Claims to Land and the Opinions of the Recorder of Land Titles

The Board of Revision finished its work in January 1812 and sent its final report to the Secretary of the Treasury in the hands of Clement Penrose, one of the commissioners (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 218; Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 538). In addition to delivering the report, Penrose offered a classification of the claims that were not approved and included his personal recommendations. He acknowledged that there were claims that lacked merit and should never be confirmed, but that many claims, although not meeting the requirements of the existing legislation, did have merit and in all justice should be approved by some future legislation. His classification of claims and recommendations along with the classification of claims prepared by the clerk of the Board of Revision were presented to Congress in April 1812 (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 377).

Congress considered the recommendations and consequently passed the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, An Act making further provision for settling the claims to land in the territory of Missouri (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 748)(The Territory of Louisiana had been renamed the Territory of Missouri by the Act of June 4, 1812, chapter 95, An Act providing for the government of the territory of Missouri, U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 743).

Section one of the act confirmed to the inhabitants of the respective towns or villages the rights, titles and claims to town or village lots, out lots, common field lots and commons that had been inhabited, cultivated or possessed before December 20, 1803. The towns and villages recognized as existing prior to that date and to which the act applied were Portage des Sioux, St. Charles, St. Louis, St. Ferdinand, Village á Robert, Carondelet, Ste. Genevieve, New Madrid, New Bourbon, Little Prairie and Arkansas in the Territory of Missouri (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 379). The out boundary of each town or village, including the out lots, common field lots and commons, were to be surveyed by the principal deputy surveyor.

Section three of the act confirmed certain claims based on settlement and cultivation that had not been approved by the Board of Revision. Included were those claims in which permission to settle from the proper Spanish officer had not been proven and those claims that had been inhabited on December 20, 1803, but had not yet been cultivated. These claims were confirmed where it could be shown that they were inhabited by the claimant or someone on behalf of the claimant before December 20, 1803 and the land had been cultivated in 8 months after that date. In addition, those claims that had not been confirmed merely because they exceeded 800 arpents were confirmed to the extent of 800 arpents.

Section four of the act directed the recorder of land titles to examine the records of the Board of Revision and make a list of all of the claims that qualified for confirmation by the preceding section three. The completed list was to be sent to the Commissioner of the General Land Office (which had been created by the Act of April 25, 1812, chapter 68, U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 716) and sufficient information was to be provided to the principal deputy surveyor so that a boundary survey could be performed. Upon completion and return of the survey to the recorder of land titles, a certificate was to be issued with which a patent could be obtained.

Section seven of the act allowed an additional opportunity to provide written notice and evidence for claims that had not yet been filed with the recorder of land titles. Claimants had to be actual settlers on the land that they claimed. The deadline for filing was set for December 1, 1812.

Section eight of the act gave the recorder of land titles the authority to perform the same functions as the Board of Commissioners in examining evidence and rendering a decision on all those claims that were authorized to be filed by the preceding section seven along with any claims that had previously been filed, but not decided upon by the Board of Revision. All of the decisions of the recorder of land titles were subject to revision by Congress. Upon completion of the work, the recorder of land titles was to submit a report to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, detailing the evidence presented for each claim and his recommendations as to which should be confirmed. The report would then be presented to Congress for their final determination. The recorder of land titles would be paid fifty (50) cents for each claim examined and decided upon and an additional five hundred (500) dollars to be paid after the submission of his report.

Frederick Bates completed his list of claims that satisfied the requirements for confirmation as set out in the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, and sent it to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Edward Tiffin, on November 20, 1812 (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 607).

For those that had filed notice of a claim with the recorder of land titles, but had not yet presented any testimony or written evidence to support their claim, more time was allowed by the Act of March 3, 1813, chapter 44, An Act allowing further time for delivering the evidence in support of claims to land in the territory of Missouri, and for regulating the donation grants therein (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 812). The new deadline was set for January 1, 1814 and the recorder of land titles was to handle these claims in the same manner as directed by the previous Act of Congress.

In addition, section four of this act granted 640 acres to all settlement right claims that had previously been confirmed for a quantity less than 640 acres. However, this provision did not apply to those claims in which the acknowledged and ascertained boundaries of the tract claimed were less than 640 acres. These “donation grants” were to be surveyed by the principal deputy surveyor.

Communication regarding these new developments in Congress was slow to reach the District of Arkansas in the southern part of the Territory of Missouri. According to Henry Cassidy, notice of the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, was not received in the District of Arkansas until about October 20, 1812. He promptly left Arkansas on October 29, 1812 with about fifty (50) claims that he was authorized to have filed with the recorder of land titles. He was accompanied by five others until they reached a crossing of the St. Francis River, which was flooded and impassable as a result of damage done by the recent earthquakes. His companions turned back, but Mr. Cassidy continued on alone. Sickness and bad weather delayed his arrival at the mouth of the St. Francis River until December 7, 1812, already too late to make the December 1, 1812 deadline. He managed to reach the District of New Madrid by water and then proceeded to St. Louis by land. He gave a deposition of his difficulties at St. Louis on January 23, 1813 with a plea for some provision to accept the claims that he had delivered from the District of Arkansas (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 623).

Congress recognized the difficulties of the claimants living in the District of Arkansas and passed the Act of August 2, 1813, chapter 59, An Act giving further time for registering claims to lands in the late district of Arkansaw, in the territory of Missouri, and for other purposes (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 3, pg 86). The time for filing notice and written evidence of claims was extended to January 1, 1814 and the recorder of land titles was to handle these claims in the same manner as directed by previous acts of Congress. This act also allowed claimants until July 1, 1814 to provide testimony for any claims that had already been filed under former acts of Congress.

Upon further examination of claims that had been previously rejected by the Board of Revision, Congress made provision for the confirmation of additional classes of claims by passing the Act of April 12, 1814, chapter 52, An Act for the final adjustment of land titles in the State of Louisiana and territory of Missouri (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 3, pg 121).

Section one of the act confirmed those claims that were based on an incomplete French or Spanish grant or concession, warrant or order of survey that were granted before March 10, 1804, where the claimant was actually resident in the territory at the time of the grant. The concession, warrant or order of survey had to be for a specific location or the tract had to have actually been located or surveyed before March 10, 1804 by a surveyor duly authorized by the government making the grant. No claim that had been previously determined to be antedated or otherwise fraudulent would be confirmed under this section. The claim was limited in size to one league square and those claiming under settlement right were not eligible. Confirmations under this section could not interfere with claims that had already been confirmed by the Board of Revision.

Section two of the act confirmed those claims based on settlement right that had previously been rejected for not having been inhabited on December 20, 1803.

Section three of the act directed the recorder of land titles to make out an order of survey to the principal deputy surveyor for each tract confirmed by this act that had not been previously surveyed. The recorder of land titles was to provide the principal deputy surveyor a proper description of the tract with the quantity, locality, boundaries and connection to other tracts. When the survey was completed, the recorder of land titles was to issue a confirmation certificate with which a patent could be obtained from the General Land Office. The recorder of land titles was entitled to charge the claimant one dollar and fifty cents for an order of survey and certificate and one dollar for a certificate without an order of survey.

Section four of the act required the principal deputy surveyor to perform the ordered surveys at the expense of the claimants. Completed plats were to be sent to the recorder of land titles and the Surveyor General of the United States, who would then forward a copy to the commissioner of the General Land Office.

For those who had occupied a tract of land not claimed by anyone else and who had continued to actually inhabit and cultivate it, section five of the act allowed the right of pre-emption in the purchase of the tract.

Frederick Bates notified the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Josiah Meigs, in a letter, dated March 30, 1815, that he was hard at work on a comprehensive report addressing all of the requirements of the several successive acts of Congress. Each act required additional work to be done and the records that had to be reviewed were quite voluminous and tedious. He hoped to submit the final report in the summer or fall of that year (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 21).

Frederick Bates further corresponded with Josiah Meigs in July and August 1815, expressing some uncertainty about the claims intended to be confirmed by the Act of April 12, 1814, chapter 52, and the principles of selection that should be applied. He had enlisted the help of Bartholomew Cousin from Cape Girardeau as a clerk and translator of foreign languages and expected to complete the final report by November 1, 1815 (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 65, 75, 77, 82).

Frederick Bates had not yet completed his comprehensive report, but he made a submission to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, dated November 1, 1815, concerning a general notice to the recorder of land titles for 312 claims submitted by William Russell on November 30, 1812. Russell had managed to obtain a conveyance from each of the original claimants, whose claims appeared to be based on possession, inhabitation and cultivation. The report identified only 30 claims with appropriate evidence of ownership. Of those 30 claims, twenty-one (21) claims were approved for 640 acres, one claim was approved for 600 arpents and one claim was approved for 700 arpents. The remaining seven claims were rejected. Ownership was not proven for two hundred seventy-two (272) of the claims and 10 claims were abandoned by Russell (ASP:PL Vol. 3, pg 325).

Frederick Bates personally delivered to the Commissioner of the General Land Office his comprehensive final report, dating it February 2, 1816 at Washington City (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 119; ASP:PL Vol. 3, pg 274).

The first section of the report listed 586 claims to town or village lots, out lots, common field lots and commons that had been rejected by the Board of Revision, but were recommended for confirmation under the first section of the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99.

A boundary survey, dated December 11, 1799, of a lot in the Village of St. Charles.
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Archives, Missouri Digital Heritage)

The second section of the report listed 236 claims based on settlement right that had been approved by the Board of Revision for a quantity less than was claimed and less than 640 acres. For example, William T. Lamme claimed 950 arpents (about 808 acres) of land under Jean Marie Cardinal and was approved for only 300 arpents by the Board of Revision under certificate number 758. These claims were recommended for confirmation to the extent of 640 acres under the fourth section of the Act of March 3, 1813, chapter 44.

A boundary survey, dated February 10, 1806, of a tract of 950 arpents (about 808 acres) claimed by William T. Lamme under Jean Marie Cardinal as a settlement right. The Board of Revision approved this claim, but only for 300 arpents (about 255 acres). The Act of March 3, 1813, chapter 44, extended the confirmation to 640 acres.
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Archives, Missouri Digital Heritage)

The third section of the report listed 384 claims based on concessions and orders or warrants of survey that were recommended for confirmation under the first section of the Act of April 12, 1814, chapter 52.

A boundary survey, dated February 25, 1798, of a tract of 1251 arpents (about 1064 acres) conceded to Pascal Detchmendy by the Commandant of the Village of New Bourbon.  The Board of Revision rejected this claim, but it was later confirmed under the provisions of the Act of April 12, 1814, chapter 52.
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Archives, Missouri Digital Heritage)

The fourth section of the report listed 517 claims based on settlement right that were recommended for confirmation under the various provisions of the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, the Act of March 3, 1813, chapter 44, the Act of August 2, 1813, chapter 59, and the Act of April 12, 1814, chapter 52.

The fifth section of the report listed 476 claims based on settlement right that were rejected by the Recorder of Land Titles and not recommended for approval.

The sixth section of the report listed 27 claims based on concessions and orders or warrants of survey that were rejected by the Recorder of Land Titles and not recommended for approval.

All of the claims in the two reports of Frederick Bates that were recommended for approval were confirmed by the second section of the Act of April 29, 1816, chapter 159, An Act for the confirmation of certain claims to land in the western district of the state of Louisiana and in the territory of Missouri (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 3, pg 328). The third section of the act further provided that any confirmed claim that had not yet been issued a patent was to receive a certificate after the claim had been located and surveyed from which a patent could be obtained.

