Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The state rights democrat. (Albany, Or.) 1865-1900 | View Entire Issue (May 21, 1880)
RATES Or ADVEtilJS NO. I lw 1 M 3 m 6 M I VK iHSUKf) KVERY FRIDAY BY 1 Inub. 2 1 to 2 on 8 m 4 00 00 7 W 10 00 15 00 a i 6 ) r, no 7 on O 00 ii Oi I s in w mi a mi 7 IK) in eg 2 til 15 il IS Ml zh nr 4U (XI fca'uO U (HI I ft 0 14 eo 30 rt) 40 00 SO toil 15 00 Wit) li! 10- vn to 85 tO 4 10 SI 10 iihi bo 4 " H Cot "A " 1" I ril'K, In ":rmtrrIT.HM.lln.(ai.l,iIr cirnfr llruatialutu mil WrtmU Ms. Buslnes" tiol!f! In the Txs-al folumns 20 eenta per lino. Kor IcrsI and transient advertiaements f i 00 per squam, lor the lirst lnsertlOTT(iii 50 c.nts per square for each subsequent iu sertiorr. ' TERMS Of SCUSCIUrTlOS: Rln-rW mv, psr e,v. Suurie oey, six mHtthi... JSiiL-le jv, llnw ni.ti'lu. sius'ta number i t-i on 2 00 1 00 10 VOL. XV. ALBANY, OimO ON, FRIDAY,--MAY a I, 1880. NO. 42, STATE RIGHTS DEMOCRAT tl ' ' . ' r ' ft 7 3 ? 1 r-" wv I III US PROFESSIONAL CA UDS. . c K. twmnre. K. . Hi witiRtv. HUMrUHEV & W0I.YF.KT0X, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, Albnnx, Orrgoti. W.il .fc::v- in :l the Court in t!u Stil. Pr.iW.0 tliUfr atul colicotl.M attalulrU t riHltHly. V I.'IU.U 1.. KI.1NN. O. '.. I IIAXIIIKKI.AIN FLIXX & CHAMBERLAIN. ATTOKA'E2YS AT LAIY, .MJ::tj , (trCKOn. r.li;Vit in h r's Ilriek r.lo-k.& vl.nlSif. L. H. MONTANYR" ATTOllNEY AT LAW, AND Notary Public. Albany, Oregon. Otlife upstair," over John Vrl-'ir store, ti street, viiicik D. It. N. BI.AUXEUr.2T, ATTORNEY WO CQUSSELQ3 AT LAW Albany, Onuran. Outre up stair Ik the O.I 4 . IIm' Tm plr. W Collection specialty. p;i. J. II. YEATHERF0IU), . (XOTAKY ri'CUCJ iTTOHNFA AT LAW, AUtM, OKl(.. Itril-l. PRACTIl'K IN ALL Til K VOl'IiTS OF TtlE I I SLal. SivcLkJ iiwtilutn tsi U colUs-tiua tuiu i?Ullict Ml tM.l r-ll' Ttn.j lo. 14:2 J. C. rOWKl.L W. K. JULYEU. rOAYKLL & I5ILYHU, vTTORNKYS AT LAW, Aaa Solicitors 1:1 Chauccry. AIXl.W. ... OKtUOX. Collections promptly rna.le on all point. Loan neitiaie.l on rca.-oiiaici let-ma. JSLiriHlUti in Foster' l-tick.- AITOUXEY AT LAW ALB.iW. OSIXttV f)rtii- nps'.air-i in tin OJ.I Kt:l!r I aipl.'T ITOIIXKY At LAW i.Kiiv.u oui:-o.. VV lil ni-ti4i In ait urt M.-tt rTotuii ttu'f!!tm jiiv-'U l will -ti4ili. r:tf V-yrri' ;tn,I Xi!iiiiiutttxi tf lit Km irobau ,3. A. VAVI'I-S A7TOa5iY AN3C i.i r iiv Hit u:U III Kit- ii'ir" H. J. EOUGIITCN, II. D., iieiM. ..... oitrtov. i. VKKrilTV i--e m ik,Ji iifprr l;ilcvue UiNU McaulU CoiU- h4 .rtr V..ik. iHt'-- rei.Jic "ti iw-riwr r.f Fflrth ml Eil.wtr;ii S"trw. uir.t US 'A llm M. K. Ct.nr.-h, ;.T.. lali33ll i. w. iii.lm::, m.i. J. m. puwkli, m.o. DALLAKD "c I'OWKLL, . riiysicians and Surfroons, Lebanon, Oregon. fOCA-e in Ielmnon Vrug Store."!"' vi5nl0tf B. M. SAVAGE, Piysician and Surgeon. AlitHMy, Orcgoa. ' ! I A V I N (i J KAIIUAT Kr IX TIIF. 3 Pli vi-M.-.l!-aI Tn-.t tnle f t'inusn n.tli, lia.- k-M:e.l i:i Alt.'liy. iaTiJiTstus iii KrominV brii'k, (n ctairs ) vM:!7l' Dr. ii. WJLLIS I'liiCE, Odd Fellows' Temple, Oifi.-a liriurs from t- 12, a'"' fr-ni I 1 4 ve'.sr.n-loT Dr. II. J. (Jliurchill, mmvmimmmuzwm tA'.ec in Mi:I.ain'a I'rlck,) Alban, - ... Oregon. C'iiroMip DJservfies a upwriaity. Can be fouti'i :t niy oliii-e at liour of the day tr :!n lieu not pro(ioDa!ly aisc;it. 0. 0. Kelly, H.D., Ishyiciau mid Surgeon, AMMW, OUEliOS. -01H- in M'llwain'n I!!o;k. Itexi tlen. e, oan door north of Jlroom 1-artory. vHnStf J. SUSEAfJ, E3. D.j Successor to Dr. ISrewer.) CIHceand residence on geaend Miecf, near No. 1 Engine IJouso. . 23tf , Ir. T. Ii. irn7 OCCULIST AND AURIST ourco.v. rH.HOLIJEN HaH HAD KXPER1ENTE rv I J trft-na; the vrtu Cifai- to which the eye and ear are mibj.-i-t, and IWh confident of ivihj; enure fiuii8r;iCLum to those who may TAKE NOTICE IF YOU VYAS r A ff.KAN1, f'OMFOKT aLle sbave, Uair cut or lalh kP to tbe FASHION If.y PITTING IIF.AD- QLfARTER.S, wliera yon will find Cns. Engiamler and IJenrr ilackensto always on Land and able 6Ud willing to do good work. Rooms on Firt streettwo doom below Weil.s, Kargo fc Co.'s oiliee. SJJtT JOIIX ELLIOTT, PEACTICAL IJILL WEIGHT, AIIiHiiy, Oregon. Information given cbeerfully. Address ru at Albany. SQit GWAMP LANDS. !vrl !.. r lb Secretary r lle Interior ttrvrrvlng l&e iumlSlmT or Ibr (ieaeral Land nittf In relation lii Knaiup LntuN 111 Oregon. Dl'PA ISTMnXT OV THE IXTEniOU, ) Washington-, April 1.V80. ) To tit Commissioner of the Geittrttl Sis : I luivo consiiK-reJ tlio case of Dennis Cjowloy vs. tie State f Oto- gon, involving tho title to tlio S. W. J of N. U. J, tho of N. W. I, una Lots C, 8, 0 iil 10 of S.ctio 10, Townhliip 39 Sntli, Kango 9 Kast, ami Ixt 4, of Section 24, Townsliip 39 Stiutli, Rango S I'ast, LaVoview IaihI District, Oregon ; on appeal ly tlie Stato from your tloeision of