might choose. The governor, in February, 1796, wrote at the bottom of the petition, "granted." But no warrant of survey was given, nor any attempt made to take up any land during the continuance of the Spanish authorities. The present holder of the supposed grant claims, by virtue of it, and efforts are now being made in Congress to secure the confirmation of the same or its equivalent in certificates of location.

DUBUQUE LEAD MINES.

The claim to Dubuque's lead mines in Louisiana, about 500 miles above Saint Louis, now in Iowa, and including 140,000 acres of land, was derived from a cession by the Indian tribe of Foxes, which appears to have been a mere personal permission to Dubuque to occupy and work mines as long as he pleased. The confirmation by the Spanish governor of Louisiana, only granted the petitioner's request to keep peaceable possession, according to the tenor of the Indian permission. There was neither order of survey nor patent, but the land was nevertheless claimed as if held under a perfect title.

Toward the close of the last century Julien Dubuque found his way up to this distant point, over 1,600 miles above New Orleans. On the 22d September, 178, the Renards, the Fox or Ontagami Indians, held a full council at Green Bay. They there declared they had given permission to Julien Dubuque, whom they called Little Night, to work the mines in that locality as long as he pleased, and that they had sold and abandoned to him all the coast and contents of the mine discovered by Peosta's wife, so that no one could make any claim without the consent of the Sieur Julien Dubuque. Eight years afterward Dubuque petitioned the governor-general of Louisiana, the Baron de Carondelet, at New Orleans, to grant him the peaceable possession of the premises, which he had designated Spanish Mines, in honor of the country of his adoption. The petition was referred to the merchant (Indian trader) Don Andres Todd. In the information returned to the governor no objection was interposed to the grant, with the condition that the grantee should observe the royal regulations relative to the trade with the Indians. The concession was made accordingly at New Orleans on the 10th December, 1796, by the governor-general, Carondelet, who was the fourth successor of General O'Reilly, mentioned in the foregoing as having crushed out French resistance to the transfer of Louisiana to Spain, Unzaga, Galvez and Miro having been the intermediate governors. The Dubuque-Chouteau title (Chouteau having become part purchaser) was drawn fully in review thirteen years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States (Chouteau v. Molony, 16 Howard), in which it was ruled, in substance, to be merely a privilege to search for mines, and so as a complete or valid allodial title it fell to the ground, having no status against the proprietary rights of the United States in virtue of the treaty of cession in 1803.

The colony established by Dubuque, whose remains lie buried in the bluff, was driven away by the Indians; but white settlements were re-established in 1830; the Indian title was extinguished in 1833.

NEW ORLEANS BATTURE.

This claim rested on a supposed right of alluvion. This is the case in which Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Edward Livingston had their famous contest. The batture was the and made by accretion or deposit of the Mississippi River, in this instance in front of the city of New Orleans. The lands embraced in it were surveyed into squares and jots and sold at auction. The money was deposited to the credit of the Supreme Court of the United States to await decision of the cause. That court decided in favor of the city of New Orleans. One attorney in this cause received a fee of $100,000 (Mr. Grymes). Mr. Webster, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Grymes were in this cause for the Government and city, and Mr. Edward Livingston against them. It was claimed that the batture was embraced within the lines of a plantation adjoining New Orleans, purchased from the Crown forty years prior to the cession of Louisiana to the United States.

REFERENCES.

For form of grants, authorities to Spanish and French governors and intendants, regulations as to use of grants, &c., in the Province of Louisiana, see "Laws Relating to the Public Lands," appendix, 1827.

Also, see U. S. Stats. at Large for the several acts of Congress after 1804, relating to private land claims in the Province of Louisiana, i. e., in the States of Louisiana, Missouri, &c.

Also, see Mr. Gallatin's instructions to the land commissioners in Louisiana and Missouri, to J. B. C. Lucas, C. B. Penrose, and J. L. Donaldson, commissioners on behalf of the United States, September 3, 1806, and November 14, 1806.

See American State Papers, vol. 2, Public Lands.

