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

The Report Of Mr. John S. Herring, .9genl
TOR the Commonwealth of T1itginin, In rela-
icon to The Military Lands IN The STATE OF
kentucky.
(Submitted 10 the House of Dclegates9
-. (coScLUDED)
Tie committee have rndeavoured to submit
ca'iuid historical detail Of the principal facts
and legal provisions, which thew believed
would Illustrate the enquiry, whether the pro-
lxleiprs OF the unsatisiied warrants. have any
available claim under them what is the ma
cure anu extrnt of that claim and what part,
10 becomes the General Assembly to pursue in
relation thereto ?-These questions now claim
their attention.
Is there, than, an available claim, ender these
warrants?
Go Tar as this question may have reference
70 Inc government of the United States, the
brief notice already taken of it is sufficient, in
me view which the committee have of this
SUBJECT. IL will, there fore, now be considered
only IN relation to Kentucky.
lfit could be conceded. for a monent that
u rigorous construction of the act, for erect
ing kentucky into an independent state, ope-
Faied Il legal extinction ofthe claim; and that
subsequent to the FIRST of May, 1892, no law
ini entry or survey could have been made by
Sh" owner of the Indicated warrants, within
the military district; there would vet remain
ao irresistible claim upon the Justice and good
'"ilh ol kentucky, for the satisfaction of these
warrants.
1ney mad been granted in fulilment of
Posl''Vecnntract: they purported to give to The
o"nera right to specific quantity OF land to
DC laid OF, within a specified district. which
mac been indicated by the terms of the orr
ginal contract they give no authority to the
hoider to choose, or carve for himself hut his
particular part OF the allotted district was 10
ne assigned to an equitable rule by public
agents. These public agents had been pre-
vented from performing that duty, by imperi-
Gus considerations, over which the humble
owner OF the warrant had no control cons-
derali0ns. connected with the peace of TN.
UNION, and having it for their object, 10 save
tne eilusIon OF haman blood, and to spare
heniacky herself the horrors of an Indian
war. To the location of these warrants no
SINE mad been limited by law, and none could
NJ, under the circumstances which attended
them. They had, moreover, been dearly
musht, and faithfully paid for, at the price of
'oi ana long suffering, IN service which had
'.s'aoiIsned the nation, and consecrated it 10
freedom these services had enired To the
penent OF kentucky an integral part of Fir-
SinIa, and as much bound to compensate them.
rs Virginia herself. Kentucky, with a full
knowledge of all these circumstances. az.
copied voluntary grant of sovereignty, and
'hersby acquired the very land thus contract
CD ior' and paid for, leaving Virginia without
any olher lands, from which the original con-
fact could be satisfied. Can there be strong
er grounds, on which to appeal to The iust;ce
and good faith of Kentucky? If Virginia lad
meant to defeat the claims of her soldiers kv
transferring the land to Kentucky, the breach
tpi fath on her part would have been shame
iess, anu without apology. And could Ken.
lucky. with justice and good faith, accept,
what IT would have been disgracefuI and perG
u'ous IN virginia to grant If an individual.
% any christian country, were to defend him
sell, In court of justice, against such a claim.
'lndersuch circumstances, he would be laughed
10 scorn, and unhesitaingly compelled to sur
render his possession. And what the good
sense and natural equity Of mankind enforce
upon individuals, good Gath and national
honor enforce upon nations.
what would be required of Kentucky. in
Dehali oil the INDICATED warrants, would also
DC required of her, by the same considera
o"'' :" oenaIL OF The warrants, which have
hcen located amiss. Their location upon I'm
profitable or debateabie lands was NOT the f,,.lt
ofthe owners. 1t was a misfortune bv ,vbicl,
lhey nave been deprived Of that good land.
Which they contracted for, and paid for. and
tney should now, when il IS, for the first
tiine, practicable, be permitted to correct the
error. ''''
ihere IS, moreover, a consideration Of policy.
"h'ch seems very strongly TO recon- mend this
COURSE IN relation to these lands. Kentucky
mas felt severely the evils of uncertain titles.
ana never ending controversies for the sci.
when ought to be settled in peace, and inn
proved IN security. There is, probably. no
portion OF her territory, where the titles have
Deen more uncertain, or more prolific Of con-
RroversIes,fheu they promise TO he. in the tract
OF country now under consideration. Its in
ner power, at this time, to prevent the evils
llkely to result from this state of things. nv
ao'horislng the locations TO be withdrawn.
ana the warrants located elsewhere. under
such convenient rules, as would prevent infer
ference, ensure certainty in the description.
compactness of form, and equity, as far as
practicable, in the distribution of the good
lands, an adequate motive would be offered to
withdraw all cOutroverted claims and this.
Whlie justice were done to individuals. and
.he'r interests greatly promoted, the public
good would be also advanced.
1T cannot, however, be conceded. that ,be
correct Interpretation Of the act. erecting
Aentucky into an independent state, would
F~unSuIsh the claim under the INDICATED
warrant, or That the location Of such warrant.
NJ 'n" uie Hhnltary district, alter the first of
nay, 1872, was unlawful. II is confidently
peneveo, that the owner ofsuch warrant had
pnuer u, an available claim, to land withic the
,h; o'slrIct, at the time Of the passage of
To ascertain the character OF this claim Tho
warrant must be considered in connection with
tne laws promising the military bounty. and
me services for which this bounty was the re-.
YARD These laws bad promised H,af /, es;n,,.