The Act of congress passed on the 6th of March, 1820, 3 Stat.
547, accepted by an ordinance declaring the assent of the people of
Missouri thereto, adopted on the 19th of July, 1820, granted to the
state for the use of schools the sixteenth section of every
township in the state, which had not been sold or otherwise
disposed of.
This expression, "otherwise disposed of," does not include the
case of an imperfect title claimed to be derived from the Spanish
governor which had been rejected by the board of commissioners in
1811.
The claim was confirmed in 1828 so far as to relinquish all the
title which the United States then had, but at that time the United
states had no title, having granted the land to Missouri in 1820,
which they had a right to do.
The proviso in the Act of March 3, 1811, which forbade lands
claimed before the board of commissioners from being offered for
sale until after the decision of congress thereon, did not prevent
a donation for schools, and, moreover, contemplated only a
temporary suspension for the purposes of investigation.
The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.
Page 59 U. S. 127
MR. JUSTICE DANIEL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Page 59 U. S. 128
The proceedings now under review were founded upon an indictment
in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Francis against the
plaintiff in error for having committed waste and trespass on the
sixteenth section of lands situated in congressional township
number thirty-four, range seven east, as being school lands
belonging to the inhabitants of the township aforesaid.
Upon this indictment the plaintiff was convicted, and condemned
to pay a fine assessed by the jury, of four hundred dollars,
together with the costs of the prosecution. From the judgment of
the circuit court, the plaintiff in error having taken an appeal to
the Supreme Court of Missouri, by the latter tribunal that judgment
was in all things affirmed; the same plaintiff now seeks its
reversal here in virtue of several acts of Congress alleged to be
applicable to this case.
Upon the trial in the circuit court, the following facts were
either established in proof or admitted by the parties:
1. A joint petition on the part of Jean Batiste Valle, and the
heirs of Francois Valle, Jean Batiste Pratte, and St. Geunne
Beauvais, presented on the 15th of October, 1800, to Delassus, the
Lieutenant-Governor of upper Louisiana, praying for a grant of two
leagues square of land on the River St. Francois, including the
mine, known by the name of Mine a la Motte, and the lands
adjacent.
2. An acknowledgment by the lieutenant governor dated January
22, 1801, of his want of power to grant a concession of the extent
prayed for, and the fact of his having transmitted the petition to
the intendant general, with the expression of an opinion favorable
to the grant, and to the character of the applicants.
3. An order by the intendant general that the documents
presented in behalf of the petitioners should be translated into
the Castilian language, and then be laid before the fiscal
agent.
4. A plat and survey for 28,224 arpens, or 24,142 acres of land,
situated on the River St. Francis, certified by Nathaniel Cook, as
deputy surveyor of the District of St. Genevieve, said by him to
have been made by virtue of a concession by Delassus to J. B. and
Francois Valle, Beauvais, and Pratte, on the 22d of January,
1801.
5. The proceedings of the board of commissioners for the
examination of land titles, on the 27th of December, 1811, setting
forth the claim of Jean Batiste and Francois Valle, Jean Batiste
Pratte, and St. Geunne Beauvais, for two leagues of land, including
the La Motte Mine, founded on the recommendation from Lieutenant
Governor Delassus for a concession, bearing
Page 59 U. S. 129
date on the 22d of January, 1801, and the order of the intendant
general already mentioned, and the rejection of the claim by the
commissioners.
6. The first section of an Act of Congress approved May 24,
1828, confirming to Francois Valle, Jean Batiste Valle, Jean
Batiste Pratte, and St. Geunne Beauvais, their heirs or legal
representatives, a tract of land not exceeding two leagues square,
situated in the County of Madison in the State of Missouri,
commonly known by the name of the Mine la Motte, according to a
field plat and survey made by Nathaniel Cook, Deputy Surveyor of
St. Genevieve, on the 22d day of February, 1806, with a proviso in
the said first section, that the confirmation thus granted shall
extend only to a relinquishment of title on the part of the United
States, nor prejudice the rights of third persons, nor any title
heretofore derived from the United States, either by purchase or
donation.
