, 1864-04-22
The CITY Land Case.

contested land case of E. H Barron Us. the
city Of Walla Walla. %, w
GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Dec. 22, 1868,
Register and ReceiUer, Vancouver, W. T.
- Gentlemen Il have had under consider
alton the case of e. II. Barron yS.o the city
of Walla, contestants for the s-w. ar. Of the
s-w. qr Of section 20, 7. n. T. 36 b, Will
lamette meridian, sent up on an appeal from
your joint decision Of the l2th December,
1852, adverse to the claim of E. II. Barron
to the land in question, and affirming the
right of the city of Walla Walla
=, Il. Barron claims under the pre7emp-
tion laws 4 by virtue of his declara-
terry statement, fled on the goth Novenber
1860, claiming settlement on the 10th OF
N9Yem5ero lS58'A L. ,f9lyl H2a
The city OF Walla Walla claims : Z un-
der the act Of the 23d May, 1914
The Government surveys were extended
over the lands between the Ist and I@eh oil
November, 1861 Barrons fling was there
fore in time as required by the act of jug
l7th, 1854 ER0I1 ELhGlJ
The first question that arises in consider
ing the case this: Mas theland in dispute
subject to pre- emptiOn settlement on the
l4th of November, 1858, the date of settle
ment claimed by Mr. Barron BY the act
of the 18th Of July, 1854, the lands in
Washington and Oregon Territories, whether
surveyed or unsurveyed, were rendered sub
ject to the operation Of the pre-emption act
of Sept 4th, IS41 The latter act was only
,,o6;fod br' tho forr,or CO e,r os 70 rop1 ar
unsurveyed llnds subject to presumption set
tlement as well as those which had been sur
veyed; therefore lands.t which the Indian
title had not been extinguished were in no
way effected by the act Of July 18th, 1854,
but were still protected from preemption
settlement by the act of Sept. 4th, l84l.
The Indian title to the land 10 question
was extinguished by the treaty between the
United States and the Walla Walla, Cayuse
and Ul4atila tribes of Indians, ratified and
confirmed by the President on the llth of
April, 1859. It has been held, in repeated
decisions upon tie subject, that treaties Of
this character do not take effect so as to con-
fer rights upon third parties as pre-emptors,
town-site claimants, &c, until after their rat
i6cation, so that, although the treaty referred
to above was signed by the representatives,
of the contracting parties on the 9th of June,
1855, yet the land ceded to the United
States thereby was not subject to pre-emp-
tion settlement until after the ratification,
to-wit: April H. 1859. Atthe date of Mr.
Barron's pre-emption settlement, therefore
on the l4th Of November, 1850,-the land
was not subject to such settlement, and in
considering his claim, his right by virtue Of
his settlement cannot be looked upon as hav-
ing an inception prior to the 18th Of April,
1859. T r,rrII
Admitting, then, that Barron had a pre-
emption settlement upon the land claimed
by him, having its inception on the date last
mentioned, which the testimony fully sup
ports, yet we find further from the testimony,
that at that date, if not prior thereto, the
s-w. ar. of the s-w. or. Of sec, 20 was actually
occupied for the purposes of trade and com
merce.
The evidence upon this point is quite
clear and admits of no doubt. The land be I.
ing so occupied at the date when Barron
settlement must be considered as commenc-
ing, such settlement was strictly prohibited
by the act of Sept 4th, l84l, and he could
acquire no right to the land in question
thereby.
In the testimony transmitted by you, and
in the argument Of the attorney for the city,
other points are raised tending to invaldate
Barron claim, as, that his original claim
did not embrace the land in question that
he had forfeited his claim by selling or con-
tracing to sell portions Of the land and by
permitting settlers to erect valuable improve
ments on the tract in controversy without
giving notice, etc.; but, as the evidence up
on these points is conflicting and unsatisfac-
tory, and as Barron's claim to the tract in
question is fully precluded by the facts above
narrated, it is thought unnecessary to more
minutely consider them in this case.
After a full, careful and laborious examin-
alton of the voluminous evidence, arguments
and documents transmitted by you in this
case, | fully concur in your joint decision
rejecting the claim of Barron to the 8-w. or.
or the s.w. or. of secticn 20, T. 7, n. T. SO
E. and affirming the claim Of the city Of
Walla Walla thereto.
Notify the parties of this decision, and al
low sixty days from the date of your notice
in which MIR. Barron may appeal, should he
see fit to do SO. Very respectfully,
j. M. EDMUNDs, Commissioner