advancing to power, without any complaint from their citizens as to the price at which public lands are sold. The system of surveys is perfect, the price is moderate, and the settler is secured in his improvements. This being done, the lands not taken by preemptors are offered at public sale, the unsold lands become subject to private entry, and the settler on such tracts is allowed twelve months within which to make proof and payment for the quarter section upon which he has fixed his home.

When lands have been subject to private entry for more than ten years, the price to actual settlers and cultivators is reduced, from time to time, until, after the expiration of thirty years, it is only twelve and a half cents per acre. The donation-improperly termed homestead policy-based upon the fallacy that a residence on a tract of land for a certain number of years shall, instead of a fixed price, be made the consideration which shall entitle the settler to the land he selects and occupies, has been tried, and, as stated in my annual reports of 1858 and 1859, has everywhere failed and met with public condemnation. It was annoying to the settler, productive of controversies, and injurious to the communities in which the donations were made.

During the past year, in every case of the proclamation and public offering of extensive portions of the public lands, urgent requests have been made, as heretofore, for a postponement of the sales thus ordered. These requests could not be acceded to without interrupting the harmonious operation of the laws constituting our land system, which requires the public lands to be brought into market from time to time, in proportion as surveyed lands are disposed of and other lands surveyed. As there has not been any considerable competition. or cash demand for new lands during the past year, the settlers on the lands brought into market, who were unable, from particular misfortunes, to make payment before the day of sale, have generally been able to file declaratory statements after the day of sale, and thus avail themselves of the twelve months' credit secured by law to preemptors of lands subject to private entry. It is believed, therefore, that settlers have suffered no serious hardships. Owing to the slight demand for lands as an investment, the cash receipts from the public sales have been inconsiderable, when compared with the quantity of land offered.

Experience has demonstrated the wisdom and propriety of the recommendations contained in my last annual report: first, that, in a spirit of liberality to all settlers upon unoffered lands, two years should be allowed, from the date of settlement, within which to make proof and payment; and, second, that it should be made incumbent upon. the Executive to offer at public sale, by proclamation, within two years after survey, all the lands that have not been claimed by settlers.

The income from the public lands during four years past has not been so great as was expected. The commercial revulsion of 1857, followed as it was by short crops in most of the new States and Territories, checked emigration, and also the inclination of capitalists to make further investments. But this is not the sole cause of the reduction in this revenue. The manner of disposing of the public lands has been made a topic of political discussion; and, whilst some emigrant families have made settlements and delayed giving the proper notice

or making any payments, in the expectation of a donation, other persons, who are contemplating emigration, have deferred their removal from their old homes and the purchase of lands for settlement, awaiting some definite legislation upon the subject. Should the discussion of alterations in our land system cease, it is believed that the revenue derived from sales would speedily rise to a reasonable annual average, especially if the quantity of unlocated land warrants outstanding, should continue to diminish from year to year as for three years past.

A controversy was pending in this department for many years, in relation to the title to the lands at the Hot Springs, in the State of Arkansas. The act of Congress of the 20th April, 1832, entitled "An act authorizing the Governor of the Territory of Arkansas to lease the Salt Springs, in said Territory, and for other purposes," provides, section 3, that the hot springs, in said Territory, together with four sections of land, including said springs, as near the center thereof as may be, shall be reserved for the future disposal of Congress, and shall not be entered, located, or appropriated for any other purpose whatever."

Several claims to a portion of the land so reserved were afterwards presented to the officers of the land department, on behalf of individuals, which, however, after careful examination, were all rejected by a decision of Secretary Stuart, made October 10, 1851, that the land had been reserved by the act of Congress above quoted, and the title thereto remained in the United States, subject to such legislation as Congress might specially provide. Notwithstanding this decision, he allowed a special entry of the quarter section including the springs to be made, for a special purpose, in December, 1851. The claims of all contestants for this quarter section were submitted to the late Attorney General, in 1854, who was of the opinion that the act of Congress had reserved the land and forbidden its sale or location; and in this opinion my predecessor seems to have concurred. In April last, the application of the parties who were allowed the entry of December 19, 1851, for a patent thereon, was submitted to me, and, after a deliberate review of the case, I decided that the entry was illegal, and directed that it be canceled.

I know of no reason why the title to the lands at the Hot Springs should be reserved in perpetuity, and therefore recommend that the disposal of the four sections reserved, be provided for by appropriate legislation.

By an act of Congress, approved August 8, 1846, a grant of lands was made to the State of Iowa for the improvement of the navigation of the Des Moines river, from its mouth to the Raccoon Fork. This grant, for more than two years, was regarded on all hands as confined to the line of the improvement, and limited to the lands along the river and below the Raccoon Fork; and this view of the matter has been maintained by the Department of the Interior and by the General Land Office. The quantity of land thus admitted to be within the grant was found to be 322,392 acres, and was long since listed and approved to the State.

Secretary Stuart, however, caused some of the lands along the river and above the Raccoon Fork to be listed and certified as part of the

grant, and a list was also approved by Secretary McClelland, before his attention was called to the questions of law involved in a claim which had been presented on behalf of the State, in 1849, that the grant extended to the headwaters of the Des Moines river.

