: [H. OF R. doc. 128. "4th. All claims originating in depredations and which I look upon as equally just, are claims for the committed in a period of hostilities, or previous thereto, if issue of female slaves taken and kept by the Indians. If not provided for in the treaty which followed such hos- the claimant was entitled to the mother, he was necessaritilities. The exclusion of this class (continues Mr. Cal-ly entitled to the offspring for the child follows the conhoun) rests on a principle perfectly well established be-dition of the mother, and would be recoverable in our tween civilized nations, and is believed to be equally ap- courts of law, either upon an action of trover and converplicable to Indian nations. In its application in this case, sion, or, an action of detinus for the specific property. it will exclude all claims originating previous to the treaty The last claim which remains to be considered is that of with the Creek Nation, made at New York, the 7th Au- interest upon the value of property, from the time it gust, 1790, except for slaves, provided to be given up by should have been delivered up. There are many considerthe 3d article of said treaty," &c. ations, sir, which enter into this part of the subject, and Yet I am of the opinNow, the 3d article of the treaty simply provides, "that which render it difficult to decide. all prisoners, together with all negroes then in the posses-ion that interest, on a number of the claims, ought to be sion of the Creek Indians, should be restored," &c. The allowed. There are, no doubt, cases in which intesubject of those claims was not under consideration at rest ought not to be allowed: such, for instance, as where an allowance is made for a female slave, and that treaty; and, therefore, [says Mr. Calhoun] the application of this principle, established among civilized na- an adequate allowance for her issue. It might also tions, which excludes claims not provided for in subse- enter into the consideration of interest, whether the proquent treaties, will necessarily exclude all claims originat-perty had been valued very high or very low. In the latter ing previous to the treaty of New York. But most as-case, interest ought certainly to be allowed. The bill, suredly, sir, if claims are subsequently recognized by a therefore, which was reported at the last session of Connation, they are then as valid as though no treaty had in-gress, by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. THOMPSON] tervened. The question then is, Did the Indians subse- fully meets my view, and I shall therefore support it. quently recognize those claims? Sir, they did. For the But it has been objected by the Committee, with retreaty of Indian Springs, as well as the release executed to the Indians, and the article referring the decision of the claims to the President, all prove that they were recognized by the Indians at that time, which was in 1821. What is the language used? The treaty says, "for property taken or destroyed prior to the act of Congress of 1802," &c. The article of reference says, "all claims of either side, of whatever nature or kind, prior to the act of Congress of 1802, regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes." The release executed at the same time also recognizes all claims prior to 1802. The preamble is in the following words : gard to the part of this subject which relates to interest, "Whereas a treaty or convention has this day been made and entered into by and between the United States and the Creek Nation, by the provisions of which the United States have agreed to pay, and the Commissioners allowance of interest, is the opinion of the Attorney GenBut what appears to be a much greater obstacle to the of the State of Georgia have agreed to accept, for and cral [Mr. Wirt] against it, and which has been cited by, on behalf of the citizens of the State of Georgia, having and which accompanied the report of, the Committee on Inclaims against the Creek nation, prior to the year 1802, dian Affairs. I certainly have not the presumption to the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars," &c. controvert any legal opinion of that deservedly distinThe language here used is so general in its bearing, guished lawyer and gentleman. But it will not, I and the amount fixed upon as necessary to cover the hope, be considered unfair to oppose a subsequent opinclaims, leaves the mind, in my opinion, no room to doubt. ion of the same gentleman, in a case which, I think, will If, therefore, it should be conceded that all claims origi- be found strictly analogous-I mean, sir, his opinions nating prior to 1802 were recognized by the Indians in with regard to the claims for interest, upon the con1821, and referred by the parties to the President for his struction of the awards of the Emperor of Russia, undecision, the principle then suggested by Mr. Calhoun, der the treaty of Ghent. These claims, it will be reand which was brought to bear to the exclusion or rejec-collected, were for slaves owned by citizens of the Unittion of a great number of those claims, ceases to operate; ed States, and taken by the British during our last and therefore the decision of the President, or the Com-war, but which were to be restored, according to the These slaves were missioner acting under his instructions, should only have stipulations of the Treaty of Ghent. been with regard to the validity or justness of the claims; not restored, and the