privilege of submitting an argument in the case. While a government is the sole judge of the circumstances under which a resort to arms should be had to secure reparation for injuries done to their citizens, and may abstain from a further prosecution of them, yet a manifest distinction exists between this right of abstinence and that of referring to arbitration. This power may be discreetly and rightfully exercised where various and complicated causes of complaint exist, and where the adjustment of none can be obtained without the submission of all to reference; and the citizen as to whom the decision may be unfavorable, although his claim be just, would probably have no valid equitable ground of recourse against his government.

The case of the General Armstrong was distinct and isolated, no other interests were hanging upon its decision, and if the administration of President Fillmore did not choose to urge it further, it might, and in the opinion of this committee, should have been left for future settlement. Numerous instances in our own history during the last thirty years, to which it is not necessary to refer, demonstrate the efficacy of time in bringing about the solution of difficulties apparently insurmountable.

The committee, while indisposed to speak in any other terms than those of unqualified respect of the judgment and impartiality of the arbiter to whom the case was referred, think that there is a manifest error in his statement of facts and the conclusion drawn from his statement in the final award. He says: "Considering that if it be clear that on the night of the 27th of September, some English long boats, commanded by Lieutenant Robert Fausset, of the British navy, approached the American brig the General Armstrong,' it is not certain that the men who manned the boats aforesaid were provided with arms and ammunition. That it is evident in fact, from the documents which have been exhibited, that the aforesaid long boats having approached the American brig, the crew of the latter, after having hailed them and summoned them to be off, immediately fired upon them, and that some men were killed on board of the English boats and others woundedsome of whom mortally-without any attempt having been made on the part of the other boats to repel at once force by force."

Now, it is evident, that the natural, indeed, necessary presumption is, that the boats of men-of-war do not, at night, closely approach an armed vessel of an enemy, without the crew being armed-those who assume the negative in such a case should prove it—but no stronger evidence can be required of the facts of the crews of the British boats being armed, than that a seaman of the "General Armstrong" was killed, and her first lieutenant wounded in the first contest. Under all the peculiar circumstances of the case, the committee are of opinion that the claimants are justly entitled to relief on strict legal principles, and even were their convictions on the subject less decided than they are, they would find in the heroic conduct of Captain Reid and his gallant crew strong inducements to give them the benefit of their doubts.

There are two points of general interest involved in this matter, which should not be without their influence on the action of the Senate. The effect to be produced on our own citizens by according indemnity

in stimulating them to emulate the noble example of Captain Reid; for there can be no doubt that if he had suffered himself to be captured without resistance, full pecuniary satisfaction would long since have been accorded by Portugal to the claimants. Shall we refuse it because he has added to our naval history one of its most brilliant pages? Again, if we act upon the avowed principle that our citizens are always to be compensated for any injuries they may suffer from the violation by belligerents of the law of nations, other countries will be more earnest in maintaining the inviolability of their territory.

The committee report the accompanying bill and recommend its passage.

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the petition of Mark and Richard H. Bean, report:

That the petitioners, Mark and Richard H. Bean, being authorized as they conceived, by the laws and policy of our government, looking to the settlement and exploration of its domain, both with a view to the discovery of lead mines and salt springs, settled, in the year 1817, upon the Illinois river, a tributary of the Arkansas, near its confluence with the last named stream, having thereat discovered a saline spring. That two years subsequent, to wit: in the year 1819, urgent inducements were offered to them by Major Bradford, an army officer commanding at Fort Smith, to engage in the manufacture of salt for the use of the troops at the before named garrison, and they were assured by the officer named, (in the event of so doing,) that the protection of the United States government should be afforded them.

That upon the plighted faith of the United States army officers, the Messrs. Bean erected, at heavy cost to themselves, residences and other buildings requisite to secure their salt works from the rigors of the seasons, and expended large sums of money in procuring the various implements and fixtures necessary to complete the establishment aforesaid, and successfully carry on the process of salt making, relying with certainty upon a greatly augmented demand for salt, whenever the country contiguous thereto should become settled and occupied with white people.

That this event did not transpire until the year 1826, from which time the Messrs. Bean were begining to realize some reward for their labor, hardships, and expenses encountered by them during the eight years wherein they had been engaged in the business before mentioned. But by a treaty made between the government and the Cherokees, May 6, 1828, they were despoiled of their property, in consequence of the whole country (embracing their salt manufactory and the entire land which they had located upon and reduced to agricultural cultivation) having been stricken off of the Territory of Arkansas and given to the aforesaid Indians.

