Your suggestions will be attended to. I regret that your instructions, referring to a particular case to be investigated at Ouachita, should not have reached me in time. Perhaps it has been anticipated by my report; but if not, and found of sufficient importance to justify the expenses of a return there, I will do so.

I am sorry that I should have been indiscreet in the use of your franking privilege, the extent of which is unknown to me; it was done at the suggestion of Mr. Moore, who thought that my special mission might entitle me to it; it was less any motive of economy that prompted me to accept of the favor than the greater security afforded. I feel that, at any rate, I ought to have mentioned the circumstance to you; but the little importance attached to it, and the hurry that attended our last conference, banished the subject from my memory. I therefore beg you will excuse me. I perfectly understand and approve of your feelings. I thank Mr. Moore for his attention to my family, and his little paragraph.

I am, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,

ETHAN A. BROWN, Esq.,

V. M. GARESCHE.

Commissioner of the General Land Office, Washington.

Copy of a Report to the Secretary of the Treasury.
PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA,

May 30, 1836.

comprising

SIR: I arrived on the 10th ultimo at Ouachita, and examined the books of the register from the 1st of December last to the No. 2,468 to 3,323. The entries on the plats were verified from 15th September last to No. 3,323, making about 1,200 entries. The receiver's books were posted up to the 30th April, and were examined from January last from No. 2,700 to 3,225. The discrepancies, of which there is a list below, were all corrected. The receiver's account stands as follows:

[The date of this account has been obliterated, and is not therefore stated.]

To balance due, $29 93, to meet which he had gold and silver amounting to several hundred dollars.

I was inclined to begin my examination of the office from the 15th of September last, where Mr. Barry's left off. It would have taken up, probably, five or six days more; but there would have been, in that case, an uninterrupted chain of examination from the 1st April, 1833. I think, for my part, it should have been done, inasmuch as the errata list below evinces some signs of inaccuracy on the part of the officers; but I was not authorized to do so, my instructions, in 1833, directing me to pursue my investigations only far enough back to form a correct judgment of the manner in which the books were kept. I have, nevertheless, here and at New Orleans, gone beyond these limits.

re

The officers are very respectable men, and pay all necessary attention to the business of the office. The register, it is true, lives on his plantation, five miles off, but comes to the office very early each morning. The late pre-emption law has burdened his department with infinite labor, quiring a deal of judgment, patience, and activity, and making very excusable any error of posting. I had occasion to mention in my report, dated New Orleans, April, 21, the refusal of the officers of that district to grant partial back concessions, where there were more than one proprietor on a confirmed claim, acting from precedents established by Mr. Cenas, the late register, who had received his cue from the surveyor general, to whom Mr. Hayward had sent instructions to that effect. These instructions, however, were not transmitted to the different offices; and the register at Ouachita, to whom this construction of the law has never been communicated, has therefore pursued a different course, and every owner of a front tract receives his portion of back lands, although the co-proprietors of the concession should not wish to avail themselves of the privilege. Thus the same law does not receive a unanimous construction in the two districts; an anomaly to be regretted.

Power being vested in me to decide in certain cases, from previous instructions received at Washington, it behooves me to state where and how this power has been exercised. The case happened of an individual who wished to locate his pre-emption and float on a spot which had been surveyed, but without return being made to the office of such survey. The officers wished to know if the location might be allowed. My opinion was against it. No survey being deemed cognoscible, except returned by the surveyor general, and to acknowledge any other was to defeat the object of the Commissioner's instructions, prohibiting the return of any new survey, with a view to shield from the grasp of eager speculators a portion of good lands not yet in the market. The case was submitted to the district attorney, whose opinion will rule of course. Again,

* I have since seen the district attorney, who has given the same decision.--Opelousas,

June 5.

it happens often that what is represented on the plat as a watercourse, is one not coming within the boundary of the law of the 15th June, 1832, granting back concessions, because it may be scarcely navigable, and its banks so low as not to admit of permanent cultivation. In that case, a front proprietor may extend his pre-emption right over it; but, before he has exercised it, his neighbors produce affidavits proving the watercourse to be of that description contemplated by the law, and claim to enter the land on its banks by private entry. The register measures the watercourse on the map, and, if of sufficient width, admits the claim. The width, in my opinion, is not conclusive evidence, for the banks may be low and boggy, and the affidavits of interested persons must be received with great caution; when I have been consulted on the subject, I have always referred to the surveyor general, as the most competent to decide as to matter of fact; his field notes are generally accompanied by such remarks as will solve the question. But then, asks the register, why so much additional expense and inconvenience to the purchaser as results from the reference to the surveyor general, when the plats are sufficient authority for us? True, no unnecessary obstable should be thrown into the way of the purchaser; but, if a plat be good authority, we must confess that the authority of the plat-maker is superior still; and in cases of doubtful character, we must have the best to decide, and avoid, for the sake of sparing trouble to one of the parties, to commit an injustice to the other. In all cases of pre-emptions and floats, the officers have caused the witnesses to appear, and have had them examined and sworn before them. It is my opinion that they have done all that prudence required; they have good understanding of the law, and if any imposition has been practised upon them, the fault lies in the limits of human provision. I must remark, however, that the papers and books are not as neatly kept as might be wished. No tract books are kept in this office.

