as may be submitted therewith, to this office, but if no appeal be filed at the expiration of sixty days from receipt of notice by the parties in interest, you will so notify this office, when the certificates referred to will be finally canceled and you notified accordingly. Very respectfully, UNITED STATES SURVEY ORGENERAL, New Crleans, La. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SIR: I have considered the questions arising upon the application for the issue of certificates of location under the act of June 2, 1858, in satisfaction of the alleged confirmed private land claim of Pierre Joseph Mais, in Louisiana, on appeal from your decision of December 14, 1876. The application is based upon the provision contained in the third section of the act of June 2, 1858, which reads as follows: "That in all cases of confirmation by this act, or where any private land claim has been confirmed by Congress, and the same, in whole or in part, has not been located or satisfied, either for want of a specific location prior to such confirmation, or for any reason whatsoever, other than a discovery of fraud in such claim subsequent to such confirmation, it shall be the duty of the surveyor general of the district in which such claim was situated, upon satisfactory proof that such claim has been so confirmed, and that the same, in whole or in part, remains unsatisfied, to issue to the claimant, or his. legal representatives, a certificate of location for a quantity of land equal to that so confirmed and unsatisfied." The claim of Mais was founded upon a complete French patent, and was presented to the board of land commissioners for the western district of Louisiana, acting under the provisions of an act of Congress, approved March 2, 1805, and was recognized and reported by the board. This action, however, was not necessary to protect the claim if the same was based upon a complete and perfect title, for in that case it did not require a confirmation by the Government of the United States. The decision of the board in favor of the claimant became final, as against the United States, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1807, and Congress has never taken action directly in the case. The action of Congress providing that the decision of the board of commissioners should be final, was not a confirmation of the claim by that body, as that term is used in the act of June 2, 1858. The terms of the latter statute make it necessary that a claim, to be recognized as confirmed, must have been one which required favorable action on the part of Congress, in order to fix its status. Under the act of April 18, 1814, a patent, no doubt, might have issued for the claim, but as it did not, and as it cannot be recognized as one confirmed by Congress, this department, in the absence of further remedial legislation, is unable to afford relief to the applicant. Your decision is, therefore, affirmed, and the papers transmitted with your letter of May 9, 1877, are herewith returned. Very respectfully, The COMMISSIONER GENERAL LAND OFFICE. A. BELL, DAVID C. HARDEE. Under the certificate of location, act of March 3, 1819, it is necessary for the claimant to establish the fact of settlement and cultivation of the claimed land prior to April 15, 1813, in order to secure the benefits of the act, and the local officers were empowered to require the production of satisfactory evidence upon this point. The Commissioner of the General Land Office has the power to supervise, approve, or reverse the action of the local officers in issuing certificates to claimants under this act. The act of June 2, 1858, was for the relief of those land claimants whose claims had been confirmed by Congress, and the third section of the act of March 3, 1819, expressly excepted from confirmation all settlement claims in conflict with prior confirmed grants. It is the duty of claimants to clearly show that a claim has been confirmed before scrip can issue. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SIR: I have considered the case of David C. Hardee vs. The United States, on appeal from your decision of April 9, 1877, approving the action of the surveyor general of Louisiana refusing to issue certificates of location to said Hardee as the legal representative of William Hatchell. The application was made under the provision of the third section of the act of Congress approved June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., p. 294), as follows: "That in all cases of con firmation by this act, or where any private land claim has been confirmed by Congress, and the same in whole or in part has not been located or satisfied, either for want of a specific location prior to such confirmation, or for any reason whatsoever other than a discovery of fraud in such claim subsequent to such confirmation, it shall be the duty of the surveyor general of the district in which such claim was situated, upon satisfactory proof that such claim has been so confirmed, and that the same, in whole or in part, remains unsatisfied, to issue to the claimant or his legal representatives a certificate of location for a quantity of land equal to that so confirmed and unsatisfied." The first section of the act of Congress approved April 25, 1812 (2 Stat., 713), entitled "An act for ascertaining the titles and claims to lands in that part of the Louisiana which lies east of the river Mississippi and island of New Orleans," provided for the appointment of a commissioner for land claims situated in the tract of country south of the Mississippi Territory, east of the Mississippi River, and west of Pearl River. It also provided for a commissioner for the tract between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers. The eighth section of the act provided, "That the said commissioners be, and they are hereby, authorized and required to collect, and report to Congress at their next session, a list of all the actual settlers on land in said districts, respectively, who have no claims to land derived either from the French, British, or Spanish Governments, and