Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-01-12

re'iSscu, or tuey may SIGNIFY that the
intended to authcrise gran, leaving tn
fright to Z contest between,he company s
1.-THE adverse vested right If the settler i,
the usual form, for it is ns1 certain tha
there may be claims by several legal sur
yeys for one tract of land s only one right
The words ought to be confirmed" ar,
too uncertain, for the fina. determination
LOT question affecting 50 much landed
property. BY the company they impor;
every thing, but to the settlers they i'm
port nothing compulsory or obligatory.
! Here let me ask why the company 5
claim ought to Be conhrmed, I, is not be-
cause the surveys in i774 and i775 were
made during the time the grant was in
force, FOR it is admitted thai il expired in
i757; It. is not because the order Of
council of the 10th Defender, l773, re-.
'iewed their former grant, at time when
that department of the colonial govern
fnent "were restraiu,.d from making or re
newing grants - it Is not because the 20
vernon and council were mistaken re spest-
ing the coupany's grant, in making pro-
visions as If the grant was still in force,
when in fact il hal before that time ex-
PRED, and the words in the order OF i77S.
I" which is To be taken as part ofthc grapts
of the said order IF COUNCIL" does not
import that the council thereby conceived
that the company's grant wasi in force, the
true meaning whereof, is, that the surveys
thus made upon the choice of the settlers,
were to be taken as part Of the non -exist-
ing grant, and furnishes conclusive evi
derce that the Board were mistaken, con-
ceiving the grant To oe ia force, although
Il had long before that expired (; il is not
because the claim derived any support
hom the ACT of I779, to make il g legal
right or legal claim \" It was not because
the surveys were made in some instances
upon the choice of the set,lers, procured
by MISREPRESENTATION, fartiGicc and fraud,
and in others that they were made With.
out the Consent or knowledge Of the set
Ter, or any authorised agent; il was not
because the surveys we're made without
any legal authority !, was not because
the ialsehoods stated in the conpany's
petition 10 the Court of Appeals, was prov.
I'd to be true, they having admitted them
as true without proof; and it was not be-
cause the vested rights Of settlers was
;l,cr>5y TO be eviGtcd. Numerous other
ai!irnaiions might be made to shew why
the claim ought not, without presenting
any satisfactory or sound reason why il
" ought to BE confirmed"
As it is moi apparent upon the record
why the claim ought 10 be- confirmed"
whether for causes originating in the I'M
LIMITED discretion whic!, TIE coort assum
ed and eysrcised, after the rights OF set
Tiers had vested, o. for plausible but So
phistical causes prior TO the ats OF l77o
deriving no legality ,herclrom yet il i.
conclusive that fair coauas, between III.
.commonweaIth and ,he settlers for va
luable consideration, without notice OF pri
or, legal or equitable claims, was closed
and if the commonwealth has improyi
IDENTITY received set Of nuliEled claims
those cInims cannot incum5er the yes,e,
| rights Of settlers, but the commonwealth
will be bound 10 extioenish The claim o
the company, by making to them ,hs,
compensation which they SO uniustIy de.
maod from the settlers.
But this decree by the Ingenuity OF a
learned, cunning, influential and cou:tly
member of the <,mpany, has been imoo-
sesl upon the general assembly as an cyic.
ton nf the rights of settlers, and in The
preamble OF one OF the acts passed in
1898, they have misreciied, nv saying
that the decree has evicted the rights of
settlers. 1t may with propriety be here
remarked that the claim derives no sup
port from this act, with the exception OF
what is contained in the preamble, and
fortunately the recital in the statute
which was untrue, did not change the law;
Tor recital even in the Legislative acl,
hath not plastic energy--a declaration
that thing is, which is not, will not
make the thing to be-"
TO prove that the decision OF the Court
of Appeals on the I'd day of May, 1888,
rendered almost in the infancy of the aci
Of 1879, at time when its principles and
their effects were but imperfcaiy under
stood, is not jpdiciaiiy stamped with the
dignity of a decree OF that tribunal in their
appellate character, il is barely necessary
to remark that they assumed and excrcis.
cd sIiginal r;risd:c,;on.
re lhen the Court Of Appeals were only
executing trust reposed in them, not ia
their appellate character, for limited and
specific purpose, which with more prnpri-
ETY. and less mischief might have been