claim was for their value, and the inin which case all these excluded claims, for property de- terest on the value from the time they should have been stroyed, &c. would have been allowed. I would not be restored till paid. The opinion of the Attorney General understood as reflecting upon Mr. Calhoun for the great is, that interest ought to be allowed in this case; nay, he care with which he guarded the public interest. As a goes farther, and says that damages ought to be awarded ministerial officer, it is highly creditable to him to have for the wrongful detention of the slaves, if they could be done so; and perhaps it was best, knowing, as he did, correctly arrived at. Then, if interest ought to be allowthat, if ample justice was not done the claimants, their ed in this case, it is but equally fair that interest should be appeal was to the Congress of the nation, whose powers paid upon the value of all slaves wrongfully detained by were ample, and whose decision no one could censure. the Indians, and detained in the face of treaty stipulation. If, then, sir, the committee should agree with me that the claims for property killed and destroyed should be paid, as well as the claims for property taken and carried away, then the remedy is in our hands, and the claimants appeal to us for that justice which, they consider, has been heretofore withheld. Another class of claims, which have been rejected, But with regard to the Georgia claimants, Mr. Wirt thinks "The first consideration which strikes the mind on this H. OF R.] Georgia Claims. [JAN. 2, 1829. subject is, that this is a question which arises between so- of the Committee on Indian Affairs, in their report upon vereign and independent States, in transactions between the subject now under consideration, will be utterly unawhom, the allowance of interest, unless where it is ex- vailing, unless we should be so fortunate as to be honored pressly stipulated, or arises on contracts of loan, is, it is with the attention of the Committee. I therefore beg their believed, without example. It might, therefore, be safe-attention for a few minutes. ly assumed, in the front of this examination, that interest The claims of the citizens of Georgia on the Creek nanot having been expressly stipulated in this case, and tion of Indians, for which we now contend, and which we the case not being one of contract of loans, the de-allege are provided for by the treaty of 1821, made with mand of interest is in conflict with the usages of nations, the Creek nation of Indians, may be, as remarked by the and, therefore, ought not to be made."--[See Rep. of gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. CARSON] properly Com. 1st Ses. 20th Congress, Vol. 2.-Rep. 128.] divided into three classes. The first class includes all In his opinion in the case of the Virginia and Louisiana dians, of property which belonged to citizens of Georclaims founded upon the destruction, by the Creek Inclaimants, he says: gia, prior to the act of Congress regulating trade and in"Upon the whole, sir, I am of the opinion, that the just tercourse with Indian tribes, passed in the year eighteen indemnification awarded by the Emperor, involves, not hundred and two. This, as a class of claims, was excludmerely the return of the value of the specific property, ed by the instructions from the Secretary of War to the but a compensation also, for the subsequent and wrongful Commissioner who was appointed to adjudicate the claims detention of it, in the nature of damages. If the actual of citizens of Georgia, under the treaty before referred to. damages in each case could be ascertained, they ought, The second class includes all claims founded on the inunder the award, to be decreed; but since this, if not im-crease of female slaves, the property of citizens of Georpracticable, would be a work of great labor and time, gia, taken and carried away by the Creek Indians prior to am of opinion that the interest, according to the usages the passage of the act of Congress to which I have of nations, is a necessary part of the just indemnifica- already alluded. And the third class is a claim against tion awarded by the Emperor of Russia."-See State Pa- the Creek Indians for the allowance of a reasonable pers, Executive, 1st Session 20th Congress.--Vol. 6, Doc. per cent. interest on the amount of money which has 256.] been, or hereafter may be, considered as fairly and equiIn the first case, he thinks it "in conflict with the tably due from the Creek Indians to citizens of Georgia, usage of nations"-but in the latter, strictly "in accord- under the provisions of the treaty of '21, as a just indemance with the usage of nations"-to allow interest. My nity for the detention, by said Indians, of the value of the opinion is, that his last opinion is correct, and I shall be property so by them wrongfully destroyed or taken and governed accordingly; and, sir, the United States will be carried away. These were rejected by the President of nothing loser by the payment of all the claims that have the United States, as advised by the opinion of the Attorbeen presented: for there is near one hundred and forty-ney General. nine thousand dollars of the money which she covenanted The Committee on Indian Affairs, while they admit, in to pay, whenever claims to the amount should be estab- their report, that the first class of claims urged by the citilished, yet remaining in her hands; there is no fear that zens of Georgia were provided for by the treaty of 1821, the Government will be imposed upon, because there is reject the second and third classes, as not coming within a limit beyond which we cannot go, and that limit is fixed the provisions of that treaty. They say, too, that they by the terms of the treaty. And it is farther to be re-can perceive nothing in the instructions under which the marked, that the Government has received a valuable Commisioner acted, which warranted an exclusion of the consideration for this sum, in the land then ceded by the Indians. claims founded on the destruction of property by the Creek Indians; and that, as no specific case has been presented, on which a decision was made by the Commissioner adverse to the claim for property destroyed by the Indians, they are, therefore, not called upon to express an opinion as to the correctness of such a decision. Sir, it does seem to me, that the Committee on Indian Affairs, if they will take the trouble to re-examine the instructions under which the Commissioner who adjudicated these claims acted, they will find that the construction obviously intended to be given to those instructions, compelled the Commissioner to exclude all claims founded on the destruction of property. And here permit me to remark, generally, that no claims, amidst the vast number that are laid before us, are entitled to be viewed with so liberal and indulgent an eye as those which are preferred on account of Indian depredations. They come from citizens on the frontiers-a class of men whose exposed situation subjects them to a great variety of privations and sufferings; who are the first to be assailed by a savage enemy, and the last to be visited by the comforts and advantages of cultivated and refined society. They are the pioneers of our country, and may be said to be a frontier rampart, behind which, the interior citizen rests with security from the aggres- I will direct the attention of the committee to the letsions of a savage foe. Such are the class of claimants ter of instructions from the Secretary of War to General who now appeal to us, and I do think them entitled to all James P. Preston, the Commissioner who was appointthe liberality and indulgence which a parental Government ed to pass upon the claims in question. In the letter of incan justly show. structions, the Secretary of War tells the CommissionerWith these remarks I submit the case, believing that much more justice will be done the subject by gentlemensioner's] attention is, what are the description of claims "The first point which will claim your [the Commiswho may follow me. Mr. THOMPSON, of Georgia, said, that, in the discus-in the provisions of the treaty? To determine which, sawhich, on a fair and just construction, are comprehended sion of the subject now under consideration, he designed tisfactorily, it will be proper to consider, in the first place, to trespass but a very few moments on the patience of the committee. He presumed an apology was scarcely neceswhat are the description of claims which, under such a sary for the commission of such a trespass. construction, are clearly not comprehended in its proviIf, however, sions." [said Mr. T.] any should be considered as due from me, it will be found in the duty which I owe to my constituents, The Secretary then enumerates the description of many of whom are deeply interested in the question now claims which, by his construction of the treaty, are not pending, and to whom a correct decision is very impor- comprehended in its provisions; and, in the enumeration, I know, sir, that any effort on my part to expose includes "all claims originating in depredations committed the errors which exist in the reasonings and conclusions in a period of hostilities, or previous thereto, if net pro tant. JAN. 2, 1829.] Georgia Claims. [H. of R. vided for in the treaty which followed such hostilities." Commissioners of Georgia, and the chiefs, head men, and And the Secretary adds, that "the exclusion of this class warriors, of the Creek nation, to be paid in five annual rests on a principle perfectly well established between ci- instalments, without interest, provided the same shall not vilized nations, and is believed to be equally applicable to exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, Indian nations. In its application in this case, it will ex- the Commissioners executing to the Creek nation a full clude all claims originating previous to the treaty with the and final relinquishment of all the claims of the citizens Creek nation, made at New York the 7th August, 1790, of Georgia, against the Creek nation, for property taken except for slaves provided to be given up by the 3d article or destroyed prior to the act of Congress of one thousand of said treaty; and those originating subsequent to the date eight hundred and two, regulating the intercourse with thereof, and previous to the 29th June, 1796, the date of the Indian tribes." the treaty of Colerain, except for the property provided To this treaty is appended an agreement entered into to be given up in the 7th article." Now, sir, as the 3d on the day when the treaty was concluded between the article of the treaty of New York, and the 7th article of Commissioners on the part of Georgia, and the chiefs, the treaty of Colerain, provided only for the surrender by head men, and warriors, of the Creek nation, by which, the Indians of such property belonging to the citizens of all claims on either