Uasbiigffi M§) Sfxiistl VOL. 11. THE WASHISGTOK STANDARD —l* IB9L'LL> ITCHY SATURDAY MORNING BY J OH* MILLER IHI'RPHV, Editor and Proprietor. Kubttc-rlption Riiln: I'er Annum $3 00 " Six Months 200 IS VARIABLY IS ADVANCE. Adicriltlig Rain: One Square, one iusertion, $3 00 Kacli additional insertion 1 00 UusinesS Cards, per quarter, 5 00 So)r A liberal deduction will be made in favor of those who advertise four square), or upwards, by the year. 9ay-Notices of births, marriages and deaths in serted free. Bvjjr Manks, Hill Heads, Cards, Dills of Fare, Circulars, Catalogues, Pamphlets, &c., executed at reasonable rates. ((•ajrAll communications, whether on business or for publication should be addressed to the cdi itor of the WASHINGTON .STANDARD. OFFICE—In Karnes's building, corner of Main and First streets, near the steamboat lauding. A 8. 11 AI.LIDIE W. T. GRAVKS. A. §. lIAE. LI DIE & CO., ME SOTSIiI BRIDGE IK AND MANUFACTURERS OF Patent w ire Rope Wire suspension bridges of any span and capac ity erected, utid material furnished. Having been constantly engaged in the erection of Wire Suspension Bridges and Aqueducts for several years past, we are fully prepared to do such work satisfactorily und to GUARANTY PERMA NENCY. Parties who are about erecting bridges will find it greatly to their advantage to give us a call be fore deciding to build wooden structures ns the recent floods throughout the State have proved them to be wholly unsafe and unreliable. A num ber of our wire tutpemiom are now in me in different localities throughout the Slate, no one of which hat been in the leant affected by the fre»het>. WIRE HOPE, for mining or ferry purposes, manufactured, of any leugth and size required, being cheaper and better than hemp. Scales of weight and strength, trtth prices an nexed, furnished, on application to the uaunfac urers. Send for a Circular. A. S. IIALLIDIE & CO., 421 Clay street San Francisco. January 11, 18t>2. B:mJ EDWARD A. MORSE & CO., IMPORTERS AND DEALERS IN Dins, mows m mm, WOULD inform the trade in California, Ore gon and Washington Territory that they have opened a new establishment for the sale of DOORS, WINDOWS AND ULINDS of every des cription. One of the partners residing in Boston (who has shipped the above goods tothis market since 1849,) enables us to keep a thorough, and extensive as sortment. which we will sell at as low prices as any ill this market. Parties sending for goods by letter can rely on having the same at as low prices as if ordered in person. Orders by letter or otherwise will be promptly and faithfully fulfilled. We also attend to the buying and selling of oth er merchandize. EDWARD A. MORSE & CO., 11 and 13 California st., asd 114 and 116 Market st., San Francisco, and JOIIN HALL, 173 Black stone St., Boston. Ifi:m3 OLYMPIA WAGON MANUFACTORY. Stuart & Blackshear, WOULD inform the citizens ofOlym- cJTlfcK' pia and the surrounding country OrF—W that they are now manufacturing WAUONS, CAR RIAGES and BUGOIES of all descriptions, from thebestof imported material, by experienced work men, for which WHEAT will be taken in exchange, delivered at the Turawater mills. Shop corner 3d and Chinook Streets. Olympia, December 8, 1860. 4:tf 010. t. KKVNT J. D. ALSXANDKB (Late of H. H. Bancroft & Co.) BOOKS AND STATIONERY. QAA VOLS. LAW BOOKS. 10,000 Vols. Miscellaneous Book*. 100,000 Vols. School Books. 1,000 " Medical Books. 2,000 Reams Letter Paper. 600 Reams Cap I'aper. 500 Reams Legal Cap, and 500 Reams Note Paper. 500,000 Envelopes, assorted. For tale at the lowest rates by KENNY * ALEXANDER, •04 and 608 Montgomery Street, Ban Francises, Juae 3, 18S1. 33:m6 AIK A t.T. CLOTHINC EMPORIUM, 178 Clay St., and 107 Montgomery St., San Francisco, Aid ITS Broadway, Kew lark. CONSTANTLY on hand the best selected ud ly molt eztPDsiTe•iiortmrnl of Gents'and Boys' Clothing on the Pacific coa»t, which we can aud wil| Mil lowtr than any other House. B«r'i aM «•■(»* (ItlhlM made «• Order. J.OCKWOOD, EWKU * CO. January, 19 IJMI, 10:ly CHABLEfI P. BOBBINS, Importer aad Dealer la TYPE, PRESSES, PRINTING MATERIAL INKS, CARD STOCK, 4c. No*. 11l 11S Clay Street. Ran Fransisco, January sth, 1861.10:!y J. W. