Hot Springs Cases Rector v. United States Hale v. United States Gaines Et Al v. United States Russell v. United States
Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
Parties | HOT SPRINGS CASES. RECTOR v. UNITED STATES; HALE v. UNITED STATES; GAINES ET AL. v. UNITED STATES; RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEALS from the Court of Claims.
These cases were argued by—— Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter and Mr. Albert Pike for Rector.
Mr. Frederick P. Stanton for Hale.
Mr. E. W. Munford for Gaines et al.
Mr. John A. Grow for Russell.
Mr. Attorney-General Pierrepont for the United States.
The title to a well-known watering-place in the State of Arkansas, called the Hot Springs, now located in Hot Springs County, has been contested by a number of claimants for nearly half a century. These springs are situated in a narrow valley or ravine between two rocky ridges in one of the lateral ranges of the Ozark Mountains, about sixty miles to the westward of Little Rock. Though not easily accessible, and in a district of country claimed by h e Indians until after the treaty made with the Quapaws in 1818, they were considerably frequented by invalids and others as early as 1810 or 1812; but no permanent settlement was made at the place until a number of years afterwards. Temporary cabins were erected by visitors, and by those who resorted there to dispose of articles needed by visitors, but were only occupied during a portion of the year. The public surveys were not extended to that portion of the country until 1838.
In order to settle, if possible, the controversies which existed, and which seemed interminable, none of the parties having any regular government title, and it being doubtful whether any of them were entitled thereto, Congress, on the thirty-first day of May, 1870, passed the following act:——
'AN ACT in relation to the Hot Springs Reservation in Arkansas.
'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person claiming title, either legal or equitable, to the whole or any part of the four sections of land constituting what is known as the Hot Springs Reservation, in Hot Springs County, in the State of Arkansas, may institute against the United States in the Court of Claims, and prosecute to final decision, any suit that may be necessary to settle the same: Provided, that no such suits shall be brought at any time after the expiration of ninety days from the passage of this act, and all claims to any part of said reservation upon which suit shall not be brought under the provisions of this act within that time shall be for ever barred.
' .
' .
' .
' .
'J. G. BLAINE,
'Speaker of the House of Representatives.
'SCHUYLER COLFAX,
'Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate.
'Received by the President May 31, 1870.
'[NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.—The foregoing act having been presented to the President of the United States for his approval, and not having been returned by him to the House of Congress in which it originated within the time prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, has become a law without his approval.]'
The various parties setting up a claim to the property having, in pursuance of the act, filed their respective petitions in the Court of Claims; and the cases having been consolidated, the court, after a very full investigation, rendered a decree in favor of the United States, and adverse to all the claimants. That decree is brought here by appeal.
Three different titles are set up against the United States; two of them under claims of pre-emption, and one under a New-Madrid location.
1. John C. Hale claims the south-west quarter of section 33, township 2 south, range 19 west, of the fifth principal meridian in Hot Springs County, Ark., embracing the hot springs, which are the object of contention. He claims as representative of John Percifull by right of pre-emption under the fifth section of the act of Congress, passed April 12, 1814, entitled 'An Act for the final adjustment of land-titles in the State of Louisiana and Territory of Missouri.' By this section it was provided, amongst other things, that every person, and the legal representatives of every person, who had actually inhabited and cultivated a tract of land lying in the Territory of Missouri, not rightfully claimed by any other person, and who should not have removed from the Territory, should be entitled to the right of pre-emption in the purchase thereof, under the same restrictions and regulations as directed in a similar act passed Feb. 5, 1813, in relation to Illinois. Those restrictions and regulations were, that the price should be the same as that of other public lands in the Territory; that only one quarter-section should be thus sold to one individual; that it should be bounded by the sectional and divisional lines of the public survey; and that the sale should not embrace lands reserved from sale by former acts, or directed to be sold in town-lots, &c. It was further required by the act of 1813, that every person claiming under the act must make known his claim by delivering a notice in writing to the register of the land-office for the district in which h e land should lie, designating his claim, and to be filed in the office. If it appeared to the satisfaction of the register and receiver that he was duly entitled, he was allowed to enter the land on payment of one-twentieth of the price; but the entry must be made at least two weeks before the time of the commencement of public sales in the district, or the right would be forfeited.
Hale sets forth in his petition that, at the time when the said act was passed,—namely, April 12, 1814,—John Percifull had actually inhabited and cultivated the tract of land embracing the hot springs, and forming a portion of the quarter-section claimed by him; that he had settled upon the same as early as 1809, and had continued to reside thereon and cultivate the same up to the time of the passage of the act; but that he could not comply with the act as to making entry, &c., because the land was not publicly surveyed until the year 1838. That as soon as practicable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Van Lear
...Wheat. 422; 6 Ops. Atty. Gen. 577; 2 Wall. 526; 22 U. S. Stat. L., 121; 31 Id. 215; Ib. 907; 122 F. 518. See also 114 U.S. 525; Ib., 542; 92 U.S. 698; 167 U.S. 518; 8 Wall. 533; 3, art. 4, Const. U. S.; 106 U.S. 466; 144 U.S. 677; 82 U.S. 214. R. G. Davies, for appellee. The act is unconsti......
-
Hammond v. Johnston
...... all resided in the Confederate States during the war, and. before and after. (9) That ...(12) The. civil war between the United States and the Confederate. States commenced on ... Wing v. Burgess, 13 Me. 111; Hart v. Rector, 7 Mo. 531;. Marshall v. Greenfield, 8 G. & J. ... And so it was held in the Hot Springs Cases , 92 U.S. 698, 23 L.Ed. 690. In those ......
-
Gaines v. Caldwell George Latta Gaines v. Caldwell Rugg
...the opinion of the court. These cases grow out of what is known as the 'Hot Springs Litigation,' phases of which are reported in Hot Springs Cases, 92 U. S. 698; Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U. S. 276, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 605; Lawrence v. Rector, 137 U. S. 139, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33; and Goode v. Gaines......
-
Brown v. Oldham
......Marks,. 27 Mo. 579; Jackson v. Russell, 4 Wend. 543;. Jackson v. Warford, 7 Wend. 62; ...227. (6) The deed from the United. States to Archibald Gamble, of September 14, ...Price, 12 How. (U.S.) 58; Hot Springs. Cases, 92 (U.S.) 698; Cabanne v. Lindell, 12 ......