1st Session. No. 64. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 20, 1850. Mr. FELCH made the following REPORT: The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the memorial of the heirs of John Baptiste Vallé, praying confirmation of a grant of land in Missouri, respectfully report: The memorialists claim a right, under a Spanish grant, to twenty thousand arpents of land in Missouri. In proof of the claim, they exhibit the petition of their ancestor, John' Bte. Vallé, to Don Zenon Trudeau, lieutenant governor of the western part of Illinois, dated the 15th February, 1797, praying that he would grant to him, "in full 'property, a concession for twenty thousand arpents of land in superficie, to be taken in a vacant place in his majesty's domain." On the 19th day of the same month, the lieutenant governor issued his order to Don Antonio Soulard, the surveyor, "to survey, in favor of the interested, the twenty thousand arpents of land in superficie which he solicits in the place above mentioned; and he shall deliver to him a plat and certificate of his survey, in order that, together with this decree, it will serve him as a title for his property until the corresponding title in form be delivered to him by the general government." No survey appears ever to have been made, and no further action of the Spanish government is alleged to have been had; nor is there any evidence of any selection, location, or occupancy of any portion of land by virtue of claim under this concession. This claim was brought before the late board for the adjustment of land claims, organized under the acts of Congress of the 9th July, 1832, and the 2d March, 1833. It was entered and is returned by them as No. 334 in the first class of cases, with the unanimous opinion "that this claim ought to be confirmed to the said John B. Vallé, or to his legal representatives, according to the concession." (Senate documents [16] 1st session 24th Congress.) By the act of Congress of the 4th July, 1836, (Stat. at large, vol. 5, page 126,) entitled "An act confirming claims to lands in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes," all the claims mentioned in the first class of the commissioners' report were confirmed, with certain specified exceptions. Among these exceptions is the claim of the memorialists. Subsequently, the case was presented to Congress, and, without receiving any favorable action, the petitioner had leave to withdraw his petition. By act of Congress of the 17th June, 1814, the United States district court was open for adjudication of land claims in Missouri arising under grants made by Spanish authority. This claim, it is alleged in the memorial, has never been presented to that tribunal. To determine whether this government is required legally or upon principles of equity and justice to recognise the claim of the memorialists under the Spanish concession, will require an examination of the treaty of 'cession under which Louisiana was acquired, the nature of the claim presented, and the legislation of Congress on the subject of such claims. The treaty with the French republic of the 30th April, 1803, by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, includes in the cession "all public lots and squares, vacant lands and public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices which are not private property;" and a subsequent article secures the inhabitants in the enjoyment of their "property." All vacant lands were ceded to and became the property of the United States. Lands which were the property of individuals were to be recognised as such, and the owners were to be secured and protected in their titles. It has been repeatedly decided by the courts, that in order to give a good title to any specific portion or tract of land, under a French or Spanish grant, the location of the premises must be clearly defined, and the boundaries so far ascertained as to detach and set it apart from the public domain. All lands in the ceded territory not thus separated, nor in actual occupancy of individuals, are owned by the United States, to the exclusion of individual claimants. If the question presented in this case rested exclusively on the stipulations of the treaty, and such legal rights founded upon them, there would be little difficulty in the matter. The documents presented do not purport to bestow upon Vallé a grant of any specific portion or parcel of land, and no location or boundaries are given. The petition to the Spanish authorities asks for "twenty thousand arpents of lands in superficie, to be taken in a vacant place in his majesty's domain." The survey was authorized with no more definite location, and no survey was ever made or location had. There can be no pretence then for claiming that the petitioners have a grant of any specific part of the ceded territory which is protected as their "property" under the treaty. But the United States, in adopting a policy in disposing of the land acquired by the treaty, did not confine itself to the allowance of legal titles under perfected grants. A more liberal policy to the inhabitants of the country was adopted at an early day, and has continued to the present time. By the acts of March 26, 1804, March 2, 1805, March 3, 1807, April 12, 1814, and numerous other acts on the same subject, incomplete concessions by the governments in possession of the territory, before the treaty, were recognised in certain cases as the foundation of grants from this government. The