This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.

---

452
PUBLIC LANDS.
the territories ceded by the French republic to the United States, by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, the title whereof was, at the date of the treaty of St. Ildefonso, in the crown, Government, or nation of Spain, and every act and proceeding subsequent thereto, of whatsover nature, towards the obtaining any grant, title, or claim to such lands, and under whatsoever authority transacted or pretended, “ should be, and the same were thereby, declared to be, and to have been, from the beginning, null, void, and of no effect in law or equity.” Nor can it derive any relief from the equity of the provisoes contained in the said section, which require, first, that the grantee should be an actual settler upon the land so granted; secondly, that such grant should not secure to the grantee more than one mile square of land, together with such other and further quantity as therefore had been allowed for the wife and family of such actual settler, agreeably to the laws, usages, and customs of the Spanish Government. It jj further to be remarked, in relatioir to-the merits of this claim, first, that, from the date of the application for the purchase, the Spanish authorities jn Louisiana must have been apprized of the cession of -thff province bv Frtfnce " ty the U-nited-States, and could notvfn good faith, make granti of lands, and especially such excessive sales, after such knowledge; secondly, the title in form was not issued until the 20th June, 1804, more than fourteen months after Hie cession of the province, and six months after its actual delivery to the United States.
^No. 2/—This claim is founded on an order of survey issued by Governor Miro in favor of Louis Boisdore, con-^ firmed To his widow, Marguerite Daussin, by the Intendant Morales, 4th April, 1808. Although a map or conjecture plan of the limits of the above claim, made by the Surveyor General, Pintado, the 30th May, 1810, accompanies the title papers, yet it does not appear to be the result of an actual survey, nor to have been made with geometrical precision, but merely intended for the direction of such persons as might be employed to make the survey; no survey appears to have been made. This claim extends from the bay of St. Louis to the mouth of Pearl river, and is supposed to cover several hundred thousand acres.
No. 3.—This claim was recommended for confirmation by the former commissioner, William Crawford, Esq., «• will appear by reference to his report No. 6, claim No. 103, [see page 11] which report he was afterwards induced to alter, as appears by his letter, dated the 23d November, 1816, annexed to the record of the claim, in consequence of his belief “ that it was fraudulent, and ought to be rejected.” Although we have received no instructions from the General Land Office concerning the claim, yet the intimation conveyed by the annexation of Mr. Crawford’s letter was too strong to be disregarded, and we assumed the responsibility of refusing to grant a certificate of confirmation, and to consider the claim in the light of a rejected one, which might be revived, and additional evidence adduced in its support. The claim hath been revived, and additional evidence adduced, which amounts to a full proof of its inhabitation and cultivation according to the Spanish regulations; and the claimant disavows that his grant does, or ever was intended to, include Fort Charlotte or any of the public buildings. In order to obtain a full view of the raeritt of the claim, and more especially to ascertain whether it would actually encroach on the fort, and the other public grounds and lots in Mobile, we have deemed it advisable to direct the principal deputy surveyor, Silas Dinsmore, Esq., to make an accurate survey and plat of the said land; upon the return of which, we will make a supplemental and full report of the claim, accompanied by our opinion of its justice and validity.
Land Office, Jackson Court House, July 11, 1820.
W. BARTON, Register.
WM. BARNETT, Receiver.
Attest:	Jno.	Elliott,	Clerk.
No. 9.
Report on the conflicting claims of Joseph McCandless and Regis Bemody, both of whom claim the same of land, and in relation to whose claims the former commissioner reported favorably.
trad
Former com-mis»r’s report.	By whom claimed.	Original claimant.	Nature of claim, and	Date of claim.		Quantity claimed.		
No. of No. of report, claim.			from what authoritv deri ved.		Front.	Deep.	Area in arpents.	Are* i* acre**
3 48 1	Jos. McCandless	Charles Proffit,	Spa. permit or cer-tiPte from conrdt.	Nov. 28, 1811,	-	Unk	nown,	
10 11	Regis Bernody,	Joseph S. Mu-nora.	Grant lost by time or accident.	March 3, 1792,		"	600	
No. 9—Continued.
Former com- i missr’s report, j
No. of No. oj -.report, clai m
Where situated.
By whom issued.
Surveyed.
When.
Bv whom.
Cultivation and inbabitatkJB-^ From I- -
3 ; 48 iMobile bay, 10	11	; Mobile river.
Cayetano Perez, Carondelet,
-	| No survey,
-	| No survey,
October, 1812, 1809,
Report 3, claim 48.—The claim of Joseph McCandless is founded on the certificate of Cayetano Pere*, mandant of Mobile, dated the 28th November, 1811; a copy whereof is hereto annexed, which states “that tbe f ant General sent to him, for information, a memorial presented by Charles-Proffit, soliciting a tract of land at Point, and the tract of land above mentioned, which he had solicited at the time I. de Osorno was codidmh Mobile; which memorial, with the information required, said Perez returned to Pensacola to the Intendant. inchoate claim of Charles Proffit, (if it deserves the appellation,) on the 1st day of April, 1812, was transfoi said Profit to James Bready, who, on the 14th of the same month, transferred the same to the claimant* alleged by the claimant that the title papers under which he claims were destroyed by fire, which coawtfB records of Pinwcola in 1811; but it does not appear that any subsequent proceeding* had taken plv^.iPi1