« ПретходнаНастави »
writ of error. It is obvious that the debtors teen thousand acres granted before, and, 10 llet were not before the judge, in this case, by the thereof; granted to John Forbes, for the object of
cultivating rice, ten thousand acres in the district service of process, or by voluntary appearance, or banks of the River Nassau. Surveys of seven when he granted the executory process.
In thousand acres of land, at the head of the “River that aspect of the case, then, the order could Little St. Mary's," or "St. Mary," and three thou. not be regarded as a final judgment, within the this grant.
sand acres in Cabbage Swamp were made under meaning of the 22d section of the statute. But land, other than that in the certificate of the sur. was the order a final judgment, according to vey, was given : por do the surveys prove that the the laws of Louisiana! The fact of its being Nassau.
land surveyed lay in the district of the River
No evidence was given of the situation subject to appeal does not prove that it was, as of "Cabbage Swamp." Held, that these surveys has already been shown. Nor could it, per se,
were not made on the land granted by Governor give to the execution of the process, ordered court. on' all occasions, the surveys, to give them
Kindelan ; and according to the decisions of this by the judge, the dignity of a judicial sale. validity, must be in conformity with the grants on Unless at least three days' previous notice were
which they are founded ; and to make them tbe
origin of title, they must be of the land described given to the debtors, the sale would be utterly in the grant of the Spanish government. void. Grant and Olden v. Walden, 6 L. R. The cases of the United States v. Clark, 8 Pet. 631.
ers, 486, The United States v. Huertas, 9 Peters,
171. cited. This proves that some other act was neces- The courts of Justice can only adjudge what has 172*) sary, on the part of *the plaintiffs, to been granted, and declare that the lands granted entitle them to the fruits of their judgment by from the public domain ; but where the land is ex confession. And in that act is involved the pressly granted at one place, they have no power, merits of the whole case; because, upon that by a decree, to grant an equivalent at another notice, the debtors had a right to come into place, and thereby sanction an abandopment of court and file their petition, which is technic courts of the United States bave no authority
The ally called an opposition, and set up, as mat- to devest the title of the United States in the pubter of defense, everything that could be as.
lic lands, and vest it in claimants ; however Just signed for error here, and pray for an injunc previous grant of which has falled.
the claim may be to an equivalent for land, the tion to stay the executory process till the mat- The case of the United States v. Arredondo, 6 ter of the petition could be heard and deter. Peters, 691, cited.
The decree of the Supreme Court of East Flor. mined. And upon an answer to the petition ida which had confirmed the grant to John Forbes, coming in, the whole merits of the case be reversed. tween the parties, including the necessary questions of jurisdiction, might have been N appeal from the Superior Court of East tried, and final judgment rendered. Articles
Florida. 738, 739, of the Code of Practice. From this The executor of John Forbes, on the 20th of view of the case, we think the order granting May, 1829 presented a petition to the Superior executory process cannot be regarded as any Court for the Eastern District *of Flori. (*174 thing more than a judgment nisi. To such a da, claiming ten thousand acres of land, seven judgment a writ of error would not lie. thousand of which were surveyed on the waters
The writ of error, in this case, must thereof. “Little St. Mary's River," in the then dis. fore be dismissed.
trict of Nassau, in East Florida; the other
tract, being three thousand acres, was alleged This cause came on to be heard on the tran to be situated on “Cabbage Swamp,” also in script of the record from the Circuit Court of East Florida. the United States for the Eastern District of The petition stated that the grant for the Louisiana, and was argued by counsel; on con
land was made by Governor Kindelan, in lieu sideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged of fifteen thousand acres which had been surby this court that this writ of error be, and rendered by John Forbes to the King of Spain. the same is hereby dismissed with costs. The petition contained the “Memorial for
grant,” which was presented on the 27th July, 1814, to Governor Kindelan, by John Forbes. It was with the proceedings, and as follows:
“His Excellency the Governor: 173") *THE UNITED STATES, Appellants,
"I, Don Juan Forbes, partner of the firm of
Juan Forbes & Company, successors of Panton, THE HEIRS OF JOHN FORBES, Appellees. with the greatest respect, appears before your
Leslie & Company, merchant of this province,
Excellency, and says that the said firm of PanFailure of grant of land for want of survey-ton, Leslie & Company obtained, in the year
grantee no title, as against United States, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, a which court can confirm.
