, 1868-09-18
Imnor,ant Land Decision.

The Register and Receiver of the Vancouver
Land Office have rendered the following decision
which we publish as matter of local interest
Wm. Mclean VS.. Ozias OVen, SdmT Waterman
and B. W. BusscH.-William Mclean claims
the land described, that is to say six hundred
and forty acres Of land in said sections, under
the Donation Act of September 9th, 1850, which
claim is contested by the above named parties,
who claim the right to enter portions of the
land claimed by Mclean under the pre-emptiou
act of l84l.
We shall not now consider, whether or no
said parties have the right of pre- -emption we
have only to determine as to the validity of Nc
Beams claim.
The papers on file in this office, show that
Mclean arrived in Oregon, in 1888 that be
settled on the land claimed by him in the year
1852, and has continued to reside thereon from
that date until the present time and, he sets
forth in his affidavit, dated July 9th, 1860, that
he was born in Fond du Lac county, Lake Su-
perior in the year 1907. He is therefore, being a
married man, entitled-prima yfacie-to patent
for six hundred and forty acres of land under
the 4th section of the Donation Act, aforesaid.
The first reason assigned by the contestants,
why McBeaI's claim ought to be rejected, is that
Mclean is a nsturalized and not a native born
citizen of the United States The said fourth
section grants $40 acres to married men, citizens
of the United States, or who shall have filed
their intention to become citizens on or before
the first day of December, 1851. Mclean filed
his declaration of an intention to become a cit,
izen on the first day of May, 1852, and was adj
mitted citizen of the United States on the
4th day of June, 1860, and therefore, under
said 4th section he cannot claim Qegally) GAO
acres of land as Rdturalized citizen.
But, Mclean AYERS, his action in filing his
declaration of intention, and consumasing his
naturalization, was based upon the suppostion
that the place of bis birth was withou: the limits
of the United States, whereas he afterwards as,
certained that it was within the United States
and that, therefore he is native born citizen,
entitled to all the rights and privileges of a ma.
tive born citizen, and that his naturalization was
a nulity,
On the other hand, it is held that he cannot
go behind the judgement of the court, and that
be is bound by his own actions and declarations,
and that the judgement of the court finally set
tied the question of his nativity
In considering question of law, we must en-.
quire into the reason and purpose of the law, and
the object and purpose of the law in reference to
naturalization, is to make a man a citizen of the
United States, and not to declare and adiudpe
that he is not citizen, that he born in
this or the other place, and, the Court having
found the existence of facts sufficient to autitle
the applicant to citizenship, DEGREES accordingly,
and such decree is conclusive to show that the
wards found, that the person was born within
the limits of the United STATES, that then the ac-
tion OF the Court was superRuous and unnecessary,
and that the action of the party, in taking meas
ures TO secure status as American citizen
ought not to be used to his prejudice The con-
testants do not deny the fact Of his nativity but
seek to avoid the legal consequences fosong there.
from. We therefore, are of opinion, that Nc
Bean is entitled to status as native born citi,
zen of the United States,
1t is further objected, that Mclean has chang,
ed his boundary lines, and does not now claim
the same land upon which be made his settle.
ment in 1852. We hold it to be true, that a
settler may alter or change the boundaries of his
claim at any time prior to final survey, provided
be includes bis improvements and does not con-
fict with any valid existing claim The proof
In this case shows that McBean's claim was sur,
yeyed, Spd the present boundaries established by
W. W. Johnson, United Slater Deputy Sur>
veyor, on the l6ih-ls!h of September, 1862
From papers on file here, it appears that the
parties settled as follows, to wit:
Ozas Owen, on the 22d day of September, 1862
Burwell W. Bussell, February Ist 1863. Samuel
Waterman claims under the Homestead Act,
which gives no right of priority. All of the
parties then settled subsequent to the final sur,
vey of McBean's claim, aud cannot be allowed
to interfere with boundaries established prior to
their settlement.
We believe this dsposes of the whole matter,
and it leads us to the conclusion, that Wm. Nc
Bean is entitled to the six hundred and forty
acres of land claimed by him under the Donation
Act and we so decide
Given under our hand, at the Land Office at
vancouver, W. T., this 9TH day of September,
1868. JOSEPH NJ FLErcHER, Register.
]. W. BRowN, Receiver.