quality and circumstances of the land; therefore, the Intendant could order, if he thought proper, that they appraise the same. (See Hampton's memorial, p. 25.)

On the 3d of August, 1798, in consequence of the above, the Intendant directed the lands to be appraised by Simon Ducorneau and Alexo Lesassier. The said Ducorneau and Lesassier, accordingly, appraised the land before a notary, describing it at about twenty four leagues from the city, and "that, considering that the said lands measure about twentynine arpens in front by upwards of four leagues in depth, they do appraise the same, after consultation and agreement between them, at the sum of twenty-four hundred dollars, the said land being now uninhabited, with out any buildings or improvements whatsoever thereon; which price they appraise it at, as the one which they consider it is worth, and no more." Thereupon, the following decree was made: "The present notary shall call on the printer, and, showing him the foregoing appraisement, he will cause him to publish in his Gazette a notice informing the public that the sale of said lands shall take place on the 13th instant, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, at this Intendant's house.

"MORALES."

The notary accordingly caused the following notice to be published in the Gazette of the 9th August, 1798:

"For sale: A land, of twenty-nine arpens in front, by about four leagues in depth, situated at twenty-four leagues from New Orleans," &c.

Ön folio 382, under date of the 6th of August, 1798, there appears the following decree: "Whereas the foregoing decree is to be executed only in case Evan Jones, commandant of Lafourche, should not have been able to sell said lands, let an order directed to him issue, containing the appraisement and this decree, directing him to proceed to the said sale, for cash, provided the price bidden for it be upwards of the two-thirds of the appraised value, there being no higher bidder, to pay the sum due for the making of the levee, causing the receipt thereof to be anuexed to the proceedings, which, together with the balance of the proceeds of said sale, shall be forwarded to this tribunal, and to give due notice before the thirteenth instant, conformably to what has been already decreed on this subject.

"JOHN VENTURA MORALES, "LICENTIATE SERRANO.”

It appears, however, that Commandant Jones had sold the land on the 12th of August, 1798; and it is worthy of special notice that, in his final act of sale, or title-paper to the purchaser, to complete his action, and the one upon which all the rights acquired by the purchaser depend, he describes the land sold by him "as measuring twenty-nine arpens in front by the depth which could be found." (Sen. Doc. No. 45, p. 17. See, also, translation annexed to Hampton's memorial, p. 26.)

Louis Faure having bid $1,650, more than two-thirds of the appraised value, and no person outbidding him, the said commandant adjudged the said land to Faure and his heirs forever, and signed the act of sale.

The next title paper produced before the board of commissioners is a conveyance by Faure to John W. Scott, dated 2d June, 1803. (See Span. ish copy, Senate Doc. No. 45, p. 18.) This describes the land as "a front of twenty nine arpens upon all the depth which can be found."

An agreement, under date 3d November, 1803, between John W. Scott and William Donaldson, was also produced, as per Spanish copy, p. 19, which describes the land with "a front of twenty-nine arpens, with all the depth which can be found."

2d. The Daniel Clarke tract.-The said Lafon, on the 25th September, 1805, alleging himself to be a surveyor commissioned by Governor Clai borne, as aforesaid, certified a plat and certificate of survey of this tract, conformably, as he says, to a survey made by Marrener, and to measurements which he, Lafon, had executed in November, 1804, upon the river Amite and environs of Galveston, which plat was composed of two parcels of land, one acquired from Marrener and the other from William Conway, in which he represents the river Amite and Iberville as the northern boundary of the tract, giving the length of the lower side line as three hundred and fifty-one arpens, and giving the upper as three hundred and eighty arpens. (See copy of certificate among the proceedings of the commissioners, Senate Doc. No. 45, page 13. See also plat C, hereunto annexed.)

Several conveyances were also laid before the board respecting this portion of the claim, which it becomes important to examine, so far as relates to the language employed in describing the depth of the grant.

1. Conveyance bearing date 14th December, 1785, from the proprietor, Maurice Conway, to Patrick Conway, of "ten arpens of front, with the depth which comprehends the title of the said lands." (Senate Doc. No. 45, page 14.)

2. Conveyance dated 17th March, 1802, from Patrick Conway to William Marrener, of "ten arpens of front, and the depth corresponding to the title granted by this government to Maurice Conway." (Senate Doc. No. 45, page 14.)

3. Conveyance dated 8th January, 1805, from William Marrener to Daniel Clarke, as "ten arpens front, with the depth according to the title of concession conferred by the late government to the late Maurice Conway." (Senate Doc. No. 45, page 15.)

4. Conveyance dated 11th June, 1805, William Conway to Daniel Clarke, of a portion of the land which he describes as "having ten arpens of face upon the river, bounded above by the lands of the buyer, and below by those of the seller, and extends in depth to the river Amite, sold according to the general title which is in the vendor, from having acquired it from Maurice Conway, by act of the 27th October, 1786." (See Senate Doc. No. 45, page 13.)

