The New York herald., 1876-09-02

lowed 10 such officers, 10 be computed upon the
amounts by Them respectively collected paid over and
accounted for under the Instructions OF the Treasury
Department, as foows: Three per cent upon the hrst
800 900, one per upon all above 500 900
ana exceeding S40o 600 Such an officer aay also
Keep and render TO the proper officers OF the Treasury
an account OF bis necessary and reasonable charges Tor
stationery and blank books used ia the performance OF
his oacal duties, ana Tor postage actually PAID on
letters ana documents, received sent. and cNclu-
svey relating 10 official business and II the account Is
approved by the proper accounting officers the Col
lcctor Is entitled To be paid Tor tie same, but The pro-
VISION is that no such account shall be approved unless
1t shall state the date and the particular items OF every
such expenditure, and shall be verified by the oath or
affirmation Of the Collector Two provisos are annexed
TO those eEsctments-First that the salary and com
missions OF no collector exclusive oil stationery blank
books and postage shall exceed SO coo IN the aggre
gate, nor more Than $4,000, exclusive OF the expcnses
Tor rent stationery bank books and postage aud pay
OF deputies aud clerks, which such Collector Is
actually and necessarily subjected in the admlnstra
ton oil his Office; second that the Secretary OF tho
Treasury be authorized TO make such further allow
ances from time TO time us may be reasonable, in
In which, from the territorial extent OF tho dis
tric or from the amount of Internal duties collected
or from other circumstances, may seem just TO make
such allowances Us statutes ut Large. 23l.) Suhcent
appears TO show that The principal defendant was duly
appointed Collector OF internal Revenue under the act
OF Congress IN shat made and provided, and that
the foundation OF tue SUIT Is hc Official bond given ny the
appUntce Tor the atbu discharge OF he duties oi The
office Breaches Of the conditions Of the bond having been
committed, alleged, the Unned states commenced
action OF debt III the District Cour against tho
principal ad his sureties claiming the penalties oil tho
bond. Service made and Inc defendants appeared
anu peadcd-Frst, non est fdcfum; second, perform
auce; third, sci-of IN the sum OF Ss2I5 vi Tor money
before that time paid aid out and expended
by the defendant to and lor The use OF the plaintiffs.
and at their Instance tor The work anu labor oil the
ana MS servants and deputies done and pcr
formed by him sucn collector Tor ihe plaintiffs and
at their Instance and request. The judgment below
was tor the government ana II is here affirmed, tho
Court holding that compensation Tor extra services,
where 10 certain ls uXed by law cannot be allowed
by the head OF department to any officer who hus by
law liked certain compensation Tor his services IN
the office he holds unless the department authorized
10 90 SO by act OF Congress- and that such claim
for extra cannot De allow cd In suc
sct-on against the government unless the conpensa
ton claimed was liked by lnw. Mr. Justice Clifford
delivered the opinion.
81. LOUIS AND TIE TITLE TO JEpFEHsoN BARRACKS
THE PLEA OF DrREss AS AFFECTING a COMPROMISE
No. 22l The CITY OF St Louis. appellant The
United Statcs-Appca from the Court OF CLAIMS. -Ihe
subject OF TINS controversy is the title the und
known Jefferson Barracks. consisting OF about 100
acres llvc miles below tho city OF ST. LOUIS. II ios
within the lines OF survey Of the commons OF Ca
rondciei containing much larger quantity--ncary
10000 acres The present suit was instituted IN the
Court OF CLAIMS IN 1859 by the city OF Carondeet AS
the Jurisdiction OF that Court uoubed Congress- by
the OF 1878 az United States Statutes, 62l, specially
authorized 1t To entertain jurisdiction OF the controversy
The cly OF CArondeiet having become merged IN the
city 81. Louis by an act OF The Legislature OF MIS-
souri, the latter city was substituted as liantin A
deed conveying the land III controversy 10 the United
States made by the city o Carondeet on the 10th
day OF October 1894 and is not controverted that the
authority under which this WAS done was sufficient.
