Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-02-15

the period of exemption began at the date If tho purchase from the State, and continued eor tne tn years, If the lands were not sooner reclaimed d Ii they were, ceased upon their reclamation. d in no event continued longer than ten years. wbe,b CT reclaimed or not.
 The court did not decide that the l4tb section of the act of 1851 was irrepealabe hut did dooS that it could not be repealed so as to offt emption in favor of those who had ,,,,oL, swamp lands prior to the passage of the renooI;e. act and in this was well warranted on nr;noii153 by authority. In the offer of the State tbo evoa, tion was held out as an inducement to nurcbosar and contractors to purchase or in the lan,,nao, s the act 'to take up" the lands, and moi 9s a, o' ducement to contractors to take scrip ITnt;I ti offer was accepted or in other words until nnr chase made, their no contract D;d .L State not have the right to withdraw bnr oaan W as sine bound to wait, ln order that the hoI5os the scrip, after speculation had ceased to be de; rable might have an opportunity to secure the e, emptionl The State was under no Obligation. Ia- gal or moral, to do so.
 According to the plain provisions of the act of 1851, the contractor might take land in kind m take land scrip. It was left to his choice fin do either. Various considerations might, and douht less in many instances did, influence thecontractor to take scrip instead of land in kind. If he took land it was to be at the price per acre, previously fixed by the commissioners, and he was confined in his selection, to such lands only were reclaimed however undesirable they might be. But if he took scrip, 1t could, the law then was be hoated and wlthlt, the contractor could purchase ect ed swamp land, lying any where within the limits of the swamp land grant, at the same price per acre, even though the land, thus purchased should be lntrinsicaliy more valuable than those which had been reclaimed. Again: The lands being wild and productive Of no present income, the contrac- tor might not be willing to invest the proceeds of his labor in them, and wait indefinitely for the fruits of the observation-disclosures, the scrip being assignable he could, by receiving and selling it. realize it's then present cash value. To take land in kind was thing, and to take scrip was quite another IL the contractor took land he became purchaser and acquired the exemption. But if he- took scrip he did not become purchaser and did not acquire the exemption.
 To hold that the State, in the offer to sell her swamp lands, expressed in the l4th section of the act oflS5l, proposed as an inducement to con- tractors to take scrip, that the lands which they might afterwards purchase with it, should be ex- a settled rule of construction-which is that pri- vileges and exemptions granted by the State, shall be strictly construed and that nothing shall be held to have passed except what Is clearly and ex- plictly granted (Sate County Court of Critten- den County, Supra but would also be at war with what seems to Us to be the plain reading of the statute.
 Leaving the Gaettion of jurisdiction an open one, we are of opinion that the appellants bill was properly dismissed for want of equity. l Let the decree of the court below be affirmed with costs.
 NoTE A writ of error has been sued out to re- move this case to the Supreme Court of the United | States.