Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 4.djvu/754

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

TWENTY-THIRD CONGRESS.⁠Sess. I. Ch. 125, 126.⁠1834.

Statute Ⅰ.

June 28, 1834.

Chap. CXXV.—An Act in reference to pre-emption rights in the south-eastern district of Louisiana.^[1]

Register of land office to issue patents in conformity with acts of April 5, 1832, ch. 65, and June 15, 1832, ch. 140.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the pre-emption rights granted by the register and receiver of the land office at New Orleans, to certain individuals claiming the same, in the south-eastern land district of Louisiana, under the act of Congress approved fifth April, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, entitled “An act supplementary to the several laws for the sale of public lands,” and the act approved fifteenth June, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, entitled “An act to authorize the inhabitants of the state of Louisiana to enter the back lands,” be, and they are hereby, confirmed; and the register of the land office is hereby directed to issue patent certificates accordingly.

Re-survey on Bayou St. Vincent confirmed.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the re-survey made under the supervision of the surveyor general of Louisiana, of certain lands on the bayou St. Vincent, in sections designated as numbers one hundred and ten and one hundred and forty-three, in township thirteen of range fourteen east, situate in the south-eastern district of Louisiana, and which re-survey purports to include the improvements of the actual settlers within its limits, claiming the right of pre-emption thereto under the act of fifth April, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, aforesaid, be, and the same is hereby, confirmed; and payments may be made and patents issued in accordance therewith.

Approved, June 28, 1834.

Statute Ⅰ.

June 28, 1834.

Chap. CXXVI.—An Act giving the consent of Congress to an agreement or compact entered into between the state of New York and the state of New Jersey, respecting the territorial limits and jurisdiction of said states.^[2]

Whereas commissioners duly appointed on the part of the state of New York, and commissioners duly appointed on the part of the state

↑ See notes of acts which have been passed relative to pre-emption of public lands, vol. iv. p. 420.
↑ The decisions of the Supreme Court upon the compacts between states have been:—
The compact of 1789, between Virginia and Kentucky, was valid under that provision of the constitution which declares, that “no state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into an agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power:” no particular mode, in which that consent must be given, having been prescribed by the constitution; and Congress having consented to the admission of Kentucky into the Union, as a sovereign state, upon the conditions of the compact. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; 5 Cond. Rep. 369.
The compact is not invalid upon the ground of its surrendering rights of sovereignty, which are inalienable. Ibid.
To bring a case within the protection of the seventh article in the compact between Virginia and Kentucky, it must be shown that the title to the land asserted, is derived from the laws of Virginia, prior to the separation of the two states. Lessee of Fisher v. Cockerell, 5 Peters, 247.
The construction of a compact between the states of Virginia and Pennsylvania, is not to be settled by the laws or decisions of either of those states, but by the compact itself. Marlatt v. John Silk et al., 11 Peters, 1.
The decision of a question of the construction of such a compact, is not to be attested from the decisions of either state, but is one of an international character. Ibid.
It is a part of the general right of sovereignty, belonging to independent nations, to establish and fix the boundaries between the respective limits; and the boundaries so established and fixed by compact between nations, become conclusive upon all the subjects and citizens thereof, and bind their rights; and are to be treated, to all intents and purposes, as the real boundaries. This right is expressly recognised to exist in the states of the Union, by the constitution of the United States; and is guarded in its exercise by a single limitation or restriction, only, requiring the consent of Congress. Ibid.
The compact between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, recognises the right of fishery in riparian owners on the Delaware. Bennet v. Boggs, Baldwin’s C. C. R. 60.
That plaintiffs, in the circuit court of West Tennessee, instituted an ejectment for a tract of land held under a Virginia military land warrant, situate south of a line called Matthews’ line, and south of Walker’s line; the latter being the established boundaries between the states of Kentucky and Tennessee, as fixed by compact between those states, made in 1820; by which compact, although the jurisdiction over the territory to the south of Walker’s line, was acknowledged to belong to Tennessee, the titles to lands held under Virginia military land warrants, &c.; and grants from Kentucky, as far south as “Matthews’ line,” were declared to be confirmed: the state of Kentucky having, before the com-

[1] See notes of acts which have been passed relative to pre-emption of public lands, vol. iv. p. 420.

[p708-2] The decisions of the Supreme Court upon the compacts between states have been:—
The compact of 1789, between Virginia and Kentucky, was valid under that provision of the constitution which declares, that “no state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into an agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power:” no particular mode, in which that consent must be given, having been prescribed by the constitution; and Congress having consented to the admission of Kentucky into the Union, as a sovereign state, upon the conditions of the compact. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; 5 Cond. Rep. 369.
The compact is not invalid upon the ground of its surrendering rights of sovereignty, which are inalienable. Ibid.
To bring a case within the protection of the seventh article in the compact between Virginia and Kentucky, it must be shown that the title to the land asserted, is derived from the laws of Virginia, prior to the separation of the two states. Lessee of Fisher v. Cockerell, 5 Peters, 247.
The construction of a compact between the states of Virginia and Pennsylvania, is not to be settled by the laws or decisions of either of those states, but by the compact itself. Marlatt v. John Silk et al., 11 Peters, 1.
The decision of a question of the construction of such a compact, is not to be attested from the decisions of either state, but is one of an international character. Ibid.
It is a part of the general right of sovereignty, belonging to independent nations, to establish and fix the boundaries between the respective limits; and the boundaries so established and fixed by compact between nations, become conclusive upon all the subjects and citizens thereof, and bind their rights; and are to be treated, to all intents and purposes, as the real boundaries. This right is expressly recognised to exist in the states of the Union, by the constitution of the United States; and is guarded in its exercise by a single limitation or restriction, only, requiring the consent of Congress. Ibid.
The compact between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, recognises the right of fishery in riparian owners on the Delaware. Bennet v. Boggs, Baldwin’s C. C. R. 60.
That plaintiffs, in the circuit court of West Tennessee, instituted an ejectment for a tract of land held under a Virginia military land warrant, situate south of a line called Matthews’ line, and south of Walker’s line; the latter being the established boundaries between the states of Kentucky and Tennessee, as fixed by compact between those states, made in 1820; by which compact, although the jurisdiction over the territory to the south of Walker’s line, was acknowledged to belong to Tennessee, the titles to lands held under Virginia military land warrants, &c.; and grants from Kentucky, as far south as “Matthews’ line,” were declared to be confirmed: the state of Kentucky having, before the com-

[1]

[2]