[coPY.] Ei.
{"character_count": 5017, "word_count": 895, "ccnet_language_score": [0.958899974822998], "ccnet_perplexity": [1671.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
General Land Obice, September 5A, IS43 HIS ExceLLENcY, JOHN S. BARRY, i== Governor of Michigan Detroit -

 SIR-ln your letter of the 3d utimo, you ac- knowledge the reception ofmine, of the 24th July last, which was accompanied by a copy of communication to the Hon. J. c. Ed wards, of Missouri, relative to proposed se- lections by the State, under the 8th section of the Act of Sept. 1S4l, of lands claimed by pre-emption.

 "Y ou state, that you do not controvert, nor even express an opinion in relation to the views" submitted in the s'letter of MT. Edwards "-because, Hthe facts of the case presented from Michigan, .sare in no way analogous to those there supposed '-that '' the argument in the letter in question, is based upon the supposition of conflict be- tween the claims of the State and the claims ofindividuals 0-that, " in Michigan, no such conflict exists o-that, {" in no case, have the lands of pre-emption claimants been selected by the State, but with the request of such claimants, and a relinquishment by them, in writing, of their claims"

 After remarking, that, '' if these relinquish- ments have not been filed in such form as required by your department, it will afford ) you ssmuch pleasure to correct any omis- sion, 3 and that, s'this being done, D you '' ask what legal obstacle exists, to prevent the se- lection of such lands by the State ;o To answer this inquiry, let us examine the law on the subject.

 1st. The Sth section of the Act, 4th Sept 1S41, authorizes selections < on any public lands, except such as is, or may be reserved from sale by any law of Congress, or pro- camation of the President of the United States'2

 This office has decided, that pre-emption claims come fairly within this category of lands interdicted from location by the State, and the correctness of that decision, 1t IS pre- sumed, is not denied, for the rery fact of a proffer to obtain relinquishment from the pre- emptor, indicates the view entertained on that score.

 The question then arises, whether the pre- emptors can fully relinquish their claims with view of allowing the State to locate them. The form of relinquishment received at this office, shews that the pre-emptions pro- posed to be relinquished, are claims under said Act of 4th Sept. 184l.

 The terms of the law, in regard to pre- emptons, are a contract with the settler, and are to this effect Tn regard to lands not of fered, you shall have the right, on comply ing with certain stipulations, to purchase them in preference to others, but must estab- fish that right according to law, before the commencement of the public sales, and must pay for the same $1,25 per acre-in regard to lands that haze been offered, you shall also have preference, on certain conditions, with in limited time, but on the positire condi- ton, that C all assignments and transfers of the right hereby secured, prior to the issuing of the patent, shall be null and void," Sc. The proposed relinquishment by the pre- emptor to the State, is, in fact, nothing more nor less than transfer, call it by what name you please, and as such, is expressly forbidden by the law. The relinquishment then, being nugatory under the law, the right falls back upon the original claimant, and coming within the class of interdicted lands, affords an answer to your inquiry, as tc .what legal obstacle exists to prevent the SC. lections of such lands by the State ?''

 Besides, in this contract between the Gov ernment and the settler, in regard to pre- emptions, I have not been able to find any authority of law (waiving the consideration of the non-assignable character of the right an ihsuperable objection of itself,) that would justify the Executive in allowing one of those parties-viz: the settler, to substitute a third party, who, under another species of claim could come in and not meet the requirements as to payment, which is incumbent on tht settler-True, it may be said, the cialman either may, or may not, comply with tho terms of the law, in the way of establishing his claim, and if, in cases of unofiered lands he do not establish his claim before the pub I lie sale, or in cases of offered lands, shall no comply with the terms of the law within tn time limited, the State can make the selec ton of such lands-thls IS admitted, provId cd the State does not take up her quota 0 other lands in the meantime If that quota however, should be taken up in the mean time. the Government will, in cases of unoi , fered lands, have the benefit arising from tn | public sale, in consequence of the failure C , the pre-emptor to make good his claim-i 5 cases of offered lands, the interest of the Gov : ernment can be but little affected in any con I tingency incident to this question. If tn : claims should be established, the governmei e gets all the law calls for, viz: Sl,25 p' . acre. and the contract between the parties : fairly and fully executed.

 l. If, however, the selections arc postpone q until after the forfeiture of the prc-emptie