Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-11-08
THE COURTS.

SvPKHMB COuRr OF THE Disf RIOT In q BY
HRAL TExM-chfef JustSee Carter, Assoeiatt
Justices DIN, Wylie ond Fisksr.-John G. Kea
nedy, EsQ, moved that Mr.. Charles n. Fay be
admitted 20 the bar. and q com mittee sppoia ed
toexantne him. The Ooars appointed Nessrs.
Kennedy, johnson, and McPherson. =
Gov Walker continue the argument for
conpiainants In the case OF whitney VS.. FRS
bic; and SAID that the principles OF equity and
justice were very plain in this case, aad ne
looked for the same favorable consideration as
was given BY the whole court before, when tn y
refused TO dissolve the injunction. Indeed,
ciples of Law that have been aoJud ic ated by the
highest courts, in our own land aud that from
which we draw our principles OF justice.
What is presumption II these Homestead
laws are not contracts, then English and Amer.
lean law, and The venerable Pathier, know not
what contract 1t is ding contract, and
the courts OF equity are filled with cases de-
creeing specific Performance. TO settle upon
lands. cultivate and improve them, and in a
certain period to have the right to purchase at
q certain prise, is the contract and If they
wouid be binding on indiyiduals, then they
are upon States and nations, for the very same
principles OF Law govern. 1t Is q benefit to our
country il we look AT il in nothing but mere
monied consideration, to say nothing OF ma.
tional fame.
If this pre- -emption law Is . contract and the
faith Of this nation Is pledged to these pio
what think you of this proposition to repudi-
ate this contract! And shall this Court say,
we will be a party to it. Keep faith w tn the
boDdholders or the Last, but not with the "a IN
OF the mighty West, But do not apprehend
it. For then the banner Of repudiatiou would
be raised upon every paper OF the West Does
MI. Whitney bring himself within the pre-.
emption act OF 1877 The United States said
to the settlers on the vallejo grant that they
did so at their own risk, and pre-. emptors have
still the same right 70 go there. But VaIlejo's
claim was q fraud. The Departmental Act was
forged. and why not the title also 7 This 10 600.
acre tract il rejected as forgery, ana Vallejo
No. AlA
come and ask to nave from this forgery a title
TO this grant, TO drive ont thousands of men,
women and children from their homes and
now because II has passed into legislative act
we cannot attack 1t, we can bring the fraud to
the individuals, although we cannot inquire
into the motives Of coordinate department
of the Government.
Mr.. Dlck.-I challenge Judge Walker to read
the memorial.
Gov. walker.-I cannot take time. I will
not read the infamous thing.
Mr.. Dick.-Then allow me to say you are
mistaken. 1 have read itand cannot find such
q statement.
Mr. Walker-Who represented the VALLEJO
claimants here2 One solitary individual,
John q. Frisbie! This is q far stronger case
than that of Cunningham. For here, under
the act OF 1S41, they admit its settlement under
the presumption laws. 1t is possible to
imagine that, that Congress which passed the
noble homeste ad law, would thus destroy the
work OF their own hands, and exclude the
pre.emptors Will your Honors decide against
them! No! For the people of that section
will soon with one accord say We
have an enlightened and just tribunal at
Washington, which will project our rights DO
they ever SO humble. This Court has IN
doubted jurisdiction over this case. Does it
rest with Register or Receiver to say that
YOU SHALL or not have the land you cultivated,
Is that the act OF Congress. the pledge held out
70 the country! According to that doctrine
the Secretary of the lnterio has more arbitrary
power than the Gar of Russia.
BANKRUPTCY COUET-Sdyles J. Bropa Reg.
tSter:-Samuel Strong, voluntary bankrupt ,.
Il. Moses and L. 5. Howe ass gnees, testimony
taken. M. j. Saffold, attorney for bankrupt.
Moses Samsiag, Involuntary bankruptcy,
upon the petition Of Riley A. Shinn: ad jud ged