Mr. JULIAN. I do not know whether he is or not and do not care. AsI have already Observed. this act of Congress was passedupon the statement, that the claimants were a)iuiner ous body of land holders, several 1,000 in all, occupying small tracts, and only asking the right to purchase to the extent of their actual possession; but the fact turns out to be that after being allowed all the time that the act of 1863 provides for the assertion and prohf of their claims, only 157 claimants all told have made proof under the law as to their rights of ownership in that ranch. Let me give the House a sample of these “small " land holders. John B. FfiSlHC, one of the rantees under the Vallejo title, claims 4,000 acres. He did not reside and never has resided on the premises. as I understand. His residence is in the city of Vallejo. Is he a “ small holder" and a “ settler" on the ranch? D. H. Hastings claims nearly 5,000 acres. 11c resides in the town of Benicia, and notvon the hind. Has he any rights under the act of 1863 for the precniption and purchase of this tract?. C. A. Eastman claims 2500 acres, and resides in SanFrancisco. Is he, too, a “small holder” with the right of preemption of this entire tract? J. M. Neville claims 640 acres and is a non-resident, his home also being in SanFrancisco. Thomas S. Paige claims 27 hull dred acres, and resides in Chili, South Ameriea, and has resided there for many years. Is he, too, a “small holder, ” entitled to pre empt his little possessions? Is it the policy of this Government to eneouarge foreigners to become large land owners among us, who reside abroad and do nothing for the country, but hinder American citizens from preempt. in the public domain in small homesteads t ii. Lankershim claims466 acres, and resrdes in SanFrancisco; and the 7 claimants I have named assert the right to 15,706 acres under the net of 1863, giving them the right to preempt at $1 25 peracre to the extent of their actual possession. Mr. Speaker, is it the policy of the Government to encourage this large land holding by foreigners and non-residents in contravention of the well settled policy of the U.S.? Would the Congress of 1863 everhave enacted this law if it had understood the character of these claimants? Is it not perfectly clear that Congress was imposed upon in the passage of that act, and that no construction of it should be tolerated which will favor these monopolists at the expense of preemptors and homestead claimants? Let: me recite some kindred facts. One Sin gleton Vaughan claims 260 acres; Charles Ramsey 1760; John W. Bartlett and John Baker3,000; Joseph and John Wilson 1600;.John Goodyear 2,000; Andrew and James Hunter 1600; J. Hill 1300; John Tormey about 766; and Peter Fugan 866. "fhis makes a total of 13,000 152 acres owned by ten men; so that with. the 7 beforenamed here are 17 land holders claiming 28,000 858 acres of this land, 7 of theiii non-residents of the ranch. or of them anon resident of the country, claiming titles under the law of 1863, which was procured, as I have shown, by false and fraudulent representations to both the committees of congress at that time. I' have sincelearned that Mr. Walker has no interestwhateverin the law businessof Mr. Stanton. Let me state some other facts bearing upon this case; and what I have said and shall say on these matters of fact I at from the records of the Land Office, to which I refer gentlemen who may see fit to controvert. any statements that I may submit. JacobAnderson. father of A. J. Anderson. a preemption claimant, settled on the Sheehy tract in 1855. The 1st purchase of ‘Sheehy the Vallejo claimant, was in August, 1856, and the 2nd in 1858: so that here is one claim of a precmptor rior in date to the claims set up under the Va lejo rant. Will the Gentfrom California Mr. BIDWBLL pretend that the preemptor should be ouste? Berry Shouse bought of Frisbie, in October, 1856, the land claimed by Nesbitt as a pre‘emption, who proves settlement in April, 1853. He built a rouse, stables, sheds, &c., and remained on the land from that date to 1858, fenced in a garden, planted on orchard, (so. In 1866 the sheriff put him off at the instance of Frisbie, under the Vallejo title. In this the treatment of preemptors which California land specula tors ask us to sanction?.The records of the Land office show, too. that some of the Vallejo claimants purchasfl of Frisbie, who is the son in law of Vallejo after the act of March, 1863, was passed, on some of them after the re'cction of the grant by the Supreme Court. Have they any rights. under the act of 1863? Granting. in other respects. the justice of the claim of these men, certainly none of them can assert any right on the ranch subsequent to the date of the decision of the Supreme Court or subsequent to the passage of tenot of 1863; for the effect of tie decision was to make it unappropriated public lands, and the effect of the act.of 1863 was to restrict all parties to the provisions of that act. Clearly, then, the Land Office was right in deciding as it did in favor of the preem tors in these cases in opposition to this voide aim set up against it; and I am very sorry to find the cut emen representing California so strenuous y at work to defeat the just rights asserted by that decision. I come now, Mr. Speaker, to the questions of law applicable to these facts. The act which I have referred to and which has been read to the House is an act eutitled“‘An act to grant the right of preemption to certain purchasers on the Soscol ranch in the State of California.” Its title shows that it was itself an act preiv‘ilding for the preemptipu of the land spe ci e. The term “preemtion” implies settlement in person on the lan. Congress undoubtedly so understood it. In proof of this, I remind the House of the language of the report of the Land Committee in 1863 on which t ie act. was thought to be justified. fquote the following: “The $63001 ranch is settleduponand occupiedby an enterprising bodyof agriculturisls.” 