It will hereafter appear that the conveyance above referred to, from Maurice Conway to William Conway, was produced before the board in the proceedings in relation to the third tract, and that it does not claim to the Amite.

3d. The William Conway tract.-In this case, as in the two former, a plat and certificate of survey were produced before the commissioners, under the signature of Lafon, bearing date 20th February, 1806, in which certificate he alleges himself to be a deputy surveyor under Isaac Briggs, surveyor general of lands south of Tennessee.

The certificate of survey states that the plat conforms to surveys executed by Andry, surveyor, in March, 1804, and those which he, Lafon, made in December, 1803, and makes the front twenty-seven arpens, and the depth extending back to the river Amite and Lake Maurepas. (Senate Doc. No. 45, page 6. See also plat D, hereunto annexed.)

The petition of Maurice Conway, and the proceedings thereon, were also produced.

Pursuing the order adopted in reference to the other tracts, I will now proceed to examine the conveyances offered to the commissioners in sup port of this branch of the title.

1. Conveyance from Maurice Conway to William Conway, bearing date 27th October, 1786, by which he conveyed to said William "twentyseven arpens of front, more or less, with the depth according to the title of concession that his excellency Senor Count Galvez gave by his decree of the 21st June, 1777." By the same deed he also conveyed to said William eight arpens by forty in depth, acquired by transfer from the heirs of Landry, 18th October, 1776. (See Senate Doc. No. 45, page 10.)

2. Conveyance of Peter Part to William Conway, dated 27th March, 1791, by which he conveyed to said William, in exchange for other lan is, "five and a half arpens of front, by the depth of forty arpens.' (Senate Doc. No. 45, page 11.)

The only account I have been able to discover of the derivation of Part's title, is contained in the aforesaid certificate of Lafon, from which it appears that Conway claimed title to this portion of the lands included in the plat under a conveyance of Maurice Conway to one Oliver Pollock, which it appears had belonged successively to a Dr. Anderson and one Belsey alias Miro, who, having died, four and a half arpens in front by forty in depth had been purchased by Part from his testamentary executor, and exchanged with said Conway for other lands. It is by no means certain that this included the whole of the title vested in Pollock, as will be seen by a reference to the deed of Maurice Conway hereafter mentioned The only one of these conveyances produced before the commissioners in support of the claim to this tract, was the above-named deed of Part to Conway. The certificate also states, that William Conway claimed the rear lands as heir to his uncle. This is the substance of William Conway's title, according to the certificate under which he claimed the whole lands. described in the plat.

In addition to the conveyances laid before the commissioners, I find, among the papers annexed to the memorial of the heirs of Wade Hamp ton, a Spanish copy of a deed by Maurice Conway to Oliver Pollock, bearing date March 5, 1778, which conveys "thirty-six arpens front, and the depth as far as the lake." (See Hampton's memorial, p 21.)

Annexed to the memorial aforesaid is also a mortgage by William Conway, describing himself as heir of Maurice Conway, to Oliver Pollock, bearing date February 5, 1795, in which he describes the lauds mortgaged as "thirty arpens of front, and depth as far as the lake." (p. 23.)

There is also among the papers transmitted from the General Land Of fice what purports to be a Spanish copy of a conveyance or mortgage by William Conway to John Joyce, dated April 7, 1798, in which he describes the lands mortgaged as "thirty arpens of front, and the depth as far as the lake."

The commissioners appointed in pursuance of the act of the 2d March, 1805, and possessing no other authority than what is conferred upon them by its provisions, confirmed these claims. The decisions on the Conway and Clarke claims bear date respectively on the 3d March, 1806, and the decision on the Donaldson and Scott claim on the 10th of the same month.

The following is that on the Donaldson and Scott claim:

"William Donaldson and John W. Scott claim a tract of land situated in the county of Acadia, on the left bank of the Mississippi, about twentytwo leagues above the city of New Orleans, containing twenty nine acres in front, with the depth to the river Amite, bounded on the upper side by land of one Simonet, and on the lower by land of Daniel Clarke It ap: pearing to the board, from an instrument of writing exhibited, that said land was sold at public auction on the 12th day of August, 1798, before Evan Jones, at that time commandant of Lafourche, to Louis Faure, and it appearing, from sundry deeds of conveyance, likewise exhibited, that said land has become the property of the present claimant, the board do hereby confirm his said claim."

The other two are so nearly similar that it is considered unnecessary to give them. (Senate Doc. No. 45, pp. 12, 16, 21.)

These decisions were made before one of the commissioners became a member of the board, and, as far as he was authorized to do so, he dissented from them. (Senate Doc. No. 45, p. 6.)