SOURCES

Marshall, Thomas Maitland, The Life and Papers of Frederick Bates, Missouri Historical Society, 1926

American State Papers: Public Lands (ASP:PL)

The Territorial Papers of the United States, compiled by Clarence Edwin Carter, 1948

U. S. Statutes at Large

----------------------------------------

original composition by Steven E. Weible

Daniel Boone's Claim to Land in Upper Louisiana

By 1798 Daniel Boone was in the latter years of his life. He had pursued some wild adventures, suffered some devastating losses and was perhaps looking for a new start in a new place. At about that same time the Spanish began encouraging Americans with families to come settle in Upper Louisiana. They were offering generous grants of land to those willing to make improvements and cultivate the land (Stoddard, pg 249; ASP:PL, Vol. 6, pg 712). In fact, Spanish Lieutenant Governor Don Zenon Trudeau had in September 1797 conceded a tract of land of 600 arpents (about 510 acres) to one of Daniel Boone’s sons, Daniel Morgan Boone. Trudeau extended an invitation to Boone as well to bring his family to Upper Louisiana, promising a grant of land.

Boundary survey, dated December 25, 1799, of 600 arpents
conceded to Daniel Morgan Boone on September 1, 1797
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Archives, Missouri Digital Heritage)

On January 24, 1798, Trudeau conceded to Daniel Boone a tract of land of 1000 arpents (about 850 acres) adjoining the tract previously conceded to his son in the district of the Femme Osage on the Missouri River near present day Matson and Defiance in St. Charles County (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 396). Daniel Morgan Boone’s tract was surveyed on December 25, 1799 and Daniel Boone’s tract was surveyed on December 26, 1799. Both were recorded in the Registre d’Arpentage by Antoine Soulard on January 9, 1800. Adjoining tracts had been previously conceded to David Darst Senior for 600 arpents, David Darst Junior for 264 arpents and John Linsay for 500 arpents.

Boundary survey, dated December 26, 1799, of 1000 arpents
conceded to Daniel Boone on January 24, 1798
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Archives, Missouri Digital Heritage)

When Daniel Boone arrived in Upper Louisiana, he and his lady took up residence with Daniel Morgan Boone on the adjoining tract of land. On July 11, 1800, Daniel Boone was commissioned as commandant of the district of Femme Osage by Spanish Lieutenant Governor Don Charles Dehault Delassus, who had succeeded Trudeau in 1799. Since the Spanish regulations required that a settler establish himself within one year, Daniel Boone inquired with Delassus about this necessity. Delassus advised him that, since he was serving as commandant of the district, the requirements did not apply to him. Daniel Boone continued to live with Daniel Morgan Boone until he later moved to the home of a younger son, Nathan Boone (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 396).

After the United States had acquired Upper Louisiana in 1803 and taken possession of it in 1804, Daniel Boone filed notice of his claim with the recorder of land titles for the district of Louisiana as directed by the Act of March 2, 1805, chapter 26, An act for ascertaining and adjusting the titles and claims to land, within the territory of Orleans, and the district of Louisiana (U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 324). Evidence and testimony for his claim were presented to the first Board of Commissioners on February 13, 1806. At that time Boone was said to be about seventy (70) years old and his wife about sixty-eight (68) (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 396).

The first Board of Commissioners ultimately failed to finish its business, so Boone’s claim was not decided upon until it was examined by the Board of Revision. On December 1, 1809, John B. C. Lucas, Clement B. Penrose and Recorder of Land Titles, Frederick Bates, rendered the following decision: “It is the opinion of the Board that this claim ought not to be confirmed ” (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 396).

Daniel Morgan Boone’s claim for the 600 arpents conceded to him was approved under commissioners’ certificate number 20 on December 13, 1808. David Darst Senior’s claim for the 600 arpents conceded to him was approved under commissioners’ certificate number 18 on the same date. John Linsay’s claim for the 500 arpents conceded to him was approved under commissioners’ certificate number 59 on December 22, 1808 (ASP:PL, Vol. 2, pg 563-564). David Darst Junior’s claim for the 264 arpents conceded to him, however, was not approved by the Board of Revision. In testimony it was noted that he was crippled, a minor and did not reside on the tract, but with his father, Daivd Darst Senior (ASP:PL, Vol. 2, pg 396).

Daniel Boone was not satisfied with the decision of the Board of Revision, so he appealed directly to the United States Congress with the following petition (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 5):

To the Senate and Representatives of the citizens of the United States in Congress assembled. The petition of Daniel Boone, at present an inhabitant of the territory of Louisiana, respectfully showeth:

That your petitioner has spent a long life in exploring the wilds of North America; and has, by his own personal exertions, been greatly instrumental in opening the road to civilization in the immense territories now attached to the United States, and, in some instances, matured into independent States.

An ardent thirst for discovery, united with a desire to benefit a rising family, has impelled him to encounter the numerous hardships, privations, difficulties, and dangers to which he has unavoidably been exposed. How far his desire for discovery has been extended, and what consequences have resulted from his labors, are, at this time, unnecessary to detail.

But, while your petitioner has thus opened the way to thousands, to countries possessed of every natural advantage, and although he may have gratified to excess his thirst for discovery, he has to lament that he has not derived those personal advantages which his exertions would seem to have merited. He has secured but a scanty portion of that immeasurable territory over which his discoveries have extended, and his family have reason to regret that their interest had not been more the great object of his discoveries.

Your petitioner has nothing to demand from the justice of his country, but he respectfully suggests, that it might be deemed an act of grateful benevolence, if his country, amidst their bounties, would so far gratify his last wish, as to grant him some reasonable portion of land within the territory of Louisiana.

He is the more induced to this request, as the favorite pittance of soil to which he conceived he had acquired a title, under the Spanish Government, has been wrested from him by a construction of the existing laws not in his contemplation, and beyond his foresight. Your petitioner is not disposed to murmur or complain; but conscious of the value and extent of his services, he solicits some evidence of their liberality.

He approaches the august assemblage of his fellow-citizens with a confidence inspired by that spirit which has led him so often to the deep recesses of the wilds of America; and he flatters himself that he with his family will be induced to acknowledge that the United States knows how to appreciate and encourage the efforts of her citizens, in enterprises of magnitude, from which proportionate public good may be derived.

   DANIEL BOONE

Boone’s petition was referred to committee in the U.S. Senate and, subsequently, presented to the full Senate on January 12, 1810 (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 5). The committee recognized Daniel Boone’s meritorious contributions and the benefit to the United States, thus recommending a bill for his relief. The Senate, however, delayed addressing the petition, since the Board of Revision had not yet submitted its final report and would not do so until January 1812.