'i “ claiming their lands under the Soscol grant." “The entire ranch haspassedout of the hands of the original grantee.into the possession of a inplti t doof small holders." the“ f " " All idlesaeltle ra uponthe ranch hold by n purchase of M.G.Valle. t “There are many circumstanceswhich tended to give to the settler upon theSeacnlmuch confidence in the title which they purchased." r "The bill reported by this committee respects the occupancy of the numerous holders under this title. recognizing it ana preemptwn.” "It has beenthe uniform practice of Congress to respect and protect the improvements of dtlllcTfl, "6:0. It is thus quite evident that Congress under stood these allejo claimants to be settlers on the land. What is a settler? l reterto the authorities on the subject: “Bouvicr‘s Law Dictionary, vol. 2, p.519. [1 ves it as the right.which a person has of beingo(lll!ldo1‘0(l flrl rmident of a particular place.’ it is synonYine uswith domicile or the place wheren person has fixed his “ordinurvdwelling withii. resentintention ofremaining.’ (Id. vol. 1. p. 342. The word comes into the Elish languagefrom the Latin:llltlt‘ll, or 'seiko, mildmeansnot only a personal residence.but a permanent personalresidence. In England. as far back as Eliza cth. a person m just personally residcnn a parish 40 daysWith the intention of making it his permanent home. before he could gain a 'settlement’in such parish. Webstergives the definition of the word to 'settle' as to ‘fix one's habitation or dmoe.’ Burrdfs Law Lexicon defines 'settlement” to be a settled piece of nbode.’ There caoreunottsh, ’etrhem; eanings of the word. as to settle acbut whenthe termrefersto settlement in a parish, in a coniitr or in fact a settlement on land in anymanner.it! onmoansa permanent.per sonal residopeo, tad nothing loss. Iting had this mean in its original form in t Latin vernacular. It 1 had the somedefinition when incorporated into the Emili‘h languagc. andlineretained it to thisday. It, h this meaning in the civil law; ithad itin the coui ine n law and has it settled, in all statute laws. “ whorever ho locates his resiilcncc. But. the special hill of March 3, peculiar 1863a. ttachesa significance to the requiroment of aqttle ment.’ Although strictly spearing, the' title is no part of an act, yet the rule is Well established that, the title, when taken in connection with other facts l mayassistin renioyingambiguities, wherethe intent, is not plain.’ U.S. 00.Fisher, 2 Cranch386. 1 Kent‘s Comm.516." These are the definitions of the law books applying to this act which uses the word “ settlement, "’ and the words “occupancy” and l “preemption, ” and provides for purchase to | the extent of actual possession. l Now, I submit it as a clear proosition, that a geptle man claiming lands on this grant and l residing in South America, was not precisely al “settler” on the Soscol ranch. I take itt at l the 6 or 7 other large claimants on this I ranch already mentioned were not “settlers” l on it. inasmuch as they did not reside on it. I l submit that a settlement on it through their‘ tenants or agents was not such a settlement as l the act. on its face, providing for the preemp Ition of the land, would be satisfied with, and, that personal occupation of or residenee upon the soil was necessary. On that point, I think there can be no difference of opinion. I will now refer, Mr. Speaker, to some of the general principles which apply to the inl r l i A man is I l I IL. interprctation of statutes, and Wlll read from, authorities as I have collated them: “ The most general proposition is that the law does not favor repeal by iinplioation and thoughtwo acts nre seemingly i t puiruant, they 5 all. if possible, have such construction that the i tter may not repeal the former by implication.” ‘warraon Station, page “Subordinate to this. we submit 2 other propositions: If tho law admits of 2 interpretations thioit is to be adopted which is agreeable to the funda watts! or primarylaw.‘ " – Professor Lieber, quotedin imk’a Trealne, page288. Now, anion the “fundamental and rim laws" of the U.S. rtgipectin the public lands may be classed the law 0 preemption; a law whose beginning dates back near y 50 years, recognizing the olic of encouragingl settlers to go on the public domain, establils their homes, mark their improvements, and assert their titles, and thus pioneer and people and civilize the vacant. lands of the nation. This is the settled policy of the U.S., our American policy, in the light of which this special act must be interpreted, and not in contravention of it. AttyGen Legare says, page 71, vol ume four, Opinions ofJuly 11, 1842, “Statutes must. be construed so as to avoid the divesting of any rights of 3rd parties.” Here, as I have shown, were rights of preemptors, valid, on deniably valid, because they ate rior to the time of the decision of the court an the enactment of this act of 1863. Now, those rights of preemptors cannot be divestedby the mere interpretation of aseciol act made for the benefit of special claimants. Any rule allowing this would be manifestly unjust and unreasonable. Mr. Cushing (volume 6, page 700) said: “We are not bound to suppose that Congress intended a violent invasion of a private right and ilnatwefruelslyt in any portion of the land described and acquired under previous laws. for such act would bein apparent disregardof the Constitution of the U.S.".. I take it to be good law that if Congress in exress terms liud enacted that these invested rights of preijmptors should be divested, the law would have been void under the Constitution. The law inviting a preemption, when accepted by the settler, becomes a contract with the Government, and Congress could not impair it. It has no power to make such a law, nor can the courts, by interpretation, give any retroactive effect to the act of 1863. I here cite the following authorities: 5‘34:Osborneoa.llngcr. I "Taylor’s Elements of Civil Law: Brncton, l, 4 1b., 228:613rac.Abr.3'!0: 2Inst. M 2 Jones. 108: 4 Burr. 24.60. "And under the more stringent limitations upon legislative powerswhich prevail in this country, it is wcllsettled that a retrospectivestatute. affecting and changing vestedrights is founded on unconstitutional principles, and consequently ine perative and void. “7 Johnson's Rep., 477;TennesseeBill of Rights, art. ‘23;Ugdcnos.Bliickledgc, 2 Crancli. 262:Society for Propuiraiing the Gospelrs. NewHaven, 8 ton, 493;Wilkinson on. Leland. When 2 Peters. 657 608; Wilkinson m. Fields. 2 Sandforifs Chanccry Reports, Bay. 179; Bedford on.Shil ling, 4 Scr and Rawlc. 401;Merrill on.Slinrburno 1iew 1 amp. Rep., 199; Ward on. Barnard. l Aiken. 121. “The doctrine expounded in these.authorities rests upon the principles of natural justice and General jurisprudence, which untle rlie the Constitution of the U.S. It is simply a recognition of inalienable rights, “ which men are not div sled by the artificial relations of municpal law. In act the legislation of every civilized nation and even the Roman civil law has adopted fnpinian’s maxmi. ‘Ncmopolut mutarecmun'liumin allcrrusim'unum.’ “Nor is this doctrine without the expresssanction of the Constitution. The Constitation providesthat no poison shall be deprived of life, liberty or property Without due processof lawz' and also that ‘iio or oslfuctolaw shall be passed'by Congress“ (U.S. Constitution. art. 1. see. 9; and amendmentsto Constitution, art. 5.) "And although. in strict construction, the terms 'ea'Plllffflcftl lmvs applytocriminal rather than civif matters, yet, in acomprohsnsivo sense.tl.cyembrace all retrospectivelaws or laws governinl or controlling past (fallJlCilOilS. Whether of a civil or criminal nature. (Siitterleo m. Miitilicwson, " Peters, 416' 4 lVhciiton, 5173O: gden no.Sandors, 12Wlioaton,: Soilgwick 0 Statutory and Constitutional Law, 681; 14I’cteis’s U.S. Reports. p. 361.)" Again, the SOsco lact of 3d of March, 1863, grants a special privilege to certain persons, and it is a principle of law that privi eges or fav'ors are to be so construed as not to injure the non-privileged or unfavored. AttyGen Black said with great force and common sense, when interpreting an act under which a claim to land was set up, (Opinion of November 22, 1858,) that“In every doubtful case, we know very well what we ought to do as soon as we ascertain which party is entitled to the benelitof the doubt." “It is well voided that all public grants of property, money, or put ileges, are to beconstruedmoststriotly againstthe grantee.” I ask the gentlemen from California to apply that legal principle to this case. Every jot and tittle of that special act is to be constrned most strongly in favor‘of the U.S., in fa vor of the preemptors of the Government, and against the peculiar rights specially given in the act. " Whatever is not given expressly, " says the some authority, “or not clearly iin plied from the words of the grant, is withheld.” And he goes on to say: “ We all know the fact and are not bound toseem ignorantofit. that gifts like this areoften causedby private solioitation andpersonal influence. The bills, almost universally are drawn up by their special friends, and may a made ambiguous on purposeto disnrm their opponentsor Enthuspicion asleep. 1f ypu lot.the urantecs have ilznity which they themselves dpvuatntiangtoeotfhtchire rim own lgarwesss. many of them will act amoanini; which conn ever thought of. Acts ‘hich weresupposed to have but'littlo in them when they passed, will ienxgpeanniodusto very large dimensions afterward. An construction'will make that mischievous which was intended to be harmless." have shown the House what “private so licitations’ and “personal influences” were employed in misleading the ComPublic Lands. The basest and most unconscionable fabrications were concocted in that case in order to get the committee to report the bill desired. Everygentleman on this oor knows how these things are managed here, and certainly I need not attempt to enlighten'California gentlemen on the subject.