Passing over, for the present, the consideration of the various acts of Congress subsequent to the decisions, it only remains, in order to exhibit a summary view of the case, to trace, as briefly as is consistent with a proper understanding of the subject, the action of the executive department of the government in relation to the claim, and especially of the General Land Office, and to examine into the circumstances under which the patents were issued, with the sole purpose of forming an opinion as to the legality of the authority assumed in granting them. In order to a better understanding of the subsequent proceedings, it is proper to remark, that the first two parcels above named were purchased by the late General Hampton, of South Carolina, prior to the issuing of the patents, and now appear to be claimed in common by Messrs. Preston and Manning, in right of their respective wives, who were the daughters of said Hampton. The grantees of the Conway tract have also, as it would seem, conveyed their interest, which is now claimed by Mr. Rightor and others. No opportunity has been afforded to examine either of these conveyances.

On the 14th January, 1829, James P. Turner, then surveyor general, addressed a communication to Mr. Graham, Cominissioner of the General Land Office, euclosing to him a rough plat of the tract claimed, showing its locality and extent, and that it interfered in part with other grants by the Spanish government, in which he says, that "the Spanish govern. ment did (previously and subsequent to the date of this grant) make other grants to a number of individuals within the limits now pretended to be covered by the grant of Conway; and further, I believe it will not be denied that there never was any pretensions made for the present extent of the claim, until after the right of the land in question became vested in the United States. And there is still another reason why this grant cannot be extended to the Amite river; that is, the petition of Conway, the decree of the governor, nor the proceedings of the surveyor, call for nor exhibit no such boundary; and it is a fact well known, that it was the custom of the Spanish surveyors, in all cases where the grant called for specified boundaries, to exhibit such boundaries in their plat of survey. He also suggests that, if governed by the customs of the Spanish government, which he presumed could alone be the guide, he should commence at a certain point, run General Hampton "off such depth as would carry us back ou the upper line, until it will intersect an older grant marked B,

which appears to be strictly conformable to the decree of the Spanish gov ernor, although this will not give the claim a depth of eighty arpeus on the upper line, which I believe it was designed to have if found to be va cant." And he requests instructions. (Senate Doc No. 45, p 24.)

To this letter Mr. Graham replied on the 17th February, 1829, and expresses the opinion that the grant is so vague in its terms, as to boundary and quantity, that it will be necessary for the courts of justice to inter. fere, for the purpose of defining and desiguating both; and that it is impossible the courts can sanction the boundaries as claimed. He says "the object and purpose for which the grant was asked and obtained will, therefore, be the leading considerations on which the courts will probably decide the question; and, in so deciding, they possibly may limit the grant either to the limits of the survey actually made by Louis Andry, or to the termination of eighty arpens, the usual extent granted when the front grant was deficient in timber or otherwise; or to the distance of one and a half league, as required in the petition. Should the court assume any of these limits, facis and circumstances may possibly occur, in the investigation of the subject, that may induce it (the court) to extend the back line so as to be equidistant from any part of the river. If, therefore, in making your surveys, you assume this limitation (to wit, a league and a half) as the extent of the grant to Maurice Conway, dated the 21st June, 1777, I think that we shall have given full scope for the court to exercise its discretion; and if the grant can be so adjudged as to exceed those limits, then it must extend to the utmost boundary of Louisiana, as they existed at the date of the grant, and to which the two described lines can be extended." He further states that the decision of the commissioners can only be considered as recognising the validity of the grant as a complete title, and not as confirming any other lands than those included in its terms; and directs the surveyor general, in laying down the tracts on his plat, to designate the boundaries as far as Andry surveyed by black lines, as also the confirmed claims interfering with it, and to delineate the residue of the tract by dotted lines. (Senate Doc. No. 45, p. 26.)

Mr. Graham having thus decided that a league and a half in depth was not open to entry, and given directions accordingly, the lands in the rear, between that and the Amite river, seem to have been treated as public lands, and numerous sales of them were made at the district land office. The views of Mr. Brown, the successor of Mr. Graham, are also very clearly stated in his letter of the 17th June, 1836, addressed to the regis ter at New Orleans. This communication appears to have been prepared in consequence of one received from Mr. Preston, wherein he ap plied for a patent; or in case one should not be issued, he requested that the lands within the limits of the claim should be withheld from sale, and that patents should not be issued for the parcels sold. Responsive to these requests, as it would seem, Mr. Brown says to the register, "that although this office cannot recognise the claim as confirmed, under any circumstances, to the extent contended for by the parties interested, yet, as as the law prohibits the sale of any lands to which a claim was filed in due time ***, the sale of any portion of the land within the limits claimed

is unauthorized." He therefore instructs him to withhold all lands within the lines claimed from cutry, and to send an abstract of the sales made, that the issuing of patents may be prevented; and directs him,