contract as it was originally made was in all probability looked to as the source of reimbursement, and your committee are unwilling that the good faith of the government, which was impliedly if not directly pledged, should be forfeited. It is clear that not only the advances above referred to, but all of the preparations in the way of horses, carriages, &c., were based upon the assurance that the contract would be carried out in good faith, and your committee do not think it would be just, or even politic, to disappoint the expectation which appeared to be well founded.

After mature consideration, the committee are of opinion that the prayer of the memorialist is just and should be granted, and therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of certain settlers in Louisiana within the limits of the " Baron de Bastrop grant," beg leave to report:

That, during the existence of the Spanish government in Louisiana, a contract was entered into between the provincial authorities of that government and the Baron de Bastrop, whereby the latter stipulated to introduce into the Ouachita county five hundred families for settlement, and to that end obtained a grant of about one million of arpens, the papers in reference to which are printed in the appendix to Clarke's Compilation of Land Laws, pages 951 to 954; that the United States government has resisted the claim, among other reasons, upon the ground that the lands were designed for the benefit of the families which it was proposed to settle on the claim, and not for the individual interest of de Bastrop, and because the conditions of the grant were never fulfilled; that the claim was brought in 1812 before the board of United States commissioners for the western district of Louisiana, and was rejected in their report of the 14th December, 1812, (same edition of State Papers, vol. 2, pages 637, 640, and 641;) that in 1825 the grant was referred to a select committee of the House of Representatives, and reported upon on the 11th of January and 20th December, 1825, (same edition of State Papers, vol. 4, pages 9 and 308,) that committee having expressed the opinion that the decision of the claim depends upon a question of law, and upon the examination of many witnesses as to several important points, and that, consequently, it ought to be referred to the United States courts; that, under the act of Congress, approved 17th June, 1844, opening the courts for the adjudication of claims, this Bastrop grant was brought before the United States district court, and the question of title has yet to be finally determined on appeal by the Supreme Court of the United States; that, in consideration of the fact that the claim has been so long in dispute, greatly to the detriment of the interests of the State, and to the prejudice of many bona fide claimants and settlers within its limits, the committee are of opinion that Congress should at once make provision by law, in order to secure individual interests in the event of a final adjudication of the Bastrop title in favor of the United States.

The select committee of the House of Representatives, in 1825, expressed the opinion "that, in case it should ultimately be decided that the said land belongs to the United States, it would be but fair and just to extend to all those who were settled upon the said land at the time the United States took possession of that part of the country the same provisions and privileges, and donations, as were granted to the actual settlers under the act of Congress of the 2d March, 1805, and the amendments thereto, as well as all other privileges extended to the inhabitants of Louisiana, settled upon other public lands by any subsequent act of Congress, so as to place the settlers upon the said land upon an equality with the settlers upon other public lands.'

The present committee of the Senate, concurring in this view of the matter, have prepared a bill requiring the register and receiver to make a report, pursuant to such instructions as may be given by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, upon all bona fide claims by purchase from de Bastrop, or those holding under him, where the land has been occupied and cultivated for twenty years; upon all bona fide claims to "head rights," not exceeding 640 acres each, where the original claimant came over and settled under the contract with de Bastrop, thus raising a presumption of purchase, even though no actual sale or conveyance was made; and upon all bona fide claims by ancient settlement prior to 20th December, 1803, where there has been such a continued possession as to show ownership in good faith. The committee do not propose to invest the register and receiver with power finally to confirm, but only to recommend for such final action of Congress by legislation as may be based upon an examination of the facts as indicated by the report and testimony.

The committee also propose, in the event of a final adjudication of the Bastrop title in favor of the United States, to confirm a few claims, seven in number, which were favorably passed upon in the report dated 1st January, 1821, by Daniel J. Sutton, then register for the district north of Red river, Louisiana, but which were expressly excepted from the confirmatory provision of the second section of the act of Congress, approved 28th February, 1823, entitled "An act supplementary to the several acts for the adjustment of land claims in the State of Louisiana," because they are included in the Bastrop grant. There are also actual settlers within the limits of the grant, who would have been able to obtain preemption rights under different pre-emption laws, had not the land been held in suspense; and the committee are of opinion that justice requires provision should be made for their benefit, in order that they may be able to acquire a legal title to the lands they inhabit and cultivate; and to effect the various objects contemplated in the foregoing, the committee. beg leave to report a bill.

1st Session.

No. 91.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARCH 19, 1850.

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. UNDERWOOD made the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. No. 161.]

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Thomas Allen, report:

That the Secretary of State was authorized by an act of Congress, ap proved September 1, 1841, to cause to be printed twenty thousand copies of the compendium or abridgment of the 6th census. Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, employed the memorialist to do the work; but it does not appear that any agreement was made fixing the amount or rate of compensation. The total sum originally charged is $43,579 66. The memorialist has received $15,849 64, appropriated by the act of March 3, 1843, providing for the civil and diplomatic expenses of government. To this appropriation there was, in substance, a proviso added, that it should not prejudice any future application to Congress for further compensation, and the memorialist now claims $27,730 023-the difference between his original demand and the sum received, with interest. In the absence of proof to show that there was a fixed price to be paid by the terms of the contract, the committee have inquired whether there was any law in force which would properly regulate the amount to be paid for the work, or whether the memorialist should be compensated according to the rule implied where prices have not been expressly agreed on. The committee could find no law, unless it be the joint resolution of March 3, 1819, which governed the case. This resolution was not applicable, in the opinion of the committee, inasmuch as it does not extend to printing for or under the direction of heads of departments. On the contrary, it seems to be limited to printing done by the printers elected by the two houses of Congress; and in their default, to the printer selected by the Sec retary of the Senate or Clerk of the House. In the absence of any stipulation in the contract fixing the price to be paid, and when no law can be found directly applicable by which the prices are fixed, the committee are of opinion that the whole amount which Mr. Allen is entitled to, in jus tice, is limited by the value of the labor and materials and a reasonable profit thereon. The memorialist has been paid the value of his labor and materials, but has received nothing for profit. According to the testimony;,