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW. Solicitor ia Chancery, and Proctor in Admiralty. Seattle, March, 1861. le.tf OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON TERRITORY, APRIL 12, 1862. A GAMS OF UFB: A HOMILY •V JOHN U. «AXT There * a game much in fashion—l think it'i called Eurhrr ; (Though 1 never have played it, for pleasure or lucre.) In which, when the cards are in certain conditions, The players appear to have changed their positions. And one of them cries, in a confident lone, " I think I muy venture to go 11 altmt!" While watching the game, 'til a whim of the Bard's, A in»nil to draw from that skirmish < f cards, And to fancy be finds iu that trivial strife Some excellent hints fur the battle of Life ; Where—w hethcr the prize be a ribbon or throne— The winner is he who can '• go it alone I" When great (IALILKO proclaimed that the world lu a regular orbit was ceaselessly whirled, And got —not a convert —for all of his pains, Hut oulv deri.-ion and prison and chains. " It moves, for all that was bis answering tone, Fur he knew. like the Lurth, lie could •• go it alone I" When KKI'I.KR, with intellect piercing afar, Discovered the laws of each planet and star, Ami doctors, who ought to have lauded his name, Derided his learning, und blackened his fame, "lean trait!" he replied, "till the truth you shall own For he felt in his heart he could " go it alone I" Alas ! for the player who idly depends, In the struggle of life, upon kindred or friends ; Whatever the value of blessings like these, They can never atone for inglorious ease, Nor comfort the coward who funis, with a groan, That his crutches have left him to "go it alone I" In battle or business, whatever the game, In law or in love, it is ever the same ; In the struggle for power, or the scramble for pelf. Let this be your motto—" Rely on yourtelf!" For, whether the prize be a ribbon or throne, The victor is he who can " go it alone I" Opinion and Decision of the Surveyor Gen eral. ( Concluded.) Another question is also presented as to the construction of the language of the grant. Whether by it, 640 acres are really granted and conveyed, or merely the amount occupied by the Missionary improvements, the language being " not to exceed G4O acreß." In giving this law or this language a con struction, we incline to the belief that Con gress recites that religious societies who have sent missionaries into Oregon to establish stations among the Indian tribes, for their conversion, are entitled to aid and recogtition from the Government. The missionary labor with the Indians is the consideration—the condition precedent. The words are plain : "the title to the land not exceeding 040 acres, "then occupied as missionary stations among " the Indian tribes in said Territory—bo con " firmed aud established." This question as to the amount of the grant, is stripped of some of its difficulties, by the fact tnat the Commissioner of the General Land Office, has already decided what con struction is to bo given to the language, " not exceeding 640 acre*." Under date of Au gust 18th, 1853, the Department instructs Surveyor General Preston, in whose district this station was then located, as follows: af ter reciting the proviso to the Ist section of the Oregon Organic act, he says, " such pro " vision is understood to grant 640 acres to " each separate and distinct missionary station " referred to, and n like provision is made in " the act to establish the Territorial govern " inent of Washinglon." " In order to comply with the temu of the "grant., under circumstances where the land "• now occupied together with the improve " • ments thereon,' cannot be brought into le " gal subdivisions without doing manifest in " justice to the Missionary station, it will be " come necessary to cause to be made a spec " ial survey of a square mile which shall in " elude the land occupied, with buildings and " improvements in tne centre as nearly as " may be." Clearly showing that the grant is 640 acres, on the consideration of having formed mis sionary stations among the Indian tribes, and not as contended by the opponents of the Mission, merely circumscribing the grant to the land actually used or covered by the build ings and improvements. This grant was not intended to induce set tlement, but in consideration of already ren dered service by the grantee. In September, 1850, it makes grants to actnal settlers, who will thereafter occupy, cultivate and reside in Oregon. But in this act (the act of August 14, 1848.) it acknowledges a just and equita ble claim to the grant oi' land by the I'nited States for the service performed by these Missionaries. Of just such a grant the Su preme Court of the United States, in the case of Fremont rs the United State# (17 Howard p 558) says, " although this cannot " be regarded as a money consideration, mak " ing the transaction a purchase