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

4 .
have tIeen more readily adduced i'm Virgins
than IN Kentucky, under rules, which ha,
been ascertained, and were familiar in Viryi
ma, and under system, which must be sus
pended, as soon as Virginia ceased to hav,
authority over the subiect--and which woult
oc re-orsanIzed only at the pleasure of Ken
lucky. Aud we End, that i'm fact, this is tn,
only one of these three things that Virgini;
did, in the interval between passing thu. first
act of 1885, and the consummaton of the last
ON the first of May, 1892. She granted M
part the surplus laRd,- made no chang,
IN the rules for locating, surveying or patent.
ing the lands-but she continued, every yeai
OF inns interval to grant warrants, for military
service, IN the state line and navy.
But, Whatever was the motive for retaining
TINS power, II could nave been exerted only
on me subjects above enumerated, and
.ho additional SUBJECTS of surveying and pa
tentlng. There could have been no motive To
retain the power with the view of making
surveys and granting patents these we're So
obviously within the range of the duties,
which would devOlye on the officers of the
government of Kentucky, that they would
confidently have been referred to that good
faith, with which the third article of the com
pact would be executed. Nor can it well be
conceived, that the motive was, 10 enabfe the
owners oil the warrants to make locations.-
Before the date Of the last act. in 1899. the
condition of the lands within the Indian boun-
Diary, must have been so understood. rs TO
make 1t obvious, that no locations could be
made thereon, as in truth none had been
made,sIncc the year 1884.
with this view Of the powers retained bv
Virginia over the military district, it cannot
be difficult to decide what was intended to be
'eit Tor Kentucky to perform, when the power
of Virginia ceased
These lands when they ceased 70 he sub-
!ect to the power of Virginia, became like all
lands III The state, subject to the power of
Kentucky so far as they had not been dispo
sed otby Virginia, they were to be disposed of
by Kentucky.
IL then Virginia had disposed of the com
pfete tile To any, Kentucky had nothing TO do,
IN the disposition of tbem-tlIs would be the
case with those only, to which patents had is
sued III she had disposed of an incboate right
or interest IN land, Kentucky was further TO
dispose of this, so as To perfect that right this
would require her, TO give warrants, to evi-
dences OF military service performed in full
hi'nent OF the contract for bounty; to allow
iocatIons to warrants surveys To- locations {:
and patents to surveys. This Virginia was
bound TO do herself, and in transferring her
sovereignty To Kentucky, must have intended
To transfer this obligation with it. The resi-
que OF the lands, in no manner disposed of by
Virginia, Kentucky was to dispose of at will.
This embraced all that surplus. which V;rpi-
MA might have disposed of to the troops. Nv
presumption or otherwise, in the spirit of the
appropriation, to satisfy their PIRATE adven
lures. This appropriation, too uncertain to
creaie obligation on Virginia, could transfer
none to Kentucky.
IL mas never been asserted, that complete
TILE was necessary to constitute such ,ispo-
si'lon OF these lands, as would restrain Ken
lucky from disposing of them at pleasure. An
Inchoate right which, had been sanctioned by a
location, has been allowed sufficient 70 enti,le
the owner 10 its completion.
Yet, the location has been insisted on {: and
why 1t has, no good reason, can be perceived.
Inc location is not tho source of the right. or
Inc evidence ofthe right, or the consideration
lor the right or necessary TO attach the right
, &c, inc land within the district There is but
..l''e precision, and no solemnity attached to
1t. Why then is il insisted on
The most plausible reason assigned ia. that
the location is necessary. to enable Kentnckv
to ascertain and dispose ofthe surplus land. =
But, this reason vanishes under investigation.
The location does not ascertain the o,an,;-
~ OF land granted, with more precision, than
'ne warrant, which being matter of record.
WIZ iurnsh sufficient evidence ofthe amount.
Nor Goes the location ascertain the quantity of
lle surplus, or the precise boundary of that
appropriated. The actual survey is neces-
sary 10 THIS, yet, the survey has not been re-
CURED TO constitute valid disposition of In.
land, under this article of the compact
But, the conclusive consideration is this.
that the reason, relied on does not REQUIRE
tnat the location should exist, at the very
ume OF the Experimentation it all its SUP
posed iorce, and 1t only requires power Ia
compel the location within reasonable fine.
Inns power would enable Kentucky, with con-
vehIent dispatch, To- ascertain and dispose of
'he surplus 1t necessarily implied in every
engagement, 10 grant a particular parcel OF
.a'a 10 ne SET apart within large district, AT
VIC eiectIon OF the grantee, that he should
prefer his claim, within reasonable time and
pursue IT, with reasonable diligence what is
reasonable tImeand what reasonable dd;g.nce
depends on circumstancesando ought in iii "a.
ses where practicable TO beregulaied by law.
Jaw prescribing reasonable fine, within
"h'ch these military claims should b. prefer
req AMI located, might certainly have been
enacted ny Virginia before the separation =
ana 10 TINS power Kentucky, no doubt, sue
cceucd ); the discreet exercise of this power
would have deprived the reason, now under
consideration, Of all color.
The situation of the military claims in fine
north western territory was, in this resnect
precisely the same. The location there was
equally necessary; and there, the government
OF the United States has exerted precisely the
power, which is here suggested Limitations
have been prescribed, by the laws Of Congress
and enlarged, from time to time, according tc
circumstances.
Mach reliance has been placed, upon IN,
history OF this law, TO sustain the constructior
put Upon It. by Kentucky. The circumstance