the time at which such settlements were made.' James O. Cosby was appointed commissioner for the tract of land between the Mississippi and Pearl Rivers. The records show that William Hatchell appeared before Commissioner Cosby and presented his claim for a tract of land, alleging settlement in the year 1810. His name was included in the list of actual settlers reported to Congress by the said commissioner June 7, 1813. (Am. State Papers, Public Lands, vol. 3, p. 64, Green's ed.) The third section of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1819, entitled "An act for adjusting the claims to land, and establishing land offices in the districts east of the island of New Orleans" (3 Stat., p. 528), is as follows: "And be it further enacted, That every person, or his or her legal representative, whose claim is comprised in the lists or register of claims reported by the said commissioners, and the persons embraced in the list of actual settlers or their legal representatives, not having any written eyidence of claim reported as aforesaid, shall, where it appears by the said reports or by the said lists that the land claimed or settled on had been actually inhabited or cultivated by such person or persons in whose right he claims, on or before the fifteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, be entitled to a grant for the land so claimed, or settled on, as a donation: Provided, That not more than one tract shall be thus granted to any one person, and the same shall not contain more than six hundred and forty acres, and that no lands shall be thus granted which are claimed or recognized by the preceding sections of this act." The twelfth section of the act is as follows: "And be it further enacted, That the books of the former commissioners in which the claims and evidence of claims are recorded shall be lodged with the registers of the land office for the respective districts; and the register and receiver of public moneys in each respective district shall have power to examine the claims recognized, confirmed, or provided to be granted by the provisions of this act, as also claims to the right of pre-emption, and they shall make out to each claimant entitled in their opinion thereto a certificate according to the nature of the case, under such instructions as they may receive from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and on presentation at the General Land Office of such certificate for a confirmed claim, or for a donation according to the provisions of this act, and where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office that the certificate has been fairly obtained, according to the true intent and meaning of this act, then and in that case a patent shall be granted, in like manner as for other lands of the United States." * * * On the 20th of March, 1819, the Commissioner of the General Land Office addressed the register at Saint Helena, La., as follows: "I also inclose a copy of the act of Congress (of 3d instant) under which you are appointed and which defines your duties. Section 3 confirms to certain persons 640 acres each, and grants a donation of 640 acres to such persons in said lists as the commissioners reported as actual settlers on April 15, 1813. Certificates of donation and patents (from this office) will issue for the claims confirmed by this section. The twelfth section also authorizes the register and receiver to examine the claims in said reports and grant certificates according to the nature of the cases." On the 22d of the same month the Commissioner addressed the register at Jackson Court-House, La., as follows: "Section 3 confirms to certain persons 640 acres each. This section blends lists or registers of claims with lists of actual settlers, and grants a donation of 640 acres to such persons in said lists as the commissioners reported as actual settlers on the 15th of April, 1813." This statement is explained by an examination of the list reported by Commissioner Cosby, in which appear the names of many west one mile; thence south one mile; thence east one mile, to the place of beginning. Your petitioner further shows that he has agreed with his adjoining claimants of land, and wishes the order of survey as above, and your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. "September 12, 1824. "ABRAHAM NESOM. [The lines between this claim and the claim of Brown proved by Mr. Kerbey.] The records before this department do not show that any further action was ever taken in this case. The claim was not surveyed, and no patent has issued for the same. There is no explanation why the survey was not made; no reason assigned for the apparent laches on the part of Hatchell or his immediate representatives in failing to press their claim for the term of years from 1824 to 1872, or 1858, the date of the remedial act. As it is a legal presumption that the officers of the government would perform their duty, is it not reasonable to conclude, in the absence of explanation to the contrary, that a sufficient reason exists why title has not been perfected? It would appear from the transcript of the original documents, now before this department, that the original petition of Hatchell to Commissioner Cosby was sufficient to satisfy that officer that his name should be reported in the list of actual settlers; but it has, I think, been established from the citations from the laws and the instructions that Congress did not deem that report, of itself, sufficient evidence upon which to found an unqualified grant. The evidence reported was no doubt submitted before the register and receiver at Saint Helena. At what date, however, is not stated. This inference is founded upon the fact that the words "land office" appear in connection with the same, and that in his petition for a survey, under the act of May 8, 1822, Hatchell states that he has obtained a certificate from Charles S. Carsbey for a claim of land, referring undoubtedly to Charles S. Cosby, register at the Saint Helena land office from the year 1819 to December 24, 1822, and before whom, no