John Scott, the delegate of the Territory of Missouri to the U.S. House of Representatives, wrote to Josiah Meigs, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, on January 27, 1817, expressing the hope “that Government will again at a proper time give to those people whose claims are thus rejected another opportunity to perfect their titles, and I even indulge the hope that provisions will be made to embrace claims that have never been notified, or filed with the Commissioners or recorder “ (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 238). Meigs responded on January 30, 1817 that “I cannot agree with you in the Idea that a door should be opened for more claims, I think the Govt have been liberal, very liberal, both in time & conditions “ (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 239).
Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives had been inundated with memorials and petitions regarding the unconfirmed land claims in the Territory of Missouri. On April 16, 1818 the House passed a resolution instructing the Secretary of the Treasury, William H. Crawford, to draft a plan for their final adjustment and settlement (ASP:PL Vol. 3, pg 348).
On April 30, 1818 the President announced by proclamation the first sales of the public lands in the Territory of Missouri (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 385). John Scott promptly wrote to Secretary Crawford on May 5, 1818, requesting that directions be given to the register and receiver of each land office to withhold from sale those private claims that had previously been examined, but not confirmed (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 388). Secretary Crawford referred the request to Josiah Meigs, who responded on May 11, 1818, stating that he considered the unconfirmed claims as invalid and subject to sale (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 391).
Secretary Crawford was still working on the plan requested by the House of Representatives, so he wrote to Josiah Meigs on June 10, 1818, directing him to have the recorder of land titles in the Territory of Missouri furnish descriptive lists of the unconfirmed claims to the register and receiver of the land offices at St. Louis and Franklin, where sales of the public lands had been authorized. These unconfirmed claims were to be withheld from sale for the time being (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 399).
Samuel Hammond, the receiver at the land office in St. Louis, reported to Josiah Meigs on July 20, 1818 that the recorder of land titles, Frederick Bates, had furnished a list of the unconfirmed claims, but the information was not sufficient to determine actual locations on the township plat (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 419). In June 1818 Frederick Bates had complained to Meigs that it would be impossible for him to give specific descriptions, since he had no connected plat (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 401). William Rector, by then the Surveyor of Public Lands in the territories of Missouri and Illinois (Territorial Papers, Vol. 17, pg 332), suggested having the Deputy Surveyors make some connection to the unconfirmed claims while in the field, so that they could be represented on the township plat (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 402). In August 1818 Josiah Meigs informed Rector that there was no provision for surveying the unconfirmed claims. He had supposed that a reservation of a right angled tract of the appropriate quantity in the correct vicinity would be sufficient (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 422). This uncertainty of location, however, cast some doubt on what lands could actually be sold (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 419, 427).
In December 1818 Secretary Crawford submitted his plan to the House of Representatives for the final adjustment and settlement of the unconfirmed claims. He noted that “it is conceived to be extremely improbable that there should be, at this time, any considerable number of claims entitled to the liberality of the Government, which have not yet been submitted to either of the different tribunals that have, from time to time, been constituted for that purpose ... Considering, then, that the titles to lands ... in the Missouri Territory, so far as they are derived from, or dependant upon, any act of Congress, are correctly and finally settled, nothing more is necessary than to prescribe a rule by which the validity of titles, not dependant upon the acts of Congress, may be promptly and legally determined.” He then presented a draft bill that would allow anyone with an unconfirmed private claim to present their case to the district court (ASP:PL Vol. 3, pg 348).
In January 1819 Congress was presented with a memorial from the General Assembly of the Territory of Missouri, urging the enactment of comprehensive legislation that would ensure final justice once and for all to those unconfirmed claims that had originated under the French and Spanish governments (Territorial Papers, Vol. 15, pg 489).
The U.S. House of Representatives took further time to examine the matter, including the instructions given by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Board of Commissioners in 1806 (ASP:PL Vol. 3, pg 355) and the Spanish regulations for granting lands issued by Alexander O’Reilly in 1770, Manuel Gayoso de Lemos in 1797 and Juan Ventura Morales in 1799 (ASP:PL Vol. 3, p 432 and Vol. 4, pg 3). At the conclusion of their examination Congress passed the Act of May 26, 1824, chapter 173, An Act enabling the claimants to lands within the limits of the state of Missouri and territory of Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 4, pg 52).
(The Territory of Arkansas was created as an entity separate from the Territory of Missouri by the Act of March 2, 1819, chapter 49 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 3, pg 493). The admission of the State of Missouri into the Union of the United States of America was declared complete by proclamation of President James Monroe on August 10, 1821 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 3, pg 797).)
