tion; and this, her present deplorable situation, having been brought about solely by the errors of the United States land officers.

As a summary, your committee state that Abraham Dardenne, deceased, bought from and paid the United States for land to which the United States had no title, having already sold it. That the United States still holds the purchase-money of said Dardenne, amounting to $253 23, and has held the same over twenty-one years. That for eleven years said Dardenne was suffered to hold and improve said land without notice that he had no title, notwithstanding the Commissioner of the General Land Office confirmed the claim of Aaron Hanscom's heirs in 1837, one year after said Dardenne made his entry, but which fact was not communicated to Dardenne until 1847, being ten years after said confirmation was made. That said Dardenne continued to reside on said land, refusing to give it up, until his death, and his family after him till January 1, 1851, when the widow and her children, resisting in the courts, were ejected by force of law. That they are poor, and the children, five in number, dependent on the mother. That they have not only lost the use of their money, but the interest for over twenty-one years; and not only lost the land, but all the improvements, which, with their own labor and humble means, they had expended on it for fifteen years of continuous occupation, which had greatly enhanced its value; that to refund now only the purchase-money would be a gross wrong; that to refund it with interest would be palpably unjust, in the loss of all their labor and improvements, and the increased value of the land. That all lands of similar value on the banks of the Arkansas river are now entered and out of the reach of the petitioner. That authority to enter, in full satisfaction, six hundred and forty acres of land, subject to private entry, seems to the committee the nearest approach to justice; and yet they are aware that, in many respects, it fails to repay a family now thrown upon the world and made destitute by errors in which they had no agency.

The committee make a part of this report the accompanying letter of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, dated January 26, 1854.

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
January 26, 1854.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the petition and accompanying papers of Theresa Dardenne, widow of Abraham Dardenne, praying Congress to indemnify her for losses sustained on account of an erroneous sale of lands made to the said Abraham by the land officers at Little Rock, Arkansas, which papers were referred by you to this office on the 21st inst.

In reply, I have to state, that it appears from the records of this office that Abraham Darden ne entered at the land office at Little Rock, Arkansas, on the 30th January, 1836, the north part of the northwest fractional quarter (east of Arkansas river) of section 6, in township 5 south, of range 9 west, containing 43.14 acres, per certificate of purchase No. 1133; also the northeast fractional quarter of same section, township, and range, containing 159.45 acres, per certificate of purchase No. 1132; that some time subsequent to the date of said en

tries it was discovered that the same were illegal, for the reason that the 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 this office "to be good" by the special agent, in his report of 21st November, 1837, and, consequently, a patent issued thereon. And the register and receiver at Little Rock, in a letter from this office dated the 30th November, 1847, were instructed to advise Mr. Dardenne of the illegality of his said entries, in order that he might make application for the refunding of the purchase-money paid thereon. Such being the facts in the case, this office has no power to afford relief further than to recommend the return of the purchase-money paid on said entries, which, from the examination made, does not appear ever to have been done, and to which Mrs. Dardenne would appear to be entitled, upon application being made in due form.

The case, as recited in the petition, appears to be one of peculiar hardship; and you have the warmest wishes of this office for the success of any efforts you may make in behalf of the destitute widow and orphans. The papers are herewith returned to you.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. R. W. JOHNSON,

United States Senate.

JOHN WILSON,

Commissioner.

The committee report the accompanying bill, and recommend its passage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JUNE 4, 1858.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. IVERSON made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 435.]

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of James T. V. Thompson, report:

This claim was examined by the Committee on Claims at the last Congress, who made a favorable report, accompanied by a bill, which passed the Senate, but failed to receive the final action of the House of Representatives.

The committee concur in the statement of facts as found in the former report, hereto annexed, and are of opinion that the claimant is entitled to have refunded to him the amount which he lost in consequence of the unsoundness of the flour, and report a bill accordingly.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, May 9, 1856.

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of James T. V. Thompson, report:

From the papers in this case it appears that, by order of the commissary of subsistence, a sale of about 1,000 bags of flour was advertised on July 25, 1851, to take place on the 16th of August following, at Fort Leavenworth. The advertisement represented the flour to be "in good order and perfectly sweet." On the said day the petitioner purchased 405 sacks, at $1 95 per sack, amounting to $789 75. After the flour was delivered and paid for, it was ascertained, as is alleged, to be sour and unfit for use, and was afterwards sold by the petitioner for the best price he could get, and netted him about forty cents per sack, subjecting him to a loss of $627 75, which he asks to have reimbursed.

The persons to whom the flour was consigned certify to its being sour and unfit for use.

Amongst the testimony is the affidavit of D. B. Martin, who deposes that he was present at the sale, and became the purchaser of 140 sacks

of the same lot of flour, which proved to be sour, as ascertained a few days subsequently; and further, "that he was present at a sale at the same place, a few weeks after the first sale, and after the unsoundness of the flour had been ascertained, when the residue of the same stock was sold, and that the price obtained was about an average of thirtyfive or forty cents a sack."

The claim for a reimbursement of the purchase money was submitted to the accounting officers and disallowed, on the grounds that it was not proved that the flour was not sound at the time of sale, and that the advertisement contained no warranty of soundness to the purchaser; and further, if these facts were admitted, that they had no jurisdiction of the matter.

The committee think that, under all the circumstances of the case, the assurance in the advertisement that the flour was "in good order and perfectly sweet," may be regarded as a warranty to the purchaser that it would be delivered to him in that condition. Then the question arises, was it so delivered? Upon this point the evidence is not so direct and definite as to the time when the discovery of its unsoundness was ascertained, and as to the extent of the damage, as could be desired; yet the certificates of the consignees, the testimony of Mr. Martin, and the fact that the residue of the flour was sold a few weeks after at a greatly reduced price, tends to sustain the allegation of the claimant.

In view of all circumstances, the committee have come to the conclusion to report the accompanying bill, authorizing one-half of the purchase money paid for the flour to be reimbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner presents a further claim of $277 20 for beef cattle lost en route to Bent's Fort.

It appears that in 1846 Mr. Thompson, in pursuance of a contract to that effect, delivered to the assistant commissary of subsistence at Fort Leavenworth 200 head of beef cattle, for which he received the price agreed on, to wit: three cents per pond. The cattle not being wanted at that point, he entered into a further contract to deliver the same cattle at Bent's Fort for one and a half cent per pound additional. He accordingly united them with another drove of about 500 head on their way to the same point. On their arrival at Bent's Fort, it was found that forty-two head had been lost after the union of the two droves, and he asks that the government assume the proportionate loss on the 200 head, amounting to the sum claimed as stated above, he having been required by the officer at Bent's Fort to deliver the full number belonging to the government.

This claim was submitted to the accounting officers in April, 1854, and they, after a full revision of the facts, decided that "the claimant's contract was completed and ended when he delivered the catt! and received the pay agreed on for their delivery, and he cannot b allowed, seven years after the transaction, to vary its terms so plainly set forth by the evidence he has produced."

The committee concur in this decision of the accounting officers.