Mr. HARLAN submitted the following as

THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. .

The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Public Lands, to which committee was referred "A bill fr the relief of the citizens and owners of property in the city of Oman, Nebraska Territory, and Sioux city, State of Iowa," would most respectfully ask leave of the Senate to report:

That in tracing back the action of the government in regard to the disposal of the public lands, it will be found that it has been customary to recognize municipal as well as agricultural settlement of the public domain, and that a preference has always been given to the former over the latter, by excluding from agricultural pre-emption laws "such portions of the public lands which have been selected as the site for a city or town," and such parcels or lots of land as are actually settled and occupied for the purposes of trade, and not agriculture; and while the general law granting pre-emptions for municipal purposes limits such rights to 320 acres, yet the practice of the government has always been to enlarge these rights where it was shown that such municipal settlement could not be covered by a half section entry. In the case of the early settlement of towns in the west, the French were accustomed to locate their claims upon narrow strips of land fronting on the river, and running back to a considerable distance, containing each several acres, and in the aggregate several hundred and even thousands of acres, and these settlements were always recognized by Congress to the full extent claimed. The later municipal settlements in the west have also been provided for in a like manner, and to an extent greater than 320 acres. In 1836 Congress not only granted pre-emptions to the extent of 640 acres each to the owners and occupants of the towns of Mineral Point, in Wisconsin, Bellevue, Dubuque, Peru, Burlington, and Fort Madison, in Iowa, but actually gave the proceeds of the pre-emption sales to the respective towns for municipal purposes. Council Bluffs, in Iowa, was also made the subject of a special act for an enlargement of the preemption privilege to the extent of 640 acres.

The executive branch of the government, too, has carried out this liberal spirit towards municipal settlements, and the owners and occupants of several towns in Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas, by having different portions thereof incorporated under different names, have been allowed to pre-empt 320 acres, under the act of 1844, for each part incorporated; making an aggregate, in some instances, at one place, of even thousands of acres. In the cases submitted for the action of the committee, the facts are as follows:

At Omaha city, although about 3,000 acres have been actually laid off, not much over one-half of that quantity has been settled upon and occupied for town purposes; that said town contains a population of about 3,000 people, all of whom, through the mayor of the city and the

common council, petition for an enlargement of the provisions of the act of 1844, so as to include such portions as are so occupied-the 320 acres entered by the mayor covering not more than one half the improvements of the city. At Sioux city the town covers an area of 733 acres, of which 265 acres have been entered by the county judge, under the act of 1844, and 468 acres are yet unentered. On these 468 acres there are, at least, 1,500 settlers and occupants and many large and valuable improvements, and for the entry of which, by an enlargement of the provisions of the act of 1844, all the owners and occupants are anxious.

The growth and prosperity of both the towns referred to depend in a great measure upon the completeness of title; and the fact that portions of each are already entered, and other portions not, tends to excite a local jealousy that is seriously detrimental to the interests of the city at large.

The Commissioner of the General Land Office having examined the proposed bill, and being officially cognizant of all the facts of settlement and improvement, has given his unqualified recommendation for the passage of the same.

The undersigned believing that by the passage of the bill in question the interests of two large and growing communities will be greatly promoted, while the government will not receive one cent less for the lands than if otherwise disposed of, and inasmuch as the quantity to be entered at each place will depend upon the quantity actually settled and occupied for town purposes-a fact to be determined by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, on proof-it is believed that the passage of the bill in question will be but a continuance of the true and wholesome policy heretofore pursued in similar cases by the government, and will be an act of simple justice to the people who, in settling on the frontier, have risked their labor and property in a development of the resources of the country. The undersigned therefore recommends the favorable action of the Senate and the passage of said bill.

JAMES HARLAN.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JUNE 4, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas, made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 54.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill to revive and extend an act entitled "An act for the relief of the representatives of John Donnelson, Stephen Heard, and others," approved May 24, 1824, respectfully report:

That by the aforesaid act John Donnelson, Stephen Heard, William Downs, Joseph Martin, John Sevier, and Thomas Carr, or their heirs and representatives, respectively, were authorized to enter, under direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, 5,000 acres of land, within two years from the passage of the act, in any land office in Mississippi or Alabama, "being the amount of a grant made to them, by a resolution of the legislature of the State of Georgia, in the year 1786."(U. S. Statutes at Large, volume 6, page 313.)

On the 15th of May, 1826, this act is revived and extended for twelve months.-(Ibid, page 340.)

On the 19th of May, 1832, it is again extended twelve months.(Ibid, page 486.) On the 23d of June, 1836, it is again revived and extended for twelve months, and the beneficiaries of the act are authorized, in addition to Mississippi and Alabama, to enter their lands in any land office in Louisiana or Arkansas.

It appears by the letter of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, hereto appended and made part of this report, that prior to the passage of this last act, 23d June, 1836, some 1,460.46 acres of land had been located and patented for the Donnels on claim, out of the 5,000 acres granted by the original act, leaving still 3 539.54 acres to be located under the act of 1836; that prior to the expiration of the twelve months' limitation of said act, application was made by the Donnelson representatives to enter certain lands, in virtue of said act, in certain townships in Mississippi, which had been withdrawn from sale prior to the passage of the said last act of 1836, to await the adjustment of the boundary line of the Chickasaw cession; and that these lands thus applied for, and having been withdrawn from market before the passage of said last named act, the General Land

Office did not and could not properly recognize the location thus made by the representatives of said Donnelson, and can only obtain relief through Congress. The committee find the original claim a just and legal one, recognized as such by four several Congresses; that it has been but partially satisfied; and they can discover no good reason why the beneficiaries of the act sought to be revived should not be permitted to locate the balance of the lands awarded to them by the State of Georgia in 1786, and confirmed to them by the United States in 1824, as authorized by the act of 1836. The committee, therefore, report back the bill with an amendment, and recommend that the same do pass.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JUNE 4, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas, made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 434.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the petition of Theresa Dardenne, praying indemnity for losses sustained in consequence of an erroneous sale of land by the land officers at Little Rock, to her late husband, Abraham Dardenne, report:

It appears on record in the General Land Office, that Abraham Dardenne entered at the land office at Little Rock, Arkansas, on the 30th of January, 1836, the north part of the northwest fractional quarter, (east of Arkansas river,) of section six, in township five south, of range nine west, containing 43.14 acres, as per certificate of purchase No. 1133; also the northeast fractional quarter of the same section, containing 159.45 acres, as per certificate of purchase No. 1132; that some eleven years subsequent to the date of said entries it was discovered that said tracts of land were covered by donation certificate No. 107, dated May 19, 1830, (claim No. 145,) in the name of the heirs of Aaron Hanscom, which claim was reported to the General Land Office" to be good" by a special agent of that office, in his report of November 21, 1837, and consequently a patent issued thereon; and in 1847, ten years after said report of the special agent, the register and receiver at Little Rock were instructed to advise Mr. Dardenne of the illegality of his said entries. It further appears of record that the purchase-money, amounting to the sum of $253 233 still remains in the treasury of the United States.

The affidavit of the petitioner, widow of the late Abraham Dardenne,. sets forth that herself, husband, and children labored hard to improve and reduce to a state of cultivation the aforementioned lands for, the term of eleven years, believing their title to the same was perfect; and that during said term of years her husband was repeatedly offered $5,000 for said premises, but refused the same, preferring his home to money. It further appears in evidence that the petitioner, with her five children, (who were dependent upon her for support,) were ejected by force of law from said premises on the first day of January, 1851, and that herself and children are homeless and in a state of destitu