And II this deed be held TO be Otherwise valid 1t de-
cidcs the controversy IN favor OF the United States
Its validity is dened however, on the part of the
plaintiff, the ground that was without considera-
tion and that II was improperly cocrceu from the
thorites OF Carondcet by the officers Of the govern
ment VINO had charge OF the Department ol PubIc
Lands by unjust and Illegal exercise Of authority in
refusing TO confirm, and threatening to set aside tho
survey which we have already mentioned, vi tic Ca
ronteiet commons, and cXactng this dced US the
dition OF their acQueace.ice III thai survey. ON the
other sde thc deco Is supported as just amt equitable
compromise oi long existing controversy. both as to
the correctness OF that survey and tho right OF the
government to the ground known as Jefferson Bar
racks. The origin OF tho claim OF Caronuclet was a
concession OF t,OO0 arpents OF land adjoining the
village, made 1896 by Zenon rrudeau, Lieu
tenant Governor oi Upper LouisIana An at
tempt to give locality TO this concession
made by Souard (who describes himself US surveyor
comniissio by the governmentl, December, 1884,
but the nrst actual survey made 1915 by Elias
Rector, who was deputy under his iather William Rec
tor Surveyor OF Public Lands Tor the Territories OF
Hin, Missouri. The Court OF Claims hnds that
though the field notes OF this survey wore filed the
Surveyors Office II was never approved bv him. But
Tho year 1854 Elias I. l.angham, surveyor General
ut ST. LOUIS caused j. G. Brown, one OF his deputies,
re-eslablish the lines OF Rcctors survey
and when the result OF tho work was returned 10 his
office he approved the survey and the same was duly
filed in the office Of Recorder OF Land Titles in MIS-
souri, who thercupon certfes that the title was by
HIM duly confirmed OF the village 10 their claim
commons OF OuO arpenls OF lanu. as shown by that
survey. slxtousand arpenls are eq'nraient to lO4
acres. The survey couained 9,Y05 acres, and the
Court Claims 1nds that attor dedacting from that
quantity the Jefferson Barracks claim and
nil prIyatc CLAIMS, there still renamed nearly 900
acres more than tito 5000 arpents There no ev-
that this survey ever brought to tho atten
tion OF tho Land Department IN Washington until
june 1899 in that year tho surveyor General at ST.
LOUIS have called the attention OF TIC DIS
trct Attorney OF the United states Tor Missouri the
survey connection with tho location OF Jefferson
barracks, and the letter having bccn transmitted TO
the Secretary OF War investigation OF the whole
matter instituted by the commissioner Of Public
Lanas. This resulted in an order made in lS4l, by
Commissioner Wnitcomb, TO surveyor General Nil. |
burn, directing new survey oi tnsse commons, ON
the principle OF rcserving 7O2 acres Tor military Eur
poses AT Jefferson Barracks allowing 5000 arpents TO
Caroudee for her commons, and restoring the balance
not covered by private claims to sale public lands
q
made by the village 10 the United States OF
portion uf land, which to revert to the village
when longer waited tor military purposes The
government has since been in poe session Aitcrward
the department AZ Washington having decided that the
Rector survey not valid and tue village, gettDg
uneasy to its tc proposed to give the government
leo OF the barracks (as compromsc) in oruer 10
remove cloud from its title TO the balance. This was
done IN 1854 the claim made that the crcum-
stances OF the amounted To durcss, and thus
and transaction s sustained the Courl holding tho
compromise ELECTED 10 bc valid. Affirmed. Ar. JUS
tice Miller delivered the opinion.
SPANISH LAND GRANTS IN cALlvoRsIA-wnAr ARR
LANDS UNDER THE ACT OF 1851 r-TiiH
CONSTRUED.
No 5o3. G. d. Ncwnall, appellant, vs. Charles W.
Sangor-Appea from the Circuit Court tor the District
Caliiorna-Thc object OF this suit Is TO determine
tho ownership OF quarter scction ot land Ia California
The appcce, who Was tue complainant, claims through
tho Western Pacific Railroad Company, to whom "A
patent issued in 1870 IN proiessed compliance with
the requirements OF The acts oil Congress, commonly
known tho Pacific Railroad acts The appellant dc.
rivcs title by mesne conveyance from Ransom
Dayton whose patent OF later date than that issued
by the company rcctes that the land within the
exterior limits OF Mexican grant, called Moquclamos
ami that patent had by mistake becu issued by the
company The Court below decreed that the appellee
the lee simple OF the land, anc that the
paient under which the appellant claimed, tar 1t
related to the land in conrovesy should be Cancelled
The act OF July /, 1862 az Stat, 4e2). grants TO |
certain railroad companies, oi which the Western |
Pacific by subsequent legislation became one, |
alternate section oil pubic land DESIGNATED by
odd numbers within ten miles OF side OF their
respective roads, not sold, reserved otherwise dis
posed OF by the United states and TO which home-
stead pre- emptiun claim may net have attacked at
the the line OF the road s definitely liked. 1t re-
Quires that within prescribed time map csienaling
the route road shall be led lne De-
partment of the Interior, ana that the Secretary
thereof shall then cause the lands within a certain
distance IRON such to be Withdrawn from pre-
cmpton private entry and sale. The precise date VI
the location OF the Western Pacific road stated
the record, but the inference rs that took place be-
nuv Of uhnrl lnrtn n