| OCR Text |
Show 108 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT must have been worried about the prospects of its being confirmed.64 The Chouteau and Mullanphy families now began to amass their political strength in an effort to secure confirmation, first through Congress and then through the courts. Their first attempt was unsuccessful, a Senate Committee on Private Land Claims reporting that it was an invalid claim.65 The Chouteau and Mullanphy combination had better luck next time. The Senate Committee on Private Land Claims, of which John Henderson of Mississippi was Chairman, held the claim to be good and valid and on June 3, 1884, reported a bill to provide for patenting it.66 The Senate remained unconvinced. The following January, Henderson returned to the fray with an equally strong report recommending that title be transferred to the claimants. In 1846 a third report from the Committee on Private Land Claims advocated patenting. But the same year the House Committee on Private Land Claims divided on the Dubuque claim, the majority being unfavorable to confirmation.67 Having failed to obtain confirmation from Congress, the claimants now resorted to the courts by bringing ejection suits against settlers who had purchased from the United States. The case reached the Supreme Court in the December session of 1853. The court virtually took the same stand as Gallatin and Lucas, maintaining that the only right 64 American State Papers, Public Lands, II, 454, 675. 65 S. Doc, 27th Cong., 2d sess., July 1, 1842, Vol. V, No. 341 (Serial No. 399); S. Doc, 28th Cong., 1st sess., June 3, 1844, Vol. VI, No. 350 (Serial No. 436), pp. 27-28; William J. Petersen, "Spanish Land Grants in Iowa," The Palimpsest, 47 (March 1966), 105 ff. 96 S. Doc, 28th Cong., 1st sess., June 3, 1844, Vol. VI, No. 350 (Serial No. 436), p. 13. 67 S. Doc, 28th Cong., 2d sess., Jan. 6, 1845, Vol. II, No. 20 (Serial No. 450) and S. Doc, 29th Cong., 1st sess., March 30, 1846, Vol. V, No. 256 (Serial No. 475), p. 26; House Reports, 29th Cong., 1st sess., March 14, Vol. II, No. 432 (Serial No. 489), May 11, 1846 and Vol. Ill, No. 675 (Serial No. 490). granted to Dubuque was a right to mine the land and occupy it.68 Thus, after two rejections by land boards, one of them strongly supported by the Secretary of the Treasury, two unfavorable reports and three favorable reports by Committees on Private Land Claims and a clear rejection by the Supreme Court, the case was put to rest. The Senate and House Committees on Private Land Claims spent an inordinate amount of time investigating cases that had earlier been rejected or confirmed for less acreages than the owners claimed. They drafted hundreds of reports, some in great detail, and recommended one of three steps: (1) legislation to authorize patenting of the claims, (2) rejection of the claim, which called for no further action, or (3) authorization for the claimant to try his title in the Federal courts. Between 1812 and 1861, 242 measures were adopted by Congress on the recommendation of these committees either approving patents of one or more claims each or allowing the owners to locate lands elsewhere if the tracts they claimed had been alienated by the government. Among the numerous private acts confirming claims in Missouri was one of 1814 authorizing a patent for 1,000 arpents to Daniel Boone. Private Land Claims in Five Southern States The experience of claimants to land in the area acquired from Spain in 1810, 1812, and 1819 was similar to that of the Missouri claimants. The early legislation, which was framed for both Missouri and Louisiana, provided for speedy confirmation of claims based on grants or orders of survey no larger than 800 acres and accompanied by evidence of habitation and improvement. Later measures relaxed requirements concerning age, head of family status, documentation, continuous habitation, and improvement, and increased the size of the grant to be confirmed. An early limita- 68 57 Stat. 203. |