See "Laws, Charters, and Local Ordinances of Great Britain, France, and Spain," relating to concessions of land in their colonies, J. M. White, 2 vols., 1839.

METHODS OF CONFIRMATION.

Boards of commissioners were instituted by various acts of Congress, beginning on March 2, 1805, for the purpose of investigating these claims, one for Louisiana, two for the Mississippi, and two for the Orleans Territory. The rules prescribed by law to the commissioners have varied according to the nature of the claims respectively coming before them. But the object appears uniformly to have been to guard against unfounded or fraudulent claims, to confirm all bona fide claims derived from a legitimate authority, even when the title had not been completed, and to secure in their possessions all the actual settlers who were found on the land when the United States took actual possession of the country where it was situated, though they had only a right of occupancy. In some cases, also, a right of pre-emption has been granted to persons who had occupied lands in the Mississippi Territory subsequent to the time when the United States had taken possession. The commissioners in that Territory were authorized to decide finally on the claims; they completed their work, and the boards were dissolved. The commissioners for the Territories of Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois were only authorized to investigate the claims, and to report their opinion to Congress. Their respective reports were made years ago, and their confirmations ratified by Congress, and the whole business completed. In the Territories of Orleans and Lonisiana, the commissioners were authorized to decide finally on all claims not exceeding one league square, and to report their opinion to Congress on those of a greater extent, or for lead mines.

June 22, 1860, Congress passed an act for the final adjudication of private land claims in the States of Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri.

The act constituted the registers and receivers of the several land offices in Florida, Louisiana, and the recorder of land titles at Saint Louis for the State of Missouri, commissioners to hear and decide, under instructions from the General Land Office, all matters respecting claims to land within their several districts. The law conferred power upon them to receive only such claims as were founded on written grants, and hence interdicted action upon any interest founded merely on ancient settlement, when the same was unaccompanied by paper title from the authorities of the former government.

This act was continued in force for three years by act of Congress of March 2, 1867, and was revived, amended, and extended, by the act of June 10, 1872, for three years longer. These statutes authorized the reception and action upon such claims for tracts within the several districts as emanated from any foreign government, bearing date prior to the cession to the United States of the territory out of which the States were formed, or during the period when any such government claimed sovereignty or had the actual possession of the district or territory in which the lands so claimed are situated. This warranted them in receiving and acting, not only upon claims which originated under the former governments while the authorities exercised the granting power de jure, before the cession of the country, but also allowed claims to be received which were made by the Spanish authorities while they were in actual occupancy of territory as the government de facto. Thus, for example, Spain parted

with authority over the province of Louisiana by the secret treaty of 1800 at San Ildefonso, when that power ceded Louisiana to France. During the period that elapsed from that time to the cession to the United States in 1803, by Napoleon, the Spanish authorities exercised the granting power; and so, several years subsequent to 1803, Spain, while in occupancy of the ancient province of Louisiana between the Iberville or Manchac and the Perdido, continued to make land concessions; and during this period the grants were, of course, those of the government de facto. Titles of this class stood excluded by the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Foster and Elam v. Neilson (2 Peters, 253), in which an elaborate decision was rendered by the Chief Justice against their validity under the then existing laws and treaties. By the force and effect of the said acts of 1860 and 1867, a status was given to claims founded on titles from de facto governments after the authority de jure had passed from them, a principle being thus legislatively recognized which had not previously been admitted in the judicial rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The act of June 12, 1866, provided for the confirmation of outstanding titles in Saint Louis, and so the private land claims and grants have all been adjusted, with exceptions noted, under the definitive treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1783, under the Spanish purchase, and all under the Louisiana purchase of 1803, except in the State of Louisiana.

In the United States surveyor-general's office at New Orleans are filed 784 claims for lands granted under authority of the sovereigns of France or Spain prior to the acquisition of the territory by the United States under the treaty of purchase of 1803. These claims have been located and surveyed. Many of them were surveyed by the United States in 1830, fifty years ago. They aggregate about 80,000 acres, and in area are from 0.34 of an acre to one of 2,792 acres.

These are now awaiting an act of confirmation by Congress, the full details being given in the report of the surveyor-general of Louisiana, together with a list of such claims now pending. See, also, "Letter from the Secretary of the Interior," of date March 8, 1880, transmitting information as to these claims. (S. Ex. Doc. No. 111, second session, Forty-sixth Congress.)

Relative to private land claims in Louisiana, it would be impossible without a long and tedious examination of the files, containing many thousands cases both patented and unpatented, to approximate with any degree of certainty the number of claims not patented, and for which patent certificates and special plats of survey are on file in the General Land Office.

The claims are disposed of as called up by the parties in interest, or their duly authorized attorneys-e. g., an application being made for a patent in a specific case, an an examination is first made of the files, of which there are alphabetical indexes showing the name of the confirmee, and if the necessary papers are found constituting the basis of patent, they are examined to ascertain that the confirmation is properly set forth therein, which fact must also be carefully inquired into from the records, that the claim is correctly surveyed, and, generally, that the papers are in all respects correct; then, if the examination results satisfactorily, the patent is issued; while, on the other hand, if the papers are not found the party is so advised, and they must be filed before action is taken.

The foregoing statement has reference merely to such cases as are pending upon applications for patents.

The claims, aggregating many thousands, which have been reported by the various boards of commissioners, and confirmed by Congress from time to time. might be properly termed cases in the General Land Office for action, although in numerous instances the papers constituting the bases of patents are not on file there.

The reports are there, however, and as that office is repeatedly called upon to furnish information upon questions of title, they afford ample facilities for that purpose.

This also applies to Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida. Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan.

CLAIMS UNDER THE TREATY WITH SPAIN OF FEBRUARY 22, 1819, FOR THE PROVINCES

OF EAST AND WEST FLORIDA.

By the eighth article of the treaty of cession with Spain the provinces of East and West Florida were ceded to the United States, provision being made for the protection of the inhabitants in their real possessions.

Immediately after the United States took possession Congress acted upon this matter by passing an act, May 8, 1822, providing for the appointment of commissioners to receive and file claims for cessions prior to January 24, 1818. By the supplemental act of May 23, 1828, provision was made for the final adjudication of all private land claims by the judges of the superior courts of the districts wherein the lands claimed were situated. This act provided a mode of procedure in the courts and for an appeal, in case of judgment against the United States, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Numerous confirmations were made in pursuance of these laws, which were subsequently surveyed by the United States.

The number of surveyed private land claims in Florida, as shown by the plats of the same in the "History of Florida," prepared by the surveyors-general of said State, and on file in the General Land Office are 866, embracing a total area of 1,250,519.75

acres.

REFERENCES.

See reports of surveyors-general of Florida in annual reports of General Land Office from 1830 to 1880; Laws, Charters, and Local Ordinances of the Governments of Great Britain, France, and Spain "relating to the concessions of land in their respective colonies," by Joseph M. White; 2 vols. Philadelphia, Pa., 1839; and decisions of the Supreme Court United States, cited on pages 367–370.

PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS UNDER THE TREATY WITH MEXICO OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO, FEBRUARY 2, 1848, AND UNDER GADSDEN PURCHASE OF DECEMBER 30, 1853.

Private land claims and grants, under the authority of the Spanish and Mexican Governments, which were made prior to February 2, 1848 (the date of the treaty of Gaudalupe Hidalgo), in the now Territories of New Mexico and Arizona and States of California and Colorado, were by the eighth article of the treaty with Mexico to be confirmed.

In 1849 J. Butterfield, Commissioner of the General Land Office, called the attention of Congress to these grants

It is, then, the obvious and indispensable duty of our Government to take decisive measures for the recognition of good claims, for the extinction of fraudulent ones, and for the selection and withdrawal from the mass of public property of all lands requisite for military fortifications, arsenals, depots, light-houses, or other public uses, so that our system may be unimpeded and free from embarrassment in disposing of the public lands.

