Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-05-08
VIRGINIA BOUNTY LAND CLAIMS.

We have recently received and read, with interest,
a memorial from number Of claimants under the
bounty land laws Of Virginia TO the Secretary Of the
Interior, demonstrating against such construction Of
the act of Congress, August3l 1852 would require
him to make de moro examination of every case
presented under it, without Difference to the decisions
Of the tribunals Of last resort-the Executive and
councils of Virginia.
1t twould seem, from the reasoning and representa-
ton of facts. the par; OF the memorasts, not ess
than from extracts introduced from the speeches OF
Judge Caskie Judge Bayly and Gen. Millson, on the
subject, together with the usage Of the Supreme
Court, which they also adduce, and which. uniformly
adopts the decisions of the State tribunals in the con
.,ructon Of their statutes; that the scrp act OF o2
not understood at the tme OF its enactment, as
investing the Department Of the Interior with any such
arbitrary authority as wonld render decisions upon
law and facts by Governors Of Virginia, subordinate
10 the opinions of bureau at Washington. The act OF
1852 provides that "all unsatisfed outstanding mill
tsrv land warrants issued and allowed prior TO the
frat OF March, 1882 by the proper authorities OF the
Commonwealth Of Virginia, formtary services per-
formed by the officers and soldiers, seanen and ma
ripes of the Virginia STATE and continental lines OF
the army and navy of the revolution may be surren-
dered TO the Secretary Of the Interior who upon be-
ing satisfied by reviaion OF the proof or by adni-
tlonal evidence that any warrant thus surrendered,
was fairly and Justly issued in pursuance OF the
of the said commonwealth, for military services 30
ssue shall issue land scrip in favor of such proprie
tors for any warrant thus surrendered This act' II
seems has been construed to render isncumoent up
on the Department oi the Interior to examine every
case de moro az if il had never been considered ahu
acted upon by the Governor and Councils OF Virginia
who by the act of 2Sh February, 1916, were autho.
rized to allow land warrants any eridence saisfae
tory them.
According 10 the opinions Of the distinguished and
able representatives of Virginia. who advocated and
voted for the act of August. 1852 the object Of that
s,scmept was TO allow the Secretary of the Interior
70 withhold warrants only in those cases where it was
s,ovn TINT bey were obtained through the fraud of
the claimant, or where, by the production Of subse
auent testimony there WA maoitest error IN their Ia
sue." This is the language OF General Mlson,
srsskipp ihe sentiments OF all his colleagues, and
,se must say, of every who hes given The suhect
the b.ne6t of moment of uDprejudiced deliberaon.
The act of Congress was surely not designed to al
tack the sovereignty Of Virginia, or TO lmpugn the
ability and intelligence Of such men as Cabell, Floyd
and Tazewell. 1t appears to us that the clause OF
the act Of 1882 which i, the question in dispute. is
srn.,H.ous il not au il!eg,imste appendage at best.
II N. r,overnor and Council Of Virginia, the
,rhnual OF last resort whose decisions upon the law
and facts in such admissible Of no appeal,
amenable to 10 higher auhotty, the Congress Of the
United States bad no right TO erect tribunal for the
s.certairnent Of error-a federal authority to raty
or reject fla. Of the accredited representatives Of
State sovereignty. And, however derirable it may
bs ,ha, every unjust or Illegal claim should be de
tected and refused it Is not to be presumed that the
Commissioner Of fhe Land Office at Washington IL
more learned in Law, or competent to ansyze evil
dence than Governors Of Virginia. II the act OF
August, 1882 intended to express what it has been
interpreted to mesn it is an insult 10 our State, and
an outrage upon the rights Of her ci.isens II twas
only designed as We sssussd by tho ss'sVsfs'0os