The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-03-25


titles irighted from the courts by the
Pense imposed upon the effort TO establish their va
lidity-ttles proved, but locations removed-snd
with titles by complete grants from the former gov
ernmeni yet usurped and sold by this
Whoever reviews this unpleasant chapter Of ma
tional denquencies, must feel that justice, human
y and patriotism require some ehectual and decisive
remedy 10 cure the evils complained Of And,
If il were done, when It's done, then 'twere well
IL were done quickly
The bills in Congress, calculated to satisfy some
claimants but do not 10 he in the spirit Of the
treaty stipulation adequate 10 the stIct demands
of justice. Nor are the indications, fear, favorable
to their being improved passed at all, at present
They revive the acts Of May &c, 1924, and May "a,
1928, excluding such portions Of those acts as apPi-
ed TO the territory of Arkansas The second section
of the act Of May &C. 1924 gives power to the courts
by final Decree to settle and determine the question
Of The validity of the title according TO the law OF
nations, the stipulations of any treaty and proceed
ings under the same, the several acts Of Congress
in collation. thereto, and the laws and ordinances OF
the Government from which it is alleged TO be de-
rived, and all Other questions properly arising be-
tween the claimant and the United States" SC
This provision of the act of 1924 is deemed accep-
table.
| Most OF the claimants under French and Spanish
grants, it is apprehended, need law to give
additional strength to their title. All they require
or ought to ask is fair and Just law by which to try
the validity Of their titles upon their merits. This
end would be sufficiently attained by act of Con-
gress giving jurisdiction to the u. S. District Courts,
to try and decide upon the claims mainly, in conor-
nifty with the provisions Of the second, third and
sixth sections of the act of May 26, 1924 and there
reasonable objection to any Of the provisions Of
that entire act so far as applicable, excepting the
eleventh section thereof This section, have be-
fore shown, gives preference to intruders upon the
claims, over the claimants themselves. And oh.
noxous and unjust, it is, it is proposed TO be
revived and enlarged, in the following terms
"No confirmation which shall be made by the
decree Of the court under the provisions of this act
and the acts hereby revived, shall be dered
ratifying the title of the ccnfrmees, under such
decree to any lands within the limits of the claim
so confirmed, which may have been heretofore sold
or Otherwise disposed OF pursuant TO, or under collar
of any law Of the United States, or to any claim
by pre- empton, held and possessed in good faith by
actual habitation and cultivation" &C. " But all
confrmees having claims intsrfered with by any
such prior sales, authorized locations rights
of pre- emption, any other form of title which has
been derived under or confirmed by any act Of Con-
gress shall be entitled to locate equal quantity of
land as ntertered with on any public land in either
of the said States or Territory where the confirmed
claim lies, subject to sale at private entry, and in
conformity with the subdivisions Of the public sur
'yeys." Sen. bill sec. 2.
There are but few claimants, having valid titles,
and feeling assured by the treaty. who could JUS
, tce to themselves submit to trial under such pro
vision Of law or its prototype, the tn section of
the act Of 1924. Whether they could, would depend
upon the situation Of their claims and their prospec
Of good new locations. Observe the effects and
measure the justice here proposed. The claimants
required to establish their title under their for.
mer government to be good according to the law
of nations treaty spulatons and the laws and ordi-
nances of the former government &c. And when,
at great labor and expense, they have established
their title TO the whole of the tracts they claim then
the, shall not hare the land! But what? They must
take the refus. parts thereof not occupied by Others
or seek elsewhere equal quantity of land subject
to sale by private entry Thus in lieu Of property
which they shall prove to be their own much of il
perhaps well chosen and valuable, it not if it
be worth 500 the foot they shall take lands which
nobody else has entered, and which would not bring
t at public sale al % per acre Is there any justice
or equity in all this Can the claimants in justice
to themselves take action under any law tending to
such results
II the new law were to be an unconditional con.
frmation ofthe titles which had been reported fayo-
rably by any Of the boards of commissioners with
out the trouble expense, and delay Of proceedings
, in courts, such present confirmation ercepting the
lands heretofore sold by the government, and admit
ting all the other provisions Of the lh section OF the
act of 1924 and Of the % section Of the act pro-
posed, might render il proper for the claimants to
consult and determine whether not, in order TO
avoidsuch expense, trouble, and delay il nigh, not
be best 10 accept the provisions OF such law, and
thereby get immediate possession Of all that part Of
their property sold by the government and 9TH
err lands in lieu Of those which have been sold -
The difficulties Of proving the titles have greatly in
creased with the lapse Of time the death Of witness
es, and the resistance of the government, united
with new parties Interested In possession adverse to
the claimants, and claiming under the United States
II, therefore, the law requires the claimants to go
through all the expense trouble and delay Of cstab-
fishing the validity Of their title according to the law
Of nations, and the treaties, laws, ordinances and
usages of the former Govern ent then can they,
ough, they submit to any thing short Of the denti-
cal land to VIII ch they shall have so established their
title, or IFS value received by the governments
And should they not refuse to take any action undo
a law which withheld this right The claimants
ask nothing but what is reasonable and equitable
: They ask strength to their titles bit they
ask that, when they prove them, they shall have the
property nominated in the bond, - its equivalent
not merely in quantity Of acres but in value. II the
government prefer, they can remunerste, not the
claimants under the grant, but those to whom they
! have sold the grantees property as town lot, and
upon pre-emption rights.