The weekly Butte record., 1867-06-15

These are the definitions of the law books apply
ing 10 this act which the word settlement, !,
and the words ''occnpancyi and "pEeemption.
and provides for purchase to the extent of actua
possession.
Now. submit it as a clear proposition. that
gentleman claimign lands this grant and residing
in South America. was not precisely settler OF
the Suscol ranch. | take it that the six sever
other large claimants on this ranch already men
toned were not settlers on it. inasmnch the,
did not reside on it. submit that settlement OF
it through their agents or tenants was not such
as the act on Its face providing for ths
preemption of the land. would be satisfied with
and that personal occupation Of or residence upo
the soil was necessary. On that point think thert
can be no difference of opinion.
| will now, refer. Mr.. Speaker. to some of tht
general principles which apply to the Interpretation
of statutes. and will refer to authorities have
coilated them:
THE most general proposition is that the law
does not favor repeal by implication, and though
two acts are seemingly repugnant. if possible. have
such construction that the latter may not repea
the former by implication. '-Dwaris on Statutes
page $50
@Subordinate to this. we submit two other prop
ostions: IF the law admits of two Interpretation:
that is to be adopted which is agreeable 10 the fun
damental or primary law Professor Lieber
quoted in Sedwick's Treatise, p 2Ss.
Now, among the Fundamental and primary
laws of the United States respecting the public
whose beginning dates back nearly ffty years. re-
cognzing the policy of encoura ging settlers to GO
on the public domain, establish their homes, mark
their improvements, and assert their titles md
thus pioneer and people and civilize the vacant
lands of the nation. This is the settled policy OF
the United States, American policy ia the light
of which this special must be Interpreted, and not
/ in contravention of it.
Attorney General Legare says, page Il, volume
four Opinions of July IL, lS42 STATUTES must be
frua a; tn thp Of far of hp
rights of third parties Here, as | have shown,
were rights of preemptors, valid. undeniably valid
because they date prior to the time of the decision
of the court and the enactment OF this act of 1865
Now. those rights of preemPtors cannot be dvested
/ by the mere Interpretation of special act made
for the benefit of special claimants. ANY rule al
| lowing this would be maniesfly unjust and unrea-
| sonabe.
! Mr.. Cushing (volume 6, p. 7O0) said:
/ I'VE are not bound to suppose that Congress in
tended violent invasion of private right and in.
| terest in any portion of the land described, and
lawfully acquired under previous laws for such act
would be in apparent disregard of the Constitution
/ of the United States
/ take it to be good law that if Congress in ex-
press terms had enacted that these invested rights
/ of preemptors should be divested. the law would
have been void under the Constitution. The law
! inviting presumption, when accepted by the set
tier, becomes a contract with the Government. and
Congress could not impair it. 1t has power 10
make such law. can the courts. by interpreta-
ton, give any retroactive effect to the act Of 1863.
here cite the following authorities
"ravlors Elements OF Civil Law; BractOn l. 4
TO-. Us; Brac. Abr. $40; Inst, 292; Jones,
los; Burr. u. 60.
And under the more stringent limitations upon
legislative powers which prevail in this country. it
well settled that retrospective statute, affecting
and changing vested rights is founded constitu.
tonal principles, and consequently imperative and
{ void.
- Johnson's Rep. AZ; Tennessee Bill of Rights.
art. %; ogden VS. Blackledgs. Cranch. 262 So
ciety for Propagating the Gospel vs. New Haven. s
Wheaton l93; wilkinson VS. Leland, Peters. % =
65S; Wilkinson VS.. Fields, Sanfords Chancery Re
ports. 54:Osborne vs. Huger Bay, l19: Bedford
vs. Shilling. 4 Serg 4 Rawle, 40l: Merrill Shur
burne, New Hampshire Rep. 100; Ward Bar
nard. Aiken, l23.
The doctriue expounded in these authorities
rests upon the principles of natural justice AMI
general jurisprudence, which underiie the Consttu-
tion of the United States. 1t is simply recogui-
ton of inalienable rights, of which men are not
divested by the artificial relations of municipal
law. In fact the legislation of every civilized ma
ton. and even the Roman civil law has adopted it.
-Nnr is this doctrine without the sanction OF the
Constitution. The Constitution provides that no
person shall be deprived of life liberty property
without due process of law; and also that no
post facto law shall be passed by Congress. Uni
ted States Constitution. art. l, Q: and amend
ments to Constitution, art. 5.
And although. IN strict construction. the terms
'er post fact0 laws apply to criminal rather than
civil matters. vet. in a comprehensive sense they
embrace all Retrospective laws. or laws governing
controlling past transactions. whether OF civil or
criminal nature Satterlee VS. Mathewson Pc
tiers, ll6; Wheaton. SIS: Ogden VS. Sanders. II
Wheaton. 296; Sedwick on Statutory and Consti
tutonal Law, 6Sl; II Peters United States Re-
ports. page 36l
Again. the Suscol act Of Sd March 1858, grants
a special privilege TO certain persons and it is a
principle of law that privileges or favors are to be
construed not to injure the non privileged or
unfavored. Attorney General Black said with
great force and common sense. when interpreting
an act under which claim to land was set up
(Gginion of November %. 1851 that
in every doubtful case we know very well what
we ought to do as soon as we ascertain which party
is entitled to the benefit of the Doubt 1T
is well settled that all public grants of property
money or privileges. to he construed most
strongly in favor of the United States, in favor of
the preemptors of the Government, and against
the peculiar rights specially given in the act
whatever is not given expressly, says the same
authority, "or not clearly implied from the words
of the grant is withheld. And he goes on to say:
ave all know the fact. and are not bound 10
seem ignorant of it. that gifts like this are often
caused by private solicitations and personal lniu-
ence The bills. almost universally are drawn up
bv their special friends and may be made ambigu-
Gus on purpose to dsa,m their opponents or put
suspicion asleep. If you let the grantees have the
advantage of the ambiguity which they themselves
meaning which Congress never thought of. Acts
which were supposed to have but little in them
when they passed. will expand to very large di-
mensions aterward. An ingenious construction
will make that mschievous which was intended to
be harmless.
| have shown the House what "private solicita-
tons" and personal Influences were employed
in misleading the Committee on Public Lands. The
baSest and most unconscionabie fabricatioDs were
concocted in that in order to get the commit
tee to report the bill desired. Every gentleman
this floor knows how these things are managed
here and certainly need not attempt to enlightsn
California gentlemen on the subject.
Mr. Bidwell. l would ask the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Julian] if there was not this session
before the Committee Public Lands bill pro-
posing the repeal of the act OF March S. 1865
And if that act was procured by fraud why did not
the Committee on Public Lands report in favor of
repeating it,
Mr. Julian. Mr.. Speaker, there was bill for
the repeal of the act of 1868 referred To the Com
mittee on Public Lands during this session.
Mr.. Bidwell. If the act of ls65 was passed under
fraudulent representations. why did not the COM
mittee report favoraby upon the bill for the repeal
of that act.
Mr.. Julian. will answer the gentleman with
the greatest pleasure. We did not report in favor
of repeating the bill of 1858 because rights had
intervened and vested; and we believed the repeal
of the law might do more harm than good. mas
much as the Land Office was st that time deciding
in favor Of the preemptors. But since that date
the decision of the Land Office, on appeal % the
Attorney General has been reversed in the interest
of the California land spectators. who in some