side, of whatever nature or kind, Georgia, as was then in the possession of the Indians; and prior to the act of Congress of one thousand eight hundred as the enumeration in the Secretary's instructions to the and two, regulating the intercourse with the Indian tribes, Commissioner, of the description of claims which, by such with the documents in support of them, shall be referred construction of the treaty of 1821, were provided for by to the decision of the President of the United States." the latter treaty, does not include the class of claims found-Sir, if an allowance of indemnity for property destroyed ed upon the destruction of property; it is therefore clear was not contemplated by the contracting parties, why that the Secretary intended that a construction should be were the Georgia Commissioners required to execute to given by the Commissioner, to his instructions, which the Creek nation a full and final relinquishment of all claims would exclude the class of claims founded upon the de- of the citizens of Georgia against the Creek nation, for struction of property. I will now proceed to show, in property taken or destroyed? And why the reference to the decisions of the Commissioner, the effect of the con- the decision of the President of the United States, of all struction which the Secretary of War evidently intended claims on either side, of whatever nature or kind? But, should be given to his instructions. By reference to the to make this point stronger, and the argument in favor of report of the Commissioner, made on the 15th March, the allowance of an idemnity for property destroyed more 1822, showing his decisions on the several claims present-conclusive, if possible, I will present to the Committee ed for adjudication, it will be seen that many claims were evidence, that a list of the claims admitted, as well as those presented, which were founded upon the destruction, by rejected by the Commissioner, was, by the Georgia Comthe Creek Indians, of property belonging to citizens of missioners, presented, pending the negotiation, and formGeorgia. I will present to this Committee a single case, ed the basis of the agreement which referred the claims to which I invite the attention of the Committee on Indian to the decision of the President. This list, which was Affairs, as I am persuaded that they will agree with me, submitted to the Indian negotiators, contained claims against that, in this case, they have "official information" upon the nation for property destroyed by the Creek Indians. which they could have expressed "an opinion as to the I am sorry I did not save myself the trouble of making an propriety of the decision;" and as they, in their report, argument to the Committee in support of the class of express the opinion that "the citizen, whose property claims founded on the destruction of property, by reading may have been destroyed by the said Indians, is as much the memorial of the Legislature of Georgia, addressed to entitled, under the provisions of the 4th article of the the President of the United States, which urges a much aforesaid treaty, (the treaty of 1821) to indemnity, as if more able argument than I am capable of making on the such property had been in existence, at the execution of subject, especially as I must draw from that document the said treaty,' I therefore look with confidence for the evidence which I propose to present to the Committee in aid of the Committee on Indian Affairs in support of the support of the assertion, that a list of the claims admitted, class of claims founded upon the destruction of property. as well as those rejected by the Commissioner, including The case to which I will direct the attention of the Com-claims founded on the destruction of property by the Inmittee, is the claim of Stephen S. Willey, deceased, as dians, was presented to the Indian negotiators pending the reported by the Commissioner, one part of which was negotiation, and, therefore, formed the basis of the agreeadmitted as coming within the rule of construction adopt-ment which referred the claims of the citizens of Georgia ed in the instructions. On the balance of this claim, the to the decision of the President. I fear I shall weary the Commissioner makes this remark: "The remainder of the patience of the Committee, but my duty compels me to claim, as also of the preceding one of S. S. Willey, amount-prosecute and support the interest of my constituents. The ing together to one thousand three hundred and twenty-memorial to which I have alluded, the Committee will find eight dollars and seventy-five cents, is rejected. The treaty in the 4th vol. State or Executive papers, of first session appears to contemplate no indemnity for property destroy-20th Congress, No. 135. In this memorial, the Legislaed, or for any other description than such as could be sup-ture of Georgia say: that this Committee are satisfied that the instructions from posed to have been then in the nation." Sir, I presume "The claims of the citizens of Georgia had been reA list prepared the Secretary of War authorized the decision of the Com-gistered under the laws of the State. missioner, which excluded claims founded upon the de-by the authority of its Executive, was furnished to the struction of property. If so, all that is necessary is to show, Georgia Commissioners; was exhibited by them as a that claims of this description are provided for by the evidence of what was released to the Indian chiefs at