Yuma County, Colorado

COGenWeb Logo

Home Page Photograph Index Site Index

Yuma County Pioneer Photographs:

Ida Belle Allbert

On November 23, 1858 John P. Allbert married Sarah A. Vermillion in Christian County, Illinois.

In 1860 John P Albert is in Shelby County, Illinois, with Sarah A. 19 and eight-month-old Mary.

Ida is born July 16, 1865 in Tower Hill, Shelby County.

In 1870 John Albert 38 and Mary 27 are in Tower Hill, Shelby County, Illinois.  Ida is the second of four kids.- The census said Mary was the oldest at seven - so either the name is wrong or the first Mary died.

In 1880 Ida B. ALBERT was in Franklin County, Nebraska with her parents John Philip ALBERT - 48, and Sarah A. ALBERT 38,  She's the oldest of six kids. 

In Red Cloud, Nebraska in October 1883 Ida was elected vice-president of the newly-formed Red Cloud Literary Society.

Ida was in Red Cloud, Nebraska in February 1884, presenting a solo to conclude a program of the Red Cloud Literary Society.

And in April 1884 the Red Cloud newspaper "Miss Ida B. Allbert has engaged the Riverton school for the Summer term.  We congratulate Miss Allbert on her success."

In 1885 John P. Albert 53 is in Franklin County, with NANCY, age  52.   They have four kids - age 6 to 15.  No Ida (maybe working to earn money for her cash claim - or maybe George Weed financed her???).  If anyone is in Washington, D.C. - sure would be interesting to see her application for "proving up" that claim.)

Charles Davis wrote about his work with the Rock Island Railroad (Illinois) "I might go on and take up others - Frank Bliss and George Weed and 'Dite Smith, yardmaster, and so on to the end of a long chapter, but it would take me more than one day to tell it.  Very dear to me are the memories of some of those men, pioneers in the railroad history of the country west of the Mississippi."

The McCook Nebraska paper of November 12, 1885 "George Weed came down to the Metropolis of the Upper Republican, Monday evening on No. 40.

In June 1885 the McCook paper "Fred Weed, who has charge of Frees & Hocknell's yard at Benkelman, came down from the west Saturday, on a short visit, returning Sunday evening." and in September "Fred  Weed, manager for the Chicago Lumber Yard at Benkelman, came down to town, yesterday evening, on 40."  But in October he was visiting McCook "in the interests of Frees & Hocknell's."


History of Colorado says that George F. Weed laid out the town of Yuma on December 18, 1885, and the plat was filed January 8, 1886.  The first residence is claimed for both W.C. Orum and Miss Ida B. Albert.

George must have had a railroad pass.  In the January 7, 1886 McCook Tribune "Misses Churchill and ALBERT and Messrs. Weed and Babcock of Yuma were participants in last Thursday night's ball."

In April 1886 the McCook paper said "Fred Weed, manager for the Frees & Hocknell Lumber Co. at Yuma, Colo., spend Sunday in this burg, among his old acquaintances."


The McCook Nebraska Tribune of 1886 had two mentions of him -one calling him Fred, the other George

December 23, 1886 " Fred Weed was down from Akron, Sunday evening, on business of importance."


In 1887 the McCook paper had:

In July 1885 the McCook paper said "Fred Weed and Fred Lytie of Benkelman celebrated the fourth with us, returning to the metropolis of Dundy, Sunday."



In October 1888 McCook "Mr. Fred Weed came down from Yuma, Colo, Saturday,  spending two or three days with old friends in the city, where he is popularly known."

Ida made a cash claim in 1891 for 160 acres - now North Yuma.  She did it under the name Ida B. Allpert, although they had been married five years.

George in 1895 made a cash claim for 150 acres just south of Ida's - now central Yuma (from City Park to Highway 34 and Highway 59.


George Frederick Weed (son of Lewis Orlin Weed and Emily J. Warner) was born February1855 in Rolling Prairie,Galena Township,LaPorte County,Indiana USA, and died 1898

RESIDENCE: 1860 Census: Enumerated with parents, Galena township, home/family number 536/537, line 11, age 5, attended school within the year.

RESIDENCE: 1870 Census: Galena Township, page 8, line 38: Frederic [sic] was enumerated with his parents, was age 15, occupation "at school."