On December 10, 1813 the chairman of the committee on public lands in the U.S. House of Representatives requested information about the claim of Daniel Boone from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Edward Tiffin, who forwarded the information on December 13, 1813 (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 718). A report from the committee was subsequently submitted to the House of Representatives on December 24, 1813. The committee surmised that since the Act of March 2, 1805, chapter 26, required actual settlement and cultivation for confirmation and that Daniel Boone made no claim to have actually settled and cultivated the land, the Board of Revision must have rejected the claim on that deficiency alone. The claim appeared to be good in all other respects. The committee observed that “the petitioner is in his old age, and has, in early life, rendered to his country arduous and useful services; and ought not, therefore, to be deprived of this remaining resource by a rigorous execution of a provision of our statute, designed to prevent frauds on the Government.” The committee recommended that Daniel Boone be confirmed in his title to one thousand arpents of land in the Femme Osage district granted to him by the Spanish Government (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 736).

Daniel Boone was ultimately granted relief by the special Act of Congress of February 10, 1814, chapter 10 (U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 6, pg 127), which reads as follows:

Be it enacted, &c. That Daniel Boone be, and he is hereby confirmed in his title to one thousand arpens of land, claimed by him by virtue of a concession made to him under the Spanish government, bearing date the twenty-eighth day of January, 1798, and it shall be the duty of the recorder of land titles for the territory of Missouri, to issue to the said Daniel Boone, or to his heirs, a certificate in the same manner, and of the same description, as the said Daniel Boone would have been entitled to receive, if his claim to the said land had been confirmed by the commissioners appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the rights of persons claiming land in the territory of Louisiana, or by the recorder of lands titles for the said territory of Missouri.

Partial General Land Office plat, showing the relative situation of
tracts confirmed to Daniel Boone, Daniel Morgan Boone,
David Darst Senior and David Darst Junior
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Land Survey)

SOURCES

American State Papers: Public Lands (ASP:PL)

Stoddard, Major Amos, Sketches, Historical and Descriptive, of Louisiana, 1812

The Territorial Papers of the United States, compiled by Clarence Edwin Carter, 1948

U. S. Statutes at Large

----------------------------------------

original composition by Steven E. Weible

Some thoughts on Genesis chapters 37 & 39

The narrative about Joseph in Genesis chapters 37 and 39 brings up some interesting concerns. Joseph seemed to be a good guy, doing the right things, honoring God, and, yet, all of these bad things were happening. Of course, we know what happens in the end, but up to the end of chapter 39 things just seem to keep getting worse for Joseph. His brothers were jealous and hated him (Genesis 37:4, 5, 8, 11) and wanted to kill him (Genesis 37:18, 20). They opted, however, not to kill him outright, but to leave him to die in a cistern (Genesis 37:24). Opportunism won out, though, and Joseph was sold as a slave to the Ishmaelite/Midianite merchants (Genesis 37:28). Joseph was taken to Egypt and was sold to Potiphar, the captain of the guard (Genesis 39:1). Things began to look up for Joseph and he prospered (Genesis 39:2-6). He was promoted by Potiphar and he excelled at all that he did. But then Potiphar's wife lusted after Joseph and tempted him (Genesis 39:7). When Joseph refused her advances and she could not get what she wanted, she lied about him to strike back at him (Genesis 39:13-18). Potiphar believed his wife's lies and put Joseph in prison (Genesis 39:19-20). Even though Joseph was in prison, the LORD blessed him and Joseph prospered even there (Genesis 39:20-23). He was promoted from a mere prisoner to the prison warden's operations manager and he excelled at all that he did.

Now, here is the interesting thing in this narrative.

Did God make these bad things happen to Joseph or, at least, allow them to happen? Well, what do the scriptures say that God did? When Joseph was sold as a slave, the LORD was with Joseph and he prospered (Genesis 39:2). The LORD was with him and gave him success in everything he did (Genesis 39:3). The LORD blessed the household of the Egyptian because of Joseph. The blessing of the LORD was on everything Potiphar had, both in the house and in the field (Genesis 39:5). While Joseph was in the prison, the LORD was with him; he showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden (Genesis 39:20-21). The LORD was with Joseph and gave him success in whatever he did (Genesis 39:23). All that is attributed to the LORD appears to me to be good things.

So where do all of these bad things come from? Well, let's see. Jacob loved Joseph more than any of his other sons (Genesis 37:3). That is, Jacob showed favoritism. As a result, Joseph's brothers hated him and could not speak a kind word to him (Genesis 37:4). A choice made by the father, caused a reaction in the other sons. They chose to hate Joseph. When Joseph had the dreams and told his brothers about them, his brothers recognized the implications of the dreams and were jealous and hated him all the more (Genesis 37:5, 8, 11). Now, Joseph may not be completely innocent in this situation, because he surely recognized the implications of the dreams, too, and may have been less than humble in the telling of them, being seventeen and second from the youngest of the brothers. So, his own choices may have played a part in the eventual outcome. The brothers then plotted to kill him (Genesis 37:18). First, they planned to kill him and discard his body in a cistern (Genesis 37:20). Then Reuben convinced them to just throw Joseph in the cistern alive (Genesis 37:21-22). Of course, Reuben may have had his own selfish motives, since he had fallen out of favor with his father (Genesis 35:22). Ultimately, the brothers decided to sell Joseph as a slave (Genesis 37:26-27). "What will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? ... after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood." I'm sure the twenty shekels of silver soothed their guilty consciences. To cover up their deed they fabricated a lie for their father (Genesis 37:31-32). In Egypt, when the situation began to improve for Joseph, Potiphar's wife sought to satisfy her own lust (Genesis 39:7). When Joseph remained steadfast in his integrity and refused her advances, she chose to strike back with an elaborate lie, knowing that nothing good could come from it for Joseph (Genesis 39:13-18). And so, Joseph ended up in prison.

