1st Session. No. 52. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 15, 1850. Mr. FELCH made the following REPORT: The Committee on Public Lands, to whom were referred certain_documents relative to the claim of Nancy A. Dewitt for a military bounty land warrant, respectfully report: That a military bounty land warrant for a quarter section of land was issued to Isaac Stremback, a private in one of the companies of Indiana volunteers in the late war with Mexico, which warrant is among the papers referred to the committee, and is numbered 37,815, and bears date the 17th November, 1848. It further appears from the documents presented in the case that the said Stremback died previous to the issuing of the warrant, to wit: on or about the eighth day of August, 1848, and during his last sickness made his nuncupative will, bequeathing all his right, title, and interest whatsoever, which he had in the discharge received by him as such volunteer soldier, to said Nancy A. Dewitt. The will was subsequently reduced to writing and signed by three witnesses who were present, and was afterwards duly proved and recorded. The act of February 11, 1847, under which the soldier was entitled to bounty land, provides, in the event of the death of the soldier after his discharge, and before the issuing of a certificate or warrant for his bounty land, that "the said certificate or warrant shall be issued in favor and inure to the benefit of his family or relatives, according to the following rules: first, to the widow and to his children; second, his father; third, his mother;" and it is further provided that "all sales, mortgages, powers, and other instruments of writing, going to affect the title or claim to any such bounty right, made or executed prior to the issue of such warrant or certificate, shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever." If the prohibitory clause of the statute last above cited applies to the case before us, and renders the devise by the will of Stremback void, the right to his bounty land became vested, on his death, in his heirs, in the order in which they are mentioned in the act above cited. In that event Congress can have no power to divert the true owner of his interest and bestow it upon the petitioner who claims under the will. Whether any such heirs existed or not does not appear by the papers; but it is evident that questions may arise in the case as to the legal rights of parties, which it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Congress, on the proofs now presented, to decide. The warrant which issued after the death of Stremback was, on that account, void; and it is competent for the proper authorities to cancel it and issue another. In doing so, the department must, as in other cases of the death of the soldier before the warrant issues, receive proofs and determine the question who is justly and legally entitled to it. If the petitioner claims it under the nuncupative will, she can present her claim to the proper officer for his decision; so of the claim of heirs mentioned in the statute. It is a matter of every day practice at the department to decide on proofs as to the person entitled to the bounty lands of a deceased soldier; and although a controversy may not often arise between different claimants, still, when such does arise, there is ample provision for its determination according to legal rights. The committee can see no reason, therefore, for Congress to undertake the decision of the question here presented; and they recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That the applicant have leave to withdraw her papers. 1st Session. No. 53. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 15, 1850. Mr. NORRIS made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 99.] The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the bill for the relief of William L. Cazneau, submit the following report: This is a bill to refund to William L. Cazneau the sum of $614, being the amount of duty paid by him on an invoice of goods which were taken by him into Mexico through the custom-house opposite Laredo, immediately after the ratification of peace, and before the news had arrived there. It appears that the amount of duty was paid on the 5th of June, 1848, and that Cazneau took the goods into Mexico; but soon afterwards hearing the news of peace between the United States and Mexico, he brought back the goods into the United States, and called upon the government to refund the sum paid. It further appears that the Secretary of War, on advisement with the Secretary of the Treasury, issued an order to the deputy collector who had received the duty at Laredo, to refund the same to Cazneau, and that that officer, when the order was presented to him, had passed over the funds in his hands to other officers of the United States, and therefore could not pay it. The money has never been refunded. The objection to the passage of the bill, then, does not arise from any want of validity in the claim, but from the fact that ample provision has already been made for the settlement of this and all similar claims at the proper department. The third section of the act of 3d of March, 1849, entitled "An act to provide for the settlement of the accounts of public officers and others, who may have received moneys arising from military contributions, or otherwise, in Mexico," provides, "That where questions arise in respect to the refunding of duties collected in Mexico, or the remission of penaltics imposed on the ground that the collection was improper, or the penalties wrongfully enforced, the same shall be referred for the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, who is hereby authorized and required to pay, under the direction of the President of the United States, out of the money in the treasury raised from contributions, such sums as may be determined by him to have been improperly levied or imposed as contributions, assessments, or penalties." The committee are of the opinion, that the Secretary of the Treasury is vested with full authority by the law above recited to settle this claim, and that the applicant should apply to that officer for its adjustment under the existing law. They therefore recommend that the bill do not pass. J |