Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

2d Session.

No. 56,

ELIJAH WHITE.

[To accompany bill H. R. No. 709.]

JANUARY 30, 1855.

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 Dr. Elijah White, of Washington Territory, having had the same under consideration, report:

That the petitioner was, on the 15th day of November, 1849, a settler on that portion of the public domain known as the Pacific City land claim, in Pacific county, in the then Oregon but now Washington Territory, and continued as a settler and occupant of said lands until the month of October, anno Domini 1851. During the time he so occupied said lands, in the full confidence that his title by occupancy would be completed, he sold off portions of the said lands to various persons, who have made many and valuable improvements upon said claim. The petitioner himself has expended large sums in improving his claim, and in facilitating the settlement of that portion of the Territory. In October, 1851, the petitioner went to California on temporary business, and being detained by his business for a longer period than he anticipated, he learned that in his absence the whole of his claim had been taken up as a military reservation by the government, which information caused him to discontinue temporarily his residence upon said claim.

By the act of February 14, 1853, military reservations, except for forts, are limited to twenty acres; and the petitioner, after the passage of the said act, applied for a confirmation of his claim to the lands which had been occupied by him, but was met with the objection that his absence from said claim barred his right to a title for the same under

the law.

The committee, apprehending that a decision of this kind will work injustice, and cause to many who have expended their means in improving said claim, the total loss of the amounts so expended, besides the labor of years while occupying said lands, deem it proper that an act should be passed giving to the petitioner the benefits of the said law, as though his possession had never been interrupted, reserving to the government such rights and privileges as may be expedient for the public benefit hereafter.

The committee, therefore, submit a bill for the relief of the peti

tioner.

,

CONGRESS,

JOHN R. BOWES.

[To accompany bill H. R. No. 570.]

JANUARY 30, 1855.

Mr. AARON HARLAN, from the Committee on Commerce, made the fol

lowing REPORT.

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred House bill No. 570, for the relief of John R. Bowes, now report:

That John R. Bowes, as an agent of the government, was in charge of the public works and property of the United States at Michigan City, in the State of Indiana, from 1st September, 1846, to the 28th March, 1849, and again from the 26th April, 1851, to the 26th September, 1852, at the compensation of ten dollars per month. This account was approved by the chief of the Topographical Bureau, and transmitted to the office of the Third Auditor, for payment out of the appropriation made by the act of August 30, 1852, for repairs and contingencies of harbors and rivers. This account, on being submitted to the Comptroller, and by him to the Secretary of War, was rejected, for the reason that the services were rendered before the passage of the act, and was not properly payable out of that appropriation.

Your committee see no sufficient reason why this claim should not be paid, and therefore report the bill back to the House, with a recommendation that it pass.

2d Session.

No. 58.

ATKINS DYER.

JANUARY 30, 1855.-Laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. AARON HARLAN, from the Committee on Commerce, made the

following

REPORT.

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the petition of Atkins Dyer, have had the same under consideration, and now report:

That the facts in the case are fully stated in the petition, and they show that the petitioner was, on the 15th October, 1846, master and owner of the brig "Germ," which, with an American crew, cleared from the port of Philadelphia for Kingston, in the island of Jamaica, and, as he says, from thence to a port in the West Indies, and back to a final port in the United States.

On arriving at Kingston, in Jamaica, he changed his voyage, and took a charter for the Spanish main. His crew was American, and they, by reason of this change in the voyage, claimed their discharge, and to which he gave his consent.

The American consul at Kingston gave him a certificate that a crew of American seamen could not be obtained, and he took on board a crew consisting of two Americans and three foreigners, bound for the port of San Juan de Nicaragua. At this last port two of this crew ran away, and left him a crew of only five, including master and officers; and as there was no American consul at this port, and as no seamen could be procured, he was compelled to return to the port of New York with this crew of three Americans and two foreigners.

In the port of New York, tonnage duties were demanded and paid, to the amount of eighty-five dollars and seventy-five cents. These duties were claimed for the reason that two-thirds of the crew were not Americans, as required by law, in order to entitle the petitioner to an exemption from tonnage duties.

The seventh section of the act of March 1, 1817, vol. 3, page 352, of United States Statutes at Large, provides "that the abatements of duty allowed by this act in the case of vessels having a certain proportion of seamen who are American citizens, or persons not the subjects of any foreign power, shall be allowed only in the case of vessels having such proportion of American seamen during their whole voyage, unless in case of sickness, death, or desertion, or where the whole or part of the crew shall have been taken prisoners in the voyage." None of the exceptions in this act specified cover the case of a voluntary change of voyage and discharge of crew, and for this reason the committee are of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the remission of duty which he claims, and they ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

« AnteriorContinua »