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