Morrison Waite

Name: Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court
Author: Morrison Waite

Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Morrison Waite. It explores elements such as the United States, grant and the State of Iowa.

Quotes from Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court (Morrison Waite)

Morrison Waite, Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

“ In the tenth section a reservation by treaty is specially mentioned; but we can hardly believe it would be seriously contended that, under the eighth section, a State could select lands reserved by a treaty because the word 'treaty' was omitted in that section
The truth is, there can be no reservation of public lands from sale except by reason of some treaty, law, or authorized act of the Executive Department of the government; and the acts of the heads of departments, within the scope of their powers, are in law the acts of the President. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

“ Sects. 8 and 10 are parts of the same act. By one, a grant of public lands to certain States for certain purposes was provided for, and by the other, pre-emption rights were given to individual citizens. Both had reference to public lands, and gave the respective beneficiaries the power of making their own selections. There seems to be no good reason why the selections of the pre-emptioner should be restricted within narrower limits than those of the State, and we cannot believe it was the intention of Congress to give a State the power to take lands under sect. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

“ Of this we entertain no doubt. If the State had no title when the patent issued to Wolsey, he took nothing by the grant. No question of estoppel by warranty arises, neither does the after-acquired title inure to the benefit of Wolsey, because when the United States made the grant in 1861 it was for the benefit of bona fide purchasers from the State, under the grant of 1846. This is evident as well from the tenor of the joint resolution of 1861 as from the act of 1862. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

“ On the 20th of July, 1850, the agent of the State having in charge the school lands and school fund gave notice at the General Land-Office that he had selected the particular piece of land in controversy in this suit as part of the 500,000-acre grant under the act of 1841. Other lands coming within the river grant, if extended above the Raccoon Fork, amounting in the aggregate with this piece to 12,813 51/100 acres, were included in a list of similar selections approved at the Land Department in Washington on the 20th of February, 1851. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

“ This, it is agreed, settles the present case, unless that decision resulted from the addition of the words, 'reserved for saline or for other purposes,' which appear in the tenth section and not in the eighth.
The object of all interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the law-makers,-to get at the meaning which they wished their language to convey. A critical examination of particular words is never necessary except in cases of doubt. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

“ And be it further enacted, that there shall be granted to each State specified in the first section of this act five hundred thousand acres of land for purposes of internal improvement: Provided, that to each of the said States which has already received grants for said purposes there is hereby granted no more than a quantity of land which shall, together with the amount such State has already received as aforesaid, make five hundred thousand acres, the selections in all of the said States to be made within their limits respectively in such manner as the legislature thereof shall direct ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

“ The excess was charged to the account of the river grant, and a balance struck accordingly. The Navigation and Railroad Company was not a party to this settlement. The adjustment was ratified by an act of the General Assembly of the State passed March 31, 1868. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Morrison Waite, Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court

“ The President speaks and acts through the heads of the several departments in relation to subjects which appertain to their respective duties. Both military posts and Indian affairs, including agencies, belong to the War Department. ”

Morrison Waite

Summary

Quotes from Wolsey v. Chapman — Opinion of the Court (Morrison Waite)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature