Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1859-02-02
general LaNp OFfIeg,
W. X. MAsrrS. Dal!a., Tesa,E-


W, X. MAsrES. Dal.as, TeiasE-
Dear Sir; ia answer 10 the various inqui'
ries made Ia his Ohi,e in relation 10 paienls
issued upon surveys made in Peters Colony,
during the pendenry 0f what is known as the
Mississippi aud Pacific Railroad Reservation
and also, in regam 10 the desire expfessed.hy
owners Of such patents, 10 withdraw their Ger
| liitateS IN order To re.enler them, permit me "a
say, that we canno, allow the Withdrawal oil
certificates aud field noies, after the issuance
/ Of patents because hey constimta the voueh'
rrs oil the office, and must remain in IL; and
. dn not consider IL necessary o relocate your
pieu,el lands. do not believe that your pat
ems can b. disturbed by subsequent location,
Whatever irregularities may attach TO the is'
Sutnce Il patents upon surveys made during
the existence ofihc reservation, they nre ques'
I lions in which the State and the paieaiees
alone are interested. | do not think thar sub
scquent locators could avail themselves OF the
pleas Of the State in order 10 set aside pat
en,. ! dislike, however. tnndvin e an opinlon,
any a ton uron which might jeopnrdze the
rights Of our citizens. In view Of the cmhar-
RAISING nature If the whole subject, 10 which
nave given some reflection and examination,
| will quote the following opinion, delivered
by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case OF Half
nugle vs. Anderson. .[7h Wheaton, p. 2l2 ]
II may, however, be argued that this is moi law
in rexns. Be that as it NAV, give il as find
it, to quiet the apprchensions Of the people !;
and also to prevent vast amount OF lruf'rss
litigation, which will inevitably result frc., ;l,e
relocation of patented land, ny bird parties {:
ANY defects in the =, elimr.y steps which are re-
ll Ian n. =. 4.
from Its d'f", and nas always been held conclusive
against MI 'tsc whose rights did not commence pre-
yions to ,ts cmana,ion Courts Of equity have con-
sH.-rc1 nm entry NJ the commencement oil title, ar
have sustained valid entry against patent Founded
on prior dcfcctire entry issued after such raid
6nirv tcas made. But they have COP. no further
They have never sustained an entry matte after The
date Of the patent! They haze always rejected such
claims The reason is obvious A patent sppropri-
stes the land it covers anil that anl, being lcng
er vacsnt, is 10 longer subject to location. II the
patent la' been Issued irrcgularly the Government
may provide means for repeating II but no iGdiUii-
got has right to annul it, to consider the land as
still vacant and appropriate it to himself"
.'rhc principle is well settled in other cases that
pateat ;su7assa,ia5ie by any tile commenced after
It's cmanafioH." Item.
"The proposition that pentent is appropriation
of the land it covers although the proceeding pre-
yious 10 its cmanaton may he irregular anil detective,
is unqucstonably true " Stephens vs. M:Cargo.---
9Th Wheaton p. 5o2.
In order 10 cDre any supposed defect Of title,
| would suggest, that an application be mads
to the next Legislature for The passage o! an
Act confirming all patents issued upon sur.
yeys made during the existence Of the reser
walton. Certificates of claim, to which have
not been patened may be Withdrawn from this
office for re'ocninn. ~.
Respectable, Your dit. sevt.,