Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1862-04-05


concluded hv thu extinction nj the possrrSory
RIGHT. 81. rl,r IIul-on'> Bay t"inl1nH. True
,l,y ,,apI,ol 1T Vancouver. ai,d lnvd" II ihe!r
hea,l-quari,r-, by consent oil that Company.
Trr. tn, occupied building erected by til
Cnui,:n : inside their incln-uru.. lrur. that
IN, tonru, entertained thc.n At ,h,if table,
anda,nmally contributed stat Il ,uIn tow ard~
the support at the Oregon Missions. True.
,h..; Chic. Factor Douglass Wa tlic donor al
the little Church Edilicr. which after d"dra-
,iun, conferred 1t, Name upon the Mission
All these act uf b.ucvulrnc- CA tie part ri
the Company, are dwclt upon - - many
proofs that because ;hr { umluuN. ir"'" H. nut
nific,n, wealth.. b slowed ih,-. gifts ai'd did
the kinlnc..,-s. that the -N.aa,m could not
by it'li. b. SUPPOSED to exist. p"e" the i:''
that our own t,oycnn'ncmi grant - 'ach rrl'c:-
ious society Il tract oi la"d' wherever me!
NAV locate Stations In the pnh'ic domain. de-
prive .N.ssi0a of il, ta"""'cT. az '!eitii iH
.rr,,t.inry of H.; ls'as and Improvements he
for. That grant. because. The boa, fit conferred
lv the presence OF such stations Is deemed
s,iiiic,l., consideration ior thcsr grants.
Against the l!ud>"n'- Bay Conpanv 1t
mi.h, have been ia had taste. and h..scv I'M
grateful. for the Mission II ciain ad',rst!y,
but to assert claim 10 = grant by tii' hi''a
States. made hccaii>r the lari,> had promote"
what the Government, deemed 10 v" H. inter-
est, is neither improper nor does 1t 'ai"' ''''
character ot the claimants I" assert II.
The letter of the Commissioner in~;ruttng
the investigation d-ro~"~ OF til" question "i
the claims OF ia Iutl-,n'~ by Company.
We are. therefore. 10 inquire whether the
Mission of 81. James WAS occupy'". Mis-
A "
the Organic Act of Oregon, on tn" In dnH
of August, lSIS. Whatever claim the Mis-
sion that day possessed, vested III lii' f'l%
ions society to which it belonged. and WAS hy
the passage of the act in question confirmed
and established to them and secured il per
pctuty the title to the land thea occupied as
n Missionary Station, not to cNcced Gao acres,
together with the improvements The land
ON which the Church was erected, and the
Church and Ncstry, were the free gift and
donation TO the Mission. Its donor, Governor
Douglas, witnessed the dedication, and con-
scented to its appropriation by and for the use
and benefit of the Church. 1t matters not
who built the station, how they came by it.
Were it an objection that churches were built
by others rather than the priest who minis
tered at their altarS, hut few religious bodies
would own the buildings, which they used for
worship. The land could not be sold by the
Company, for they possessed no fee, but
mere license to trade among the Indian tribes
west of the Rocky Mountains. There is evil
dence to show that land was marked out and
designated for Church purposes. and that 1t
was so understood by all, though till the date
in question the evidence shows that the Mis-
sion was largely indebted to the Hudsons
Bay Company, and were stopped in their pur-
chases on credit, much less were they able to
build improvements.
The Government who made grant of GAO
acres of land to society for establishing
missionary station among the Indian tribes,
has no privilege to enquire who made the i'm
provement, who erected the buildings; the
condition precedent to the grant, is, did that
society or station perform what are known as
missionary labors to the Indians in the vicin-
ity.!
once made, because its title was defective or
clouded at the time it made the grant in
question.
In an analogous case arising under an act
of Congress passed August Sth, 1886, grant
ing lands OH Fox river to the State of Wis
consn, a portion of the lands 50 granted were
included in the Stockbridge Indian Reserve.
and the title of the tribe for which it had
been set apart was not extngishcd. The
question arose, whether upon the the treaty
with the Indians, the State of Wisconsin OBJ
tanned right to the lands granted her mithin
the reserre, or whether the grant is f1O tantO
. void, for want of title III the United States ut
the time it was made.
Atty Gen. Black OH the Sd June, 1852
gives an opinion in which the following Ian
guage is held:
"I'do not think this problem of difficult
solution, if we apply to it the principles Of
"law and equity which govern analogous cases
"Wherc one party grants lands (which he has
"no estate, a title subsequently acquired by
him, enures not to his own benefit, but to that
of his grantee Besides, the United States
"had title at the time of the grant, and the
Fright Of the Indians was no more than us,,-
"fruct. Nothing, it seems to me, can be
"clearer than this proposition, namely that
"when the United States by legislative
"grant gave land to a State, corporation, or
ian individual, for public purposes, all the
:" title which the United States had at the
time Of the grant. or may af,rwards acquire,
"vests in the grantee, unless the grantee has
"done something in the meantime which es-
"tops him from claiming See Testers
Land Laws & Decisions, p sos
Apply this doctrine in the present case
the particular grant now in controversy. was
upon lands claimed by or in the occupancy Of
the Hadsos,'s Bay Company. This grant
happened 10 fallwiihin lands covered by their
5sossessory rights, at or near Vancouver As
soon as thu land Was uurnculnbered of such
claim the title 10 the United States to said