The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-07

the right the part Of the government 10 prosecute by
wIt OF error tcr one or two reasons which will very
briefly state TO The Senate II is said that some OF these
California claims are very lage--are OF immense mag
ntude Now to give The government the rig III 10 prose-
cute writ OF error IN Of decision against the
government would relieve in very grea, degree the
attorney and the court who may give that decision from
an unjust suspicion. ! think that, for that reason
as well others, this provision should be inserted
TO give. the government, the same position in refer
ence TO the prosecution OF wrs OF individuals
do not wish the time Of tho Senate, and will
not multiply remarks. The proposition is very plain
and simple, and, for the reasons have given, think
II oagh! g 4, to b. be Incorporated into the bill.
/ The PRESIDENT. Does the senator wish to insert
'he words iii no appeal is laken"
| Mr. UNDERWOOD That is to be left out.
The PRESIDENT Does the senator, then. desire that
an appeal and writ Of error shall both be prosecutedi
/ Mr., UNDERWOOD, No, sir; il is TO be either the
one or the other II he prosecu,es appeal he need
not sue out wit OF error II he chooses to have two
suits going on at the same time, why, would be his
MIR. EWING Tha. could no, be done under our
M M. UNDERWOOD AS the senator from Ohio says,
our laws such prevent the possibility Of
Mr.. BERRlEN asked for the reading of the amend
men t atH '
! 1t was accordingly read si
| Mr.. b. said The section as it is coniaaed in the bill
has provision that, on the application OF the party
against whom judgment is rendered. the court may grant
appeal to the Supreme Court OF the United States.
such securities for costs in the district and Supreme
Court, in case the judgement OF the district shall
be confirmed, as the said shall prescribe. Then
the amendment proceeds provide that the party il
appeal be taken may sue out writ within three
years Now, that the objections to such
an amendment many. In the first place, this is
equity proceeding, 10 which the writ Of is not ap
plicabe In the next place. the distinction between
writ OF and an appeafor the last of which the bill
provdess. that the appeal brings up the whole Of
law and facts, while the writ of only brings up the
question OF law 1t, then, seems to me extraordinary
that such provision should be found necessary in the
present bill, when have gone through the course OF
getting the land titles in the different States formed out
Of territories which we have acquired without any en-
barasmenls resulting from the want Of such provision
The effect OF would be to delay the accomplishment OF
the object Of the bill for the length OF time here pro-
obtaining the judgment Of the district court and for what
pupose' For the purpose OF meeting undispued diff
hcalty Il will generally be found in the prosecution OF
private land claims in the different States which former
bills have been applicable, that the parties who had these
claims could give the security which necessary to
enable them to appeal The great object of the govern
ment has been 10 bring these proceedings speedily
possible to close, in order that the parties may be
que,ed in their rights and that the government may -.
certain what Is public domain, that it may be enabled
to exercise It's constitutional power OF dsposing OF IT,
This amendment conflicts entirely with that object
But sir, there is mode of accomplishing it, if there be
any real ground OF apprehension that when man has
claim to land, and there Is any reasonable ground for
the opinion that he cannot give security for costs, you
may, in another way. and without this delay, give him
an opportunity to he heard-by making the provision
which submit TO the senator from Kentucky as better
adapted TO the object than the amendment he pro-
district Judge shall be of the opinion that there
sonabe ground for the apprehension that while the
party desires TO enter an appeal he IS unable to give e.
curry, he may allow the appeal to be entered on the
record without requiring the security for costs. That
will accomplish the object of the senator from Kentucky
and in that would acquiesce, because by such pro-
vision the proceedings will be stayed and the
ance OF the public from the private property will not be
delayed No party who is really unable will be re-
gured 10 give security for costs, and, under the pro-
visions OF the BILL would not be deprived Of the oppou
nifty OF entering an appeal The district judge, being sat
would thus be given him II the from Kentucky
rs disposed 10 accept that modification OF his propo
suon, apprehend that IL would meet the sanction OF the
Senate. Ii not, should certainly hope that amend
ment which proposes proceedings inconsistent with
the whole frame and tenor Of the bIll-an amendment
which proceeds upon The supposuon OF difncuty
which all ormer experience proves that there Is no
ground Tor experimenting. and an amendment which will
have the effect OF causing unnecessary delay in the ac
complishmen OF The object OF this bill-wll not prevail
| hope that the senator will accept the modification
Mr. UNDERWOOD My object is to afford an oppor
tuny all the parties TO obtain Justice without being
tranmeIled in their efforts 10 reach il by an inability
give the security required in the bill The experience OF
all the States in the Unon, so far my knowledge ex
tends has led them adopt in reference 10 their particular
Judicial systems such provision as my amendment pro-
poses 10 add to this bill It's rule, therefore, which the
experience OF the various States authorizes me TO say is
beneficial in lis effects Ii is rule which s applied now by
the Supreme Court OF the United States in reference TO the
circuit courts OF federal system and according TO the
experience which we have in the operation OF the feds
raj judiciary, the rule safe and good in regard
TO decisions of the inferior federal tribunals Toe
only objection therefore to the rule upon principle, Is
that suggested by the senator from Georgia that msy
initiate wha, against the speedy adjustment OF thes,
land claims, which be says is very desirable the
part OF the government to have completed II 10
objection that reduced the from hve to three
years still further willing that II should be reduced
TO two years, If necessary shah make objection
reducing the limitation TO two years for the purpose Of
seems 10 have in views but would much prefer letting
II stand, sanctioned II is by the experience OF judicial
systems both regard to the State and federal trbunals
And would prefer letting the rule stand, and limiting
10 two years, 10 striking II out and putting entirely upon
the ground ui appeal. You confirm the appeal and,
according 10 the practice, the time is fixed within which
the bail bond is TO be executed II the bail bond il not
executed within the time limited, the appeal is gone, and
YOU cannot execute afterwards In tins way you SUD-
pct the party asking the appeal after It - granted 10 the
contingency OF death and all the accidents TO which we
are liable. That is very strict rule II anything pre-
vea the execution OF the bail bond in me the appeal
granted falls, and the party is without remedy II some
hng like the amendment which have had the honor 10
Offer adopted then IT will be proper TO modify,
corlng To the suggestion made by the senator from
Georgia II the Senate think proper 10 vote down the
amendment propose. allowing the writ OF error, hope
The will prepare such modification AZ he has
suggested. think that would be the best that
do II this canno, be obtained II the Senate oppose this
his will be reasonable amendment
have particular interest in the hill but have
thrown out these suggestions and offered this amendment
in consequence OF believing that remedy, more than
was prescribed in the b ought TO be made II the time
is too long, would be perfectly willing TO sanction an
ot'er the part OF the gentleman from Georgia TO reduce
II from three TO two years. That length oil hme 20 Allow
party the case, consult about ~ 10 re-