from the •• Government, yet it is the acknowledgement of a just and equitable claim." In that case, as in this, it was contended that the description was so vague and uncer tain, nothing passed by the grant, and that Alvarado, to whom the grant was made, had no vested interest until the land was surveyed. The Court remarks that "as between him " and the Government, be had a vested inter "est in the quantity of the land mentioned in " the grant. The right to so much land to be laid "off by official authority, in the Territory " described, passed from the government to " him by the execution of the instrument w granting it." The same principle was held in the case of Rutherford vs heirs of Gen. Nathaniel Greene, 2 Wbeaton 196, which was a grant by North Carolina 25,000 acres out of the land, for ha officers and soldiers. The Supreme Conrt remark that in both these rKKn Fremont rt the United State*, and Rutherford m Greene's heirs, that '• It recog " nizcH OK a general principle of justice and « municipal law, that such a grant, vests in " the grantee a present and immediate inter " est. In the language of the Court, the gen " eral gift becomes a particular gift, uhen " the surrey it made" A reference to the whole opinion delivered in that case, becomes valuable. A portion of it is devoted to the consideration of whether Alvarado, by certain omissions, forfeited bis grant. In the case under consideration, much weight is attached to the omission of the mis sion to fix their lines by survey. The very instructions under which this investigation lias been pursued, answer oil these objections. Till .September 1851), by positive instructions from the General Land < )ffice, surveys could not be extended over the lands claimed by the Hudson's Hay Company as covered by tlieir possessory right* secured to them under the treaty of 1846. Again by the positive injunction of the General Land Office, of date Augjst 18th, 1853, the Mission was precluded from assert ing its claim. The following is the language of the Commissioner in his letter of that date to the Surveyor General of Oregon. "In case any mission station should be "found to fall within the unadjusted limits " claimed by the Hudson's Hay or Puget " Sound Agricultural Companies, you will re " ceive evidence of the claim, and all the facts " respecting the same, but be careful that no " tpeciul surrey or definite action is had tliere "on until the receipt of special instructions " from the Department." No such special instructions came until the letter of the Commissioner to my predecessor, bearing date the 29th day of September 1859, in which this office is instructed to extend the public surveys over the tracts claimed by the Hudson's Hay Company, and to lay off the Mission claim in accordance with section (>, of the act of Congress approved September 2/th 1850, otherwise called the Donation Law. The delay therefore of the Mission, under the circumstances apparent, can work no in jury to their " claim," and works no forfeiture of the grant. We approach the next feature of this case with'extreme diffidence, and confess the array of difficulties here presented, by the occupan cy of a large portion of this land by the Mil itary Post at Fort Vancouver. It has already been intimated in this report, that the grant to the Mission, took effect and was in full force from August 14th 1848, as between the Mission and the United States, subject only to the lien and encumbrance, which by treaty stipulation, had been im posed upon the United States by the 3d ar ticle of the treaty of limits between the United States and Great Britain. In May 1849, and after the grant to the Mission, by invitation of the officers in charge of the Hudson's Bay Company's post at Fort Vancouver, Miy. Hathaway, U. S. A., took pott, and stipulated to pay rent, and in the contract agreed to hold possession and use said post, under and subject to all the rights the Hudson's Bay Company possessed.