In Febraury 1888 John Westcott sold ten acres of his homestead to be used for a cemetery - one-third each to George Weed, Ida Weed, and Alexander Meyer. The cemetery was surveyed into 156 plots, most  of them 24 square feet, add dedicated to the public June 8. 1888.)(Action on the Plains)

Volume 15, 1898 of "The Conductor and Brakeman" included reports from union representatives.  One from Fairbury, Nebraska wrote " A stonecrusher has been working sometime at Montrose, Kan.  Brother G.F. Weed, our Chief Conductor, has been working that train."  From the context, it reads as though Fairbury was a central railroad stop between Council Bluffs and Phillipsburg.

The town hype "On account of the splendid railroad facilities, Fairbury is the natural marketing place for much of the product of the fertile surrounding country. The St. Joseph and Grand Island railroad crosses the Chicago and western line here, employing many hands and distributing something like $20,000 every month among employees in wages."

    In 1888 a railroad magazine reported "Nebraska, Yuma and Southwestern - the incorporation of this Colorado company are as follows:  George F. Weed, E. McPherson, Morillo A. Spalding, Wilbur Rosecrans, and John May Abbott, of Yuma. Col.."

In 1893 the Loveland newspaper said "George F. Weed has on exhibition a double-headed calf, two or three days old.  The calf has only two ears but has four eyes and two mouths.  It drinks milk readily with either mouth.

George died in 1898, according to one web list. - but he was prominent in early Yuma - what is now Buffalo Street was Weed Street in 1907.  George served as city treasurer for a while, and in 1890 "had a team to remove surplus water from Weld Avenue,"

One Web poster said "he died in Fairbury, Jefferson County, Nebraska April 27, 1898." and the Fairbury Cemetery Association confirmed that he is buried in the Fairbury Cemetery.

The Fairbury Gazette

April 30, 1898 p. 5: c. 4  - Word is just received as we go to press that Geo. Weed dropped dead at Mankato, Kan., last Friday afternoon.  The particulars are not learned, but is supposed heart trouble caused his demise.


:May 7, 1898 p. 5: c. 2 - The funeral of Conductor Geo. Weed, whose sudden death was briefly

chronicled last week, occurred Sunday afternoon from the Baptist church; Rev. Jno. M. Andrews

conducting the service and Rev. J.A. Barker of the Methodist church delivering the address.

The funeral was under the auspices of the Order of Railway Conductors, the engineers and firemen

attending in a body.  The deceased had two thousand dollars in teh O.R.C., and was a Mason,  although

not a member of the local order.  It seems he had Brights disease, and although always able to be about

was warned some five years ago by his physician that his death would probably occur very suddenly.

The particulars of his sad demise are very few.  He was at Mankato, Kan., in charge of a work train,

and was standing on the grade at the side while a car was being unloaded, at the conclusion of which he

raised his hand to signal the engineer to move, and fell over.  Apparently he had been struck with death

instantlyh as he never moved afterward.  The deceased leaves a wife and two sons to mourn his death.

In 1900 Ida B., Orlin A.12 and Vernon 9 are in Seneca Kansas  -  Nemaha County.  Ida works in millinery.

n 1900 John is in Seneca. Nemaha County, Kansas (almost certainly why Ida went there after her husband died).  John's wife is Sarah, born 1828 in Canada, and she says she's never had any children  They've only been married two years, so John has been married maybe four times ?

The McCook Tribune December 28, 1900 reported that "Fairbury - One of the most brilliant weddings of the season occurred at the home of  Mrs. J.H. Talleth, this morning at 8:30, the bride being her youngest daughter, Maud E. Talleth, and the groom Joseph D. Robb, a prominent traveling man......The guests from abroad were....Mrs. George Weed of Seneca...

In 1910 Fred is 21, working in real estate in Nyssa, Malheur County, Oregon, boarding with the John Ryan family.

Frederick Vernon Weed registered for the WWI draft in Salt Lake City, stating he was born in Yuma on November 8, 1890, and was working as a district manager for Guardian Casualty at 400 McCormick Blk.  He was married.

In 1930 Fred is in Los Angeles,  a broker of surety bonds.  Marva, born in Utah, is 30.

In 1940 Fred and Marva are living on Croft Avenue in Los Angeles, Fred an insurance broker and Marva an office worker in an insurance office..

Fred  died August 4, 1963 in Los Angeles.

