Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-03-15
ENGLAND'S EYE on EGAN.
HIS ExTRADITIoN DESIRED AS
WE'LL AS SHERIDAN'S.

The Mother Country's Whim Not Like
Iy TO be Granted I'm the Case of Either
of the AgitatOrs = 4 Corporation
WrangIIng with Texas Over 5000
Square Miles.
WASHINGTON, March 14.-It is expected
that the British Government will ask for
the extradition of Patrick Egan, the Land
Lacquer, just arrived here, as they re-
Gently asked for the extradition of Sheri-
dan. Neither will be given up, the State
Department officials say, unless there is
the most undoubted proof that they come
under the existing extradition treaty with
Great Britain.
A GREAT LAND SUIT.
The case of William &. Walsh. Com
missioner of the General Land Office of
the State of Texas, against William
Preston, argument of which was con-
cluded in the Supreme Court of the United
States to-day. is a suit which involves the
title to nearly 5000 square miles of land
within the limits of what is known as the
"Iercers' COlony,v situated in the State
of Texas, between the present city of
Dallas and Indian Territory, along the
headwaters ofthe Red and Trinity rivers.
William Preston, the appellee, who
represents joint stock company known
as the 'TeXas Association" claims the
lands in controversy under a contract
made in 1874 between the Republic of
Texas and Charles Venter MerceM and
seeks to restrain the Land Commissioner
from issuing certificates for these lands,
as If they were part of the public do
main and thus invading the vested rights
and clOuding the title of Texas as crea-
tor. The Land Commissioner on the 9TH
er hand maintains that he is acting in the
line of his rightful official powers for the
reason that the lands have been rean-
neXed by competent authority to the pub
lie domain, and are therefore under his eX-
elusive jurisdiction and control. He ap-
peals from the decision of the court below
on the grounds:
First. That the United States Circuit
Court had no jurisdiction of the case, be-
cause it is, in effect, a suit against the
State of Texas.
Second. That the colonization contract
Of January 30, 1914, was void for uncon-
stitutionality and for fraud on the part of
President Sam Houston in making it.
Third. That it is not proved that Mr..
Mercer and his associates induced 1,256
families to settle in said colony.
Fourth. That said colony contract was
forfeited by reason of the failure of Mr..
Mercer to perform his covenants there
under.
Fifth. That it was forfeited by subse-
quent legislation or constitutional Ordi-
nance of Texas.
Sixth. That it was Cancelled and an
nulled by judgment rendered October %,
lS4S, in certain suit in Navarro county,
Texas, styled GA. G. Horton. Acting
Governor, against G. f. Mercer and his
unknown associates"
Seventh. That the claim of Texas as a
creator is barred by the statute of limita-
tiOns and lapse of times.
William Preston, of the Texas Associa-
ton, makes a cross appeal in the same
case from the decision of the court below.
on the ground that it has afforded further
reliefby directing the Land Commissioner
toissue certificates and patents to the asso-
citation for 1876 square miles within the
limits OF the colony, or its equivalent in
value elsewhere, and for further 1876
square miles upon the payment by the
Texas association of $12 in money and
sum equal to the value in 1874 Of $G40 of
Texas scrip for every square mile.