1st Session. No. 5. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JANUARY 14, 1850. Mr. FELCH made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 44.] The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the petition of the citizens of Sault de Ste. Marie, in the State of Michigan, praying that commissioners may be appointed to adjust the land claims of the settlers at that place, respectfully report: In accordance with the prayer of the petitioners, a bill was reported at the 1st session of the 30th Congress providing for the settlement of their claim, in accordance with principles of justice and liberality. The committee append hereto, as expressive of their views, the report made in the Senate at that session, and an extract on the same subject from the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, made in 1848. They also herewith report a bill similar in its provisions to that which accompanied said report. The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the petition of the citizens of Sault de Ste. Marie, in the State of Michigan, praying that commissioners may be appointed to adjust the land claims of the settlers at that place, and also a report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of such claims, respectfully report: That the settlement of the Sault Ste. Marie was commenced at an early period, and while the country bordering on the more northerly shores of the great chain of lakes was under the jurisdiction of the French crown. Being on the extreme frontier the settlement was small, and the place for many years a mere trading post. The country was ceded by the French to the English in 1763, and by Great Britain to the United States in 1783. Under the provisions of the treaties of cession, the French were secured in the enjoyment of their rights of property. Most of the French inhabitants remained on the lands occupied by them at the time of the cession, and since that time have gradually extended their improvements, and become more and more attached to our institutions and government. The most liberal policy towards the old French inhabitants of that por therein specified was so large, compared with previous sales of public lands, that no one could have anticipated that a larger sum would ever be received at any office for the sales of a single year. The limitation upon his receipts was evidently founded upon the presumption that his expenses and labor would not be required beyond that which was necessary in disposing of lands to the amount of $250,000 in any one year. If sales were made to a greater amount, it is evident that additional clerks would be needed to perform the duty; and if the receiver was compelled to pay the extra clerk hire, his salary would be diminished by the amount so paid. This would present the anomaly of a salary increased in proportion to the labor and expense of the office to a given maximum, but diminished in proportion to the labor and expense above it. Thus, if the sales amounted in a given year to $250,000, the receiver's salary would be $3,000; if the sales were doubled, and extra clerk hire to the amount of $1,500 were required to do the additional business, the receiver's compensation would be reduced by one-half. "It was early determined at the Treasury Department that the maximum compensation could not be justly imposed, when and because the money received, and accounted for on sales of public lands, had exceeded the sum of $250,000, and it was long the practice to allow, at the accounting office, a credit of the amount actually paid by the receiver and register for clerk hire, in making sales above that amount. The claim of the petitioner was presented for like allowance, but being the first of its class that had been brought before the present Secretary of the Treasury, he referred the matter to the Attorney General for his opinion. That officer, in a written opinion, dated March 13, 1846, declared that the allowance, within reasonable limits, of actual expenses incurred in procuring the services of necessary clerks, may be just and proper, but it is for the legislative department to determine whether the discretion shall be given to the Executive. In my opinion, such discretion has not been conferred by existing laws.' "Under the construction given to the law at the department, before the opinion of the Attorney General was submitted, the following credits, of a character similar to the claim of petitioner, had been allowed: "After the opinion of the Attorney General was submitted, the claim of John Spencer, late receiver of public moneys at Fort Wayne, Indiana, being rejected by the accounting officers, was presented to Congress, and under an act authorizing the settlement of his accounts, upon equitable terms, the credit was subsequently given to him." The same compensation to which the receiver is entitled, is by law given to the register. At the last session of Congress, two acts were passed and approved, extending the principle of reimbursement, for such expenditures, to Thomas C. Sheldon, late receiver, and Abraham Edwards, late register of the land office at Kalamazoo, Michigan. It will be seen, by the above statement of the sales at the Detroit office, that the receipts exceeded $250,000 during the year 1831, by 1835, by 1836, by Making, in three years, an aggregate of $33,585 80 350,646 54 1,615,597 71 1,999,830 05 Over $250,000 per annum; for the expenses attending which, no remuneration has been received. The bill herewith reported authorizes the auditing and settling of these amounts, and the payment of such balance as may be found justly due. |