California Death Index has Marva MACE Weede, born December 18, 1893 in Utah, dying April 12, 1986 in Los Angeles, Her mother's maiden name was Hinckley.


Orlin registered for the WWI draft in Atchison, Kansas.  He said he was born April 4, 1889 in Yuma, and was a claims agent for the Un Pac RR. Co of Grand Island, Nebraska - has to be the Union Pacific.

In 1920 he's living in Atchison with his mother and the ex-Governor Bailey.  Orlin is a lawyer in general practice. 

In October 1924 he spoke at a Republican rally in Baldwin, Kansas -  "city attorney of Atchison" and at an American Legion meeting in December 1924.

He's still with his mother in Mission, Kansas in 1930 - and still a lawyer.

In the 1930's Orlin is working and living in Kansas City, Missouri, per a few city directories.

He's still an attorney in 1940 Mission, married to Helen, a year older, and 74-year-old widowed Ida is living with them.  Helen and Ida are both "supervising property."

The FAG record for Mount Vernon Cemetery in Atchison  has an unknown birth, and death of July 5, 1952. 

Helen MUSTARD Weede's tombstone in Manchester, Dickinson County, Kansas has October 12, 1886 - March 22, 1984.  The FAG listing says she was married first to John Moffitt, and then Orlin Weede.

In 1962 Mission Helen is the "Widow of Orlin"




Willis Joshua Bailey:

Born in Carroll County, Illinois, Bailey attended the common schools, Mount Carroll High School, and the University of Illinois at Urbana. He married Ida B. Weede on June 9, 1903 and had two stepchildren.

Bailey moved to Nemaha County, Kansas, in 1879, and became a successful farmer, rancher, and banker. He and his father founded the town of Baileyville, Kansas in 1880. He served as member of the Kansas House of Representatives from 1888 to 1890. He was president of the Republican State League in 1893. He served as member of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture from 1895 to 1899.

Bailey was elected as a Republican to the Fifty-sixth Congress (March 4, 1899 – March 3, 1901). He was not a candidate for re-nomination in 1900 to the Fifty-seventh Congress.

In 1902 Bailey won the Republican gubernatorial nomination and the general election and served as Governor of Kansas from 1903 to 1905. During his tenure, construction on the state capitol was completed, railroad commissioners and the office of state printer became elective positions, and a law banning gambling devices was sanctioned.

Bailey moved to Atchison, Kansas, in 1907 and engaged in the banking business. He was elected a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, in 1914, and then governor of the bank in 1922, and served until his death.

Bailey died in Mission Hills, Kansas, May 19, 1932. He is interred at Mount Vernon Cemetery, Atchison, Kansas.


On July 7, 1903 in Kansas City, Missouri,  The ceremony, which was brief and simple. was performed by Rev. J.J. Fifield at 5:00 o'clock.  Only a few guests were present. Immediately after the ceremony Mr. and Mrs. Bailey left for Topeka.  It had been Governor Bailey's intention to make a trip to his old home in Illinois, but this was postponed because of pressing business relating to the flood.

June 25, 1903

Ida B. <i>Weede</i> Bailey


The Holyoke newspaper reported in February 1890

     The decision involving the town site of Yuma, this state, which was appealed to the
general land office at Washington from the court of the register and receiver in Denver,
was returned yesterday reversed. The case arose from an affidavit of contest filed by
George F. Emblem, October 4, 1888, involving pre-emption cash entry of George F. Weed,
No. 4990, upon the southeast quarter, section 22, township 2 north range 48 west. The
defendant claimed to have filed his title to the property February 26, 1885, and made final
proof September 16, 1886. When the case was tried the register and receiver of the land
office here dismissed the contest on its merits. The appeal to Washington set up nine grounds
of error in which the court admitted certain testimony derogatory to the applicant.
     Lewis A. Groff, commissioner of the land office at Washington, says he is satisfied
     that the second allegation, and most important one, "that said Weed never before the
     date of said entry became a bona fide resident upon said land, or resided on the
     same in good faith," is established by a fair preponderance of the evidence, and
     should be sustained. The decision dismissing said contest is therefore reversed, and
     the certificate of pre-emption cash entry No. 4990 is held for cancellation. The
     commissioner requested that all the parties interested should be immediately notified.



Emblen V. Weed.
(On Review).

A local officer, who has a property interest in the subject-matter involved in a con-
test, is not qualified to try and determine the case.

