Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1882-11-23
Titles to Lands i'm Missouri.

Titles to Lands in Missouri.
In May last in response to an inquiry re-
garding his views on the bill to quiet titles to
lands in Missouri, entered under the Gradu-
alton Act Secretary Teller addressed to Sem
ator Cockrell a letter, of which the following
are the more important paragraphs:
If the grantees under such Goyernment
patents were capable OF taking such tltle, ana
subsequently conveyed the same to innocent
holders for value, the Government, In my
opinion, must be without remedy, and the
title must remain in such Innocent noiders.
If, on the other hand, such fraudulent en-
tries were by the use of ficticious names ana
no persons took title, tho forgery and spuri-
Gus conveyance in the name Of such fictlcious
person cannot convey title, ana tne titie Is
still in the United States. although the iaPse
of time since such fraudulent entry may De
so great that the Government ought not III
Justice and right now to attempt to hold such
lands, and in equity the holder may be as well
entitled to the protection Of the Governmen6
as if the title had vested in the supposed
| grantees of the Government Ii the frauds
were practiced, they were doubtless with tho
connivance and by the assistance OF the Gov
ernment officials, and If the Government al
lowed such entries to stand until the people
supposing such entries to be valid purchased
| for value any considerable portion OF such
| lands without notice and good faith, 1t Is not
proper that the Government now call In
question its own grant except on the most
convincing proof Of the fraud in the original
entry and clear proof that the present holder
| had either actual or constructive notice OK
such fraud.
The bill in question recognizes the principle
I have announced. The bill, however, pro-
vides that in any suit, &C., the burden OF
proof shall be on the defendant. This
think is wrong. If the defendant has chain
| Of title connecting himself with the Govern
| nj q
| he holds as an innocent purchaser, and the
burden OF proof should be on the Govern
ment if it attacks his title. A Government
patent ought to be presumptive Of title in the
original patentee, and the regular chain Of
title to defendant ought to raise the pre-
sumption of his right. The Government
ought not to succeed until it shall have es.
tablished, first, the fraudulent entry, and
secondly, the defendants participation there
in, or his guilty knowledge thereof, before
he made such purchase. Therefore, think
the bill should be amended by striking out
all after the word purchase" in the twenty
fifth line of section one.
! cannot refrain from saying that think 1t
Is great mistake on the part OF the Govern
ment to attempt to unsettle titles emenatlng
from itself that have been supposed for many
Years by the people to have been granted in
accordance with law. Certainty OF title is an
essential to a well organized and prosperous
community, ana no greaterwron can be per-
lpetrated on the people than to attack their
title by an indiscriminate raid on a class OF
entries without reference to the facts in each
case. While it is the duty Of the Government
officials to protect the Government against
, frauds of the character complained of, it is
, equally their duty to see that the people max
ing homes on the Government land, or land
recently conveyed by the Government, are
not unnecessarily harrassed by the Govern
ment with reference to the titles, and they
should not be held responsible for irregular
tiles or even frauds of which they could not
have known and for which they are in no wise
responsible. / therefore do not hesitate to
, say that shall be pleased to see the bill
passed, with the amendment / have sug-
gested, and trust it may pass without un-
? necessary delay. ,aef f1* fa ~
The above letter was written by Secretary
Teller after having received the following
from the Commissioner of the General Land
Office, McFerland:
!, am in receipt, by your reference, of a let
ter from Hon. f. NJ. Cockrell transmitting
d, copies Of Senate Bill No. l, ,79S to quiet title
TO lands in Missouai entered under the Grad
uation Act, and have the honor to report
| as follows:
On February 8 last, in report made to
the department, recommended that suits
be brought to set aside patents for lands
Graduation Act in cases where the title still
remains in the patentees, unclaimed by them
or their representatives, and also in cases
+ where copveyances have been attempted to
be made through forged deeds except where
: the lands should be in possession of innocent
, purchasers. In such cases do not think it
good publicspolicy, nor Just to bona fide pur-
Z chasers without notice Of fraud, for the Gov
e ernment to insist upon its own rights and
equities regardless of the equities OF its citi-
J, zens whose titles were defective through no
] fault of their own. Neither did think it
expedient to attempt to disturb titles that
were in the hands OF bona fiie purchases Of
] tax sales THAT had been legally transferred
| by the patentees and were held by innocent
, parties.
f The bill submitted by Mr.. Cockrell pro-
, poses to confirm all entries where the titles
have been conveyed to innocent purchasers.
This proposition is in the line of the foregoing
views and meets with my concurrence. Some
of the provisions of the Senate bill are how
e ever, not wholly free from doubt as to their
: expedience or effect. By the first provision
it is made condition to the confirmation that
. the conveyances under which innocent pur-
J chasers' claim, when other than judicial
sale for taxes shall have been recorded in tho
pubic records of the proper county prior to
january /, 1880, and where the title Is claim
ed under tax sale, the transfer shall have
been put on record prior to April /, 1882. In
the second proviso, the condition upon which
the United States relfnquishes its title to in
, nocent purchasers under fraudulent convey
ances is that the convey ances shall have been
recorded prior to January l, 1875. am not
informed of the reasons for these distinc-
t1ons. The State had the same notice and
the purchasers from the State at tax sale had
tHe same HoIlce OF Lne defective titles that
other parties had, and do not perceive WHY
there should be discrimination in the differ
ent classes of cases. 1t would appear to me
that more uniform rule in respect of time
of recording titles would be advantageous in
the execution of the law.
The third provfso puts the burden of proof
upon claimants to show that they are inno-
cent purchasers for value. can perceive
an advantage in this proviso in this case. and
perhaps no practical hardship to the parties
would result therefrom, since the evidence
must necessarily be largely in their own pos
session; but direct your attention to this
proyiso as changing the usual rule of law
without, however, expressing an opinion up
ON its advisability.