Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-05-13

= S'heN '"S ~ o"l iikbA w ~ ~
this must be settled in a subsequent suit, after the set
tier shall have gone through the Court OF Chancery and
probably the Court OF Ape Is, and paid the expenses OF
both courts; and in the subsequent suit, the decree will
be of no more effect than a deed from the President and
Directors, which ought not to cost FIVE dollars. The
original owner oi the land cannot be made a party, by
which the question Of iorteitui might be isirly tried,
aud of course no such decree can pr, judice his rights,
nor can several persons claiming the conmonw ealth's
right to the same piece OF land, (which will often hap
peu) become parties 10 each others suits, and have
their disputes settled at once, although il, is one OF the
peculiar provinces of a Court of Chancery to proven,
circuity aud multiplicity of actions. II is obvious, then,
that this bill may produce two, and very frequently
three or four suits in each case of transfer. The settler
must first bring his suit against the President and Di-
rectors for their right; secondly, he must bring suit
against his neighbour, or his neighbour against him, TO
determine which OF them has the best right to the
land so transferred, and lastly, the original ow ner comes
IN, and brings suit TO determine whether any of them
have RICH. to his land; and whe; her it was ever law
iuIly forfeited. He hoped these unfortunate settlers,
who deserved better things at the hands of the Lee
Stsiature, would be protected from the heavy and
unnecessary costs proposed TO be laid upon them as
the price for The proposed ira sier. Taey will have
enough to cont nd with, when the original owner
exhibits his claim. wi hout rAhaus ing their means
In quits with he President aLd ID rec'ors Alta FRO
per time hs would propose To strike .ron Ia. bin
every Ring relating 10 the protectors u Suits in he
Court OF Chaucery, and ,H.r the plan AL ped at the
last session. Declare III Ccmtntnwedlih', righ, to be
at once absclu'e'y transferred I'D vested in the settler
by operation OF law without sui +; and il the Ugh, lie
Of aoy avail, let / im have III benefit OF IL, freely, aud
without cos; or 'rOuble. lie would also propose an
o'Eer part OF he bile ,hs last 5 ssion, which author.
izcd The BE tier to introduce be'of1 he County Cusrl
aud have euiertd Of record, any evidence he mil n,
think proper, o. ching lis light OF hs rose .sior, aud
which would have al the I'll CT Ct a decree Of III,
Court OF Chancery. The expense would be ineon.idet.
able, and the party might, or might no, incur il. al
his own discre ion. Ii he did not wish to make i, mai.
ter OF record, stall he would be able TO protect himself
against he original owner. 10y p'oving I've Sil- or The
iOr'ei ure to III Common wealth, and his RICH, to the
transfer and Investment.
Bsiore ei tering upon a discussion # the Con, ti,u,iop.
al question, he would call the attention OF the Commi,
tee TO the enormous and unnecessary expense which
must be incurred by IN Common wealth in car, ying
This bill into .fec', unless anetd,d. The Auultn,
has reported that it may cost S2O,ouO. but nj i, report
was no. founded on any correc data o. rules of calcu
latcn, a, he hin $ II admits. Mr NJ bal sen and
converted Win m Audit T since making the rYp.rt,
aud m i'ted on that ti "r assuming soms da'a sa,i.-
factory TO his owD mind, and to make another estimate
OF he tSpeus". the Auditor lii sU, and IN a lev mi
nuies 'ouId the expense would equal, II no, exce.d
SoO,OGO H,had himself taken he [ oubl. 10 txau lac
the delr qlent LETS, from The district he lad the hou),
% repre- .ent, ard found. a, she su a!lest .stima,ion of
expense, It would amount, 20 w thol and aud Elk y
'hfee dollirs. And IL was i-s' than an average
District in IN" w stern coun ry. He hoped gentlemen
would not hut ih'ir eyes az last invest. att n OF
n KIND, and 70 e away 'housan, 8 Of The public urea. ure
Tor no essential puIpo q wrat v-r. ), TAR "a n C, ssity
may req ir' eXpendi u es, he was az r. ady 10 max. In m
as any gentleman; but he could not vote for the appro-
priauon OF indefinite sums for useless purposes. He
would state the data, he had assumed, and which had
guided hiln III making up his opinion; and he hoped that
any gentleman j~ustiiying the expenditures proposed in
the bill, would do him the kindness of correcting any
errors into which he may have fallen. 1t is as follows:
l. 1t will require from 8 TO 10 clerks the term of
one year, to make out the lists at the rate, as allowed in
the bill, of six hundred dollars per annum,
Making fIom $1,000 to 5000
2. Recording the lands now vested
in the Literary Fund, and those to be
forfeited under the 2nd
section of the bill, being from 80, 1000
to 10000 tracts at ten cents for each
tract, Making from SO 600 TO G. 600
3. Advertising each tract OF land
lot returned delinquent since 1920,
in some two newspapers, for the space
OF one month in each, being from 3d.
