V. ZANE'S teiver of public moneys at Marietta then being MATTHEWS vacant, Matthews applied to the register of the land-office at Marietta, for the purchase of that fraction, who received the application, and gave Matthews a certificate thereof. On the 26th of March, 1804, a register and receiver were appointed for the Zaneville district, and also a receiver of public moneys for the Marietta district, who commenced the duties of his office on the first of May, in that year. After the 12th of May, in the same year, Matthews purchased the land at the Marietta land-office, by making such payments, and receiving such certificates, as are prescribed by law. On the 21st of May, 1804, the land-office was first opened at Zaneville, and the sales of land commenced therein. On the 17th of the same May, a schedule was forwarded from the surveyor-general, purporting to be a complete list of the lands lying within the Zaneville district, which had been before sold at the Marietta land-office, and in which the land in controver sy was not included. Subsequent to the passage of the law for the erection of the Zaneville district, and prior to the time. when the office of receiver of public moneys for the Marietta district became vacant, two entries were made in the Marietta land-office, of land lying within the Zanev lle district, which entries and sales were acknowledged as good and valid by the government of the United States, who considered Matthews's entry as void, and the secretary of the treasury has directed his purchase-money to be repaid to him. The two tracts, the sales of which were confirmed by the government of the United States, were in the surveyor-general's schedule returned as sold at Marietta; but the land in controversy was not included in that schedule, because V. ZANE'S LESSEE. MATTHEWS the register of the land-office at Marietta had not made his return, as by law directed, to the surveyorgeneral, who had no guide by which to make out the schedule, but the returns of the register. The officers of the Zaneville land-office were directed by the secretary of the treasury to receive the schedule as the only evidence of what land had been sold at Marietta. On the 26th of May, 1804, Zane purchased, at the Zaneville land-office the land in controversy, by making such payments, and receiving such a certificate, as by law are prescribed, at which time Matthews produced his certificate from the register of the Marietta land-office, and gave notice of his having purchased the same land. Zane's purchase was confirmed by the secretary of the treasury. P. B. Key, for the plaintiff in error, contended. 1. That the purchase made by Matthews was legal and valid. And, 2. That the defendant in error was not entitled to recover. That this subject may be distinctly understood, it may be necessary concisely to state the land system of the United States. In 1785, the old congress passeu an ordinance for the survey and sale of public lands in the north-western territory. Seven ranges of townships were laid off, and sales made 'at New-York, to a considerable extent. The Indian wars that soon followed, closed the sales. But after General Wayne's treaty at Greeneville, in 1795, congress took up the subject again, and in May, 1796, passed an act for appointing a surveyor-general, and directing surveys and sales. Vol. 3. p. 293. These surveys could not be completed till the end of the year 1799. The act V. ZANE'S LESSEE. of the 10th of May, 1800, vol. 5. p. 174. established MATTHEWS the present system, by which four land-offices were to be opened, viz. at Cincinnati, Chilicothe, Marietta, and Steubenville. That at Marietta was for the lands lying east of the sixteenth range of townships, south of the military lands, and south of a line drawn due west from the north-west corner of the first township of the second range to the military lands. A register of the land office, and a receiver of public moneys, was to be appointed for each of the offices. A person wishing to purchase any of the lands was to pay to the treasurer of the United States, or the receiver of public moneys, one twentieth part of the purchase-money besides certain fees, and take his receipt therefor, which he was to carry to the register, who was to enter his application in a book, stating the date of the application, the date of the receipt, and the number of the section, or half section, township and range applied for. No lands were to be sold at less than two dollars an acre, one fourth, including the one twentieth, in forty days, one fourth in two years, one fourth in three years, and the residue in four years, with interest. A discount of 8 per cent. per annum was to be allowed for prompt payment. Upon payment of the whole purchase-money a patent was to be issued by the president of the United States. Thus stood the land system, and the mode of purchasing and acquiring title until congress, desirous of bringing more lands into the market, passed an act on the 3d of March, 1803, vol. 6. p. 291. by the 6th section of which, a new district was created called the Zaneville district, which covered part of the lands in Marietta district, and, among others, the lands in controversy, and certain lands in, the, military tract which had not been surveyed. This act did not prescribe the time when the land-office should be opened at Zaneville, nor when the officers. should be appointed. The first question which presents itself under this law is, did it prevent a continuance of sales at Ma MATTHEWS rietta, of the lands which had been surveyed in that ZANE'S district, and now included in the Zaneville district? V. LESSEE. We contend it did not. All these laws are to be construed together as forming one system. The two great principles of the system are, Settlement of the western frontier, and revenue to be derived from the sales of the lands. The importance of the first, and the policy of settling the western frontier, are too obvious for illustration. It has been an object of anxiety at all times from the first organization of the union. As an object of revenue it has been the incessant subject of attention, and of primary importance. The proceeds of the sales were in 1790 assigned to the sinking fund. With a view to facilitate sales, the lands have been divided into sections and half sections. Discounts, and abatement-of interest, have been allowed on prompt payment. The sale of the western lands, therefore, being a leading object of pational policy, it is to be presumed that they were not to cease unless by positive law. There is nothing in the act creating the Zaneville district to prevent a sale at Marietta, before the Zaneville office should be opened. There is nothing repugnant to such a construction. Both acts may so far stand together, and be consistent with each other and with the general policy of the United States. The 5th and 6th sections of the act of 1803, taken together, show that a previous survey was to be made of the unappropriated military lands which were to form a part of the Zaneville district, before the sales could commence there. pow The 4th section of the act of 1800, gave full ers to the Marietta land-office to sell all the lands within that district. This power exists until destroyed, and cannot be repealed by doubtful implication against the great national policy and the scope of the laws. It was well understood that the Zaneville land-office could not be opened until a survey should be made. Officers were to be appointed; and none were appointed until a year after, because they could not act until the surveys should be completed, and the lands ready for sale: This shows what construction the executive gave to the law. The surveyor-general also returned a list of sales made at Marietta, up to the 17th of May, 1804. All the sales upon that list have been confirmed by the treasury. In the course of the year 1803 a survey was made, and congress, by the act of the 26th of March, 1804, vol. 7. p. 106. § 12. opened the Zaneville land-office on the 21st of May, 1804, and directed the sales to commence there on that day. Is it a reasonable construction to contend that 700,000 acres should be locked up from market for a whole year, when every act of the government demonstrated their anxiety to make sales. The act of 1803 described limits within which an office was erected for future sales, but the opening of that office and proceeding to sell was to be settled by a future law. This was done, and the office directed to go into operation on the 21st of May, 1804. Until that period the office at Marietta might proceed to sell. This construction derives weight from an analegous case, a case also of revenue. Suppose a district, for the collection of duties, di- N MATTHEWS V. ZANE'S LESSEE. |