on the claim, numbered from to inclusive, the board have decided to place them in the second class, believing them to have been founded in an extensive scheme of speculation by the assignees, unknown to the governor, and that the ostensible object, the popula tion of the country, was not intended to be complied with at the time of procuring the grant.

The board are unanimously of opinion that this claim ought not to be confirmed."

By the act of the 9th July, 1832, under which this board was organized, they were required to class the claims "so as to show: first, what claims, in their opinion, would in fact have been confirmed, according to the laws, usages, and customs, of the Spanish government; and, secondly, what claims in their opinion are destitute of merit in law or equity, under such laws, usages, customs, and practice, of the Spanish authorities." The committee refer to these provisions, for the purpose of explaining the action of the board, in placing these claims in the second class.

In virtue of the 3d section of this act, all claims placed in the second class, (being those rejected,) fell back into the mass of the public domain, and were subject to sale as other public lands.

The committee further report, that by the act of May 26, 1824, any person, or their legal representatives, claiming land within the State of Missouri, "by virtue of any Spanish grant, concession, warrant, or order of survey legally made, granted, or issused, before the 10th March, 1804, by the proper authorities, to any person or persons resident in the province of Louisiana at the date thereof, or on or before the 10th day of March, 1804," were authorized to present their petition to the district court of the State of Missouri, setting forth, fully and plainly, the nature of the claim, and praying that the validity of the title might be inquired into, and decided by said court; the court, by virtue of that act, having full power to adjudicate and determine all such claims, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.

By the 5th section of that act, any claim within the purview of the act, which should not be brought within two years from the passage of the act, was forever barred.

By the act of 17th June, 1844, for the adjustment of land claims within the States of Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the provisions of the act of 26th May, 1824, so far as related to the State of Missouri, were revived and continued in force for the term of five years, and no longer.

It does not appear that the heirs of Labeaume ever availed themselves, or attempted to avail themselves, of the benefits of the acts of 26th May, 1824, or 17th June, 1844, nor do they show any reason why they did not. As these claims have been twice rejected by the boards of commissioners appointed at different periods for the adjustment of such claims, and as the rejection was made "after a careful examination of the testimony" by the second board, and as the petitioners have not, so far as appears to the committee, attempted to avail themselves of the benefits of the two acts before mentioned, the committee are of opinion that the claims ought not now to be confirmed, and that the prayer of the petitioners should not be granted.

2d Session.

No. 132.

COLT PATENT CASE.

FEBRUARY 23, 1855.-Laid upon the table and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LETCHER, from the Select Committee, made the following

REPORT:

The committee appointed on the 10th day of July last "to inquire whether money has been offered to members or other illegal or improper means used to induce members to aid in securing the passage or defeat of a bill to extend Colt's patent for seven years; and also whether money has been offered to members or other illegal or improper means used, either directly or indirectly, to secure the passage or defeat of any bill before Congress,' and which was continued by the resolution of the House of December 5, 1854, beg leave to report:

That the committee assembled very soon after the adoption of the last mentioned resolution, and directed two witnesses to be summoned, one of whom appeared and was examined, and the other declined to appear in answer to the summons. Finding that they could not proceed with the business committed to them, unless they could compel the attendance of witnesses, the committee reported the facts to the House, and asked for some action on the part of that body. The House declined to take action on the subject, and laid the resolution on

the table.

Subsequently, the committee directed another witness to be summoned, and it was done, but said witness also declined to appear.

Under these circumstances the committee find it impossible to proceed, and, after full consultation, have directed me to report the following resolution:

Resolved, That the chairman be instructed to ask the House that the said committee be discharged.

The journal and papers of the committee accompany this report.

Proceedings of the Committee in the Colt Patent Case, &c., &c.

IN THE HOUSE of RepresenTATIVES, December 5, 1854.

On motion of Mr. LETCHER,

Resolved, That the committee raised by the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives, on the 10th day of July last, be continued, and charged with the same powers and duties as at the last session of Congress.

Attest:

J. W. FORNEY, Clerk House of Representatives U. S.

The committee will meet to-morrow morning, at the room of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, at 10 o'clock, a. m. JOHN LETCHER, Chairman.

DECEMBER 11, 1854.

To Messrs. RUFFIN, EDDY, THURSTON,

ZOLLICOFFER, ELIOT, WHEeler.

COMMITTEE ROOM POST OFFICES AND POST ROADS,
December 12, 1854.

In pursuance of the foregoing resolution of the House, and the call of the chairman, the committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., this day.

Present: Mr. Letcher, chairman, Mr. Eliot, Mr. Ruffin, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Zollicoffer, Mr. Wheeler.

The committee were engaged until 12 o'clock, m., (the hour of the meeting of the House,) in discussing the order of their future proceedings, and then adjourned to 10 o'clock on Thursday morning next.

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1854.

The committee met pursuant to adjournment.
Present all the members.

The chairman called the attention of the committee to the evidence submitted to them at the last session, by certain witnesses who were in the enjoyment of seats (as reporters) upon the floor of the House, and suggested the necessity of some action being taken thereon, with the view to the modification of the rules of the House respecting such persons.

The subject was not disposed of when the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock, in the room of the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1854.