January 2, 1ST?. Th State i-Uims tlie lanl tuuler tlio Act of March 12, 1 SCO (12 U. S. Stat ntes, It in clearly swamp ami over flawed. wilLin tlio meaning of aaiil Act, and is viitnallv H'linitted ti ' kiu-Ii lv Crowley. lliese tracts wcro iftunicil lv tlie Surveyor General in 1S.1S as a part of Little Klamath Lake, but on a re-survey, made m 1S72, plots of which were approved and tiled in April, 1S7.1, thry were returned a public laiuls. Tract of the same general chaiuctur i' Town ships 39 and 40 South, lUnge S Kast, and wliioli were returned in the same mautier Ly said sm vev, have been pat ented to the State as Kw.nmpR. (List Linkville, approved January fth, 1S7C ) In S'pt-mher, 1S72, the (Jovemor of Orejjon filed notice cf the State's claim, and a list of swamp land selections, em bracing said tracts, in the ollic of the Surveyor General, and on December 1, 1872, heGlcd a similar notice and list in the projH-r local Land Ollice. From a stipulation filed Mtao the rendition tfyour decision, it apM-ais that tho Governor afterwards lileil du plicates of said notices and list in the loeal ofilcn on Jun 14, 1 S73, mid Xo- vniiVr 2", 1S7-". K i-h-Mf in HiiHtt i f the i-Uiiu-r i,r Si:(t, i.s in limn in the )lii.t I t Lt Survivor I .Vneinl, '.ut ft lias ii.t tt Inn ;niiii i!-iin I v tnir jr..-. (Voh 'ey c.aiiiiH under 1 1- i t,. jiUoii iaw. ltd has tin- j.-;-nl oj'ialituMthiiri cf 4 pie t uiptor. . Ho wtilcil S.-J.K ii.U r 1, 157.", ith full knowledge t,f the ilnim of the Slate and of tii cluii jolcr i.f li.e j;m.l. Hp tiled his deciaraturv s!a!em;nt in lime. On tho 13th ..f .March, 1S70, ho j- p!ii-d to mak proof und to enter the laud, and asked that the State i.l.oii'il I f notified and a d.iy set fur h lii-ann". lie al. set f.nh i:i hU Hppticaiion the fallowing : : ' " Vou wiil a!.-o take i:ftie that I hereby w-ive all it:eht!on as to the swamnv character cf aid land, and base my claim on said html upon my residence, cultivation and improvement, in good fiiili, as required by law." 15 content, the cast wuh set forhrar ing on ilaroh 20th, 1S7G, and f.tmal notice i&sned accivrdinglr. It is not necessary to e.-ile the p-o-ceedings had nt the trial. It is snllicient to say that Crowley virtually admitted tli land to r sa!,) and ovci flowed, but iusistotl, nevertho les, that it wa sul-jrt-t to tlisMKal un der the pre-emption law, and that he had ft lyjpd ri;ht to enter it, ami he thtreuiMui t-uiirhit tcl- bin proof nud ten dered paviiielt. His pro.if h!iov ihut he hits done all that the piv-entptimi law re.piires to entitle a settler an entry mi 1 patent for land subject to pre-emption disosal. From the foregoing it is apparent that tho case should 1 treated as if the swampy character of the lurid had leen fully and affirmatively pi oven at the trial ; and it follows that the State is not in defaiilt in completing the selec tion tinder the present arrangement with your cilice, within the time lim ited by the second section of the Act of 1SC0, so far as anything she could do is concerned, the period limited having expired Oct. 29, 187C. The question for determination upon the facts is whether or not the land was subject to disjiosal under tho pre-emption law. You held, in effect, that Crowley's compliance in good faith with all the requirements of the pre-emption law, including tender cf payment, consti tuted a sale or disposal of the land within the meaning of the proviso to the Act of SG0, and thereujion award ed the land to him, citing as precedents herefor the decisiqns of my predeces sors, n the cases of the Jgiat'e of Qregoti vs. Stott and Waggoner,- (Gps L. L., 475) and State of Oregon vji. JYe-F.mpr ttoneis, (Copjra K O. for o.einltcr,. 876, page H?). ' . . Your decision, in t ffucf, is that the lands ia Oregon actmdly claimed by the State as swamp and overflowed, and proven, to be identiGed as such, are nev ertheless subject to settlement and dis posal under the pre eruption. law at any time prior to the issuing of patent tin der the Act of 18G0. . While yds doctrine is supported by same of the language of these decisions, especially that quoted by you, and while it may be true that my predecessors in tended to hold that lunda in Oregon shown to ho sanjp and overflowed might ho disposed of under thepre emp tion law to persons making valid settle ments thereon, and who could atTirnm- tively prove that every step in compll area with the law had been taken in perfect jooj faith, it is equally true that, viewing those decisions in the light of the faets of the cases and tho matters actually decided, a doctrine or rule is clearly dudticihle that seems to me to preclude the possibility of uUid re-ctntion tettlmnmitt upon uch lands as gotxl faith in the erformanco of the requirements of tho pre-emption law in regard