IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

APRIL 13, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BENJAMIN submitted the following

REPORT.

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Jacob Washington Morse, "praying to be placed on the navy pension roll as an invalid pensioner for wounds and disabilities in the war of 1812," have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report:

The petitioner alleges that he entered the navy of the United States in the spring of the year 1813, and was on board of the sloop-of-war Growler, in the capacity of a purser's steward, at the time of her capture by the British on Lake Champlain; and in this action he states that he was wounded in the foot, and is now suffering from lameness in consequence thereof, and partial deafness occasioned by the heavy discharge of cannon. He further states that he filed his application for a pension in the office of the Commissioner of Pensions more than twenty years ago, but could not satisfactorily prove his claim on account of the loss of the ship's papers in the action above alluded to. The present petition was first presented to the Senate during the first session of the 34th Congress, referred to the Committee on Pensions, and by that committee reported upon adversely. The petitioner has now amended his prayer and asks only for the land and extra pay promised by an act of Congress granting bounties in land and extra pay to certain Canadian volunteers, approved 5th March, 1816.

The name of Mr. Morse cannot be found on the general roll of officers and men employed on Lake Champlain during the last war with Great Britain, nor on the particular roll of those who were attached to the "Growler." In consequence of this and of the insufficient and unsatisfactory character of the evidence filed in support of his claim, your committee are constrained to report adversely to the prayer of the petitioner, and asks to be discharged from the further consideration thereof.

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of William Cruikshank and others, respectfully report:

The facts of this case appear to be as follows:

One Juan B. Alvarado had a claim for a certain tract of land in California, called the "Nicasio" tract, which he sold to Manuel Castro on the 1st February, 1853. Prior to this sale he had employed Eugene Musson, esq., as his attorney, to prosecute his claim for confirmation before the United States land commissioners for that State. It was agreed that, inasmuch as Castro was unable to speak English, the claim should remain and be prosecuted by Musson in Alvarado's name. It was so done. The claim was presented on the 1st March, 1853, in the name of Alvarado, and was rejected on the 25th September, 1855, whereupon a transcript of appeal from the decision was filed in the United States district court, on the 6th February, 1856.

By law, notice of intention to prosecute this appeal was required to be filed within six months. This was not done, in consequence of the neglect of Alvarado, to whom Mr. Musson communicated the necessity of such notice, together with a notice that he, Musson, in consequence of ill health, would no longer attend to the case.

The neglect of Alvarado is readily accounted for by the fact that he had ceased to be the owner of the claim, which was presented in his name for the benefit of Castro. Castro has since conveyed his interest to the memorialists, who pray permission to reinstate their appeal, notwithstanding its dismissal because of failure to give seasonable notice as aforesaid.

The committee are of opinion that the permission should be granted; that if the land is really not vacant land, and does not belong to the government, the rights of the private proprietors ought not to be forfeited, under the circumstances, by reason of their neglect, and they report a bill accordingly.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

APRIL 14, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. FITCH made the following

'REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 262.]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the papers in the matter of the application of Daniel S. Ryan and Benjamin C. Wiley, administrators of R. D. Rowland, deceased, and of James M. Crook, to have refunded to them the amount paid for certain lands bought of the United States, of which the purchasers have been legally deprived by an Indian claim, report :

By the treaty of 24th March, 1832, with the Creeks, twenty sections of land were to be selected under direction of the President for the orphans of that tribe. The land was to be subdivided and retained by them, or sold for their benefit as the President might direct. The lands were selected in Alabama, subdivided, sold, and proceeds funded by the United States in trust for benefit of the Creek orphan fund in 5, 5 and 6 per cent. stocks. Cureton, Smith and Heifner were joint purchasers of one-half of the southeast half of section 2, township 14, range 8 east, for two thousand two hundred and sixty dollars, ($2,260;) and Richard D. Rowland, purchaser of the other half of same half section, for three thousand two hundred dollars, ($3,200.) The sales were approved by the President, and patents issued to vendees. Sally Ladigu, a Creek, living upon this half section, claimed it under another provision of the same treaty.

Her claim was rejected by the United States locating agent when he selected the lands, but was subsequently prosecuted in the courts, and after a tedious litigation, during which the case reached the United States Supreme Court, the final decision was in her favor, and the original purchasers from the United States and those holding under them were rejected. The parties in interest now claim that the government should refund the purchase money, with 8 per cent. (Alabama) interest, and indemnify them for all expenses of litigation. As government received the money as proceeds of sale of land to which the courts have decided it had no title and could convey none, the claim for re-payment of principal is indisputable; and as the money thus received was and is invested in either 5, 51 or 6 per cent. stocks, upon which interest has been regularly received, the committee think it will be but just to pay claimants 51 per cent.