Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE,

For the State of Mississippi.

I hereby certify, that the foregoing is a correct copy of the original on file in my office.

Given under my hand at Jackson, the 6th day of February, 1830.

JOHN A. GRIMBALL,

Secretary of State.

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER.

I certify that John A. Grimball is, on this day, Secretary of State for the State of Mississippi, and that full faith and credit are due to his acts as such. Given under my hand and the great seal of the State, at Jackson, [L. S.] the 6th day of February, 1830. GERARD C. BRANDON.

HEIRS OF JOHN DAUPHIN.

MARCH 16, 1830.

Read, and laid upon the table.

Mr. ARCHIA, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred the case of the heirs of John Dauphin, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was "instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing the adjustment of the claim of the beers of John Dauphin, of Wilmington, Delaware, late owner of the schoner Mary, of that port," have had the subject under consideration, and report:

[ocr errors]

appears that the said John Dauphin was the owner of a schooner called he Mary, in which, in the month of October, in the year 1800, he imported cargo into the port of Wilmington, in Delaware, from Port au Prince, in of the United States, in the District Court of the United States for Delaware, the island of St. Domingo. The vessel and cargo were libelled, on the part the act of Congress of the 1st of March, 1809, "interdicting commercial the Collector of the port of Wilmington, for supposed contravention of

intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes." Sentence of condemnation was obtained in the case, on which an appeal was taken. The final decision appears to have been delayed for several years; but the vessel and cargo, in

whole or part, were

appear to have been paid to the order of the court, and distributed in the proportions directed by law; that is to say, one moięty to the Collector by whom the vessel had been libelled, and the remaining moiety to the United the forfeiture was remitted to Jane Dauphin, widow and administratrix of States. On the 19th of January, 1817, the interest of the United States in the said John Dauphin. The cause of this remission does not a te memorandum on the subject preserved in the Department of State. It

eventually adjudged to be forfeited, and the proceeds

was founded, be may

it

appear from

Domingo, for intercourse with which the forfeiture was incurred, was not

presumed, on the suggestion that the island of St.

roperly to be regarded

as a dependency of France. It is not known whether

Fously to the final award of forfeiture and disposition of its proceeds. The iplication for remission, on this or any other ground, was made pre

[ocr errors]

W desired of the Government is the payment of the portion of the

feiture accruing to the Collector.

The committee are of opinion that the part of the island of St. Domingo for intercourse with which the forfeiture in question was incurred, having separated from France, and for several years maintained, successfully, its independence, was not a dependency of France in the just "intendment of " the act of Congress on the subject. They presume that no difficulty would have been experienced in obtaining a remission of the entire forfeiture, had application been made, on this ground previously to the distribution of the proceeds, as was done in relation to the share of the United States subsequently. The failure to obtain the entire remission has been owing, therefore, (as far as the committee are advised) to want of knowledge or of diligence on the part of the claimants of interest in the vessel. The interest of the Collector having become vested in his portion of the forfeiture, the Government could exercise no control over it. If the claimants were now to be indemnified, it could only be by an appropriation from the Treasury, not the return of a forfeiture which had previously accrued to it. The committee, though regarding the case as one of hardship, can perceive no sufficient ground for such a proceeding.

They recommend the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the subject referred to them.

1st Session.

OHIO.

MEMORIAL

OF

Gitizens of the county of Miami, in the State of Ohio, in relation to the Indian Tribes.

MARCH 17, 1830.

Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

Your petitioners, citizens of the county of Miami, and State of Ohio, humbly represent unto your honorable bodies, that, in the opinion of your petitioners, the Indians of the United States require the special care and protection of Congress to prevent them from utter extinction; and, in the opinion of your petitioners, the best plan to prevent this is to colonize this unfortunate race of men somewhere in the West, and to remove them to the colony so soon as their consent can be obtained.

Your petitioners do not desire that Congress should remove the Indians without their consent; but that you use all proper means to induce our red brethren to remove to the colony which may be provided for them by this Government.

Your petitioners further represent and believe, that, so soon as these people can be induced to remove to the colony, Congress should exercise a government over them, suited to their condition, and grant unto them a permanent title to the lands of the colony; and that such other means, when colonized, should be used to improve their condition as may suggest itself to your honorable bodies. And, as in duty bound, we will ever pray, &c. TROY, March 3, 1830.

« AnteriorContinua »