ten $800,000 payments reimbursing the tribe for the land was allocated, but could not be spent until the tribes ratified the amended version. The tribes accepted the revised version, without pre-emption for indian land ownership, on 19 May 1873, and the amended treaty was confirmed by act of Congress on 22 June 1874.<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v36/iccv36p484.pdf 36 Ind Cl Comm 472, September 25, 1975 (and other sources)</ref>		Before settlers were given broad legal permission to settle the Northern Plains, large portions of Dakota Territory were used as indian reservations. The land that the city of Fargo now occupies was within the Sisseton, Wahpeton, Sioux, and Bannock Indian Reservation until the 1873 treaty released the land to settlers. According to the original 1872-drafted agreement, indians interested in cultivating the land rather than moving to Devils Lake could get a pre-emption for land ownership and stake their claim, with similar rules as the white settlers, and get up to 160 acres of land if they cultivate at least 1/8 of the land "upon any particular location" for five years.<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio1059.htm, "AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN SIOUX INDIANS, 1873."</ref> On 14 February 1873, however, the US Government struck out the portions of the treaty which allowed land grants for homesteading. The first of ten $800,000 payments reimbursing the tribe for the land was allocated, but could not be spent until the tribes ratified the amended version. The tribes accepted the revised version, without pre-emption for indian land ownership, on 19 May 1873, and the amended treaty was confirmed by act of Congress on 22 June 1874.<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v36/iccv36p484.pdf 36 Ind Cl Comm 472, September 25, 1975 (and other sources)</ref>

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Francis Peronto was born in 1831 at an indian settlement along the Goose River.  He was a half-blooded Sioux, commonly known as a "half-breed" in the contemporary language of the time, and his name would indicate his father was French.  In October 1871, at age 40, Peronto and his family settled along the Red River on the Dakota side, approximately where the Main Avenue now crosses the river<ref>Biography and residence found in Peronto obituary, The Fargo Argus, 1 September 1883.</ref>.  Peronto claims he was given the land by the Sioux leaders who had signed the treaty, and was assured that his preemption would remain intact after the reservation moved west.
-The lands that Peronto claims was due to him were the north half of the northeast quarter and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 7, township 139, range 48.  This land is roughly a [[Seigneurial_System_and_Ribbon_Farms|seigneurial system]] long-lot-style river plot, approximately outlined by NP Avenue on the north, 10th Street on the west, 3rd Avenue South, and the Red River on the east.<ref>Note that the legal description above only contains 120 acres, and would, strictly drawn, stop at about 2nd Street.  As is common in signeurial land allotment, his claim should continue all the way to the river and include a portion of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 8.  The Supreme Court of Dakota's decision indicated 150.95 acres in Peronto's claim, which would also seem to include the small chunk touching the river.</ref>  Once the treaty went into effect, converting a huge portion of Dakota territory to public lands, Peronto filed his claim with the land office in Pembina and indicated he first settled on the land as of 5 October 1871.  His initial filing was rejected: his claim occupied an odd-numbered section, which according to an 1864 Act of Congress, belonged to the Northern Pacific railroad to benefit its expansion across the continent.
+The lands that Peronto claims was due to him were the north half of the northeast quarter and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 7, township 139, range 48.  This land is roughly a [[Seigneurial_System_and_Ribbon_Farms|seigneurial system]] long-lot-style river plot, approximately outlined by NP Avenue on the north, 10th Street on the west, 3rd Avenue South, and the Red River on the east.<ref>Note that the legal description above only contains 120 acres, and would, strictly drawn, stop at about 2nd Street.  As is common in signeurial land allotment, his claim should continue all the way to the river and include a portion of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 8.  The Supreme Court of Dakota's decision indicated 150.95 acres in Peronto's claim, which would also seem to include the small chunk touching the river.</ref>  Once the treaty went into effect, converting a huge portion of Dakota territory to public lands, Peronto filed his claim with the land office in Pembina and indicated he first settled on the land as of 5 October 1871.  His initial filing was rejected: his claim occupied an odd-numbered section, which according to an 1864 Act of Congress, belonged to the Northern Pacific railroad to benefit its expansion across the continent.  Even though Peronto had been living on the property for three years, he thought the land had been stolen out from beneath him.
