Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-01-01


These proposed extensions OF the presumption privilege
would be than justice to the enterprsng citizens
through whose energy, toll, and priyatons the chief
ue has been given the public domain the treasury Of
the country enriched and the fruitful valleys Of the West
opened up the settlement Of the millions who
cupy that favored region.
invite the attention Of Congress to the recommended
tons heretofore made for the revival Of the act of Sd
August l846 providing for the adjustment Of all
pended presumption land claims in the several States and
Territories and for the extension OF the provisions Of
that act and those Of Sd March, 1879 and Gath May
1929 for the correction Of in making entries Of
Land TO all where the locations have been may
DC made with bounty landwarsants or other SCRIP.
Inc revival and extension Of these laws will afr nd re-
he 70 many mertorous cases. where innocent persons
nave been led into by circumstances beyond their
contro anu VIII remove Of much labor and cor
repondence to this Office by the final disposition Of such
cases Every principle Of justice requires that the 81
facility and indulgence should be extended to those he
lana with warrants or scrip to those who pt
chase for cash.
settlers have endeayored secure their v
warrants and who having been misled in the discrio
ton OF the tract have located their warrants upon lands
that comparatively valaeless to them, leaving Their
own improvements subject sale location for want OF
the means Of securing them.
BY the treaty Of 1882 the Chickasaws coded to the Uni;
ted States their lands in Mississippi and Alabama con-
tanning according to actual survey 6,7l85S6 27-lOOr
acres and to the treaties of 1882 and 1884 with
that tribe there has been disposed Of by granting ndiyi
dual Indian reserves and by public and private SALE the
VI Wn0e ce5Sl0n, leaving,
little over 200, 900 acres now undisposed Of These
unsod lands under the graduation principle in the treaty
Of 1884 liable sale at 12 an acre. except
GAO acres known as the Land Office" section at Ponto-
toc the sale OF which is specially provided for in the
supplement to the treaty of 1882
BY the eleventh article of the treaty of 1884 it is pro-
vded that should the expenses Of these lands "prove
greater than the receipts the Chckasaws may declare
the residue of them abandoned to the United States
This office from time to time has reduced the expenses
OF the land system in the ceson by dispensing with the
IF cvtchn hal <-Lk
business entrusted to them close In order however
to conduct the sales in the cesson pursuant to treaty
spuations has been necessary continue the regis
ter and receiver at salary 81 200 EACH as authorized
In the treaty steps should be taken at an early
day In the way OF finally treating with the Indians re-
speeding the residue Of their lands recommend the pas
sage OF law authorizing the Executive attach these
lands to contiguous district and sell them free of
expense, to the Indians In this way they would be re-
eved from the annual expenses now incident to the en-
poyment OF register and receiver at the salary specified
in the treaty and the Land Office section could be sold
to the best Advantage only beneficial to
the Indians but doubtless desirable the Ponto
toe, to which it is adjacent
Under other treaties with various tribes of Indians in
dvidual reservations have been allowed from very early
period In the operations Of our Government.
by the treaties of 1882 with the Creeks large num-
Der OF reserves was granted and sale of them author
lied and in 1883 Congress passed act making it obi
gatory upon the Executive only to issue patents to
the first purchasers from the Indians whose contracts had
been approved by the President but also to recognise in
the Issuing OF patents any intermediate assignments
when found satisfactory, from the first purchaser to the
last claimant
By the treaty of 1880 with the Choctaws numerous
reservations were allowed and patents required to be
issued to the deserves under the 14 article and to
chaser from the Indians under the 9th article and sup
pement to that treaty These and other kindred treaty
operations have devoved immense amount Of business
upon this Office but such has been the progress made in
II that we are prepared to issue patents demand in
any unconested case, where the proceedings found
regular.
BY the act of Congress approved 9th of January 1851
Congress authorized grant of "the right of pre-emp-
ton to certain purchasers and settlers on the Maison
Rouge grant, in the event Of the final adjudication the
title in favor of the United States"
The Maison Rouge title, in petitory action came be-
fore the Supreme Court of the United States in 1S45 in
the case of the United States King and Coke and
again in l049 and decisions then rendered against
III but there was nothing in those decisions that
ranted the Executive in proceeding dispose of the
lands as public property in the absence express drec
tons from Congress In 1850 however it again came
before that court in the of the United States Tur
ner az under the act Of Congress approved 26th May
1874 and 18th June, 1874 and under those laws de-
cree was rendered by that tribunal against the validity of
the title The seventh section Of the said a of 26th
May 1924 declares in the Of final decision against
claim that the land shall forthwith be held and taken
as part Of the public lands of the United States SUBJ
jeet," &c.
In view Of this provision Of law this office was of opin
Ion that the contingency contemplated by the said act of
18th January, 1851 had occurred and accordingly nv
predecessor the 9Th March, 1851 dispatched instruc
tons TO the proper land officers give effect to the said
act of 9th January, 1851.
Since then the attention Of the department has been
drawn TO the fact that there another suit pending under
the acts OF 1924 and 1874 before the Supreme Court be-
ing the case Of Coke and others against the United States
IN which the claim also rests the Mason Rouge title
and the ground has been that there is no proprety
in acting under said act Of 9th January 1851 until this
last mentioned shall have been decided the appeal
In my communication to you Of the Both ultimo il is
shown that this Office has taken different view of the
matter and declined compliance with application for
suspension Of the notices under the act Of 9th January
1884, in consideration Of the of the aforesaid sew
enth section Of the act of 26h May 1924 the decree Of
the Supreme Court in the Of Turner and the re-
quirement Of the said of 9th January 1851 As the
notices contemplated by the Of 9th January 1851
will not however be given until the official returns shall
have been made Of the public surveys within the exterior
lines Of said claim, time viii yet elapse before any
hna action will be had in the way Of disposing Of the
lands within the limits OF the said claim.
IL recommended that general law similar in prin-
cpe to the act passed in the Maison Rouge case en-
acted so as TO relieve such settlers as may be in like
situation on other claims yet before the courts and in
which final decisions may be rendered against the Span
Ssh or French title.
On the "a March, 1851 act was approved for the
settlement OF certain classes Of private land claims
within the limits Of the Baron de Bastrops grant and
Tor allowing prescriptions certain actual settlers in the
event OF the final adjudication Of the title Of the said de
Bastrop in favor Of the United States" The Supreme
Court Of the United States having rendered decision
against the validity Of the de Bastrop tite which COW
cred over million Of arpens this Office pursuant 10 the
requirements of the said Of the Sd Of March, 1861
issued the necessary instructions In order that report
might be made by the land officers on the several casses
Of claims under De Bastrop.