Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1823-03-20

the mower Of I've commissioners 10 decfie
Gan they decide tina K shall make laws
of rrtlcular character? Will kentucky
mag. them? Or will they say she snail
p,ake NE necessary lsws|' Ii this on'y
land even ths is doib'fu, under the
eonpact) who il 10 i'Idge what are neces-
sarT? Kentucky AMI thus we shall require
an Jtssr arbitration, or be driven to la" az
last. Thus for a mere chance. oil oeci
SION in our favor before a court OF aro.'ra-
tors--can2 lsei of re know not whom'
Whose povers cannot be distinctly SEEM
whaee decision is matter OF specuiatiou'
an'i
whose judgment cannot be enforced,
Ths indie pendent tribunals OF justice, Of
which we know The members;
1--WE assume \ new guarantee;
We encounter the hazard Of getting
nothing al last;
AMI leave ~ the s:biirltors 10 decide
ajso the Occupying claimant laws, which
we have declared we have no right TO
mediIe with!
3. II is said the guarantee is unimpor-
t.ut. because the warrantholders never
can recover by nandamu>; or secure their
rights in any other way
SIR. L. sail, this was really The only
deb4teabe point in the case, II The hold
era of warrants can secure their lands, the
an,five for reference 10 arbltrators IS re-,
moved on the one hand, and the danger OF
the guarantee rendered certain on The OLD.
er. n.
Why has Kentucky assisted on this
guarantee. If her able advisers dtd not tell
her there ,ras A proba ability OF the warrant
holders recovering their CLAIMS! 1bis OF
,,s.Lf should be Argument enough against
the guarantee by US. Have We not been
told they are deeply interested, and we'll
acquainted with the mode o. securing land
titlrs, aud with the laws respecting them!
Do they not know the facts better than we
do? Why then should we bind ourselves
10 guarantee against claims, which hen
lucky herself, by asking the guarantee,
acknowledges to be probably available IN
a court of Justice?
Mr.. T. said he should cobtend in discus
sing this point >,
/. That lnp claimants have an available
right to their portions Of the land in the
peninsula, and he referred to Mr.. Leigb's
speech (pages 9, 10, II, y as shaving that
hi, ripht was "a solute, unconditional and
consunamate, and that nothing was want
ing except the designation OF the portion
oil each person
2. Until the death OF Croghan. who was
Che recognized surveyor under the N law,
they might have demanded OF hun to 10
coale AMI survey the land--snd bad he re-
fused he might have been compelled: Tor
the law Of Kentucky which forbade him
TO survey was po,a and would not havs
ju>' 6e his refusal. The mode OF COM
pelliag him would have been mandamus.
About the mode-it he was bound 10 sur
yey there could be No dispute.
3. Virginia, by the act OF 1918, author
ized The governor to ill vacancies IN the
Office of surveyor Of tue soldiers lands. II
this act does not extend to Kentucky, we
may pass a similar one ior surveyors OF the
lands ~ question.
But here it is ssid-"Virginia has ced-
ed the sovereignty and can now do 90 ac'
respecting those lands"
This resolves itself into two questions;
FIRST, could DOT the right OF Virginia 10
proceed to lay off the soldiers shares IN
the appropriated tract be- reserved to Fr'
GINA wih Xen,ucky's assent
Second. Is il not the tair interpolation
of the contract, that Virginia was to have
this right? ;.
As to the first, there can De no doubt
The very right OF sovereignty kentucky
,;mplies the right to give this power II she
pleases; and the only question tbsfei0re
Is,
Secondly, Is il not the fair interpositlo:
of the compact that Virginia should pro-
coed by her agents to lay off and designate
the portions OF her soldiers, according tt
her laws?
On this poinl, Mr.. Tucker cnntea1ed
that by the compact with Kentucky, the
land laws of Virginia were expressly cor
stiiutpd* the immutabls law OF tn" subject
and were quO0d hoc sovereign; That The
laws uoder wbiCn these warrant-holder:
claim were The laws meant by the exCep'
lion nm the It'll section Of the compact. -
That these laws provided THAT the Utii
GERS might appoint their o'rn agents, and
Law of their shares" and though the sur
yeyor received his authority tron'sihe law
p ne as the agent OF the officers The OF
6cers were now dead. Gu whom GeTolv'
Ell ,ae appointment of new agents On
Virginia their trustee 1t was n" sovereign
power they exercised in appointing Gro
shan under the Law. nor does Virginia ex'
ercise sovereign power in appointing
new agents. II IS rather IN The nature 81
a private right TO DIVIDE at pleasure 'rac
ofland, the titles of which is CONSUME
mate > Mr.. 4. referred 10 what IS ss,t
Inv Judge Johnson, o Wheaton case OF M'
Quincy u S,iIimsnl 10 she~ 'ha 'hs
exercise OF this power may re cohs'derel
as consistent; with the sovereign power w
another. He referred also to the patent
issued to the Illinois regiment three years
after Virginia had coded the n. W. Ter