that subject. If Mr. Washburne wrote me any other letter, it must have been done during my absence in Iowa, and I never received it. I was absent West during the whole month of June.

Sworn before me this the 5th day of August, 1854.

A. HUNT.

ORISON BLUNT, Alderman of Third Ward.

2d Session.

JAMES L. HICKMAN.

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

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

REPORT.

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of James L. Hickman, asking Congress to grant him two thousand acres of land "out of any unappropriated lands in the States of Indiana, Illinois or Missouri, or such other relief as Congress may deem just and equitable," beg leave to report :

That the said petition discloses the following facts: That some time in the year 1765, one Thomas Hickman removed from the county of Albemarle, in the then colony of Virginia, and settled in West Florida, at that time under the dominion of Great Britain, where he acquired two thousand acres of land on the bay near Pensacola, where he continued to reside until the month of February, A. D. 1771, when he was accidentally drowned, leaving James Hickman, his brother, then of Culpeper county, Virginia, his heir-at-law.

The petitioner alleges himself to be the grand-son of the said James, and to have received, by gift, from said James, the above claim. The petition further states, that in the year 1784 the said James sent two of his sons as his attorneys in fact to Florida, to claim the estate of Thomas Hickman in the name of the said James, as heirat-law; that they arrived at Charleston, S. C., but were there advised not to proceed any further, as the country (West Florida) then belonged to Spain, and they would be in danger of being committed as spies, and probably die in jail, and they consequently returned to Virginia.

The petitioner states that he has had the records of Florida searched, and no title can be found on record in favor of Thomas Hickman to this land. He further states, that from the lapse of time and the long occupancy of Florida by Spain, it is probable that the land has passed into other hands by grant from Spain, and cannot now be recovered, even could it be identified.

These facts, together with the fact of the cession of Florida to the United States, seem to be the basis of the petitioner's claim for relief at the hands of Congress. Admitting every fact stated in the petition to be proven, your committee are totally unable to see any reasonable ground for the relief sought; but nowhere in the papers accompany

ing the petition is there any evidence of title in Thomas Hickman to any lands in Florida.

There is a letter on file dated Pensacola, April 2, 1771, signed "John Firby," in which it is mentioned that Thomas Hickman "had taken up two thousand acres of land." This letter seems to be the only evidence of title in the possession of the petitioner, and the only evidence which has ever been in the possession of those who claim through Thomas Hickman, and the petitioner states that he has searched in vain the records of Florida for further evidence.

The committee are of opinion that relief ought not to be granted to any one; but if they were of a different opinion, the petitioner has exhibited no evidence to show that he is entitled to it.

2d Session.

No. 124.

JOHN WINSLOW-HEIRS OF.

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

Mr. S. MILLER, from the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, made the following

REPORT.

The Committee on Revolutionary Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of the legal heirs of John Winslow, deceased, report:

That the petitioners state that John Winslow was deputy paymaster general and captain of artillery in the revolutionary war, a certificate to that effect being lodged at the Pension Office; that he was attached to the northern department of the army, and served over three years, as appears by his declaration in an application for a pension. He died November 20, 1819.

The mother of the petitioners, shortly after the passage of the act of July 4, 1836, made application, as the widow of John Winslow, deceased, for the extension of his pension to herself; but as this act only included widows of such officers as were married before leaving the army, her application was disallowed. She died November 12, 1836. The application of the heirs above named was rejected by the Pension Office from want of law applicable to the case. The act of July 4, 1836, required that the widow should have been married to her husband before he left the army. It is proven that Captain Winslow left the service in 1778, and was married in 1782. His widow was therefore not entitled under that act.

The act of July 7, 1838, provides for those widows who were married after their husbands left the service, and before January, 1794. But it required that the applicant should be a widow at the date of the passage of that act; and as Mrs. Winslow died in 1836, before the act of 1838 was passed, she consequently could not have been entitled under it.

These facts seem to warrant the committee in declaring it altogether impolitic to allow claims of this character, as it would evidently pave the way for innumerable applications for pensions without the substance of law to support them. They therefore ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

1