Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-12-15


supposed they had right to the country
they would neither have conveyed it to
compensate for goods plundered, nor fol-
f2e shiMngS.
But more substantial objection is, that
there vas NJ Purchaser cel.1bfe 10 purchase.
The King only had a right TO purchase
the Indian title, and ony for ne 6encjft OF
ne colony as established by charter. He
Could not have taken conveyance that
would have given him right of private
property. The king did NOT Purchase
HIS representative the governor of Virgil.
ma did not purchase nor did any deputy
purchase Tor Virginia but Trent, apriva,e
subject, purchased and took 4 deed TO the
KING, tor the use of himself and !'artners.
III Tren, had right thus to use the
kings name, every other subject had the
like right; and SO all the lands in the stale
might De held by purchases from Indians
only, by making the KING trustee for each
individual.
Can aay lands be held in this state o.
therwise than by grant FRI the GROWN
or the coMMoNwEALrH, actually existing,
or presumed from length oftime have
thought not. An Indian title transferred
To subjcct or citizen consider incapable
OF being sustained in any court OF Eng
land or of Inc United States.
But what is the effect of such deed to
the king The conveyance OF the Terri.
t0riai right 10 the KING is lawful. So far
the deed operates. The conveyance 10
the use Of indiOi.,; tais is Unlawful for the
KING cannot BE- .eizel 70 any ones use.
The iS n ExeI ,orinci.>Ie IF law
What kind of right could the Six Ma.
tons by their commissioners convey? Not
right ofprivste property: But q right TO
the domain, or a right to S0Uern, and to
grant 1t as private property. Had the
chiefs Of he Six Nations conveyed TO the
KING, TO me use a. fhe KING, right of FRI
Uate iiroherty would not have vested in the
KING. BY conveying to nhe KING to tic
use If William Trent right OF private pro-
perty canna; vest in William Trent; be-
cause The KING can only be seized for the
cRoWN, and the Six Nations cannot grant,
in their nati1na! capacity, f'riUase, but On
ly q f!n6hc right.
But suppose VIVA. Trent as subieGl
took such right Of private property as the
Indians had il is Of no avail unless accom-
panied by possession. Trent and partners
had no possession. And SO their Indian
title is of no validity.
| am theref;re of opinion that were
there no such deed of l74f, the title of the
Indiana Company should no, disquiet the
people.
3. We will now examine the question,
Is The STATE bound to defend she Titles gfhcr
Grantees.
There are two descriptions of titles held
i'll that district by the commonwealth
grants.
/. Settlement and pre-. enption rights.
2. TiIles founded on Land Warrants.
Let us see if the legislature has led the
holders of either description of titles 10 &C.
quire them, by any promise 10 defend
them; or-has made any specific contract
10 sell those lands
The claim of the Indiana Company was
probably subject Of notoriety ever since
i76s. Notwithstanding the petitioners
such as claims by settlement rights,
continued 10 settle in that country
The legislature never expressed an OPT
zion on the claim Of the company until
l779. Yet all the settlcmentand pre-. emp
ton rights in that district are founded on
settlements made by the people prior to
l776.
The legislature passed no law to grant
land by settlements, in that particular tract
Of country but in 1879 law was passed
~ give settlers on the Western waters ge-
neraiy who had improved 70aste and IN
Gthro1irid;ed lands, ~ 7yhom no other had n
ny icgal right or ciam, an opportuniiyto OBJ.
tain grants therefor. II then lay on the
settler to Judge for himself, whether the
land which he had cultivated was waste
and UIahhrofridted,an dto 40lfch 10 other had
\icgai right or claim. VIII you say you
VI make whole the settler who erred, and
Iade his improvement on GhhrQfrtated
land, and obtained certificate therefor
from the commissioners appointed TO adj
Just claims? If so, you may make good
the losses of those who in various parts of
the country improved patented lands.
AS TO those who hold by lind goarrant
they have no better right 10 ask that their
titles may be defended by the state. The
legislature never provided tliat warrants
should issue for the particular land in cou-
troversy. They provided warrants should
issue enabling the holder 10 have laid of
any 7oastc and miahfrohriatcd land he desi-
red directing the location stieciaHy himself
TT e. g