He alleges that he commenced his improvement in April, 1843; and in his affidavit, attached to the petition, that he made a formal application to the register of the proper office for a permit to settle on the land, which was refused on the ground that it was within the military reserve. Notwithstanding he received no permit, he went on to the land.

It is apparent from the above statement of the facts, and of the provisions of the act, that the petitioner did not perform a single act bringing him within the provisions of the law, or upon which he can claim rights under it. He was a trespasser, without permit or right, on the military reserve, and properly moved from it by authority of the commandant of the fort.

The petitioner further claims that he has fully complied with all the requisitions of the act of Congress of July 1, 1848, entitled "An act for the relief of the bona fide settlers under the acts for the armed occupation and settlement of a part of the Territory of Florida." But this act applies only to the case of settlers who entered upon lands subject to settlement under the act, and who procured their permits according to law. The case of the petitioner is within neither the terms nor the spirit of the last mentioned act, and cannot be made to apply to the case.

From a view of the whole case, there would seem to be no good reason for granting the prayer of the petitioner, and the committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner be not granted.

1st Session.

No. 127.

MAY 13, 1850.

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. FELCH made the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. No. 228.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred a resolution of the legislature of Indiana, asking for a grant of lands for the use of the Indiana University, in lieu of lands of which it has heretofore been deprived by the action of Congress, respectfully report:

That, by virtue of the fifth section of "An act making provision for the disposal of the public lands in the Indiana Territory, and for other purposes," approved March 26, 1804, one entire township of land was reserved in Indiana for the use of a seminary of learning, to be located by the Secretary of the Treasury; and, under the fourth proposition of the fifth section of the act authorizing the formation of a State government in that State, approved April 19, 1816, another entire township, in addition to that above mentioned, was reserved for a similar purpose, and "vested in the legislature of said State, to be appropriated solely to the use of said seminary by the said legislature."

Under the law of 1804, township two south, of range eleven west, was duly selected; and, under the law of 1816, township eight north, of range one west, was designated by the proper authority-both in the Vincennes land district.

It is made to appear that certain lands in township first above menioned were, without authority, sold by the trustees of the Vincennes Jniversity, an institution incorporated by the legislature of Indiana Terriory in 1806, to individual settlers; and, by an act of the 27th of April, 816, Congress confirmed the purchasers in their titles in fee simple. Statutes at Large, vol. 6, p. 171.) It does not appear that the territorial uthorities of Indiana in any manner consented to the sale of the land by he trustees of the Vincennes University; and the terms of the act of Conress conferring the title on the purchasers show that they had no power › dispose of it. Nor has the State made use of any of the proceeds of the bove-mentioned grant to sustain that institution, but, on the contrary, has sed them exclusively in establishing and sustaining a State university. The confirmation of the title of the purchasers was made only eight days fter the act of Congress authorizing the formation of a State government Indiana, and proposing to give the State the grant above mentioned for seminary of learning. The propositions were accepted, and the State ad

mitted into the Union in December following-eight months after the title of the purchasers was confirmed by the above-mentioned act of Congress.

A fair construction of the acts above referred to shows an evident intention on the part of Congress to grant to the State two entire townships of land for university purposes, as was done in other new States. Yet it is evident that, by the act of confirmation above mentioned, a portion of one of the townships reserved for that purpose was conveyed before the State came into possession of it. Justice requires that the deficiency should be made up by allowing a new selection of a like quantity of land. The quantity so sold is stated in the memorial to be four thousand acres. The committee here with report a bill.

The memorialists represent also that a portion of the sixteenth section, or school lands, in one of the townships in that State, is deficient, on account of a reservation of it to an individual, in The general law now in force is sufficient to afford the proper instructions for a new selection have the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

treaty made in 1838. adequate remedy, and already been given by

1st Session.

No. 128.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 13, 1850.

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. SMITH made the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. No. 229.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the petition of Sidney S. Alcott, of Calhoun county, in the State of Michigan, respectfully report:

That they have had the same under consideration, and find that in the month of December, 1836, the petitioner employed one Andrew Parsons as his agent to enter certain lands at the office of the Ionia land district, in that State, and gave him written instructions to enter in his name east half of section thirty-four, township two north, of range five west, and put into his hands the sum of four hundred dollars to pay for the same; that said Parsons did proceed to said office, and applied for said lands in the name of the petitioner, paid over to the receiver of said office said sum of money, and took from him a duplicate, signed by the receiver, in which the land entered is specified to be the east half of section thirtyfour above named, but the amount alleged to be paid is only two hundred dollars, and the quantity of acres one hundred and sixty. Therefore, there is an incongruity in the duplicate; but, on a careful examination of all the facts of the case, the committee are satisfied that the petitioner did, in fact, apply and pay for the entire half section, and there are several circumstances developed in the proof which would seem to indicate that a fraud on him was intended by some one connected with the land office. But whether the error which has intervened in the case was the result of fraud or mistake, is wholly immaterial: that Mr. Alcott did not get the land paid for, was the fault of the United States officer; and therefore he is entitled to relief. The committee recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.