After I left Donaldsonville, I stopped at Pointe Coupée, and called on Colonel Charles Morgan, for whom General Ripley had given me a letter. In a conversation I had with that gentleman, he stated that fraud to a great extent had been committed in that district; but he dealt again in generalities. Without disproving the fact, what can I do with such general statements? People seem very anxious that the defaulters should be brought to light, that the lands should be taken from them; but, at the same time, leave you all the onus probandi. As I was afraid to miss the Ouachita boat, which was then performing her last trip but one, I left Colonel Morgan, with a promise that I should stop on my way down, which I did; but, being told that the Colonel was at New Orleans, and would not be back for a week, and not finding in his overseer any disposition to invite me in, I being a stranger, and the hour of twelve at night being a sinister one, I took my leave of Pointe Coupée, and shaped my course for Plaquemine, where I arrived yesterday at two in the morning. I expect the Opelousas steamboat shortly, and will then proceed on.

Being informed that a sum of $2,000 was claimed by Mr. Jos. Friend, the late receiver, for settlement of account, I looked into it carefully, compared it with the records, and cast up all the sums, and must confess that I saw no ground for such a demand against him; except, indeed, he had not deposited, which is so stated, or that he had brought against the United States some inadmissible charge; but, in the latter supposition,

the amount could hardly be so large. There is on the books a balance of $93 35 in his favor, which appears correct to me.

I am, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. LEVI WOODBURY,

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington.

V. M. GARESCHE.

P. S. My examination lasted fourteen days, having deducted from my sojourn of seventeen days two Sundays, and one day that I was indisposed. I have drawn $200 on the receiver, on account of my salary.

No. 2,560. 40.15 acres, $50 19, should be 40.05 acres,

$50 06.

2,563. 239.54 acres, $299 43, should be 239.44

Errors in cal

culating the

area.

2,643. W. of S. W. 4, and S. W. 4 of S. W. 4, should be S. W. 1

of N. W..

2,656. 80 acres, $100, should be 80.25 acres, $100 36.

2,669. $99 03, should be $98 90.

2,677. Demagiere, should be De Mejiera.

2,663 to 2,666, inclusive. Applications wanting.

2,698. 430 acres, should be 436 acres.

2,723. Range W., should be range E.

2.725. S. W., of N. W., should be of N. E. 1.

2.733. 37.86 acres, should be 38.86.

2,751 and '52. Rutherford, Tenn., should be Murfreesboro', Tenn.

2,788. $172 58, should be $175 08.

2,804. D. Convin, should be D. Colvin.

2,818. 100.10 acres, should be 110.50 acres.

2,830. Section 30, should be section 3.

2,838. 39.37 acres, should be 39.97 acres.
2,841. $205 16, should be $205 19.
2,284. Section 20, should be section 30.

2,898. $51 13, should be $51 15.

2,902. 160.66 acres, $200 82, should be 160.64 acres, $200 So.

2,914. $202 09, should be $202 19.

2,923 and '26. Corn. Wright, should be Corn. McWright.

2,949. S. of section 1, should be W.

of, &c.

3,006 and '7. Aram Gill, should be Ann Gill.

3,008. Township 5, range blank, should be range 2.

3,009 and '10. Blensket, should be Bauskett.

3,026 and '40. Of Vicksburg, Mississippi, should be of New Orleans.
3,052. $396 05, should be $369 05.

3,064. 77.98 acres, $97 48, should be 155.47 acres, $194 34.
3,071. Bouie, should be Buie.

3,080 and '81. Ouachita, should be Catahoula.

No. 3,088. Holsein, should be Holstein.

3,096 to '98, 3,100 to '104, 3,131, and '132. Mecha, should be Micha. 3,097. W. of S. W. 1, should be of N. E. .

3,100. Lot No. 1, should be lot No. 2.

3,121. Section 17, should be section 7. 3,124. Range 3, should be range 4.

3,134 and '5. John D. Iavis, should be John D. Ives. 3,139. Thaddous, should be Thaddeus.

3,162. W.

of S. W. 4, and W. of N. E. 1, should be E. of N. W. 1, &c.

3,206. 453.15 acres, should be 463.15 acres.

3,216. Gaiennea, should be Gaiennie.

Plats.

2,003 and '4. Marked on N. E. of section 2, township 17, range 6 west, should be in section 3, &c.; No. 2,284 having already entered the same tract. The case has been already reported to the Commissioner.

2,262. Entered on the N. W. of section 6, township 17, range 5 W., should be 2,264.

2,269. Not entered in its proper place, but entered in the N. of S. E. of sections 31 and 32, township 9, range 6 E. 2,292. Erroneous; entered in N. 1 of N. W. 1, section 8, township 9, range 7 E.

2,297. Entered lot 5, section 27, township 8, range 6 E., which 2,942 had entered before.

2,298. Erroneous; entered in section 8, township 9, range 7 E.
2,473. Erroneous; entered in section 26, instead of 8.

2,534. The register and the receiver's books, as well as the application, state the E. of N. E. 1; part of this tract had, however, previously been entered by Holstein. The plat shows the entry made on the S. E. of section 2, township 11, range 6 E., which is supposed correct.

2,564. Entered on the E. of S. W. of section, 23, township 20, range 5 west, should be 2,563.

2,604. Entered on the S. E. of section 20, township 11, range 8, instead of 2,406.

2,722. Entered on section 18, instead of 8. 2,737. The application and books call for E.

of S. W.; but it is supposed that E. of S. E. was meant. It is so entered on the plat, section 13, township 19, range 4 west.

2,876. Not entered. 2,898. Erroneous; entered in section 8, township 9, range 7 E. 2,940. Entered on the N. W. of N. E. 4, section 30, township 16,

range 1 west, instead of 2,930.

2,943. Not entered.

2,985. Erroneous; entered on lot 4, section 13, township 8, range 6. 2,987. Entered on lot 3, instead of lot 2.

3,244. E. of S. E. 4, should be E. 4 of N. E. 4.

3,123. Henry Bry,

3,140. Solon W. Downs, Both purchased lot No. 2, of section 24.