doubt, Hatchell appeared to make proof, as provided by the 12th section of the act of March 3, 1819. This evidence is indefinite, unsatisfactory, and unsupported; it fails to connect the tract upon which he claims to have settled with that described in his petition to Cosby. This is a defect, however, which might be cured by additional evidence, direct or circumstantial. In his petition for a survey, Hatchell describes the tract claimed as follow: "Beginning on a sectional line one quarter of a mile post that stands between himself and William Kirbey; thence running north on said line until it joins land of Parson Carter thence west one mile; thence south one mile; thence east one mile, to the place of beginning." In the original petition to Cosby we have the fact established that the tract claimed was situated on the waters of Sandy Creek, about 16 miles south of the line of demarkation, viz, the line between Mississippi and Louisiana. In the petition for a survey we have the fact established that the tract claimed was situated south of the land of Parson Carter in the parish of East Feliciana. With these facts before us, we turn to the plats of survey of that portion of the State on file in your office, and find located in the northern part of township 4 south, range 1 west about 18 miles (by survey) south of the line of demarkation mentioned by Hatchell, the claim of Parson Carter; we also find that a little south of said land the Big Sandy Creek is located. These facts establish with all reasonable certainty the location of the land claimed by Hatchell. We find that to follow the lines designated by Hatchell would locate his land in such a form as to conflict with other claims in whole, or at least with the greater portion thereof. The claims in question are those of heirs of Luther Smith, A. 95; Thomas Lilly & Co., A. 21; the heirs of Richard Swarey, A. 72; and V. S. Pintado, A. 110; and are found to be included in the report of James O. Cosby as claims founded on complete grants derived from either the French, British, or Spanish Governments, and confirmed by the first section of the act of March 3, 1819 (American State Papers, vol. 3, p. 35). It follows that the claim of Hatchell, being in conflict with these superior claims, was not confirmed, according to the terms of the third section of the act of March 3, 1819. These facts satisfactorily explain why the claim of Hatchell was not surveyed and patented many years ago. The officers of the government undoubtedly performed their duty, and ascertained at that time that the claim was not valid or confirmed. The question is now fairly presented to the department, what course should be pursued in cases of this character. The names of several hundred persons as actual settlers were reported to Congress by Commissioner James O. Cosby. Action, with reference to these claims, was taken by that body March 3, 1819, and May 1822, and a way provided by which titles might be perfected. It is a reasonable presumption that the parties interested prose "And where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office that the certificate has been fairly obtained, according to the true intent and meaning of the act, then and in that case a patent shall be granted," &c. Such has been the practice of the administration of the land laws, and it is recognized and enforced by the provisions of the first section of the act of July 4, 1836, reorganizing the General Land Office. Under date of June 20, 1872, the register and receiver at New Orleans issued the following certificate: “In pursuance of an act of Congress approved on the 3d March, 1819, entitled 'An act for adjusting the claims to land and establishing land offices in the districts east of the island of New Orleans,' we certify that William Hatchell, his heirs or legal representatives, are entitled to a section of land of 640 acres in the parish of Feliciana, and so reported by James O. Cosby in his report of actual settlers, dated 7th June, 1813, No. 213. (See American State Papers, vol. iii, page 64, Duff Green's edition.) From an examination of the original papers of the said claim, it appears that the confirmee claims under a settlement made by himself in the year 1810, and described as follows." No description of the tract, however, is given. The question, therefore, arises whether this certificate was properly issued. This question can only be answered by ascertaining: 1st. Whether William Hatchell was an actual settler upon a particular tract of land prior to April 15, 1813, as defined by the law and the instructions of the land department. 2d. If so, whether the land upon which it is alleged that the settlement was made was within the limits of a claim confirmed by the first and second sections of the act of March 3, 1819. These are questions of fact. The local officers state that "from an examination of the original papers of said claim it appears that the confirmee claims under a settlement made by himself in the year 1810." The original papers on file in the case are the petition and evidence of William Hatchell, in the following form: "To the commissioners of the land claims west of Pearl River and east of the Mississippi, north of the island of New Orleans: "The undersigned claims a tract or parcel of land by virtue of settlement made on the first of April, one thousand eight hundred and ten, which ever since and at this present has been kept in cultivation, about sixteen miles south of the line of demarkation on the waters of Sandy Creek, as witness whereof I set my name this 7th day of May, 1813. "WILLIAM HATCHELL. "SAMUEL LEE. "JAMES BROWN, Sr." GEORGE REDDEN vs. WILLIAM BROWN. LAND OFFICE. William Hatchell, a witness on the part of Redden, being sworn, saith: "I settled in the year 1810. I was at Mr. Liles' before I settled, and I asked Mr. Liles if he, Liles, knew of any vacant place where I could settle. He said he did. I asked him where it was. He said it lay above him on the creek, and was evacuated and vacant by the Spanish laws; it was the claim of William Liles alluded to. I told him there might