 The Act of Congress dated 2 July 1864 granted the Northern Pacific Railroad a swath of land along each side of their surveyed path.  Once the path of the railroad was settled upon, odd-numbered sections would be turned over to the railroad, and even-numbered sections would be Government lands, available for settlement.  The 1864 Act does allow that, if the land the railroad intends to cross has already been claimed by homestead or pre-emption, they were obliged to purchase the land from the settler.
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 This makes you a very lucky person when the railroad surveyors laid their chains across your homestead. Small settlements appeared at Oakport, north of the current Fargo townsite on the Minnesota side, and at the  mouth of the Elm River, in hopes of being one step ahead of the surveyors.   In June 1871, an agent of the Lake Superior and Puget Sound Company settled at the Fargo townsite and soon attracted the attention of other settlers.  The Oakport and Elm River shantytowns were quickly abandoned, and all attention moved to what is now Fargo.  Township lines had been surveyed in 1870, and section lines were first drawn in the Fargo area in November 1871.  In September 1871, a post office had been established as "Centralia", and marks the first establishment of a town at the site.
 Peronto, then, was late to the game.  Settlers on the Dakota side of the river had trouble holding on to their claims as well.  Twice prior to the ratification of the treaty, troops from Fort Abercrombie moved through Fargo and removed settlers not connected with either the tribe or the railroad. The original treaty, granting industrious Sioux the right to claim lands vacated by the reservation, would seem to be what Peronto's hopes were riding upon.
 The treaty originally specified that any indians who wished to retain their land could make a scrip claim, provided they improved it and cultivated it as a homesteader would. If the treaty superseded the railroad's claims, Peronto's claim would become great indeed. Given the activity at the Fargo townsite leading up to Peronto's October claim, it would seem that Peronto was not a simple farmer being taken advantage of, but was instead as much of a land speculator as his neighbors.
-He may have been on the right track, though.  His case went to court, and the decision weighed heavily on the treaty which opened the territory to settlement, and the original Act granting the public lands to the railroad.  The railroad's grant was given in 1864, and thus was the 2nd claim to the land after the indian tribal claim, granted upon whatever land the railroad surveyed for their tracks.  When the treaty removed the reservation's claim, and thus any assignment of land established by the tribe, the land surveyed by the railroad in the fall of 1871 reverted immediately to the railroad.  There was no gap of time between the two in which a claim could be made, so the odd-number sections could not be squatted upon as was possible across other public lands.  Had the treaty left open the window for indians to remain on land that they were cultivating, Peronto may have had a valid argument to retain his odd-numbered section of land.
+He may have been on the right track, though.  His case went to court, and the decision weighed heavily on the treaty which opened the territory to settlement and the original Act granting the public lands to the railroad.  The railroad's grant was given in 1864, and thus was the 2nd claim to the land after the indian tribal claim, granted upon whatever land the railroad surveyed for their tracks.  When the treaty removed the reservation's claim and any assignment of land established by the tribe, the land surveyed by the railroad in the fall of 1871 reverted immediately to the railroad.  There was no gap of time between the two in which a claim could be made, so the odd-number sections could not be squatted upon as was possible across other public lands.  Had the treaty left open the window for indians to remain on land that they were cultivating, Peronto may have had a valid argument to retain his odd-numbered section of land.  Unfortunately, Peronto only held on to the land with the tribe's blessings; the removal of the reservation removed Peronto's claim to the land.
-Thus, the lower court found against Peronto's claim.   Although Peronto had pushed the land office in Pembina to accept his claim, the claim was cancelled by the court's decision.  The court found that when the railroad surveyed the path of the railroad in the fall of 1871, they immediately became next in line for ownership of the odd-numbered sections.  Any land ownership claimed as part of the reservation was wiped away with the treaty of 1873; the railroad's claims immediately took effect.
