, 1868-01-24

ed with special reference to the occasion
The private residences of the mora I'll,
portion Of the citizens of Washiputon' 'a.'ny ~ay
scenes of general pleasure, mirtb and "ere 81
joyment; circles of intimate friends ostL, eu,
together for the mutual Interchange Of
friendly greetings and to enjoy the rood
cheer bountifully provided for their delecto
tion. e0'0-
In the midst of the various festiv;tia. ana
! enjoyments, it is proper to remark that H.
generosity of the liberal portion of the resi-
dents, the department clerks and goyernment
employees, the poor and needy were not forS
gotten.
The hearts OF many a poor family were re.
joiced and made glad by being put in mo-,
session of good dinner-a pleasure to NAM
unexpected, and which broke in unOn ~
dull nonotony of their struggles to procuIS
the absolute necessaries of life, like a warm
sun bursting through the cold rain clouds Of
an autumnal storm.
Many of the churches were handsomelv
decorated with evergreens, and in seye raj
Sunday school celebrations were held. in
which the merry-hearted children particips.
ted with evident enjoyment and pleasure
especially when the Christmas trees vero
stripped of their glittsring baubles and orna.
mental array of fruits, bun-bons and candies
for distribution.
70 give you full account of all the iutcr>
esting features and entertainments ipeidn,
to the day would occupy more space than Won
could afford or would have the affronterv
to ask even had the time to devote to the.
purpose. 1 will therefore conclude this,
sketch, by stating that collections were tax.
en- up at the several churches for the benefit
of the poor of the city, and in the aggregate,
very handsome sum was realized.
The day, altogether, was one long to be,
remembered by young and old, with pleas
ureable emotions, and with its round Of fes.
tivity, hearty social greetings, feasting and
hilarity it is truly to be regretted that.
christmas comes but once year"
1 append herewith the decision of the Su>
preme Court of the United States, rendered
a few days since, in relation to the right of
taxing the land of the Puget Sound Agri,
cultural Company of Washington Territo>
ry. This decision reverses the opinion of
the majority of the Supreme Court of your
Territory, and will be fond in harmony with
the opinion of Hon. L. 2. Oliphant, late
Associate Justice, w. T., who, at the time,
of the rendering of the decision thereon, dis
sented from the opinion of his brother judg,
es, Hewitt and Wyche. The paper ex plains
itself.
The SEGREGATION OF GRANTS OF LAND RFoN
THE PUBLIC DoNAIN-WHEN DOES A GRANT BE-
CONE LIABLE TO LOCAL TAXATION Puget Sound
Agricultural Company, plaintiff in error, VS.. the
County of Pierce. This cause comes from the
Supreme Court of Washington Territory, and
under a statute of that Territory, went to that
court from the court telow upon a statement of
facts agreed upon by the parties to the suit That
statement embraced the following facts The
Puget Sound Company claim to be the owners of
about l0l 900 acres of land in Washington Terri
tory, as estimated by the surveyor general of the
Territory and the agent of the company, the es,
innate being made from plat of the survey on
file in the Surveyor Generals office, made by the
company. The Government, in making a survey
of the public lands adjacent to these lands, stop
ped the section lines at the boundaries of the
company's claim, and did not include them 10
the public survey.
1t also appears that portion of the lands are
occupied by the Government as a military post,
and that rent is paid therefore TO the company,
and that the company have instituted proceed
ings to eject persons occupying other portions of
the lands, claiming them under the provisions of
| the donation law.
A large portion of the lands unincosed and
| a considerable quantity is occupied and claimed
| by citizens of the United States, claiming the
| same adversely to the company and also a
they allege, under the provisions OF the donation
| law. Some residents of the county lived over
| four years on their claims and have not been
taxed thereon, although their lands were outside
the claim of the company and there is no tax
| levied on the rea! estate of the country, other
/ .bo cIa hSt uhi ia
foreign (British) portion.
The question is upon these facts, whether the
company are liable to pay tax on these lands
and the Supreme Court of the Territory held that
| they were. The agent Of the company refused
| to estimate the value of the lands and the COM
missouers court thereupon valued the lands at
one dollar per acre, aud they were assessed at
that rate.
The plaintiffs in error insist that the lands are
unsegregated from the public domain, and can
not be taxed to them real estate. In order TO
! be taxed ths lands must be private property and
taxed to some Is tnen Hrgueu ~
| location of lands by private survey can sever
! them from the public domain. This is done, and
can be done, only by public survey. Although
the company bore equitable title, and that
confirmed it gives no vested interest in par.
ticuar location of land, and is not specific real
estate until after public survey. The tax must
be assessed on a described piece of real estate,
and its location must be certain. 1t must not be
property of the United States, and, to make the
person liable who is taxed, it must be his real
estate.
1t is not disputed that the Government can, by
legislative act or by treaty, segregate certain
tracts from the public domain, but it is claimed
that in this case there is nothing to show that
the lands proposed TO be taxed are the lands
which the Government by treaty ceded, aud by
act of Congress confirmed to tie company. Un-
til that is shown there can be no taxation.