WPA History of the Spanish Land Grants
Reasons For Non-Confirmation
(view image)
There
were numerous reasons why certain land grants in Florida were
p. liv
(view
image)
not confirmed; some of the less obvious reasons are given below.
Often
claimants had not filed within the prescribed time, which expired November
1, 1827. One such person was Antonio Pania (Pancia?) (146) who
the Board remarks
had according to witnesses fulfilled every requirement for a donation grant
and had cultivated the place for 12 or 15 years, but filed his claim in September,
1828. (147) The same was true of John Hall, (148) of whom the commissioners’ decree
said “…if his claim had been filed in time we would confirm it;
but it was presented to this Board in September, 1828.” (149)
Sometimes
there was a suspicion of fraud. Of one such claim the commissioners said, “…This
paper is filed in the office of the archives, where it originally should have
been, if the claim is genuine. The paper presented
to us is claimed to be the original, and proof of the signature of Kindelan
was tendered to this Board, but not received.” The Board noted also that
the land lay within the Indian boundary in which grants were almost never made
by Spanish governors, but “above all, the grant is dated on the 15th
May, 1815, by authority of a royal order of 29th of March preceding, which
was transmitted from Madrid by way of Havana, and communicated to the governor
of this place by the captain-general, Apodaca, by a letter bearing the date
of 7th July, 1815, nearly two months after the date of the grant…” (150)
_______
146. Infra, Unc. P 1
147. DG, V, 410.
148. Infra, Unc. H 16.
149. DG, V, 410.
150. Ibid., p. 397
p. lv
(view
image)
The grants of Governor Coppinger and the surveys of George J.F. Clarke
shortly before the cession were looked at askance. Although instructions
to the surveyor-general
directed him “when called on by any person to measure and bound lands…to
require his title of property or grant from the government…,” and
to keep regular books in which his surveys were to be recorded, he testified
before the commissioners that he possessed authority to survey without a special
order, that he located wherever the claimant pointed out, that he kept no regular
books of survey after the summer of 1817, and that he did not consider the
governor’s order obligatory. (151) Clarke issued a number of certificates
of survey, alleging “disposition of S.S. (Su Senoria, His Excellency)
of October 20, 1817,” for which no authorization from the governor could
be found. (152)
Often conditions had not been fulfilled. Both British and Spanish
grants as a rule carried conditions with respect to occupation and cultivation,
the number
of acres which should be cleared or drained within a given period, the number
of cattle that should be pastured, or the establishment of a saw or grist
mill, and the treaty permitted the same length of time for such conditions
to be
fulfilled in the event circumstances had previously prevented their fulfillment.
(153) Many who presented
__________
151. G&S, VI, 57.
152. Infra, S 29; T 27; W 13, 21, 23, 24, 25. Although Clarke’s explanation
to the Commissioners of verbal instructions from the governor to himself does
not appear in the Spanish Land Grants, he must have made such explanation.
Francisco Roman Sanchez states that during the MacGregor invasion Governor
Coppinger assembled the militia in the square in Fernandina on October 20,
1817, and urged the men against the invaders; the Governor confessed that he
had no money to pay them, but promised to each a service grant based on the
headrights, Infra, Vol. V, p. 24 and footnote.
153. The U.S. was bound after the cession to the same extent that Spain had
been bound before ratification.—U.S. v. Wiggins, 14 Peters 334.
p. lvi
(view
image)
claims had made no effort either under the Spanish government or under
that of the United States to fulfill the conditions of their grants.
Sometimes
royal titles were granted after January 24, 1818, when there was no
evidence of occupation or even a conditional grant previous
to that date.
For example, Joseph M.. Hernandez (154) received a grant on April 6, 1818,
and two days later a title in absolute property. (155)
Often the surveys were
not in agreement with the terms of the grants. The Supreme Court held
that surveys to have validity must have been in conformity with
the grants on which they were founded. (156)
Certificates issued by Thomas Aguilar
as Spanish government secretary were questioned by the board, particularly
by Alexander Hamilton, and later by government
counsel in cases before the courts. Here the Board was not sustained, the Supreme
Court deciding in several cases that Aguilar’s certificates were valid
evidence (157)
Sometimes surveys had been made and certified only by private
surveyors, the claimant offering no other evidence. The Supreme Court held
that the certificate
of a private surveyor purporting to show that he had permission from the
governor to make a survey was no evidence of the fact, but that plats
and certificates
of the surveyor-general, because of his official capacity, should be given
the credence that would have been accorded them by the Spanish government.
(158)
________
154. Infra, Unc. H 21
155. DG, V, 397
156. US v. Forbes, 15 Peters 173
157. U.S. v. Wiggins, 14 Peters 325; U.S. v. Delespine, 15 Peters 226; U.S.
v. Acosta, 17 Peters 16.
158. U.S. v. Hanson, 16 Peters 196.
p. lvii
(view
image)
There remain to be mentioned those British claims for lands which British
subjects were unable to dispose of at the time of the retrocession of
the province to Spain in 1783. They were brought forward after the cession
of Florida to the United States, but were not confirmed by the Boards
of Commissioners or by Congress. Even William Drayton’s claims
failed of confirmation, although his difficulties with Governor Tonyn,
which resulted among other things in the loss of his position as chief
justice of East Florida, were in large part due to his sympathy for the
patriot cause in the American Revolution. The law of Congress under which
the Board was organized in 1822 instructed the commissioners 1. to ascertain
how far the British claims were valid under the law of nations and 2.
how far they had been considered valid under the Spanish government if
satisfied of their validity, the claims were to be confirmed. (160)
English
claimants did not pretend that their claims were valid under the Spanish
government, but endeavored to avail themselves of the jus postliminium as
laid down in Vattel and other writers on international law, by means
of which person
and things taken by the enemy might be restored. Overton and White, in their
report of January 20, 1825, on the British claims went into the subject thoroughly,
showing that according to Vattel the principle which the British invoked
could only have been made to operate in favor of British claimants had
Florida
_________
159. Infra, Unc. D 23-38
160. U.S. Stat. at Large, III, 709-718.
p. lviii
(view
image)
been restored to England rather than sold to the United States, which
was not a party to the war between Great Britain and Spain In addition,
the treaty of 1783 between Great Britain and Spain recognized the claims
by providing that subjects of the former should have eighteen months
in which to dispose of them.
Furthermore, the commissioners expressed
the opinion that had these claims been presented to the Spanish government
before the cession
of Florida to the
United States, Spain would have pronounced them null and void. That the claims
were not presented was evidence in their judgment that the English themselves
thought so.
The commissioners pointed out also that the conditions of the English
grants were not fulfilled under the Spanish government and quoted Blackstone
as authority
for this fact alone as being evidence that the claims were at least voidable.
They expressed the opinion that even under English law the claims would not
be recognized. Spain regranted the lands claimed by those British subjects
who left their lands in Florida after 1783 and “if Spain could regrant
them and sell them at public auction, the United States, as the successor of
Spain, are entitled to all the advantages resulting from a similar disposition
of the property.” They concluded that the British grants which were not
confirmed by Spain are “forfeited, void, and of none effect. (161)
Louise Biles Hill
Manuscripts Editor
___________
161. G&S, IV, 250-253. For a list of English claims, see Ibid., p. 250
and Infra, Unc. T 28-43.
|
