I, Joseph B. Biggerstaff, of Clinton county, State of Missouri, hereby apply to and do locate the southwest quarter of section No. five, in township No. sixty-three, of range No. thirty-three, in the district of lands subject to sale at the land office at Plattsburg, containing 160 acres, in satisfaction of the attached warrant numbered 31,947, issued under the act of March 3, 1855. Witness my hand this 14th day of March, A. D. 1857. Attest: JAMES H. BIRCH, Register. I request the patent to be sent to JOSEPH B. BIGGERSTAFF. LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo., We hereby certify that the above location is correct, being in accordance with law and instructions. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver. MILITARY BOUNTY LAND ACT OF MARCH 3, 1855. REGISTER'S OFFICE, Plattsburg, Mo., March 14, 1857. Military land warrant No. 31,947, in the name of Margaret A. Dent, has this day been located by Joseph B. Biggerstaff, upon the southwest quarter of section 5, in township 63, of range 33, subject to any pre-emption claim which may be filed for said land within forty days from this date. Contents of tract located, 160 acres. JAS. H. BIRCH, Register. For value received, I, Joseph B. Biggerstaff, to whom the within. certificate of location was issued, do hereby sell and assign unto Alexander Johnston, and to his heirs and assigns forever, the said certificate of location, and the warrant and land therein described, and authorize him to receive the patent therefor. Witness my hand and seal this 16th day of March, 1857. JOSEPH B. BIGGERSTAFF. [L. S.] Attest: D. W. TURNEY, H. WHITTINGTON. STATE OF MISSOURI, On this 16th day of March, 1857, before me, personally came Joseph B Biggerstaff, to me well known, and acknowledged the foregoing assignment to be his act and deed, and I certify that the said Joseph B. Biggerstaff is the identical person to whom the within named warrant was assigned. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver. MILITARY BOUNTY LAND ACT OF MARCH 3, 1855. Land Warrant, No. 43,796.—Register and Receiver's No. 7,137. LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo., March 14, 1857. We hereby certify, that the attached military bounty land warrant No. 43,796 was on this day received at this office from Thomas E. Turney, of Clinton county, State of Missouri. JAS. H. BIRCH, Register. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver. I, Thomas E. Turney, of Clinton county, State of Missouri, hereby apply to locate and do locate the northeast quarter of section No. thirty-four in township No. sixty-four of range No. thirty-four in the district of lands subject to sale at the land office at Plattsburg, containing 160 acres, in satisfaction of the attached warrant numbered 43,796, issued under the act of March 3, 1855. Witness my hand this 14th day of March, A. D. 1857. Attest: JAS. H. BIRCH, Register. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver. THOMAS E. TURNEY. I request the patent to be sent to LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo., We hereby certify that the above location is correct, being in accordance with law and instructions. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver. MILITARY BOUNTY LAND ACT OF MARCH 3, 1855. Land Warrant No. 35,369.-Register and Receiver's No. 7,282. LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo. We hereby certify that the attached military bounty land warrant No. 25,369 was on this day received at this office from Thomas D. W. Yonley, of Clinton county, State of Missouri. JAS. H. BIRCH, Register. I, Thomas D. W. Yonley, of Clinton county, State of Missouri, hereby apply to locate and do locate the west half of northeast quarter of section No. nine, in township No. sixty-three of range No. thirty-four in the district of lands subject to sale at the land office at Plattsburg, Missouri, containing 80 acres, in satisfaction of the attached warrant numbered 35,369, issued under the act of March 3, A. D. 1855. Witness my hand this 17th day of March, 1857. Attest: JAS. H. BIRCH, Register. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver. I request the patent to be sent to THOMAS D. W. YONLEY. LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo. March 31, 1857. We hereby certify that the above location is correct, being in accordance with law and instructions. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver, MILITARY BOUNTY LAND ACT OF MARCH 3, 1855. Land warrant No. 39,943.-Register and Receiver's No. 7,399. LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo., March 17, 1857. We hereby certify that the attached military bounty land warrant No. 39,943 was on this day received at this office from Elizur D. Parsons, of Clinton county, State of Missouri. JAMES H. BIRCH, Register. I, Elizur D. Parsons, of Clinton county, State of Missouri, hereby apply to locate and do locate the southwest quarter of section No. 9, in township No. 63, of range No. 34, in the district of lands subject to sale at the land office at Plattsburg, Missouri, containing 160 acres, in satisfaction of the attached warrant numbered 39,943 issued under the act of March 3, 1855. Witness my hand this 17th day of March, 1857. Attest: JAMES H. BIRCH, Register. I request the patent to be sent to ELIZUR D. PARSONS. LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo., March 31, 1857. location is correct, being in ac We hereby certify that the above cordance with law and instructions. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver. MILITARY BOUNTY LAND ACT OF MARCH 3, 1855. Land warrant No. 48,318.-Register and Receiver's No. 7,418. LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo., March 18, 1857. We hereby certify that the attached military bounty land warrant No. 48,318 was on this day received at this office from Thomas E. Bassett, of Clinton county, State of Missouri. JAMES H. BIRCH, Register. I, Thomas E. Bassett, of Clinton county, State of Missouri, hereby apply to locate and do locate the southwest quarter of section No. 9, in township No. 63, of range No. 33, in the district of lands subject to sale at the land office at Plattsburg, containing 160 acres, in satisfaction of the attached warrant numbered 48,318, issued under the act of March 3, 1855. Witness my hand this 18th day of March, A. D. 1857. Attest: JAMES H. BIRCH, Register. THOMAS E. BASSETT. I request the patent to be sent to LAND OFFICE, PLATTSBURG, Mo., We hereby certify that the above location is correct, being in accordance with law and instructions. H. WHITTINGTON, Receiver. The record in this form coming before us, (a record to which Birch, sen., Birch, jr., Yonley, and their associates were each and all parties, and therefore not open to their exception,) the line of duty for this office was plain and imperative. It was to see the laws faithfully executed, or otherwise the executive would become a passive instrument, submitting to their violation. There could be no possible difference of opinion between any two bonest men as to the course to be pursued; the law required the wrong resulting from an official breach of trust, at the local office, to be redressed and the right maintained. This was done by instructions dated 10th July, 1857, to the register and receiver. Those instructions ordered the prior applications of Felix and McLaughlin to be admitted, and notice given to the adverse claimants, Birch, jr., &c., that their subsequent locations would be cancelled and warrants returned. Birch, sen., the expelled register, then showed his hand, with a spirit indicative of the real interest he had in the premises. The first step was, appeals to the Secretary of the Interior and President of the United States, in ribald malicious papers, kindred to the cause he represents, and unfit to soil the public archives. Yet, in tender consideration of the interests of every man, high or low, those high functionaries gave the matter the most careful consideration. The Secretary preliminarily made a personal and thorough examination of the whole proceeding-made his report, dated September 4, 1857, copy G, to the President, sustaining the prior locations, and leaving the badge of fraud fastened upon the late official. The decision of the Secretary was affirmed by the President, and the fact made known to Birch. Attention is here invited to the fact that, in his efforts to make good the fraudulent locations of his son, Birch, jr., Yonley, and their associates, the elder Birch adopts a new device. Conscious of the fraud, instructing his locations, and apprehending, without some clinching act, they would not hold in disregard of the law and instructions before him, he prepared a case, which, if not a made up one, was selected with great care for the purpose; and the very next day after the conspiracy of the 2d, to wit, on the 3d March, 1857, he sprung upon the department the case of Hardin vs. Jackson, so adroitly stated, with his leading opinion as inevitably to lead to an affirmance, when in the rush of business we naturally receive a statement prima facie as correct, when presented from an official source. Here is a copy of the Birch statement, dated March 3, 1857, H; it speaks for itself, and when read in connexion with his malfeasance, discloses its motive. He reports Hardin as having filed an application on the 1st of September, 1856, to make an ordinary purchase of a tract, although, as he states, "from the press of business, the application could not be renewed and the entry made until the 8th of September." He represents, in substance, that Jackson, the pre-emptor, did no pre-emption act until after the 1st of September, 1856, the date of Hardin's application, and expresses his opinion "that the pre-emption of Jackson is invalid, as against Hardin, who became entitled to enter the land by his application of the 1st of September, on file in this (his) office, and which was carried into a new and formal application as soon as the then register could do so, and the original application consummated by entry on the 8th of September;" that the system thus adopted "works better and fairer and less annoyingly than any other plan would." In Birch's statement of the Hardin case not one word is said whether the purchase money was or was not actually tendered at the date of application; with the law and instructions before him, he well knew, as every one knows, that a mere naked application, unsupported by the consideration money, or tender of actual payment, is wholly ineffective and valueless; yet, the plain, simple truth on this material point he artfully suppressed in his statement, knowing that, in the absence of any specific declaration in this respect to the contrary, the legal presumption of the department would necessarily be that with the application actual tender of payment was made, at its date, and |