FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153  
154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   >>   >|  
he came to California, encouraged them, and, as was generally reported and believed, in consideration of a portion of the land to be given to him in case of success, undertook to defend their possessions.[1] When Frisbie applied, under the provisions of the act of Congress, for a patent to the land, a man named Whitney, one of the squatters, protested against its issue, on the ground that under the pre-emption laws he, Whitney, having settled upon the land, had acquired a vested right, of which Congress could not deprive him. But the Land Department took a different view of the matter and issued the patent to Frisbie. Whitney thereupon commenced a suit against Frisbie in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to have him declared a trustee of the land thus patented, and to compel him, as such trustee, to execute a conveyance to the complainant. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia decided the case in favor of Whitney, and ordered Frisbie to execute a conveyance; but on appeal to the Supreme Court the decision was reversed; and it was held that a pre-emptioner did not acquire any vested right as against the United States by making his settlement, nor until he had complied with all the requirements of the law, including the payment of the purchase-money; and that until then Congress could reserve the land from settlement, appropriate it to the uses of the government, or make any other disposition thereof which it pleased. The court, therefore, adjudged that the Suscol act was valid, that the purchasers from Vallejo had the first right of entry, and that Frisbie was accordingly the owner of the land purchased by him. Soon after the decision was rendered Julian rose in his seat in the House of Representatives and denounced it as a second Dred Scott decision, and applied to the members of the court remarks that were anything but complimentary. It so happened that previous to this decision a similar suit had been decided in favor of Frisbie by the Supreme Court of California, in which a very able and elaborate opinion was rendered by the Chief Justice. I did not see the opinion until long after it was delivered, and had nothing whatever to do with it; but in some way or other, utterly inexplicable to me, it was rumored that I had been consulted by the Chief Justice with respect to that case, and that the decision had been made through my instrumentality. With this absurd rumor Hastings, after he had been dis
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153  
154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Frisbie
 

decision

 

Supreme

 

Whitney

 

Congress

 
Justice
 
decided
 

vested

 
opinion
 

patent


Columbia

 

District

 
execute
 

California

 
trustee
 

rendered

 
conveyance
 
applied
 

settlement

 

Julian


adjudged

 

Suscol

 

pleased

 

thereof

 

disposition

 

purchasers

 

purchased

 

Representatives

 

Vallejo

 

inexplicable


rumored

 
consulted
 

utterly

 

respect

 

Hastings

 
absurd
 

instrumentality

 
delivered
 

complimentary

 
remarks

members
 

government

 
elaborate
 
happened
 

previous

 

similar

 
denounced
 

United

 
ground
 

protested