to tho same. The case of the State vs. Stott and Waggoner was similar to the one under consideration. The land waa fust returned as a jmrt of a, lake, but in 1SG3 it appeared that it waa uncovered for nearly half of each year ; and yielding valuable pasturage, the lines of the public aurvrya were ex tended over it, and the plot waa amend ed accordingly. Tho pre empti.mers of fered their declaratory statements Aug. 2Cth and 27th, 1S71, respectively. The State asserted her claim by filing a list of selections Sept. 19, 1871, and this lespect the case was more favorable to the preemption rights than the pres ent one. Crowley having settled subsequently to the filing of the list by the Oovernor. The claimants apeaied at the local oflice and made proof of compliance with tho. law and tendered aymeiit. Your ellice, finding that the Stale had asserted a claim prior to proof aud ten der of yment by the claimants, or- deicd a hearing. Tho local oflicora awai Jed the land to the State. You reversed their decision and awarded the ttact to Stott and Was goner, holding that the laud was vol of ihe chameter granted. On ap-at, niv preJci-exsor reerwd your decision, and awarded the land to the Stale, on the ground that the claimants hud not acted in good faith, and held that lhg evi dence waa such as almost " to pievlude the possibility of the defendant being claimants in good faith; and this con clusion eeni to have been reached mainly fratu the f.ict that with full knowledKo of tho claim of the State a ltd lh fact that for mote than one-half of every year the land was covered by t r. They moved tijon the tnwts mid en tied small houses oi cabin.". Other circtiuiMnlicen leading to the culiL-iiiMott that ihe pariie were liol' claiming in kmkI faith ai.we, it would set in, out of I lie character f the land i:Mdr. It wan too wtt to etiltivate and on account of it being wet the rabina eie erected on posta, - - t fiowley was a little more fortunate than Stott ami Waggoner in thi. he f.uiiid u nKt of ulwut four acres which, unlike the balance of his claim, was ju.t "uhmerged during the seowin of high water, and which he could cul tivate aod ojion which ho could erect buildings. l!ut this fact by no means changes the principal, which, if followeJ, would defeat Crowley claim, as it did Stott' and Waggoner's. In yMir decision of the other case ciu-d, in which entries had actually been Iteeii made by pieemj.Loi, you atated, 'This oflioe holds that a rali.1 $lttgmenli uiulerthe pre eniptioii law, followed by cultivation, nal proof, and payment, a tender of purchase money,' prior to is sue of patent to the State, is such a disjoMtion of the land as to bring it within the exception of the Act of March 12, 1800, no matter whether the land is roally swamp or not," . Ujion appeal, ray predecessor dis sented front this doctrine, and bis decis ion was to the effect that a valid settle ment could not he made upon swamp lands in Oregon where the State had sieeii notice wf her elnttn, and it follows imlubilablt that hnless there is a valid settlement'there can be no disposal un der the pre-emption law. . . He held, "To settle upon land of a swampy character would of itself, I think, raise a sufficient .doubt of good faith on the part rof such settler as, ujon application, to justify an order for an investigation, and if, itr addition to the character ' of the land, notice had been received at the local office htt tlie State claimed sajd . laud as swamp, H wftuld he an additiojial ju-aof of the Want pf goqd fatU.f. . . Surely not from the fact alone that j the land was swampy, ) . In States to which the swamp land grant has npt been extended tlie fact that land is wet or swampy raises no presnlnption of bad faith in one who settles upon it, nor is swamp land in terms excluded from disposition by the pre-emption law, ' ' " What, then, wasi meant, in 'the decis ion tlt a settlement, upon swamp land in Oregon, with notice of the claim of the State, would be in . bad faith, or wanting in good faith 1 ; -'. ;U , Evidently nothing more than that under such a' state of facts it must have been known that tho land belonged to the State and not to the United States; and that a valid settlement under the pre-emption law cannot bo imulo upon laud which docs not , belong to the -United.. States, or which is legally re served for any purpose, for in that de cision's well m in Jhe cuso of the S's'.e vs. Stott and Waggoner, It was held that the grant of 1SG0 was tt jnwiiti. A aettlemunt in bad fJth or wanting in good faith is an invulid settlement. A settlement ujHin lands not belonging to the United States and when the set tier knows that tho land is legally re served appropriated, or that it does not belong to the United Slates, his settle ment thereon may