In the last two documents, reference was made to the publication of the notice of intent for 30 days or five consecutive weeks in a local newspaper. According to the Affidavit of Publication, this was done in the Charles Mix County News:
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Territory of Dakota } ss
County of Charles Mix }
I, H. C. Tucker, on oath depose and say that I am publisher (
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of August, 1885.
[Irving H. Welch]
Notary Public, Cha. Mix Cty., Dak.
United States Land Office, Yankton, D.T.
I, G.A. Wetter, Register, do hereby certify that a notice - a printed copy of which is hereunto attached - was by me posted in a conspicuous place in my office for a period of thirty days, as required by the act of Mar. 3d, 1879, I having first posted said notice on the 30th day of June, 1885.
[G.A. Wetter] Register.
The folks at NARA were kind enough to scan this document twice for me; once so that the newspaper article was legible and once so the faded document was legible (hence the big black box in the above image).
The notice reads:
Land Office at Yankton, June 30, 1885.
Notice is hereby given that the following named settler has filed notice of his intent to make said proof in supoprt of his claim and said proof will be made before Adam Grimes, judge probate court, Charles Mix county, D.T., at Wheeler, the county seat, on Monday, August 17, 1885, at 9 a.m., viz:
under his D.S. No. 7853, for the nw1/4, 13, 99-67. He names the following witnesses to prove his continuous residence upon, and cultivation of, said land, viz: Amos Truesdell, Moses Paradise, Caleb Herbert, all of Darlington, Dak., Eph Gregoire, of Bloomington, D.T.
G.A. Wetter, Register.
I noticed as I was transcribing this document that I had the Register's name misspelled. I read it as "Witter" and the newspaper has it as "Wetter."
As I was transcribing this document (disclaimer: it is late in the evening as I type this), I wondered to myself, "Self, I wonder how they were able to get a copy of the article in this document, when there were clearly no copiers or scanners in 1885." To which I (eventually) answered, "Silly, they cut it out of the newspaper and stuck it to the document." This is evident on closer inspection of the right side of the article ... the part where it looks like it's been chewed on by a rabid beast ... yeah, right there. Sometimes it takes my brain a little while, but eventually I come around. Incidentally, I tried to locate one of the issues of the Charles Mix County News to try to get a better image of the article, but to no avail ... yet.
Tomorrow, a letter from the probate judge, and then we're getting to the juicy stuff!