about 50 acres of land, and is in a triangular form, occupying the angle formed by the pier and by the shore of the lake, (which was the boundary of Kinzie's survey,) as it was previous to and at the time of the erection of the pier. It commenced forming soon after the erection of the pier, and in consequence of it, and has been constantly increasing ever since at the average rate of above 100 feet a year. This accretion is claimed by Kinzie and his grantees as riparian proprietors. The question you propose to me is, whether or not it belongs to the United States. Among the papers sent in your letter of the 25th of July, 1849, was the written opinion of Mr. Archibald Williams, Attorney of the United States for the district of Illinois, upon the very question of title which is now submitted to me. I have carefully examined that opinion-it is distinguished by great professional ability, and has my entire concurrence. To repeat the arguments and views of Mr. Williams, or to attempt to add to them, would be a useless labor. I herewith return you that opinion, with the other papers belonging to the case, and refer you to it for any more particular information you may require; and, for a more direct answer to your question, will only add, that in my opinion the alluvion or accretion in controversy belongs of right to the United States. In answer to your other question, I can only answer you unofficially, that I suppose the fee of Mr. Williams for the opinion above alluded to ought to be paid out of any existing fund applicable to the aid or improvement of the harbor of Chicago. I have the honor to be, respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. CHARLES M. CONRAD, Secretary of War. PRIZE AGENTS TO DEPOSITE FUNDS IN THE TREASURY. Where a prize agent refuses to deposite certain prize moneys in the treasury, in conformity with the act of March 3, 1849, on pretence that the act is not applicable to the case, and an Attorney General has decided that he ought to make the deposite, it is proper to institute proceedings in the prize court to compel a compliance with the law. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have received your letter of the 3d of September last, relating to the case of Mr. Charles T. Stewart, a prize agent, who refuses to deposite in the treasury certain prize money in his hands, as required by your department, in conformity to the 8th section of the "act making appropriations for the naval service," approved March 3, 1849. Without entering into particular detail or history of the case, it will be sufficient for this occasion to state that Mr. Stewart contends that the act referred to does not apply to him, or if it did, does not bind him, inasmuch as the prize money in question was paid to him as the authorized private agent of the parties entitled to it, prior to the passage of said act, and under the order or decree of the prize court, and that therefore he is not bound to pay said money into the treasury. The same question, attended by the same circumstances, arose in the case of Mr. Robert S. Rogers, another prize agent, and was referred by the late head of your department to my immediate predecessor, who replied in a full and deliberate opinion, affirming the validity of the act of Congress and its application to the case. In your letter of the 3d ultimo, you request that should I "concur with the opinion of your (my) immediate predecessor" I would suggest to the department the course proper to be pursued by it in order to compel a compliance on the part of Mr. Stewart with the provisions of the law." Without undertaking to decide on the correctness of the opinion of my predecessor, it seems to me that it is such an authority as makes it the duty of your department to endeavor to enforce the law and bring it to the authoritative test of judicial investigation and decision. That alone could satisfactorily solve a difference of opinion between me and my predecessor, and I think it is but a due respect to the act that such an appeal should be made to the judiciary. The course most proper to be pursued for that purpose would be, in my opinion, by appropriate motions and orders, to be made in the prize court where all the proceedings relating to the prize or prizes in question have taken place, to compel compliance. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, J. J. CRITTENDEN. Hon. Wм. A. GRAHAM, Secretary of the Navy. SITE OF LIGHT-HOUSE AT THE MOUTH OF MUSKEGON RIVER. The patent and deed of conveyance of certain lands situate at the mouth of the Muskegon river, in the State of Michigan, appear to give the United States a valid title to the same. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SIR: I have received your letter of the 7th instant, in which, conformably to the joint resolution of Congress of the 11th of September, 1841, you request my opinion as to the validity of the title of the United States to the land purchased in their name for the site of a light-house at the mouth of the Muskegon river, in the State of Michigan. From the title papers transmitted with your letters, it appears that the land in question is part of a tract of forty-five acres granted by the State of Michigan to John Ball, by patent dated 20t hSeptember, 1850, and conveyed by said Ball and wife to the United States by deed bearing date the 24th of September, 1850, and recorded in the office of the register of Ottawa county, State of Michigan. The patent to Ball and the deed of conveyance from him and his wife to the United States are the only title papers submitted to me. They furnish a very clear and simple derivation of what appears to be a valid title in the United States to the land in question. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, J. J. CRITTENDEN. Hon. THOMAS CORWIN, Secretary of the Treasury. CLAIM OF BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS UNDER TREATY WITH THE CHEROKEES. The claim of the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions for their missionary establishments in the country ceded to the United States by the Cherokee treaties of 1835-36, cannot be paid and properly charged to the Cherokee nation, or deducted out of their funds held by the United States, without the adjudication and certificate of the Board of Commissioners provided for in seventeenth article of the treaty. The valuation of the agents alone is not sufficient. The agents to make the valuations were convenient auxiliaries to the Board of Commissioners appointed by the President under the 17th article of the treaty; but they are not substitutes for that board. The present claim not having been sanctioned by the adjudication and certificate of the commissioners, ought not to be allowed. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENEral, October 9, 1850. SIR: The question of law upon which my advice and opinion is requested, arises out of the treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Indians, conluded at New Echota in 1835-236. (Statutes at Large, vol. 7, p. 478.) "Can the claim of the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions be legally allowed by the accounting officers of the treasury, and charged to the Cherokee nation, without the evidence required by the seventeenth article of the treaty of 1835?" It is argued by the counsellors for the claimant, that the valuation by the agents appointed under the ninth article of the treaty is sufficient, and renders an adjudication under the seventeenth article unnecessary. By the treaty, some unliquidated claims are to be paid by the United States out of their own proper funds; and other descriptions of unliquidated claims are to be paid by the United States out of the proper funds of the Cherokees accruing to them from the United States by the terms of the treaty, to be charged to the Cherokees, as expressed in article fifteen. By article IX. "the United States agree to appoint suitable agents, who shall make a just and fair valuation of all such improvements now in possession of the Cherokees as add any value to the lands; and also of the ferries owned by them, according to their net income, and such improvements and ferries from which they have been dispossessed in a lawless manner, or under any existing laws of the State wherein the same may be situated. The just debts of the Indians shall be paid out of any moneys due them for their improvements and claims." "The missionary establishments shall also be valued and appraised in a like manner, and the amount of them paid over by the United States to the treasurers of the respective missionary societies by whom they have been established and improved, in order to enable them to erect such buildings and make such improvements among the Cherokees west of the Mississippi as they may deem necessary for their benefit." * By the twelfth article a committee is appointed "to select the missionaries who shall be removed with the nation." By article XVII. "all the claims arising under, or provided for, in the several articles of this treaty, shall be examined and adjudicated by such commissioners as shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, for that purpose, and their decision shall be final, and on their certificate of the amount due to the several claimants, they shall be paid by the United States." I am of opinion that no claim on account of the missionary establishments provided for in the ninth article, can be properly charged to the Cherokee nation, or duducted out of their funds held by the United States, without the adjudication and certificate of the court of commissioners, as provided for in the seventeenth article of the treaty. The claims of such as call themselves missionaries, or treasurers of missionary societies, are not excepted by any thing in the ninth article, out of the security provided, by the seventeenth article, for the Cherokees against wrongful charges. The agents to make the valuations, appointed under the ninth article, were convenient auxiliaries to the Board of Commissioners appointed by the President, under the seventeenth article of the treaty, but not substitutes for that board. My advice and opinion is, that to charge the Cherokee nation, and their funds, with the improvements claimed by missionaries, upon the mere valuation of the agents appointed under the ninth article, not followed up and sanctioned by the adjudication and certificate of the Board of Commissioners appointed under the seventeenth article, would be a violation of the terms of the treaty, and that the claim in question ought not, therefore, to be allowed. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, J. J. CRITTENDEN. Hon. THOMAS CORWIN, Secretary of the Treasury. CONTRACT WITH A. G. SLOO FOR TRANSPORTING THE MAIL. The compensation to be rendered under the contract with A. G. Sloo, for the transportation of the mail in steam vessels, ought to be in proportion to the service performed and accepted, without regard to the number of steamships employed in that service, or that have been built under that contract. Inasmuch as Congress have appropriated the money and directed payment to be made for said service, payment, notwithstanding certain advances, should be made. The refunding of the advances must be considered as deferred and left to the future discretion of Congress. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have received your letter of the 11th instant, relating to ques tions that have arisen in reference to a settlement of accounts under the contract made between A. G. Sloo and the Secretary of the Navy, on the 20th of April, 1847, for the transportation of the mail in steam vessels. To the questions you propound to me, I answer that, in my opinion, the compensation to be rendered under that contract, for the transportation of the mail, ought to be in proportion to the service performed and accepted, without regard to the number of steamships employed in that service, or that have been built under that contract; and, secondly, that inasmuch as Congress, notwithstanding the advances of $290,000 made on the building of the said steam vessels, have, by their act of September last, appropriated the money, and directed payment to be made for said service, my opinion is that the payment ought to be made, and that the refunding of those advances, or the settlement of them, by discount or otherwise, must be considered as deferred, and left to the future discretion of Congress. The money was advanced upon a continuing contract; and though it might have been inferred, from the terms of the act of 1848, that those advances were to be considered and applied as payment for the first year's service, yet, as Congress, by its last act, has appropriated money to pay for that service, and directed the payment to be made, it cannot, I think, be understood otherwise than as a declaration on the part of Congress that the payment or settlement of the amount advanced should be deferred. It will be at its discretion to require the settlement or payment of it whenever it may think proper. For the present, the service must, in my opinion, be paid for out of the money appropriated for that purpose. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, J. J. CRITTENDEN. Hon. W. A. GRAHAM, Secretary of the Navy. CASE OF THE MARSHAL OF THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Although the marshal of Massachusetts might have been more energetic and active, perhaps, in executing a warrant for the arrest of Crafts, a fugitive from service, no sufficient cause is shown for removing him from office. The marshal and his deputies appear to have acted, to a considerable extent, upon consultation with the agent of the owner of the fugitive; who, at the conclusion of the examination, observed that he had no complaint to make against them. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: As requested by you, I have carefully examined all the papers placed in my hands, relating to complaints made against Charles Devens, esq., the marshal of the Massachusetts district, for alleged neglect and dereliction of duty, in failing to execute a warrant, which came to his hands, for the arrest of William Crafts, a fugitive slave. These papers, consisting chiefly of the affidavits of Mr. Devens, the marshal, his deputy, Mr. P. Riley, James Dickson, George T. Curtis, esq., and Willis H. Hughes, agent for the owner of the slave, with letters from Mr. Fay and Mr. Curtis, are herewith returned. Having perused them with care, and certainly without any bias or prepossession in favor of the marshal or his deputy, I must say that, though I can see no evidence of any particular activity and energy on their part, it seems to me there does not sufficiently appear any cause for the censure of their conduct or the removal of the marshal from office. A more commendable activity and energy might probably have been exerted by them, but they seem to have acted, to a considerable extent, upon consultation, and in concert with Mr. Hughes, the agent for the owner of the fugitive; and what might otherwise appear blameable in them, may have been the result of that consultation and concert. In this uncertain state of the case, the declaration made by Mr. Hughes |