Again, where do all of these bad things come from? Certainly, the bad things that happened to Joseph did not come from God. As we can see from the scriptures, God blessed a faithful Joseph and showed him kindness in the midst of the bad things happening. What God did do, however, was give all human beings a free will and the responsibility to make their own choices. Unfortunately, our choices as human beings are often influenced by our own self-interest to the detriment of others. Our choices are our own, though, and we cannot blame God for the choices that we make ourselves or for the choices that other people make. And so, it appears to me that all of the bad things that happened to Joseph were the result of choices made by others and perhaps some of his own choices. Jacob showed favoritism. His brothers were jealous and chose to hate Joseph. They chose to do harm to Joseph to be rid of him and eventually sold him as a slave. Potiphar's wife chose to pursue her own lust and when she was not satisfied, she chose to lie. And so, Joseph ended up a slave in Egypt as a direct result of the choices of his brothers and he ended up in prison as a direct result of the choices of Potiphar's wife.

Why do bad things happen to good people? Often (not always, but often) bad things happen to us as a consequence of the choices that we make ourselves and/or the choices that other people make. We can't blame God for that. Each of us has to take responsibility for his own choices. We can't control the choices that other people make. We can, however, control the choices that we make ourselves and how we react to the choices of other people and other circumstances beyond our control. If we are faithful, God is faithful. God works in the midst of the bad things that happen.


----------------------------------------
original composition by Steven E. Weible

Silas Bent: Principal Deputy Surveyor - Part Two

Silas Bent, having been appointed Principal Deputy Surveyor for the Territory of Louisiana, reported for duty at St. Louis on September 17, 1806 only to find himself in the difficult position of being compensated on the basis of orders for survey from a Board of Commissioners that had ceased to function. He had made several appeals to Jared Mansfield, Surveyor General of the United States, but after several months on the job without orders for survey or compensation, he was beginning to feel some desperation at not being able to provide for his family.

Relief finally came by way of a provision in the Act of March 3, 1807, chapter 36, An Act respecting claims to land in the territories of Orleans and Louisiana (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 440). Section nine of the act provided for an annual compensation of five hundred dollars in addition to the fees previously established. The annual compensation was effective from the time the principal deputy entered into the duties of the office.

Section seven of the act also provided that any claim to land that was approved by the board of commissioners that had not previously been surveyed was to be surveyed under the direction of the principal deputy surveyor at the expense of the claimants. The board of commissioners was also authorized to direct the principal deputy surveyor to re-survey any tract at the expense of the United States. General and particular plats were to be prepared and sent to the proper register or recorder and the Secretary of the Treasury.

A relieved Silas Bent wrote to Jared Mansfield on June 1, 1807, thanking him for his intervention and requesting more particular information and instructions as to how the surveys were to be conducted (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 127). Mansfield responded on July 20, 1807 with the following specifications (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 137):

1st I think that it would be well that Our General Instructions for marking of lines Be Observed by the Surveyors of private, tracts, particularly that they be blazed well, & a sufficient Number of Sight trees be taken; also that bearing trees be taken for the Corners, & that the Course & distance from the last Corner, in the Order of the surveying, be marked on one or more of the bearing trees, or some other tree near the Corner, instead of the Number of section Lot &c. as in the public Surveys.

2d The Field notes, & two plats of each survey, together with the Description of bearing trees quality of Land; &c. should be returned to Your office. The Contents of the tract ought to be calculated by the tables of Latitude & Defraction.

3– By General Plats, I understand a map of the Country embracing the Claims. The Use of this is to know how they lie in respect to One Another, & thereby to form a judgment of the intermediate Vacant Lands; I know no way while the Country Generally is not surveyed, whereby this can be done correctly. The Water Courses however & the Natural Marks must be your guide, as well as the estimated distances of One place from Another. The Common map of the Country will Also assist you.

4th Ritenhouse’s Compass, or one which will enable the Surveyor to give the Courses According to the true Meridian should be used in private as well as the public surveys. All Courses should be put down according to the true Meridian, & the variation of the Compass, ought to be noted on the plat of each survey, as well as the average Variation in the General Plat.

Meanwhile, Frederick Bates was appointed Recorder of Land Titles in place of James L. Donaldson and the Board of Commissioners reconvened as a Board of Revision. By May 1807 they had begun receiving testimony in support of land claims (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 134). They would continue to receive testimony without rendering any decisions until the time for receiving evidence had expired. On December 8, 1808 they began examining the evidence and making decisions. Claims that were confirmed by the Board, but which had not yet been surveyed, were not issued a certificate until a survey could be completed (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 366).

Survey by Silas Bent, dated July 29, 1807, of a tract
claimed by Calvin Adams at Portage des Sioux.
The survey was made pursuant to an order of the
Board of Commissioners, dated July 13, 1807.
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Land Survey)

Plat of survey of 1390 arpents 3 perches made for Auguste Chouteau
by James Mackay on May 29, 1803. Text is French.
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Archives, Missouri Digital Heritage)

Survey by Silas Bent or one of his deputies, dated November 29, 1809,
of the tract of land claimed by Auguste Chouteau.
This survey was made pursuant to an order of the Board of Commissioners,
dated October 26, 1809. The claim was approved by the Board of
Commissioners on June 7, 1810 for 1031 acres, based on this survey.
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Land Survey)

Silas Bent reported to Jared Mansfield in letters, dated May 24, 1810 and July 30, 1810, that when the orders for survey began to come, the Commissioners of the Board of Revision expected the surveys to be executed immediately, giving a due date that did not allow enough time to perform the work or to make arrangements with a deputy. In addition, the tracts ordered to be surveyed were not grouped by locality, but were scattered across the territory. In cases where the claimants were responsible for payment, the claimants often refused to pay and some prevented the execution of the surveys by force. The Commissioners, nonetheless, insisted that the work be done as ordered and expressed the belief that payment should be pursued through the courts. Mr. Bent was also perplexed by orders for surveys in which the quantity of land to be confirmed was less than the quantity claimed. He was, apparently, expected to use his discretion in defining the tract to satisfy the quantity to be confirmed. Older claims were not to be disturbed, but many of the old lines had never actually been run and marked in the field. There existed no map or drawing indicating the position of any one claim relative to another, so that it often took more time to figure out where and how the tract was to be surveyed than the time it took to do the actual survey (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 405, 408, 423).

