Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

CONGRESS

PETER PECK.

May 19, 1830.

"Lead, and, with an accompanying bill for his relief, committed to the Committee of the

'Whole House to which is committed the bill for the relief of John Sapp.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to which was referred their report in the case :

of Peter Peck, with additional evidence, report:

That, when this case was under examination heretofore, there existed a doubt whether the horse that the petitioner was in possession of might not have belonged to the United States; and this doubt, if not created, was strengthened by the fact that the muster rolls did not show that he had a horse. Since the report was made, the deposition of General Grant, in whose company Peter Peck served, and the deposition of Elijah Herndon, have been produced, and they both state the horse was the property of Mr. Peck; that he lost it by being dismounted, by order of his commanding officer, at Portage river, in the State of Ohio; and that the horse was valued at fifty dollars. This evidence removes the objections heretofore raised against the claim, and the committee report a bill for the relief of the petitioner.

[ocr errors]

1st Session.

JAMES W. BRANNIN, CHAS. HUGHES, AND NATH. FORD.

MAY 24, 1830.

Mr. Pettis, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, made the fol

lowing

REPORT: The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom were referred the - petitions of James W. Brannin, Nathaniel Ford, and Chas Hughes,

report:

That it appears from the evidence accompanying the petitions, the Spanish Government, while they held the Territory of Louisiana, granted to one John Collins six hundred and forty acres of land, as a settlement right; that the claim of Collins was confirmed by the United States' Commissioners; and that, under the act of Congress of 1815, for the relief of the sufferers by earthquakes in New Madrid County, one John Collins, (who is supposed not to be the original grantee of the tract of land mentioned) through the agency of Philip Trammell and George C. Hart, procured a certificate from the Recorder of Land Titles, authorizing a location of other lands. The location was made in Howard County; and after a patent had been issued by the United States, a deed for the lands was regularly executed by the said John Collins, to Philip Trammell. Afterwards, in November, 1821, Trammell sold three hundred acres of said traçt for $ 1,500, to James W. Branain. Brannin alleges and swears that he had no knowledge or suspicion that there was any fraud in procuring the said certificate and patent, the legal chain of title being completed. In August, 1827, Trammell sold to Charles Hughes one hundred and eighty acres of the original tract; and on the 29th of the same month, he, Trammell, sold the remaining one hundred and sixty acres to Nathaniel Ford; both for a valuable consideration.

A bill has been lately filed by the United States, in the District Court of Missouri, against Trammell, Brannin, Hughes, and Ford, alleging that the certificate and patent were fraudulently obtained by Trammell and Hart, in the name of Collins; alleging, also, that the John Collins who obtained the certificate and patent was not the John Collins to whom the original grant had been made, and praying repeal of the patent. The defendants all inswer separately, under oath, and deny all knowledge of the fraud, if there vas any; and the present petitioners swear positively that they purchased of Trammell, without any knowledge or notice of any such fraud.

To show the probability of their purchasing without notice of the fraud, he petitioners have exhibited the affidavits of a great number of the most respectable citizens in the neighborhood of the lands, proving that it was generally believed that Trammell's title was good; that there was no suspicion against the title. To corroborate this, evidence is exhibited showing

that a suit was instituted against Trammell, by some person in the name of John Collins, for the same tract of land, on the ground that the Collins who obtained the certificate was not the original grantee, and that he had personated the real owner of the lands. This suit was decided in favor of Trammell, which the petitioners allege confirmed them in the belief that the title was good.

The committee are of opinion, that the John Collins who obtained the certificate and patent, was not the original grantee under the Spanish (rovernment. They believe that the petitioners purchased without knowledge of the fraud; and they think that as the officer of the Government, by granting the certificate upon which a patent issued, enabled the said Collins to make sale of the lands to the petitioners, it would now be inequitable and unjust for the Government to repeal the patent, and destroy the title of the petitioners, especially when they have, under the faith of the title made by the Government, purchased these lands at a high price, and made imprint ments on them of equal value with the lands. · It is the opinion also of a part of the committee, that, although it on appear to the court that the petitioners did purchase without notice, SUB there was fraud in thus obtaining the certificate and patent, the court wo be compelled to decree that the patent should be repealed.

Believing that it would be unjust and oppressive for the Government take advantage of its own act, and the act of its officer, by which the par tioners were deceived, and induced to make the purchase, thus to depr. them of their lands, they recommend that the United States relinquish itu title to the petitioners. This appears the more reasonable, when it is to in mind that Trammell is insolvent, and Collins made a quit-claim onls, leaving the petitioners without any redress. The committee there report a bill.

CONGRESS

CUMBERLAND ROAD.

May 24, 1830.
[To accompany bill No. 483.]

Mr. VINTON, from the Committee on Internal Improvements, made the fol

lowing REPORT:

The Committee on Internal Improvements, to whom was referred the petition of the Members of the last General Assembly of the State of Ohio, report:

The petitioners, composing a large majority of the members of the last General Assembly of the State of Ohio, residing in different parts of the State, concur in representing that the transportation of the mails would be facilitated, and the public interest promoted, by changing the location of the national road, so as to pass through the towns of Dayton and Eaton. The committee have ascertained that the national road, on the line run by Mr. Knight, the Commissioner of the United States, between Springfield, Clarke County, Ohio, and Richmond, Indiana, does not strike a single town or village, and that a part of the country on that line is flat and wet, and hinly inhabited. By deviating from this line, so as to pass through Dayton und Eaton, an expense in the construction of the road, estimated by Mr. Knight at $ 7,945, will be saved. But this saving the committee consider s comparatively unimportant, and among the least of the advantages to be ained by a change in the route. The materials for constructing a firm and Iurable road are more accessible and more abundant on the route through Dayton and Eaton; the country is fertile, populous, and rapidly improving; he population of Montgomery County may be estimated at 25,000 inhabiants; that of Preble, at least at 15,000. Mr. Knight, in his report, states, hat it has been truly said, “that, by adopting the Dayton route, Mad River nd Stillwater, two large branches of the Miami, would be avoided; and hat once crossing the Miami River at Dayton, would, in that case, be subtituted for the crossing of the same river higher up, and also for the crossogs of Mad River, Buck Creek, and the Southwest branch, commonly alled Stillwater.” Dayton, the county seat of Montgomery County, is at he head of the Miami Canal; its present population is stated to exceed ,000 inhabitants, and to be rapidly increasing. From the extensive water ower in that town and its vicinity, and its other natural advantages, there eems no reason to doubt that it will become, at no distant period, one of he most important manufacturing towns in the State. For a more paricular enumeration of the commercial and manufacturing advantages of this own, and of its rapid improvement, the committee refer to the statement of the Mayor of Dayton, made under an order of the Common Council,

« AnteriorContinua »