The committee met pursuant to adjournment, and determined to proceed with the examination of Mr. W. B. Chase and Mr. E. H. Thomson, whom the Sergeant-at-arms of the House was directed to summon to appear before this committee, at the room of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, on Monday morning next, at 10 o'clock, to which place and hour the committee then adjourned.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1854.

The committee met pursuant to adjournment.

Present: Mr. Letcher, chairman, Mr. Zollicoffer, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Eliot, Mr. Ruffin, Mr. Eddy.

The witnesses summoned for this morning, viz: W. B. Chase and E. H. Thomson, not appearing before the committee, in obedience to summons, the Sergeant-at-arms was directed to re-summon them to appear before this committee, in the room of the Committee on Revolutionary claims, at 10 o'clock, on Wednesday morning next, to which place and hour the committee then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1854.

Committee met pursuant to adjournment.

10 O'CLOCK, a. M.

Present: Mr. Letcher, chairman, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Ruffin, Mr. Zollicoffer.

The chairman presented the following note, which was received by him yesterday:

MONDAY, (NOON,) December 18, 1854.

MY DEAR SIR: I received only this morning, at nine o'clock, your subpoena, dated the 15th instant, to attend before your committee, but having an engagement at ten of much importance to me, it was wholly impossible for me to appear. If to-morrow morning will answer, at the same hour, or any other you may name, it will afford me much pleasure to appear before the committee.

Hon. JOHN Letcher,

I am, very respectfully, yours,

Ě. H. THOMSON.

Chairman of Colt Investigating Committee, &c.

Mr. E. H. Thomson then appeared, and, being duly sworn, testifies as follows:

Question by Chairman. In your former examination (page 69 House Report 353) before this committee, you stated that you were employed in aiding the passage of bills for the Minnesota railroad, the Pacific railroad, the Wisconsin railroad, and the railroads in Michigan; that you are the attorney for E. K. Collins & Co., and that you own a part of Moore & Hascall's patent, for which a renewal is being applied for. Are you still interested in all those measures, and, if not in all, state in how many you are now interested?

Answer. I am interested in none but the matters of Mr. Collins, for whom I have acted as attorney for the last four years. I am still interested in the Moore & Hascall patent as part owner.

Question by Chairman. Who is interested in Moore & Hascall's patent besides yourself, and who are employed or are aiding either as attorneys, agents, or otherwise in endeavoring to secure the renewal of said patent?

Answer. I believe that formerly the Hon. Lucius Lyon, former senator, was a part owner, but he is now dead, and I do not know what has become of his interest. I know of no other persons interested, except the principals. I do not know who are employed in endeavoring to secure the renewal of the patent. There are none so employed, according to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Question by Chairman. Who are employed, besides yourself, as attorneys or agents for E. K. Collins & Co.; what compensation, actual or contingent, are you to receive for your services, and what services are you to render?

Answer. No other persons besides myself are employed as attorneys or agents for E. K. Collins & Co. The services I am to render E. K. Collins & Co. is to lay such facts before members of both Houses as will

give them all the information to act wisely on the subject, and to disabuse the minds of members in relation to false statements made against the line and in favor of the Cunard line belonging to the British government. As to compensation, that is a professional matter between myself and the company, and which I respectfully decline to answer. Question by Chairman. Are you employed as attorney or agent in the Colt case, and if so, what compensation have you received for your services, and what compensation are you yet to receive?

Answer. My engagements with Mr. Colt ceased when Congress adjourned last session. As to what I have received, that is professional between Mr. Dickerson, who employed me, and myself, and I decline to answer that part of the question.

Question by Chairman. Have you a desk upon the floor of the House this session, and if so, did you take such desk with any conditions imposed, and if so, what conditions?

Answer. I have a desk on the floor of the House. The conditions are to be found in the 19th rule of the House, as follows, to wit: "No person shall be allowed the privilege of the hall, under the character of stenographer, without a written permission from the Speaker, specifying the part of the hall assigned to him; and no reporter or stenographer shall be admitted, under the rules of the House, unless such reporter or stenographer shall state, in writing, for what paper or papers he is employed to report.-March 1, 1838. And no person shall be admitted, under the rules of the House, as a reporter or stenographer for any paper or papers, who shall be employed as an agent to prosecute any claim pending before Congress; and the Speaker shall give his written permission with this condition; and not more than one reporter or stenographer shall be assigned the same seat.-December 13, 1852." I desire to state that when I made application for my seat that I stated to Colonel Boyd, the Speaker of the House, that I had my friend E. K. Collins' business as usual before me, and was not interested in anything else; that if it was considered by him a violation of the rule I would withdraw my application for a seat. That in my own opinion, and which was confirmed by many of the members of both branches of Congress, that it was not presenting a claim against the government.

The witness was then dismissed.

The sergeant-at-arms returned copies of the summonses which he had served upon Messrs. E. H. Thomson and W. B. Chase, endorsed by him respectively as follows:

Upon the summons of W. B. Chase

"Served by personal notice this 16th day of December, 1854.

66

"A. J. GLOSSBRENNER,

Sergeant-at-Arms House of Representatives of the United States."

Upon the summons of E. H. Thomson

"Served the within by delivering a true copy thereof to the said E. H. Thomson this 18th day of December, at 9 a. m., of said day, 1854.

"C. COLE,

"For A. J. GLOSSBRENNER, Sergeant-at-Arms."