1st Session.

OHIO.

Titles to Sec. 8, 11, 26, 29: Thirteenth Township, &c. &c.

MAY 24, 1830.

Read, and laid upon the table.

Mr. IRVINE, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which the subject had been referred, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the resolution of the House, to inquire into the title of Sections Eight, Eleven, Twenty-six, and Twenty-nine, in the Thirteenth Township and Seventh Range, in the Steubenville District, so called, in Ohio; and, also, into the expediency of making a donation of said sections, for the use of common schools in the vicinity, or otherwise disposing of the same, report:

That, by an ordinance of Congress for ascertaining the mode of disposing of lands in the Western Territory, passed the 20th May, 1785, the four lots or sections, numbered 8, 11, 26, 29, are reserved out of every township, for the United States; and out of every fractional part of a township, so many lots of the same numbers as shall be found thereon, for future sale. Lot numbered sixteen, of every township, was reserved, also, for the maintenance of public schools within the township.

By a resolution, passed the 1st of October, 1787, Congress gave one complete and entire township of land to Arnold Henry Dohrman, subject "to the reservations as in the other townships, agreeably to the ordinance of the 20th of May, 1785, out of the three last ranges surveyed in the Western Territory of the United States," to be selected by the said Dohrman.

By an act of Congress, passed the 27th February, 1801, the President of the United States was authorized to issue a patent for the thirteenth township, in the seventh range, to Arnold Henry Dohrman, or his legal representatives, agreeably to a resolution of Congress, of the first day of October, in the year 1787. By virtue of the provisions of this act, a patent was issued, on the 15th day of May, 1801, to William Bayard and William Constable, for the above described township of land, in trust, for the uses and purposes expressed in a deed between the grantees and the said Dohrman. In the patent, it is expressly declared, that the grant is subject to the reservations provided in and by the act and resolution of Congress above recited.

It is the opinion of the committee, that these reserved sections now belong to the United States, and that they ought to be surveyed and sold for the benefit of the Government.

The committee are not aware of any good reason why these reserved sections should be given for the use of common schools in their vicinity. If

they should be granted for that purpose, other places would have an equal claim on the bounty of the Government, and would feel neglected, if their requests of a similar character were not complied with.

As it is entirely within the power of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to have these lands surveyed and sold without any new enactment on that subject, the committee, therefore, ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

AMOS BINNEY.

MAY 24, 1830.

Read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole House to which is committed the bill H. R. No. 441, confirming certain acts of the Legislature of Virginia, relating to the Chesa peake and Ohio Canal Company.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

Your memorialist, in pursuance of the authority as hereunto annexed, marked A. B.

RESPECTFULLY REPRESENTS:

That the bill reported by the Committee on Internal Improvements, entitled "A bill confirming certain Acts of the Legislature of Virginia, relating to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company," will, if adopted, operate to the destruction of private rights to a vast amount, unless so amended as to afford that protection, which, upon a consideration of his claims, he feels assured will be accorded to him. In explanation of his rights, and the situation in which they stood in reference to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, up to the last Session of Congress, he begs leave to refer to the memorial of Amos Binney, hereunto annexed, marked A, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 9th February, 1829. And your memorialist further asks leave to represent the very oppressive course which has been subsequently pursued by the said Company, in relation to his aforesaid rights; leaving the inference as to their motives to others, and the consolation in harassing and oppressing an individual, through the influence of an all-powerful corporation, to their own enjoyment. Soon after the agent, referred to in the aforesaid memorial, marked A, returned from the Eastern States, which he had visited with a view of interesting large capitalists and men of enterprise for the establishment of extensive manufactories, by bringing into operation his water power, but which he was constrained to abandon in consequence of the resolution of the Stockholders in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, directing a petition to Congress, &c. in, September, 1828, to confer upon them the right to the surplus water to the like purposes, your memorialist handed to the President and Directors of said Company a proposition to compromise the mat ter, as per letter of 2d January, 1829, hereunto annexed, marked B, to which he respectfully refers, and which was rejected by the Company. Your memorialist thereupon proposed, through his counsel, to have a suit docketed in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia-judgment to be entered up at the same term, so as to remove it to the Supreme Court of the United States, then, or soon to be in session, which was done, with an understanding that it should, by mutual consent, be finally decided at that term; but, notwithstanding every effort on the part of the counsel of your memorialist to the contrary, it was continued over. About this time the Company me

morialized the Legislature of Maryland, asking for the like privileges as are granted by the act of Virginia, passed the 27th February, 1829; whereupon, a counter memorial was presented by sundry citizens interested in property along the line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, as will be seen by reference to the paper hereunto annexed, marked C, and the petition of the Company was not granted.