Section one of the act permitted any person or persons, or their legal representatives, to petition the district court of the State of Missouri to examine the facts and to decide the validity of their claim to land. The act was intended to apply to those claims that were protected by the treaty between the United States of America and the French Republic, dated April 30, 1803, and to which complete titles would have been perfected had the Province of Louisiana not been transferred to the United States. That is, “any French or Spanish grant, concession, warrant, or order of survey, legally made, granted, or issued, before the tenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and four, by the proper authorities.”
Section two of the act directed that the proceedings for each petition were to be conducted according to the rules of a court of equity. The district court was to have the full power and authority to settle the question of validity of title for each claim. The judgment or decree of the district court was to be final and conclusive, unless appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States within one year. The decision of the Supreme Court would then be final and conclusive.
Section five of the act allowed claimants two years from the passage of the act to bring their petitions before the district court. If by reason of neglect or delay by the claimant the case was not prosecuted to a final decision within three years, the claim was to be barred from further action in any court.
Section seven of the act declared that any claim finally denied by the court or barred from further action in any court was to become a part of the public lands of the United States.
If the court decided in favor of the claimant and against the United States and the claim exceeded one thousand acres, section nine of the act required the attorney of the United States for the district to notify the attorney general of the United States. If the attorney general considered the decision of the district court to be in error, he was to direct that an appeal be made to the Supreme Court of the United States. He was then responsible for prosecuting the appeal.
If a claimant was successful in validating his claim in the district court or Supreme Court and all or part of the claim had already been sold by the United States, section eleven of the act permitted the claimant to select from the public lands a like quantity in parcels conformable to sectional divisions and subdivisions in any land office of the state of Missouri. If the total quantity of land to be selected was not conformable to the smallest sectional subdivisions authorized for sale, the claimant was permitted to purchase at the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre the additional quantity of land to make one half quarter section.
For the convenience of petitioners section twelve of the act required the judge of the district court to hold sessions at St. Louis, Sainte Genevieve and Jackson. Section twelve also specifically excluded from the provisions of this act a claim of the representatives or assignees of Jacques Clamorgan, deceased, to a tract of land lying between the Missouri River and Mississippi River and covering parts of St. Charles County and Lincoln County.
Section fourteen of the act extended the provisions of the act to the territory of Arkansas in which the superior court of the territory would have jurisdiction.
The Act of May 22, 1826, chapter 157, An Act for the relief of Phinehas Underwood, and for other purposes (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 6, pg 355), extended the time for filing petitions until May 26, 1828.
Claimants who had been anxiously awaiting this opportunity rushed to file their petitions. The first case was taken up in November 1824, but by February 1828 only three cases had been prosecuted to a final decision. All three had failed. Two of the cases had been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but were still waiting to be heard. These disappointing results, accompanied by the expense and delay of the court proceedings, dampened the initial enthusiasm. Rather than fail in court and be barred from further consideration, some chose to withdraw their petitions, while others were discouraged from filing at all. Thus, the remedy was not as satisfactory as the claimants had hoped. A petition was sent to Congress from citizens of the State of Missouri, requesting an amendment that would secure to them the final confirmation of their claims. If that could not be done, they at least needed another two year extension of the deadline for filing a petition with the district court. The outcome of the first appeal to the Supreme Court, which had yet to be heard, would influence any decision to press on in the courts (ASP:PL Vol. 5, pg 458).
The General Assembly of the State of Missouri sent a memorial to Congress in January 1827, urging the passage of an amendment to the law that would result in a speedy and final determination of the claims not yet confirmed. They suggested the formation of a new board of commissioners to further investigate the unconfirmed claims and to examine claims that had not yet been considered. At the very least, they urged that the right of preference to purchase be given to those whose claims were ultimately denied, so that they could purchase the land encompassing their improvements (ASP:PL Vol. 4, pg 880).
The State of Missouri and Territory of Arkansas were not alone in grappling with this issue of unconfirmed claims that had originated from some other entity than the United States. The States of Louisiana, Illinois, Mississippi and Alabama and the Territories of Florida and Michigan were dealing with similar issues with unconfirmed private claims that had originated from Great Britain, France and Spain. To address these unresolved issues the Committee on Private Land Claims in the U.S. Senate was tasked with examining the facts and recommending a solution for the trial and decision of these claims to land. The Committee reported to the Senate on January 9, 1828, suggesting two possible alternatives (ASP:PL Vol. 5, pg 350).
The first alternative was for the United States to sell the land covered by the unconfirmed claims subject to the claims of individuals. The claimants would then be left to litigate their claim with the purchaser. Although this was an alternative, the Committee recognized that it was not a good one, since it may only serve as a relinquishment of interest without any certainty of title. This would not be a favorable outcome for the claimant, the purchaser or the government.
The second alternative was to establish a special tribunal for the trial and decision of the yet unconfirmed private claims. The Committee suggested that the tribunal’s sessions should be conducted in the City of Washington, where the public records were kept and where competent agents were available to represent the rights of the claimants. The Committee felt that this alternative would “best promote the interests of the public, while it will effectually protect the just rights of the claimants.”
