The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1880-05-21

"ANNt SANh aAUAS VI 4hStS ~ lhAht bef'
been known that the lands belonged to
the State and not to the United States;
and that a valid settlement under the
pre.emption law cannot bo made upon
land which docs not belong 10 the
United States, on which Is legally ro-
served for any purpose, fof in that de-
cision,as well Ms in the case Of the State
va Stott and Waggouer, 1t was held
that the grant Of 1850 was ia present..
A settlement in bad faith or wanting
in good faith is an invalid scttlement.
A settlement upon lands not belonging
TO the United States and when the set
tier knows that the land is legally re-
served appropriated, or that il does soT
belong 70 the United States, his settle,
ment thereon may properly. enonsh he
said to be in bad faith, or wanting in
good faith, and in this sense think the
expression was used. Other language
in the decision would seem To leave no
doubt Of this; for it was said that the
Act Of 1860 was uotice 10 all the Gov.
ernnent hai granted to the
State Of Oregon with certain rcstrie.
tions all the swamp lands and over.
flowed lands which remained
unsold at the passage Of the Act And
again that "Under the rIe-emption Act
lands reserved by law or otherwise Cor
specific purposes aIe not snlicct to en-.
try"
How can raid pre-etup;ion settle
ment be made upon land identified as
coming within the operative terms Of "a
present grant to the State T.
Whatever may DO the opinion aa 10
the effect of the ,hcision cited by you,
am firmly convinced that il is error to
so construe the Act as 10 permit pre-
emption entries of swamp lands aud
over1owed lands in oregoa in the face
Of an asserted claim of the State or
with official knowledge, on tho part Of
the Government Of the fact that the
land is swamp aud ovetilawed; and
there are many reasons why such con.
struction should not prevail
While the selections Of 1872 may
have been irregular, having been made
prior tothe confirmation of tho later sur.
Neys If said Township. they ncveithe.
less constituted notic, Of tie. States
claim; aud as llie Stale masl.. no default
in iene~ing the claim after notice of
the confirmation filing ef the SLOTS ,.a.i
in presenting proof in support thereof
no other disposition Of the laud via
perniiAs,lle until after final determine
ton that the land wns not of the char,
acler contemplated l,y ,hs grant.
F'om the very nature e ,l,e case
decision that the lnni was swamp aud
oven flowed at the late Il the giant,
within tie meaning Of the Act. neccs-
sally defeats Crosiey's claim.
Ia shcpiy IS Cowan q otto, 500 the
court said: Whenever in the dhI,osi
ton Of the lnI,lic lands .,ny action is
required to he taken hy an officer of
the land department all proceedings
tending to defeat such action are
implicitly inhibited 4 sale
Is as mnch prohibited 10y law Of Con.
greas, when to allow Il would defeat the
oilret of that law rs though tho inbibi.
tion were in direct terms declared"
The filing of notice of claim anil lists
of selections and proofs in support
thereof, clearly required action by the
land department.
The State thus submitted her claims
for confirmation under the Act, which
confirmation has been held to be the
issuing of Patent bnt decision by
this Department that the land was
swamp aud overlowed at tho date OF
the grant Is to all intcnts and purposes
such confirmation, for ouch decision
would entitle the State to a patent; and
the right to a patent once vested il, in
our system Of disposal of the public do
main so Ear as tho Government is con
cerned, equivalent to a patent issued.
Carroll vs. Stafford, 3, Howard Al,
and 46l.
Wetherspoon VS.. Duncan, 4, Wall
2lo, 2l2.
Stark VS.. STAIRS, G, Wall, AIS
Barney VS.. Dolph, Z, Otto, G52, csc.
And in any case in which the claim
is initiated by some act of the claimant
the patent when issued relates back to
the date of the initiatory act and cuts
off all intervening claims.
(Sheply vs.. Cowan, l, Otto, 337.)
In French VS.. Fyan g, Otto, l70),
involving title to land under the Act of
1850 q, Stat, 5l9), the Court said
"The patent therefore which is tao evil
dencc that the lands contained in It
had been identified as swamp lands
npder the Act relates back and gives
certainty to the title as Of the date of
the grant"
To decide, therefore, that a specified