The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1879-11-13

y
eral, DR.. Henry, having been reversed
by the general land commissioners in
1868, | made an appeal in the same
year to the Secretary of the Interior,
but the Honorable gentleman did not
think proper to take the case into con-
sideration.
8. | urged the then secretary of the
Interior, in April, 1865, to decide the
ease already so long before the depart
ment. This new appeal was not more
successful than the previous one
nothing was done. Another letter on
the same subject to the same secretary
was totally ignored.
10. | addressed a letter to the Secre-
tary of War, citing the opinion of
Attorney General Bates on the mis-
sion claims, in October, 1869, which
was given to the Secretary OF the In
terror rs follows
"The law" says he, "spCaks for its
self; all that claimants had to prove,
is that ON August, 1918, they occupied
the land as IL missionary station among
the Indian tribes. For the validity of
the mission claims, all depends ON
matter of facts, possession, occupancy
and the time thereof"
In consequence of that opinion, so
| clearly explained in few words, the
Secretary of War resolved to investi-
gate the claim on its merits, with Il
view to mutual agreement between the
parties on the subject. General Har-
die was commissioned to prepare Il re-
port. 1t, was ready when the Secrc-
tary OF state requested "tO stop any
further proceedings in relation to ,~t.
James Mission until the claims of the
| Hudson Bay Company were settled y
But when the claims of the Hudson
Bay Company We're settled no action
was taken ON the subject nOtwith-
standing all my efforts.
II. Very Rev. j. b. \. Brouilliet
was at Washington, d, C., as agent of
the mission in lS61, to urge On the
important affair. He was there also
in lsj4, 1850 and 1866, and some years
later, too, constantly occupied in the
same cndeavor-.
T.. Having failed, addressed sew
eral letters to the Secretary of the In
terror, bearing the following dates:
April 9Th, June 10, and September l2th,
1865, and October 25th 1859, urging
him to give n decision; hutall in vain;
two more letters were dispatched in
ls7l with no better result.
IS. At last. on the 18th of January,
1872, the official decision was given
by Hon. y. II. Cowen, acting ,ecre-
tary. He acknowledged that St.
James Mission existed on the l4th of
Aug. iS4S, within the meaning and
provisions Of the act OF Congress, and
that the mission was entitled To
whatever quantity of land said act
intended 20 grant and then he con-
cluded that the mission was entitled
10 nearly halfan acre Just tnc space
for the Church. = such was the
opinion of Hon. Assistant Attorney
Gen. Smith, which he approved and
adopted.
Ii. The arguments for refusing the
whole section to the Catholic Mission
are, first, because the land occupied
rs mission was not set forth hy
specific boundaries before Aug lith,
lS4S; second, because it had never
been Included in any enclosure; third
because the mission, on the lith of
Aug. lsiS, was only in occupancy of
the land coYcrcd hN the church cdi-
iicc and such land a was appcndant
to il.
All these arguments We're rejected,
n few years later, in the ease of thc
Methodist claim which il identical
from every point of consideration
with the ~. James Mission claim, as
will he seen hereafter.
l.. The Methodist Church had
claimed a section of land at the Dall,~,
Oregon II had also a military post
ON its claim, juSt as -. James Mis-
sion at Vancouver, w. I. In 1850 Com
greSS ACKNOWLEDGED the title of said