+Thus, the lower court found against Peronto's claim.   Although Peronto had pushed the land office in Pembina to accept his claim, the claim was cancelled by the court's decision.  The court found that when the railroad surveyed the path of the railroad in the fall of 1871, they immediately became next in line for ownership of the odd-numbered sections.  Any land ownership claimed as part of the reservation was wiped away with the treaty of 1873; the railroad's claims immediately took effect.  The court's decision meant Peronto was the one out to steal the land, grabbing it out of the hands of the rightful owners in the fledgling Fargo.
-Peronto passed away 30 August 1883, at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by a daughter who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref>  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Dakota upheld the lower court decision.
+Peronto passed away 30 August 1883 at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by a daughter who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref>  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Dakota upheld the lower court decision. Peronto's lawyer and executor C.W. Buttz appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in the decision ''Buttz v the Northern Pacific Railway Company 119 US 55''<ref>See http://openjurist.org/119/us/55 .</ref>.  The US Supreme Court again upheld the decision of the lower courts, and became a often-cited precedent in issues of land ownership regarding the railroad and vacated reservation land.
 ==References==
 <references/>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In the 1883, the newspaper The [[:Category:Fargophilia|Fargo]] Argus proudly proclaimed that the fair city had sprung up into a rich metropolis in record time.  "In 1872," it claimed, "Fargo was the habitation of the wild Indian, and where her numberless business blocks stand today the tepee of the savage was the only indication of humanity's presence."  Particularly, at the location of those numberless business blocks lived a Sioux named Peronto.
+In the 1883, the newspaper The [[:Category:Fargophilia|Fargo]] Argus proudly proclaimed that the fair city had sprung up into a rich metropolis in record time.  "In 1872," it claimed, "Fargo was the habitation of the wild Indian, and where her numberless business blocks stand today the tepee of the savage was the only indication of humanity's presence."  Particularly, at the location of those numberless business blocks lived a Sioux man named Peronto.
-Before settlers were given broad legal permission to settle the Northern Plains, large portions of Dakota Territory were used as indian reservations.  The land that the city of Fargo now occupies was within the Sisseton, Wahpeton, Sioux, and Bannock Indian Reservation.  The reservation was still present at the time of initial settlement of the lands now occupied by the City of Fargo, but an 1873 treaty released the land to settlers.  According to the original 1872-drafted agreement, indians interested in cultivating the land rather than moving to Devils lake could homestead, with similar rules as the white settlers, and get up to 160 acres of land if they cultivate at least 1/8 of the land "upon any particular location" for five years.<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio1059.htm, "AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN SIOUX INDIANS, 1873."</ref> On 14 February 1873, however, the US Government struck out the portions of the treaty which allowed land grants for homesteading.  The first of ten $800,000 payments was allocated, but could not be spent until the tribes ratified the amended version.  The tribes accepted the amended version on 19 May 1873, and the amended treaty was confirmed by act of Congress on 22 June 1874.<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v36/iccv36p484.pdf 36 Ind Cl Comm 472, September 25, 1975 (and other sources)</ref>
+Before settlers were given broad legal permission to settle the Northern Plains, large portions of Dakota Territory were used as indian reservations.  The land that the city of Fargo now occupies was within the Sisseton, Wahpeton, Sioux, and Bannock Indian Reservation until the 1873 treaty released the land to settlers.  According to the original 1872-drafted agreement, indians interested in cultivating the land rather than moving to Devils Lake could get a pre-emption for land ownership and stake their claim, with similar rules as the white settlers, and get up to 160 acres of land if they cultivate at least 1/8 of the land "upon any particular location" for five years.<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio1059.htm, "AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN SIOUX INDIANS, 1873."</ref> On 14 February 1873, however, the US Government struck out the portions of the treaty which allowed land grants for homesteading.  The first of ten $800,000 payments reimbursing the tribe for the land was allocated, but could not be spent until the tribes ratified the amended version.  The tribes accepted the revised version, without pre-emption for indian land ownership, on 19 May 1873, and the amended treaty was confirmed by act of Congress on 22 June 1874.<ref>http://digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v36/iccv36p484.pdf 36 Ind Cl Comm 472, September 25, 1975 (and other sources)</ref>
-Louis Peronto was born in or around 1831 at a settlement along the Goose River.  He was a half-blooded Sioux, commonly known as a "half-breed" in the contemporary language of the time, and his name would indicate a French parent, most likely his father.  In October 1871 Peronto and his family settled along the Red River on the Dakota side, approximately where the Main Avenue now crosses the river<ref>Biography and residence found in Peronto obituary, The Fargo Argus, 1 September 1883.</ref>.  Peronto claims he was given the land by the Sioux leaders who had signed the treaty, and was assured that his preemption would remain intact after the reservation moved west.
