Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1862-04-12

tne oettess auo Occupouto under thohct Of 1914
instead Of the county seat law Of 1924, we in
quire. does q simple feature Of the law Of
1874 render it applicable to this case. or has
. solitary requirement Of the section Of that
law above quoted been confomed to by the
county authorities Of Clarke. or the corporate
authorities Of Vancouver cityi Were the
lands At or near Vancouver ssSreyed, CT were
they Psblic lands. within the meaning Of that
acti Certainly not. At the time Of the Of.
der Of the county court Of Clarke county,
filed in this case - an evidence Of town
site claimed - early q 1850. whers was the
officer for the entry of lands 1t the minimum
pricei There was at the time no Register or
Receiver, and no law conferred upon the Sur
veyor General Of Oregon a right to receive
pay for lands, or issue certificate. Indeed.
until the passage Of the act Of July 18th.
1854. the pre-emption laws, and the Act for
the relief Of citizens Of towns upon lands of
the United States, under certain circumstan-
ces," which is the act under which the claim
is now supported, was not extended over or
applicable to Oregon and Washington. This
doctrine was held by the Supreme Court of
Oregon, in 1884, Martin ~. TVault ct al.
Oregon Reports, 1904, p. 44.)
am of opinion that antecedent to the pas.
sage of the act of July 18th, 1854, extending
the pre-emption law, and the law above re-
ferred to- Of May 23d, 1914, neither county
nor town authorities could occupy town site
in either Oregon or Washington, under said
no evidence, nor attempt to produce evidence.
showing that any portion Of the town Of Van
couver has been occupied since July 18th,
1854, under the provisions Of the said town
site law. / can have no hesitancy, therefore,
in deciding and reporting that under the said
law, or any other law which have been able
to find, that the city Of Vancouver has no
claim or title to any portion Of said laxds noo
in controvevsy.
We next proceed to investigate the claim
of the widow, and heirs at law, of Amos n.
Short, deceased.
There is abundant testimony of persist
ent effort on the part Of Mr.. Short, during his
lifetime to acquire the claim now sought for
by the widow and heirs-at-law, which effort
commenced as early as 1867. Twice he is
forcibly elected, by the servants of the Hud-
sons Bay Company, ut their instance-once
by the judgment Of court of law, at suit Of
man named Ermatinger: once in defending it
from being wrested from him, he takes the
| life of the party trespassing upon what he
conceives to be his right.
We willnot review the contest between him
and the Company, nor with Ermatinger, nor
the several persons who, at various times, by
purchase or occupation, claimed an interest in
said premises, or some part thereof.
The widow and heirs, by their notification
Oh file, date the residence and cultivation as
commencing March 10th, 1646. Behind that
we cannot 60; and We presume this a. favor
able showing as they could make.
The Act Of Congress Of Aug. l4th. 1646,
establishing the Territorial government Of
Oregon, in the proviso to it's l4th section, an.
nuls and renders void any and all titles to
lands in Oregon claimed or acquired under
the provisional government. On the 27th Of
September, 1850, the donation law was pas
sed by Congress, the 4th section of which af-
forded Mr.. Short the privilege and opportun-
ity Of setting up a claim to GAO acres Of land.
recognizing the possessiox acquired under the
land laws Of the provisional government, con-
ferring the opportunity 70 assert . claim up to
the LIST of December, 1851. Amos NJ. Short
might, under this law, have availed himself of
the benefit Of his persistent intention to be-
come possessed Of the tract now claimed by
his heirs, but he totally neglects to assert that
claim, and we find in this controversy the wild
ow and heirs relying upon the act Of Congress
of Feb. 18th, 1853, which extesded the privi-
lcges conferred by the 4th section Of the Act
Of Sept. 27th, 1850, until December lst, 1853,
Amos M. Short had failed dsrisy As Lifetime,
rAicA occurred ssbseqsese to December LIT.
1851, 70 claim a. resident sv seftler Of Ore
ron, astecedest to December 1st, 1850, and
lad by his own lsckes. lost the benefit Of the
lth section Of the act Of 27th. Sept. 1850.
But the law Of Feb. 18th. 1883, was passed.
and in October of that year the widow in ber
right an1 for beg hein q law, claim tract Of
Gao acres.
To the day ef Mr. Shorts death. Ae lad
taken - legal sseps 70 aoqsive . tille to esy
lasd IN Oresss. The oct of 9th September.
1850. (Douasion law Of Orsgos.) was ths first
act or law recognising TIE node for American
ssstles to acquire tide to. o. interest u. any
lands in the sid Territory. (Lownsdale q q
ss.. Psrish. u. 8. SuPrcme Court. II How
ard. p 290) In the opinion IN tAat esse. De
Count quote the psoviso of the lath section
Of the O~eoa Organic Act. which declares
~all Laws bereso(css passed in said Territory.
makinx grants of land. shall BE- end are hessby
declared 70 - nsl - void" and 70 a TO
saw, .Thas Coagrss paced No lav in any
wise sSsesing siilss to la.ds in 0rgos Tsni-
tory ill Sepe. 27sh. 1850; asa ths I'll il
this case wss Sid Jsly 29sh. 1850. - akse
rxes az lfiessiss oaa1esceS ssilk0 Pssty
10 sAe ss;t Az ssy Aikis - 6sasvssf u aAe kes1
~Ass<-v." APply this principle 70 he .sss
uxdes cou&idessiies, and ne couel.sie that
Amos ~. Shors sequircd no tanziils i.aessst
in land in Ovegoa. until the pesssss Il The 81
al Sepasmher 9Th. 1850. Until that date. 10
eosA not obtain any sitie "s isssrsst p hnas