Imatges de pàgina

and which the committee make a part of this report. Eaton, the county seat of Preble County, is a flourishing town, containing a population of 630 inhabitants situated on the East bank of St. Clair's Creek, a stream affording a valuable water power, and is surrounded by a fertile and well settled country. Besides passing through Dayton and Eaton, the road azi also pass several villages, the most important of which are Fairfield, I Greene County, between Springfield and Dayton, and West Alexandria, between Dayton and Eaton; the latter village contains a population of su inhabitants, and is situated on the west bank of Twin Creek, a stream aforu. ing important manufacturing facilities. The increased distance, by passing froin Springfield, through Dayton and Eaton, to Richmond, Indiana, 18 estimated by Mr. Knight at 3miles. The committee are aware of the full force of this objection to the deviation from a direct line, or they believe it ought to yield to the many and strong considerations or pag utility, which recommend the preference of the route through Dayane Earon.

It is believed, that, to facilitate the transportation of the public mal, a primary object in the construction of the national road. It is obrice this object will not be promoted by locating the road within a few county seats of so much importance as the towns of Dayton and Eato late Postmaster General, who was personally acquainted with the cours stated, to a former committee, his opinion, that the public interest promoted by this deviation from the direct line. The committee that the facilities which will be given to an already great and rapia creasing commercial, agricultural, and manufactıring interest, and transportation of the public mail, by this change in the route, w ample compensation for the increase of distance. In a road of this com tion, the convenience and accommodation of the inhabitants of the cu through which it is made, and the increased facilities of communio tween important points, are considerations of great weight, and w justify a deviation from a direct line.

The representations of the petitioners of the advantages to be from the change in the route, are entitled to great respect; and of them, are necessarily free from the imputation or suspicion of interest. Your committee, therefore, recommend that the towns , and Eaton be made points in the national road, between Springhela County, Ohio, and Richmond, Indiana; and report a bill accordingly

"ight, and may wal

antages to be derired espect; and as to most uspicion of persona the towns of Dartz

Springfield, Clark

Ist Session.

Pitles to Sec. 8, 11, 26, 29: Thirteenth Township, &c. &c.

MAY 24, 1830.
Read, and laid upon the table.

Mr. IRVINE, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which the subject

had been referred, made the following


The Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the resolu

tion of the House, to inquire into the title of Sections Eight, Eleven, Twenty-six, and Twenty-nine, in the Thirteenth Township and Seventh Range, in the Steubenville District, so called, in Ohio; and, also, into the expediency of making a donation of said sections, for the use of common schools in the vicinity, or otherwise disposing of the same, report:

That, by an ordinance of Congress for ascertaining the mode of disposing of lands in the Western Territory, passed the 20th May, 1785, the four lots or sections, numbered 8, 11, 26, 29, are reserved out of every township, for the United States; and out of every fractional part of a township, 80 Emany lots of the same numbers as shall be found thereon, for future sale. Lot numbered sixteen, of every township, was reserved, also, for the maintenance of public schools within the township.

By a resolution, passed the 1st of October, 1787, Congress gave one complete and entire township of land to Arnold Henry Dohrman, subject “to the reservations as in the other townships, agreeably to the ordinance of the 20th of May, 1785, out of the three last ranges surveyed in the Western Territory of the United States,” to be selected by the said Dohrman.

By an act of Congress, passed the 27th February, 1801, the President of the United States was authorized to issue a patent for the thirteenth town. ship, in the seventh range, to Arnold Henry Dohrman, or his legal representatives, agreeably to a resolution of Congress, of the first day of Octaber, in the year 1787. By virtue of the provisions of this act, a patent was issued, on the 15th day of May, 1801, 10 William Bayard and William Constable, for the above described township of land, in trust, for the uses and purposes expressed in a deed between the grantees and the said Dohrman. In the patent, it is expressly declared, that the grant is subject to the reservations provided in and by the act and resolution of Congress above recited.

It is the opinion of the committee, that these reserved sections now belong to the United States, and that they ought to be surveyed and sold for the benefit of the Government.

The committee are not aware of any good reason why these reserved sections should be given for the use of common schools in their vicinity. If

they should be granted for that purpose, other places would have an en claim on the bounty of the Government, and would feel neglectei, if ti requests of a similar character were not complied with.

As it is entirely within the power of the Commissioner of the Gena Land Office to have these lands surveyed and sold without any new ena ment on that subject, the committee, therefore, ask to be discharged fra the further consideration of the subject.



