Mr. JULIAN. The AttyGen states as law that a preiemptor under the laws of the U.S. has no right until he has comileted his purchase, and no interest which the U.S. cannot divest; no vested right., Now, sir, I have heard it said there is nothing new under the sun, but I must question the truth’ of this after reading this opinion. He makes no issue of fact as to the character of the precmptors as such. He. admits them to be such, and says‘ the fact is not material, since preiim tors may be driven out at any time before the completion of their purchase. His opinion is a plea in confession and avoidance, and the sole dispute is narrowed down to one of law. Adirming that the predm tor has no rights under the laws of Congress, e rests the whole case of these Vallejo claimants upon this lposition. If that be so it applies to homestead claimants in like manner, and every such claimant and preemptor in the U.S., by this ruling of the AttyGen, strangely acquiesced in b the Interior Dept, is at the mercy of the government of the U.S., which may violate its plighted faith at pleasure. Why, sir, the decisions are uniform, that the settler under the preemption laws has avested inchoate right which no power can take away so long as he remains on the land in the execution of the acts which the law im oses upon him as the conditions of title. while he performs his part of the contract no power can disturb him. You cannot divest im of his right, and if Congress should attempt to do it it would be a violation of the Constitution of the U.S., as I have already shown. On this point I cite the following authorities, which would be very glad to have the AttyGen and Montgomery Blair examine at their leisure: “ U.S.in. Fitzgerald, 15Peters, 419 Canninghamin. Ashley. 14Howard, 377: bernard's hairs on. hley’s heir, 18 Howard 43;Garland on.Wynn, ‘1)Howard. 8; Clementsus.Warner. 24 Howard, 397; Lindse et al. in. Hawes ct al., 2 Black; McAfee vs. Kim, S and M., Missip. Rep. 780;Finls ov.Williams, 9 Cranch 164:Isaacs us. Steals. 3 cammon, 97: Brunet as. lldaplove, 3 Scammon, 89; Brown 90. Griswold, 11 Illinois, 520 Polk’s Lesseevs.Wendall, 9 Cranch, 8;McArthurvs. Crowder, 4 Wheaten, 448. “Attprne General Mason, Zith A nl. 1846.exonnding the right under the not of 4t Scptemher, 841. renounced an opinion which has ever since be"en ollowedby the land dept, and snid: 'The settler is entitled to protection against the claimsor entriesof others. From the moment therefore, that he ent crampersonon land open to such claim, with the animusma i.’ or rather with the intention ofavailing himself of the provisions oi the innotternetfieornr, edto, and doesany nctin execution of that he is a settler. Ic must afterward give his noticeof intention, inhabit, improve, buildhis house and make his proof and paymentWithin the' time stipulated tomperfecthis right. But in every stagehe is protect until he fails on his part to comply‘Wwhitehrothetheeonedointitoensstjonftsthbeeltawwo.c’ npree mptorsand nrailrond company claiminghndor thestate of Iowa, AttyGenCashingsmd, (Opm1 onsv.olume 8, page 394:)'Tho preemptor acquires inchoateor in cipient title by enteringon the land, and thereper forming ccrtain acts. by meansof which the land is appropriated to his individii iiluse and thus so i; gatod in fact. from the public domain. If in dition to these is done on the land, the preemptor afterward perorms certain actsof notice and proof in the local land office, then his previous equitable right is “ convertedinto a legal one.l In the caseof Lytle atal. 178 The State of Arkansas, to How.333.)the Supreme Court held as follows: “Thu claim of preemption is not that shadowy right which b some it is considered to be. Until sanctioned by law it has no existence as a substantive right' but when coveredby the law it becomes a legal right, subjectto bedefeatedonly by a failure to perform the conditions annexedtoit. it is founded in an enlightenedpublic policy, rendered necessary by“tIhne enterpriseof our citizens. the easeof the U.S.on.Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that no reservation or approriation of a tract of land can be made after a citizen hasaequireda right to it " The SecyInterior ra sparey'se’mtion law. ecomber2), 1851: Subsequent entrics, however.which have been madeby preemption, in virtue of settlementsmade prior to the grants, will be valid, because in those casesthe right oftpreemptionattachedfrom the date of settlement, an became a vested right, which can be divestedonly byabandpnmentor a fniliire in the performanceof its condition.’ Leater| Lai Lam, p."6I5no.Lytle‘s case we declared that the occupant waswrongfully deprived of his lawful right of entry under the preemption laws, and the title set u a under thoselection of the Governor of Arkansas was ccrepd to Cloycs, the claimant, this court holdinghis claim to the land to have been it legal right, by Virtue of othnelyoby occupancy and cultivation, subject to bedefeated afailnre to performthe conditionsof making proper tender of the purchase moncy." Baniand'| eiravs. Ashley’sHeirs, atal.,:, Mr. Speaker, these citations oould wreudfly be extended, but I deem it unnecessary opinion of the AttyGen is not law; and in making this declaration I throw down the glove to all comers, from Montgomery Blair own or up, as the case may be, through the entire list of pensioned employees of specula tors in the work of overturning the land policy of the U.S and defrauding preernpt ors of their rights. I am sorry the AttyGen allowed his name to be signed to such a document, and I regret still more that the SecyInterior so far forgot the great interests at stake as to accept that opinion as the guide of his Dept against what must have been his own moided judgment. If car ried out, no preemptor or homestead claimant is safe. It mocks justice, sets common sense at defiance, and insults judicial decency; and the men who procured it in behalf of speculu tors were engaged in a very unworthy and unmanly service. Itrust their labors will fail. In Lytle et al. vs. The State of Arkansas, (9 Howard’s Reports,) the court say, “the adventure us pioneer who is found in advance of our settlements, encounters many hardships, and not unfrequently dangers from savage in cursions. He is generally poor, and it is tthat his enterprise should be rewarded by the privilege of purchasing the favorite spot selected by him, not to exceed 160 acres. That this is the national policy is shown by the course of legislation for many years.” It is in behalf of the great army of men of this class now hoverin over the public domain and hereafter to find their homes upon it thaf I speak; and the attempt to wrong them by a pretendedlegal opinion, which is clearly against w, and industriously used on this floor and in the lobby to defeat a just and necessary amendment to the bill now pending, is about as des icable an enterprise as the public has been Invited to consider in our latter day legislative experience.