As to the second
branch of it, the same line of reasoning leads to equally satisfactory
results.
The municipal preemptor, like the agricultural preemptor, is required
to take his land in conformity with "the legal subdivisions of the
public lands." I apprehend the import of the requirement is the same
in both cases. Neither class of pre-emptors is to break the legal
subdivisions as surveyed. The preemptor of either case may take
fractional sections if he will, but he is in every case to run his
extreme lines with the lines of the surveyed subdivisions. In fine, as
it seems to me, there is nothing of the present case, in so far as
appears by the questions presented, and the official reports and
statement by which they are explained, except a convict of claim to
two or three sectional subdivisions of land between different sets of
preemptors, one set being avowed municipal preemptors, and the other
professed agricultural preemptors, but both sets having in reality the
same ulterior purposes in regard to the use of the land. The
Government has no possible concern in the controversy, except to deal
impartially between the parties according to law.
Pages:
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265