7. A plat and survey made by Jenifer Sprigg, Deputy Surveyor, in
the months of March, 1829, and August, 1830, of the La Motte Mine
tract of land, stated to contain 23,728.02 acres of land, confirmed
to Francois Valle, Jean Batiste Valle, Jean Batiste Pratte, by an
Act of Congress approved on the 24th of December, 1828.
8. A patent from the President of the United States bearing date
on the 25th of March, 1839, granted under the authority of the act
of Congress last mentioned, and in virtue of a title derived from
the confirmees, to Lewis F. Linn and Evariste Pratte, for the La
Motte Mine, and the land surrounding the same, containing 23,728.02
acres of land, in conformity with the survey of Sprigg, as
certified from the General Land Office; this patent, containing
literally the proviso in the act of Congress limiting the grant to
the patentees to a relinquishment of the title of the United States
at the date of the act of Congress of 1828.
9. An admission on the part of the state that all the right,
title, and claim of the original proprietors of the Mine la Motte
tract of land had regularly passed to and was vested in Thomas
Fleming, as fully as those proprietors had or could have had the
same.
10. A lease from Thomas Fleming, of the 9th of April, 1849, to
Ham, the plaintiff in error, for a portion of the Mine la Motte
land.
11. An admission further on the part of the state that the
sixteenth section claimed as school lands was within the lines of
the original survey of the tract made by Nathaniel Cook, and of the
other surveys given in evidence.
Upon the trial of the indictment, the circuit court, at the
instance
Page 59 U. S. 130
of the counsel for the state, instructed the jury
"That the Act of the 6th of March, 1820, entitled 'An act to
authorize the people of Missouri territory to form a constitution
and state government &c.,' taken in connection with an
ordinance declaring the assent thereto by the people of Missouri,
by their representatives assembled in convention on the 19th of
July, 1820, operated as a grant by Congress to the State of
Missouri for the use of schools, of the 16th section in
controversy, unless such 16th section had been previously disposed
of by government."
"That although the land claimed by the proprietors of Mine la
Motte was, by the several acts of Congress, reserved from sale, and
that the survey of said claim includes the 16th section in
controversy, yet such reservation is not such disposition of said
section by the government as is within the saving clause of the 6th
section of the act of 1820, and cannot operate to prevent the title
from vesting in the state by virtue of said grant."
The defendant in the prosecution prayed of the court the
following instructions, which were refused:
"That if the jury believe the land in question is included
within the original grant by the Spanish government, and within the
lines of the survey made by N. Cook, in 1806, and within the lines
of the lands confirmed by the act of Congress to the original
grantees and those claiming under them, then this land never was
public land, subject or liable to be donated by Congress to the
state for the use of schools."
"That the several acts of Congress reserving section 16 for the
support of schools, could only refer to the public lands proper,
and could not attach to private claims, which had previous to such
donation been claimed by individuals, and reserved by Congress to
satisfy those claims."
"That the confirmation of the claim by the act of Congress of
1828, conferred and gave a superior title to the lands in question,
over the title of the state for the use of schools."
Upon the accuracy or inaccuracy of the instructions given by the
court at the instance of the state, and of those denied by it upon
the prayer of the defendant in the prosecution, the decision of
this cause must depend.
It would seem not to admit of rational doubt that the Act of
Congress of March 6, 1820, authorizing the people of the Territory
of Missouri to form a constitution and state government, taken in
connection with the ordinance of the state convention of the 19th
of July, 1820, amounted not merely to a grant for the use of
schools of the 16th section of every township of public lands in
the territory, but further to a positive condition or mandate, so
far as Congress possessed the power to impose it, for the
dedication of those sections to that object. The assertion
Page 59 U. S. 131
of the court, then, of the existence and character of such
grant, whilst it recognized any proper limitation or qualification
imposed thereon, either by previous acts of Congress or by the
investiture of any rights arising therefrom, can be obnoxious to no
just criticism, but was in all respects proper.
Whether or not the lands claimed by the proprietors of the Mine
la Motte, so far as they cover a portion of the sixteenth section
of township 34, range 7 east, are exempted from the operation of
the Act of March 6, 1820, and of the ordinance of July 19, 1820,
must depend upon the correct interpretation of the previous
legislation of Congress, and upon the acts and position of the
claimants with reference to that legislation.
