David Davis

“ An intention to abandon a policy which had secured to the States admitted before 1854 donations of great value, cannot be imputed to Congress unless the law on the subject admits of no other construction.
But the law of 1854, [15] instead of manifesting an intention to abandon this policy, shows a purpose to continue it. It was the first law under which lands were surveyed in Nebraska, offered at public sale, and so made subject to private sale by entery. By it surveyors-general for New Mexico, and for Kansas and Nebraska, were appointed, with the usual powers and duties of such officers. ”

“ This number, with a certain quantity of contiguous lands, were granted to Nebraska on her admission. In doing this Congress must have assumed that the springs had been reserved from sale, for if this had not been done, the presumption is there would have been nothing for the grant to operate upon. It may be true, that lands only fit for agriculture will remain a long time unentered, but this would never be the case with lands whose surface was covered over with salt. It would be an idle thing to make a grant of such lands, if there had been a previous right of entry conceded to individuals. ”

“ It cannot be supposed, without an express declaration to that effect, that Congress intended to permit the sale of salines in Territories soon to be organized into States, and thus subvert a long-established policy by which it had been governed in similar cases. If anything were needed to show that the fourth section did reserve salines from sales, it can be found in the act of 3d of March, 1857, [16] rearranging the land districts in Nebraska. ”

“ To do it would require the importation of the word (foregoing) , so that the section would read, none of the (foregoing) provisions shall extend to salines or mineral lands. There is no authority to make this importation, and in this way subtract from the general words of the section. The language of the section is imperative and leaves no room for construction. Besides, why should an intention be imputed to Congress to exclude actual settlers from saline lands, but leave them open to private entry by speculators. ”

“ In behalf of the plaintiffs in error (plaintiffs also below) , it was argued that the act of July 22d, 1854, though purporting to be one statute, and in form such, was obviously in fact two statutes; the first statute coming to the tenth section and relating exclusively to New Mexico; the other, running from the beginning of that tenth section to the end of the thirteenth, and relating exclusively to Kansas and Nebraska. The case was the case of two separate bills referring to distinct but cognate subjects tacked together, and passed through Congress as one statute ”

“ When a vested right is spoken of in a statute, it means a right lawfully vested, and this excludes the locations in question, for they were made on lands reserved from sale or entry. If Congress had intended to ratify invalid entries like these, they would have used the language of ratification. ”

“ The State intervened in the suit, and by its own request was made a defendant.
The plaintiff based his title under locations of military bounty-land warrants at the land office in Nebraska City, in September, 1859. These warrants were issued by virtue of the Military Bounty-Land Act of September 28th, 1850, which declared that such warrants might be located at any land office of the United States upon any of the public lands in such district then subject to private entry. The locators of the warrants, it appeared, before they made their entries, were told that the lands were salines. ”

“ Any other construction of the section makes the statute tautologous. The section, it will be noted, operates, in whatever way it does operate, on school lands as much as on salines. If it is to be taken as a reservation, operating over subsequent parts of the act-a reservation, generally, on school lands-then as to New Mexico it makes the identical enactment which is made in the fifth section. ”

“ The legislation upon the subject of public lands has always favored the actual settlers, but the construction contended for would discriminate against them, and in favor of a class of persons whose interests Congress has never been swift to promote. ”

“ Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wallace, 160.↑ Minter v. Crommelin, supra.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”