—• They were in fact tenants of the said Compa ny, and by force of circumstances the lease expired with the possession, or to the possession of said Company, that is to say at the expiration of the license of said Company to trade, which occurred May 30th 1859. If our doctrine be correct, that on the 14th day of August 1848, the United States grant ed, confirmed and established unto the relig ious society, to which the Mission of St. James belongs, the tract in question said tract was not within the operatiou of the act of 27th September 1850, nor of the act of Feb. 14, 1853. All the proceeding* in regard to the estab lishment of this Beaervation, may be briefly stated, aa follows: In May 1849, Hathaway, U. S. A., leased of the Hudson's Bay Company, suffi cient buildings for garrison, quarters &c., with privilege of adjacent unoccupied lauds. In May 1850, by order of Gen. P. F. Smith, under directions of the War Depart ment, Col. W. W. Loring U. 8. A., declared a Reserve of 4 miles square. Under the act of Feb. 14, 1853, limiting the quantity of Reservations for forts, to 640 acres, the War Department on 29th Oct., 1853, directed the reatriction of the Reeerve to 640 acres its present limits, which limits were de clared by Col. Bonneville, U. 8. Army, then in command at Fort Vancouver, on Vve. Bth 1853. On 17th January 1854, a board of officers reported on the tmlwe of tit imyrvrtmeuU within the lines, the Mission asserting no claiui. We are aware that large improvements have been made on the Military reaervation. a vast expenditure of public money has been incurred, and such fact is sought to be urged as a reason why rested rights of others should be interfered with. The improvements of the Hudson's Bay Company were not such improvements as were included in proviso to the 9th Section of the act of Congress approved Feb. 14th 1863. Under the treaty or 1846, the United States could not force the Hudson's Bar Conn i)any to tahe the price appraised by the board of officers, nor could they, except on free volition of the Company, expel them from the trading post, established under the
treaty of joint occupancy, till their possessory rights had ceased and determined. Hence the appraisement then made was a mere cere monial report, made in conformity to the jp- M ruction# of the ReerHvy of War. The fact thai such land could not bo m—J, except bv the eoamt of the Company, takea it oat of the purview of the act, under which they claim thia reservation waa made, for the Company could in no event be conaidertd aa a tettUr malting an tmprocement previous to respiration. Nor ia the right of the Mission surrendered aud lost by such form and ceremony. If they acquired anything by tlie grant of Aug. 4th 1848, they obtained the right to the fee, and of that they could not be divested by a mere appraisal and pay for the value of the improve, meat* Thia doctrine ia fully auataioed ia the ease of the Dalles Methodist Mission. A fort, or military reserve, having been estab lished including a portion of a tract of G4O acres which would include the improvements of tli.it station, the Government gave them $•.'(1,0(1(1 for the portion covered by the Milita ry reservation.— Art* of Congress 1660, June IG. Chap. CXLIV. of the pamphlet laws, Ktrion .t 'tiO-Gl. My reference to the Dalles Mission case, it will be seen there were some circumstances showing that the Mission was not absolutely in occupancy on the 14th Aug. 1646, in con sequence of the hostilities of the Indians, it being shortly after the massacre of the late Dr. Whitman. Besides a transfer had been made iu 1817, from the Methodist Mission to the American Hoard. The station was re- transferred to the Methodist Mission, in Feb ruary lHif). ltroken as wns this possession and occupancy, the grant was considered ab solute and n vested interest in the mission, and the land intruded upon by themilitary authori ties at the I )alles, cost the Government $20,000. We are compelled to decide, therefore, from the evidence before us, that the military re serve was made upon land previously granted to the mission, and so fur as it lays within the lines of the mission, must bo held subject to the proprietary rights of the mission granted and confirmed to said mission by the Act of Aug. 14, 1848. So far as the claim of the city of Vancou •ver is concerned, then) is no very great diffi culty. This claim is based upon the Ist sec tion of the act of Congress of May 23d, 1844, entitled, " An an act for the relief of citizens of towns upon land of the United States, un der certain circumstances," the Ist section of which, under which the claim is Bought to be supported, being as follows: "Whenever any portion of tlie suiveyed public lands has been or shall be settled upon and occupied as a town site, and therefore not subject to entry under the existing pre emption laws, it shall be lawful, in case such town or place shall be incorporated, for the judges of the county court for the county in which such town may be situated, to enter at the proper land office, and at the minimum price, the lands settled and occupied, in trust