PLATS OF RIVERS, CREEKS, &c., IN LOUISIANA. The plats returned to the General Land Office by surveyors general, are evidence of the existence and general character of rivers, creeks, bays, &c., which the law requires to be marked upon them, and may be regarded as affording full proof for the purposes of settling preemptions and locations. Mistakes in these plats may occur, and when they do, may be corrected; but with respect to transactions occurring and private rights acquired upon the faith of the accuracy of the plats, and before correction of their mistakes, they should be left undisturbed wherever it is pos sible. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have had the honor to receive your communication of the 22d of January last, submitting for my opinion the following question arising under the act of Congress approved June 15, 1832, entitled "An act to authorize the inhabitants of the State of Louisiana to enter the back lands." "When the tract sought to be entered is fit for cultivation, and borders upon a river, creek, bayou, or water-course, which is surveyed and laid down on the plat of surveys officially returned to the district and general land offices, are or are not the General Land Office and the district land office bound to respect it as such? or can they, after a private entry of the tract of land claimed as a back pre-emption right, with a view of permitting the entry by a back pre emption, and avoiding the private entry, go into parol testimony to contradict the return of the surveyor general, by showing that there is no such river, creek, bayou, or water-course as he has protracted?" In reply to this question, my opinion is, that the official plats returned by the surveyor general to the General Land Office and the several district land offices, are evidence of the existence and general character of those natural objects which the law requires to be marked upon them, and that they must be considered as affording full proof for these purposes —so far at least as the action of the land officers, both general and district, are concerned. These plats are designed by law for the information and guidance of the various land officers and persons desirous of purchasing a portion of the public domain. That purchases are made, and other legal acts often done, exclusively upon the faith of these plats, admits of no doubt; and all such transactions ought, in my judgment, to be protected. That mistakes will occasionally occur in making the surveys of the public lands, and drawing the plats of those surveys, must be expected; some power of correcting them should, therefore, be allowed, with the view to future action. But, with respect to transactions occurring and private rights acquired upon the faith of the accuracy of the plats, and before the correction of their mistakes,--these should be left undisturbed, wherever this is possible. The nature of the inquiry presented to me renders a more specific auswer to it impracticable in a legal point of view. I am, sir, &c., &c., FELIX GRUNDY. To the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. EXTRA COMPENSATION TO CLERKS FOR EXTRA SERVICES. Clerks and others holding regular appointments to places created, and receiving specific salaries affixed thereto by law, are not entitled to additional allowances for services rendered the government as the agent for surveying and selling Indian lands, the same being prohibited by acts of Congress. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have had the honor to receive your communication of the 13th instant, asking my opinion upon two questions arising under the 3d section of the act of Congress approved the 3d instant, entitled "An act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year eighteen hundred and thirty nine." These two questions are as follows: 1. "A treaty exists with an Indian tribe, by which the general government becomes the agent of that tribe in surveying and selling its lands, the expenses of which are to be paid cut of the proceeds of those lands. In the performance of this duty, it has heretofore been deemed proper to require the services of clerks and others holding regular appointments to places created, and receiving specific salaries affixed thereto by law, and to allow them for the services thus required a stated compensation, in addition to their regular and fixed salary, payable out of the proceeds of said lands. The additional allowances, in some cases, have been fixed by general regulations; and in others, by decisions of the competent officer on claims advanced thereto. Will the continuance of this arrangement be inconsistent with the above act?" 2. "An individual in the service of the government receives a specific salary or compensation, fixed by law or regulation, for the performance of a certain duty, or class of duties. By an arrangement made prior to the passage of the above law, certain other duties are assigned to him, which in no manner are connected with, related to, or interfere with, the proper execution of the duty or class of duties first named. For these 'certain other duties' it was agreed to allow him an additional and specific compensation. Is the continuance of such an arrangement as this forbidden by the act referred to?" Having carefully compared these two cases with the provision of the act referred to, I am of opinion that they come within its prohibitions. I