They Are Distinctly
And Clearly Stated, So As Not To Require Of Me Any Investigation Of
External Facts To Render Them More Intelligible.
Nor do they require
of me to attempt to make application of them to any actual case,
conflict of right, or controversy either between private individuals
or such individuals and the Government.
It is true that, accompanying your communication, there is a great
mass of representations, depositions, arguments, and other papers,
which show that the questions propounded by you are not speculative
ones, and that, on the contrary, they bear, in some way, on matters of
interest, public or private, to be decided by the Department. But
those are matters for you, not for me, to determine. You have
requested my opinion of certain points of law, to be used by you, so
far as you see fit, in aid of such your own determination. I am thus
happily relieved of the task of examining and undertaking to analyze
the voluminous documents in the case: more especially as your
questions, while precise and complete in themselves, derive all
needful illustration from the very instructive report in the case of
the present Commissioner of Public Lands and the able brief on the
subject drawn up in your Department.
I. To return to the questions before me: the first is in substance
whether the words in the act of 1841, " portions of the public land
which have been selected as the site for a city or a town," are to
be confined to cases of such selection in virtue of some special
authority, or by some official authority?
I think not, for the following reasons:
The statute does not by any words of legal intendment say so.
The next preceding clause of the act, which speaks of lands "included
within the limits of any incorporated town," implies the contrary, in
making separate provision for a township existing by special or public
authority.
The next succeeding clause, which speaks of land "actually settled or
occupied for the purposes of trade and not agriculture," leads to the
same conclusion; for why should selection for a town site require
special authority any more than occupation for the purposes of trade?
The general scope of the act has the same tendency. Its general object
is to regulate, in behalf of individuals, the acquisition of the
public domain by preemption, after voluntary occupation for a certain
period of time, and under other prescribed circumstances. In doing
this, it gives a preference preemption to certain other uses of the
public land, by excluding such land from liability to ordinary
preemption. Among the uses thus privileged, and to which precedence in
preemption is accorded, are, 1. "Sections, or fractions of sections
included within the limits of any incorporated town;" 2. "Portions of
the public land which have been selected for the site of a city or
town;" and, 3. "Land actually settled or occupied for the purposes of
trade, and not agriculture." Now, it is not easy to see any good
reason why, if individuals may thus take voluntarily for the purposes
of agriculture, they may not also take for the purposes of a city or
town.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 90 of 97
Words from 46796 to 47326
of 50597
