gress approved June 2, 1858 11 Stat., 294), for the unsatisfied portion of the Louisiana private donation claim of said Grass.

It appears that the claim of Grass was for 3,000 arpents of land situate in Baton Rouge, La., which his heirs claim was confirmed to him by the act of May 8, 1822 (3 Stat., 707). After an elaborate review of the several acts of Congress in respect to such claims, and of the facts in the case, you held (affirming the opinion of the surveyor-general of Louisiana) that the claim was confirmed for 1,280 acres only, and that, it having been satisfied to that extent, the heirs have no further claim upon the Government. Without reference to this question, the case must be disposed of upon another ground.

It appears that an application for certificates upon this same claim was made to the surveyor-general of Louisiana in July, 1872, and by him rejected February 12, 1877. Thereupon J. L. Bradford, esq., attor ney for the heirs, appealed from said ruling, but subsequently (August 10) addressed the surveyor-general, stating that, "in preparing an argument upon my appeal, I am convinced that you are right, and that the United States have not yet recognized the title for a greater quantity" than 1,280 acres, and "I now beg leave thus to withdraw my appeal." The same was accordingly dismissed by your office August 31 following. This withdrawal left in force the ruling of the surveyor-general, which thereby became final. The claim must therefore be held res judicata, and the present application be, for that reason, denied.

I make this technical ruling with less hesitation from the fact that, in addition to the withdrawal of Mr. Bradford, a well-known practitioner before this Department, W. C. Hill, esq., and M. D. Brainard, esq., respectable attorneys of this city, who were retained for the claimants, have, in turn, after examination of the papers in the case, also withdrawn from it, thus inducing the belief that it is without merit. I affirm your rejection of the claim.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES-SURVEY OF CLAIM.

HEIRS OF BERNARD GENOIS.

When the character in which parties in interest appear is meagerly described, and their appearance recognized, the regularity not being apparent, on objection thereto, amendment will be allowed, the only probable result of dismissal being their application de novo.

The location by survey is to be governed by the facts shown as to boundaries, which are set forth and considered, and amendments of survey directed.

Commissioner McFarland to surveyor-general, New Orleans, La., November 12, 1883.

SIR: In the matter of the claim of the heirs of Bernard Genois, now before me, it appears by the files and record in the case that under date

of May 5, 1882, E. R. Mason, esq., as attorney for the heirs of Genois, applied to your predecessor in office for an official survey of the claim confirmed to their ancestor by act of Congress, as the same was reported in the American State Papers.

Said application was communicated to this office with your predecessor's letter of May 17, 1882, and under date of May 29, 1882, your office was instructed to make the survey.

June 20, 1882, M. D. Brainard, esq., of this city, as attorney for the New Orleans, Spanish Fort and Lake Railroad Company, filed in this office objections to the execution of the survey, and asked that the order therefor be revoked, which, in consideration of the matters urged in said objections, was done, by letter to your office of July 6, 1882.

Under date of July 20, 1882, Mr. Mason replied to the objections aforesaid and renewed his application for survey of the claim; and upon re-examination of the case, and especially in view of the confirmation of the claim, it appeared that the claimants were entitled to a survey thereof. The order of July 6 was accordingly revoked, and your office was instructed to make the survey applied for "according to the confirmation, as nearly as possible," &c.

Under said instructions a survey of the claim was made by W. D. Duke, deputy surveyor, and approved by Surveyor-General Gla, January 23, 1883.

The survey having been returned to this office, on the 19th of March, 1883, Mr. Brainard, in behalf of the New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company, filed in this office an application, with sundry documents and maps, asking to have said survey rejected:

First. Because the application for this survey was not made in good faith or on behalf of any one having an interest in the Genois claim. Second. Because the field work of the survey of this claim by Dep uty Surveyor Duke was not correctly executed, and the Genois claim is not located in conformity with the calls of the concession.

Third. Because the survey executed by Deputy Surveyor Duke locates the Genois claim in part upon lands held by the New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company under a fee-simple title derived from the United States more than fifty years ago, and is, therefore, clearly illegal, to the extent of said conflict.