properlyenough 1 said to le in bad faith, or wanting in good faith, and in this sense I think the expression was used. Other language in the decinion would seem to leave no doubt of this; for it was said lhat the Act of litflO wa notice to all the Gov eminent had granted to the State of Oregon with certain restric tions all the swamp lands and over flowed lands which remained unsold at the pahsagti of the Act. And again that "Under the pie-emption Act lands reserved by law or otherwiae for specific purju-ics nie not' subject to en try." How can a r pre-emption Settle ment tie made njmn laud identified us coming within the ojerative tei tnt i.f a jfrtu-nt grant to tho Stale f" Whatever may Iwj the opinion as to the effect of the ih-cisron cited by you, I am lirmly convinced lhat it is error to so construe tho Act as to permit pre- euiption entries of swamp lauds and overflowed lands in Oregon in the face of an asserted claim id the State or with otlicial knowledge on the part of the Government of tlm fact that the land is swamp and ovei Slowed; and there are many rcawm w hy such a.eou struetioii should iwt prevail. . While the selection f 1 H7- mav have 1-een irregular, hiving U-en made pliortnthe con li ruin tio't i.f tho ht'er sur veys i.fauid Towimhij", llo-y lieveilhc' leaa constituted letlieeof th Sfatwa c'aiui; aud a the Stale mad. no !efaiil ill leiiewiug the claiiit nfier ii.ilic.-cf the euiiliilravijll blin'j ff the ji'iiJa it preaentin naif in Hjj,ii thereof ; no other disposition f l!i Kind was a-rniiiuutb!u until nfu-r a toiiil d.-trt iniim- tiou that the hind t i f the i h ir aeler contcmpla'e I by tlm grant. Finui ihe veiy naluie i f the cum. h decioiou that the I oid whs awaiup and nvet flowei nt the dale i f tlie tM.Uit, tibiit the Uienuiiig cf the Act. iieei k- :n itv dififits Ci-oa lev's claim. In Sheply vsC'owait (I Otto, tf.)Cj the court aaitlr ''Whenever i the dip.Mi t ion of the ptihlie lauds iiiy action in requiri i) to las taken by an ollicer of the laud department all proceedings tending to defeat such action are implicitly inhibited A sate is as much prohibited by a law f Con- grew, when to allow it would defeat the object of that law ns though the inhibi tion wcro in direct terms declared. " The filing of notice of claim ami li.it h of selections and , proofs in support thereof, clearly required action by the land dcartinc!it. Tlie State thus submitted her claims for confirmation under the Act, which confirmation has la-en held to Imi the issuing of l'atent ; but a decuioti by this Dctartmetit that the hind was swamp aud overflowed at the date of the grant is to all intents aud purpose such a confirmation, for such a decinion would entitle tho State .to a patent; and the right to a patent once vested i., in our system of disjsjsal of flie public do main so far as the Government is con cerned, equivalent to a patent issued. Carroll vs. Saflord, 3, Howard 411, and 4G1, Wethenqioon vs. Duncan, 4, Wall 210,212. Stark vs. Stair-', C, Wall, 4 1 Barney vs. Dolph, 7, Otto, G 2, G."G. And in any case in which the claim is initiated by some act of the claimant the patent when issued relates hack to the dattf of the initiatory act and cuts off all intervening claims. (Sheply vs. Cowan, 1, Otto, 337.) In French vs. Fyan (3, Otto, 170), involving title to lind under the Act of 1850 (9, Stat., 519), the Court E.aid : "The patent therefore whJch is the evU denco that tle fond" contained in it had ljpe . identified as swamp lands under the Act relates back and gives certainty to the title as of tho date of the grant," , . . . . ; . To decide, therefore, that a specified tract is swamp and overflowed is to identify it as falling within Iho grant it self, and the jiatent when issued evi dences the fact. , It therefore makes no diffbrence iit this case whether patents under the Act of 18G0-to Oregon be considered as re lating back to the date of the grant or to the date of the initiatory Act of the State in asserting her claim. - In either case a patent to the State wp.n'id, ctt off the intervening claim of Crowley, and to decide lhat the land is of.the of the character granted entitles tlie State to a pfttent and .under the ActoflSGO, makes it the duly of the Secretary of the Intel ior to certify the land as swamp. It is therefore clear that pending the consideration of the State's claim after she lias submitted it for such confirma tion, Jirt othrr (linjmii'.lion of tlii' html run Ut mtuh. A construction of tint Act id 1HC0 that would admit (d a disposition of land in Oregon U vre-emption claim snts pending an asserted and undeter mined claim of the Slate, or with ofli cial knowledge on the part cf tho Gov eriinient that tho land was actually swamp and overflowed at the date of tho grant would bo repugnant to every ration and principle of construction in such cases know n to the law, ait wi ll at against the ordinary met ho I of pro ceedings of your oflice. Such a construct ion would iuvi.lve a poHiiUo defeat of the grant ami t-hotild bo avoided. Again the swamp hmd grant of ls.'n) linn been uniformly held to ! a giant in jirftniti vesting an immediate inter ent in the State iIi-cimou of the denit merit 1st, Lester, luoH, '0', April 20th, 8G2, Juno 27th, 1SC2. 