The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-01-09
FAMOUS SCRIP CASE.
Valentine Grant and Seattle
Tide Lands.
BRIEF or THE APPELLANT.
The Arguments to support Milton l.
Baer's Important CIaim-Long Ar
ray OF Legal Authority.


sought TO be fled on by Baer with the Valentine
scrip. The case was decided against Baer in the
superior court September II, 1890; and then ap-
peaied December 5.
The following Is an abstract OF the brief:
This action is in the nature OF an eiectnent
but Is brought under section SO OF the Code
In pursuance OF section $50, the plaiutin below,
appellant here, set up in his complaint the ma
ture OF his title, which we claim TO be an estate
IN fee simple. based upon legislative grant,
made by congress.
This grant, the foundation OF our title. was in
the act of congress approved April ). ls72. BY
this act, on the performance OF certain eondi-
tons all of which, il is alleged in the complaint,
have been fully complied with, the right was
given to Thomas r. Valentine or his legal repre-
Fentatives, TO select quantity OF unoecupled
and unappropriated public lands OF the United
II was the obvious intention of congress, in
this grant, that Valentine or his legal represen-
fatiFes, on the performance OF the conditions,
should take title to certain amount of public
lands, the determination OF the quantity TO be
left 20 the courts, and the selection of the par
tlcuiar tracts to the grantee. As Chief Justice
Marshall aptly remarks:
sit surely cannot be Necessary now 70 say that
the validity of legislative act depends IN no
degree on its containing the technical terms
used IN conveyance. IRutherford vs.. Greene
heirs, Wheaton, p. los
This doctrine has been followed in long line
OF cases IN the supreme court OF the United
States, all of which cite with approval and ex-
Just cited. This case in particular is so well
considered. SO clearly discus sed and has been so
uniformly followed that we cite from ii at
length The question turned on the inferpreta-
ton of act OF the North Carolina legis allure,
the tenth section OF which was as follows:
THAT 25,otn acres OF land shall be allotted for
and given 10 Maior-General Nathaniel Greene,
his heirs and assigns within the bounds of the
lands reserved for the use Of the army, to be
laid of by the aforesaid commissioners. as a
marx OF the high sense this state enterfaius OF
III haf md
gallant officer
The court. per Marshall, chief justice, saws:
"on the part of the appellants it is contended
that these words give nothing They are in the
future, not the present tense, and indicate in
tention to give In the future but create no pres-
emit obligation on The state OF present interest in
General Greene. The court thinks differently.
The words are words OF absolute donation. not
indeed of specific lands, but of 25.oGo acres in
the territory set apart for the officers and sol
diers. BE II enacted that 25.o00 acres OF land
shall be allotted for and given to Major-GeneraI
Nathaniel Greene Persons have been ap-
pointed in the previous section 10 make partieIl-
lar allottments for Individuals out OF this large
territory reserved, and the words Of this section
contain positive mandate on them 10 set apart
1900 acres for General Greene As the act was
20 be performed in the future. the words direct
ing ii are necessarily in the future tense
Twenty FIVE thousand acres OF land shall be ST.
lotted for and given to Major-GeneraI Nathaniel
Greene. Given when? The answer is uuavoid-
able: When they shall be allotted. Given how?
Not By any future act for il is not the practice of
legislatures 20 enact that laws shall be passed by
some future legislature, but given by force OF
this act
Again s.In pursuance of the directions OF
this act the commissioners allotted 5000 acres
OF land to General Greene. and caused the tract
20 De surveyed The survey was returned 10 the
office OF the legislature on the llth of March in
the year ITs2 The allotment and survey
marked out the land given by the act of f7ss
ana separated II from the general mass liable
70 appropriation The general Gift OF $500 acres
lying in the territory, reserved for the officers
and soldiers OF the line of North Carolina. had
now become particular gift OF the $500 acres
contained in this survey Against this concly-
sion has been urged that article in the eonStitu-
ton OF North Carolina, which directs that there
shall be a seal OF the state, TO be kent by the
governor, and affixed to all grants. This iegis-
laffye act, IL Is said cannot amount 10 a grant
since IL wants formality required hy the con-
sfftufaou. The provision OF the constitution is
so obviously intended for the eompIetiou and
authorization of an instrument. atfesting title
previously created by law, which instrument is
80 obviously the mere evidence of prior legal
appropriation. and not the act OF original aprsro-
pTiafion itself, that the court would certainly
have thought il unnecessary TO advert to il had
not the argument been urged repeatedly, and
with much earnesfness by counsel OF the highest
reSpectshility.'
