In the last report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, (pages 23 and 24,) attention is called to this subject, in connexion with some remarks on the location of military land warrants. The Commissioner says: "The services demanded of the district land officers in the location of military land warrants, under the act of September 28, 1850, equal, if not exceed, in each case, those connected with selling a tract of land. It is earnestly recommended that a reasonable allowance be authorized by law for such special duties, and that such allowance be made for the services which the land officers in Florida may render in the location of the Arredondo thirtyeight thousand acre grant in that State, under certain judicial decrees of confirmation.

In regard to this particular case, the officers at St. Augustine represent that the labor attendant upon making locations under and by virtue" of said claim, "and for which they receive no compensation, is at least ten times as much as is required to make a cash entry," and they suggest the recommendation of an allowance of the same commission to the land officers in Florida, for making locations under and by virtue of the said Arredondo claim, as they are entitled to on cash sales.'

Congress has already, by an act passed at the present ssssion, given this compensation on the entry of the bounty land warrants; and the committee are satisfied that the same amount should be allowed for the locations in the case under consideration. They therefore report a bill covering the locations which are authorized to be made under the decisions above mentioned.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

AUGUST 7, 1856.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. PRATT made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 436 ]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Susanna T. Lea, widow and administratrix of James Maglenen, having had the same under consideration, report:

The petitioner presents an account against the United States for the loss of a horse and equipments, pressed into the United States service for the purpose of sending an express from Baltimore city to North Point, to ascertain if the British forces were about to land. This occurred about September 9, 1814, and the bill amounts to $130, ($100 for the horse, and $30 for the equipments.) This case has been before Congress since the year 1837. During the 25th and 27th Congresses, respectively, it passed the House of Representatives, but failed in the Senate, chiefly for want of time.

The committee have carefully examined this case, and finding the facts in the petition fully sustained by two disinterested witnesses, who were also members of the same company with the deceased husband of the petitioner, and were fully cognizant of all the circumstances connected with the impressment and loss of the horse, &c., and of their value, decide that the claim is just and equitable, and that the petitioner ought to be paid the amount of her account, $130, and accordingly report a bill for her relief.

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred House Bill 345, "an act for the relief of the heirs and legal representatives of Mrs. Magdalene Broutin, widow of De la Ronde," have had the same under consideration and submit the following report:

The committee find the facts fully set forth in a report submitted by Mr. Sandidge from the Committee on Private Land Claims, on the 23d of May, 1856, to the House of Representatives, which they hereto attach and make a part of this report. For the reasons set forth therein, the committee are of opinion that the claimants ought to be confirmed in their title, they therefore report back the bill, without amendment, and respectfully recommend its passage.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 23, 1856.

Mr. SANDIDGE, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, made the following report:

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the claim of the heirs and legal representatives of Mrs. Magdalene Broutin, the widow of Don Pedro de la Ronde, to two thousand arpents of land in the parish of St. Tammany, in the State of Louisiana, make the following report:

On the 3d of November, 1803, as appears from the title papers executed by Morales, the intendent general of the province of West Florida, then in the possession and under the control of the Spanish government, a concession of two thousand superficial arpents of land was granted to Mrs. Magdalene Broutin, the widow of De la Ronde. This concession was made upon the application of the said widow De la Ronde, and the proof adduced that her deceased husband had, during his life-time, obtained at the hands of the government of Great Britain a certain grant of two thousand arpents of land on Pearl river, in the said province of West Florida, the title to which had been lost.

From the plat and map, it appears the concession by Morales was located on the same tract of land as granted by the British authorities, by Don Carlos Trudeau, royal and private surveyor of the province, on the 28th and 29th November, 1803. And in the titles patent issued by Morales on the 19th January, 1804, it is expressly stated that it was done "without this favor involving any obligation, seeing that she has in due form justified her ownership thereof.'

Amos Kent, register of the United States land office in the Greensburg district, in which is situated the land claimed, certifies that the title deed referred to, with a written declaration on the part of the claimants, stating that the land in question had been inhabited and cultivated since 1767, were filed, as notice and evidence of title, with Commissioners Cosby and Skipwith, and recorded in the book kept for that purpose; but that it does not appear that any confirmation was ever obtained, or report made thereon by the commissioners.

Mr. Wilson, Commissioner of the General Land Office, also states, in his letter on file with the papers connected with this claim, that the records of his department did not show that it had ever been acted on by the land commissioners, Messrs. Cosby and Skipwith.

Mr. Childress states, in his affidavit, that in the year 1840 he became acquainted with the tract of land claimed by the representatives of Pierre de la Ronde, on the west side of Pearl river, in the parish of St. Tammany; that said claimants have constantly resided there since that date, cultivating and inhabiting said tract; that he doth not believe that their claim to said land is in dispute with any claimant, or conflicts with any title, the lines of said survey having been recognized in the neighborhood; and furthermore, that he believes the taxes have been regularly paid thereon by the claimants.

The Hon. Thomas G. Davidson declares to the committee, "that it is within his personal knowledge, that in 1826 this family, (the claimants,) or a portion of them, were in possession of the place, and paying taxes on it as owners; that from the appearances of the houses and all the other indications, it appeared to have been inhabited and used for many years-should say for at least twenty."

The sworn statement of Joseph Evans, former sheriff of St. Tammany, establishes the same points of habitation, cultivation, and recognition of title by the people of the neighborhood, as well as the payment of taxes.

These things being all clearly shown, your committee cannot but believe, that had Cosby and Skipwith reported the claim to the government it would certainly have been confirmed at the same time with others of a similar character.

The claimants declare that, after filing their evidence of title with Cosby and Skipwith, the commissioners appointed under the act of 3d March, 1819, for adjusting the claims to land east of the island of Orleans, were of opinion that they had performed every act required of them, and was not aware of the fact that the claim had not been acted upon, until, by the recent surveys of that part of the country, it was returned as public land; although it had been actually cultivated and inhabited since the date of the grant, by the present holders and their vendors.