The first above objection, as far as relates to the form of appearance, is well taken, Mr. Mason having appeared and made the application for survey, in behalf of "the heirs of Bernard Genois," it being shown by a deed introduced by the contestants, and also by the affidavit of Estelle Genois, one of the parties represented, that Bernard Genois, the confirmee, conveyed the claim to his son Jean Baptiste Genois, and that it now belongs to the three daughters of the latter, Estelle, Camilla, and Celestine Genois, who hold as his heirs (not as the heirs of Bernard Genois), and.as grantees of their brother, Joseph, jr., and, it is presumed, also as heirs of their brother Bernard (as they claim to be

the owners in entirety, and it is stated in said affidavit that they are the only surviving heirs of Jean Baptiste Genois).

The application was therefore irregular; but the irregularity not then appearing, it was recognized and the survey ordered; and the only probable result to be gained by now setting aside the present proceedings would be an application for a survey de novo. The confirmed claim is entitled to be located by survey without especial regard to the application, and its proper location cannot be regarded as cause of complaint. The patent will issue in the name of the confirmee, and can only result to the benefit of whoever may be legally entitled to the land confirmed. The attorney for the claimant will therefore be allowed to amend his proceeding so as to correctly represent the true character in which his clients claim the land.

The second and third objections put in issue the correctness of the survey made by Duke, alleging that the claim, as located thereby, wrongfully conflicts with the right of the New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company by including land held by it under title long since derived from the United States.

The land in question is in T. 12 S., R. 11 E., and situated near the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain on the left (west) bank of the Bayou Saint John, which empties into the lake. It is north of and adjacent to the city of New Orleans, and appears to be within the jurisdiction of the city government.

The claim of Bernard Genois was favorably reported by the register of the eastern district of Louisiana, January 6, 1821; was included in a list of claims communicated to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury, January 1, 1823, and confirmed by act of Congress of February 28, 1823 (3 Stat., 727).

The register's report of the claim is as follows:

No. 7. Bernard Genois claims in virtue of a grant made to a person under whom he claims by the Baron de Carondelet, dated the 29th November, 1793, a tract of land situated in the county of Orleans, adjoining Fort Saint John, having two arpents in front with forty arpents in depth, as appears more fully by the figurative plan annexed.

The claimant produced the original grant, as stated in his notice, made to Felicite Destrehan, a free woman of color, by the Baron de Carondelet, and also written evidence of his title, under her, by purchase. I am therefore of opinion that his claim ought to be confirmed. (Am. State Papers, Gales & Seaton's ed., vol. 3, p. 579, R. No. 7.)

The "figurative plan" mentioned in the report is not in the record of the case before me; at least, no plan is identified as that referred to by the register.

The land now claimed by the New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company is a part of the former Fort Saint John military reservation, which was not a reserve by act of Congress, or Executive order, but having been held by the former Governments, and at the time of the transfer of title and jurisdiction to the United States occupied for

military purposes, it did not result to the public domain, but to special governmental use, and was taken possession of and for a time occupied by the military authorities of the United States.

Under the act of Congress of March 3, 1819 (3 Stat., 520), authorizing the Secretary of War to sell and convey such military sites belonging to the United States as had or should become useless for military purposes, Secretary Cass, on the 31st of August, 1831, sold and conveyed to Harvey Elkins, his heirs and assigns, the following-described tract: Beginning on the west side of the Bayou Saint John at a point where the northern boundary line of the Genois tract strikes it, and running thence with the said northern boundary line of said Genois's land west until it intersects the low-water mark of Lake Pontchartrain, thence in an easterly direction along the lake shore, with the line of low-water mark, until it strikes the packets (pickets?) on the west side of Bayou Saint John, thence up and with the west bank of the bayou to the beginning, containing thirty-seven arpents, more or less.

It is seen by reference to the report of the register, which is made the basis of the confirmation of the Bernard Genois claim, and to the deed from the Secretary of War to Harvey Elkins, both above set forth, that said claim is described as "adjoining Fort Saint John," and that the land sold to Elkins was bounded on the south by "the northern boundary line of Genois' land." It is therefore impossible that the two tracts, properly located by their described boundaries, should conflict with each other. The all-important point, then, to be ascertained and determined is the true location of the interboundary line-a matter rendered somewhat difficult by the entire absence in the descriptions of reference to any natural or permanent landmarks.

Several surveys illustrative, or partially so, of the tracts in question have from time to time been made, and are present in the files of the case; one said to have been by the surveyor Lafon in 1805; another by the same in 1808; one by Bringier in 1830; one by Celles in 1865; one introduced by the contestants of Duke's survey, made by the sur veyor Grandjean, subscribed by him February 14, 1883, and accompanied by his affidavit of same date, and others.

In 1871 and 1872 United States Deputy Surveyor Sulakowski, under instructions from the surveyor-general, surveyed the private claims in the township. The claims which come under consideration here are represented on the plat compiled from Deputy Sulakowski's field notes, as section 112, designated as claimed by Alexander Milne; section 114, by J. B. Genois; section 190, by Tamboury and Millandon; and 191, "claimed by Genois" (neither the Christian name nor initials being given). The claim of Bernard Genois of 2 arpents front by 40 arpents in depth is not represented on the township plat. The land constituting it appears to be embraced in section 112 of that plat, claimed by Alexander Milne and marked "O. B. 17.”

This claim, O. B. 17, is included in the report of the old Board of Commissioners for the eastern district of Orleans Territory, which was

communicated to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury January 9, 1812, with recommendation for its confirmation, and described in the report as "situated on the Bayou Saint John, on the left side thereof,

* containing 17 arpents, 29 toises in front" (one toise short of 18 arpents) "by 40 arpents in depth; bounded on the upper side" (south) "by land of widow Durocher, and on the lower" (north) "by land of Peter Palao." (Am. State Papers, Gales & Seaton's ed., vol. 2, p. 301, No. 17.)

It appears by the report here referred to that 15 arpents 29 toises front of the land constituting the Milne claim was conceded by the French Government to Bartholomew Roberts in 1766, and 2 arpents front thereof by the Spanish Government to John B. Blaise, 20 April, 1771, section 112, as represented on the plat of Sulakowski's survey, measures, by the scale of said plat, a small fraction less than 20 arpents front; an excess of 2 arpents front over the quantity recommended for confirmation to Milne, and the exact quantity called for by the confirmation to Bernard Genois. These 2 arpents undoubtedly constitute the Bernard Genois claim.

The claim of J. B. Genois has a front of 120 feet on Bayou Saint John and a depth of 3 arpents. It was favorably reported by the register and receiver of the southeastern district of Louisiana September 5, 1833, sent to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury January 31, 1834, and confirmed by the act of March 3, 1835 (4 Stats., 780). It is described in the report of the register and receiver as "part of a tract of land origi nally granted by the Spanish Government in due form to Blaise alias Bellegar on the 20th day of April, 1771.”

It is represented on the Sulakowski map as section 114, and located thereon between the Bernard Genois, 2 arpents and the Fort Saint John tract, which, as above shown, bounded each other. It could not, therefore, be properly located between them.

It is shown by the report of the old Board of Commissioners in the case of the Milne claim, above quoted, and by the plat of the Lafon survey of 1805, which appears to be a survey of the last-mentioned claim, that the Blaise or Bellegar tract, of which the J. B. Genois claim (as shown by the register's and receiver's report thereof) was a part, was the lower (northern) 2 arpents of the 17 arpents and 29 toises constituting the Alexander Milne claim.

The same is also shown by the deed of Juan Torregrosa and Emelia Blaisse, his wife, March 10, 1804, to Jose Monson, and by a deed from Monson March 15, 1823, of the same tract, to Charles and Joseph Gencis. The land conveyed is described in the first above-mentioned deed, as follows:

A piece of land situated on San Juan Bayou, consisting of one hundred and twenty feet front and three arpents deep 著 * adjoining

on one side the land of Felicite Destrehan, a free mulatto woman, and

on the other, our own land, which I, the second with the larger portion, inherited from Juan Beautiste Blaisse, my deceased father.