2nd, lister, No. 23, 13,nd Nov. 11, lh7.".. Decision of the Jupretnit Court, Hail road Co. vs. Freeinoiil County, 9, V.d! 7; K-iilroud (!'. vs. Smith, id, ')", French vs. Fyan. 3 Otto, 1C9. Tho provinious of llin Act lu.ikiog such grant were exU-ti bid to Miini'-ot.i and Oregon by th Aet f l'!f.i, tlie Grant la-ing limited only by lhs provi so, and ttit mlatiitt j.iunl In- tma'tnrJ tin if nil jirov'miim if th Act ff IS'-O h'i-l Lent uetual'y iiirttrjMtrttltJ in it. The grant thus ma le to Miiiiu n.ta and Oregon has laen held to ! a pres ent one. (Dechiioii of the licji Ciueut, v'.,..lt,. vs. Stott el.' al." and "Statu vs, Fee. emptors," Supra Dec. 1. i '"7, t'--p L. O p January 1S7.1. 1 at.. I bi.i, vs. Stott," .", Oie...... The grant of is-', f bad ' 1 1. :r-iiii-i ti a 7r-. ,.i.e ni!l i-i'i'i i diy tn ih i- j atiaal to la- Midi ,- pii- r I" I"v':i. ; In exleiiilis g liuit gru.t f-i Mto n- t Kit.'t and On gi.n ('i.rtei I, ti.-w j Icetl.v .V!t tt was itifca its-ilii-ir ;i ' gru.t In prt'M'iiil. It Would tlierefoif la. n!.-iir.l I., j Mipp:w tluit nfter uiikite; mhIi ul jtrant :t provli Inlfiulcd t ilt-tciif ft was nddeil. It follows thai, vbi to the t.ovt ril- itient lias finally determined, either by evbleiieu submitted by the State or fiirnWuil by I.s own i-urveys ilmt t. in .l-i In Oregon tire of llu eliar.ieter gr.ntrd by the Act of ISoO. they nre laotl IdltUi.'ied its filling within tho ojieraitva titires.tif tho grant itself, and they cannot 1m brought within the exception, nor ean the Klale'.-i title la (livcsteil by any, other atteitiplcd clifposiil, Again lauds Ihus identified ih not belong to the United States, and con soqticirily nro not Public land-t. Un der tho Act of 1 81 1 pre-emption set tlement Is admissible only upon Pub lic html; nnil'by Set thm 22o7 U. S. Uevlsod Suituta; oe.ly lands Is-long-Ing to tho United States anil mibjoct to tlio right of pre-empt ton. More over under tho Act of 1841, rind sec 22o8 U. H. llcvUed StatnfiM lunU lawfully reserved for any purismu tire expressly excluded from pre-emplion tlIsos:tl ntul In thy ('.nen of IViilroel Company vs. Fremont county rind IliUlrouil Company vs. Smith it was held that tho Act of 1S50 create.l a reservation of Swamp land nud it has been frequently ilechled that .n patent Issued for land previously granted or rserved U void. A pro emption claim cannot there foro be recognized to land known to bo gem ted or reservetl rhero tho claim was initiated subsequent to tho grant or reserva4lon, nnd it seems clear that lands identified, as falling within tho operative terms of n pres ent grant cannot bo otherwise dis posed of by the United State It Is unnecessary In the eaee to fur ther consider tho ccopo, force or in tent of the proviso to the A,et of J SCO, whether it wa,s. intended to protect only aH rlnnas initialed prior to tho passage Q.f tho Act, op to prevent tho disturbing of entries which In tKo course of adjusting tho grant may bo found to Iinvo been allowed in good fdi til in the nbsenco of nny claim of the State nnd without proof or knowl edge by the Government that r tho hinds covered thereby were swamp. That It wasnot Intended torontinuo the disposal uuder general laws of land found to be swamp or to dispose of land Jn tho face of nn asserted nnd undetermined claim of the Stato is obvious : " To this extent only id It hero in tended to construe tho proviso. Your decision is roversed. and the papers sabnultted with yeur leftef of October Oil, 1879, are herewith returned. ' Very llospoctfully, c. r'iiunz, - Secretary. nn, crattct-'s m-iin, A mi any, May 11, lsn, A'Jitvr Jjrmocrnt . There aro some a.rtionn f Mr. (Jnorge's speech, made ' in this city on Saturday, the fUli inst., that, with your permission, I projioite to examine. And first, tho Federal lection law. Mr. George Raid it acted "like a char m." That the Presiilent'nl election of 1S7G was fairly conducted under the ma chinery of said law in tlie city of New York, I eoncede to bo true, for a Con gresiiiorial Committee have so found the faets, and so repotted, but Mr. George withheld and did net give us any ac count of the means brought lo Is-ar to flft'oiuptihh this Jmj'j'y result, which I will now supply. The Stato of New York and Ihe City of New York were prepaced w ith their civil force and their militia to tepid