WPA History of the Spanish Land Grants
Final Disposition Of Land Claims
(view
image)
By Act of Congress on February 8, 1827, the “secretary of the late
commissioner” for East Florida was directed to deliver all land
papers in his possession to the Register and Receiver of the Land Office
for
p. l (view
image)
East Florida who should examine and decide the remaining claims subject
to the several laws on Congress. Claimants were directed to file their
claims before November 2 and the Register and Receiver to report on January
1, 1828. Conflicting claims were to be subject to court decision. Holders
of claims of more than 3,500 acres and other claims not yet reported
by commissioners, or by Register and Receiver, were to furnish to the
surveyor within one year the information concerning their claims so that
he might
connect them with the township plats then under survey. (140)
On May 23 of the following year Congress enacted a law limiting to one
league square the amount of land which might be confirmed in any one
claim. (141)
The Register and Receiver were directed to continue to examine and decide the
remaining claims in East Florida until the first Monday in December, 1828,
after which it would be unlawful for any claimant to exhibit any evidence in
support of a claim.
Spanish claims not settled before that date, containing
a greater amount of land than the commissioners were authorized to decide,
and which had not been
reported as antedated by the commissioners or the Registers and Receivers,
were to be adjudicated by the judge of the superior court of the district within
which the land lay, upon petition of the claimant, under restrictions prescribed
to the district judge. The judge was not to take cognizance of any claims annulled
by the treaty not any claim presented to the commissioners or to Registers
_________
140. U.S. Stat. Large, IV, 202-204
141. This amount had been fixed upon in Louisiana as the maximum.—G&S,
V, 474. Several claimants in Florida accepted one league square in lieu of
the whole grant.
p. li
(view image)
and Receiver. Claimants were to be permitted to take an appeal from
the superior court to the Supreme Court of the United States within four
months after the decision, Claims which exceeded one league square
and all other cases in which the United States district attorney thought
the superior court had erred were to be appealed. Claims were to
be
brought
before the court by petition within one year and prosecuted to a
final decision within two years or be forever barred both by law and equity,
but decrees so rendered were to be conclusive between the United
States
and claimant only and were not to affect the interest of third persons.
(142)
The question of certain claims which the Spanish government
had confirmed subsequent to January 24, 1818, and which the commissioners
had reported
favorably to
Congress, had not been passed upon by that body. On May 26, 1830, a law
was passed providing that these claims should be re-examined and
reported by the
Register and Receiver before the next session of Congress. The act further
provided that all remaining claims which had been resented according
to law and not finally acted upon were to be adjudicated as prescribed
in the act
of May 23, 1828. All confirmations of land titles were to operate only
as a relinquishment of the right of the United States and were
not to be construed
either as a guarantee of such titles or in any manner affect the rights
of other persons to the same lands. Those who availed themselves
of the opportunity
to take one league square in lieu of the whole grant were
__________
142. U.S. Stat. at Large, IV, 284-286.
p. lii
(view image)
allowed one year in which to execute their relinquishment. (143)
Legislation
respecting the settlement of Spanish land claims was now ended. Henceforth
cases were settled in the courts. When Florida attained
statehood
in 1845 it abolished the superior court and transferred its former territorial
jurisdiction to the state circuit courts. By the act of February 22,
1847, Congress transferred the Federal jurisdiction which the court had
exercised
to the newly created district court of the United States for the District
of Florida, and land cases pending in the superior courts were transferred
to
it. (144)
In February, 1835, the House of Representatives asked for a
detailed report on claims pending in the courts under the Act of 1828
and on those
confirmed
by the U.S. Supreme Court, together with an opinion as to whether the
pending cases come within the provisions of those already decided by
the court.
The report, made in the following December by Richard Keith Call, Receiver
at Tallahassee
and counsel for the United States in the settlement of claims, shows: No.
1—Abstract of mill grants 20 in number
No. 2—Abstract of grants “alleged to have been made
For services rendered the Spanish government” 19 " "
No. 3—Abstract for claims under grants made on
Condition of habitation and cultivation 4 " "
No. 4—Abstract of miscellaneous cases 16 " "
Pending in superior Court of East Florida at St. Augustine 60 " "
Petitions filed but not yet placed on docket 18 " "
Pending in Superior Court of East Florida at Jacksonville 14" "
Appeals made to the U.S. Supreme Court
_________
143. Ibid., pp. 405-406
144. Ibid., IX, 128-130.
p. liii
(view image)
from decisions against the government rendered in the
Southern Judicial District 2 in number
Pending in Western and Middle Districts 1 " "
Call was of the opinion that three of the mill grants might be confirmed
in line with the case of Francisco Richard (U.S. v. Richard, 8
Peters, 470) who
had built a mill and so fulfilled the condition. In his discussion of
group No. 2, Call said that under the careful scrutiny of the commissioners
these
claims had been abandoned, but under the law of 1828 they again “sprang
up” and while the Register and Receiver did not positively declare
them forgeries and so exclude them from the courts under the law of 1828,
it was
evident that they regarded the claims as fraudulent. He was critical of
the Supreme Court’s favorable decision in the case of Mitchell
et al v. United States (9 Peters 711) in which he said the court accepted
as authentic documents which were “copies of copies”, none
of which were executed by a notary public and authenticated under his official
seal. He thought the “badges
of fraud” were as strongly developed in that case as in any of the
pending cases, and if the latter were to be decided according to the principles
laid
down in the Mitchell case, then all the pending cases against the government
would be confirmed. (145)
_____
145. G&S, VIII, 247-260.
|
