The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-01-27
eofssspoqoapce.
Ertk Eeral4 q Estdoia-
T.ar1renoa Fs;iu


Lawrence City.
Mr. EDIToR As much has been said
recently about the site of this city, per-
haps it would not be out of place for me
to call the attention of your readers TO a
few matters connected with the Lawrence
Association, and the settlement of this
city.
On or about the first day of Angus
last the first pioneer party $50 called ar
rived at this point, and selected this as {
city site. At that time Mr.. C. Stearn;
and Mr.. A. Wade were the only occu.
pants upon what now constitutes the city
of Lawrence. A refusal of their claim
for a specified sum was obtained by Mr.
Branscomb until the first of October
From that time (the first of August
dates the selection of this site as city
for that purpose it has been occupied eyel
since About the middle of September
following the $50 called second party ar
rived from the East, numbering near one
hundred men, By an arrangement then
made with the first party, their claim:
upon the present city limits were thrown
into common stock, and the city property
divided into one hundred and sever
shares. One fourth of the lots were sci
apart to be given away, and one fourth
were given to the Emigrant Aid Compa-
ny, in consideration of Improvements tc
be made by them. Under this arrange
ment the city has hourished, and to-day
is regarded by all as not only the hand
soonest site, but the most important place
in the Territory-containing treble the
inhabitants of any other place. Now, as
regards our right to thus settle and build
up city. Let us examine a moment
first, as to our right legally; second, NOR
ally.
By reference to an act passed at the
last session of Congress in reference tc
Nebraska and Kansas, l find in section
twelve, that all lands in Kansas "towhicf
the Indian title has been or shall be ex
tinguished," are subject to the operation
of the pre-emption act of the fourth o
September, l84l, and "under the condi
tions, restrictions, and stipulations therein
mentioned :" with this exception, how
ever, that "unsurveyed lands may b.
claimed upon certain conditions" Blu
as We are now governed by the law O
1841, we will examine that law, and Sc,
what lands are subject to pre-emption
and what are not: and | might as wei
remark here, that all lands to which tn,
Indian title has NOT been extinguished
are certainly not open to settlement, anc
claims on them are not worth straw
and as no treaty was made with the Shaw
nees prior to the third of August last, al
claims made prior to that date are worth
less. But to the law of Al: by refer
ence to which, / find that one of th,
principal requisites is, "that the IndiaI
titles shall have been removed" By ref
erence to the same law, / find, among
lands mentioned not subject to pre-emp
ton, "all sections or fractions of sections
included within the limits of any incor
porated town - "every portion of tn
public lands which has been selected a
site for city or town - "every parce
or lot of land actually settled and occu
pied for the purposes of trade, and no
agriculture" Nothing can be plaine
than the above extracts from the law o
1841. Now, as to Lawrence, all will ad
NIT that no one had claim prior to th'
Sd of August last, as all the lands prio
to that date belonged to the Shawnee In
dams, and no one could have right t,
them. All who were upon these land
prior to that date were trespassers. A
the time alluded to, this site was inhab
tied by thirty-on persons. Twcnty-nin
had selected it for city, and were occu
pying it for that purpose; two-Messrs
Stearns and Wade-were occupyingit Ga
they say )foragricultural purposes. VIII
had priority of claim is question for tn
courts to decide, not me. One thing
however, is plain: that is, that we vii
never be allowed to 60 back of the Sd o
August to establish our claims and that
as We find thirty lone instead of two mel
upon this land at that time, it is ques
ton whether all have not an equal RICH
to it, and whether it is not such select
ing and occupying as to forever exclud
any one from pre-empting for farm pur
poses. And most certainly after thi
date, after the selection of this site for
city, no one could think of coming in ant
pre-empting a farm claim.
Messrs. Chapman, Lykins, Baldwin
and Hopper's claims were all made sine
the selection of this for city site, con
sequently, "null and void" The law j
too plain for any equivocation or quib
bling. Stearns sold his possession to tn
Aid Company, and released all righ
Ithereto. Wade did not sell, and / pre-
sumo now holds claim equally with tn
Association and, for one, do not wis
to infringe upon his legal rights. But
says one, 2" You have too much land
there is no law for laying out city coy
ering twelve quarter sections. In reply
| will merely say, there is no law agains
it; and, as / remarked before, one thin
is certain, if thus selected or occupied,
cannot be pre-empted But little mus
be acquired in some other way and i
the absence of any law on the subject, W
could expect nothing but to buy it at til
public sale as the highest bidder. But
thanks to Congress for $40 acres, we hav
an easier if not surer plan under the Ia,
of May Esd, 1914, which provides fo
the entry and sale of lots where town
are built upon public lands. Perhap
some legal quibbier may say that sue
towns must be built upon "surveye,
lands" if so, individuals must make thci
claims upon surveyed lands. The differ
ience is only "tweediedee and tweedle
| dum.' -tat s
But, Mr.. Editor, the matter is plain
that when lands are once selected fo
town or city sites, whether upon survey
led lands or not, and town or city actu
ally commenced, individuals have not th
fright to make farm claims within sue
town or city limits. So much as to tn
legal view of the question.
Morally, l presume there can be n
doubt but fifty or hundred men ma
Iseleet unoeeupied public lands, and bull
a town or city. Such was tie siiuatio
- y -