unjust infer feretn e in the election bv Federal forro or other wine, A conflict whs imia-ihliri" The belter part f the eitieiia .f bolli par lies ngreed iqan n plan of action by which tlie. Feih'i al, State, nnd Citv ofli- ;rs and police were t,t nn I Jhl, net in hatiuony nnd concert. Hence it was not to the .Federal '-! i.n law that the people cf New York t.'irv o-cd the fait'lil KH niid qi.ii-l HI S i f Said elect ion, but lo the h-al aiilhci ities who fer once did hold the Federal Maridial ami Sttpei isots in ehrck. To show the fie- encitly of this Federal -! ciimi Jaw Mr. George ii-fcrri-d to the New York City election cf Novi-nda r, 1 SC., mid Mr, Greeley 'a letter lo Mr. Td.h-n in refer- ence thereto, ar.d rhil'd what he was plcSt-cd to call the ii.f.. my of that elec tion upon the Ivui'X'iaMe patty. In this he w.n t qually rinf.iir, not to say f.th.e. It is well known to cery intel ligent :uau .in the land vho has taken the pains (.. inf.nii himself uiam the subject that the entire machinery cf the elections if 1SCH sr.d 1870 in New Y.nk t'iiy wbs in the hands of Police Coiiiiiiiiu-iKiicr. encli f whom were sp-p-.ii,ti. by H Keptibliean l'giil.ttllie, a'.a thai the 1 1, iii.ki alie part r of New I ! l.'ii f w ere fU(-itn4 to Sy whoJ ! l-ioi'-l i. c,-ii- in- rout. t i heir vot s, tr J'.-M tij;j llu q-fvliiical l.'ll cf the a-l- . .. i.:i,n;i(,i voti-. .i Iran i ws U cii' 'i-an fiflirLda. Tlx- allege.! fnd of ISGSt was the l u-.'e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' .( -r of foreigtiers rial unilii-1 during tl at year, w Iiom paer, it was add. wen- illegal, Iwtiiw the record of t!i ui kej.t in i he Cuius were iirqa-r-feet, nud in Rniue cum-s tut record at all -n kfj.t. I'.nt why va it that ten years waa (.tillered to c-lipst la fore legal Vrtn were taken to t.i.t rlcJ Validity of these iiatt'.niliauition psja-ral Tiie at tenij.t wai not made until l.7S, and in that ;,er a Federal ofi'cer the United S'atc Cururuiahiouel slepa in mnl un blti .hiii'dy lavatiU that e hi nick from th registry 30,012 votes in the City of New Yotk of those naturalized in 1SGS, many of whom li'ii served in the Fed eral army. lut a Federal Judge lilatchford and a State Judge Tweed man lrnth held "lhat the applicant for citieuahip was not responsible for any nnn-oompliance in utuking up the rec ce. I, and that though, some i f i)u-e nat uralization jatpcrs were irregular, moio of them weio valid." Si much for the great fraud of 18GS, that it waa incon venient for Mi'. George to relate. Tiiero is another chapter cf illegal voting, to which Mr. George did not re fer, that my Self-imposed task calls ujon nut Ui notice. 1 refer now to the He publican City cf Philadelphia, ir the liopiiblii.un State of Pennsylvania, and tho Presidential election of'.187G. That city, with a population of ataiut 800, 000, had a registration for that election of lSfi.000. New York City, with a pop'ulation nearly Sfiy a?r cent, greater, had a registration at the name time cf 183,000 three thousand less than Phil adelphia. Over 20,000 of the names upon the Philadelphia registry were, after tho election, stricken out by the Courts. Over 8,000 were in thoir graves when tht ir names were regis tered. Heboid the two cities, ye Radi cal oratora4 a"d denounce coiruption until your speech fails. Again, Mr. George referred to what ho was pleased to call the attempt rof the Democracy in Congress to coerce the President ; taking thrPresident by the throat ; that the motives of the Demo crats in Congress in seeking a modifica tion of tho Federal election law were corrupt; "that they might be ablo to carry tho elections through, fraud, etc. Let its see if there .is not another side to this pint of Mr. George's discourse that helid not hold up for thaaudience to look iqion. Thero certainly iandl will proceed to tdiow it. '. .First, it is know n to all. that in our country the people are the ultimate source of all power ; that theh' representatives in Congress are supposed to reflect the. will of the people ; that the President, while he is the chief cxeontive officer of the Federal government, L none the less a servant of the people, and whet they spoke to him through their repre sentatives and said, "the States claim and demand the right . to conduct all elections, s ex etc hied fiom the fjimda- . e i t . . . . . it . . i ton oi mo "-v-ei rimcm, it, whs Ins duty to yield, fir he did Dot pretend that any constitutional question inter posed. Put what did he do? Instead of Congress throttling the Pi-esident, nnd naying to him, "aign this bill, or we will starte ihe "oveiMneiit," the Presi dent tbloU'rd Congress, the ja-cple'l rfi'i-efeiitativiH, and viituuliy said to them, "if you divest n,e of tho jajwer to appoint as many Marshal as I sec fit. to fcuirouu 1 the jiollrf, to arrest and take to piixou, without comp'ttifit or warrant, as niar.y Democratic voters as they cheese. j;.l otherwise iiitiinidate Democrat io voters, to the end that the Itepublieati rauxe 1,:,H 1r"VMil, wiil starve the g"overiiiiiiit !" " Mr. IMitor, this is no on r-ilni n pic ture cf that other side which Mr, George did u,l show. " If the K-publi cans claim In exercise the riht t.t at tribute to Democrats corrupt luutivea in seeking t; iei;d ihe law. Democrat con w iih riptaily gfenl reason claim that the law ns enacted fur the pi:rpose of Coil!llll,ilig th.t llejuiblieaii patty in powi t- by Irenl anl iutiinidation. WILLAM LTT1L the ui rut nu Jt UCl.