There is no limitation as to the time within which a motion for a new hearing, based
on newly discovered evidence, should be filed.

Secretary Smith to the Commissioner of the General Land Office August 25 1893.

On March 2, 1893, George F. Emblen filed in this Department his motion for review and reversal of the decision of the Department in the case of said Emblen v, George P. Weed, 16 L. D., 28, alleging the following grounds of error:

1. In not finding that the contestant had proven the allegations of his contest affidavit, as he proved that Weed did not reside upon the land in controversy, and there
was no proof contradicting or tending to contradict said testimony.

3. In not holding that it was error to order a further hearing after the case had been duly closed and after Weed had waived all right to offer testimony by declining to do so when he had his day in court.

3. In considering the testimony taken at said hearing on September 16, 1890, when said testimony was wholly incompetent because not offered at the only hearing at which said Weed had a right to offer testimony.

4. In not disregarding all testimony taken at the hearing of September 16, 1890, and in not declaring all proceedings under said testimony as null and void because the case had been legally closed as to all parties.

5. In not declaring that the only competent testimony in the record was that taken on April 25, 1889, and in not holding from said testimony in favor of the contestant because said testimony clearly shows that Weed did not reside upon the land as very fully appears by reference to the testimony of Edward Dunn, Sarah Dunn, and Mrs. Charles Harvey.

6. In not holding that it was error in the Commissioner of the General Land Office in recalling and revoking his order of cancellation because said order of cancellation was warranted by the undisputed testimony taken at the hearing on April 25, l889.

7. In deciding the case upon a mutilated and insufficient record, as the papers originally filed in the case were not all on file when the Honorable Secretary rendered his decision, to wit, the first two pages of the testimony taken at Denver, April 25, 1889; the lumber bills signed by George Fred Weed at Benkleman, Nebraska, during the months of August, October, and November, 1885; also a photograph filed in the case. Said lumber bills tended strongly to contradict the contention that Weed lived on the land at the time claimed by him.

8. In deciding the case upon this incomplete record when the papers in the case had been tampered with for a corrupt purpose or had been accidentally mutilated by which the rights of Emblen had been prejudiced. Whereas, if the entire record had been before the Department, it might have reached a different conclusion.

9. In holding contrary to the law.

10. In finding contrary to the evidence.

Subsequently, Weed, by his counsel, moved to dismiss the same, because not filed in time.

April 4, 1893,  Emblen, in support of his motion, filed his affidavit showing that since the trial he had discovered new evidence, which consists of two way bills of lumber and hardware shipped from Denver on April 15, and 21, 1885, to George F. Weed, the claimant, which Emblen, in his said affidavit, alleges to have been used by Weed in the construction of his shanty on the claim. Copies of these way bills are attached to his affidavit.

Weed made pre emption cash entry for the SE. 1/4  of Sec. 22, T. 2 N., R. 48 W., Denver, now Akron, Colorado Land Office, September 19, 1885.

On the fourth day of the next month, Emblen filed an affidavit of contest against said entry, alleging that it was fraudulently made for trade and town site purposes, and that he had never complied with the requirements of the pre-emption law as to residence on the land, etc.

May 21, 1889, the local officers at Denver recommended a dismissal of the contest, upon the ground that the allegations therein were not sustained by the evidence.

Emblen appealed, and on February 20, 1890, your office reversed the action of the register and receiver, and held the entry for cancellation, finding that the evidence showed that " said Weed never before date of said entry became a bona fide resident upon said land or resided on the same in good faith."

Weed moved for a review of said decision, and asked if that could not be granted, that a new hearing might be ordered before the local office.

In the meantime, a town of several hundred inhabitants had been built upon the land, and the mayor and board of trustees of the town petitioned that a hearing be granted, and that they be allowed to intervene and be made parties defendant. Several citizens of the town asked also for a rehearing and to be allowed to intervene in their individual rights as property owners in the town.

On consideration of these several motions and petitions, your predecessor, while holding that no sufficient showing had been made upon which to grant a rehearing, directed a further hearing to be had, in
order to allow Weed to rebut the testimony presented by Emblen at the Denver office, the contest there having been dismissed on the evidence produced by the contestant, the defendant having introduced no testimony, except a deposition taken at the instance of the contestant, and a certified copy of his final proof testimony. It was also ordered
that at the new or supplemental hearing, the defendant should first introduce his testimony, after which the contestant would be allowed to offer other testimony in rebuttal.

