DALLES OITT V. MIB8I0NABY SOOIETT. 065 �things, proposed to give 640 acres of land to each white maie inhabitant of the territory over 18 years of age. Prier to this time the missionaries had claimed large areas at their several stations, but as genera-Uy there was no one to dispute such claim, it mattered little one way or the other. In De- cember, 1843, the mission at Salem was surveyed and platted at 16 sections. But on July 5, 1843, the' people adopted a land law which limited the extent of a claim or settlement to 640 acres, with a proviso that any mission "of a religions character," established before that time, might contain six miles square. Or. Laws 1874, p. 50, n. �Under these circumstances I think the grant to the mis- sionary societies ought to be construed to include 640 acres at each mission station ocoupied by them ; that is, claimed and used by them, according to the circumstances of the time and place, and not in the actnal occupation of any one else. �In the case under consideration there does not appear to have been any survey or marking on the ground of the boUndaries or limits of the clKim until Juhe, 1850. But it •was doubtless well understood by the occupants and the Iri- dians that it should extend a'cortain distance in certkin direc-' tions, or that it should include certain points or places,— as- the improvements, the mill eite^ etc., — though I do not thihk that it was ever expected or intended that it should exfend' north of ihe bluff, between which and the ritei*, a distance 6i about half a mile, were the villages and camping groiind of the Indians and voyagers up and down the Columbia river. And this brings me to the consideration of the question whether, upon the evidence, the defendiant occupied this liiis- sion station so as to be entitled to the grant thereof under the aot of August 14, 1848. �The evidence is somewhat meagre, and upon some points contradictory. It consists largely of the testimony of per- sons deeply in sympathy with the defendant, to facts and circumstances occurring 30 years ago, and scattered over a considerable period of time. The correspondence between the defendant and its agents here conceming the occupation and transfer of this station is not produced. It is presumed ��� �
