The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-06

any one. unless il be upon party 10 litigation vi,
provided for by this bill.
There is state OF case provided for here VIII.
tesiants nlay come forward and have litigation il
10 title and The decree OF judgment OF the Coun !.
hna n To The parties before them but II then ~
persons not before the cour snd yei parties 10 nv.
CATION this bill does not pretend 10 deprive lhsu al
lies they may have, whether under well.loasa -
choate title OF from grants OF the authorizes oi
California or Spain. They perfect rights. !. ~
marked the other day. under the constitution y
United States and under the treaty This ball cso,ss.
away those rights, whether inehoats or merely sa"s
which may exist IN any one. IL would be eStrsaHN
TO conteDd that il will. II - beyond our power
courts OF equity will perfect them by compsm.
holder OF the legal title granted under yoar psisn,
hnqulsh it. Ii does seem TO ire these principle. I. x
seem 80 very plan TO lawyer educated in NJ
school of Kentucky, show that there Is neee,s~
this amendment
Mr. DAVIS. OF Massachusetts, Mr. presdent /.
not able 10 see al the outset OF this discussion snv
distinct or influencing reason which made the i.so,
patent necessary. have been told, however nv ~
men who understand The subject much better than
thai the tendency will be 10 uanqu'lze the public M
and make the claimants better satisfied with wha,
rights they may have 10 the Territory, and therefore M
to issue the patent. yield 10 this reason But h,,,
ton which now arises is OF different character M
understand the matter, we are all agreed that he On,
States do not mean 10 do more than release wh,brl
righ, they may have 10 the patent. That is all m,
means; and the controversy is whether you shall rs
on the face Of the law, or leave II 10 legal mpest
If it is true that such is the object OF all parties. w,
the harm of expressing that object the face oh.h
WHY should il be left to legal implication WIN L~
the party be sent to lawyer to inquire into thai IN
he does not himself understand. when we might Is y
| have expressed what We meant on the satute-book
! that he may understand il himself!
| 1t seems to me when we pass law OF this Kind y
purpose should be not TO mslead the paenee--pa n
give him title which some ingenious lawyer may BY
plication and construction Of law, stretch TO somsbs
more Than it really is-not 10 mislead anybody. WsDrM
intend to do ything than TO make partition uaN
property 10 leave the party who makes claim 10 lndrg
ual right in possession, and TO give him whatever y
the United States have to it. That Is all we mean MI
ii there be controversies between this individual M
other parties il there be clashing claimants the
of title between them Is lett TO be settled e,ex
| and by other means
II seems to me, in this view of the subject then NJ
be no objection to the adoption OF some expression up
the face of this law which will show what the mssd
of this patent is Or, II that Is not done, seems
that the patent itself should issue in form which uou
explain its own meaning lam perfectly content Wilhelm
| II YOU will say by this law what is meant by The an
or if you will say it the face OF the PATENT as1
fed But think il fair 10 all parties. and just to s'u,
body that if the true legal implication is that the pa3
is nothing more than release Of the title Of the t4x
States i, should be SO expressed.
Mr. BERRIEN. When the Senate referred to one Il
it's committees subject of this sort to be provided i NJ
bill il is 10 he presumed they desired to have that v,5
and the usages Of Congress on similar occasions Wia
therefore, it asked the other day why patent shot,
issue in this case, the answer was that the United Sui
had uniformly adopted this course IN relation to all s
torial acquisitions. Gentlemen who without looksd
into The legislative history OF the country Tor prece
come forward and offer propositions comfortable to tx
own particular views, without considering what has bu
the former legislation oil the country, multiply dhculA
whchewill impede the progress OF Legislation, wiAa
attaining any valuable purpose.
But the senator from Connecticut produced to The III
ate what he supposed was precedent which the con-
mi,ee were bound to follow and he adheres to the
ration that it constitutes precedent Now, ! ask V
senator it. under the provisions of the act OF 1891,
case OF any confirmed claims where there was no cohss
OF boundary the provisions OF That section would aN5
Would the patent which is provided for IN The act u
be affected by the provisions OF the sixth section Of
| OF 1881, where claim had been confirmed, and who
there was no conflict of boundaries The senator VI
this The provision OF The act OF 1924 np
lives the idea of the senator from Wisconsin, whenu
patent is mentioned THIS Limitation 10 made IN lie
words:
THAT upon tho fna decision of any claim prosecsr
under this favor of the claimant or catmant ID
and may be lawful tor such claimant 10 demand Mt :
The clerk of the court in which such final De-
sion is had oil the decree Ia his, her, or the AN
under the official signature OF the clerk and the seal 10
court, any seal belong TO u, and deliver the stme
surveyor OF public lands State of Missouri xto "a
pom the land spec IN said decree TO Dc ~
vsyed at the expense OF the party and duplicate Pn'
certificate Of the survey made 10 be returned 100
Other authenticated by the attes,stion and official sr
OF the surveyor OF public lands, shall be delivered
mnad, TO The parry Interested therein and the same ,i
presented the CInmi ssoner OF The General Land lA
in Washington CRY, shall ene tue party interested
patent f ON the President ofthe United States"
| The parties were 10 be entitled TO patent, leaving
the courts before whom that patent shall be broWE
decide upon lis effect and operation. But IN the "
1891, when it comes 10 provide that this patent sh,l
merely-a REIMBURSEMENT OF the rights OF Inc vna
States, il limits that provision 10 cases OF conhda
boundaries ! really cannot conceive what possible
ject there is in urging this amendment on the Seas
Certainly the United States is not going 10 be iovos
Everybody here will understand that grant whel
made BY the United States upon the consideration wl
is here stated, which msst be satisfactory involves
United States in ne responsibility. Upon the Purehax
lands al the minimum pflce OF dollar and quafRi
acre. the matter might be appropriate TO such case
we do not want such provision here
By the stipulalions OF the treaty we have bound o.
selves to protect private property. We are about ns
tute tribunal to ascertain what that private properly
and having asceriained ii, going TO give The en-
ant whose claim shall be confirmed the evidence whfi
patent will afford him that his claim has been dee'Ss
tie private properly before the tribunal we have po'e
! That is all. And why should il be required, dsFA'u
| from the Legislation of Congress, both IN The eAs
Louisiana and Florida, to annex this qualification VI
should provide for the benefit OF third person'
will have slumbered their claims up to the tine o.
issuing Of their patent leave 10 those who aa'ou
the amendment TO tell us why Congress should A'
such course in opposition TO former Congresses.
The question being put on adopting The amendment
quorum voted.
/ Mr. BALDWIN called for the yeas and nays
Mr., FOOTE. would simply suggest tina, agrees
vote for this amendment but IA declared the othei
in regard to an amendment offered by my Trend Y
Wisconsin, (Mr. Wslker.) that il The yeas and nays
called upon snch trivial question Ms that should
against II, so | declare in regard TO thus. II the
and nays are ordered, shall vote against IT. :,
Mr. BALDWIN. My only object in calling lo
yeas and nays was to get quorum but as there aHS
now to be quorum present, withdraw the call.
/ The question being taken again on the amendmee
the amendment j, was adopted on dIvs'on-Ne
noes 10.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. ! rise to ask wheh tsi