the particular of their demand, and was surrendered as an treaty of 1821. If I succeed in this, the Committee will close of the negotiation. It amounted to a sum, which may sustain the motion which I have had the honor to make. be stated, in round numbers, at two hundred and eighty By referring to the fourth article of the treaty of 1821, the thousand dollars.” Committee will see that, as a part of the consideration for the territory ceded by the Indians to the United States, the The Legislature of Georgia say, in this memorial, United States stipulated "to pay to the State of Georgia "That it was not the intention of the contracting parties whatever balance may be found due by the Creek nation to confer on the President of the United States the right to the citizens of said State, whenever the same shall be to exclude any of the claims of the citizens of Georgia, ascertained, in conformity with the reference made by the as a class, except those occurring after the act of Con H. OF R.] Case of John Baker. [JAN. 5, 1829. gress of the year 1802; that the obvious intention of these ed possession of his slave, if, by lying out of the use of parties was to invest him with authority to examine and his slave, or his value in money, he has been injured, which decide each individual claim with reference to the proof of cannot be denied, justice requires that he should be init. The controversy between the Commissioners of Geor-demnified, by the allowance of a reasonable per cent. intergia, and the chiefs, warriors, and head men, of the Creek est on the amount of the valuation of his property so nation, regarded the proof of the claims, a list of which wrongfully taken or destroyed by the Indians. In the was exhibited, and not the question, whether those claims, opinion reported to the President, adverse to the allowif proved, should be allowed." ance of interest, for which we now contend, the Attorney Sir, this memorial was adopted by an unanimous vote of General of the United States lays much stress on what he the Legislature of Georgia, was duly certified, and sanc- seems to think an extravagant medium valuation of slaves tioned by the Executive of that State. Therefore, the and horses, adopted by the Commissioner who adjudicatevidence which is therein exhibited, is not only of the high-ed these claims; and, in aid of a very inconclusive arguest order, but the conclusion of the Legislature, as to the ment, opposed to the allowance of interest, he thence power with which the President of the United States was draws the conclusion that the claim for interest was inintended by the contracting parties to be invested, in refe-tended to be allowed and covered by the alleged extravarence to the claims of the citizens of Georgia, against the gant valuation. If the committee will turn to the instrucCreek nation of Indians, will, I confidently trust, be sus-tions under which the claims were adjudicated, they will tained by this Committee. Sir, I deem it unnecessary for find that this opinion of the Attorney General impeaches me to urge any additional argument in support of the the good sense and official correctness and integrity of claims of the citizens of Georgia, against the Creek nation the Commissioner; of which none who are acquainted with of Indians, for property destroyed. The conclusion is un-that gentleman can for a moment doubt. That part of avoidable, that those claims are clearly embraced and the instructions of the Secretary of War under which the provided for, by the treaty of 1821. As to the increase Commissioner acted, when fixing the value of property, of slave property, that the citizen of Georgia, whose fe- which formed the foundation of the claims, is in these male slave was taken and carried away, and detained by words: "When a claim is admitted, you will determine its the Creek Indians, prior to the act of Congress, of the amount by the value of the property at the time at which year 1802, regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes, the right accrued to the claimant, against the Creek nais entitled to the increase of such female slave, or to in- tion." Thus the Commissioner was distinctly and imperademnity therefor, is so clear, that I scarcely know how to tively instructed to attach to property its equitable valuaapproach the subject with a view to an argument in sup- tion at the time restitution should have been made by the port of the proposition. Sir, was the act which deprived Indians. It is inconceivable that the Commissioner, rethe rightful owner of his female slave a wrongful act? If gardless of such explicit instructions, added to the intendso, and the owner had been left in the undisturbed posses-ed valuation an allowance of interest on the amount of sion of his female slave, would he not have been entitled such valuation. If the argument of the Attorney General to possess her increase as his rightful property? How, is founded in truth, then the Commissioner palpably disthen, can the wrongful act of him who disturbs the own-obeyed his instructions; an idea which his known characer's rightful possession of the mother, entitle the wrong- ter for official dexterity, correctness, and integrity, forbids. doer to the issue of the mother? In an action of trover The conclusion is therefore forced upon us, that, in obeand conversion for the recovery of a female slave, who dience to his instructions, he fixed upon the property may have had issue after the conversion, if the claimant such a valuation as the evidence adduced in support of the prove his right of property in, with his right of possession claims warranted. MONDAY, JAN. 5, 1829. THE CASE OF JOHN BAKER. of, the mother, he will recover the issue with the mother. Mr. WILDE expressing his intention to go into a full The owner, who had a property in the anticipated increase investigation of the subject, but professing, at the same of his female slave, is entitled to all the benefits which time, his unwillingness to inflict such an argument on the would have resulted from a continued and undisturbed House at this late hour, [it was past three o'clock] moved possession of such slave. Equity, therefore, with common that the committee rise. The motion prevailed, and the sense and common justice, require that the claimant whose House adjourned to Monday. female slave was taken by the Creek Indians, and carried away, should be indemnified for the loss of such issue as such slave may have had after her capture; otherwise the wrong-doer would derive advantage from his own wrong. Sir, similar argument may be properly urged in support The following resolutions, which were moved by Mr. of the claim for interest on the amount of money which ANDERSON, of Maine, on the 31st of December, came may be considered as equitably due from the Creek In-up for consideration: dians to the citizens of Georgia, under the provisions of the 66 Resolved, That the President of the United States be treaty of 1821. The claimants were rightfully entitled to requested to communicate to this House all the informathe property which was taken and destroyed by the In- tion received, not heretofore communicated, in relation to dians. By the treaty and agreement of 1821, the Indians the seizure of John Baker, a citizen of the United States, acknowledged that the depredations committed by them, within the limits of the State of Maine, by persons acting on the property of claimants, was wrong; if so, then the under color of authority from the Province of New Brunsclaimants were entitled to immediate restitution of, or in-wick, and transporting said Baker beyond the limits of the demnity for, the property so taken or destroyed. But, as the property was destroyed or taken, and not returned, justice requires that indemnity for the loss of the use of such property, or of its reasonable value, should be made to the rightful owner. Suppose one of the slaves taken "Resolved, That the President of the United States be or destroyed by the Indians, thirty years ago, to have requested to communicate to this House all the corresponcost the claimant three hundred dollars; has the claimant dence that has passed between the Government of the sustained no injury by being deprived of the use of his United States and that of Great Britain, in relation to the property, or its value in money, during a term of thirty aforesaid arrest, and to the jurisdiction assumed by the auyears? Was it no benefit to the Indian to possess the slave, thorities of the British Province of New Brunswick, or of or his value in money, during that term of time? If the the British Government, over any portion of the territory claimant was justly entitled to a continued and undisturb- within the jurisdiction of the United States, and within the United States, and there imprisoning, trying, and punishing him, for an alleged offence against the British Govern ment, committed within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, and the State of Maine. JAN. 5, 1829.] Duties on Teas.-Land Claims in Tennessee. [H. of R. limits of the now State of Maine, as defined by the Treaty amount of millions of dollars. And this effect would be of Peace, of 1783." produced on goods for which the duties had already been bonded at the Custom House. In tea transactions, any change in the law was always postponed, as to its effect, to a distant period, on account of the length of the voyage, and in order to allow the holders a sufficient time to dispose of what they had on hand. It could not be very material whether this bill passed at the present session or the next. Whenever it did pass, the alteration should not be made to take effect before the end of the year 1830. Mr. SPRAGUE replied that he was entirely favorable to such an alteration, but so modified, he wished the bill to be acted upon as early as possible. Mr. BARTLETT suggested to the honorable mover the propriety of inserting the usual clause, which leaves it discretionary with the Executive to judge whether the public interest will admit of the proposed disclosure. Mr. ANDERSON said that he should have no objection to insert such a clause, if he could suppose that it was in the least necessary; but he could not conceive of any thing in this correspondence which it was not proper for the nation to know; nor did he believe that the public interest could in any way be injured by the disclosure. All the circumstances of the transaction, and all that had passed in relation to it, was known to the British Government, and he could see no reason why it should not be equally well known to every branch of this Government. It was On motion of Mr. POLK, the House took up the bill especially fit and becoming that the State of Maine should "to amend an act, entitled 'An act to authorize the State be acquainted with all that had transpired. Being unable to perceive the least necessity for the modification, the of Tennessee to issue grants, and to perfect titles to cergentleman from New Hampshire would pardon him if he tain lands therein described, and to settle the claims to did not accept of it. vacant and unappropriated lands in the same,' passed April 18th, 1806. Mr. BARTLETT said that he had not suggested the clause from any knowledge of the fact that there was any thing in these documents, which, if made public, would be prejudicial to the national welfare. If there was not, then no doubt the whole would be communicated; but as it was possible there might be something in the documents of this character, he could perceive no reason why the usual clause should not be inserted; and as the gentleman had refused to modify the resolution, he should move the clause by way of amendment. The question being taken on Mr. BARTLETT's motion, it was carried in the affirmative-ayes, 85, noes, 40. The resolutions, as thus amended, were adopted by the House. DUTIES ON TEAS. Mr. SPRAGUE moved that the bill equalizing the duty on teas, reported last session, and not acted upon, be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The motion of Mr. SPRAGUE then prevailed. LAND CLAIMS IN TENNESSEE. This bill had been under consideration during the last session, in Committee of the Whole, and had been laid upon by Mr. McLEAN. the table during the pendency of an amendment offered of another, proposed to be offered by Mr. CROCKETT. tion, and insert the following: "That all persons who shall have made an improvement, and, on the first day of April next, shall be in the actual occupation, or possession, of any of the vacant and unappropriated lands of the United States, within that part of the State of Tennessee lying South and West of the Congressional Reservation Line, designated by said act of Congress, of the eighteenth of April, eighteen hundred and six, shall have the privilege of entering and obtaining a grant, in the manner hereinafter required, for a quantity of such vacant land, not exceeding, each, one hundred and sixty acres, which shall, in all cases, include their improvements: Provided such entry shall be made within one year from the said first day of April next. Mr. CAMBRELENG, presuming this motion to have for its object some action of the House on that bill, during the present session, suggested to the gentleman from Maine that the bill, in its present form, was calculated to "SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the entries for produce great excitement in the commercial world, and the land so authorized to be appropriated, may be made in lead to ruinous speculations. These effects would result the office of the principal surveyor of the districts, respecfrom the date at which the bill, as it now stood, would tively, in which said land may lie, and be surveyed by cause the alteration of the duties to go into effect. It him; which surveys, in their form, and time, and manner would, however, be easy, by changing this feature of the of execution and return, shall, in all respects, be made in bill, to put it into a form in which the same benefit would conformity with the laws now in force in the State of Tenaccrue to the revenue, and no commercial injury be pro-nessee, in regard to the lands which said State is authorizduced. ed to perfect titles to; upon which entries and surveys Mr. SPRAGUE observed, in reply, that his object, in grants may be made out, by the register of the district in the motion he had made, was to bring the bill before the which the land lies, and signed by the Governor of the House at an earlier period than it would come up by its State of Tennessee, and countersigned by the Secretary order on the calendar; and this, with a view to put an of State thereof, in the same manner, in all respects, as end to the uncertainty which had hung over the tea trade the laws of the said State have prescribed for the perfectfor several years past, and which had been productive of ing of titles to lands within the same, to which the right of the most injurious effects. He had in his possession let-the United States has been heretofore relinquished: Proters from two highly respectable commercial houses; one vided, always, That every person making such entry, and of which had been injured to the amount of one hundred obtaining such survey and grant, shall pay to the respecand fifty thousand dollars, and the other to the amount of tive officers, acting under the authority of the laws of one hundred thousand, from the continuance of this un-Tennessee, the same fees for services performed, which certainty. As to what had been suggested by the gentle- said officers are entitled to receive for similar serviman from New York, he was aware that the bill, as it now ces by the laws of said State: And provided, also, stood, proposed to go into operation at some time during that where two or more individuals are settled on lands so the month of January, in the present year; but when it contiguous to each other as not to allow of a survey of came up before the Committee of the Whole, it would, of one hundred and sixty acres for each, it shall be the duty course, be so modified, as to defer that period until the of the surveyor to make the survey in such manner as to year 1830. give each settler an equal proportion, considering quantiMr. CAMBRELENG said that the bill contemplated an ty and quality; but in no case interfering with an actual alteration which would affect commercial property to the improvement made as aforesaid, or with a boundary mark VOL. V.--21. |