2d Session.

No. 130.

CATHARINE STRUBING.

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

Mr. NICHOLS, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, made the following REPORT.

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Catharine Strubing, praying for the confirmation to a certain tract of land in the State of Florida, having had the same under consideration, beg leave to report:

That the petitioner is a daughter of Doctor James Dreiner, who in the year 1775 was a surgeon in the British forces stationed in West Florida. She avers that her said father, in the year 1775 aforesaid, obtained from the British government grants for two tracts of land for 500 acres each, between the Mississippi and Perdido rivers. She further avers that these grants were upon the consideration of habitancy and cultivation on the part of the said Doctor James Dreiner; that he never complied with the conditions of the said grant, because the revolutionary war intervened, and public duties prevented him from so doing. She further avers ignorance of laws passed by Congress subsequently, for adjusting land claims in Florida, and prays for confirmation of the original grants to her father, or compensation in lieu thereof.

Your committee have given to these representations all the weight to which they are entitled. The pecuniary circumstances of the petitioner have induced a disposition on the part of the committee to be liberal in the consideration of the case.

Doctor James Dreiner was, at the time of the grant, a surgeon in the British forces. He obtained his grant from the British government at the period when the Revolution had in fact commenced. This grant was located in a province which, so far as its undisturbed enjoyment was concerned, was but very little, if at all, affected by the revolutionary struggle.

This grant was made upon the express condition of habitation and cultivation, with a reversionary right to the British government upon failure of the conditions. The memorialist states that the troubles incident to the war prevented the required occupation and cultivation; but this is an unfair statement of the case, for Doctor Dreiner might, at the commencement of hostilities, have adopted the alternative of abandoning his position in the British forces, or of forfeiting his right to the lands, by a refusal or simple neglect to cultivate.

He made his choice, it appears, and went through the war, neglect

ing in toto his lands, and his rights under the deed of cession. It would greatly have aided the committee in the investigation of the case, had those who were acting for the memorialist been kind enough to furnish a statement as to the party to which Dr. Dreiner allied himself in the war; but this is not altogether left to conjecture, for Doctor Dreiner, it appears, did not resign his position in the British army at the commencement of the war; and as he could not have well or safely joined the American forces without an act of this kind, it is presumed he fought under the British standard.

The Doctor became a citizen of the United States in 1789, some years after the close of the war, and never, as it appears to the committee, made any efforts to reclaim his lands, or to perfect his title thereto. He has been dead some years, and in his will left the task of prosecuting the claim to his children.

From all that has been stated, it will appear that the petitioner, as the heir or legatee of Doctor Dreiner, can have no equitable claim for relief. Her ancestor perfected no right as against the British government, and the land in question came into the possession of the United States as vacant, and is a part of the public domain, if it has not already been disposed of—a fact into which your committee have not deemed it material to inquire. Your committee have not been able to ascertain the sanction of law to any such claim, but, on the contrary, find that Congress has proceeded upon an entirely different principle. It has been invariably required that all such grants, to entitle them to favorable consideration, should be sanctioned by long and continued occupancy and cultivation, both of which requisites are wanting in this case. With the fact that this claim is of eighty years' standing, and with the fact that no effort at reclamation has been heretofore made; that the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the country has passed by treaty three several times since the year 1775, the committee are of the opinion that the staleness of the claim has barred its claim to favorable consideration.

LOUIS LABEAUME'S HEIRS.

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

Mr. NICHOLS, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, made the following

REPORT.

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of the legal representatives of Louis Labeaume, deceased, beg leave to report:

That they have had the same under consideration, and that, after a full investigation of the case, they are of the opinion that the same is without merit. The same committee of the 32d Congress made an adverse report, upon the facts then stated, which your committee adopt as a fair statement of the case, and ask that the same be printed.

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of the heirs and legal representat es of Louis Labeaume, deceased, have had the same under consideration, and report:

That it appears that the petitioners, as the legal representatives of said Louis Labeaume, deceased, are the claimants of twenty-one tracts of land, of eight hundred arpens each, under as many concessions by Carlos Dehault Delassus, lieutenant governor of Upper Louisiana, to the several petitioners, under whom the heirs of Labeaume claim. That it appears that each of said concessions by Delassus was regularly surveyed by a deputy surveyor, in the year 1804.

It further appears that the several claims mentioned in the petition were presented to the first board of commissioners appointed for the adjustment of land claims in Upper Louisiana, now the State of Missouri, in the year 1811; and that board reported that said claims "ought not to be confirmed."

It also appears that in the year 1835 all of said claims were again presented to the board of commissioners appointed under the act of Congress of the 9th July, 1832, "for the final adjustment of land claims in Missouri." From the report of that board to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in the case of Louis Lamalice, one of the persons to whom a concession was made by Delassus, and under whom the heirs of Labeaume claim, it appears that this claim was very carefully examined; and they say in their report: "After a careful examination of the testimony, and the various deeds of transfer

ing in toto his lands, and his rights under the deed of cession. It would greatly have aided the committee in the investigation of the case, had those who were acting for the memorialist been kind enough to furnish a statement as to the party to which Dr. Dreiner allied himself in the war; but this is not altogether left to conjecture, for Doctor Dreiner, it appears, did not resign his position in the British army at the commencement of the war; and as he could not have well or safely joined the American forces without an act of this kind, it is presumed he fought under the British standard.

The Doctor became a citizen of the United States in 1789, so years after the close of the war, and never, as it appears to the cot mittee, made any efforts to reclaim his lands, or to perfect his tit thereto. He has been dead some years, and in his will left the tas of prosecuting the claim to his children.

From all that has been stated, it will appear that the petitioner, as the heir or legatee of Doctor Dreiner, can have no equitable claim for relief. Her ancestor perfected no right as against the British government, and the land in question came into the possession of the United States as vacant, and is a part of the public domain, if it has not already been disposed of a fact into which your committee have not deemed it material to inquire. Your committee have not been able to ascertain the sanction of law to any such claim, but, on the contrary, find that Congress has proceeded upon an entirely different principle. It has been invariably required that all such grants, to entitle them to favorable consideration, should be sanctioned by long and continued occupancy and cultivation, both of which requisites are wanting in this case. With the fact that this claim is of eighty years' standing, and with the fact that no effort at reclamation has been heretofore made; that the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the country has passed by treaty three several times since the year 1775, the committee are of the opinion that the staleness of the claim has barred its claim to favorable consideration.