am, sir, &c., &c., To the SECRETARY OF WAR. FELIX GRUNDY. TRANSFERS OF CREEK RESERVATIONS. Transfers of reservations by assignees, whose assignments expressed them as a firm, are not valid when executed by one member thereof, but only when executed by all, unless the partner assigning exhibit authority to assign from all. But where the reservee assigned to a firm, as to "M. W. Perry & Co.," and the transfer by the firm was signed in that manner, the assignment is valid, and the patent may issue to the assignee. Where there are two assignors, and both names to the assignment are in the same hand-writing, the assignment is invalid as to him who did not sign, unless the other exhibit authority. Where approved contracts are endorsed in blank, with the names of first purchasers endorsed thereon, the endorsement of the name of the purchasers on the approved contracts is evidence of their having disposed of them; and possession by others is sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of the patents to those having possession of the approved contracts. These assignments are not required to be acknowledged, and ought not to be made subject to any rule made after they were executed. Possession of a contract is not sufficient evidence of a legal transfer. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 16, 1839. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 6th instant, enclosing a communication to you of the 4th instant from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in which my opinion is asked upon six distinct questions-all relating to transfers of reservations under the Creek treaty of the 24th of March, 1832. It appears that the late President of the United States, in April, 1836, had directed patents to be issued only to the Indian reservee, or to the immediate purchaser from him. Subsequently, Congress passed the act of the 5th of July, 1838, entitled "An act to authorize the issuing of pat ents to the last bona fide transferee of reservations under the treaty between the United States and the Creek tribe of Indians, which was concluded on the 24th of March, 1832." By this act, the President of the United States "is authorized and re. quired to cause patents to be issued to such person or persons as may be the bona fide purchaser, owner, assignee, or transferee of any selection or reservation which has been made to, or in behalf of, any chief or head of an Indian family," under the said treaty, "whatever may have been the number of intermediate transfers or assignments: provided the person or persons applying for such patent or patents shall adduce satisfactory proof to the Commissioner of the General Land Office of the fairness of said several preceding transfers or assignments." The intention of Congress in passing this act evidently was to carry into effect contracts which had been made for reservations, which contracts had been approved by the President, and which, from the lapse of time, the death and removal of parties and witnesses, had become incapable of being proved without recourse to courts of equity. And even before these tribunals the remedy would often be difficult and uncertain. In applying the law to particular cases, it should be borne in mind that, at the date of these transactions, no particular form of transfer had been pointed out, either by law or regulations of the General Land Office. And the act above referred to only provides that the person applying for a patent shall adduce proof, satisfactory to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, of the fairness of the several preceding transfers or as signments. Congress has not designated the kind of evidence which the Commissioner shall receive or require; he is left at full liberty to adopt such rules of proof and evidence as the justice and equity of the case may demand. Although his discretion is broad and comprehensive, still it is not arbitrary, but must be regulated by those rules of law and equity which afford security to the rights of each citizen of the community. With these preliminary remarks, I will proceed to an examination of the particular questions propounded, in the order in which they are presented by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. 1. "As to cases in which the approved contracts are in favor of a firm styled thus: 'Shorter, Tarver, & Shorter,' with a transfer signed and written as above, by one of the partners, purporting to convey the interest of all of them." In such a case I would say that, by the assignment to "Shorter, Tarver, & Shorter," an interest in the approved contract was vested in each of these three individuals, which could not be divested without his consent, evidenced by his own act or signature, or by some person legally authorized to act for him in that particular. I am therefore of opinion that a transfer made by one of them, by signing the names of all, does not transfer the right of those who have not signed; and, to make such an assignment available, it must be shown that the individual making the assignment was authorized by the others to make it. This may be shown by an express power of attorney, by articles of copartnership giving such authority, or by the parties giving their present assent to it. Anything short of the course I have pointed out, would not only be a departure from the law, which permits no property to be taken from any individual in cases like the present, without his consent, shown in some authentic manner; but a contrary practice would expose one partner and his legal representatives to all the dangers arising from the faithlessness or frauds of another. 2. "Cases in which the approved contracts are in favor of a company thus: M. W. Perry & Co., with a transfer signed in that manner. In my opinion, the Commissioner of the General Land Office is not bound to search for and ascertain who the members of this company may be. M. W. Perry is the only person he can legally know, or take notice of; therefore, if an assignment be made to M. W. Perry & Co., and M. W. Perry shall have made an assignment in the same manner, the patent should issue to such assignee, if there be no other difficulty in the case. 3. "Cases in which the approved contracts are in favor of individuals, giving their names in full, thus: Eli S. Shorter' and John T. Scott,' with a transfer signed in that manner; but both names to the assignment being apparently in one and the same handwriting.' I consider the answer to the first question as a full answer to this inquiry. 4. "Cases in which the approved contracts are endorsed in blank, by having simply the names of the first purchasers endorsed thereon." The endorsement of the name of the purchaser on the approved contract is evidence of his having disposed of it; and the possession of it by another person (no other claim to it being presented) is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of a patent to the party having possession of the approved contract. 5. "Cases in which a transfer is executed on the approved contract, without being acknowledged before any officer authorized to take acknowledgments.' I would remark, that there is no law requiring these assignments to be acknowledged before any officer; and it would frequently operate very unjustly to subject these assignments to the operation of a rule made after they were executed; and the proviso to the act of July 5, 1838, certainly did not contemplate the production of an assignment, acknowledged before an officer authorized to take acknowledgments, as the only evidence of assignment which should be received by the Commissioner, or they would have used the language "that the person or persons applying for such patent or patents shall adduce satisfactory proof to the Commissioner of the General Land Office of the fairness of said several preceding transfers or assignments." It might be very proper to make regulations requiring assignments to be acknowledged before certain officers, applicable to assignments made after such regulations should be made and promulgated; but it would be very unjust to subject past transactions to such regulations, and, in my opinion, would, in this instance, be contrary to the intention of Congress, as expressed in the above proviso. 6. "Cases in which the approved contract is in possession of a party claiming to be owner, who relies on such possession as sufficient evidence of ownership, in the absence of any written evidence of transfer." It is indispensable in all these cases that evidence should exist showing that the owner has disposed of and divested himself of his interest. This can only be done by some act of his-such as making an assignment in the usual form, or placing his name upon the back, or some other part of the approved contract; thereby acknowledging the blank assignment to be filled up by the owner or person to whom he has delivered the same. But, in the cases to which you refer, there is no evidence whatever of any disposition of the approved contract having been made by the original owner thereof. Possession, unaccompanied by any other evidence showing a right, would not, in my opinion, justify the issuing of a patent to these claimants. The possession may have been acquired improperly and illegally, I am, sir, &c., &c., To the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. FELIX GRUNDY. PRIORITY OF RIGHT TO CONFIRMED LANDS IN MISSOURI. The inhabitants of the village of St. Charles, under the laws of the 13th June, 1812, the 26th May, 1824, and the 27th January, 1831, have precedence and priority over Peter Chouteau, whose claim to land was confirmed 4th July, 1836, and the claim of the latter must be located elsewhere upon the public domain. All sales and locations made of lands claimed under unconfirmed titles derived from France or Spain, between the 26th of May, 1830, and the 9th of July, 1832, are valid. If it be claimed that this construction violates treaty obligations, the answer is, that the parties must go to the judiciary for a decision declaring void an act of Congress, not to the Executive department. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 9th of January last, asking my opinion upon two questions raised in a letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office to you, dated September 13th, 1838. My attendance, upon the late session of the Supreme Court and other urgent business have prevented an earlier reply. The first question referred to me relates to the conflicting claims of the inhabitants of the village of St. Charles and Peter Chouteau. In relation to Chouteau's claim, it appears that on the 9th of July, 1832, an act of Congress was approved, entitled "An act for the final adjustment of private land claims in Missouri.' The first section of this act provides, "That it shall be the duty of the |