for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof, according to their respective interests." Vide U. S. Statute* at Large, Vol. V. p. 50, Chap. X VII. On au examination of the record and evi dence in this case, we find that the county aut thoritiesof Clarke county, on the 3d day of July, 1850, proceeded to locate a quarter-tec tion of land for the county teat of Clarke county, not under the law above quoted, bu under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 26th, 1824, entitled, "An act grauting to the counties or parishes of each State and Territory of the United States in which the public lands aro situated the right of pre-emption to (joarter-sections of lund for seats of justice within the same.— U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. IV. p. 50, Chap. CLXIX. This makes a grant to the several counties in the States and Territories, where there are public lands, at the minimum price for which public landß of the United States arc sold, the right of pre-emption to one quarter-section of laud, respectively, for the establishment of seats of justice therein: Provided, the pro ceeds of Bales of said quarter-sections shall be appropriate for the purpose of erecting build ings of the said county: And provided Jwr (her, that the seat of justice for said counties, respectively, shall be fixed previously to the sale of the adjoining landt within the county or parish for which the MUM is located." The county of Clarke appear to have aban doned their claim to the town of Vancouver under this law. The city appear to renew a claim under the act of March 23d, 1844. W • think the county lost their itatmi as claimants by the legislation of the Territory of Wash ington at its fiimt session locating the eomly seat of Clarke county upon theland claim of Mrs. Esther Short. (See laws W. T. Seas. 1854, p. 475.) "That the county seat of Clarke county be, and the suite is knbj, lo cated and established at Columbia City, on east portion of Mm. Short's land claim** But had not the comity authorities aban doned their location and claim, this low wis not applicable at the time of said location. The lands in Oregsn were not pmhkc Imnds. subject to pre-emption. Ths specific land* iu rut ion were encumbet*d by a claim against L'uited States, under the Trent J of 1846. We have no evidence of the city claiming by any subsequent action rf the eonuty au thorities of Clarice. or the corporate authorities of the town or city ol Vancouver, although by tbe instructions of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the arguments of the council, we find the act of May, 1844. berrbefore quoted, relied upon to support the claim of the city to tbe triangular g~* m strip of laud, lving between the alleged « claimed fas boundary of the Short donation and the west lias o« the U. & military i» serve. .. Admitting, than, for ths puwwm of ths m vastigation, that the tM mm * Clark. There is abundant testimony of a persist >nt effort on the part of Mr. Short, during his ifetime, to acquire the claim now sought for jy the widow and heirs-at-law, which effort commenced as early as 1846-7. Twice he is orcibly ejected, by the servants of the Hud ion's Bay Company, at their instance—once jy the judgment of a court of law, at suit of a nan named Ermatinger: once in defending it 'rom being wrested from him, he takes the if* of the party trespassing upon what he :onceives to bo his right. We will not review the contest between him ind the Company, nor with Ermatinger, nor he several persons who, at various times, by turchaso or occupation, claimed an interest in laid premises, or some part thereof. The widow and heirs, by their notification >n file, date the residence and cultivation as :ommencing March 10th, 1848. Behind that ve cannot go; and we presume this as favor ible showing as they could make. The Act of Congress of Aug. 14th, 1848, «Btablisbing the Territorial government of Oregon, in the proviso to its 14th section, an - iuls and renders void UT and all titles to ands in Oregon claimed or acquired under ho provisional government. On the 27th of September, 1850, the donation law was pas ted by Congress, the 4th section of which af forded Mr. Short the privilege and opportun ity of betting up a claim to 640 acres of land, recognizing the possession acquired under the land UWB of the provisional government, con ferring the opportunity to assert a claim up to the Ist of December, 1851. Amos M. Short might, under this law, have availed himself of the benefit of his persistent