, 1857-09-25

give them.
1t might be well enough, however, to
premise by saying that defendants oceu-
pied land in Pierce county under the dona-
ton law-conformed with the provisions Of
that act-as evidence of which, they have
the certificate Of the Register Of the Land
0fice-said land, at the same time being
el3imoi by the Puget Sound Agricultural
Company.
1t appears that the company in question,
based their right to sue, and their right to
hold possession Of the land in question,
upon the provisions of the fourth article Of
the treaty between the United States and
Great Britain, in relation to our northern
boundary.
j. S. SAITH, Esq, for the defendants Yin
their answer denied d,-lst--that the Com
pany was corporation denied, 2d-itS
title TO the land, and 3d---set upan adverse
title, under the provisions of the donation
law. H-'r .,ri
The counsel for the Company Glcd A re.
plica'ion to the answer in which, in effect,
they admit that the Company is not incor-
poratcd, and again claim that by virtue Of
the recognition Of the existence Of the
Company by the treaty, it has a right to
sue, and has acquired tile to lands.
To this replication, defendants counsel
domurred for insulicioncy and upon that
demurrer, the question was argued.
1t was argued by Mr.. SMITH, for the
defendants
/ LIST. That the treaty is not legislative
act to which courts are bound to give effect,
but simply a contract between the two
governments, which is to DO carried into
effect upon our part by the executive aud
legislative departments of the government,
and not by the Judicial.
2d. That the treaty is not a grant, con.
ferring rights and powers, but simply Il
stipulation on the part of the government,
that all the property Ic'onging to the Com.
pany, at the date Of the treaty, should be
confirmed to it. The treaty docs not add
anything to the privileges Of the Company,
or to its property, but merely continues to
it what it had previously acquired, under
previously existing laws. If the company,
under the laws Of Great Britain, was capa
bic of owning lands, aud had actually OBJ
tained a graut Of lands from that govern
ment, that treaty binds the government oI
the United States to confirm these lands to
It's use. II, on the other hand, the Com
pany was incapable of holding lands, or il
capable Of owning them, had not acquired
any, the treaty affords itno relief.
3d. An unincorporated company cannot
sue or be sued, either in the courts of the
United States or Of Great Britain, in the
name of tho Company. Nor eau such Q
company, under the laws OF either country
own or acquire lands in the name of the
Company. All the lands, in the two coun
tries, are owned either by the governments
by corporations or by individuals. The
Puget Sound Agricultural Company is moi
a government, corporation or an indiyid
ual, and caunot take or hold lands in tha
name.
4th. By the laws of both governments
the title to all lands within their respective
boundaries, is originally in the government
and can only become vested in corpora.
ton or an individual, by virtue of grant
from the government. This Company has
no such grant, and has no title.
9th. If the Company owned any land in
Washington Territory before the date Of
the treaty, it was by virtue of grant from
the government of Great Britain. If il
had no such grant, there were no lands
Jeloaging to the Company at the date Of
the treaty, aud of course there can be none
to be confirmed to it.
9th. This stipulation in the treaty is
similar in its object and effect to stipula-
tions made with other powers that have
ceded territory containing inhabitants to
the United States-such as the treaty with
Spain for Florida, with France for Louis-
ana, and with Mexico for California. But
the United States have never recognized
any title to lands in the inhabitants Of the
ceded territory, unless the claim or title
would have been valid against the govern.
ment making the cession. This Company
has no title that would have been valid
against the British government.
Tth. Suppose this provision in the treaty
TO have been made in favor of an individual.
aud that he had died without heir before
the treaty was executed, would not the