be a dispute, and I would not settle on it, but Liles said it was vacant land." Cross-examined by BROWN: "I was not in the country when the place was settled." By REDDEN: "The place was grown over in briars and bushes. Mr. Liles had cultivated the place, as he stated to me, because he had not enough at home. his "WILLIAM + HATCHELL. mark. "WILLIAM RENCHER, R." There is also on file the petition of William Hatchell for a survey of the tract claimed by him, as follows: "To the register and receiver of the land claims at Saint Helena : "Your petitioner respectfully shows that he has obtained a certificate from Charles S. Carsbey for a claim of land situated in the parish of East Feliciana; your petitioner therefore pray that you grant an order of survey, as follows, to wit: Beginning on a sectional line one quarter of a mile post that stands between himself and William Kerbey; thence running north on said line until it joins land of Parson Carter; thence west one mile; thence south one mile; thence east one mile, to the place of beginning. Your petitioner further shows that he has agreed with his adjoining claimants of land, and wishes the order of survey as above, and your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. "September 12, 1824. "ABRAHAM NESOM. "WILLIAM HATCHELL. "WILLIAM KERBEY." [The lines between this claim and the claim of Brown proved by Mr. Kerbey.] The records before this department do not show that any further action was ever taken in this case. The claim was not surveyed, and no patent has issued for the same. There is no explanation why the survey was not made; no reason assigned for the apparent laches on the part of Hatchell or his immediate representatives in failing to press their claim for the term of years from 1824 to 1872, or 1858, the date of the remedial act. As it is a legal presumption that the officers of the government would perform their duty, is it not reasonable to conclude, in the absence of explanation to the contrary, that a sufficient reason exists why title has not been perfected? It would appear from the transcript of the original documents, now before this department, that the original petition of Hatchell to Commissioner Cosby was sufficient to satisfy that officer that his name should be reported in the list of actual settlers; but it has, I think, been established from the citations from the laws and the instructions that Congress did not deem that report, of itself, sufficient evidence upon which to found an unqualified grant. The evidence reported was no doubt submitted before the register and receiver at Saint Helena. At what date, however, is not stated. This inference is founded upon the fact that the words "land office" appear in connection with the same, and that in his petition for a survey, under the act of May 8, 1822, Hatchell states that he has obtained a certificate from Charles S. Carsbey for a claim of land, referring undoubtedly to Charles S. Cosby, register at the Saint Helena land office from the year 1819 to December 24, 1822, and before whom, no doubt, Hatchell appeared to make proof, as provided by the 12th section of the act of March 3, 1819. This evidence is indefinite, unsatisfactory, and unsupported; it fails to connect the tract upon which he claims to have settled with that described in his petition to Cosby. This is a defect, however, which might be cured by additional evidence, direct or circumstantial. In his petition for a survey, Hatchell describes the tract claimed as follow: "Beginning on a sectional line one quarter of a mile post that stands between himself and William Kirbey; thence running north on said line until it joins land of Parson Carter thence west one mile; thence south one mile; thence east one mile, to the place of beginning." In the original petition to Cosby we have the fact established that the tract claimed was situated on the waters of Sandy Creek, about 16 miles south of the line of demarkation, viz, the line between Mississippi and Louisiana. In the petition for a survey we have the fact established that the tract claimed was situated south of the land of Parson Carter in the parish of East Feliciana. With these facts before us, we turn to the plats of survey of that portion of the State on file in your office, and find located in the northern part of township 4 south, range 1 west about 18 miles (by survey) south of the line of demarkation mentioned by Hatchell, the claim of Parson Carter; we also find that a little south of said land the Big Sandy Creek is located. These facts establish with all reasonable certainty the location of the land claimed by Hatchell. We find that to follow the lines designated by Hatchell would locate his land in such a form as to conflict with other claims in whole, or at least with the greater portion thereof. The claims in question are those of heirs of Luther Smith, A. 95; Thomas Lilly & Co., A. 21; the heirs of Richard Swarey, A. 72; and V. S. Pintado, A. 110; and are found to be included in the report of James O. Cosby as claims founded on complete grants derived from either the French, British, or Spanish Governments, and confirmed by the first section of the act of March 3, 1819 (American State Papers, vol. 3, p. 35). It follows that the claim of Hatchell, being in conflict with these superior claims, was not confirmed, according to the terms of the third section of the act of March 3, 1819. These facts satisfactorily explain why the claim of Hatchell was not surveyed and patented many years ago. The officers of the government undoubtedly performed their duty, and ascertained at that time that the claim was not valid or confirmed. The question is now fairly presented to the department, what course should be pursued in cases of this character. The names of several hundred persons as actual settlers were reported to Congress by Commissioner James O. Cosby. Action, with reference to these claims, was taken by that body March 3, 1819, and May 8, 1822, and a way provided by which titles might be perfected. It is a reasonable presumption that the parties interested prose |