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

tie to these lands, would affect the question
under consideration. The anomalous relation,
which these people bear to the government,
within whose limits they abide, has never been
regarded as presenting any other than tenn
porary impeachment, TO the execution of the
contracts between the government and ts CT
tizens, for the lands, which they inhabit. 1t is
for this reason that locations within the Indian
boundary, IT authorised, by the government,
have been held to give inchoate rights, to be
perfected, when the Indian title should be ex-
tngushed.
| There is nothing then to resist the reasoning
employed to prove that the owner of the mil
'tary warrant had an interest IN land, within
Inc military district; IN inchoate right, which
me tribunals of justice would have enabled
him to consunnate. Norris there .:,ny-tbiu.
intervening between the origin Of this right,
and the act for erecting Kentucky into an in
dependent state, which can impair it;-no
act of limitations TO bar it, no lachcs in the
owner to forfeit 1t, no consent to abandon it.
IL remains then to enquire. whether this act
has extnguished it,
An obvious remark, entitled to some weight,
occurs at the Threshold of this enquiry. If
virginia had granted this right if she were
bound by her most solemn engagements TO
sustain II If 1t would have been perfdious in
her voluntarily TO defeat it-then certainly,
the Interpretation which ascribes this effect to
her act, cannot be allowed unless supported
ny The most unequivOcal proofs That these
proofs are not furnished by the act, or by the
history of its origin; hut that, on the con-
trary. the true construction of the act itself.
aided by fair Interpretation of all the evil
dences which explain il, sustains the right, is
most confidently believed.
The third article ofthe compact, contained
IN tins act, speaks language which cannot
wei be misunderstood, in its application 10
inns subject. What means the uaiidity and Sc
curly, under the laws Of the proposed state.
which is assured by that article to all private
rights and interests in lands, within the said
district, derived from the laws of Virginia pri-
or to the separation !-That this article was
intended to embrace the inchoate and eauta-
ME, as well as the complete and legal rights
OF individuals, cannot be questioned Ken
lucky herself had always regarded il as en-
bracing inchoate rights, and rs imposing ON
her the obligation to enact laws to perfect
them. She has accordingly enacted la VS. for
consnminatng such inchoate rights as she re-
cosnlsed. And why is not this right also re-
cosnIsed 1T is private right TO land, with
IN the district of Kentucky, and it was acauir-
ed under the laws of Virginia. before the SEN
arauOn. The reason is to be found i'm the cir
ctmstance that the right is INDICATED. But
thls reason can derive no cOuntenance from
any thing, In the third article of the compact
Ihat distinguishes not between located and
INDICATED rights, but guarantees all private
rights that have attached within the district
of kentucky.
The sixth article, however, exemptng the
INDICATED lands "within the military district
from the power of the proposed state till the
hrst OF May 1893, and subjecting them ex-
Pressly until that time TO be disposed of, by
the commonwealth of Virginia, according to
tneir appropriation, and providing that there
after, The residue OF all lands remaining within
Kentucky, shall be subject to her disposition.
has been interpreted limiting the right of
location to that period, and extinguishng the
right under all warrants then remaining unlo-
Gated.
That this IS not the correct Interpretation of
tae article, it is believed may be proved by the
most satisfactory reasons.
Several considerations concur in shelving.
that Virginia could not have intended this ar
ticie as limitation on the time of entering the
warrants. In the first place, such an intention,
II 1t had existed, would probably have been
expressed, in plain and uncquivocal language,
IN the language appropriated by long usage to
this purpose. In the next place,-no good
reason can be perceived, why Virginia, who
benefit, should desire to do it, for the benefit
OF Kentucky why she should desire to take
from the soldier, his earnings, which he want
ed, and give to Kentucky, the spoil, which she
did not want,-and lastly, such limitation
would have been unreasonable and unjust
considering the impracticability of making the
entries with any sort Of discretion, and of
making the surveys 1T all, in the largest and
most valuable part of the district appropriated
to the state troops.
If she could not have intended to limit the
period OF location, she certainly could not
have intended TO extiDguish the right.
To understand more clearly, what was the
power reserved to Virginia, by this article, and
what was intended to be left for Kentucky. II
will be necessary to advert to the condition of
these INDICATED lands.
So much OF the best as were necessary to
satisfy the military beunties, had been already
so far disposed ofas TO give inchoate rights,
which would be reflected, without any other
act OF Virginia. For part ofthe lands so dis
posed Of, warrants had been granted, and for
part there had been no warrants granted but
the means of procuring warrants as well as To-
eating, surveying and patenting had been pro-
sided by law, and required no further act of
the government. 1t will be remembered, that
the surplus lands, within the military district
beyond what was necessary, for the bouniies,
had heen appropriated, by law, to satisfy the
private adventures Of the officers and soldiers.
This was vague appropriation, intended to
give some benc6t 10 the troops in addition TO
their specific bounlics, and that benefit proba-
bly, prc-emptiOB, on such terms as the le-
gislature should prescribe. Nothing had been
done in consequence Of this appropriation.
In this condition Of the Indicated lands.
there were several acts that Virginia might
have desired to perform, before she parted
with the Sovereignty disnosinr Of the s,,rnlns