RICHARD W. STEELE

MARCH 23, 1830.

Mr. FOSTER, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to which had been referred the case of Richard W. Steele, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred the petition of Richard W. Steele, report:

That the claim of the petitioner was submitted to the last Congress, and a favorable report made thereon. This report, together with the evidence on which it have examined, and are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the bounty in land prayed for. They therefore herewith report a bill, referring, for the grounds of the claim, to the report of the Committee on Private Land Claims, made on the 8th of April, 1828. The committee will further remark, that, as this justice has been so long withheld, they think the petitioner should be allowed to locate his bounty on any of the public lands subject to entry, and accordingly make this pro

vision in the bill.

JOSHUA KENNEDY.

MARCH 25, 1830.

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

lowing

REPORT:

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Joshua Kennedy, praying to be confirmed in his title to a certain lot of ground in the town of Mobile, report:

28

That the claim is for 20-2 arpents of land, situated in the suburbs of the town of Mobile, granted by the proper Spanish authorities before the change of government in that country.

This claim was laid before the Board of Commissioners for the adjustment of land claims in that section of country, under the act of 3d March, 1827. The Commissioners report, that the grant was actually made by the proper Spanish authorities; but proceed to say, that, "It appearing from the boundaries that the tract claimed approaches within thirty feet of the old works of Fort Charlotte, and includes part of the parade ground, they are induced to believe that it never could have been the intention of the Spanish authorities to have made the grant," and thereupon they reject the claim. From the testimony adduced, your committee believe, that the Commisgreatly mistaken in their supposed location of the claim. The testimony of a public surveyor, and of divers other respectable individuals, show this misapprehension. The claim does not cover a part of the parade ground as supposed; and, instead of being within thirty feet of the fort,it is 130 feet West, and 100 feet South. But, be this as it may, the grant was made, and it is not considered competent for us now to decide that the Spanish government should not have made a grant so near the fort. The Committee therefore report a bill.

sioners were

1st Session.

JARED E. GROCE.

MARCH 25, 1830.

Mr. CLAY, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the petition of Jared E. Groce, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the case of Jared E. Groce, report:

That, under the provisions of the acts of Congress for the relief of the urchasers of the public lands, Jared E. Groce, of the State of Alabama, by is attorney in fact, William Waller, intended to have relinquished the outhwest quarter of section numbered twenty-six, in township numbered venteen, of range four East, at the Land Office at St. Stephen's, in the Late aforesaid; that, by the mistake of the Register of the Land Office, or his clerk, the said Groce is made to retain the quarter section above deribed, and for which a patent has been issued to said Groce; whereas it was s intention to have retained the fractional section numbered ten, in townip numbered five, of range four East. The committee entertain the belief at the said Groce is entitled to relief, and herewith report a bill.