Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

the 1500 acres of land, for a consideration that, all will acknowledge, was most meritorious-the service of his country; and, although it was consecrated by being made his home, he has lost the benefit of that proprietorship, by the regular operation of laws, which have been uniform and equal in their dispensations, and, which cannot be justly charged with unnecessary severity; and, it is also true, that he has, by his own misfortune alone, been superceded in the enjoyment of this estate, by the intermediation of an American citizen, with the consent, and under the authority, of the United States, and, witbout any fault or delinquency imputable to either. But, it is equally true, that this deprivation has resulted from a combination of accidents, peculiar and very extraordinary, over which he could have no control; and, as there is no room for a suspicion of negligence, or voluntary delinquency, in the petitioner, the committee think, that it would be inconsistent with the justice, liberality, and beneficence, which have always marked the policy of the United States, that they should profit by his misfortune, when (as the committee believe) it would be unjust that he should suffer, and not inconsistent with sound policy that he should be relieved.

When, by the treaty of 1783, Great Britain ceded to the United States the territory which now composes the state of Mississippi, it was claimed by several states, as comprehended within their charters; but, principally, by Georgia. In 1798, and 1800, Congress passed laws for the adjustment and extinguishment of the Georgia claim; and the establishment of a territorial government in Mississippi; whereby, among other things, it was declared, that the claims of individuals, derived from the British or Spanish governments, rightfully, should be valid. And, by the compact made by the United States with Georgia, in 1802, it was stipulated, that all persons who, on the 27th of October, 1795, were actual settlers within the territory ceded, should be confirmed in their grants executed prior to that day by the former British or Spanish government of West Florida. In 1803, Congress passed a law, which, among other things, required, that all persons, claiming land under any British grant, in the Mississippi territory, or by virtue of the provisions of that act, should, before the last day of March, 1804, deliver to the register of the land office a written notice, describing the nature and extent of their claim, together with the plats thereof, and the grants, or other evidences of title, which should be recorded; and that, on failure so to do, the claims should be void so far as derived from that act, or the compact with Georgia; and, that no grant which should not be so recorded, should be ever received as evidence in any court of the United States, against a grant from the United States. By the same act, commissioners were appointed to settle the claims to land, under that act, and under the compact with Georgia; and directed to ascertain, and report, all the grants for land which were not confirmed by the said compact. The time of filing the grant to be recorded, was, afterwards, extended to the 1st day of December, 1805. And, by an

act of 1812, all claims, under British or Spanish grants, which had been duly recorded, and were contained in the reports of the commissioners, were confirmed.

It is believed that the foregoing are the only provisions of law that can, in the most remote degree, operate on the petitioner's case; and, from these, it will appear sufficiently clear, that the commissioners had no right to reject the claim of the petitioner, unless he could be considered an actual settler, on the October, 1795, so as to be embraced by the compact with Georgia. If he be considered in the latter condition, in which the commissioners certainly viewed him, the decision of the commissioners against him, as well as the law under which they decided, is of questionable policy; for, by the compact, he was confirmed in his right; and, although the power of the United States, afterwards, to prescribe the manner of manifesting this confirmed title, and of requiring that it should be recorded, or forfeited, is not denied; yet, it does not comport with the character of the United States to require of the claimant of such confirmed title, that which is impossible; and, for not performing the impossibility, to subject him to a forfeiture of his right, without any indemnity. The claimant was an infant; his patent in London; his guardian 1000 miles off; his legal representative, whom he had the precaution to employ, and who had no doubt of succeeding, died before he had furnished all the evidence. In the mean time, the limitation fixed by Congress for the registration of the patent, expired; and thus, by a succession of accidents, it became impossible that the patent should be registered: and for this, and only this, the claim was rejected. The committee cannot believe, that the United States would be willing, after confirming a good title to a citizen, to take it from him, because he had not done that which it became impossible for him to do, and then refuse to restore him, or give him some remuneration for his loss.

If the petitioner were not embraced by the compact, then the com. missioners had no power to adjudicate on his claim; and, consequently, their act is void. But still the petitioner is not free from difliculty. By the act of 1804, it was declared, that if his claim should not be registered against the 1st of December, 1805, the United States should have a right to sell the land, and that his patent should not be evidence against the grant of the United States. The United States have sold the most valuable part of the land; and, although they have not yet given a patent, it is believed that the claim of the petitioner would not be sustained, in a court of justice, against the incipient right of the purchasers from the United States. But, taking the case on this ground, the committee are of opinion, that the petitioner is clearly entitled so some relief; for, waiving every other consideration, it would seem, that, as the United States acquired the right to sell the land, from the failure of the claimant to do that which he never consented to do, which they required the same kind of claimant to do in no other territory, and which it was impossible that he could do,

they would certainly be bound, by every principle of natural justice, to restore it, on being satisfied of the nature of the claim, and reason of its forfeiture. If they have put it out of their power, by sale, to restore the specific tract of land, the claim to indemnity would be as strong, and it would be as proper to give it; otherwise, they take from an infant, without his consent, his inheritance, merely because he has been an infant, and refuse to give him that for it which, had it not been for his infancy, he never would have been reduced to the necessity of asking; when it is well known too, that the principal, if not the only object of the government, in requiring the registration of titles, was, to prevent fraud; and that the case of the petitioner is stamped with indubitable evidences of its integrity, the claim to relief is greatly fortified; but still more by the fact, that the petitioner was probably prevented from recording his patent in time, by the rejection of his claim by the commissioners, which they had no right to do, unless he had been an inhabitant in 1795; which, the committee think, was, clearly, not the case.

In regard to the nature ard extent of relief, the committee have been somewhat perplexed. As the United States have sold a part of the land, if they had the power to reclaim it, good policy would forbid it: for, if the United States would once establish the precedent of selling land, and afterwards taking it away and giving it to others, the number and amount of their future sales would be not a little diminished. The committee have no doubt that the United States had the right to sell, and as little that, having sold, they should not, if they could, reclaim, without the assent of the purchaser; it would follow, therefore, that the petitioner should receive either a commutation in money, or other land. And, as it is doubtful whether the whole 1500 acres have been sold, but pretty certain that if there. is any unsold, it is, intrinsically, worth little or nothing, the committee would suppose it just and proper, that, on receiving a release from the petitioner of his claim, the United States should commute the whole 1500 acres.

It only remains to determine the criterion and kind of commutation. As to the criterion, punctilious exactitude cannot be expected; but, the committee are inclined to think, it should be the value of the 1500 acres, when the United States sold it, or part of it.

Whether it should be given in money, or land of the same value, or quantity, is not very easily ascertained, nor very material; but, taking every consideration into view, the committee have determined; that it would be more convenient to the United States, and as much the interest of the petitioner, that he should be paid in scrip, receivable in payment for public lands-wherefore, on the foregoing purposes, they beg leave to report a bill.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »