The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-06

ever rights they had TO this petitioner, Mr. McManus
who has made plantation ON this body Of land-thus
claiming these settlers rights all of which have been re-
Inquished 10 him He now comes in, having made his
nlantaon but having completed his title and as ks
thai he may be enabled 70 carry out this right OF these
first exemptions, and then he wishes to enter these
lands purchased from the other Individuals small
tract adjoning-by way OF pre- emptlon.
MIR FELCH. III | understand the proposition OF the
senator from Louisiana, IT gives no definite location to
The land whatever,
Mr.. DOWNS. Yes. sir; it does The reason the
township was stricken out was that surveys not having
been made, Il was found on Investigation the Land
Office thai il enormously mentioned-it was not the
right number But there provision in The bill that
he should get this right when accurate survey was
made The provision OF the bill is that he is hereby
authorized under such instruction as is given by the
Commissioners OF the General Land Office enter by pre-.
emplon, at 81 rs per acre. such quantity OF land not
exceeding 500 acres actually included in the parish OF
East Louisiana, on Black creek" In consequence OF
the surveys not being made the statement Of
taken, which was erroneous TO the number oil the
township have therefore stricken out the number OF
The township. but the bill to embrace the settlement in
the township in which he resides. And to show that
there is conflict In the evidence there the state
ment OF his neghbo that this land does interfere
with the claim OF any other person There no reason
that he should not be permitted 10 enter by the grant
II well understood, SO that there can be difficulty
MIR FELCH There is no difficulty arising in this case
for the want OF surveys or return OF lands There was
difficulty in the Greensburg district years ago. Ii
was reported that the lands not SURVEYED aud re
turns were erroneous and frauduent and the lands
were withheld from sale AS understand, they are now
held for sale other lands, and the returns there,
that there is no difficulty in ascertanng the range OF
township in this district OF Greensbarg, more than
any other. Now if this amendment is made. it aban l.
dons altogether the location described in the bill and
in the report OF the committee OF the Senate and all
there define where the land is situated s that it EN-
braces the improvements OF the petitioner
Now, the fact about il is this: The petitioner alleges
that he resides in township No /, and range No 8, and
goes on and gives description of his premises He
states what he occupies himself, and comes and claims
els
tors sale. These all located in township No. 8.
Now, all the proof presented here relates to township
No 8 and not at all to the sections Of land provided for
this bill There Is statement OF the Land Office in that
Particular. ascerained from the Commissioner that
there is, upon examination discrepancy in the papers
The petitioner describes his land purchase and improve
ments as in No. a. Then all the proef which relates
ii relates TO land in township No ga totally different
tract Of land Here then is discrepancy. II may be
may be- certain it is what is asked for in this
bill is not in accordance with the proof adduced in
the If we change the bill by striking out town
ship No, |, it may be township No. l or No 3. II
strikes all others in regard to it, AT all events if he
takes land according to the proof he takes land which
he does not pretend 10 claim at all in his papers. II may
pretend 10 say but if grant him the land in his Pc
tition grant what there is proof OF at all
Mr.. DOWNS There is no difficulty about il at all.
have exactly the same statement from the Land Office
suppose, that the gentleman from Michigan has, and il
for that reason offered the amendment 1t is true the
petitioner did mention township. which, according to
hssa mistake merely in the number. There mistake
abouthe location That is perfectly well known and
this bill fixes particular location, but directs that il
shall be laid out according to direction of the surveyor
general, TO include his Improvements. The only
reason struck it out is, that ii discovered that there
was mistake in the number of the township and
have now left il general, to embrace the settle
ment. Here is clause the bill showing that there can
be no possible difficulty about it :
Propided That such entry shall interfere with the
rights Of Others and shall be made after aforesaid
Land Office OF proof OF surveys OF the township" &c
Now, here is statement of the neighbors of this per
son, showing that there is difficulty in the surveyor
general determining where that survey is to be made
'we the undersigned, citizens OF tho parish East Fell
oiana and State of Louisiana, do hereby certify
have examined the memorial of Thomas III. McMsnus,
and in the prayer thereof We further certify
that uhe ncighbors to- and adjoining proprieors
Of, the said Thomas H. McManus, and well acquainted
with the situation of the land referred said memorial
and do hereby state that there is but small quantity
public land in the neighboIhood of said McManus
that the land tor which the said McManus memorial
lied your honorable body would be of great value
any else, without the Improvements made by him j
the value Of the land and the provements
snd price paid for said property by said McManus, in
good faith, the opinion of the unders gned, ought
ue said McManns orable consideration and dispo
Euon oil his claim.
THos w. SCOTT,
GEO. Keller,
JOHN EAST,
JULIA WARD,
JOHN w. SOMERVILLE,