The facts herein detailed are fully sustained by the written testimony of General Arbuckle and Colonels Bonneville and Miles of the United States army, who were stationed during that period in that vicinity, and the properly authenticated affidavits of thirteen other resident citizens, all of whom are gentlemen of high respectability and undoubted veracity. Five of these witnesses estimate the loss suffered by Mark and R. H. Bean, on account of the aforesaid act of the federal government, at $15,000, while a sixth computes it at $20,000. The first estimate, that of $15,000, is affirmed by the statements of Colonels Miles and Bonneville. The former says, "I deem this estimate just, and much more moderate than what I should have awarded, had I been called on to give a verdict in the case." The latter remarks that the memorialists "could not have lost by the abandonment of their buildings, outhouses, furnaces, wells, warehouses, and a five-mile road to the falls, and a warehouse there, less than $15,000; nor do I believe they would have sold out, at any time, their full claim to that place for double that amount." These are officers well known, and whose truth, integrity, and high character must carry conviction.

By reference to the Cherokee treaty alluded to, it will be found that its third article is in these words:

"The United States agree to have the lines of the above cession run without delay; and to remove, immediately after the running of the eastern line from the Arkansas river to the southwest corner of Missouri, all white persons from the west to the east of said line, and also all others, should there be any there, who may be unacceptable to the Cherokees, so that no obstacles arising out of the presence of a white population, or a population of any other sort, shall exist to annoy the Cherokees; and also to keep all such from the west of said line in future."

From the foregoing article of said treaty it will be seen, that the government absolutely confiscated all the real property of what kind soever belonging to the white population within that portion of the Territory of Arkansas which had, previous thereto, been opened to the lawful use, occupation, and settlement of our people, and in effect, if not in words, bestowed the same upon these Indians as a gift or part consideration for their lands in Georgia. The injustice done to the white settler was greatly increased by the fact that he had been invited to this spot by the officers and authorized agents of the United States. It is believed, this government has fully admitted that it was bound to indemnify the sufferers in this case by the act of 24th of May, 1828, (see pages 306 and 307 of Little & Brown's edition of the laws, vol. 4,) entitled, "An act to aid the State of Ohio in extending the Miami canal from Dayton to Lake Erie, and to grant a quantity of land to said State to aid in the construction of the canals authorized by law, and for making donations of land to certain persons in Arkansas Territory;" wherein this law provides, that two quarter sections of land should be given "to each head of a family, widow, or single man over the age of twenty-one years, actually settled on that part of the Territory of Arkansas which, by the first article of the treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Indians west of the Mississippi, ratified the 23d day of May, 1828, has ceased to be a part of said Territory, who shall remove from such set

tlement according to the provisions of that treaty ;" and which donation was declared to be made from the United States "as an indemnity for the improvements and losses of such settlers under the aforesaid treaty." Such remuneration in land, however, fully in the opinion of the committee, commits the government to the principle of indemnifying all persons similarly situated. It is true that it applied only to settlers on small subdivisions of land, and whose improvements were not at all of a costly character; yet, as before stated, it fully admits and supports the claim of these petitioners to just and fair compensation for the loss sustained by them, and resulting from the acts of the treaty making power of this government.

Another circumstance which the committee thinks should have great weight in sustaining the claim of Messrs. Mark and Richard Bean for indemnification is: that their houses, furnaces, fixtures and implements, used not only for manufacturing, but farming purposes, which had subjected them to a heavy outlay of money and toil, they were forced to abandon upon the unfortunate locality whence they were compulsorily ejected under the treaty that forced the whites to surrender their homes to the Cherokee Indians, who, to the present day, have been in full possession and enjoyment of the estate and property.of said petitioners, and are still actually engaged in the manufacture of salt on said pre

mises.

In addition to the facts hereinbefore presented, and which your committee think are amply sufficient to sustain the claim of Mark and Richard H. Bean to the smallest sum proven to have been lost by them, they append hereto and make part of this report all of the papers deemed necessary by the committee in explanation and proof of the petitioners claim for relief. They are: the petition itself, marked A; a statement in "further support of the petition," by Mark and Richard H. Bean, and the affidavits of William Quesenbury and William McGarrah, marked B; General Arbuckle's statement, marked C; Lieutenant Colonel Bonneville's statement, marked D; and Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Miles' statement, marked E; and the committee recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.

A.

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:

The petition of the undersigned, Mark Bean and Richard H. Bean, respectfully showeth: That in the year 1817 they discovered a saltlick on the Illinois river, near its junction with the Arkansas, in what was then the Missouri Territory; that in 1819, the officer in command at Fort Smith, Major Bradford, in view of obtaining on reasonable terms a supply of salt for the use of the troops at that post, urged your petitioners to engage in the manufacture of salt at said lick, and promised that in case they would do so their rights should be fully protected and secured by the government; that, induced by the solicitations and re