same statutes also recognise mere possession and occupancy as the foundation for a grant of title. These acts may be regarded as establishing a liberal policy on the part of our government towards the settlers on the ceded territory, and not as an acknowledgment of rights under former incomplete concessions, in cases where no actual location or settlement of the land claimed had been made. The act of March, 1804, is the first to mention as the foundation of å grant of land by our government anything short of a prior complete grant conveying actual title. This act merely excepts from the operation of a clause declaring certain grants null and void "acts done agreeably to the laws, usages, and customs of the Spanish government to obtain a grant;" but this confines it to actual settlers on the land claimed, and that also to cases where such settlement was made prior to December 20, 1803: The act of March 2, 1805, provides for the confirmation of the claims of persons under "any duly registered warrant or order of survey," obtained from the French or Spanish government, respectively, during the time either of said governments had actual possession of said territories; but this act. also confined its application to lands which were, on the first day of October, 1800, actually inhabited and cultivated by such person or persons, or for his or their use. The same right was also secured to those who were in like occupancy of lands, having made an actual settlement thereon by permission, or according to the laws, usages, and customs of the Spanish government, without grant thereof. By the act of March 3, 1807, all persons who had occupied their land,. without regard to any authority of the Spanish government, for ten con secutive years prior to December 20, 1803, were to be confirmed in their titles to the land so occupied. The act of April 12, 1814, recognises the claims specified in the report of the commissioners appointed to settle and adjust them, but expressly confines the confirmation to those who were residents at the time specified, and when the concession, warrant, or order of survey under which the claim was made contained a special location, or had been actually located or surveyed, before a specified day, by a surveyor duly authorized by the government making such grant. In all the statutes above cited, no principle is adopted which would sanction the claim of the memorialists. None of thein recognise a confirmation of titles under imperfect grants, or any proceedings not yet ripened into perfect titles, unless the land claimed was defined and located, and actually occupied by the claimants. The memorialists do not pretend these things, in reference to the claim in question. By the Act for the final adjustment of private land claims in Missouri," approved July 9, 1832, it is made the duty of the recorder of land titles in Missouri, and two commissioners, to be appointed for that purpose, "to examine all the unconfirmed claims to land in that State, heretofore filed in the office of the said recorder, according to laws, sued by the authority of France or Spain prior to the tenth day of March, oue thousand eight hundred and four, and to class the same, so as to show: first, what claims, in their opinion, would in fact have been confirmed according to the laws, usages, and customs of the Spanish government, and the practice of the. Spanish authorities under them, at New Orleans, if the government under which said claims originated had continued in Missouri;" and, secondly, what claims, in their opinion, are destitute of merit, with the reasons for the opinions so given. Their report on these claims, embracing all the testimony, was to be laid before Congress for their final decision upon the claims contained in the first class." The terms of this act are such as to require the commissioners to examine and report upon cases of incomplete grant, but established nog principle under which they were to be confirmed. It provides the means, of obtaining information on the subject, in order that Congress might subsequently determine whether any of the cases reported, and, if any, which, ought to be confirmed. The report of the commissioners was presented, and embraced a large number of claims of this character; and then the question arose whether Congress would give titles under such imperfect and unlocated grants. The decision of this question is found in the act entitled "An act confirming claims to land in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes," approved July 4, 1836. This act confirms all the claims reported in the first class, with certain specified exceptions, among which is the claim of the memorialists. The exceptions embrace twentynine claims, and are of a character to involve the same questions and objections which are presented in the case before us. It is probably true that among the cases not excepted, and therefore confirmed, are a few subject to the same objection as that before us. In looking over the mass of testimony and papers returned by the commissioners, it is not surprising that such an oversight should have occurred. It is perfectly apparent, however, that the distinction was taken by Congress between these large claims under grants never perfected or located, and under which no survey was had or possession taken, and the other classes recognised by law. The former were expressly rejected from confirmation.. Congress has also by several acts given jurisdiction, upon liberal principles, to the