1st Session.

No. 357.

ANDREW GLASSELL.

APRIL 28, 1858.

Mr. READY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following

REPORT.

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred Senate Bill 225, for the relief of Andrew Glassell, of San Francisco, respectfully report:

That the bill under consideration involves the construction of an act of Congress approved the 10th of January, 1855, which is as follows:

"Be it enacted, &c., That the provisions of the act of Congress approved third March, 1851, 'to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California,' and the second section of the act of eighteenth January, 1854, continuing the same in force, be further continued in force for the term of one year and no longer, from the third March eighteen hundred and fifty-five.

"SEC. 2. That the United States district attorney for the northern district of California be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ assistant counsel to aid him in defending the interests of the United States in the land suits for the adjudication of such claims before the district court, at a salary not exceeding three thousand six hundred dollars per annum; and also to employ such clerical force, not exceeding two persons, at a compensation of one hundred and fifty dollars per month each; the services of said assistant counsel and the clerical force aforesaid not to continue beyond the exigencies of the service, nor longer than the term of one year from the period of their several appointments."

It appears that Andrew Glassell was employed as assistant counsel, for one year, under the provisions of the aforesaid act of Congress, by Samuel W. Inge, then district attorney for the United States for the northern district of California, at a salary of $3,600, prescribed in said act.

Mr. Glassell alleges that the year for which he was employed expired on the 10th of January, 1856, and "the exigency for his services still continuing, the said Samuel W. Inge, district attorney, &c., again employed him, he agreeing to rely upon the government of the

United States for compensation; and that he continued faithfully to render all necessary services under said employment from the 10th day of January, 1856, until the 1st day of May, 1856, when his employment ceased by the resignation of said district attorney."

For the alleged services between the 10th of January and 1st of May, 1856, he claims $1,400 as the pro rata of $3,600 per annum, which was paid him for the preceding year, as per act of Congress.

If he were entitled to be paid at the rate of $300 per month (which is the rate he claims) for services rendered after the expiration of the year, he would be entitled to six hundred dollars only, instead of fourteen hundred dollars. He computes his first employment from the 10th of January, 1855, the day on which the act of Congress referred to was approved; and from the 10th of January, 1856, he claims the extra or additional compensation under his new engagement.

It was impossible for his first employment to have commenced on the 10th of January, 1855. It could not have been known at San Francisco, California, where he and the district attorney who was to employ him both resided, that the act had passed Congress and been approved for several weeks thereafter; and from the language of the act it is obvious the year for which he was to be employed terminated on the 3d of March, 1856, and not on the 10th of January preceding. This termination of the year would allow about the necessary time from the passage of the act of 10th of January, 1855, for it to reach San Francisco. There could not, therefore, under the most favorable rule for the claimant, be more than two months' services under the new contract.

But, Mr. Glassell having been paid for his year's services, your committee are of opinion he is not entitled to be paid the sum now claimed, or any other sum, for the reason that the United States district attorney had no right to employ him after the expiration of the year, the act of Congress expressly declaring that "the services of said assistant counsel" shall not continue beyond the exigencies of the service, nor longer than the term of one year from the period of his employment.'

The letters of Attorney General Cushing do not authorize the inference, as alleged by Mr. Glassell, that "it was his wish that he (Mr. Glassell) should continue his service while the public exigency required it." But if the Attorney General had expressed such a wish, it would be immaterial. Mr. Glassell's employment having been special, under the act of Congress of 10th of January, 1855, the Attorney General of the United States had no more authority to continue it beyond the year than had the district attorney in California. When a special authority is conferred, your committee cannot perceive by what sound rule of construction any one can go beyond it. If the law be transcended, where is the limit, and who shall declare it? To sanction this claim would open a door leading to abuses of the gravest character, and which can only be prevented by adhering to the limit set by the law.

If it were necessary to comment on the testimony offered to prove the rendition of meritorious services, for which compensation is claimed, it might very properly be urged that it does not establish the claim. It is little else than opinions instead of facts. The opinion of wit

nesses as to the value of the services would have been quite proper, if they had stated facts by which the correctness of their opinions could be judged. It is the province of Congress to form opinions in such cases upon facts testified, and without them it is useless to invoke its action.

In the absence of all authority to bind the government, the committee have no hesitation in recommending that the bill do not pass.

JOHN MCDONOUGH-LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF. [To accompany Bill H. R. No. 543.]

MAY 4, 1858.

Mr. SANDIDGE, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, made the

following REPORT.

The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of John L. Daniel, agent, praying the confirmation of land claim in Louisiana to the legal representatives of John McDonough,

submit:

That on the 22d November, 1837, the register and receiver of the land office at New Orleans, under the act of 6th February, 1855, reported on this case as follows:

"No. 39.-John McDonough claims, in virtue of complete title or patent derived from the government of France, in the year 1760, a tract of land lying in the parish of Jefferson, near the city of New Orleans, and on the same side of the river Mississippi, commencing at a distance of 80 arpents from the said river Mississippi, and running back or in the rear from thence, with the continuous lines of the front track of 22 arpents on the river, a distance of about 49 and arpents in depth, until one of the side lines intersects the other in a point, including (as is more particularly shown by a plan drawn by Benjamin Buisson, a surveyor of said parish,) within said lines the quantity of 177 superficial arpents, more or less." No action was ever taken by Congress upon this report. In 1844, Congress passed an act authorizing the settlement of private land claims in Louisiana by judicial proceedings before the United States courts, in cases where the title set up was imperfect but equitable.

As there was no tribunal with power to declare definitely what claims were supported by perfect titles, John McDonough, as his only recourse at law, brought suit before the United States court in New Orleans to test the validity of his claim to the land now in question.. That court, in 1849, gave judgment in his favor. An appeal was taken to the supreme court, where, in 1853, the judgment of the district court was reversed, on the ground that the court below had no urisdiction of the case under the said law of Congress, inasmuch as