But the supreme court of the United states
has goue much farther even than this, in con-
strung what language in a legislative act is
equivalent TO grant. In the case OF Wallace
vs. Parker, Peters p. 60, the facts as reeied in
the opinion OF the court were these:
senfed a petition 20 the general assembly of
Virginia. in which he stated himself to have
served two wears and ten months in the Virginia
stsfe line, on Continental establishment after
which he resigned his commission That since
his resignation he had been called into service
As colonel. commanding q corps OF militia
during every invasion OF the state He pravs
that the assembly win grant him a eoIonei's
allowance of lands. This petition was referred
10 q committee. whose report stated the facts
aud concluded with the following resolution
Of nh par
keE, PRAYING that he may be allowed the bounty
~ lands BY law given to a colonel in the Con-
unental line, Is reasonable. This resolution
was approved by the Senate, and was passed the
2pth o. November. f-sS's
Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinior,
Of the court, and his language Is: ssThe resoltI-
ton grants the land To Josian Parker" fWal-
lace V. Parker. Peters, y. 60
Another leading case is that of Iessieur VS.
Price. his involved grant OF four sections OF
land made by congress To the state Of Missouri,
20 be located under the direction OF the lerisla-
ture- The language OF the court is:
The land was granted by the act OF Ise0 It
was present grant. wanting identity 10 nal Ike il
perfect, ana the legislature was vested with fuii
power 70 select aud locate the land: and We
need only say here, what was substantially said
hN this court IN the ease OF Rutherford ys
Greeucs Heirs. " heaton. los. that the ser al
lS1e, vested title in the State of Missouri ~
tour sections. and that thu selection made by the
SLATE ieSisistre. pursuant 10 the act Of congress
and The notice given by such location 10 the sur
NcYor general. end the register 81 the local Office
where the land lay, gave precision 70 the title
Is Price, 4 Howard, sci
Fremont " United states was case some
h9f similar. a citation from the oninion of
the court delivered by Chief Justice fancy. will
~ SnsheleDt 70 inform The court of the points on
which the decision turned
Another objection has been made. npo1, the
Erounu that The eighth article Of the acquisitions
q ls2s Iy'Q uireS wesl is called definite grant,
sigacd by the governor. 10 serve as tifl, II she
party Interested, therein IL must be stated that
The ssiG grant Is made IN exact conformity With
We PROVISIONS 81 the law. IN virtue whereof
possession shall be given; and il is urged thar
no title passed antil this denuife grant waS or
tanned But this document IS rnsnifestlv in
tended as the evidence thst the conditions OF
the grant have been complied with Itis nos
ro1tiret IN order u give him vested interest
ott 70 show that the estate, convened by the
SF1Eahs3 Grant upon certain conditions. is no
longer Saeiect 10 them, and that he hiss hecon9e
Gcnuafely the owner, without sng goutlfffoaS
annexed IL TIE eontnuAnee Of his estate. IL is
ike the patent required by the laws OF North
taFolina after the original grant to General
NFceDe. " hieh the court said was fOr the com.
pietlon and authenuestion OF sn instrument at
IKE the case NJ General Greene. Alvarasso han a
vested interest withoutit" Fremont vs. United
States, y Howard. sal
II must h rSEnenhered that we are not claim.
ms under patent issued under any Of the gen
eFal land laws Of the nitei states. bat hv y,r-
the ~ = legislative grant. IN regard 10 Which
giass ~ giants the supreme court of the United
.'Fhe rules applicable 10 private transactions
whfcA FSEafd grants az future application OF
lsudS, "a be afterwards designated IS raere e,,1
ttsciS 60 convey, and not IS sctual cenveysnces
ere tounoou afsaa tAe common law. which re-
qaireS the possibility of present Sesatiacsts ~
prop,rtX 70 the validity Of It's transfer A lscss.
iStfte grSnt opeFStes as law, well IS q trans.
ier 1T The property, and has such fierce a. the
intent of she Legislature requires" TSehule.,
berg vs.. Hartman, u Wallacc. 6e.l
And agslu os the same subject.
"ln the lsEtsiatsa0 Of congress s patent las a
Double operation. IL Is y cOnYeyauee h the