By the 10th section of the act of Congress, approved March 3,
1811, authorizing the President of the United States to offer for
sale such portions of the public lands lying in the State of
Louisiana as shall have been surveyed under the direction of the
8th section of the same statute, it is provided that "all such
lands, with the exception of section number sixteen, which shall be
reserved in each township for the use of schools," and with the
exception, further, of a township of land granted by the 7th
section of the same statute for the use of a seminary of learning,
and of certain salt springs and lead mines,
"shall be offered for sale to the highest bidder, under the
direction of the register of the land office, the receiver of
public moneys, and principal deputy surveyor."
In this 10th section is contained a proviso
"That till after the decision of Congress thereon, no tract of
land shall be offered for sale, the claim to which has been in due
time and according to law presented to the recorder of land titles
in the District of Louisiana and filed in his office for the
purpose of being investigated by the commissioners appointed to
ascertain the rights of persons claiming lands in the Territory of
Louisiana."
Upon this 10th section of the act of 1811, and the proviso
thereto annexed, is founded the position taken by the plaintiff in
error that the sixteenth section of township 34 did not and could
not vest in the State of Missouri in virtue of the Act of March 3,
1820, and of the ordinance of July 19 of the same year, so far as
that section fell within the proviso. In comparing the enacting
part of ยง 10 of the statute of 1811 with the proviso annexed
thereto, it will strike the attention that the limitation or
restriction contained in the proviso has no connection, by its
terms, with lands granted or donated for schools, but relates
altogether to such lands as it was designed and declared should be
sold at public auction to the highest bidder.
Such certainly were not the lands appropriated to a specific
ultimate and permanent purpose -- namely the support of
schools.
Page 59 U. S. 132
As to these lands, sales and every other disposition
inconsistent with such dedication were expressly inhibited. But,
putting aside the literal meaning of the 10th section and its
proviso, it may well be asked whether the language and objects of
the latter can be made to import anything beyond a temporary
suspension of the sales of the lands intended for sale for the
simple purposes of investigation, and, much more, whether the 10th
section of the act of 1811 and the proviso thereto can be
interpreted to mean a denial to itself by Congress of the right and
power to sell or to give, either upon satisfactory evidence of the
invalidity of any opposing claim or upon considerations of public
policy, the land embraced within the suspension.
Such an interpretation, as it is not warranted by the language
of the acts of Congress, seems not to accord either with
considerations of justice or policy. Suppose that Congress, after
the passage of the law of 1811, should become satisfied of the
groundless nature of a claim presented to the commissioners and
should be convinced further not only of the benefits to result from
appropriating the subject of that claim to purposes of education,
but also of their having pledged that subject to such purposes; it
cannot be questioned that the power to reject or disregard an
unfounded claim, and to comply with a previous and just obligation,
remained in a plenary and unimpaired extent in Congress, and that
this right and obligation could in no degree be affected by a mere
agreement to investigate.
Let it be remembered too that the application of those under
whom the plaintiff in error deduces his alleged title was for a
simple gratuity, founded on no consideration whatever but the
bounty of the donor. The opinion and the action by Congress with
respect to the rights of the parties to that controversy seem to
have been entirely coincident with the views herein suggested.
Under the provision of the act of 1811, the proprietors of the Mine
la Motte presented their claim, together with such evidence as they
deemed essential to its support, to the tribunal created by law for
the investigation of land titles. By this tribunal, the claim of
these proprietors was rejected on the 27th of December, 1811. From
the period last mentioned until the 24th of May, 1828, an interval
of seventeen years, this claim remains dormant or quiescent, when
it is confirmed at the date last mentioned.
The nature and effect of this confirmation will presently be
considered, but in the interval above mentioned, the government,
the undoubted possessor of the title, after the lapse of nine years
from the rejection by its agent of this slumbering title, by
express compact with the State of Missouri, grants to that state,
for the use of schools, the sixteenth section of every township in
the state which had not been sold "or otherwise disposed of."
Page 59 U. S. 133
Upon recurring to the law of May 24, 1828, it will be borne in
mind that the confirmation to the proprietors of the Mine la Motte
is extended merely to a relinquishment of the title of the United
States at the date of that law, and is declared to have no
influence to prejudice the rights of third persons, nor any title
heretofore derived from the United States, either by purchase or
donation.
