Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1882-05-04
Land Titles.

The GlObe-DeDaocrt of the 9th OF
April contained what purported to be
copy of bill proposed by District
Attorney Bliss to have Congress to
pass, which he says is in the interest
of innocent holders of titles. The bill
has some good features, and some OBJ
jectionable. For instance, it proposes
to confirm all entries made, whether
fraudulent or otherwise, where the
title has passed into the hands OF
innocent holders for value, provided
that the conveyances under which
such innocent purchaser holds title
shall have been recorded prior to the
1st day of January, 1880, or if sold I'M
der judicial sale for taxes prior to tbs
1st day of April, 1882"
Why set up the LIST of January, 1880,
and the 1st of April, 1882, as arbitrary
dates at which time the deeds must be
recorded? Why should one man whose
deed was recorded on the 31st day of
December, 1879, stand in a different
eshN oStbSi postum AhoA AiO "AlooS
deed was recorded two days after
wards? One shall be protected, and
the other shall be stamped as tainted
with fraud. What difference does it
make to the United States just when a
mans deed is or was recorded? How
does that affect the United States
Government one way or the other?
Congress has no right to pass law
stamping any past act as fraudulent,
which was not such when the
transaction occurred. Many persons
are careless about recording their
deeds, and an innocent purchaser is
much more likely to be careless about
that than sharp scamp who is guilty
of fraud in acquiring it.
Then, too, judicial sales for back
taxes are in progress all over the
State at every term of the court.
Some sales will have been made on
the last day of March, some on the
first day of April-all in like good
faith, and the money paid; and yet
Mr.. Bliss bill proposes to confirm one,
and stamp the other as badge of
fraud. This is quite too preposterous
a thing, we submit, for Congress to
do.
But still more Objectionable feature
is that the bill provides that in any
suit which the United States may in
stitute within five years, to recover
any lands, the burden of proof shall be
on the claimant or owner, to prove
that he is an innocent owner!
In other words, under this bill, all
Mr.. Bliss has to do is to bring suit
against any poor ID down in the
country who is unable to defend his
title up in the United States, and he
need not prove any fraud, any miscon-
duct on the part of the poor fellow
whose title is attacked; and unless the
poor man assumes the burden of proof
and does prove that he is an innocent
holder, he loses his land. He may be
eve r so innocent, he may die, and his
widow and children do not know and
can not prove that he was an innocent
holder, and therefore the land is con-
fiscated by this judicial legerdemain.
The universal rule of law is that
fraud must not only be pleaded, but it
must be proved; for every transaction,
regular on it's face, is presumed to be
honest until the contrary is proven.
1t will be seen that, while Mr.. Bliss
claims that his bill is in the interest of
innocent holders, it is fraud on them;
for it undertakes to radically change
the established rules of evidence, and
to stamp with fraud, by legislative
transactions which the
law as it stands, and has always stood,
presumes to be honest.
The bill should not pass without inn
portant changes.
to ,poos Altar