insufficient in these cases to substantiate the claims, and the adverse report of the commissioners was very properly not disturbed by Congress. In the last claim above mentioned, however, (that of Charles McLane,) it appears that a portion of the testimony filed before the commissioners was mislaid at the time of their decision, and not considered by them; and on subsequent application to Congress the title was confirmed to the claimant by "An act for the relief of Charles McLane, of Missouri," approved March 3, 1849.

5. This class comprises the cases of Pascal Dutchmendy, claiming 7,056 arpens, and Walter Fenwick, claiming 10,000 arpens. These cases are reported in the first class of the commissioners' report above mentioned, and are recommended for confirmation by the board. They are numbered in the report 339 and 309. In the act of Congress confirming the first class of reported cases, approved July 4, 1836, these are expressly excluded from the confirmation.

The claim of P. Dutchmendy has been referred, on the separate petition of the present claimant under him, to the Committee on Private Land Claims of the Senate, who at the present session have made, on principles which seem just, an adverse report on the case. The claim of Walter Fenwick exhibits an application by him in 1796, to the lieutenant governor of Upper Louisiana, for a grant of 10,000 arpens of land at a place called La Mine a la Motte, upon which an order of survey was granted. It is not proved that any survey was ever procured, or any part of public land set apart for the claimant, or any possession had by him, or any concession ever obtained. The committee have had occasion at the present session of Congress, in reporting on the petition of John Bt. Vallé, to express their views at large on claims of this character, to which report they beg leave here to refer.

It will be observed, in regard to these claims, that no possession by the claimants of a recent date is proved by them. The testimony presented is not new, most of it having been used, or prepared to be used, before the commissioners as early as the year 1833. There is no proof of possession within seventeen years in any case; and the little which shows possession earlier than that, in a few cases, is indefinite and unsatisfactory. The 3d section of the act for the final adjustment of private land claims in Missouri, approved July 9, 1832, provides that the land claimed by individuals whose claims are not allowed by Congress on the return of the commissioners' report to that body, shall be subject to sale as other public lands. Under this provision, such of the lands as were thus claimed became subject to sale, like other portions of the public domain, on the passage of the confirmatory act of July 4, 1836. ↑ Indeed, as to all the lands claimed by these petitioners, it is affirmed, in the memorial referred to the committee, that the government has disposed of the lands originally embraced in their respective claims," and they therefore pray that they may receive " a float," or be permitted to locate the same quantity of other lands belonging to the United States. The great length of time which has elapsed, and the repeated liberal provisions of law which have been extended to all the claimants of lands in the territory acquired from France, and the palpable neglect or rather abandonment of many of the claims, ought, in the opinion of the committee, be regarded as setting these applications at rest. With no new proof to sustain them they are presented for readjudication, at a time

when the premises originally claimed have passed into the hands of other owners, and without a showing, in the opinion of the committee, which can on principles of right or equity entitle them to compensation in other lands.

In addition to the cases above mentioned, there is referred to the com mittee the claim of Martin Fenwick for 500 arpens, under an order of survey, and other proofs relative to the same. This claim having been reported upon by the Committee on Private Land Claims of the Senate, and their report not having yet received the consideration of the Senate, this committee ask to be discharged from this portion of the reference to them. None of the remarks relative to these claims contained in this report will be understood, therefore, to apply to the claim last mentioned. As to all the other claims mentioned in the papers referred to them, and herein above specified, the committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

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

1st Session.

No. 169.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 19, 1850.

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. NORRIS made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of the administrators of Colonel John Anderson, deceased, report:

This is a claim for compensation for buildings and personal property destroyed by the enemy, to the amount of $9,000.