inteution to be come possessed of the tract now claimed by his heirs, but he totally neglects to assert that claim, and we find in this controversy the wid ow and heirs relying upon the act of Congress of Feb. 14th, 1853, which extended the privi leges conferred by the 4th section of the Act of Sept., 27th, 1850, until December Ist, 1853, Amos M. Short had Jailed during hit lifetime, which occurred subsequent to December Ist, 1851, to claim at a resident or settler of Ore- G, antecedent to December Ist, 1850, and by hi* own laches, loot the benefit of the 4th section of the act of 27th, Sept, 1850. But the law of Feb. 14th, 1853, was passed, and in October of that year the widow in her right and for ber heirs at law, claim a tract of C4O acres. To the day af Mr. Sbort'a death, he had taken no legal steps to oeqmre a title to nay land M Oregon The act of 27th September. 1850, (Donation law of Oregon.) was the iret act or law recoguiaing the Mode for Aassriran aettlereto arqnin- title to, ar interest in, any lands in the said Tcrritary. (Lownmlaic et at re. Parish. U. 8. Supreme Court. 21 How ard, p 290.) In the opinion in that case, the Court quote the proviso af the 14th section of the Oregon Organic Act. which declares -all Laws heretofore passed in said Territory, making crania of had. ahall he and are ferrety declared who null aad void." nnd fo on to ear. -That Cengrew paoaed no law in any wko alerting titles to lands in Orera Terri tory till Sept, 27th. 1850; and the MB in this rase was fikd July 22th. 1850. so thai whom the JtfmrfMß ooatsmoaeod mother pacta to the emit had amu title or interest m the lend whatever." Apply this principle to the <jsm ander coanderatian. and we concha* thnt AMMO M. Short acquired no tangible interest in land in Or agin, until the passage of the act af Biytsnhir 27th. 1850. Until that date, ho rould not obtain any title or intercut In land* belonging to the United State*. At that date, the Government agreed to grant to Amarkun Mthw and othore, tneti of lasi npon ret' oounty had taken tke said claim is trust for the settlers and occupants under tlxfsct of 1844 instead of the county seat law of 1824, we in quire, doea a simple feature of the law of l 1844 render it applicable to tkia case, or baa , a solitary requirement of the section of that law above quoted been conformed to by tbe county antboritiea of Clarke, or tbe corporate authoritiea of Vancouver dtyf Were the lands at or near Vancouver turceytd, or were they public lands, within tbe meaning of that act! Certainly not. At the time of tbe or der of tbe county court of Clarke county, filed in this caae as an evidence of a town aite claimed as early at 1840, where waa the officer for the entry of lands at the minimum (irice T There was at the time no Register or leeeiver, and no law conferred upon the Sur veyor General of Oregon a right to receifto pay for lands, or issue a certificate. Indeed, until the passage of the act of July 17th, 1854, the pre-emption ISWB, and the "Act for the relief of citizens of towns upon lands of tbe United States, under certain circumstan ces," which is the act under which the claim is now supported, was not extended over or applicable to Oregon and Washington. This doctrine was held by the Supreme Court of Oregon, in 1853-4, (Martin vt. T'Vault et al. Oregon Reports, 1853-4, p. 44.) I am of opinion that antecedent to the pas sage of the act of July 17th, 1854, extending the pre-emption law, and the law above re ferred to, of May 23d, 1844, neither county nor town authorities could occupy a town site in either Oregon or Washington, under said act of May 23d, 1844; and there is certainly no evidence, nor attempt to produce evidence, showing that any portion of the town of Van couver has been occupied since July 17th, 1854, under the provisions of the said town site law. I can have no hesitancy, therefore, in deciding and reporting that under tbe said law, or any other law which I have been able to find, that the city of Vancouver hat no claim or title to any portion of taid land* now in controversy. We next proceed to investigate the claim of the widow, and heirs at law, of Amos M. Short, deceased. ISM nw/ihiw. MM rf whhh wa» tkaltk* DiMriiiiMl!!'lUl! "Thia"l!l catinlj to do, wd by Ui ova (Unai Ml I,| J « « - - |#-L _ -» * QfOiiiw iiiaeiviiinfMiiPUOTvnMi had ao liberally ceaMrad. Atom km M, on the 14th of Fehraaiy. 