The right of the State under the grant of the 8th of August, 1846, to any lands lying above the Raccoon Fork was directly involved in a cause which was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States at the December term, A. D. 1859, and that tribunal therein. decided that the grant did not embrace any such lands, and that the lists and certificates which had issued from this department conveyed no title to the State. The quantity of land embraced in the lists of this kind is 271,572 acres, and, with the exception of some sixty or seventy thousand acres, the same tracts have also been claimed by the State of Iowa, for the use of railroad companies, under the act of Congress approved May 15, 1856, as parts of the grants thereby made, to aid in the construction of certain railroads. Having recommended to the Committee of Public Lands of the Senate, in June last, a relinquishment to the State of all title remaining in the United States to the 271,572 acres of land erroneously listed and certified under the Des Moines grant, I have directed a suspension of immediate action under the railroad grants, so far as the two conflicting claims interfere. The lands along the upper portions of the Des Moines river, not embraced in any of the certified lists, which have been surveyed for four, five, and six years, but withheld from market on account of the claim of the State, have recently been proclaimed and offered at public sale.

When I came into office the grant to Wisconsin to aid the improvement of the navigation of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers was unsettled. My predecessor, a few weeks before that period, made a decision according to which the quantity of this grant, under all the laws upon the subject, was ascertained to be 684,289 acres. Before that time the State had selected lands, under the law of 1854, largely in excess of this quantity, and the selections had been withheld from sale. In this state of facts, I directed the lists of selections to be taken up and approved in their order of precedence, to such extent as would complete the quantity of lands due the State, and the tracts selected in excess to be restored to market. This was done, excepting some 15,000 acres of selections which were suspended, in order to let in, as part of the grant, such odd-numbered lots in the Stockbridge township, on the east side of Lake Winnebago, as might remain to the United States, free from any claim of individuals under the treaty of February, 1856, with the Stockbridge and Munsee Indians. The lists of such lots have been recently prepared, and, with a supplemental list of selections, approved, thus fully closing up the business.

It has been my aim, whenever these cases of long standing and chronic difficulty have legitimately come before me, to fully examine and carefully consider them; to inform myself of all their history and details, and dispose of them finally in a spirit of justice, and according to the laws respectively governing each case-thus relieving the general business of the Land Office from the incubus which, by reason of their pendency, pressed upon and deranged the service and perplexed its officers.

The progress of the public surveys in the Territory of Washington has been interrupted on account of the existence of certain land claims under the treaty of June 15, 1846, with Great Britain. On the expiration of the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company, in 1859, the possessory right of that company, under the third article of the treaty, terminated. Instructions were accordingly issued to the surveyor general, in September, 1859, to extend the lines of the public surveys over the lands which had been occupied by its agents and employés, and contracts have since been made for subdividing, in the usual manner, a considerable portion of those lands.

Two tracts-one at Nisqually, containing, by estimate, 167,000 acres, and another at Cowlitz, containing about 3,600 acres-have been claimed under the fourth article of the same treaty, for the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company. It is stipulated in that article that the "farms, lands, and other property of every description belonging to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, on the north side of the Columbia river, shall be confirmed to the said company. In case, however, the situation of those farms and lands should be considered by the United States to be of public and political importance, and the United States government should signify a desire to obtain possession of the whole, or any part thereof, the property so required shall be transferred to the said government, at a proper valuation, to be agreed upon between the parties.'

It is clearly the duty of this government to confirm to the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company all such "farms" and "lands" as belonged to said company at the date of the treaty. The treaty, however, created no right; it simply provided for the confirmation of a title, either inchoate or perfect, previously existing. Title to land under the British government can only be derived from the Crown, either directly or indirectly. But this department is not advised that said company have, or claim to have, any grant from the Crown of Great Britain. The treaty only secures to them the "lands" and "farms" "belonging to" them; and, if we reject the literal, obvious interpretation, and construe the words "belonging to" as equivalent to "occupied by" the company, still we find nothing in the words of the treaty which will warrant the claim of an extensive district, when it is well known that at the date of the treaty only a few employés of this company had houses, sheep-folds, and cattle-pens, with very meager improvements, scattered over a wide and undefined range of country. Such a construction of the treaty is totally inadmissible and inconsistent with the land policy of the United States and Great Britain. Whilst it is manifest, from all the evidence collected, that no part of this land "belonged to" the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, yet some scattered portions of it might answer the description of farms" and "lands" occupied by it, which, in a spirit of fairness and liberality, might be determined by survey, confirmed, and patented. On the other hand, the claim which has been presented, and which I regard as merely speculative, delays the public surveys, retards settlements, and prevents the improvement of the country.

66

Indeed, the surveyor general reports that almost all the old servants of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company have long since be

come American citizens, and are now claiming farms, under our former donation and present preemption laws, within the region that has been claimed on the Nisqually river.

It is due to the people of Washington Territory that some decisive action should be taken. I am not advised that any portion of the tracts claimed are of any public or political importance to the United States, and I recommend that the surveyor general of Washington Territory, under the supervision of this department, be authorized by special enactinent to decide upon the validity of the claims of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, and, if they are entitled to confirmation, to determine the location and boundaries of the "farms" · and "lands" that belonged to the company, which should be required, within a given period, to present its claims for final action.