It appears that soon after hostilities commenced between the United States and Great Britain, the claimant's dwelling-house and store at Frenchtown, Michigan, were taken possession of by Duncan Reid, acting as a quartermaster of the Michigan militia, and made a deposite for military stores of the United States, and continued to be so occupied until the surrender of the army under General Hull, including that post, on the 16th of August, 1812. On or about the 20th August, the place was surrendered to Captain Elliot, of the British army, there still being a drum, a few muskets, and some other military property remaining in the house. A portion of the American troops, who had previously occupied it, had, on learning of the surrender of Hull, already left for Ohio. On the approach of General Winchester, in January, 1813, the enemy abandoned, but did not destroy, the buildings in question, and the town was restored to the American authority, but it does not appear that claimant's buildings were again occupied by the American troops. On the defeat of General Winchester, in the same month, and the destruction of a large part of the town, these buildings, still remaining, were reoccupied by the enemy and continued in their possession until the June following, (1813,) when they were burnt, and the place was finally evacuated by the enemy and reoccupied by the United States.

The claim was originally submitted to the commissioner appointed under the acts of Congress of 1816 and 1817,"authorizing the payment for property lost, captured, or destroyed by the enemy while in the military service of the United States;" but it does not appear to have been finally acted on by him. In 1822 it was presented to the House of Representatives, and referred to the Committee of Claims, who reported upon it adversely. After the passage of the act of 1825, (U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. IV, p. 123,) which authorizes those whose claims had been presented to the commissioner under the acts of 1816 and 1817, and which were not paid under said acts, nor finally rejected by the commissioner, to present the same to the Third Auditor of the Treasury for examination and adjustment, this claim was submitted to that officer.

In his answer the Auditor informs the claimant, that if his "buildings were not destroyed till some time after they had ceased to be occupied by the American troops," "the claim will be wholly inadmissible under the law of the last session." In December, 1825, the matter was again brought before Congress, and several adverse reports were made by the House Committee of Claims, to whom it was referred from session to session, with such additional testimony as was produced by the claimant. The new testimony brought forward at the present session of Congress presents no new aspect to the case.

The act of 1816 provides for the payment for houses or other buildings destroyed by the enemy "while the same were occupied as a military deposite under the authority of the United States;" and the memorialist contends that as these buildings were so occupied when they fell into the hands of the enemy, and were ultimately destroyed by him, the fact that the enemy postponed the destruction for his own convenience as long as he required them for his own use, should not operate to deprive him of relief under the law. But the petitioner's testimony further shows that the buildings were once abandoned by the enemy without being destroyed, and came again under the control of American authority; during which latter period they do not appear to have been used for military purposes. In the opinion of the committee, it is not to be assumed that after they fell a second time into the enemy's hands, not having in the intermediate time been used as a military deposite, they were destroyed on the ground that they had, prior to the enemy's former possession of them, been so used. This, in the opinion of the committee, cannot be properly inferred, in the absence of any direct evidence to that effect. And even if it could, it would not bring it within the rule, which requires that the property should have been destroyed while in the oc cupancy of the United States as a military deposite, and not because it had at some prior period been so occupied.

The reason of the law governing these cases is supposed to be, that military occupation renders a building the legitimate object of destruction by an enemy; and consequently, when a private building is so occupied by authority of the government, and is destroyed as an immediate consequence of such occupancy, the government becomes responsible to the proper owner.

This case, in the opinion of the committee, is clearly not within the principle of the law, nor of any rule established by Congress.

The petitioners suggest, as another ground for the allowance of their claim, that, by the articles under which the place was surrendered to the enemy, the protection of private property was guarantied, and that this property was destroyed in violation of those articles. It is therefore contended that the British government was responsible for the losses thus incurred, and should have been so held by the United States in adjusting the terms of peace; but as the treaty was concluded without such stip ulation, the responsibility devolved upon the United States.

A large amount of claims have heretofore been pressed upon Congress for losses incurred under similar circumstances upon the northwestern frontier, in the war of 1812, and for similar losses in the Black Hawk and other wars; but in no case, it is believed, has the government recog nised any obligation to make indemnity for property thus illegally de

stroyed, and it is not to be presumed that the uniform practice of Congress, so long adhered to, is now to be abandoned and reversed.

After a careful consideration of the case, the committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the petitioners are not entitled to relief.