The daily union., 1852-03-13

this iot OF iana Inis bowman had previously made
an entry Of this land and obtained certificate of his
entry but this act for the benefit OF Carson stood 10 The
way OF issuing patent to this Bowman Both claims
have been before The committees they have examined
Tue facs, and are OF opinion that the title 10 this land
properly belongs 10 Bowman aud that he ought 10 have
The land IL Is necessary, however TO pass an act for
that purpose.
AS 10 the observation OF the senator from Missouri,
Mr. ATcHsoSl that is competent to diyes these
townships OF these grants OF school lands made 10 he
Why II has been done twenty times, and during every
townships, Il is true that dsappoved OF il myself at
nfsL thihk IL Is wrong; but II has been acted upon
up TO tins day, and IT is too late raise objec
,on 70 H. but that objection does not apply 10 this
ior the school lands have been selected Tor this town
SNIP and this refers only TO the surplus the
necessary Tor that purpose which has been released by
7 NE Secretary Of the Treasury think this is very
PLAIN case, and ought 10 be allowed.
MT, PRATT. | regret TO interfere In a matter with
which have apparently SO little concern But If
dersand The case before u.s. there is very important
principle involved IN It, The contest is between the
township and this individual grantee, Bowman, but be-
tween two individual grantees-Bowmar and Carson
The Supreme Court have decided, in which have
had occasion recently TO examine, that where party is
entitled to pre- empton, and has entered claim TO make
the entry OF the land. this inchoate pre-empton right
confers such title as cannot be nerfeed with by any
correctly ny one act OF Congress the right to enter this
lot OF land given to an individual OF the name Of Car
son, and gentleman OF the name OF Bowman claims TO
have prior right OF empon Now, ii he possesses that
prior right, the judicial tribunal OF the countyhe Sn
preme Court--is open TO him. and is for that tribunal
and that alone to decide between these two individuals
ted States in any to act judcally Where there
individual rights legally existing, the judicial tribunals OF
the country open for the decision of those rights
We are not the proper tribunal and do not possess the
constitutional power to enter upon the decision OF such
question. This case, in my judgment, is precisely
have stated II understand It correctly, think this
bill ought not to pass but that the contest ought to be
carried on in the judicial tribunal of the country.
Mr.. DOWNS. There is no doubt in the world that
the doctrine of the gentleman from Maryland Mr..
PRATTl is PERFECTLY correct agree with him in every
particular and The position he takes is conclusive that
that this bill ought pass. He says that this pre-emp
on right vests title that Congress cannot divest Now,
in him by the ntiaory steps he had taken, and the Sec
retay OF the Treasury had put him in possession OF the
land. But, Congress not knowing anything OF these
passed giving him the right to enter this lot OF land.
Now, Congress could not divest the first possessor OF
this and then i is conclusive that this bill ought to pass,
title TO the individual who should have it. hope the
senator from Kentucky Mr.. UNDERwooDl will join with
me, it is OF his constituents that fighting for
Mr.. ATCHISON. think the senator from Louisiana
Mr. DOwNs has shown very conclusivey that this is
question between Carson and Bowman Then let the
court decide that quesonlet it decide whether this law
OF Congress dvests Bowman OF his right and invests
Carson with title 10 this and-let decide whether that
law should be enforced not whether the preemp-
tion law under which Bowman claims should or should
not be enforced Congress has nothing do with this
want an opportunity TO examine this matter.
Mr.. BADGER Win the gentleman pledge himself to
Mr.. ATCHISoN. | will not pledge myself to read the
bill or the report Sometimes do read bill and some
times do read report. [LaugheEl think now that
will do both in this case, but will not pledge myself
to do either.
As the senator from Louisiana [Mr. DowNs] has al
luded 10 the senator from Kentucky, Mr.. UNDERWOOD,
will say that am utterly asonlshed that he has not
inteposed 10 examine this matter Why sir, it may af
feet TO extent the disbuve share OF the State OF
Kentucky under his proposition TO distribute the public
Mr. BADGER. Do understand my friend from Mis-
sour Mr. ATcHsok] to say that be will really lock into
this mat. err [Laughierl
teri hope the vote upon the postponement will now
be taken. As the Senate is very thin now, do not
want to call for the yeas and nays; for II should it
may appear that there Is no quorum in attendance.
Mr. DOWNS. One remark more before the question
is taken. The senator from Missouri [Mr. ATcHIsoN]
thinks this bill ought not to be passed. but that ought
to be decided in court of justice Now, in order to
have fair fight, Congress ought 10 put the parties upon
equal footing Congress has given patent to Carson,
and want this bill passed TO give the other nah
patent also and then they will be equal. That would
moi interfere with any other title or any other claim for
there is provision in this bill declaring that il shall not
interfere with any other claim. II the gentleman from
Missouri Mr. ATcHBosl wishes 10 fair fight, then
pass This BILL which will put these two individuals upon
the same footing, and let them hEhtit out Laughter
Mr.. ATCHISoN. This man Bowman claims 10 have
a title under pre-emp,ion law-whe,her Of ls4i, lsss,
or some prior law, do not know This man Carson
claims under an act Of Congress, Yesng him directly
with the title 10 this land The senator from Louisiana
I Mr. Dowxsl tells me that Bowman had certificate OF
entry that he proved his pre- emption, deposited his
money, and obtained his certificate which the ntaory
steps TO title 10 patent Congress, without knowing
anything OF this matter upon Carsons petition passed
law vestng him with title 10 this land. The senator
now SAYS that, unless nerpose by passing this BILL
Carson will obtain the patent What advantage will that
patent be 10 Carson in the court OF louisiana or in any
other court, II this pe-emption right OF Bowman is
valid None whatever, sir. r
Mr. DOWNS. II will be TO the disadvantage OF the
United States to give him one.
Mr. ATCHlSON Ii will be no disadvantage 10 the
United States though II may be to Carson NOW, SIR,
under these circumstances these individuals stand upon
the same platform, upon equal footng and let them
90 before the court o louisiana and let that court de-
eide upon their title 10 this land
The question being then taken upon the postponement
of the further consideration OF this bill TIL Friday next
was agreed TO-
The following engrossed bill read third time and
passed
Bill Is. as5) appropriang Of money for the com
peton OF the nerment OF officers and soldiers who died
in Mexico, in the American cemetery near The CITY oil
Mexico.
ST. JonSs CHURCH.
Mr. SHIELDS. During my temporary absence, Mr.
President bill has Just been passed over-ihe bill No.
49, in relation to ST. Johns Church, in this city
The PRESIDENT. II was postponed until Friday
next
Mr. SHIELDS suppose il would be proper to have
that vote recopsidered and make that notion pre-
sune there will be no objection TO the bill and for sew
eral reasons should like TO have 1t acted upon to-day
Mr. BAyARD object TO the BILL