The time allowed for claimants to obtain a final decision in the district court was extended to May 26, 1830 by the Act of May 24, 1828, chapter 90, An Act to continue in force for a limited time, and to amend an act entitled “An act to enable claimants to lands within the limits of the state of Missouri and territory of Arkansas, to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims” (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 4, pg 298). Section two of the act stated that a confirmation by the court served only as a relinquishment of title by the United States and did not impair any adverse claim. Section three of the act permitted those whose claim was ultimately rejected by the court and who were actual inhabitants and cultivators of the soil to claim the right of pre-emption at the minimum price for public lands for the land covered by their improvements within the limits of the rejected claim.
It appears that there were only three claims confirmed by the court of the United States for the district of Missouri. These included an island in the Missouri River claimed by John Mullanphy under Joseph Lapierre and Joseph Aubuchon (General Series Survey # 3085), a tract of 500 arpents claimed by Daniel Dunklin and John Jones under Amable Partenay (General Series Survey # 3310) and a tract of 406 arpents claimed by John Baptiste Placet (General Series Survey # 3311).
 |
| General Series Survey # 3085 in Township 47 North, Range 6 East was confirmed by the U. S. Court for the district of Missouri (courtesy of the Missouri State Land Survey) |
 |
| General Series Survey #s 3310 and 3311 in Township 37 North, Range 2 East were confirmed by the U. S. Court for the district of Missouri (courtesy of the Missouri State Land Survey) |
The first appeals to come to the United States Supreme Court were heard at the January term in 1830. The whole subject of Spanish titles was a new one for that court, one that had never undergone a judicial investigation upon which the court could base a conclusion. As a result, decisions on these cases were postponed to allow time for further consideration. Similar cases from Florida were brought before the court in succeeding terms and the court became more informed about the Spanish laws, usages and customs of granting land, but further postponed final decisions until the subject could be thoroughly examined. The primary difficulty for the court was determining what powers to grant lands were actually vested in the governor general, the intendant, the sub-delegates of the intendant and the local commandants (ASP:PL Vol. 8, pg 516).
Three cases are reported as having been decided by the U. S. Supreme Court at the January term of 1835. A claim of one league square, or 7056 arpents, was confirmed to Charles Dehault Delassus, claiming under his father Pierre Dehault Delassus Deluzieres (General Series Survey # 2969)(ASP:PL Vol. 7, pg 728). A claim of 1281 arpents was confirmed to the heirs of Auguste Chouteau (General Series Survey # 2976)(ASP:PL Vol. 7, pg 730). And a claim of one league square, or 7056 arpents, was confirmed to the devisees of Auguste Chouteau (General Series Survey # 2971)(ASP:PL Vol. 7, pg 731).
 |
| General Series Survey # 2969 shown in Township 35 North, Range 5 East was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States (courtesy of the Missouri State Land Survey) |
Three more cases are reported as having been decided by the U. S. Supreme Court at the January term of 1836. A claim of 10,000 arpents was denied John Smith, T. (the T. stands for Tennessee to distinguish him from all of the other John Smiths) under the concession of James St. Vrain (ASP:PL Vol. 8, 515). A claim of 800 arpents was confirmed to the widow and heirs of James Mackay (General Series Survey # 3033)(ASP:PL Vol. 8, pg 518). And a claim of 10,000 arpents was confirmed to the widow and heirs of Antoine Soulard (General Series Survey # 3016) subject to the lands already sold by the United States prior to August 22, 1824, the day on which the petition was filed with the district court (MoSLS: Y9900723.pdf). For the lands that had already been sold, the claimants had the right to select the same quantity from the public lands (ASP:PL Vol. 8, pg 519).
In January 1831 the General Assembly of Missouri again sent a memorial to Congress, asking for a speedy and final adjudication of the private land claims. The memorial stated that “It is now near twenty-eight years since the adoption of the treaty with France, by which these claimants conceive they were guaranteed in their rights to these lands ... If the individual claimants have any just rights, they ought to be confirmed in them; if they have none, the pretence of claim ought to be silenced, and the land brought into market for the benefit of the United States, the State of Missouri, and the neighborhoods in which they lie.” They objected to the ordinary courts of law as a tribunal for adjudication, “because their expensive, tedious and technical modes of proceeding are unsuited to the nature of these claims and to the rights of the claimants.” They again recommended the creation of a board of land commissioners endowed with sufficient powers to achieve full and final justice between the government and the claimants. They believed that this tribunal should “adopt as its rule of action, to confirm every claim which the government of either Spain or France would have confirmed had no transfer of the territory been made ” (ASP:PL Vol. 6, pg 300).
SOURCES
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
