for the defence of the lower country: thus, from time to time, during the continuance of the war, the Governor raised funds and equipped for service, under great difficulties, the troops called from this State, and afforded supplies, to large amounts, upon his own responsibility and that of his endorsers, to the regular troops under the command of General Jackson, greatly to the benefit of the public service.

KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, January 2d, 1825.

Statement of W. B. Lewis.

W. G. BLOUNT.

I certify, that, during the late war between the United States and Great Britain, and between the former and the Creek Indians, I acted as Assistant Deputy Quartermaster in the service of the United States, at Nashville; and that, during those periods, I was furnished with funds for the use of the Quartermaster's Department, through Governor Blount, from the sale of bills drawn by him on the Secretary of War, which he drew, as he informed me, without any authority so to do, except for the limited sum of ten thousand dollars. I further certify, that, with these funds, thus raised, and other moneys in Treasury notes paid over to me by Governor Blount, I was enabled to procure and furnish the army, under the command of General Jackson, with such articles, in my department, as were indispensable to its operations, and without which the service must have been greatly injured, if not entirely ruined, in this quarter. The sum raised by the sale of Governor Blount's bills was, as well as my recollection serves me, some where between three and four hundred thousand dollars; for all, or the greater part of which, I have reason to believe he was held responsible, in case the Government had refused to pay his bills, or had not been able to do so; which, at that time, in this section of country, was thought by very many to be doubtful: and I am confirmed in this opinion, from the fact that some of his bills were actually protested, and he formally notified thereof; and from the circumstance, also, of a number of individuals, as well as the banks of this place, to whom I sold those bills, having required my own individual endorsement on them, as additional security, to the amount of about one hundred thousand dollars, as will appear by reference to the bills themselves. W. B. LEWIS.

June 26th, 1823.

1st Session.

JOHN M'IVER.

APRIL 14, 1830.

Read, and laid upon the table.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, to which had been referred the case of John M'Iver, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of John M'Iver, report:

The memorialist claims to be paid the value of 640 acres of land, of which he complains he was deprived by a treaty of the United States, made with the Cherokee tribe of Indians, on the 27th day of February, A. D. 1819, (See Laws U. S. 6 vol. 748.) The facts of the case, as appears from the record of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, which accompanies the petition, are as follows: that, in the year A. D. 1795, a grant issued to Stokely Donaldson and William Terrell, from the State of North Carolina, for 5,000 acres of land, which embraced the above mentioned 640 acres as a part of it; that the title passed through a regular train of conveyances to the petitioner, John M'Iver; that, in the year 1824, he brought suit against the tenants in possession of the tract of 640 acres, part of the grant, and, on the hearing of the case, judgment was rendered against him. The defendants in that suit derived title as follows: In the aforesaid treaty with the Cherokees, by which a certain portion of their country, situated in the State of Tennessee, was ceded to the United States, there were certain reservations of 640 acres to each person named in a list annexed to the treaty, to be held in fee simple, and laid off so as to include their improvements, and as near the centre thereof as possible; that, of the persons named on said list, Richard Timberlake was one, for whom the tract of land aforesaid was laid off, in conformity to the provisions of said treaty; that the defendants in that suit held under a regular conveyance from said Timberlake, whose title was adjudged to be valid. The petitioner assumes the fact, that he has been deprived of his right or claim to the land, by the act of the United States, and, on that ground, rests his claim for indemnity. It therefore becomes material to inquire what right or title he took by the grant of 1795, issued by the State of North Carolina? The grant aforesaid, was, at that time, a part of the Cherokee country, and, from an examination of the laws and adjudicated authorities in the States of Tennessee and North Carolina, as well as in the Supreme Court of the United States, the committee are of opinion that the grant was, at the time of its emanation, utterly void; and that the grantees, and those claiming under them, never had any

title whatever, and, consequently, the petitioner has been deprived of nothing by the United States, and, therefore, is not entitled to call upon them for indemnity for his pretended loss. The State of North Carolina appears to have been actuated by an honorable and watchful desire to preserve to the Indian tribes within her chartered limits, the undisturbed possession of their lands. Among her earliest acts of legislation, after the Declaration of Independence, was a law of her Legislature, passed in 1778, (Laws of N. Carolina, 1 vol. 355,) "declaring all entries and surveys of lands theretofore made, or which might be made within the Indian boundary, utterly null, and of no force or effect." In 1783, (Laws of N. Carolina, 1 vol. 436,) that State passed another act, defining the Indian boundary, and declared all entries and grants made within the bounds set apart by that act to the Cherokee Indians, utterly void, and imposed a fine of fifty pounds upon every person who should enter and survey any land within their territory. A that time, the present State of Tennessee was a part of the State of North Carolina, and the grant in question was made in contravention to those laws. The earliest adjudicated case which your committee has been able to find, is the case of Avery vs. Strother, reported in Cameron and Norwood's Reports, 435, decided by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. That case, in all its leading facts, was precisely analogous to the one now under consideration. It was there adjudged that the entry and grant were prohibited by the above mentioned laws, and, on that account, void. The doctrine of the Supreme Court of North Carolina has been repeatedly reviewed and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the cases of Preston vs. Browder, 1 Wheaton, 115; Danforth vs. Thomas, 1 Wheaton, 155; and Danforth vs. Wear, 9 Wheaton, 677; grants made under similar circumstances, are declared to be invalid, and the inviolability of the Indian territory, under those laws, is fully recognised. The decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, in the present instance, must have been made in obedience to, and in conformity with, the previously established law on this subject. Your committee are, therefore, clearly of opinion, that the United States has deprived the petitioner of no right, and he is, therefore, entitled to no relief. If the petitioner did, in fact, acquire a title under the grant c the State of North Carolina, they are, by no means, prepared to say that was in the power of the United States to divest him of that title; but, beir of opinion he never had a title, it is unnecessary to investigate that question The following resolution is submitted to the consideration of the Hous Resolved, That the petitioner is not entitled to relief.