-JMl-. Tho filhnving is etithled to great weigiit, roiuhrg as it does from the Xuiulai Welcome, tlie leading, nriil alsjut tiro only p srt-ly indcporident paper In tin; Slate. Head It cIoi ly Tho flelioii f,f certain Ko-crdlcd In- d-iM-ndent patters In trying ro force polities lnt' ttio canvass for judges is condemned by all independent voters. Polities, it i-r Justly claimed, rtiould never errb-r into the canvaionly the fitness of tlie candidates themselves for the position sought r-hould Ik? con siilered; nnd tr the Independent iki per it is, llio A'i'..y Wvlcomr eschews poiitit"! and support-s" those, who in its opinion, Is eou.tldered the hot f.: tetl for the Ix-nt-h." For Sopreino Court tlio Dcin-x-rab have jil.iceil tho following candidates In the field; J. IC Kelley, of Mult nomah: p. P. Prim, of Jaeksonnd John Uurrrelf, nf Denton. Ami the Hepulilji-ans liavn rioininated tlsi f b lowing fur tin-siiiKi p sdihm: J. 15. 'li', of y ultriMiua'.t ; W. 15. lud, of M trloir, rind yM ;. Watson, of Jackson. Of lite Democratic muni nees, Hon. J. K. Keili-y and Hon. P. I. I'rim sr.' t iim.I. - tiiexr course, tiutsidt of a few who were of fended by decisi iin renJerwl a-riin-t llieiii, Jias given unqualified satiifac- iio.i bi;ij i.i;:rKiii inem as jtr-Hns alsive bnuery enber by bulldozing, threats or otherwise. One .f tin; bert arcumeiiis for their election 5s unconsciously put forth by the Orej 5i.i4ii its adv eacy of tlio clecti u of Jinlse Doi-e for the third judicial district. Judge lioivt is one of the judges of the Supremo Court, and In participating in its pr.K-eedmg-', ami who Jointly with either one o-both of tho other judges, reader decisions in all eases brou -ht la'foro the courr; sliHiil.l, we would think, merit equal condemnation, provided tlio condem nation was just, with Judges K i!y and Prim. But tho Crjonian siti jrlcf out tho two Democi.ttic rnemlers fir condemnation and stands ii for tho Ik-publicans. Surely this Is con sistency with a vengeanco and shows what an independent newspaper it is. If Judge Boise does not merit con demnation, neither do Judges Kelly and Prim. After u thoroirg'r canvass of tin candidates wo will supjtort, unh-s moro substantial rea.ons bo adduced than those brought forward by bull dozers nnd those differing in slitfes, J. K. Kelly, P. P. Prim and W. 15. Iml, the llrst two Democrats, and the latter Bepublicm. Our reiLsons, w6 will, as the eauvass progresses. givo nt times moro fully, but for the present, we will only say lhat Judges Kelly and Prim have maturer age, experience nnd ability, nnd Mr. Lord, tho vitality nnd quickness of younger years, combined with legal learning. Tho first two nre. exjajrienced in all the -different qualifications or posi tions which pre-eniinontly fits them for the Judiciary of this State : as their history is, to n great extent, tha history of the State. This, of itself, is of the grentfst possible udvantasro in cases brought before tho Supreme Court, wherein a personal knowledge of the constitutional and legislative history of the State is required. As tu the chajgea brought forward against Judge Kelly in tho Patrick cipher dispatches from this State in the Presidential embroilment, no one knowing him personally or by repu tation gives tho charges tho least con sideration. This .is the better set forth by the action of the United States Senate when tho matter was about to bo investigated John Kelly, then United States Senator from Or- egn, made a statement of the facts in the premises, which by his col league, Senator Mitchell, and his fel- rupon tho affair was dropped. It is a noticeable fact that his vilest enemies are unable to mako any charge against him save this one II V- COWld. Tu following is a provision -of the' new school law at Utah : "Any pu pil of a district school, at the option of his parents or guardian, or at his own option if he has no parent or guardian, may continuo his studies to tho four fundamental branches spelling, reading,' writing, and arith metic. The tuition ee of any pupil, by et J,n whoso behalf such option shall be taken, shall in no case; ex ceed $1 per term, in addition to his proportion of tho territorial appropri ation. ' - - YMSIII.