+Francis Peronto was born in 1831 at an indian settlement along the Goose River.  He was a half-blooded Sioux, commonly known as a "half-breed" in the contemporary language of the time, and his name would indicate his father was French.  In October 1871, at age 40, Peronto and his family settled along the Red River on the Dakota side, approximately where the Main Avenue now crosses the river<ref>Biography and residence found in Peronto obituary, The Fargo Argus, 1 September 1883.</ref>.  Peronto claims he was given the land by the Sioux leaders who had signed the treaty, and was assured that his preemption would remain intact after the reservation moved west.
-The land that Peronto claims was due to him were the north half of the northeast quarter and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 7, township 139, range 48.  This land is roughly a [[Seigneurial_System_and_Ribbon_Farms|seigneurial system]] long-lot-style river plot, approximately outlined by NP Avenue on the north, 10th Street on the west, 3rd Avenue South, and the Red River on the east.<ref>Note that the legal description above only contains 120 acres, and would, strictly drawn, stop at about 2nd Street.  As us common in signeurial land allotment, his claim should continue all the way to the river and include a portion of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 8 as well.  The Supreme Court of Dakota's decision indicated 150.95 acres in Peronto's claim, which would also seem to include the small chunk touching the river.</ref>
+The land that Peronto claims was due to him were the north half of the northeast quarter and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 7, township 139, range 48.  This land is roughly a [[Seigneurial_System_and_Ribbon_Farms|seigneurial system]] long-lot-style river plot, approximately outlined by NP Avenue on the north, 10th Street on the west, 3rd Avenue South, and the Red River on the east.<ref>Note that the legal description above only contains 120 acres, and would, strictly drawn, stop at about 2nd Street.  As is common in signeurial land allotment, his claim should continue all the way to the river and include a portion of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 8.  The Supreme Court of Dakota's decision indicated 150.95 acres in Peronto's claim, which would also seem to include the small chunk touching the river.</ref>  Once the treaty went into effect, converting a huge portion of Dakota territory to public lands, Peronto filed his claim with the land office in Pembina and indicated he first settled on the land as of 5 October 1871.  His initial filing was rejected: his claim occupied an odd-numbered section, which according to an 1864 Act of Congress, belonged to the Northern Pacific railroad to benefit its expansion across the continent.
-Peronto was not, however, a member of the tribe whose land he settled upon, although he had obtained the tribe's permission to settle there.  Peronto claimed he was given permission to own the land and that the tribe intended to give him title to the land once the treaty converted the tribal property to public lands.
+The Act of Congress dated 2 July 1864 granted the Northern Pacific Railroad a swath of land along each side of their surveyed path.  Once the path of the railroad was settled upon, odd-numbered sections would be turned over to the railroad, and even-numbered sections would be Government lands, available for settlement.  The 1864 Act does allow that, if the land the railroad intends to cross has already been claimed by homestead or pre-emption, they were obliged to purchase the land from the settler.