May 24, 1830. Read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole House to which is committed the bill | H. R. No. 441, confirming certain acts of the L-gislature of Virginia, relating to the Chesor

peake and Ohio Canal Company.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled : Your memorialist, in pursuance of the authority as hereunto annexed, mark


That the bill reported by the Committee on Internal Improvements, en. titled “ A bill confirming certain Acts of the Legislature of Virginia, relating to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company," will, if adopted, operate to the destruction of private rights to a vast amount, unless so amended as to afford that protection, which, upon a consideration of his claims, he feels assured will be accorded to him. In explanation of his rights, and the situation in which they stood in reference to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, up to the last Session of Congress, he begs leave to refer to the inemorial of Amos Binney, hereunto annexed, marked A, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 9th February, 1829. And your memorialist further asks leave to represent the very oppressive course which has been subsequently pursued by the said Company, in relation to his aforesaid rights; leaving the inference as to their motives to others, and the consolation in harassing and oppressing an individual, through the influence of an all-powerful corporation, to their own enjoyment.

Soon after the agent, referred to in the aforesaid memorial, marked A, returned from the Eastern States, which he had visited with a view of interesting large capitalists and men of enterprise for the establishment of exensive manufactories, by bringing into operation his water power, but which he was constrained to abandon in consequence of the resolution of the Stockholders in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, directing a petition to Congress, &c. in September, 1828, to confer upon them the right to the urplus water to the like purposes, your memorialist handed to the Presilent and Directors of said Company a proposition to compromise the mater, as per letter of 20 January, 1829, hereunto annexed, marked B, to which le respectfully refers, and which was rejected by the Company. Your menorialist thereupon proposed, through his counsel, to have a suit docketed

the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia-judgment to be entered p at the same term, so as to remove it to the Supreme Court of the United States, then, or soon to be in session, which was done, with an understand- . ng that it should, by mutual consent, be finally decided at that term; but, otwithstanding every effort on the part of the counsel of your memorialist > the contrary, it was continued over. About this time the Company mer

e quashed by the

te property d


morialized the Legislature of Maryland, asking for the like privileges as are granted by the act of Virginia, passed the 27th February, 1829; where upon, a counter memorial was presented by sundry citizens interested in property along the line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, as will be seer by to the paper hereunto annexed, marked C, and the petition of the Company was not granted.

The Company again memorialized the Legislature of Maryland, at Intl last session, to the same effect as before; it was opposed upon the principles set forth in the counter memorial at the preceding session, sad lhe com mittee to whom their memorial was referred, made the report here annexed, marked D, which your memorialist respectfully solice map, referred to. In the interval between the time of the presentalist e memorial A, hereinbefore referred to, and the present time, your rialist has made every effort to compromise matters with the Company various propositions, two of which only, from among many, are a inexed, marked E & F, to which he begs leave respectfully to real the Company rejected every proposition, and pursued a course opp to your memorialist, and involving a heavy pecuniary expense to to them. First. They had a jury upon his property in Maryla.. is divided from his property in the District of Columbia by the Dist but your memorialist, with several other property holders, who were ed in the same inquisition, conceiving themselves materially ago opposed the ratification, and the whole proceedings were quashed Court. The Company next proceeded to call a jury upon the prope your memorialist and others in the District of Columbia, and com themselves aggrieved, the ratification was opposed, and those prot were also annulled and set aside, by the Circuit Court for the Columbia; in neither case had the Company deigned to comply w press provisions of their charter by any proposition to obtain the your memorialist by any kind of negotiation, though none of the enumerated by the charter existed; but, on the contrary, the parties no ed by your memorialist were at all times willing and pressing a ment without the intervention of a jury. About this time the were engaged in erecting a dam at the head, of the Little Falls of Potomac, calculated to destroy the water rights of your memo reparian owner, and as vested in him by the acts of Maryland and 1784, incorporating the Potomac Company, by introducing into the by means of a feeder, an immense volume of water, not requi! purposes of navigation, but avowedly, by their own declarations, to to extensive manufactories; having from the intersection of the sa with their canal, made their canal for about two miles through the your memorialist, of the width of 80 to 100 and in many places and of a depth of water upwards of 7 feet, whereupon an injupci. obtained from the Chancellor of Maryland; the pecuniary cost 10 ! holders, in this trial only, and which is intended to be renewed, 111 ble arrangement can be had as to the property in Maryland, by." acknowledgment, exceeded five thousand dollars, as he has been 11 The cost to your memorialist was great, and seriously oppressive. February last past, while their memorial,hereinbefore referred to, w the Legislature of Maryland, the Company had another jury summo the lands of your memorialist and others in the District of Colu were empannelled for about two weeks, hearing counsel, &c. In

or the District de

obtain the rights Gone of the disabilities

the parties representpressing an arrange

s time the Company Little Falls of the rive"

y land and Virginia

not required for t rations, to be apai

"y places 150

[ocr errors]

s been inforest

red to, was bei

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »