Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1883-05-18
WASHINGTON LETTER.
From Our Regular Correspondent. ]
WAsurNaToN Nav ID 1888


Several important questions connected
with railroad land grants are now pend
ing before the Secretary Of the Interior,
and action OF some kind in reference to
the same will doubtless be taken before
long. One OF these questions relates to the
Reinstatement of the former practice OF
the department o, issuing OF second patent
where prior patent for the same land
Issued either through inadvericnce or un-
der an erroneous construction of statute,
has been found to be null and void, and
to make no conveyance OF title to the land.
In the case OF NEwHALL VS.. SANGER
decided in May, 1876 (92 U. s. Rep, 79l,)
the Supreme Court Of the United States
held that lands in California within the
limits of Mexican grant claim, and in
state Of reservation at the date Of the Pa
cifc Railroad grant made in the act of
July |, 1862, were excepted from The rail-
road grant, and that a patent issued for
such lands to the railroad company was
void and conveyed no title. The decision
directly nullitied the title Of the railroad
company and its grantee, Mr. SANGER, to
the particular tract in controversy before
the court, and virtually nullified the title
OF the railroad company to every other
tract also in state of reservation within
The limits OF Mexican grant claim at the
| date OF the railroad grant, and holding,
therefore, the same status as the tract in
controversy in that case.
| AT the date oil the decision in Nav, 1876.
aud for nearly forty years before lhnt time,
the practice of the Department of the In.
terror was and had been to issue second
paien whenever the officers of the de.
pnriment became fully satis6e that prior
patents Tor the same lands had been erro-
neonsly Issued and were entirely null and
v"id. The propriety of iss,,ing second pat.
ents in such cases without previously re
man,ling The contest to the courts. was in
1887 referred TO Attorney General BUTLER,
aud in l84S was again referred to ATTORNEY
General ToUcEY, and both of these officers
rendered opinions in favor of the practice
where it was clear from the rulings of the
Supreme Court OF the United States that
the earlier patents were mere utilities and
conveyed no title. (See Opins. A,tys.
Genl. Vols. 3and 5, PIP 240.7, respectively.
The practice OF the department. in that
respect became thus firmly established,
and from 1887 10 1876 mrny such second
patents were issued without the earlier
patents being first declared void in the
Judicial tribunals Many of them subsc
qnenlIy came before the Supreme Court of
the United States. and in ever instance
that tribunal sustained the second patents
and held the Government title being con.
veyed by them as il did in the case OF
NEwHALL VS.. SANGER.
Prior to the decision in that case the
| all ra L.
patents in the department fer many thous
and acres of land of precisely the samt
, status as the contest between NEwHALI
and SANGER and the legal principles in
volved were OF course precisely the same il
respect TO every such tract. The onl,
question to be determined in ench case wa
whether at the date of the railroad gran
the tract was in state of reservation with
in the limits of a Mexican grant CLAIM,
: the same ms the tract in controversy be
: tween NEwHALL and SANGER, and tha
!. was question to be determined by In
/, officers in charge OF the public Lands, nn
e not primarily by the judiclal tribunals.
e Hundreds of settlers have been for year
occupying the lands in California fo
n which such void patents were issued to til
II railroad companies. Had the practice G
I issning second patents. which had prevail
K ed IN the department for more than u ger
d GRAFTON prior to July II, 1876, been cor
tinued after that date these settlers woul
long since have obtained title to thei
land. But within the period of about tw
months after the the case of NEwHALL v
SANGER had been decided by the Suprem
Court, showing that the California railroa
l. companies were holding many thonsan
acres of land under illegal patents impror
erly issued, the department changed III
| practice OF issuing second patents for til
7 same lands until the elder patents in enc
particular case had fir,t been declared vol
in the judicial tribunals.
/. No honest claimant, desirous only
70 protecting a just claim, had ever complain
ed OF the former practice Of the deparime,
=. nor had the Supreme Court of the Unite
% States ever found fault with il.
= Dom PEDRO.
- -