The national Republican., 1867-11-08
THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT or CoLuN
IBA-GESHRAL TiRM-Chiy Justice Cartier and Jus
| day transacted the following business:
ATTORNEYS ADMITTED.
Mr.. THttep, from the Commission OF Examination
sessr. Ta'ten, Leeeb, and ThomPsonJ reported thai
Adam 3. King, esq, was qualified for admission 10
the bar OF this Court; aud thereupon the Court or.
dered that upon taking tho usual oaths he be go ad
mitted.
On motion Of Mr.. r. Leeeh. George Doolittls. esq,
q the New York bar, "" admitted to practice In
CALIFORNIA LAND oAsE-CosrISuEp.
The Court then resumed the case Of Whitney vs..
Fhsbe, which was begun on Wednesday last
Mr.. 7. A. Dick commenced his argument for the de-
isndsnt, replying to the argument made BY MT D. s.
II had been eOntended by Mr.. W. that the act Of
1868 under which Frsbio claims, was special pre-
emption law, and to be construed according to the
general plan Of the prssmption system and that the
words possession, ENTRY. " "settltr," &e, are
to be construed according TO the sense in which they
given such operation as would make It conform to
other laws In part mderia. And hence, this special
act being part Of general system referrng to H. and
to be executed through Its provisions and mach ineiy
is not to be construed to repeal or amend by impl
cation, any Of Its provisions. II the law was not
ontitutional when construed to repeal the system,
and constitutional when construed as part OF II, II
should be construed As part Of the general system
The act being Of private nature, cannot pass title
BY ambiguous words, and must be eon,trued most
Mr. Dick for the defendant, argued that the defend
ant had acquired title to the land under the act Of
March 3rd 1885, and that there s no reason for set
ting aside the patent Of the defendant which does moi
apply equ,lly to setting aside the law He said the
plaintiff In attempting to inyaldAte the title Of the
defendant, put himself beyond the reach Of the re-
lief he asked for for the very object Of his suit was
TO hAvo himself substituted to the defendant's title
These gentlemen will toll Up steep, to fall over
prssipiee At Its summit. The intent Of the law as
10 the meaning OF It's terms was to be judged not by
any arbitrary rule but In such manner IS to effect
uate the intent Of the L'gslature. Tho word PRO
fession used In the statute might bo other com
Of title by grant from Yall statutory posses
sion under the general prs.empt!on syIton, as de-
fnsd by the act Of 1871
The use Of the words, "purchAiors from Nelleho,
In designating the parties intended to be provided
for by Congress, Indicated the kind Of possession
which Congress looked to In passing tbs act This
court could not declare multi a bargain which Con
gTess had msde and make arOiher. Congress had,
10 effect settled this by sw In favor Of the de-
fendant II the plaintiff had any claim was
the Government, and was not within the jurisdiction
Of this court. Tho plaintius asked to be relieved
against the effect Of the refusal Of the Register and
Receiver to take testimony Now II 10 settled rus
that while equities will relieve against the defective
execution Of power, It will rot undertake to exc
cute a power which tho parties upon whom the
During the progress OF the argument, the Chisl
Justice said
"whils this court does not claim to control al
executive officer In the discharge Of an executive
tTuLt II has Jurisdiction to regulate tho rights o
citizens growing out Of such executive action
A. the close OF Mr.. Dicks argumsnt the court Nd'
IOuTned.