Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1853-12-24

" considered it in the light have it strengthens
my position. For if have proved any thing, 1t Is
that BY the provisions of this very law of 10th
March, the holders of scrip under either law are
placed in the same position to their rights in the
location of their scrip This position is plainly
and clearly defined in the 2, 13, IA, 10, and 10th
sections are constituent parts of each law, as far as
scrip and rights ofthe holders are concerned. The
right to locate their scrip on ''any and all sub
merged lands in the State" is expressly secured
by each to the holders of the same, issued under
the provisions of either. This plain right is not to
be yielded to a inference from the act OF 10th
March, AS / have before said, when the sense
of law is plain, inference and construction end.
If necessary, the view have taken of this mat
ter may be strengthened by several considerations
of collateral nature. l will call to your atten-
ton one more of them.
The 18th section of the act of l. th March, re-
qures the Secretary of State to make an issue Of
three hundred thousand acres of scrip, and to place
the same in the hands ofthe Treasurer who is au-
thorized to sell it. 1t then provides that the scrip
thus ''shall be placed upon the same footing, and
be subject to entry in the snme manner, as is pro-
vided for in the 9Th and 10th sections of this act
Now ask what did the Legislature intend should
be done Nth this scrip if the unrestricted right Of
location to be denied to the holders? Were
they to be confined to the counties specially
ed in the act? If sothe scrip would be useless to
the purchasers from the State, as in several as
will presently show their own appointment of scrip
rAue1dvd the land within their borders. The APP
parent object of this section 18th, was to replen-
sih the Treasury for certain purposes by cash sale
of scrip, and it is evident such restrictions as is
contended for the holders of the scrip would to
great extent have defended it's sale. We may
fairly infer where there is nothing express to for
bid it, that such not the intention of the LegiS
ture.
Again, there has been issued to the county of
Tunica some $4,000 acres of strip and yet it was
or should have been, well known TO the Legislature
that%here was not than go, or 25 900 acres OF
land in that county subject to Location. So in De-
Soto. There has been some Al 900 acres of scrip
issued to that county and yet there is not sin
gle of land in the county subject to location
with the scrip. Did the Legislature, then, intend
to restrict the hold of the scrip in these counties
to lands lying within their holders? If so the
whole of the DeSoto and the greater part of the
Tunica scrip is utterly worthless, just much
blank paper. say they did not, because they
have expressly said that the holders of the scrip
may locate it ION any of the submerged lands in
the State" and there is no law which deprives
them Of this right.
therefore answer yon that it is my legal opin-
ion that scrip issued under the provision Of the Act
of 5th of March, 1852, can be located upon any
lands within the provisions of the Act of the 10th
March of the same year,
In the foregoing opinion may be in error, yet
it is the result of my most deliberate judgment
The proper tribunals can correct me, ifwrong +; in
deed think matter of such magnitude and com
plexity had better be submitted by the parties il
interest to the courts of the country who may
make final and authoritative exposition of these
Statutes.
am sir. very respectfully,
D. c. GLENN, Attorney General.