The union Democrat., 1868-10-03
NUMBER IL.
Hon. Jas, A johnson ON the Yo S.m,,.
Grant


As the position ofthe Hon. James A. John
son, Democratic member of Congress, in tia
matter of the claims Of j. n. Hutchincs and
j. c. Lamon to pre-emptions in Yo Semitic
Valley, has been grossly misrepresented, we
publish the following speech made by him
in Congress on the Srd Of June last:
Mr.. Speaker, | would not seek the foor to
say anything at oil, but for the feet thas
when this question was first mooted in Cal
itornia announced myself as against it.
by many letters have written since, AN
aware have led the public men with whom
l have corresponded to believe that would
ne opposed to the passage Of this bill. But,
sir, on investigation of the question. find
there Is no authority in Congress to DEPRIVE
these men OF their rights as settlers and I
think 1t hardship and q wrong upon them
to compel them to fight the whole mower of
the state OF California to protect themselves
IN tneir rights against an Act unconsttution.
ally passed by the Thirty-eighth Congress.
Ite presumption laws Of 1871 opens up the
whole public domain to actual settlers, and
under that law these gentlemen took pos-
session OF this claim. The Act declares that
they shall be the owners, or that taey shall
have vested equitable rights. Before that
time those who settled on the public lands
were considered trespassers. But since the
Act OF lS4l the Supreme Court of the United
States has established new rule. In 1862
Congress passed law inviting settlers on
the public lands of the United States, wheth-
er surveyed or unsurveyed and provided.
further, that if they settled on the unsur.
veyed lands, when the lands came to be sur
veyed the proprietors should enter according
to :heir original claims under both of these
Acts. Now, hold in my hand list Of au-
thorities, decisions of the Supreme Court Of
the United States, constituting these Act.
in which they hold in all cases-becauss
they all bear exactly on the subiect-that
these gentlemen have acquired such rights
that no Act of Congress can defeat. We
cannot by Act of Congress take the land Of
these settlers and appropriate it for another
purpose.
Now, this act Of cession to California does
take that land away from these gentlemen,
and appropriates it for another purpose.
That is, it makes grant Of land to the State
of California for the purpose of pleasure
grounds. That act is uncons.itutional no
far as the rights of these gentlemen are con-
cerned and so far as the decisions of the
Supreme Court are concerned, since IS4l,
there has not been a single decision holding
O contrary view.
In the case of the United States Va. Pitz-
gerald 10 Peters), the Court decides square
~ that no reservation or appropriation of
the public land can be made after q citizen
has pre-empted it or located it rs home
stead. If this decision is true exposition
OF tho constitutional rights of the settlers,
then it addresses itself directly to the merits
of this pre-emption claim, and shows clearly
that any attempt to divest the owners of their
claim is an attempt to destroy the constitu-
tional rights of American ctizens. Then
again, in the case of Lytle vs. the State of
Arkansas % Howard). the Court holds that
when the settler has acted according to law
in his settlement, his claim becomes a legal
vested right, subject to be defeated only by
failure to perform the conditions annexed
to the taking that is, the pre-emption law.
Then again, in Delsus VS.. the United
States, 70 Peters), Chief Justice Marshall
holds that the settlers claim is not a vague
and incohate uncertain equitable right. but
upon the contrary, that it is property be-
longing to the settler, and that it cannot be
taken away by the Government of the United
States. could cite any number of author
ltIes to sustain me in the position that have
been compelled to take in this case, but SEQ
it is unnecessary. If the Government Of the
United States, having control, and for the
purpose OF control alone. claiming to be the
owner OF the public lands, shall pass laws
for the taking of such lands by it's citizens.
and, in addition, offer inducements to thoss
who are hardy and enterprising enongh to
advance ahead into the unbroken wilderness.
and blaze out way for civilization to follow.
shall, alter the citizen has gone in advance,
and borne the hardships of opening new
home, then assume TO have power to take it
away and give IT to another, that Govern
ment IS not Government of law, Of iue-
hce or of right between man and man but
is a plundering despotism, robbing its own
citizens. These gentlemen obtained vested
rights upon the public lands Of the United
States. and such vested rights are lust as
sacred as any other vested rights, and can
not be destroyed, says the Supreme Court rf
the United States, by any power in the Fed
eral Governments. The Constitution and the
laws are Tor the protection of citizens, and
not for the creation of fancy pleasure grounds
by Congress out of citizens farms. If the
Constitution and laws do not afford the set
tier protection against Congress as we'll as
every body else, then God help the settler.
Tor he Is lost indeed having nowhere to turn.
RADICAL FINANcIERING.-As an evidence.
says the Erdm'ner, of the talent of the Rad.
zeal leaders for financiering, we append the
loiio"ing monetary table. giving the values
OF ponds OF various countries in the marketa
OF the world, January lst. 1868. It is an
eloquent commentary on Radical waste and
prohigacy which, with the biggest annual
revenue In the world, have placed the uni
,ed States at the bottom of the list in credit.
More figures" for the Alta
BONDS
prss;sn ra ~ loe1l
.......
. 10
Prussian an4lss.... os
Consols 3s s....... os,>
Russian 5s cp< "a "a
r., .o41f 20 so
's'''''''" 90
49,. ia "a
oe.--'''. "a -
-......
United Statea (iYn tHentias 6aA ma a ra1k