The register., 1860-04-05

improperly or unlawfully issued in the case of
the Houmas grant, and to report thereon and
in case IL pate cnt had been so issued, the Prcsi-
dent was requested TO ca,,se legal proceedings
to be taken to have its validity judicially deter
mined. Under this Joint resolution, Mr. Cliff |
ford, the Attorney General. made report in
1s47, in which, after examining the case as he
understood it, he came to the conclusion that
the grant by Galvcz on the 2lst of June, Iii,
in favor Of Maurice Conway. only covered for
ty-two arpents of land in depth from the river,
including his front tract Of forty arpents in
depth. Now, when it is remembered that Con
way. when he asked for the rear vacant lands
Of the forty arpents in front, that he needed |
timber for his plantation, and that the timber
was no nearer than league and half. or at |
least three miles, from the river. and consider
ing, also, that about twenty-scvcn arpcn's front
are about equal to a mile this conclusion Of |
the Attorney General was most unarcountahle
and iifexplicable. OF what possible benefit
could 1t have been TO Maurice Conway to have
a strip of two arpents tackled on to the rear line
of his plantation, which practically put him no
nearer to the timber which he so much needed! I!
Is it to be reasonably supposed that when he
asked for all the pacant lands in his rear. follow
ing the directions Of his side lines. and had had
those lines prolonged in the manner certified |
by Captain Andry, that the Governor intended |
to grant, and he was willing to receive after all
his pains. only two additional arpents in depth
to those he already owned. and mon which
according to his petition, there conla have
been no timber? But be This an II NAV thc
Presidentin ls49 directed suits to be broupht
to apnul tho patents issued in favor of Clnrk,s |
representatives ana others by Ills nredrcnssor
in 1884, and in the bill Of complaint filed BY |
the District Attorney, for the first time was the |
intilhaton Of fraud or mal-practices thrown out
against the claimants under the Spanish grant.
f0r it never had bccn done bv CONGRESS- nnr so
Iar as the records show. bv any Goyernmcnt
official previous to that date. An immense
mass of nfficial documentary and o,h ,hrr nvdnncn |
:aos brought forward bv The defendants to snn- |
nort tlNe Neyalidjtv of Their titIns and thnv ON. |
,nhatically and succcssfnl]y ysNncllca tho charge
made nv thn iii, of frnnj "a bg c,,sa ;,f'rn,o
tion, in obtaining the patent, II is said again
that Judo. Cnmnbrll Of the Sunrcmr Cnrt
held NAT The claim was frandnlpnt A COM
Of his decree in tho case ia now before mo and
so far from sustaining, such !. cborre II VOW |
decidedly negatives Il i. for oitor' stat;no ,hot
the claim Nn l57 ihe ono in f,vor or non;,i |
Clorl. and which was beforc mo rourt hod
been confirmed bv the Board Of fCommissionnrs
and that file not of 1871 had nrovdpI that no
land shoull he offered for sale a claim to which
had becn in iuc fine filed lcforc tbn Pooistor
for investigation. mill thc decision of Cnnarcss
was mnde thereon bc saws of,the act of la1I
:" This act is one founded on the ploincst prin.
cinirs of insticc and hns hrrn nnifnrmlv min.
tained. III The fullness of its spirit by thr S,,-
nremo Court of the United States Nothinv
would he more ineouitnble tIan an nttcmnt m
The mari Of the United States to ;nvolvr tha
claimants. whom thrv lad hrnnrht hefors thn;r
own tribunals With Tho cynrctat;on that thn;r
rights would be ascertained in s,w wmorv wav
hut in A spirit of coui,y and hbrrality in h1nu.
tons uh oiLer claimants d,yjriuo Mtit lilies NJ ms,
f,c,o from tle Iu;t1 St,i,s. no such con1nrt 1Ins
been couptrnancel by CONGRESS-. tbou"h this
case shows yery wanton violations of the not ofI
1911, by subordinate officers of the Land Office
department" and again, "The land embraced
in this claim was thus protected from sale until
the pleasure Of Congress upon the report of the
Board of Commission should be made KNOWN
He then proceeded to declare, that hc did not
believe that the provisions of the act Of Anrl
IS, 1914 were applicable to he case for. said
he "The act does not apply 10 ony of thee
claims upon which the tinal action of Congress
was required TO impart TO them validity, or TO
relieve them from the burden of II claim on the
part of the United States. The favorable iudr.
ment of the Commissioners in regard to the
Houmas claim is not adopted by this act nor
does the act cmpowcr the President 10 rcnounce
the claim of the United States to it. The M
tent. consequently. was iysurd without tho M M.
thority of lnw.n And he concludrs ..I do not
decide any question. anon the validity of Tho
defendants title to Tie land thev claim. nor
upon the effect of any acts of The officer. of the
Land Office in respect to determining its bonn
daries nor the effect of the patent, in any other
rcspect than that of its being a pauer issucd
without legal authority"
Our distinguished Senator. Mr.. BENJAMIN. has
been attacked and his course in Congress- with
regard to the confirmation by the net of .Jnue
2. 1858. of this and other claims rrported npon
hvorably by the Board of Commissioners in
1911. has been denounced in most violent terms
by parties interested in the defeat of the Hon
mas claim. lie has been accused of smuu
gingn the bill through Congress, and of lend
ing Himself to the promotion of the interests Of
his colleague, to the injury of worthy and limo.
cent settlers, &c. Huupily for him. If he neeu
any defence in the eyes Of the great mass of
constituency which he has SO well and so ably
served-the journals of Congress remain as a
record of all that is done there. They show
that in the Senate, the bill which finally be-
came the law so much complained Of, was re-
frrred to the Committee on Private Land
CLAIMS, and that on the 9th Of February, 1857,
IA unanimous report was made in its favor, with
amendments, giving the reasons why the con-
tirmations which had been SD long delayed
should no longer be postponed. This was at
the Second Session Of the% Thirty y-fourth Com
grrss At the First ScsseH of the Thirty-fifth
| Congress, the same Committee again reported
| favorably of the measure, on the 18th Of March,