-Speculators had been trying to stay one step ahead of the railroad surveyors, in hopes of staking their claim on property that would soon become very valuable.  Small settlements appeared at Oakport, north of the current Fargo townsite, and at the  mouth of the Elm River.   In June 1871, an agent of the Lake Superior and Puget Sound Company settled at the Fargo townsite, and soon attracted the attention of other settlers.  Oakport and Elm River were quickly abandoned, and all attention moved to what is now Fargo.  Township lines had been surveyed in 1870, and section lines were first drawn in the Fargo area in November 1871.  In September 1871, a post office had been established as "Centralia", and marks the first establishment of a town at the site.
+Thus, it makes you a very lucky person when the railroad surveyors laid their chains across your homestead. Small settlements appeared at Oakport, north of the current Fargo townsite on the Minnesota side, and at the  mouth of the Elm River.   In June 1871, an agent of the Lake Superior and Puget Sound Company settled at the Fargo townsite, and soon attracted the attention of other settlers.  Oakport and Elm River were quickly abandoned, and all attention moved to what is now Fargo.  Township lines had been surveyed in 1870, and section lines were first drawn in the Fargo area in November 1871.  In September 1871, a post office had been established as "Centralia", and marks the first establishment of a town at the site.
-Peronto, then, was late to the game.  Knowing that the railroad was entitled to every odd-numbered section along their route, the other settlers had already laid out their claims on the even-numbered sections.  Peronto's claim to the land on Section 7 was no doubt undisputed, because an attempt to claim the land would mean to be removed from the land when the railroad proceeded.  The original treaty removing the indian reservation claim would seem to be what Peronto's hopes were riding upon. The treaty originally specified that any indians who wished to retain their land could make a scrip claim, provided they improved it and cultivated it as a homesteader would. If the treaty superseded the railroad's claims, Peronto's claim would become great indeed. Given the activity at the Fargo townsite leading up to Peronto's October claim, it would seem that Peronto was not a simple farmer being taken advantage of, but was instead as much of a land speculator as his neighbors.
+Peronto, then, was late to the game.  Knowing that the railroad was entitled to every odd-numbered section along their route, the other settlers had already laid out their claims on the even-numbered sections.  Peronto's claim to the land on Section 7 was no doubt undisputed, because an attempt to claim the land would mean to be removed from the land when the railroad proceeded.  The original treaty, grantine industrious Sioux the right to claim lands vacated by the reservation, would seem to be what Peronto's hopes were riding upon.
-He may have been on the right track, though.  His case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the decision weighed heavily on the treaty which opened the territory to settlement, and the original Act granting the public lands to the railroad.  The railroad's grant was given in 1865, and thus was the 2nd claim to the land after the indian tribal claim, granted upon whatever land the railroad surveyed for their tracks.  When the treaty removed the reservation's claim, and thus any assignment of land established by the tribe, the land surveyed by the railroad in the fall of 1871 reverted immediately to the railroad.  There was no gap of time between the two in which a claim could be made, so the odd-number sections could not be squatted upon as was possible across other public lands.  Had the treaty left open the window for indians to remain on land that they were cultivating, Peronto may have had a valid argument to retain his odd-numbered section of land.
+The treaty originally specified that any indians who wished to retain their land could make a scrip claim, provided they improved it and cultivated it as a homesteader would. If the treaty superseded the railroad's claims, Peronto's claim would become great indeed. Given the activity at the Fargo townsite leading up to Peronto's October claim, it would seem that Peronto was not a simple farmer being taken advantage of, but was instead as much of a land speculator as his neighbors.
-Peronto passed away in early September, 1883, at the Cass County hospital.  At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court.  Peronto was survived by a daughter who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref>
+He may have been on the right track, though.  His case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the decision weighed heavily on the treaty which opened the territory to settlement, and the original Act granting the public lands to the railroad.  The railroad's grant was given in 1864, and thus was the 2nd claim to the land after the indian tribal claim, granted upon whatever land the railroad surveyed for their tracks.  When the treaty removed the reservation's claim, and thus any assignment of land established by the tribe, the land surveyed by the railroad in the fall of 1871 reverted immediately to the railroad.  There was no gap of time between the two in which a claim could be made, so the odd-number sections could not be squatted upon as was possible across other public lands.  Had the treaty left open the window for indians to remain on land that they were cultivating, Peronto may have had a valid argument to retain his odd-numbered section of land.
