Saturday, October 17, 2020

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 รก 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