History of public land law development

page 106

106 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT owners of large unconfirmed claims were not ready to give up. The lands they were seeking in Missouri had long since been acquired through purchase or preemption by others, but if the claimants were to win they would acquire scrip which was increasing in value because it could be used to enter land not subject to cash entry. Year after year they continued to ask Congress for permission to submit their claims with additional evidence to the courts for trial. Senator David Davis, one of Illinois' wealthiest landowners and a member of the Committee on Private Land Claims, in 1880 tried to put a quietus to continued agitation of the question by reporting that, after 75 years of legislating on the subject of titles and claims to land in Missouri and the five southern public land states, "it cannot be doubted that all claims resting on any just foundation have been presented for adjudication." His report scoffed at the idea that there were complete claims which had not been given consideration before and held that if there were any such, the owners were not deserving of any consideration after this long delay. Davis' hope that lawyers for rejected claimants would now cease to pester Congress for action was too sanguine.59 While Davis was preparing his report, the House Committee on Private Land Claims was completing a report on four claims of Jacques Clamorgan and three other Missour-ians for amounts ranging from 2,944 arpents to 8,000 arpents, recommending their confirmation and patenting, drawing upon earlier reports to provide the documentation for them and explaining why they had never been confirmed. Though the climate of opinion in the Senate and the House was slowly changing toward claimants asking for adjustment of titles at such a late date, the Committees on Private Land Claims were still disposed to issue reports favorable to them.60 59 Senate Reports, 46th Cong., 3d sess., Jan. 21, 1881, Vol. I, No. 776 (Serial No. 1948). 60 For two favorable reports on these four claims see House Reports, 44th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 28, 1876, Vol. I, No. 24 (Serial No. 1708) and ibid., 46th Cong., 3d sess., Dec. 21, 1880, Vol. I, No. 28 (Serial No. 1982). Two large claims whose owners had the resources to continue their pressure upon Congress either to confirm their claims or to allow them to appeal to the courts, which existing legislation prevented, were the Clamorgan and Dubuque claims. The Clamorgan claim of 448,000 arpents extended back from the Mississippi River just above St. Louis. On the ground that it had not been regarded as valid by the Spanish authorities and had been abandoned by the claimant and that numerous other concessions had been allowed on the tract, it was rejected by two Boards of Land Commissioners. Glamorgan's descendants and others who had a share in the claim kept the issue before Congress and in 1848 they managed to obtain three favorable reports from House and Senate Committees on Private Land Claims which disputed all unfavorable evidence, held that the claim had not been given a proper trial, and in the third report made a strong argument in support of confirmation. That report was written by John P. Hale of New Hampshire. It reads more like a sharply written brief than like a carefully considered and judicially presented statement. It declared that the Clamorgan claim was a stronger one than the Supreme Court had upheld in the Perche-man case and met the standards the Court had applied in the Arredondo and Forbes cases. Since the tract was now covered with settlers it was assumed that the heirs or assignees would receive scrip in lieu of lands if they won the case.61 Glamorgan's heirs, who worked behind the scenes so discreetly that members of Congress were never able to discover who they were, were not through, despite the loss of their 61 Why Hale presented the statement to the Senate and presumably wrote it is difficult to understand. In any case, he was dropped from the Committee on Private Land Claims at the opening of the next session of the Senate. House Reports, 30th Cong., 1st sess., April 26, 1848, Vol. Ill, No. 506 (Serial No. 526); Senate Reports, 30th Cong., 2d sess., 1849, No. 328 (Serial No. 535); Senate Reports, 32d Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 28, 1852, Vol. II, No. 354 (Serial No. 631).