More than 25 and not exceeding 30 years More than 30 years $0.40 per acre. 20 do. By the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, made in January, 1849, it appears that, of 154,680,233 acres offered for sale, there were sold of land which had been in market less than ten years 44, 133, 589 acres. Land which had been in market more than 10 and less than 15 years More than 15 and less than 20 years More than 25 and less than 30 years Leaving for sale, at the end of the last period, 78, 046, 077 acres; all of which quantity would be subject to sale, if the bill in question should become a law, at the reduced prices above stated. The principles proposed in this bill are, in the opinion of the committee, much less objectionable than most of the propositions now before them, and, under a state of things different from that which at the present time exists in reference to the public domain, would strongly commend themselves to their approval. But it seems to them that, however favorably it might have been regarded when first proposed, there are reasons for not adopting it at the present time. The principal reasons urged for the adoption of this system were founded on a desire to increase the income to the treasury from the increased sales which it was believed would be effected by reducing the prices, and the supposition that the lands which did not find an early sale, after being offered in market, must be inferior in quality, and of little value. It is believed that the idea that a diminution of the price would so increase the sales, that the amount received at the less price would exceed that which would be derived from the same lands offered at the present minimum, is deceptive. We have already referred to the uniformity of the demand for lands, and the little effect on that demand which a gratuitous grant of it would have. The reduction of price would not, in the opinion of the committee, have the effect proposed. Occasionally a farmer might add by purchase to his premises, but the demand would not be increased so as materially to affect the sales. The leading idea in support of this proposition is, that the land remaining for a long time unsold, is by that circumstance proved to be inferior in quality and of little value; and that the length of time during which it has sought a purchaser in vain, is a criterion by which to determine its value. When, however, it is recollected that government does not limit the quantity of land brought into market to the demands of purchasers, nor withhold the offer of new tracts until those previously offered are sold, but, as the new districts are surveyed, annually offers the domain in quantities much larger than the annual sales, it is apparent that large quantities must remain for years without finding purchasers. If every acre of it was good land, this must be the case. And the fact that land has been some years in market, is by no means evidence that it is worthless, or quite inferior in quality. This is apparent from the tables above referred to, where it appears that, of the class of lands pro posed to be sold at 40 cents an acre, there have been sold heretofore at the land offices no less than 2,371,756 acres at the minimum price of $1 25; and of the lands proposed to be sold at 60 cents, 3,691,066 acres have been sold; and of that proposed to be sold at 80 cents, 8,730,822 acres have been sold; and 17,706,923 acres of that which, under the provisions of this bill, would have been sold at $1 per acre. The committee are fully aware that there is a large quantity of land which, from its being low, swampy, and unproductive, or subject to inundation, or other causes, is not only uninviting for settlement, but often injurious to the health or comfort of the neighboring settlers. Much of this may be ditched and drained, or secured by embankments from overflow, and thus be rendered desirable for cultivation. These necessary improvements the government, as a proprietor of the soil, cannot make; and it is certainly desirable that the lands should fall into other hands. Instead, however, of adopting a new system of sales, and different prices, depending upon a criterion at least very uncertain, it seems more reasonable for the government to divest itself entirely of this class of lands and confer them on the States in which they lie. With a view in part to this object, the committee have reported a bill, at the present session of Congress, ceding to the States the lands within their respective limits returned as swamp lands. These, as originally reported, aimounted in the twelve land States to over twenty millions of acres; and although many have been heretofore sold or granted to the States, the quantity yet remaining is large. In several of the States where these lands are situated, the necessity of adopting some general system to reclaim them has long been urged upon Congress. On the lower Mississippi the health of the community and the safety of their property require it, and Congress has already granted the overflowed lands to the States in which they lie, to aid in the work. Many of these lands, when reclaimed, become fertile and valuable, but in the hands of the government they are of no importance. Apportioned among individuals, in small quantities, they would be of no sufficient value to secure the necessary improvements. The States are the only safe depository of the title-having the power to adopt such measures in regard to their sale, improvement, and reclamation as a just regard to the best interest of all concerned may dictate. This portion of the public domain not valuable for settlement, and therefore not sought by purchasers, can be retained by the government only to the detriment of others; and it better accords with the relations existing between the land States and the citizens thereof on the one part, and the general government on the other, to cede these lands to the former, than to dispose of them for nominal amounts to individuals. The duty of the general government to promote, by grants of land in these States, the means of communication and transportation for the benefit of settlers and for the increase of the sales of the public domain, is recognised by numerous appropriations for that purpose, and there is on the table of the Senate a bill for additional grants for that purpose to several of the States, making them equal to others which had received larger grants in