600 10 10000 tracts and lots, at the
price OF 30 cents per square, for each
every three squares contain
ing not more than 10; and five inser-
tons for the month, Making from 10000 TO GO, 900
Total, do do $4,000 to ~, 900
The Auditor supposes, tina, by prescribing a tabular
for the advertisements, ten tracts may be put in
three squares; but 10 avoid extravaganza, fifteen are al
lowed in this statement. Thus, four insertions would
cost eighty cents, and five, a dollar, for advertising
each tract oil land or lot. The number of tracts assuIn-
both TO be recorded and advertised, cannot be less
than 10000, and may greatly exceed 6 10000. The truth
j., The expense will not be less than $50, 900; and may
be equal 10 100000. But il the amendments, proposed
by the Committee OF General Laws, be again moved and
agreed TO, by which the recording will be intirely dis
with, and the printing be done by job printer, on
loose sheets OF / 10 the form, (w hich may be convenient
ly bound up and prescrved,) he would venture 10 say.
that, exclusive OF clerk hire, the expense would no,
much exceed $5,000-it might possibly reach $40, 900;
the delinquencies prove greater than has been an
ticipated.
The 18th section of the bill will next claim our atten-
but he would only refer TO some of its most obvious
bearings or the community. The constitutional obiec-
ton TO this section, will fall very much within the ar
against The I'd and Sd sections. Ii provides
that, in any action concerning the title or possession of
land, the plaintiff shall not Introduce his patent as evil
lence of title, unless he shall prove that he has paid all
the taxes charged, and which ought 10 have been charg-
ed against him, 1t the defendant shall prove that he is i'm
possession under a patent from the commonwealth, and
has paid all the taxes charged, and which ought 10 have
been charged against him. Ii this section be intended
Tor lair play, between man and man, AMI between the
commonwealth and those who hold her grants. why not
require both parties, in all cases, TO show that they
have paid their taxes! Because, perhaps, il would not
FIT the cases for which the section is provided! IL is a
new rule OF evidence, and as the section now stands, il
applies as well TO The East as the west; and as well TO
the patents heretofore issued, as those hereafter 10 be
issued. Ii may be constitutional as to patents hereafter
issued; but as to those heretofore issued, il is recurring
a KIND oil evidence to support the grant, not required
at its eInanaion, and without which the grant in fife ct
is made void. With us, the grant is of the highest au-
thorIty, and the Legislature cannot diminish the force of
IT'S evidence and verify, merely TO annul or avoid il.
Just as well might we attempt 10 pass an act, that i'm ali
cases the junior patent should prevail against the Sc
Nor; and That Is the meaning OF the section, so far as il
goes; or 1t is a forfeiture of The property of one man to
another, where the State claims nothing. When the
Legislature is about TO pass a law on any subject, il is
supposed that the members see precisely the cases
which will fall within the provisions about TO be made:
and although we do not see all the cases which NAV fall
within the rule prescribed in this section, yet we see that
in every case the Junior patent is 10 prevail against the
senior, and so Tar, we are legislatiDg against the uni
yersal law OF all well regulated governmen's.-Up-
on examination, it will be found, there is but little more
reason or Justice, for making this rule of evidence in