grant of fifteen thousand acres of vacant lands
in the District of St. John, in order to employ John Forbes, by memorial to Governor Kindelan, their slaves in the agriculture and for graz1793, there had been granted to Panton, Leslie & ing their cattle, as is seen by the certificate Company, for the purpose of pasturage, tifteen annexed; but after a short time, they were un. thousand acres of land, which they were obliged to der the necessity to abandon them, as being of abandon, as being of inferior quality. Forbes, as the successor to these grantees, asked to be per- an inferior quality, the same thing happened mitted to abandon these Kfteen thousand acres. to which, which frequently happens in this and, in lieu, to have granted to him ten thousand province, where the planter does not every time acres, as an equivalent, on Nassau River. petition avers that the object was to establish a
succeed in his choice of land, which he per: rice plantation. The petition was referred to the ceives only when a sorrowful experience shows comptroller," who gave it as his opinion that the him his error; and as it has been for many Kindelan permitted the abandonment of the ar. I preceding years that the government, in atten.
tion to similar misfortunes, and to the expendi. part of ten thousand acres," granted to John tures and losses which have been incurred, has Forbes, in absolute property, and annexed “a had the goodness to permit the taking up other plat” of the same to his certificate, as surveyor. vacant lands, provided the prior grant be aban. general, and stated “that he keeps the same in doned. Finding myself situated in the same the register of surveys under his charge." case, and wishing to establish a rice p'antation, After evidence had been taken on behalf of which production we have been, until the pres- the petitioner and of the United States, the ent time, under the necessity to import from court confirmed the claim of the petitioner to foreign parts: I, from this moment, abandon the extent for the number of acres, and at the the said fifteen thousand acres of land in be place, as in the memorial of the said John half of his majesty (whom may God have in Forbes, and the decree of the governor thereon, his holy keeping), supplicating him to admit it, is set forth, to wit: "Ten thousand acres of and in lieu thereof, to grant me an equivalent land in the district or bank of the River Nas. in the district of the Nassau River. There sau.” fore, I supplicate your Excellency, be pleased The United States prosecuted this appeal. to order that my former abandonment be The case was argued by Mr. Gilpin, Attor. 175*) *received, and, in consequence, that ten ney-General, for the appellants, and by Mr. thousand acres be granted to me in said district Downing for the appellees. of Nassau River; the survey of which I will Mr. Gilpin, the Attorney-General, for the produce, as soon as the tranquillity of the prov. United States. ince enables me to execute it.
In this case, the Superior Court of East "Which favor, etc.
Juan Forbes." Florida made a decree in favor of the defendOn the 27th July, 1814, Governor Kindelan ants in error, declaring their title to “ten ordered, on the petition, “let the comptroller thousand acres of land in the district or bank inform 'on the subject.”
of Nassau River,” to be valid, under the eighth The comptroller reported, on the 28th July, article of the treaty between Spain and the 1814, that—"Whereas, in this province, lands United States, ratified on the 22d February, are distributed gratis, no record has been | 1821. That title is founded on an alleged entered in the comptroller's office, of lands so grant to Juan Forbes, by Governor Kindelan, given, nor to whom given, for which reason it dated 28th July, 1814, of "ten thousand acres is not known what lands have been given, and in the district or bank of the River Nassau, for what remain vacant. Therefore nothing can the objects solicited” in the memorial of the be said on the subject about which information applicant; it being, says the grant, “the duty is required: it appears, however, that it is use of the party to produce the plat and demarcaful to promote the culture of rice, to which, as tions in the proper time.” The memorial states the interested party alleges, the lands granted the wish of Forbes to be permitted to abandou to him the seventh of August, one thousand a previous grant of fifteen thousand acres of seven hundred and ninety-nine, for the express vacant land, in the district of St. John, on purpose of pasturage, as appears by the an- account of its bad quality, and to receive, in nexed certificate of the then notary of govern lieu of it, as he is desirous “to establish a ment, Juan de Pierra, are not adapted.”
rice plantation," these ten thousand acres in On the same day, Governor Kindelan made the district of Nassau River, “the survey of the following "grant," by
which he promises to produce, as soon as the Decree.