courts, in certain cases, to decide upon French and Spanish claims in the territory acquired by the treaty above mentioned. The act of 26th May, 1824, gives such jurisdiction in cases arising under "any French or Spanish grant, concession, warrant, or order of survey legally. made, granted, or issued before the 10th day of March, 1804, by the proper authorities," and which was protected or secured by the treaty of cession, "and which might have been perfected into a complete title under and in conformity to the laws, usages, and customs of the government under which the same originated, had not the sovereignty of the country been transferred to the United States." It is stated in the memorial before us that this provision has been of no avail to the memorialists, "it being impossible to prosecute successfully equitable claims of this nature in that court;" and from the numerous decisions of the courts under this law, it is evident that they do not regard cases like that before us as entitled to confirmation under the act giving them jurisdiction over the subject of grants. The Supreme Court, in Smith es. The United States, (10 Pet. R. 326,) had occasion to consider the extent of jurisdiction given by the act of 1824 to the district courts of Missouri, and the class of cases subjected to their adjudication. The grant then in question, like that in the case before us, rested upon a petition and order of survey, under which order no location or survey by Spanish authority had been had. The claimant contended that his clain was protected by the treaty of cession, and might have been perfected into a complete title under the laws, usages, and customs of the government under which the same originated, had not the sovereignty of the country been transferred to the United States. The court held, however, that a claim could not be confirmed under the acts of 1824 and 1828 unless by a grant, concession, warrant, or order of survey for some tract of land described therein, to make it capable of some definite location consistently with its terms, granted or issued before the 10th of March, 1804, or by an order to survey any given quantity without any description or limitation as to place, which shall have been located by a survey made by a proper officer before that time. From the above references it is apparent that Congress has never yet adopted a principle, in reference to these incomplete grants, by direct legislation upon them, or in any of the acts giving power to commissioners or jurisdiction to courts over the subject, which would embrace the claim under consideration. Shall the government now proceed a step further than ever before and recognise this claim? Congress cannot grant the prayer of the petitioner without opening the door to a numerous class, of cases of the same character, the allowance of which would require floats to be issued perhaps for millions of acres of the public domain. The claims excepted from confirmation by Congress in the report of the commissioners, embracing the present case, amount to upwards of 105,000 acres, some of which await the determination of Congress on the case now before us. If any principle of justice to the claimants require the grant solicited by them to be made by Congress, it should be done, without regard to the extent of similar claims which, under the same principles, must subsequently be allowed.. If, however, it be a mere gratuity which is sought-a boon to which no. well-founded right exists, and by a refusal of which no equities are jeoparded-it would be wrong to overlook the consequences to which it will lead. The United States have adopted principles of great liberality towards claimants under French and Spanish grants. All who had titles to any portion of the country granted and separated from the public domain were secured by the treaty of cession in their property; and the actual occupant of lands without claim of title, or under imperfect titles, received grants. Commissioners were appointed and courts opened to hear and determine upon these claims; and for nearly half a century the opportunity for presenting them has been from time to continued, under rules most liberal to the claimants. Under these laws every settler in the country has had the benefit of securing his homestead, and many of them have been confirmed in large tracts of land which they did not occupy. If the grant now solicited by the memorialists ought to be conceded, it must be either 1st. In virtue of the treaty stipulations securing legal or equitable rights under the incomplete grant to Vallé, which the government should recognise and compensate; or, 2d. Because of Vallé's connexion with the early settlement of the country under the auspices of his government, and his continued residence after the cession to the United States. I. As to his rights founded on the imperfect grant, we have already briefly referred to them as viewed by Congress and the courts. The treaty recognises and protects "property" merely. By it our government does not assume the unexecuted obligations or the contracts of the Spanish government to the inhabitants of the ceded territory.. "Property' implies something more than a mere unexécuted contract between parties, whatever may be the subject-matter of that contract. It is true that the courts have declared that the term "property" in the treaty, when applied to land, embraces premises which were held by equitable as well as by legal title; but in no case can such title to land exist |