The Company again memorialized the Legislature of Maryland, at their last session, to the same effect as before; it was opposed upon the principles set forth in the counter memorial at the preceding session, and the committee to whom their memorial was referred, made the report hereunto annexed, marked D, which your memorialist respectfully solicits may be referred to. In the interval between the time of the presentation of the memorial A, herein before referred to, and the present time, your memoria ist has made every effort to compromise matters with the Company, by various propositions, two of which only, from among many, are hereunto a nexed, marked E & F, to which he begs leave respectfully to refer; bat the Company rejected every proposition, and pursued a course oppressive to your memorialist, and involving a heavy pecuniary expense to him and to them. First. They had a jury upon his property in Marylaad, which is divided from his property in the District of Columbia by the District line, but your memorialist, with several other property holders, who were includ ed in the same inquisition, conceiving themselves materially aggrieved. opposed the ratification, and the whole proceedings were quashed by the Court. The Company next proceeded to call a jury upon the property of your memorialist and others in the District of Columbia, and conceiving themselves aggrieved, the ratification was opposed, and those proceedings were also annulled and set aside, by the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia; in neither case had the Company deigned to comply with the express provisions of their charter by any proposition to obtain the rights of your memorialist by any kind of negotiation, though none of the disabilities enumerated by the charter existed; but, on the contrary, the parties represented by your memorialist were at all times willing and pressing an arrangement without the intervention of a jury. About this time the Company were engaged in erecting a dam at the head of the Little Falls of the river Potomac, calculated to destroy the water rights of your memorialist as reparian owner, and as vested in him by the acts of Maryland and Virginia of 1784, incorporating the Potomac Company, by introducing into their Canal, by means of a feeder, an immense volume of water, not required for the purposes of navigation, but avowedly, by their own declarations, to be applied to extensive manufactories; having from the intersection of the said feeder with their canal, made their canal for about two miles through the lands ef your memorialist, of the width of 80 to 100 and in many places 150 feet, and of a depth of water upwards of 7 feet, whereupon an injunction was obtained from the Chancellor of Maryland; the pecuniary cost to the Stockholders, in this trial only, and which is intended to be renewed, if no amicable arrangement can be had as to the property in Maryland, by their own acknowledgment, exceeded five thousand dollars, as he has been informed. The cost to your memorialist was great, and seriously oppressive. Again, in February last past, while their memorial,herein before referred to, was before the Legislature of Maryland, the Company had another jury summoned upon the lands of your memorialist and others in the District of Columbia, who were empannelled for about two weeks, hearing counsel, &c. in the case of

your memorialist alone. Your memorialist conceiving himself aggrieved, for the like reasons as stated in reference to the preceding inquisitions, has resisted the ratification by the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, having first proposed to submit to the verdict as to the amount of damages to his lands, and to leave the question of water rights to future adjustment. Candor requires him to state that, in this particular instance, the agent for the Company intimated a proposition to submit the matter to the arbitrament of three persons, all three named by the Company; all Stockholders in the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company as he believes; large property holders in the District of Columbia; and zealous friends to the canal; to this modest intimation, it is scarcely necessary to say, that your memorialist declined acceding. Thus then is to be seen, an all powerful corporation, with millions at their command, attempting to wrest from an individual his rights, and which were never contemplated by their charter-rejecting all fair terms of compromise, appealing twice to the Legislature of Maryland, twice to Congress, and having obtained their object from the State of Virginia, in the absence of any representation on the part of the individual, are at the same time taking all the chances, by harassing him with repeated juries, thereby rendering his property useless to him and unavailable to the community, oppressing him with heavy pecuniary loss, and involving the stock-. holders in a serious amount; all of which could have been saved to him and to them by leaving the matter to the decision of a few impartial intelligent

men.

A hue and cry has been raised against your memorialist, that he is opposed to the Canal and exerting himself to defeat it. The motive of such an excitement is easily comprehended; but such is not the fact. The offence is in his daring to defend his rights against the wishes of a Company with whom the interests and feelings of nearly this whole community are identified. In evidence of the feelings of the parties most interested at the time of their obtaining their charter, your memorialist respectfully refers to a letter to Gen. Cocke, then a Member of Congress, of 21st February, 1825, hereunto annexed, marked G.

In conclusion, your memorialist takes leave to recapitulate a few of the principal points upon which his claims and this petition are founded, viz:

That this property was purchased by those under whom he holds for the express purpose and intention of erecting water works, and has been held in quiet possession for near half a century.

That one hundred thousand dollars, and in all probability two hundred thousand dollars could have been realized for a part of this property, long before the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal was thought of, as stated in Wm. Marbury's deposition in Binney's memorial, herewith, marked A.

That the Potomac Company petitioned Congress twice, viz: about the years 1815 and 1816, for the right of applying the surplus water to other purpo ses than that of navigation, and were refused.

That he has done every thing in his power to compromise the matter with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company that could have been reasonably required.

That the act of the Legislature of Virginia, of 27th of February, 1829, of which the Company now ask your ratification, was granted in the absence of any representation of the rights of your memorialist..

That the memorial to Congress, referred to in the letter to Gen. Cocke, marked G, was withdrawn to obviate any delay in obtaining their charter,