Arkansas true Democrat., 1858-06-01

NIT. STUART. For the reasons here sta.ea l move to strike out of the seventh section ,ho woros the facts reported as nrover br tbo
 ornler board shall be taken as true or;i,ao f,c;s and" ''o0 P''"'" J"c'e'
 MI. oOHNSON, of Arkansas. think the ''euaV,r rom Michigan had better examine this aihehdment. One half of the section is gone at once, II these words be stricken out: and tbe | remainder Is very little better shall nronoso to amend the amendment by moving to strike out the whole section. " ''No MT bEJ AMIN. I will give way to tbo senator's motion if he wants to dest,o1 tba o,,; nehce of land titles in his State. and str;ko ont the whole section. ''''No out
 MT JOHNSON. of Arkansas Tdo m. w.r. to deStrov the whole bill. On the contrary am willing that the Senator's bill shall n.ss in a modified form: bnt do not want it to ba er- acted so that testimony given heretofore. which subsequent developments may have proved +o be unsound and insuficient-and testimonv> too. which did not establish the titles of the cases at the times they were adiudcated bafore shall he brought forward now and secure the recognition of snch claims. The language of the seventh section is:
 "Fhat whenever any claim is presented for | confirmation under the provisions of this act which has heretofore been presented before any board of commissioners under authority of Con- gress. the facts reported as proven hv the for rner board shall he taken as true primr facie" This only relates to cases that have been al ready considered and rejected. ConsepuentIv there IS a shadow on every case thatis here nro vided for in the beginning. All facts reported az proven by former boards are to be taken AS primn facie true and therefore they must stand as proven unless counter evidence shall primo them down. I think this is improper. We know that when courts and boards of examina- tions determine upon one point to defeat claim. they very of'en refuse to consider other points and they admit as true matters that would not be established as trne satisfactorily if they were coerced to look to them to establish or destroy the validity nf claim. Such being the case we may find. in regard to these land claims proof admitted or inst and proper to be received which woud not have been received at all if the decision had turned upon the particular points to which the proof admitted to be true related. I do not believe that those who have had to contest these claims. those who have opposed them heretofore and whose rights are perhaps in conflict with them, ought now to be compelled to meet as established priraq frcie proof. and to overturn by counter evidence al- legations which were not established bv law be- fore and which did not secure the confirmation ofth claims mon 'he first trial of the case.
 The second portion of the same section goes on to provide:
 |" And the evidence offered before such for nor board, and remaining on record, shall be | admitted on the examination of the claims made under the provisions ofthis act' do not understand the extent of the mean rp,r of o1o :. Il .. l-n | admitted without excention. and stand as true 1.-the section said # shall he considered for what it is worth I would have no objection. Now. suppose that, under the examination here pro- vidod, after having consi1ered this testimony given to it su ,h weight as the board may deem it to be iustlv entitled to, they are compelled to reiect the claim in a case such as the Senator from Missouri has stated--a case Of evident justice? If Such case should exist then. the parties could come before Congress- hereafter as heret ofore; and this can be done without em. harrasSing or endangrring the rights of the nar- ties who have to contest these claims The truth n regard to thnm is that they are held by a very few persons indood: and as general rule, they come in confict with the rights of great numbers of people. I shall vote rn vsolf for the amedment of the Senator from Michi- gan: and if he does not move to strike out the whole section shah make that motion.
 MT. BENJAMIN. I will move to strike ont the wholn section This section will one rate principally in favor of the government: but in some ca%S in inst claims in favor of the claimant. This section clearly refers only to eases that have heen formerly rejected The committee private land claims thouoh. that where the officers of the government had re- ported that a claim ought to be rejected. and stated certain facts those facts ought to be taken AS trne p1m1 facie; at the same time if they had reported that cnrtain facts had been proven on the part of the claimant. thnv ought also to be taken: that where the testimony remaine1 on recnrd. it ought to be admissible testimony. and ought not to be required to he taken over again. But # operates hoth ways; and if gen. tlcmen are disposed to bp fastiduous. perhaps think if is better on the whole for the private claimants to strike ont that section
 MT. POLK. hope if will not he stricken out. am satifed injustice will be done by striking ont th at section
 Mr BENJAMIN. Let us have vote. withdraw motion.
 Mr. STUART That motion heinz with drawn. I will make single suggestion to the Senator from Arkansas. If he will let this clause be stric5cn ont. as I propose. and then say that the evidence shall he "considered instead of " admitted" he will cover the ground made in his argument. I think this portion shon1d he stricte en out.
 MT. JOHNSON, of Arkansas agree to that
 The VICE PRESIDENT. The onoqtion is on the amendment of the Senator from Michi- gan.
 NIT. JOHNSON. of Arkansas. want the yeas and nays on that question. I believe this section will pass claims that ought not to be passed
 The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-veas 19 nays 21; as follows:
 YEAs-Messrs. Allen, Bavard, Bell, Bright Frederick. Chandler, Davis, Doolittle. Durkee, Fessenden Fitzpatrick, Honston, Hunter, John son of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Mallory, Sebastian, Simmons, and Stuart-19. NAYs-Messrs. Benjamin, Big'er Cameron, Clay, Colamer Crittenden, Dixon, Foot Green. Hale Hammond, Iverson, Jones. King, Polk, Pugh, Seward, Slidell, Toombs Trumbull and Wade-21
 So the amendment was rejected. Mir JOHNSON, of Arkansas. We have now refused to strike out the first portion of section seven. Those Senators who will take the pains to read that section will see that we have established new class of testimony in regard " tucSc WHICH tU dSh tue Senator from Louisiana to state for the infor- nation Of the Senate the exact description of board that will preside over the adjudication of the De Bastrop grant which lies in Louisiana and Arkansas jointly
 Mr. BENJAMIN. will tell the Senator that that has been finally determined by the su- preme court of the United States not to be a good grant.
 Mir. JOHNSON. of Arkansas. Has it been disposed of entirely?
 Mr. BENJAMIN. Yes sir, entirely; by the supreme court of the United States.
 Mir. JOHNSON of Arkansas. The descrip- tion of the board to pass upon the claim is given in the second section of the bill, which provides:
 That the registers and receivers of the sev- era land offices in the States of Florida, Louis iana, and Arkansas, withing theirrespective land districts, and the recorder of land titles for the city of St. LaniS, for the State of Missouri. and