I Think The Practice Of The Land Office In This Respect, As Thus
Reported, Is Lawful And Proper:
It being understood, of course, that
thus the acts of alleged selection, possession, and occupation are
performed in perfect good faith.
Something is hinted, in the report of the commissioner, as to the
speculation-character of the proposed town settlement, and, in the
official brief accompanying your letter, as to the
speculation-character of the proposed agricultural preemption. I
suppose it must be so, if the land in question has peculiar aptitude
for municipal uses. But how is that material? The object, in either
mode of attaining it, is a lawful one. Two persons may lawfully
preempt a certain quantity of land under the general law, and intend a
townsite without saying so; or they may preempt avowedly for a town
site. As between the two courses, both having the same ultimate
destination, it would not seem that there could be any cause of
objection to the more explicit one.
So much for the first branch of the second question. As to the second
branch of it, the same line of reasoning leads to equally satisfactory
results.
The municipal preemptor, like the agricultural preemptor, is required
to take his land in conformity with "the legal subdivisions of the
public lands." I apprehend the import of the requirement is the same
in both cases. Neither class of pre-emptors is to break the legal
subdivisions as surveyed. The preemptor of either case may take
fractional sections if he will, but he is in every case to run his
extreme lines with the lines of the surveyed subdivisions. In fine, as
it seems to me, there is nothing of the present case, in so far as
appears by the questions presented, and the official reports and
statement by which they are explained, except a convict of claim to
two or three sectional subdivisions of land between different sets of
preemptors, one set being avowed municipal preemptors, and the other
professed agricultural preemptors, but both sets having in reality the
same ulterior purposes in regard to the use of the land. The
Government has no possible concern in the controversy, except to deal
impartially between the parties according to law. The agricultural
preemptors contend that different rules of right as to the power of
individual or private occupation, and as to the criteria of valid
occupation, apply to them, as against their adversaries. The municipal
preemptors contend that the same rules of equal right, inceptive and
progressive, in these respects, apply to both classes of preemptors. I
think that the latter view of the law is correct, according to its
letter, its spirit; and the settled practice of the Government.
The investigation of the facts of the case, and the application of the
law to the facts, are, of course, duties of your Department.
I leave here the first and second questions; and, proposing to reply
at an early day on the third question,
I have the honor to be, very respectfully,
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 95 of 97
Words from 49523 to 50029
of 50597
