Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-03-02

which appear calculated Ia operate harshly
and inluriously. Such are believed TO be, the
provisions, declaring that all patents issued
upon surveys, variant from the entries shall
&c void, TO the extent of the variance and
limiting, under the penalty of forfeiture, the
'ime OF returning the surveys, To the LIST OF J,-
nuary, 1928.
To declare the patent void, to the extent Of
the variance between the entry and the sur
fey, and 10 make no provision for a rc-s,ir-
vey, Is TO declare that the land enormously
embraced Within the patent is vacant, and
therefore the property of the state. THE po-
Icy which dictates this provision, is the same
which .interdicted locations, since the separa-
ton and Il that policy be wrong, this lnca-
sure cannot be justified. But there are other
serious objections to il.
In the first phfre, such provision, in the
law authorizing tse patent, is calculated TO
throw the veil Of doubt over every grant that
shall he made. Tire question of boundary.
when 1t arises, AT any distance of time, from
the date of its establishment, is ALWAYS sufi-
ciently uncertain, even when that boundary
mas been fixed upon actual survey ; but, If ia
every controversy, that may arise under pa
tent, the question as 10 the boundary OF The
original location may he made, and the paten-
tee may be restrained 10 that which may Me5s
be proved, rs such original boundary, there.
can he no certainty, in the limits, and OF
course, no security in the title.
Again, consequences singulary unjust.
would attend the operations ofthis provision
Let 1t he supposed, that, by mistake, there
'hoiild be surveyed, for one man, the land
covered by the entry of another, and that, for
ms other there should be surveyed the land
covered by the entry of the first. Suppose
the patents issued upon these surveys. the
mistake then discovered .,,,I .t,,
execute mutual releases, TO secure the tiles OF
each other-what is the consequence The
law has declared both patents void the re-
leases are therefore of no avail, each party
loses hrs land and it becomes the property of
me STATE. THIS consequence was surely not
intended. but it seems as surely to follow. II
may readily he conceived. that in the survey
oil the numerous,uncertain, and conflicting en-
tries, made on the west of Tennessee river.
mere are many instances, wherein lands,
which would have belonged 10 one Iocatnr
are embraced within the survey of another.
without producing any material injury or be-
ing the subject of complaint to either in
THESE instances, the law would certainly one
rate, though no reason can be- perceived, WHY
the legislature should have interposed: nor
can any good reason be perceived for Irgis,a-
tive interference, in any case Of variance. rx
ctpi where II may be necessary to protect the
rights OF individuals, or to protect TO the state.
That surplus, to which she is equitahy entitled.
The limitation of time for returning the
certificates nf stryeyst to the registers Office.
ana he forfeiture hi the state in case of fail
urc seems to lie Il measure too harsh. TO he
Jasiihed ny the circumstances. When it is
rccoNtc'ed that this provision extends to per.
sous living ont oi TIC state, no matter mt what
distance, and that The owners of the s,Iryevs
are probably I'm p,any i,,etanco.
ant OF theta, and the law under which thew
were made, inasnluch as many of them have
been conducted under the superintendent of
pubic agent, without any express authority
rom tie individuals interestcd,-it cannot be
deemed Improbable that the law will operate
forfeiture oftbe rights of many persons. who
will have been guilty of NO fault, chargeable
with no neglect These rights, from their ne
cular character, tae very valuable considera-
ton which las been paid for them, the in
Jury winch the ownerH have already sustained.
IN INC long privation Of them, seem to be emil.
tied To mere than ordinary indulgence, and
10 require that some mildpr pennltv thar,
forfeiture should assure that attention to them
which state policy may require.
1t will be seen that in considering thccbor,c.
ter and extent of these various claims, no dis.
crlnination has been attempted between the
warrants, which designate The STATE line. and
those which leave the Ene uncertain. II IL
believed, that there Is no difference between
the rights which they give, within the militia
~ district in Kentucky. The arrangement
between the officers by which partition line
was agreed on, was made for convenience.
and cannot he construed 10 deprive a class
oI claimants who bad no agency in it, of alb
Their rights. II the partition line had not been
agreed on, these claims would have attached
I'm. H. Inf. a "a
how that line should entirely defeat them.
Having ascertained that there are unsatisG
ed claims for military beunties, amounting
perhaps, TO half Il million Of acres, for which.
provision ought TO be made, it only remains [,
ascertain the course, which it behoyes the
general Assembly to pursue.
While these claims remain dissatisfied, IL
seems 80 the committee, that Virginia can never
reconcile II To- her sense of duty, TO leave un-
tried, any proper measures, which afford "A
prospect ofOhtaining satisfaction for them.
h ii regards the claim upon The govern
mcnt ofthc United States, though it ought
never to be- abandoned, yet, as it depends upon
the iusullic;cncy Of the pre-, iOus approximation.
there can be no propriety in urging it now,
when there is n prospect, int this appropria-
tion will he adequate to The satisfaction of ala
Just claims Upon it.
Wilh respect TO Kcntm'ky, Virginia ought
not TO distrust her disposition, faithfully, To-
observe the articles ofthc compact her vii
lingnoss. caudidiy to review the course of her
policy, in relation to these claims, and uli-
rna'ely, to make such provision for them, as
justice and good faith may require This
consideration, recommends the propriety of
appealing TO The legislature Of Kentucky, res
pectfuIly inviting her attention 10 the subject,
asking Of her the recognition Of these claims,
4 ~. 2 L 4.