Mr. Bent had previously observed in a letter to Jared Mansfield, dated December 21, 1806, that the surveys in the former province of Upper Louisiana had “been executed in the most careless manner, seldom more than half the lines run at all and where they are no corner established or bound defined – no field Notes taken and the courses all laid down 7° varient from what they were run ... and from the extraordinary forms & situations of the private Claims it will be very difficult ever to bring the surveys into any regularity” (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 51).

Mr. Bent reported to Jared Mansfield in a letter, dated November 12, 1810, that he had tried to recruit deputies to assist with the surveys, but few were interested when prompt payment and a profit could not be assured. He also observed that it appeared the Commissioners of the Board of Revision had changed their approach and were now issuing certificates of confirmation without a survey. The confirmation certificates, however, noted that a survey was required before a patent could issue. It was almost certain then that there would be pressure from the claimants to have their claims surveyed so that they could get their patents (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 423).

Frederick Bates noted in an update to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, dated June 20, 1811, that the Board of Revision had examined and approved “many hundred confirmations and grants which include Orders of survey.” The Board had been holding the orders so that they could deliver them all together to the principal deputy surveyor (Marshall, Vol. 2 pg 180). In a letter dated, September 5, 1811, Silas Bent reported to Jared Mansfield that the Commissioners of the Board of Revision had suspended requests for surveys as a result of the failure of Congress to provide compensation for the continuing work of the Board (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 470). Mr. Bent later noted in a letter to Mansfield, dated January 30, 1812, that he had made repeated requests to the Board of Revision for the orders of survey that had been made, but not yet delivered, so that he could execute the surveys in a more efficient manner and not have to repeatedly travel to the same area to survey individual tracts. His requests were denied, however, until October 1811, when the Clerk of the Board of Revision delivered “6 or 8 hundred ” of the confirmation certificates with orders for a survey (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 515).

As if Mr. Bent was not hindered enough in the prosecution of his duties, he and his deputies were subjected to unnecessary difficulties in trying to execute the orders given them. Some orders for survey specified that the survey was to be made “conformable to the concession,” which was written in the French or Spanish language. Neither a copy of the concession nor a translation of the text was provided, however. Other orders for survey called for a bound, such as a road or an older claim, but no information regarding the location of that specified bound was provided. Other orders of survey were limited by a condition that couldn’t be determined until after the survey was performed and some tracts could not even be located for lack of sufficient information from the Board of Revision. When Mr. Bent or his deputies requested more specific direction from the Board as to how a tract was to be surveyed, the Commissioners refused to provide further direction, stating that their orders were as complete as they were required to be. Requests made to the Board, the Recorder of Land Titles, the Clerk of the Board or the translator for translated copies of needed information from records within their possession were all denied. They did not consider themselves obligated to provide copies or translations, since no provision existed for their compensation. In some instances, the claimants, at their own expense, were able to provide the needed copies or translations so that the survey could be completed (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 508, 514, 515).

Once the Board of Revision had completed its work in January 1812 and submitted the transcripts and reports, it appears that no more surveys were attempted as a result of the lack of access to the appropriate information. Secretary Gallatin notified Frederick Bates, the recorder of land titles, on April 18, 1812 that he would not issue any more patents for approved land claims until the surveys were completed. Without the surveys, the tracts could not be definitively located, so Mr. Gallatin wanted the principal deputy surveyor to survey all of the tracts, connecting them relative to one another (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 546).

Congress addressed the quandary of the principal deputy surveyor in his need for access to information by inserting an appropriate provision in the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, An Act making further provision for settling the claims to land in the territory of Missouri (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 748)(the Territory of Louisiana had been renamed the Territory of Missouri by the Act of June 4, 1812, chapter 95, U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 743). Section six of the act directed the recorder of land titles to provide the principal deputy surveyor free access to the records in his office and copies or extracts of anything relating to land claims that the surveyor may need to complete the work required of him. The recorder of land titles was allowed twenty-five cents for the description of each tract provided to the principal deputy surveyor.

Section three of this act approved several classes of claims that were determined by the Board of Revision to have merit, but which had not satisfied the strict requirements of the previous legislation. Section five of the act specified that these new confirmations were to be surveyed along with those claims already approved by the Board of Revision that had not yet been surveyed. Also authorized to be surveyed were a sufficient number of townships so as to encompass all of the private claims. Upon completion of the surveys, a “general and connected plat” was to be prepared, showing the relative position of all of the tracts directed to be surveyed.

Survey by Silas Bent, dated February 3, 1813,
of Fort Belle Fontaine, the location of the U.S. military encampment.
(Courtesy of the Missouri State Land Survey)

The amount of survey work for which the principal deputy surveyor was now responsible continued to grow with the passage of the Act of March 3, 1813, chapter 44, An Act allowing further time for delivering the evidence in support of claims to land in the territory of Missouri, and for regulating the donation grants therein (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 812). Section five of the act directed the principal deputy surveyor to survey or cause to be surveyed a tract of 640 acres for each claim that had been confirmed on the basis of settlement right for a quantity less than 640 acres. In cases where competing claims did not permit a full 640 acres to each claimant, the principal deputy surveyor was to determine an equitable division of the land.

If the task had been daunting before, it had now become quite monumental for Silas Bent. The problem remained that there was, as yet, no framework in the Territory of Missouri to which the surveys could be referenced. The Spanish had conceded lands without a plan, allowing the petitioner to choose where his tract was to be located and how it was oriented. The result was a hodgepodge of disconnected clusters of tracts of land scattered over an extensive area. The only sensible solution would be to survey the public lands at the same time as the confirmed private claims. The Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, authorized townships to be surveyed, but how and where should these commence? There were many details that needed to be decided and it would take a considerable amount of time to accomplish all that had been ordered (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 681).