tranquillity of the province enables him to exe
cute it." "St. Augustine, on the twenty-eighth of July,
*The evidence of the claimants was (*177 one thousand eight hundred and fourteen. It
a certificate of Aguilar, the governor's secreis permitted to this interested party to give his tary, that a copy of the “expediente," or recformal abandonment of the fifteen thousand ord of the memorial and grant, had been given acres of land, comprehended in the deocument annexed to the petition, and in lieu of them October, 1816, by Clarke, the Surveyor-General,
to the interested party; a certificate dated 20th the ten thousand are granted to him, without that he had surveyed "for Don Juan Forbes, prejudice to a third party, for the objects three thousand acres in Cabbage Swamp, in solicited, in the district or bank of the River part of ten thousand acres granted to him by Nassau; and in consequence, let the correspond the government;” another certificate, dated 230 ing certificate be issued in his behalf from the October, 1816, by Clarke, that he had surveyed secretary's office, in order that it may serve
for him “seven thousand acres at the head of him as a title in form, and it will be the duty River Little St. Mary's, being the inplement of the party to produce the plat and demarca: of ten thousand acrés granted to him by the tions in the proper time, and let the expedient government;" and a deposition of Sophia Flem. be registered in the secretary's office.
ing, in which she says she “has heard that "Kindelan.”
Nassau River and the Little St. Mary's are On the 23d October, 1816, George J. F. Clark, near to each other; that she does not know "the Surveyor-General,” certified that he had what district was called Nassau; and that she 176*] made “a survey" of seven *thousand does not know the distance from Nassau River acres at the head of the River Little St. to Little St. Mary's.". Mary's or St. Mary's River, and annexed "a It does not appear that the district attorney plat” of the same to his certificate of survey, excepted, in the court below to the evidence of which, the certificate states, he “keeps in the the grant; but, judging from the case as now register of surveys under his charge."
presented in the record, it may be doubted On the 20th October, 1816, George J. F. whether the certificate of the governor's secre. Clarke certified that he had made a survey of tary was such a one, or was sustained by such three thousand acres “in Cabbage Swamp, in corroborative testimony, as would make it sufficient evidence of title, according to the de- | This is no location in accordance with tas cision of this couri in the case of The United grant. To establish a title to these tracts, the States v. Wiggins, 14 Peters, 348. In that case, claimant must show that a certificate of surthe secretary certified, on the day of the grant, vey is equivalent to a grant. He has no bet. that "the preceding copy is faithfully drawn ter title to them. It is clear, then, that by the from the original, which exists in the secre- Spanish law, the claimant had not perfected tary's office, under my charge;" in the present his title. certificate, there is no date, and no averment *But it is argued that under the [*179 either that the particular record is a true copy, eighth article of the treaty, 6 Laws of the or that the original does or ever did exist in the United States, 618; 2 White's New Rec. 210, secretary's cílice. In that case, the corrobora- the grant is not void, but may be still perfected tive testimony, on which the court chiefly re- by a survey. To this it is replied that the lied, was a survey in strict conformity to the provision referred to does not apply to a grant grant, and referring to its date; in the present, totally void at the date of the treaty; that the two surveys agree with the grant in noth such was the case in regard to this grant, being but the quantity; they differ as to the lo- cause the rules of the Spanish law, by force of cation, and they make no reference to the date. which alone this land could be severed from the
It is submitted, however, that even if the royal domain, never were complied with. At grant was made by Governor Kindelan, yet the date of the treaty there was no valid grant Forbes derived no valid title under it which the to the claimant in existence. But if there had court below was authorized to confirm. He so been, subsequent neglect to comply with the licited, in his memorial, a grant of ten thou: same rules would have made it void. The sand acres in the district of Nassau River, of treaty, if applicable to such a case, could have which he was to produce a survey; and it was extended no farther than to authorize the for the purpose of establishing a rice planta claimant to perfect his title by a survey, with178*] tion. The grant was *made "for the in six months after its date; which he never ob ects solicited,” and under the duty imposed did. upon him “to produce the plat and demarca- These positions are fully warranted by pretions in the proper time.” There is no proof vious decisions of this court. In the case of either that the land was surveyed, marked out, The United States v. Clarke, 8 Peters, 468, and located according to the grant; or that there was a grant of sixteen thousand acres the conditions of cultivation and settlement at a place described therein. One survey of were complied with.
