The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Catherine Jacobs, widow of Francis Jacobs, beg leave to report:

That the husband of the petitioner was a waiter in the military household of General Washington during the war of the revolution, and was pensioned by special act of Congress in 1834, at the rate of ninety-six dollars per annum. He died in 1844, and the pension ceased, as the bureau had no power to continue it to the widow. She now prays for a special act extending to her the provisions of section two of the pension act of February 3, 1853. The committee do not feel disposed to establish any new precedents for the granting of pension in cases not clearly within the intent of the general laws, nor are they disposed to regard precedents of the kind in former legislation of Congress; and as it is clear that the husband of the petitioner served in a civil and not a military capacity, and that she is not therefore entitled to pension under general laws, they do not feel disposed to favor a special act in her behalf. They, therefore, recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be not granted.

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred a letter of the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, recommending an appropriation of $1,641 70 to pay that amount of interest due to the Orchard party and First Christian party of New York Indians, make the following report:

On looking into this case, the committee are of opinion that there is no reason to justify the claim for interest, and they doubt whether the removal of these tribes of Indians to the Indian territory does not attach to the payment of the principal sum of six thousand dollars as a part of the consideration.

The committee report adversely to the prayer of the petitioners.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 9, 1864.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. CARLILE made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany bill S. No. 238.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred bill S. No. 238, "to ascertain and settle private land claims in California," have had the same under consideration and beg leave to report:

That the mischief designed to be remedied by the bill had better be corrected, and relief, where justice demanded it, afforded by special acts rather than by a general law, and have therefore reported an amendment by way of substitute for the bill, to the end that justice may be done and the nation's faith, under our treaty with Mexico, maintained in the only case which, in the opinion of the committee, called for the action of Congress.

It appears from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivered at the term commencing in December, 1859, and again in 1863, in the case of the United States vs. E. E. White, administratrix, &c., and of E. E. White vs. The United States, that the title to the tract of land known as the Rancho Arroyo de San Antonio," is not in the United States, but in the heirs or legal representatives of one Juan Miranda, who settled upon the land in the year 1837, under a provisional grant made by General Vallejo, as director of colonization, and so continued in possession, residing upon the land until his death in the winter of 1845-'46, leaving his children in possession, who remained in possession thereof and held the same when the country was ceded to the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

The archives of the government of Mexico which contained the evidence of the final grant to Miranda for the land named, which was ordered on the 30th May, 1844, and which, on the 8th October, 1844, was confirmed by formal decree or grant, were not discovered until Mr. Stanton, the present Secretary of War, reached California as agent of the United States government under the administration of Mr. Buchanan.

In 1859 the Supreme Court clearly expressed the opinion that the claimant of the tract of land under the Miranda grant, who was no party to the suit, had a right to intervene in the district court and assert his claim to the land in question, but the district court decided otherwise, which decision of the district court was affirmed by the Supreme Court after argument upon application for a mandamus. The Supreme Court thus reversing its own opinion as expressed

in 1859.

With the admission of the highest court in the land on the record, that the United States have no claim or title to this land, the committee cannot conceive