In addition to his duties as principal deputy surveyor, Silas Bent had taken on other responsibilities that would now make it difficult for him to participate directly in the surveys to be performed. He had been appointed 1st Justice of the Courts of Quarter Sessions and Common Pleas for the district of St. Louis on June 14, 1807 (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 321) and was reappointed on September 2, 1811 (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 193). On January 5, 1811 he was appointed Auditor of territorial accounts for the Territory of Louisiana (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 190) and, apparently, also served as a District Auditor. On February 18, 1813 he was appointed a Judge of the Superior Court of the Territory of Missouri by the President of the United States, James Madison (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 626, 631).

In November 1813 Silas Bent gladly relinquished the burden of Principal Deputy Surveyor to his successor, William Rector (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 707, 709).

SOURCES

Marshall, Thomas Maitland, The Life and Papers of Frederick Bates, Missouri Historical Society, 1926

American State Papers: Public Lands (ASP:PL)

The Territorial Papers of the United States, compiled by Clarence Edwin Carter, 1948

U. S. Statutes at Large

----------------------------------------

original composition by Steven E. Weible

Claims to Land and the Board of Revision

The work of the first Board of Commissioners for the adjustment of land titles in the Territory of Louisiana may as well have been a trial run, given the numerous changes throughout the process and the ultimate failure to complete the task. From the outset the United States government was suspicious of attempts to fraudulently acquire land. As a result, Congress passed legislation consistent with what they believed the Spanish regulations to have been, honoring the claims of bona fide settlers, while trying to exclude the fraudulent claims. The plan seemed to be one of strict application in the beginning with the option to revise the legislation as more information became available about the merit of the claims (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 79). Thus the Board of Commissioners began with insufficient instructions, attempted to identify and work through the deficiencies, were challenged by legislative changes throughout the process and when they believed they were nearly done, were presented with new rules that would require a revision of nearly all of the claims examined to that point.

In an effort to incorporate all of the lessons learned and to address all of the concerns identified up to that time, Congress passed the Act of March 3, 1807, chapter 36, An Act respecting claims to land in the territories of Orleans and Louisiana (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 440).

The first section of the act repealed that part of the first section of the Act of March 2, 1805, chapter 26 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 324), that required the claimant to be the head of a family or over the age of twenty-one years.

The second section of the act provided for the confirmation of tracts of land not exceeding two thousand (2000) acres (equal to 2351 arpents), that had been possessed for ten consecutive years prior to December 20, 1803 by a person or persons actually resident in the territory of Louisiana and still in possession of the tract of land. Lead mines and salt springs could not be confirmed under this section of the act.

The fourth section of the act gave the Board of Commissioners full powers to decide upon claims to land not exceeding one league square (equal to 7056 arpents or 6002.5 acres) according to the laws and established usages and customs of the French and Spanish governments. The claimant had to have been an inhabitant of Louisiana on December 20, 1803 and the tract could not contain a lead mine or a salt spring.

The fifth section of the act extended to July 1, 1808 the time for filing written notice and evidence of a claim to land with the recorder of land titles.

The sixth section of the act provided that a transcript of confirmations was to be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury and the surveyor-general. The Board of Commissioners was to deliver to each claimant a certificate stating the circumstances of the case with notice that the claimant is entitled to a patent for the tract of land designated in the certificate. The claimant was then to file the certificate with the recorder of land titles within twelve months. The recorder of land titles would then issue another certificate, which was to be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. A patent would then be issued in the same manner as for the public lands.

The eighth section of the act required the commissioners to prepare a report of the claims that were not confirmed by the fourth section of the act. The report would be submitted to Congress for their final determination.

James L. Donaldson, who had abandoned the office of Recorder of Land Titles for the Territory of Louisiana, was replaced by Frederick Bates, who was commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson on February 4, 1807 (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 91). Mr. Bates was also commissioned as the Secretary of the Territory of Louisiana on the same date (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 117). He had previously served as receiver of public monies, a land commissioner and a judge in various courts in the Territory of Michigan (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 9). Meriwether Lewis was commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson as Governor of the Territory of Louisiana on March 3, 1807, but he did not begin to function in that capacity until March 8, 1808 (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 107, 171). Consequently, Frederick Bates, as Secretary of the Territory, also performed the functions of the governor until the arrival of Lewis.

Frederick Bates arrived at St. Louis on April 1, 1807 and soon thereafter joined with Judge John B. C. Lucas and Clement B. Penrose to resume the work of the Board of Commissioners as a Board of Revision (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 102, 134). The Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, sent a letter, dated April 2, 1807, providing updated instructions for their proceedings as a result of changes enacted by the latest Act of Congress (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 93).

All of the decisions of the former Board of Commissioners had to be reexamined under the new provisions of the legislation. The instructions that Secretary Gallatin had previously sent under date of September 8, 1806 were still applicable, unless they conflicted with the new legislation, in which case the new legislation would take precedence. Restrictions were still in force as to claims on which the commissioners were not authorized to decide.

Certificates issued for approved claims were to be numbered progressively in the order in which they were issued, beginning with No. 1. Each certificate was to specify the name(s) of the original claimant, the present owner, the nature of the claim (i.e., concession, order of survey, settlement right, etc.) and the location of the tract of land. If a survey had already been executed, it was to be appropriately referenced. If a survey had not yet been performed, precise directions were to be given as to where and how the tract was to be surveyed. The area was to be stated in either acres or arpents. The Clerk of the Board was to keep a register of the certificates that were issued and he was to send to the Secretary of the Treasury a list of certificates issued each month. The Recorder of Land Titles was also to keep a separate register for the patent certificates to be issued by him and he was to send a monthly report to the Secretary of the Treasury. The patent certificate was to include the description from the survey and it had to specify by whom the survey was performed.

In a letter, dated May 30, 1807, Frederick Bates informed Mr. Gallatin, that he had received the instructions and that the Board of Revision was then meeting every third day to receive testimony in support of land claims (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 134).

