WILLIAM SAWYER AND OTHERS.

[To accompany bill H. R. No. 534.]

JUNE 20, 1862.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. NOELL, from the Committee of Claims, made the following

REPORT.

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of William Sawyer and others, citizens of the State of Ohio, have had the same under consideration, and report:

That it appears from competent legal evidence that in October, 1818, a treaty was made between the United States and the Miami Indians at St. Mary, Ohio, by which their title to a certain body of land was extinguished. That, as part of the consideration of this general relinquishment of title, certain specified tracts of land were granted to individuals of the nation or tribe in fee simple. Amongst the number to whom such specific grants were made, were Joseph Richardville and his son, Joseph Richardville, jr., two sections, one on each side of St. Mary's river, and below the reservation made on said river by the treaty of Greenville, in 1795.

From the proof it appears that Joseph Richardville, jr., was, at that time, a small child. In 1826, Joseph Richardville, jr., still being an infant under age, another treaty was concluded with the same tribe of Indians, in which treaty it was stipulated that the government should purchase of the persons to whom these individual grants had been made in 1818 the tracts of land so granted, and should pay the prices in money agreed upon, as per a schedule which was incorporated in the treaty. A legal difficulty seems to have interposed at this point, and the parties managing the transaction fell upon a novel plan of solving it. Joseph Richardville, jr., being under age, of course could not convey, and thereupon the following paragraph was inserted in the schedule and treaty: "The two sections on the St. Mary's, granted to Joseph Richardville and to Joseph Richardville, jr., to be conveyed by Joseph Richardville, there being no such person as Joseph Richardville, jr. For these two last sections three thousand dollars are to be paid to Joseph Richardville."

The proof shows beyond all question that Joseph Richardville, jr., was living at the time, and at last account was living up to this time, and is identified by like clear proof as the same person pro

vided for in the treaty of 1818. Joseph Richardville, senior, undertook to convey the whole of the lands to the government, but the instrument by which he undertook to convey turned out to be legally insufficient to convey any title, either his own or his son's. The government, however, took charge of the land, and sold it to the petitioners, and received the purchase-money. They went into possession upon the faith of the government, and upon the idea that the government really owned the lands it was selling to her citizens. These parties made lasting and valuable improvements upon it, increasing its value to per acre, at the lowest estimate; part of the lands passed to the present owners through the State of Ohio, under grants from the general government. Joseph Richardville, senior, died, leaving Joseph Richardville, jr., his only child and heir-at-law, to whom his legal title in the two sections descended.

Madison Sweetzer, a citizen of Ohio, to whom Joseph Richardville, jr., was largely indebted, brought suit against him and recovered judgment for over six thousand dollars and costs. Execution was is sued on this judgment regularly levied on all the right and title of Joseph Richardville, jr., in the two sections, and the same was sold and purchased by said Sweetzer, and he received his deed therefor in due form of law. Upon this title Sweetzer brought his action of ejectment against some of the parties in the United States circuit court for the Ohio circuit, Judge McLean presiding. The suit was brought in 1855, the issues were regularly made up, and the case tried by the court the next year, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The issue in the case involved the validity of the title of Joseph Richardville, jr., and the same was fully sustained by the court. Sweetzer being entitled to his writ of possession, was induced to withhold it in order to give the parties an opportunity to appeal to the justice of Congress to quiet the title they had purchased of the government in good faith. They pray that Congress may do this by passing a special act to pay to Sweetzer such reasonable sum as may satisfy and compensate him for his legal title upon his executing proper deeds of relinquishment. This seems to be a case in which the government, in order to effect an important treaty, bringing to the treasury millions of dollars, has found it necessary to deal with and dispose of private property it could not legally reach. Innocent persons have suffered by a deception which, though not designed by the government, was none the less a fatal deception, involving to these humble settlers all or nearly all they had in the way of property. If no remedy is provided they must give up their homes, abandon the labor of years, and start the world anew under circumstances of great disadvantage and distress.

It is incompatible with the genius of a just and liberal government to reap great public advantages by the ruin of individuals and a refusal of reparation where such reparation is practicable. Such would be the consequence of a refusal on the part of the government to quiet the titles of these citizens in this case. It is due to the House that it should be stated here that none of the records or other evidence in the case disclose the slightest fraud or any indication of

collusion or combination. The occupants of these lands, who paid their money and improved and gave it value, have not been connected in any shape or form with the treaties referred to, or had anything to do with any of the proceedings in the courts, until the action of ejectment was brought against them. The record discloses a defence and contest in good faith, and the only difference between this case and ordinary cases of ejectment, consists in the submission of the case to that pure and upright judge, John McLean, rather than to a jury. When it is considered that the whole case turned upon one naked legal question, and that the facts could not be controverted anywhere, this mode of trial is but natural and proper. It may be added that the legislature of Ohio have unanimously memorialized Congress in favor of the relief prayed for. In conclusion, the committee report a bill herewith for the purpose of ascertaining the unimproved value of the lands without any appropriation, and recommend its passage.