It is proper to keep in view this proviso in this confirmation
in order to ascertain its effect, if any, upon the proper meaning
of the qualification in the grant to the State of Missouri
comprised in the phrase "or otherwise disposed of."
In our construction of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1811, we
have interpreted the proviso to the 10th section of that act as
neither declaring nor importing a final and permanent devestiture,
or any devestiture whatsoever of the title of the United States,
but as a provision prescribing a temporary arrangement merely for
the purposes of investigation, leaving the title still in the
government, to be retained or parted with according to the dictates
of justice or policy, as these might be developed by such
investigation. Nothing is here ordained which is definite in its
character. Inquiry is all that is directed. The language and plain
import of the 6th section of the Act of the 3d of March, 1820,
confer a clear and positive and unconditional donation of the
sixteenth section in every township, and when these have been sold
or otherwise disposed of, other and equivalent lands are granted.
Sale, necessarily signifying a legal sale by a competent authority,
is a disposition, final and irrevocable, of the land. The phrase
"or otherwise disposed of" must signify some disposition of the
property equally efficient and equally incompatible with any right
in the state, present or potential, as deducible from the act of
1820 and the ordinance of the same year. Upon any other hypothesis,
the right to the sixteenth section would attach under the provision
of the act of 1820; the state would still have the title, and could
recover the section specifically, and there would be no necessity
for providing for an equivalent for that section.
Under our interpretation of the Acts of March 3, 1811, and of
May 24, 1828, no title can have passed to the proprietors of the La
Motte Mine lands. The reply of the Lieutenant Governor, Delassus,
to the petition of the applicants for the mine acknowledges
explicitly the absence of all power in that officer to make the
grant asked for, and refers those petitioners to the intendant
general as the only functionary possessing authority to make it.
This officer took no further action upon the petition than to order
its translation into the Castilian language.
On the 27th of December, 1811, this claim was before the
commissioners for the examination of land titles in the State
of
Page 59 U. S. 134
Louisiana, and was rejected by them. From this period of time
down to the 24th of May, 1828, no grant from the United States nor
evidences of title from any source except those already referred to
have been shown by the plaintiff or those under whom he claims. In
the meantime, the United States, the undoubted legal owners of the
land in controversy, by the Act of March 3, 1820, bestow it on the
state, as they had full authority so to do -- bestow the specific
section, it never having been disposed of within the intent and
meaning of the 6th section of the act last mentioned.
The confirmation in 1828 and the patent of the 25th of March,
1839, professing to confer no title but such as remained in the
United States at those periods respectively, and the grant of the
sixteenth section in township 34, range east, comprised within the
survey of the Mine la Motte, having been made seven years anterior
to the confirmation, which constitutes the only ground of title in
the claimants of the mine, the pretensions of the confirmees to the
section in controversy must be regarded as without foundation and
utterly null.
The view which this Court has taken of the evidence in this
cause and of the law as applicable to that evidence dispenses with
any necessity for an examination
seriatim of the
instructions asked by the plaintiff in error upon the trial of the
indictment and refused by the court. It is sufficient to remark
that the positions assumed in the instructions so prayed for, being
incompatible with the law of this case as expounded by this Court,
we deem those instructions to have been properly refused. It is the
opinion of this Court that the decision of the Supreme Court of the
State of Missouri pronounced in this cause, sustaining that of the
circuit court, is correct and ought to be, as it is hereby
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE NELSON.
I concur in the judgment of the Court upon the ground that,
though the 10th section of the Act of March 3, 1811, had the effect
to prevent the title of Missouri to this land from vesting until
the final decision by Congress upon the claim of Valle and others,
yet the Act of May 24, 1828, confirming lands to Valle and others,
operated as such final decision, and, by its true construction,
excepted out of the confirmation so much of the land as was
included in section sixteen, the public surveys of the township
having been made before the passage of the last-mentioned act. I do
not know that the opinion of the Court is intended to go further
than this. If it does, I do not assent thereto.
MR. JUSTICE CURTIS concurred with MR. JUSTICE NELSON.
MR. JUSTICE GRIER also concurred with MR. JUSTICE NELSON.