eight thousand acres was made within the I. The grant was made by the governor, in bounds of the grant; two others for the residue general terms, as to the district in which the were made elsewhere. "The grant,” say the petitioner was to locate the tract conceded to court, "conveyed the land described in the inhim. The quantity was prescribed, and the strument, and no other.” In the case of The district; the particular locality was to be as- United States v. Huertas, 8 Peters, 491, there certained by the survey which was to be made were similar surveys in different parcels, of the "within the proper time;" until that should number of acres granted, and this court held be done, it was in fact but a made order of sur "the claim to be valid to the extent, and vey. The eighth section of the regulations of agreeably to the boundaries as in the surveys," Governor White, 2 White's New Rec. 278, which which were conformable to the grant, but in. were then in existence, establishes the neces. valid as to the rest. In the cases of The United sity of an immediate and definite survey; the State v. Levy, 8 Peters, 482; and of The Unitfourth section requires that possession shoulded States v. Seton, 10 Peters, 311, the same be taken within six months: of course the principle was again aflirmed. In the case of survey must have been made and returned | The United States v. Sibbald, 10 Peters, 321, within that period. 2 White's New Rec. 286. the petition contained a clause soliciting per: What the general provisions of the Spanisit mission to locate the quantity asked for, at a law thus required, this grant made more im different place from that designated, "in the perative, by expressly imposing the same duty. event that this situation will not permit the Has it been performed ? No evidence of any said form," and the grant accorded to the survey, agreeing in any respect with the grant, claimant "the permission he solicited;" on this has been produced. The only evidence of a ground, the objection which was taken that the survey is the two certificates of Clarke. Of terms of the grant did not authorize a survey these, it might be sufficient to say that they do at the place where the party made his location, not purport to have been made under the au- was not sustained by this court. In the case of thority of this grant, or to have reference The United States v. Arredondo, 13 Peters, 133, thereto. But supposing that they were in this court said that the land must be taken as tended so to be, they give the claimant no title. near as might be to where it was granted; that it They do not accord with the grant. They are could not be taken *elsewhere; and that [*180 not an execution of the order of the governor. the grant gave no right to any equivalent or In the first place, the grant authorizes the lo- another location. In that case, too, the court cation of a single tract; these surveys call for held that where “the description in the peti. two distinct tracts, at different places. In the tion of the locality of the concession was too next place, the location is to be "on the bank of indefinite to enable a survey to be made,” the Nassau River;" yet one tract is in Cabhage claimants could “take nothing under the con. Swamp, about the locality of which there is cession." no testimony whatever; and the other is on JI. Supposing, however, that the petition, Little St. Mary's River, about whi there is concession, and surveys, are sufficient to give some slight testimony to the effect that the locality to the grant, was the title perfected by witness “has heard it is near Nassau River." | the ciaimant ? It was not. The grant was
founded on his petition for land, “to estab. | party as a title in form; making it the duty of lish a rice plantation," it was given “for the said Forbes, to produce the plat and demarcaobjects solicited:” they were
tion in proper time. plished, or attempted. Independent of this con- On the 23d of October, 1816, George F. dition, in terms, that arising from the Spanish Clarke, the surveyor, returned that he had, as law was equally imperative. This was not an Surveyor-General of East Florida, surveyed absolute grant in consideration of past or fu: and delineated for Don Juan Forbes, seven ture services; it was conferred for purposes of thousand acres of land, at the head of the actual cultivation and settlement: the condi- River Little St. Mary's, or St. Mary River; said tions of occupation and improvement, of which land being the complement of ten thousand the performance is necessary, in such cases, to acres, which were granted to him in absolute make the title complete, have been heretofore property, conformably to the annexed plat. fully discussed. The United States v. Wiggins, Previously, on the 20th of October, 1816, 14 Peters, 340, and the declaration of Saavedra, said Clarke had surveyed for Forbes, three formally confirmed by Governor Coppinger, 2 thousand acres in part of the ten thousand White's New Rec. 284, that concessions made acres granted to him, conformably to the aneither to foreigners or natives, with certificates nexed plot. This survey was in Cabbage from the governor's secretary, were of no value Swamp; but no other description of locality or effect, if the lands granted were abandoned, appears, either from the certificate or plat, nor or not cultivated, has been deliberately recog. , is there any evidence appearing on the surveys, nized by this court. 14 Peters, 351.
or by proof, that the lands surveyed lie in the Mr. Downing, for the appellees, contended district of the River Nassau, or on the that the grants of seven thousand acres, and *bank of said river; on the contrary, the (* 182 three thousand acres, had been made uncondi- seven thousand acre survey is on the River tional, by the Spanish government, on the sur. Little St. Mary's which a woman, Mrs. Flening, render of fifteen thousand acres which had proves she had heard was near to the Nassau. been granted in another place.
