The Russellville Democrat., 1875-06-17
THE HOT SPRINGS CASE.
Finding ofthe Court of Claims in the Matter of Rcctor's
 Title.

New Madrid title is founded upon an exchange of lands. The pur pose of the law was to allow per sons in a certain district to give their injured lands as the sole con sideration for others which they were authorized to select. When the selection, termed a location, was complete according to the provisions of this act" the title of the party in the injured land was to "revert to and become absolute " vested in the United States" conversely, when the location was complete, according to the provis
 ions of this act, the land selected was severed from the public do- main and became the property of the locator. If in the case of Rec tor location was made in 1920, then it's alleged defects were cured by the first section of the Act 26th April, 1922, 6 Stat. L., p. 66S, ) and it should be perfected into q grant" Ifno location was made, then the New Madrid warrant is barred by the second action of the statute. The Act 2d March, 1927, "A Stat. L., p. 219, is to the same effect, except that it does not con tain statute of limitations, but it helps only "locations of lands heretofore made according to law" ana leaves the limitation of the preceding act as to New Madrid warrants unrepealed. What, then, was a location under the New Madrid act?
 The act requires that after the New Madrid warrant or certificate of destroyed lands has been issued, land after location thereof has been made, on the application of the claimant, by the principal dep uty surveyor for said Territory, or under his direction" it shall be the duty of his principal surveyor "to cause survey thereofto be made, and to return a plat of each loca- tion made to the said recorder to go with a notice in writing designat- ing the tract or tracts thus located, and the name of the claimant on whose behalf the same shall be made, which notice and plat the said recorder shall cause to be re- corded in his office, and shall re- ceive from the claimants for his services on each claim the sum of $2 for receiving proof, issuing the certificate, and recording the plat and notice as aforesaid" (S2. The recorder was then to deliver to the party a certificate stating the circumstances of the case, and that he was entitled to a patent
 for the tract designated; but this certificate was to be filed with the
 recorder within twelve months af
 ter it's date and the recorder was
 then to issue another certificate in
 favor of the party, which, on being
 transmitted to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, should
 entitlc the party to a patent. Ir
 this case it will be recollected that Hammond and Rector, the holders of the New Madrid certificate, ap
 piled for a location thereof to the
 surveyor-general for the Territory
 and that he caused a survey to b, made, which was returned to anC approved by him and filed in th' surveyor-general's office; but by
 reason of instructions then receiv l. ed from the Secretary of the Treas !. ury, who was then the head of tho
 Land Office, the surveyor genera
 took no further steps in the matter or, in other words, never returned : q plat of the location to the record CT with the notice in writing des ]. ignating the tract located and tn, :. name of the claimant on whose be
 half it was made.
 . But between the New Madrit
 act of 1915 and the alleged location [ by Rector in 1920, the Act 29tI i. April, 1916, 6 Stat. L., p. 325, intervened. It established a ne' }, office of surveyor of the publi . lands in Illinois and Missouri, ai
 terward termed the surveyor-gen : cral; it transferred to him all tn z duties of the principal deput, :. surveyor" it directed that h. should transmit plats of all land : surveyed, to the register and to tn,
 General Land Office; it provides