-After Peronto's death, the appeal continued through the courts, being heard by the US Supreme Court as ''Buttz v the Northern Pacific Railway Company''.  Buttz was Peronto's lawyer and executor.<ref>See http://openjurist.org/119/us/55 .</ref>
+The lower court found against Peronto's claim.   Although Peronto had pushed the land office in Pembina to accept his claim, the claim was cancelled by the court's decision.  The court found that when the railroad surveyed the path of the railroad in the fall of 1871, they immediately became next in line for ownership of the odd-numbered sections.  Any land ownership claimed as part of the reservation was wiped away with the treaty of 1873; the railroad's claims immediately took effect.
 ==References==
 <references/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, 6 September 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Peronto was not, however, a member of the tribe whose land he settled upon, although he had obtained the tribe's permission to settle there. Peronto claimed he was given permission to own the land and that the tribe intended to give him title to the land once the treaty converted the tribal property to public lands.		Peronto was not, however, a member of the tribe whose land he settled upon, although he had obtained the tribe's permission to settle there. Peronto claimed he was given permission to own the land and that the tribe intended to give him title to the land once the treaty converted the tribal property to public lands.
		+
		+	Speculators had been trying to stay one step ahead of the railroad surveyors, in hopes of staking their claim on property that would soon become very valuable. Small settlements appeared at Oakport, north of the current Fargo townsite, and at the mouth of the Elm River. In June 1871, an agent of the Lake Superior and Puget Sound Company settled at the Fargo townsite, and soon attracted the attention of other settlers. Oakport and Elm River were quickly abandoned, and all attention moved to what is now Fargo. Township lines had been surveyed in 1870, and section lines were first drawn in the Fargo area in November 1871. In September 1871, a post office had been established as "Centralia", and marks the first establishment of a town at the site.
		+
		+	Peronto, then, was late to the game. Knowing that the railroad was entitled to every odd-numbered section along their route, the other settlers had already laid out their claims on the even-numbered sections. Peronto's claim to the land on Section 7 was no doubt undisputed, because an attempt to claim the land would mean to be removed from the land when the railroad proceeded. The original treaty removing the indian reservation claim would seem to be what Peronto's hopes were riding upon. The treaty originally specified that any indians who wished to retain their land could make a scrip claim, provided they improved it and cultivated it as a homesteader would. If the treaty superseded the railroad's claims, Peronto's claim would become great indeed.
		+
		+	He may have been on the right track, though. His case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the decision weighed heavily on the treaty which opened the territory to settlement, and the original Act granting the public lands to the railroad. The railroad's grant was given in 1865, and thus was the 2nd claim to the land after the indian tribal claim, granted upon whatever land the railroad surveyed for their tracks. When the treaty removed the reservation's claim, and thus any assignment of land established by the tribe, the land surveyed by the railroad in the fall of 1871 reverted immediately to the railroad. There was no gap of time between the two in which a claim could be made, so the odd-number sections could not be squatted upon as was possible across other public lands. Had the treaty left open the window for indians to remain on land that they were cultivating, Peronto may have had a valid argument to retain his odd-numbered section of land.

	Peronto passed away in early September, 1883, at the Cass County hospital. At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court. Peronto was survived by a daughter who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref>		Peronto passed away in early September, 1883, at the Cass County hospital. At this time, Peronto's case was being heard by the territory's supreme court. Peronto was survived by a daughter who, if the case was won, would inherit the disputed part of Fargo.<ref>"Millions In It", Janesville Daily Gazette, Janesville WI, 3 Sept 1883.</ref>