proportion to their several areas. These bills, together with others which have passed the Senate, granting alternate sections for specific works, will, if they become laws, cede to the States a large portion of the land of which the price would be reduced under the graduation bill. The acquisition of immense territory to be administered by the govern ment in California and New Mexico, and the extensive region of Oregon not yet open for sale, admonish us of the extent of our land system, and of the necessity of adopting and maintaining rules of the greatest simplicity and most practical utility. With the great and embarrassing labor consequent on the management of a domain so widely extended, with which such important interests are connected, and in the conducting of which so many difficulties necessarily occur, the complication of the system would lead into great if not fatal difficulties. The principles which, in the opinion of the committee, should govern the action of Congress on this important subject, are few and simple, and may be thus stated: 1. One uniform price should be fixed for the sale of the public domain, as under the present arrangement. This price should be such as the best of lands ought to command, and so low as to make the burden of pur chase light. The distinction now made in favor of the actual settler should be kept up, and, if found in its practical operation necessary or expedient to do so, should be made still more favorable to him; and in the territories not yet exposed for sale, the most liberal policy towards the original settler should be adopted. 2. All lands which cannot be well administered by the government, or which require labor or expense to make them useful, or which, from want of fertility or any cause, cannot or should not command the minimum price fixed by law, should be granted to the respective States in which they are located, to be disposed of by them, and the proceeds, if any, to be applied to useful purposes. 3. Grants of land to aid in constructing the improvements necessary for internal communication in the land States should, from time to time, be made to the States as the exigency of the case and the dictates of sound policy may require. With these general views on the subject, the committee cannot advise, at the present time at least, the adoption of any of the systems proposed; and therefore recommend that the said bills do not pass, and the com mittee be discharged from the further consideration of the said petitions, memorials, and resolutions. 1st Session. No. 168. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JULY 19, 1850. Submitted, and ordered to be printed: Mr. FELCH made the following REPORT: The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the petition of Peter Holcer, alias Holser, William Rierden, Leonard Cameron, James Tucker, and others, praying for the confirmation of certain lands in Missouri claimed by them severally, on the ground of concessions from the government of Spain and of settlement rights acquired by themselves, or other relief in lieu thereof, respectfully report as follows: The claims presented to the committee may be arranged in five classes, and will be so considered in this report. 1. The first class embraces the claims of the following petitioners, viz: These claims appear never to have been acted upon by any board of commissioners appointed to examine the claims of the settlers in the territory ceded by France to the United States, nor of the courts to which authority was given to adjudicate in specified cases. The claims of these petitioners rest exclusively on settlement and cultivation of the land, without proof of any right under concession, grant, or other official act, by competent authority, previous to the cession of the territory to this government. Numerous acts of Congress have heretofore been passed extending the most liberal provisions to the settlers in Missouri. The committee have carefully examined the facts presented by these petitioners, and are satisfied that they do not bring their claims within any of the principles of these acts. And they are further satisfied that it is inexpedient at the present time so to extend that liberality beyond former legislation as to embrace the cases of the petitioners; nor, in their opinion, is it required by any consideration of justice to the claimants. 2. The second class comprises five claims, to wit: These were all presented to the board of commissioners organized under the acts of Congress of July 9, 1832, and March 2, 1833. They are reported to Congress by that board, and a statement of each case will be found in the list (Senate Doc. 16, 1st session 24th Congress) designated as the second class, and are there numbered 4, 2, 7, 8, 41, and 9. The commissioners recommended that these claims be rejected, for reasons set forth in their report, to which this committee beg leave to refer. It is evident from the facts there stated, that neither as claimants under any action of the Spanish authorities, nor under any equitable claim by virtue of possession and cultivation, are they entitled to the relief sought. Cengress acted on the report of the commissioners, and by act of 4th July, 1836, confirmed a portion of the cases reported upon by the commissioners. All the cases mentioned in the second class were refused confirmation. No new testimony is presented by the petitioners, and the com mittee can see no reason to reverse former decisions which appear to be correct and just in regard to them. 3. The third class embraces the cases of three applicants, viz: Tunis Quick, claiming . Baptiste Janés, legal representatives of, claiming Arpens. 500 8,000 600 These claims are founded on proceedings to obtain concessions under the Spanish authorities. They appear never to have been presented to any of the boards of commissioners nor to the courts, nor do they appear to come within the rules which would authorize their allowance under any of the laws on the subject. There was no perfected grant in either of the cases, no survey, and no proof of possession by the claimants. 4. The fourth class comprises four cases, to wit: These claims are founded on settlement rights only, and were presented to the late board of commissioners, and by them reported in the second class of cases above mentioned, (Senate Doc. 16, 1st session 24th Congress,) as Nos. 56, 15, 51, and 33. The proofs presented were manifestly |