The situation of Cabbage Swamp does not apThe land was surveyed on the 23d of Octo pear from the record. ber, 1816. He claimed that by the Florida The decree of Governor Kindelan contemTreaty, by the laws of Congress, and by the plated that the tract should be included in one decisions of this court in similar cases, the survey, as did the petition of Forbes. Neither grants should be confirmed, and the decision of the surveys corresponding with the concesof the Superior Court of Florida should be ap- sion, in regard to the district where the survey proved by the court.
could alone be made, and being on lands not
granted by the Governor of Florida, the surMr. Justice Catron delivered the opinion of veys, if confirmed, would be recognized as of the court:
themselves appropriations of the lands, inde. John Forbes, by his memorial to Governor pendently of the concession on which they proKindelan (without date), sets forth that in 1799 fess to be founded; making them the origin of there had been granted to Panton, Leslie & title, and assuming that the survey had the Co., for the purpose of agriculture, and for power to grant. This court has on all occa181') grazing "their cattle, fifteen thousand sions holden, when the question has been preacres of land, in the district of St. Johns, which sented, that the survey must be for the land they were under the necessity of abandoning, granted by the proper authority. The United as being of an inferior quality; that said John States v. Clarke, 8 Peters, 468; The United Forbes is one of the firm of John Forbes & States v. Huertas, 9 Peters, 171. Co., successor to Panton, Leslie & Co. And
The courts of justice can only adjudge what said John Forbes prays to be permitted to has been granted, and declare that the lands abandon the fifteen thousand acres to the king's granted by the lawful authorities of Spain are domain, and in lieu thereof to have granted to separated from the public domain: but where him an equivalent in the district of Nassau the land is expressly granted at one place, they River, to wit: That ten thousand acres be have no power by a decree to grant an equivagranted to him in said district of Nassau River, lent at another place, and thereby sanction the survey of which he will produce as soon as an abandonment of the grant made by the the tranquillity of the province enables him to Spanish authorities. All the public domain of execute it.
Spain was ceded to this government by the The petition avers the object was to estab. treaty of cession, and the title in fee to the lish a rice plantation.
same vested in the United States, from the The petition was referred to the comptroller, lands thus acquired, was excepted individual Lopez, for a report therein, to Governor Kin property. First, the paper title to such private delan: the comptroller reports that records of property it is our duty to investigate and as. such grants were not made in his office, and of certain, and by our decisions to establish; and course he could give no information on the second, it is our duty to ascertain, and cause subject; but give's as his opinion that the to be surveyed and marked by definite bound. culture of rice should be promoted.
aries, the lands granted: and here the duties On the 28th of July, 1814, Governor Kinde- of the courts end. They have no authority to lan permitted the abandonment of the fifteen devest the title of the United States, and vest thousand acres granted in 1799, and in lieu in a claimant, however just his claim may be thereof granted to John Forbes, for the object to an equivalent. These principles seem to be of cultivating rice, ten thousand acres, in the self-evident; and their assertion not called for, district, or bank of the River Nassau, and because of their undoubted character: yet the ordered a certificate to issue in the ordinary consequences flowing from them will be found form. from the secretary's office, to serve the to govern a class of cases of large magnitude,
w in the course of adjudication. The one be- | the holder of a land warrant in the American wore us is of that class. The concession or States, which might be located by survey at grant (for the terms are synonymous in regard any spot that was not appropriated by an in183*]to the *Spanish titles of Florida) to Juan dividual title, in a certain district of country. Forbes, was for ten thousand acres in the dis- In such a case the government has ever been trict or bank of the River Nassau; with an deemed to hold the fee unaffected by a vested order that the concession should serve him as equitable interest, until the location was made a title in form; "and it will be the duty of the according to the laws of the particular country. party to produce the plat and demarcations, in So here, Forbes acquired no title to any land the proper time,” says the decree of the Spanish that can be recognized by a court of justice, governor. That this concession is founded on and his claim must be pronounced void for want & past consideration--that is, on the surren of identity, and because is impossible to set. der of other fifteen thousand acres previously tle the identity, and locate the land by a jugranted to Panton, Leslie & Company-admits dicial decree. of no doubt; still, the