-tCiTe LfZTTKH. IrlUia 0l Mlt t4 CtKRKtrKXMXT.) , Wasiiixotox, T. C, May 7. Ktllkr Jjemocrat : " While Congress is occupied with rou tlno bulnei-. showing considerable industry in dispatching It, there Is little to attract special attention, and but for the general interest in poliU cahaffalrs outside of Washington wo should have rather quiet times hero. Just now. But the importance at taching to the tcveraj political con ventions lately held, and their bear ing upon the approaching campaign, has given the politicians of the Capi tol ail tho excitement necewnry, and some sc l ious reflections as well. Tho compromise In the interest of harmo ny in ih Pennsylvania Convention was unlocked for, and the'announce inent of it was received- with very great satisfaction. It U gratifying to know that both Speaker Eandall and Senator Wallace, who have so long been leaders of warring factions, re alize that the canse of Democracy 13 more than personal supremacy, and that personal strifes must einJc out of sight before if. li'tli certainly had too much nt stake, in -oramon with the parly, thi year to admit of division.-, and the pnrly at large could not have forgiven them for their fail ure to bury the hatchet. According to nil accounts receivtKl here Camer onixm HI have its hand- full in Pennsylvania this year. It is to lie regretted tint ihetNew York Democrats aro not united. Yet tho situation there was materially different. So long as the Tammany Hal! and John Kelly factions were in oien reliellion and loudly proclaim ing that they would not abide; by the aetioii of either the State or ihe Na tional Convention, unless the action was precisely to their notion, there was no chance for a compromise. T'.e action of the regular convention is generally regarded to have been all that could be done consistent with the dlgnit' and honor of the party. The personal interests of any Demo cratic candidate are nothing, but the great principle of majority rule is ev efythinsr, and nny ni:in, ur set nf men, who openly declare war upon it can not I.e regarded as true Demis Mi ,-tci.iH.i i;ifi u iii i .i tuac Mr. Kelly Is paving ihe wsy for an attempt to carry out his Uirgain to deliver tho State of New York to Cuiiklinj; this year, but there are signs that he will trot be able to de liver as large a following as former ly ' It really does seem to be su unfor tunate circumstance that so inany Democrais nave )jinrj. i it,,, bitter personal attacks upon promiuent can didates In the party, and more than any other one thing that has placed our chances of success this year in jeopardy. I am not championing: tho cause of Mr. Tildeo, but as a fair man and an earnest Democrat T am free to say, with thousands of" others, that the opposition to him has been most disgraceful, under all the cir cumstances. Eves if he were not the able and devoted Democrat that ho is he stands, s long as he lives, as tho representative of a great cause the victim ef a gieat wrong, not alone Jo himself, but to the party and tho liberties of the American people. The Democratic patty owed to it self to stamp lhat outrage with the brand of verwhelming condemna tion. Let it lie quietly asked of Democrats anywhere, who they think ought to be the next President of the United States, and tine out of ten will tell you Samuel J. Tilden ; ye not half that proportion now fovor hk nomination because they feel thai the opposition to him is too great that he has been slaughtered; in the house of his friends. Here in Con gress we have some of tho bitterest opponents of Tildek. They say they nre against him because he was "cowardly" in not seating himself when elected, jet many of them aro the very ones who were tlie hottest in favor of the Electoral Commissiooi swindle, and who hob-nobbed with Charley Foster and other friends of the present fraud before ttio count finished. This is plain talk, but ft i the truth. And now this sort of thing has gone so far . that, unless there is a powerful reaction, I do not think it would be safe to nominate Tilden, Leaving poetic justice eat of the question, there are two other Democrats whom I would personally like to see in the Presidential maa sion, in preference to Tilden or any body else. They are Horatio Sey mour nnd Allan G. Thurman. Put both aro apparently out of the ques tion. This District has just elected two Seymour delegates to tmcinnau, and the Washington 1'ost continues to advocate his nomination, yet I personally know that he positively will not run, udder any cireum- .. . ..... . -A a I s I i i T?rm Kr ira n nnmt. oltioceo- J kji ..v -L . '""ni i. wwiui nation, thero is scarcely a shadow oft a doubt. Gratit will bo the man. Puoxo