Suits against Marshals.

ful, the conduct of Captain Jones is in no small degree reprehensible, who is represented to have assaulted the ministerial officer of justice as he was leaving the ship, by attempting to remove the plank and throw him into the water.

It is submitted to the President whether it would not be expedient for a law to be passed, regulating judicial proceedings relative to foreign ships-of-war in the American ports; and particularly exempting them in future from the service of civil process on account of debt or contract.

All which is most respectfully submitted by

CHARLES LEE,

Attorney General.

To the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SUITS AGAINST MARSHALS.

The United States may maintain an action of debt on the bond given by a marshal for misfeasance of himself or deputies, and a jury may assess the damages. Individuals injured by his official misconduct, may use the name of the United States in prosecuting a suit on the bond to recover satisfaction.

Philadelphia, February 4, 1800.

SIR: If the marshal or his deputy commit a misfeasance in office to the injury of the United States, compensation may be obtained for the United States by an action of debt upon the bond given by the marshal in pursuance of the 27th section of the judicial act, which suit may be brought against the marshal and his sureties jointly, or either of them. The jury will assess the damage; and, in such cases, the district attorney is to prosecute the suit.

But if the misfeasance in office occasions an injury to an individual citizen, it belongs not to the district attorney to prosecute such a suit, unless particularly employed by the injured party. I conceive it is implied that an individual injured by the official misconduct of the marshal may use the name of the United States in prosecuting a suit upon the bond, and may recover satisfaction for the injury done him. In similar cases relative to sheriffs, the State laws provide expressly that the bond may be sued by individuals sustaining

Suits against Marshals.

injury, and it would be prudent to amend the act of Congress by a new clause of the purport enclosed, to be added to the 27th section.

I am, very respectfully, sir, your most obedient servant,

TO OLIVER WOLCott, Esq.,

Secretary of the Treasury.

CHARLES LEE.

OPINIONS

OF

LEVI LINCOLN, OF MASSACHUSETTS:

APPOINTED MARCH 5, 1801.

CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN GRANTS IN INDIANA.

The governor cannot be justified in confirming any of the unauthorized grants, unless actual improvements were made under them previous to the 3d of March, 1791; nor can he by law be justified in making a discrimination between the persons still holding their original grants, and those who have had such grants confirmed by former governors, or who have purchased under such confirmation, and made improvements, unless such improvements were made previous to the said 3d of March.

WASHINGTON, December 29, 1801. SIR: In answer to your note enclosing a letter from the gov ernor of the Indiana Territory, permit me to state opinions. respecting the subject, which are the result of attention and consideration. The provisions of the act of the 3d of March, 1791, (which is very incorrect, and out of which the governor's questions arise) have a reference to matters which were ob jects of the resolve of Congress of June 20th, 1788. This resolve confirms to the ancient settlers of the Territory, who had professed themselves citizens of the United States, the land which they possessed on or previous to 1783, and which had been allotted to them according to the laws and usages of the government under which they had respectively settled. The resolve also provides for the donation of an additional 400 acres of land to each family which was then (on the 20th of June, 1788) living at certain villages within the Territory; but they were not to alienate, or to have a title, until there had been a residence of at least three years within the district, subsequent to the allotment of the same land. Here is described a second set of persons who were to hold land under this resolve, namely, those who lived at certain villages on June

20th, 1788.

The 1st section of the law of the 3d of March, 1791, gives

Confirmation of certain grants in Indiana.

400 acres of land to each person who, in 1783, was a head of a family, either at Vincennes or at Illinois, and who, after 1783, moved from one of those places to the other; and the gov. ernment is directed to cause such land to be laid out accordingly. This third set of persons is described by the place they lived at in 1783 as heads of families, and by the place they afterwards moved to previous to the 3d of March, 1791.

The 2d section of the law secures to such heads of families who, in 1783, lived either at Vincennes or Illinois, and who, after 1783, removed without the limits of the Territory, the donation of 400 acres of land, made by the resolve of Congress of the 20th of June, 1788. By mistake, this resolve of Congress is referred to as of the 29th of August. The governor, on application, is directed to cause such land to be laid out to such heads of families and their heirs; and also to cause to be laid off and confirmed to such persons the several tracts of land which they may have possessed, and which, before 1783, may have been allotted to them according to the laws and usages of the government under which they respectively settled. The first part of this section of the law extends the benefit of the resolve (which confirmed the donation of the 400 acres to persons living at certain villages in 1788) to such persons as lived there in 1783, and who afterwards removed without the Territory, and makes a fourth description of characters.

The fifth and last description of persons, by the 4th section of the law, are those who had on the 1st of March, 1771, actually improved or cultivated land either at Vincennes or at Illinois, under a supposed grant of the same by any commandant or court claiming authority to make such grant; to which persons who made the improvement, or to their heirs, the gov ernor is empowered to confirm such lands, or such part of them as he may think to be proper, not exceeding to any one person 400 acres.

The four first-mentioned classes of persons who are entitled to grants, confirmations, or the laying off of lands in the Territory, are clearly designated by marked descriptions in the law under which they claim.

The 4th section of the law of the 3d of March contemplates the creating and vesting a title to land in a description of per