. COM 226 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JULY 18, 1856.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. FOSTER made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 389.] The Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred the petition of the heirs of Manuel Gonzales Moro, praying authority to locate a certain quantity of land, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report : That, under the act of Congress, entitled "An act for the final adjustment of private land claims in Missouri," approved July 9, 1832, and the act supplemental thereto, approved March 2, 1833, the said Moro filed his claim to 7,056 arpents before the commissioners, who, under date of November 27, 1833, made a report of their action upon the cases filed with them, which said report was communicated to Congress on the 18th day of January, 1834.-(See Ex. Docs. 1st session 24th Congress, No. 59.) The commissioners, in their said report, number the claim of Moro as No. 94, of the first class, and, in reference thereto, say: "Manuel Gonzales Moro, claiming 7,056 arpents of land. The board are unanimously of opinion that this claim ought to be confirmed to the said Manuel Gonzales Moro, or to his legal representatives, according to the concession." By the act of Congress entitled "An act confirming claims to land in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes," approved July 4, 1836, all the claims reported upon favorably by the said commissioners were confirmed to the respective claimants. This claim had no actual location under the Spanish government, nor neither had there been a survey or location of this claim prior to the decision of the board of commissioners. A survey of 7,056 arpents was made in 1837 to satisfy the claim of Moro, and, upon application for a patent, the Commissioner of the Land Office decided that the survey of 1837 could not be recognized, and that, "although the claim is confirmed, yet, being of the category of what are known as 'floating claims,' it cannot be satisfied by any specific allotment of land, without the further intervention of Congress, conferring special authority for such an allotment." Attorney General Gilpin, in an analogous case, on the 5th of February, 1841, (Opinions of Attorneys General, p. 1377,) says: "I am of opinion that the first section of the act in question (act of 1836) fully confirms and gives a valid title under the grant to the sons of Benito Vasquez, but I do not think that, without further legislation, the same can be located upon public lands of the United States. This can never be done except by authority from the legislature; and the law in question, though it confirms the grant, does not provide for its location." By the act of Congress approved January 12, 1855, the legal representatives of Benito Vasquez were authorized to locate a quantity of land equal to that confirmed by the act of 1836. In view of all the facts connected with this case, as well as the precedent established, your committee are unanimously of the opinion, that Manuel Gonzales Moro, or his legal representatives, ought to have authority to locate the quantity of land confirmed to said Moro by the said act of 1836, upon any of the public lands of the United States, subject to entry at the minimum price. They have, accordingly, directed me to report the accompanying bill, and recommend its passage. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JULY 18, 1856-Ordered to be printed. Mr. FOSTER made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 390.] The Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred the petition of John Dick, praying that a patent may be issued to him for land settled by him under permit granted by the register of the land office at St. Augustine, Florida, have had the same under consideration and submit the following report: Under the provisions of the act of Congress for the armed occupation and settlement of the unsettled part of the peninsula of East Florida, approved August 4, 1842, the petitioner filed his notice with the register of the land office at St. Augustine, for a "permit' to settle upon one hundred and sixty acres of land, south of the line dividing townships numbered nine and ten, and described as follows: Lot No. 10 in section 29, lot No. 1 in section 31, fractional section 30, and the northwest of the northwest quarter of section 32, all of township 10, range 27 south and east, containing in the aggregate 153.20 acres. On the 16th of April, 1843, the register of the land office issued "permit" No. 43 to the petitioner, giving him permission to settle upon the lands solicited, under the conditions of the said act; one of which was, "that no right or donation shall be acquired under this act within two miles of any permanent military post of the United States, established and garrisoned at the time such settlement and residence was commenced." This permit was cancelled by the General Land Office, on the ground that the land embraced therein had been reserved in 1841 for military purposes. The petitioner proves to the satisfaction of the committee, that prior to his permit being cancelled he had complied with the requisitions of said act, and also proves that his settlement was not within four miles of any military post established and garrisoned at the date of his settlement, or at any time subsequent thereto; that he was compelled to relinquish and abandon his settlement by virtue of such cancellation of his "permit;" and that since that period he has continued to reside south of the line specified in the said act of Congress, and has not received lands under the said act. The military reservation made by Mr. Van Buren, then President of the United States, embraced the south half of township nine, the whole of township ten, and fractional township eleven south, of ranges twenty-six and twenty-seven, giving a width from east to west of twelve miles, and a length from north to south of fifteen miles. To ascertain the particulars in reference to such military reservation, the chairman of the committee addressed a letter to the honorable Secretary of War, in answer to which the said Secretary communicated a report from the Quartermaster General, of which the following is an extract: "I have the honor to state that the lands claimed by Mr. Dick are believed to be more than two miles from the post at Pilatka. The reserve was made, by the President, on the 19th of February, 1841; the act, for the benefit of which Mr. Dick applies, was passed in 1842. The lots or lands claimed are not now used for military purposes; and it is believed they will not be necessary for such purposes at any future time." In the conclusion of said report, in reference to the whole of the said reservation, he says: "It is no longer necessary for any military uses, and I recommend that it will be transferred to the Land Department for sale." * * In 1850 Congress passed an act giving one hundred and sixty acres of land to Richard H. Barrett within the said reserve, under similar circumstances of this case. The committee are of opinion that since these lands are now no longer used for military purposes, and the petitioner having continued to reside south of the line specified by said act, thereby aiding to effect the object designed by making donation grants, and has not availed himself of the benefits of said act by settling upon other lands, that Congress ought to grant him the lands upon which such settlement was made by virtue of said "permit" from the register, they therefore report the accompanying bill and recommend its passage. . COM 228 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JULY 18, 1856.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. WADE made the following REPORT. The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of George M. Weston, in behalf of sundry citizens of Maine, report: By the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, for the settlement of the northeastern boundary it was stipulated that "all grants of land heretofore made by either party, within the limits of the territory, which by this treaty falls within the dominion of the other party, shall be held valid, ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession under such grants to the same extent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the dominions of the party by whom such grants were made; and all equitable possessory claims, arising from a possession or improvement of any lot or parcel of land, by the person actually in possession, or by those under whom such person claims, for more than six years before the date of this treaty, shall in like manner be deemed valid," &c. It appears that by virtue of this stipulation sundry small tracts of land lying in the disputed district, to which various persons held title, derived from the States of Maine and Massachusetts, and which by the treaty fell within the limits of the United States, thereby confirming the legality of the grants made by those States, but which had also been granted by the authorities of New Brunswick to other parties, or to which other parties had obtained possessory rights, have been confirmed by competent judicial decisions to the last mentioned parties, thereby depriving the legal owners of their property. These decisions rest upon the ground that treaties made in pursuance of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, and that the property of which citizens may be dispossessed by the direct stipulations of a treaty is to be regarded as taken for public use, for which a just compensation is to be made. The Senate has already passed a bill for the relief of one of these claimants, but as it appears that there is a considerable number of these claimants, each for a small amount, it would be a great hardship to subject them, individually, to the difficulty and expense of coming to Congress with the requisite evidence to substantiate their claims. In the somewhat analogous case of the claims arising under the act |