question recurs, what Although this question has not been directly spot of land was granted? Of the district of presented to the court for decision, yet it did Nassau we know nothing, as there is no proof arise, and received our careful consideration, of the existence of such a section of country in in the cause of The United States v. Arredondo, the record; unless we infer that it is in the 13 Peters, 88. In that case, thirty thousand range of country through which the River Nas- acres had been granted to Arredondo, in 1817, sau runs. But the description is more precise, designated to lie on Alligator Creek, a branch and authorizes the grantee to take the land on of the Suwanee, to begin about seven miles the bank of this river. That there is such a west of Alligatortown; situated about forty river as the Nassau, in East Florida, lying miles northwestwardly from Paynestown, and south of the St. Mary's River, we know from about eighty miles from Buena Vesta; which the general geography of the country; it is, parts of the country are known under the name however, & river of considerable length; the of Alachua. The court say—“the land must land might have been located on either bank, be taken as near as may be as it was granted, from its commencement as a river, to its mouth and cannot be taken elsewhere. It (the grant) at the ocean. No survey of the land granted gives no right to an equivalent or another locawas ever made; the duty imposed upon the tion, if it cannot be found at or near the place grantee to produce the plat and demarcations, designated; an equivalent is not secured by the in the proper time, was never performed. This concession in terms, nor is it by the customs or was a condition he assumed upon himself; the usages of Spain, nor by any law or ordinance execution and return of the survey to the of Spain. And it is proper here to remark proper office, in such case, could only sever the that the acts of Congress for ascertaining land granted from the public domain. Before, claims and titles to land *in Florida, (*185 the grantee had an equal right to any lands whilst they recognize patents, grants, conceson either bank of the River Nassau. The con- sions or orders of survey, as evidence of title cession was made in 1814; and how long the when lawfully made, do not permit, in case of a party had the right to survey and make the deficiency in the quantity from any cause what. demarcation, it is needless to inquire, as it has ever, the survey to be extended on other lands." never been done. We apprehend, however, Detailed and careful instructions are then given within six months after the ratification of the how the court below shall proceed to identify treaty, by the contracting parties respectively, the land, and how it shall be surveyed when the was the latest date at which the condition to identity is established: and then the court de. survey could have been complied with: on this clared: “If, however, neither Alligator Creek point, however, no definite and conclusive opin. can be found, nor any creek to the west of Alliion is called for, and none is given. Thus situ-gatortown, entering into the Suwanee within ated, the claim was presented to the Superior seven miles distance from the town, or a reaCourt of Florida for confirmation. The court sonable distance therefrom, and if Alligatorpronounced the claim valid, that is, that the town cannot be found; then, it is the opinion of concession had been made by the lawful au: this court that the remaining description in thorities of Spain; and it was decreed that the petition of the locality of the concession is the lands "be confirmed at the place, as in the too indefinite to enable a survey to be made, memorial of the said John Forbes, and the and that the appellees can take nothing under 184"] decree of the governor thereon *set the concession.” Subject to this opinion, and forth, to wit: ten thousand acres of land in the a mandate in conformity to it, the cause was district or bank of the River Nassau.” From remanded to the Superior Court of East Florida this decree the United States appealed, and in for further proceedings, in execution of the dethe review of which decree, we are compelled to cree and instructions of this court, and where find the land granted, or to reject the claim, it is probably now pending. We think the because we cannot identify the land. If this principle adopted unquestionably correct, and cannot be done, we have no power to decree which rules this case. an equivalent out of the lands of the United The petition of Juan Forbes, and the conStates, for the reason that the courts have no cession of Governor Kindelan, are authenti. authority to devest the title of the government, cated, and were read in evidence, by the follow. and to vest it in Forbes' heirs. No particular ing certificate: land having been severed from the public do "On the date, a copy of this expediente was main by John Forbes, his was the familiar case given to the interested party above. of one having a claim on a large section of
“Aguilar.” country, unlocated; in its nature, and effect, We feel strongly impressed with the deficien. as it regards the government, not differing from Icy and unsatisfactory character of the forego