Before the date fixed for the hearing, a land office was established at Akron, Colorado, which embraced in its jurisdiction the land in controversy. In consequence of this change in jurisdiction, all the papers in the case were transferred to the Akron office, and the parties in interest were notified by the register of that office to appear there on the 16th of September, 1890, and submit their additional testimony.

Emblen made no appearance at this hearing, but forwarded through the mail a protest against the jurisdiction of the Akron officers, for the reason that the receiver of said office was an interested party, because he was the owner of a lot in the town of Yuma, the title for which he had derived from Weed, the claimant. His protest was overruled, upon the ground, as stated by the local officers, that " the receiver does not feel prejudiced in this contest one way or the other,^' and the trial proceeded ex-parte.

Weed introduced a great number of witnesses, nearly all of whom were residents of Yuma, their testimony going to show that Weed had complied with the requirements of law as to residence, etc., and also impeaching the credibility of two of the main witnesses for the contestant, who had been examined at the Denver office. Testimony was also introduced to impeach and destroy the character of Emblen, the contestant.  November 4, 1890, the local officers rendered their decision, as follows: " We find the preponderance of testimony in favor of claimant's good faith in acquiring title to this land, and dismiss the contest."

Emblen appealed, and on May 28, 1891, your office affirmed the action of the local office, and held that Emblen had no right to appeal, because (as appears from the record) he had waived his claim to preference right at the date of the hearing at the Denver office.

Upon the rejection of his appeal, Emblen applied to this Department for an order directing your office to certify the record here for examination, which was granted (see 13 L. D., 722). Upon receipt of the record, this Department, by decision of date January 9, 1893 (16L. D., 28), affirmed the action of your office in dismissing the contest, and it is for review of this judgment that the motion now before me was filed.

The charges contained in the brief of counsel for contestant, against the good faith of the entryman, are so grave that the whole record, including the testimony at both hearings, has been carefully examined*

The evidence adduced at the first hearing, which was had at Denver, unquestionably warranted the decision of your predecessor, Commissioner Groflf, in holding the entry for cancellation. Three witnesses for the contestant swore that the claimant had never resided on the land; two of them, Dunn and his wife, testified that the house on the claim was not built until the latter part of April, 1885, and that it leaked and was uninhabitable; that they themselves moved into it and remained there a week or two during the time Weed claimed to have resided there, and were forced to abandon it because it would not shed water; that during all the time he claimed to reside there he was only an occasional visitor, coming on the morning train and leaving on the return train the same day. Dunn was employed to build his shanty, and his wife washed for Weed. He would bring his clothes to her from Benkleman. Mrs. Harvey corroborated them as to his non-residence on the land.

The defendant did not testify, but introduced a certified copy of his final proof, and also a deposition of one Foster, which had been taken by the contestant, but not introduced by him.

Mr. Foster's testimony was to the effect, that he was a grocery keeper in Yuma from August 10, 1885, until the spring of 1887; that his store was situated on the railroad company's right of way, until April or May, 1886, when he moved it on to the tract in controversy.
As to Weed's residence and occupancy of the shanty, his testimony is as follows:

I know that George F. Weed had a house and resided on the SE.1/4, See. 22, T. 2 N.,R. 48 west as I often see him there; visited him in his house; called once before he was up in the morning; saw him in bed; have seen smoke issuing from his stove-pipe; have seen supplies of provisions in his house that he had prepared for use of my own knowledge; I do not know that he had any other home during this time up to 1886.

Some other depositions were had tending to show that during the summer Weed claimed to reside upon his claim he was foreman and manager of a lumber yard in Benkleman, Nebraska, said to be about eighty miles from the land, and upon this testimony the local officers found that the evidence was not sufficient to  warrant us in overruling the former decision of this office," and dismissed the contest. The "former decision'' referred to was the acceptance of the final proof.

