sions by operation of law;" nor shall it operate as any thing more than a relinquishment of the right of the United States in the lands.

Between the filing of their report by the board of commissioners, which was in 1824, and the passage of the confirmatory act in April, 1828, more than four years elapsed; and as the lands on the river Delude, including the premises covered by the petitioner's claim, was in market as public lands, the same was subject to entry by any individual. It appears from the returns at the General Land Office, as near as can be ascertained without a resurvey for that purpose, that after deducting the quantity sold previous to the confirmation, there remained unsold two hundred and eightythree acres, to which the petitioner obtained a title under the confirmatory

act.

It is also evident from the returns at the General Land Office that this last-mentioned quantity of land has been permitted, since the passage of said confirmatory act, to be entered by individuals, and is now held by the purchasers under patents from the United States. If, as the cominittee believe, thepetitioner under the act of confirmation acquired a perfect title to the portion of the premises not sold by the government at the time of the passage of that act, the rights of the patentees must yield to the petitioner's title. In that event, the United States must refund the amount paid by such purchasers.

The petitioner--whether cognizant of the whole facts and of his rights, or not, does not fully appear by the papers presented-asks other lands in lieu of the quantity originally granted to him; and under the state of facts as they appear in the case, it is manifestly the interest of the government to grant it. It cannot, however, be done with safety to the rights of the present holders of the lands embraced in his grant, or to the United States, unless he will, as a condition, voluntarily release all claims to the original location. In that event the present occupants will be quieted in their possessions and their improvements, the United States indemnified against a claim for refunding the purchase money, and justice be meted out to the titioner.

pe

Under the terms of the act of confirmation, it is evident that his rights attached only to that portion of the premises which were sold by the government after the passage of that act, amounting (as near as may be) to two hundred and eighty acres. For a grant of this quantity of land, to be located in Michigan, the committee herewith report a bill, with the proviso, however, that he shall first relinquish all interest in the land originally confirmed to him.

The petitioner also urges a similar right to another parcel of land, a claim for which was presented before the same board of commissioners. The action of the commissioners on the subject will be found in the same volume of the American State Papers, and on the same page with the report in the case above mentioned. The commissioners do not, however, recommend a confirmation of the land claimed to the petitioner, but, alleging that it had already been sold by the government, "recommend the confirmation by Congress of other lands to Victor Morass, adjacent and unsold, in lieu of the land claimed." It has not been the practice at the Department to recognise such recommendation of commissioners to grant other lands to a claimant as the foundation of any right in him, under the law; neither, in the opinion of the committee, are the terms of the act referred to such as require, upon equitable principles, a new concession of lands. Both of the

claims above mentioned are founded on the possession and improvement of Antoine Morass, father of the petitioner, and it has not been customary for government to recognise two possessory rights under one and the same Individual. The committee are therefore of opinion that this portion of the petitioner's claim should not be allowed."

1st Session.

No. 3.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

DECEMBER 16, 1851.
Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. FELCH made the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. No. 43.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred "a bill for the relief of Charles Melrose," report as follows:

The subject of this bill was investigated by the Committee on Public Lands at the last session of Congress, and a bill reported for the relief of the applicant. The report of that committee, hereto appended, explains the merits of the case, and the committee recommend the passage of the bill referred to them.

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred certain documents relative to the claim of Charles Melrose, for the correction of an error in the location of two bounty-land warrants, with instructions, by resolution of the Senate, to inquire into the expediency of granting relief, report as follows:

The papers presented in the case establish the fact that the applicant, being possessed of two bounty-land warrants, went with two friends on to government lands in Buchanan county, Iowa, to select a location under them. Upon a personal examination of the premises, he selected for entry the north-west quarter of section ten, and the south-west quarter of section three, in township eighty-nine north, of range ten west; that the description of the premises selected by him was then written on a piece of paper by one of his associates and handed to the applicant; that the latter took it to the land office at Dubuque; that he applied to the register to enter the land in question, and read to him twice the description of the land desired by him from the memorandum above-mentioned; that he received his duplicate certificate, and after being told that it was correct, put it into his pocket without reading.

The applicant subsequently moved into the county and settled on the land so selected, and has made improvements thereon. He afterwards ascertained that the land on which he lived was not marked as sold at the land office, and, on examining his duplicate certificate, found that the land entered by him was described therein as the north-west quarter of section ten, and the south-west quarter of section three, in township eighty-eight north, of range ten west, instead of that first above described. The error Hamilton, Print.

in the description is in the number of the township only-the certificate designating township eighty-eight, while the land selected by the applicant is in township eighty-nine. The location, according to the description in the certificate, is six miles south of the claimant's residence, and on land much less desirable.

The committee are fully satisfied that the difficulty had its origin in mistake merely, without design or fault on the part of the applicant, and that he ought, in justice, to be permitted to change his entry at the land office so as to embrace the premises first selected, and now improved and occupied by him. They therefore report a bill to that effect.