1st Session.

WHITFORD GILL.

APRIL 15, 1830.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the case of Whitford Gill, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to which was referred the petition of Whitford Gill, report:

That it appears from the testimony of John Bliss, that he was Assistant Deputy Quartermaster General in the army of the United States in the year 1814, and was stationed at Sackett's Harbor, in the State of New York; and, in the month of May, that he employed the petitioner to transport in his boat from Salmon river to Sackett's Harbor, a quantity of cannon shot, gun carriages, and various other articles; and that, while said boat was thus employed, it was captured by the enemy, as he understood, without any fault of the owner, master, or crew; and that he made to the owner no compensation for his loss.

Robert Gardner testifies, that he was on board of said boat at the time she was captured; that the boat sailed from Sackett's Harbor on the 14th of May, 1814; went to Salmon river; took on board a cargo of gun carriages, cannon ball, and shells; and, on the 17th of May, on their return off Stony Point, a British barge, armed with ten men, having been concealed in the bushes on said Point, put off and fired into the transport boat, and captured her, with the cargo and crew, which were taken to Kingston, in Upper Canada. He says, the capture was without the fault of the master or crew, and that the boat was worth $750.

Elisha Jones testifies, that the statement made by Robert Gardner is correct; that about two hours before the capture of this transport, he was captured. He states, that, after he was taken, the enemy hauled his barge into the bushes, and lay concealed until the transport boat of the petitioner appeared off the Point, when he put the barge into the water, armed and manned, as mentioned by Gardner, and having fired into, captured the boat of the petitioner, which he estimates to be of the value of $750.

Jesse Hopkins testifies, that the boat was worth six hundred dollars.

The claim was filed with the Commissioner of Claims, but all the testimony was not filed, until after the expiration of the law of April 9, 1816; so that the Third Auditor, in executing that law, under the provisions of subsequent acts, had no right or authority to finally adjudicate and settle the claim. He examined, however, the testimony, probably at the instance of the claimant, and excepted to its sufficiency, on the ground that the de

position of the master was not procured, and that the size of the boat was not sufficiently described, so that he might be enabled, if he had the power, to say what the said boat was worth.

The case was presented to Congress on the 24th of January, 1820, and, on the 28th, an unfavorable report was made, predicated principally on the opinion of the Third Auditor. The committee, however, entertained the opinion, that, inasmuch as the United States did not take possession of the boat, and officer her, that the petitioner was not entitled to relief. At the time this report was made, it appears to have been the prevailing opinion, that, unless boats were impressed into the service, the owners were not entitled to any compensation for their losses in the case of capture. As an abstract question between the owner and freighter, this opinion was, undoubtedly, well founded, but it has long since been settled by Congress, under the act of April 9, 1816, that, unless the risque was incurred by the owner, when the contract was made, the loss by capture should be sustained by the United States, The claim has not been revived since January, 1820, until the present session. The Hon. Mr. Hawkins, a member of this House, states, that he was well acquainted with the boat, and with the contract made by Mr. Bliss, and that he should have been on board of her as her master, but from being at that particular time out of health. He estimates the boat to have been worth $750, and says, she would have sold for that sum. He says further, that Mr. Scott, the master, was on board of her, but temporarily, owing to his own indisposition; and that the said Scott's residence was not in that section of the country, and that he has not resided there since the war, and that his residence is not known. This statement removes all the objections but one, which is, that a particular description of the boat is not given. It is stated, by several of the witnesses, that the boat was of the burden of about 12 tons, and was fitted for sailing or rowing. Mr. Hawkins says, that such was the scarcity of boats on Lake Ontario, owing to the number that Gen. Wilkinson had taken the preceding year, to transport his troops down the St. Lawrence, and the demand for freight, that this boat, to his knowledge, had made a clear profit of $40 per day.

He mentions that the character of the witness Gardner is good. If any fact can be established by human testimony, the value of this boat is, by the testimony of three credible witnesses. The committee, with the additional testimony, has come to the conclusion, that the case is brought within the provisions of the law of April 9, 1816, and herewith report a bill.