July 11, 1849, Hon. Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Interior, dispatched William Carey Jones, esq., to California and the city of Mexico to examine into the character and condition of land titles in California. His instructions were issued by the Commissioner of the General Land Office July 5, 1849, and were approved by the Secretary of the Interior July 12, 1849. (See report of Agent Jones, Ex. Doc. No. 18, first session Thirty-first Congress.)

March 1, 1849, Capt. H. W. Halleck submitted to Col. R. B. Mason, governor of California, a report on the laws and regulations relative to grants or sales of public lands in California.

This report details the land and land-grant systeins which grew up under the auspices of old Spain and Mexico. It showed that it did not rest upon loose, uncertain, unwritten data, but was founded upon written orders, regulations, and decrees, which, from time to time, were promulgated; beginning, in 1773, with instructions from the viceroy of Mexico to the military commandant of the new establishments of San Diego and

Monterey, authorizing him to grant lands to individuals in the vicinity of missions or pueblos; then upon orders from the viceroy in 1774 to the commandant to assign lots to soldiers marrying baptized Indian women; upon instructions from the viceroy in 1877, to establish two pueblos, and allot lands to the colonists, looking to the requirements of Spanish vessels touching from the East Indies, and to the furnishing supplies to the garrison of the presidios; upon regulations prepared in 1779 by Governor Don Felipe de Neve, and approved by the King in a royal order of 1781, in reference to colonization, erecting pueblos, for distribution of house lots and farm lots (“solares y suertes de tierras"), &c.; upon an order in 1791 to the governor, authorizing captains of presidios to grant and distribute lots within a certain specified distance from the center of presidio squares; and, after the Mexican revolution, upon a decree of the republic in 1824, as defined by regulations in 1828, empowering the political chiefs of the territories to grant, with certain exceptions and under limitations, the vacant lands, subject to the approval of the territorial deputation, or of the supreme government of Mexico. Under these successive orders, regulations, decrees, &c., grants were been made by the constituted authorities down to the 7th July, 1846, when the American flag was hoisted at Monterey, and possession taken in the name of the United States.

It appears, further, that the mission establishments were secularized, pursuant to a decree of the Mexican Congress in 1833, and became national property. (See H. Ex. Doc. No. 17, first session, Thirty-first Congress. This report also contains tables of land measurements, &c.)

The President urged action on Congress in 1850-251 in relation to those claims. September 30, 1851, Samuel D. King, United States surveyor-general of California, in reporting upon the lands in California, said:

It must be remembered that until within a very few years, and as long as the country remained under the Spanish and Mexican jurisdiction, the lands in this extreme and very sparsely settled portion of their territory were considered as being of very little if any value, except as open ranges for numerous large herds of horses, or for cattle raised solely upon account of their hides and tallow, the then almost only articles of export.

Hence the lands were freely granted away to those desirous of establishing ranches for this purpose, and in large sized tracts. But very few indeed, if any, of these grants were ever actually surveyed under the former governments. The grants, generally, after specifying the length and breadth of the tract, or its area, as being at a particularly designated place, describe it by some general and vague reference to other grants, water-courses, or mountain ranges, or refer to a rough figurative plat or sketch accompanying the application or grant as defining the boundaries.

LEGISLATION BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES-CALIFORNIA.

In pursuance of the provisions contained in the eighth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Congress of the United States passed an act which was approved on the 3d of March, 1851 (9 Stats., p. 631), entitled "An act to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California," which provided for the appointment of a commission composed of three commissioners, to continue for three years, with a secretary qualified to act as interpreter, and necessary clerks, and a law agent to represent the United States.

Claimants under Spain and Mexico were required to present their claims to the commissioners, sitting as a board, with the evidence in support of the same.

The commissioners were authorized to issue subpœnas, administer oaths, take testimony, and decide as to the validity of claims; and therein to be governed by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the law of nations, the usages and customs of the former government, the principles of equity, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States as far as applicable; and were required to report their decisions to the United States district attorney of the district in which the decision should be made. Appeal by the claimant and the district attorney was authorized to the United States district court, with further appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.