The Commissioners of the Board of Revision passed a resolution on June 13, 1807, stating their plan to make a circuit of the Territory in order to receive testimony from the land claimants in the distant settlements (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 158; Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 130, 142, 182). They planned to visit St. Charles in August 1807, Sainte Genevieve in November 1807, Cape Girardeau and New Madrid in March 1808 and Camp Esperance in April 1808. During the intervening periods of time, they planned to continue their sessions in St. Louis.

Frederick Bates reported to Secretary Gallatin on February 9, 1808 that the Board of Revision had only received testimony and had not yet made any decisions. They first wanted to settle all the principles upon which their decisions were to be made to avoid the problems encountered by the first Board of Commissioners (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 280, 300). In addition, the specifications for confirmation in the various acts of Congress were such that some claims were considered as having higher merit than others. It was, therefore, imperative to ensure that those of higher merit were given the senior right where a conflict may exist. This could only be accomplished by delaying their decisions until after all testimony had been received (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 366).

The trips to St. Charles and Sainte Genevieve were completed as planned in 1807 (Marshall, Vol. 1, pg 283). The travel plans for 1808, however, were modified due to the inconvenience of traveling at such an early time of the year. The Commissioners of the Board of Revision decided to delay until May 1808 and to send only one member of the Board to receive testimony instead of all three. Frederick Bates, the Recorder of land titles, was selected to make the trip. Since he could not read or understand French or Spanish, Marie Philippe LeDuc, the translator, was to accompany him. Judge Lucas and Clement Penrose were to remain in St. Louis and continue the sessions of the Board there (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 182).

Frederick Bates, accompanied by Marie Philippe LeDuc, began his circuit of the southern settlements in late May 1808 (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 190). He reported to Secretary Gallatin on July 22, 1808 from the Village of Arkansas that he had visited all of the settlements between there and Cape Girardeau, collecting evidence and testimony (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 7). On August 15, 1808 he made report to the Board of Commissioners and submitted the records for their consideration (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 11). It was later reported that he had collected testimony on 1121 claims (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 366).

The Board of Revision posted notice on August 24, 1808 that they intended to meet every day, except Sunday, until the first of November 1808 to receive testimony and continue the business of the Board (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 222). Finding, however, that the business could not be completed by that time, they extended the date to December 1, 1808 and subsequently pushed the date back to January and then March 1809 to give claimants every opportunity to present testimony in support of their claims (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 231, 241, 249, 366). In a letter, dated November 26, 1808, the Board notified Secretary Gallatin that with the amount of work yet to be done they would not be able to complete a report for the current Session of Congress. They also reminded him that provision for their compensation would end on January 1, 1809 (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 42).

On February 1, 1810 the Commissioners of the Board of Revision reported to Secretary Gallatin that they had received 3056 claims for land and that they had begun rendering decisions on December 8, 1808. Of the 3056 claims, 2699 claims had supporting testimony, while the remaining 357 claims had none. Only 8 claims were determined to have complete titles. Claims that were confirmed by the Board, but which had not yet been surveyed, were not issued a certificate until a survey could be completed. They reported that they had so far finally decided on 638 claims. Certificates had been issued on 323 claims, surveys were ordered for 167 claims and 139 claims had been rejected. The Board noted that there was still much work to be done and they again reminded the Secretary that compensation was still an issue (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 366).

Secretary Gallatin reported in a letter, dated May 5, 1810, that Congress had failed to pass legislation providing for continued compensation for the commissioners, the clerk of the board and the translator. He urged them, however, not to be discouraged by a lack of compensation, but to continue with all haste so that their final report could be submitted to the next session of Congress (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 404).

In a letter, dated November 7, 1810, Thomas Riddick, the Clerk of the Board of Revision, reported to Secretary Gallatin that the Board had so far finally decided on 1692 claims. Certificates had been issued on 524 claims, surveys were ordered for 423 claims and 745 claims had been rejected. He also reminded the Secretary that he continued to labor without compensation (Territorial Papers, Vol. 14, pg 421).

Congress finally made provision for compensation in passing the Act of March 3, 1811, chapter 46, An Act providing for the final adjustment of claims to lands, and for the sale of the public lands in the territories of Orleans and Louisiana (U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, pg 662). Each commissioner and the clerk of the Board were allowed 50 cents for each duly filed claim that remained undecided on July 1, 1809 and on which a decision was finally made, whether confirmed or rejected. A further compensation of 500 dollars was to be paid after all of the work was completed and the transcripts and reports had been submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. The translator was allowed 600 dollars per year, not to exceed a term of 18 months.

Secretary Gallatin informed the Commissioners of the Board of Revision in a letter, dated April 24, 1811, that compensation for the claims that were ultimately rejected could not be paid until their final report was submitted. Compensation for the claims that were confirmed and on which certificates had been issued, however, could be paid when the report of certificates issued each month was submitted as previously directed (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 172).

The plan for compensation was not well received by the commissioners, the clerk or the translator and there were rumblings of resignation that threatened to bring a halt to the proceedings (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 178, 180). Nevertheless, they labored on and the Clerk of the Board reported to Secretary Gallatin on January 20, 1812 that the business of the Board of Revision had been completed (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 214). Frederick Bates reported on January 27, 1812 that the final report of the Board of Revision had been entrusted to Clement Penrose for delivery to the Secretary of the Treasury (Marshall, Vol. 2, pg 216).

The Board of Revision issued 1342 confirmation certificates, one of which was determined to be a duplicate and was declared void. The final report identified about 2055 claims that were not approved according to the provisions of the existing legislation (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 388). At the time that he delivered the final report, Clement Penrose offered a classification of the claims that were not approved and included his personal recommendations. He acknowledged that there were claims that lacked merit and should never be confirmed, but that many claims, although not meeting the requirements of the existing legislation, did have merit and in all justice should be approved by some future legislation (ASP:PL Vol. 2, pg 377).

SOURCES

Marshall, Thomas Maitland, The Life and Papers of Frederick Bates, Missouri Historical Society, 1926

American State Papers: Public Lands (ASP:PL)

The Territorial Papers of the United States, compiled by Clarence Edwin Carter, 1948

U. S. Statutes at Large

----------------------------------------

original composition by Steven E. Weible