18M, wether act of Cnngrii waaMwi the prifilmiliAi daaa iadaded ia aeetiea 4th ef IWDHIIIM Law, were extended. Tha frifily of aaah lag >hia claiai tWrafcaa alia Mad Inr ffataa ef a law paaaad aahanaaaal la UaMk aad which of coMaqaaaea eoofciivd aa heaeSt apoa him. la October, 1B&S, hia widow aawaa far hia hatia at law, what ha akht have claimed had haHvad. Wa yield teher and the heir* at law all the eoahiea aad righto which would have enured to aha ware ha Hv ing, and ia peraoa erring thia claim. The testimony all aeecaa to eatabliah. that antecedent to August 14th. 1848, ia het ap la the date of Mr. bhort'a daath, ia Jaaaary, 1823, that the residence of the fcmily waa ea the weateni portion or half ef the claim. Theae acta of negligence on the part of Short to aaaert hia claim an advatted to, beeaaaa much atreaa haa been laid apoa tha hot that the Mission waa alow to aaaert ita claim. Tha evidence however ahowa that in May, 1853, the Rev. A. M. A. Blanchet, Biahop of Mia* qunlly, caused to be filed the notification af tha claim of the St. Jamea Miaaion. In October, of the same year, Mrs. Esther Short filea tha notification of their claim. After a thorough examination of the aat> ter presented, and a dilligent investigation of the law and the evidence adduced in this trial I have conscientiously, may I say somewhat reluctantly, been forced to the conviction, that the grant of 640 acres of land made to Mis sionary Stations by the Organic Act of Ore gon vested in the Mission of St. James the absolute fee and title to a tract, embracing their improvements; that snch tract was not open to settlement, under the Donation law of September 27th, 1860, extended by the amendatory act of February 14th, 1853. That by the Organic acta establishing the Territorial Governments of Oregon/and Washington, respectively, passed August 14, 1848, and March 2, 1853, Congress snd the Government designed to donate tracts of 640 acres of land to missions, in attestation of • growing regard for religion, morality, and in appreciation of the healthy aids to settlement, worded by the various religions established missions. By force of which the title to the Bt. Junes Mission to 640 acres of land, absolutely Teet ed :n the society to which said Mission be longed, at the date of the psssage of this act of Aug. 14,1848. As between the United States and the Hudson's Bay Company for the claim of that Company by virtue of the ruptct doe to their posseisory right* guaranteed by the treaty of 1846, it was a matter of treaty obligation be* tween the United Statea tbd Great Britain, Those possessory rights encumbered not the soil. By the treaty, the aorereignty of ithe United Statea to the soil was absolute. The Government by that treaty of limita secured the fee simple and the domain, and by a vol untary grant absolute in terms, donated, Con firm ea and established to these religions soci eties who had missionary stationa in Oregon, the tracts of land, upon which such stations were founded. The Mission of Bt. James was one, if there was one in Oregon, and a tract of 640 acres wSs granted to them, and such tract was neither open to settlement un der the donation lawa or its amendments, to encroachments by the Military authorities, except in the usual method known to the law, of appropriating private property to public uses, nor to pre-emption or occupation for town-sites, except as tenants of the legitimate donee or grantee. The rights of the United States Adty ceased and determined on the 14th August, 184& The tract was suljject then to the fotteatorjf right* of the Hudson's Bay Company, for the treaty said those righu ihmild *e mpmstti. Those rights continued by their Heenss till May, 1869, and when that incubus was n» moved, by the extinction of tboss rights, H left the grant to the Mission of St. James, full, ample and complete, now entitled to en joy the same in all lis parts, with the right to ask for and receive from the United Statea a deed of eonfinsntioa or patent, sesssa ssths lands ootid he surveyed. The papers on tie show that the MlssisO notification was en file, before any claims were nsssetod to contiguous lends. It is the oldest chrns. Its recognition is cental with th<- organisation of On-gan, and woo a peri tive grant yeasa hsJessjsnj or title to 1M It is net mj pi setose to aoMnoat nprathe wisdem or pokey of s«fc a lvs^ssid Ly by** '-5 C rifnfctht the law aakfaj^isiih^ais^^hjste toingtof m within tha paevlaweMke IlKjiK ins MuT'mmni «T land, la iwiM with said gmat, aaf SB dhawa by As mmm psnying pLtssid JLa mAmmmmmtJkmtt Ik* mi eamtfmmm >b ■■ahwfcrf —i mm m/m n nbWbtei kA «fa»Mft ttfhf !■ k» pockrt. QT T®« *a4?«rMW»iMM »•» ** NO. 22.