At the hearing ordered and had at the Akron office, fifteen witnesses were examined by Weed. Of all these but two testify to his continuous residence upon the land. These two witnesses are William O. Orum and T. B. Babcock, who were also his final proof witnesses. The remaining thirteen witnesses were used chiefly to im{>each the testimony of Dunn and his wife, who were witnesses for the contestant at the Denver hearing, and also to assail the character and good faith of the contestant. His own testimony and that of Orum and Babcock is to the effect that he built his shanty on the land in the month of February, 1885. Dunn and his wife, at the Denver hearing, say that his shanty was not built until the latter part of April.
He says that his first act of settlement was building his house, house, when he immediately moved into and remained there until September, 1886. Although many witnesses at the Akron hearing swear that Dunn's reputation is bad, and that they would not believe him under oath, and that his wife was so completely under his control as to vitiate her testimony; yet the evidence discovered since the hearing, on its face, seems to show that these impeached witnesses were about the only ones who told the exact truth as to the date of the construction of the claimant's house. This date is most material, because by Weed's own testimony it fixes the date of his settlement on the land, and, if this occurred on the last of April, instead of February, his residence, granting it to have been continuous, could not have exceeded five months at the date he made final proof, September 19, 1885.

The testimony taken at the Akron office is unsatisfactory in some respects. The witnesses nearly all seem to be not only interested, by reason of their residence on the land embraced in the entry, but many of them disclose a prejudice against the contestant. Some of them were indicted through him for a riot or some breach of the peace in endeavoring to force his removal from the town. They say that his presence was obnoxious, on account of his bad character and immoral practices. What these practices consist of is but vaguely hinted at in the evidence, and leaves a candid examiner with some suspicion that the true basis of their prejudice is his interference with the entry upon which their property rights are dependent.

It is also shown by the record that the receiver of the office at Akron has some property rights that would be disturbed by the cancellation of this entry. While there is no rule or regulation of this Department providing for a change of venue in such case, or the substitution of some other officer not interested in the result of the trial, every consideration of propriety would dictate that one having an interest in the controversy should not be permitted to control or participate in the judgment. Such an exercise of jurisdiction is abhorrent to English and American jurisprudence. In fact, such an interest, per se disqualifies the court from exercising jurisdiction.

When this case was brought before the Akron office, it was the clear duty of the receiver of that office either to have disposed of his interest in the land in controversy, or resign his. office of receiver. It will not do for him to say that he does not " feel prejudiced one way or the other.'' The fact that he has a property interest in the controversy deprives him of jurisdiction to try and determine the case, under all the rules of the common law, and it is more than doubtful whether a statute extending such jurisdiction to a court or other tribunal would stand the test of judicial investigation. See Oooley's Const. Lim., p. 508, et seq.

The receiver in this case seems to have been the managing officer in this one sided investigation, for he attests the signatures of twelve out of the fifteen witnesses produced and sworn.

There are two questions of practice raised in the record.

It is insisted by claimant's counsel that the motion for review should not be entertained, because not made within thirty days of notice of the decision, contestant claiming that it was made within thirty days of legal notice of the same; that the first notice of the decision was served upon counsel resident in this city, and was not accompanied with a copy of the decision ; that afterwards contestant's counsel in Denver was served with a notice of the decision, with a copy thereof attached.

The motion for review was filed within thirty days after receipt of the last notice, but not within thirty days after receipt of the former.

It is not necessary to decide this question, because there is an affidavit of newly discovered evidence, and although a new hearing is not asked for, in my opinion complete justice can only be subserved by ordering a new hearing to he had. Where a new hearing is ordered, there is no provision as to the time within which a motion should be filed therefore.  I shall regard the affidavit of new evidence in the light of an application for a new trial.

Counsel for Weed also claim that the contestant has lost his rights under such an application, because he did not move for a new trial immediately upon the discovery of the new evidence, and cite some decisions of this Department showing that this should be done timely.

This of necessity is within the discretion of the Department, and where, as in this case, the new evidence is in the nature of a record, or, at least, not dependent upon the memory of witnesses, the time within which it is presented is not very material.

I am aware that if this entry should be canceled, many titles may be disturbed, and doubtless some innocent purchasers would suffer, but I can not allow the decision of this Department to stand without further investigation, in view of the very doubtful, and even suspicious, record before me.

You will therefore direct that a new hearing be had, with proper notice to interested parties. Emblen will be allowed to be present, with counsel, if he desires, and this Department will detail a competent and efficient agent to represent the interests of the government in said hearing*

Perfecting the title of a quarter section
of land at Yuma, Col., to George F. Weed.
Dec. 29, 1894.


Back to Pioneer Photographs.

This page is maintained by M.D. Monk.