EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 185. 1824.

67

of the United States to the lots known as the hospital and bake-house ^ n e i( ^ s £^*°lots, containing about three-fourths of an acre of land, in the city of as^he hospital?Mobile, in the state of Alabama ; and also all the right and claim of the and bake-houseUnited States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals,either by lots in the city

Company. A blacksmith’s shop was then put on the lot by him, and Lewis, again by proceedings at law,obtained possession of the blacksmith’s shop, it not being his improvement. The improvement was firstmade in 1823. The Spanish governor in 1809, after the Louisiana treaty of 1803, and before the territorywest of the Perdido was out of the possession of Spain , granted the lot in front of the lot owned byForbes and Company, to William Pollard ; but the commissioners ofthe United States , appointed after theterritory was in the full possession of the United States , refused to confirm the same “because ofthe want of improvement and occupation.” In 1824, Congress passed an act, the second section ofwhich gives to those who have improved them, the lots in Mobile, known under the Spanish govern-ment as “ water lots,” except where the lot so improved had been alienated, and except lots of whichthe Spanish government had made “ new grants” or orders of survey during the time the Spanish government had “power” to grant the same, in which case the lot is to belong to the alienee orthe grantee. In 1836, Congress passed an act for the relief of William Pollard's heirs, by which thelot granted by the Spanish government of 1809, was given to the heirs, saving the right of third persons;and a patent for this lot was issued to the heirs of William Pollard, by the United States , on the 2dJuly, 1836. Held, that the lot lying east of the lot granted in 1802, by the Spanish government, toForbes and Company, did not pass by that grant to Forbes and Company; that the act of Congress of1824, did not vest the title in the lot east of the lot granted in 1802, in Forbes and Company; and thatthe heirs of Pollard, under the second section of the act of 1824, which excepted from the grant tothe city of Mobile, &c., lots held under “ new grants”from the Spanish government, and under theact of Congress of 1836, were entitled to the lot granted in 1809 by the Spanish government to WilliamPollard. Pollard’s heirs v. Kibbs, 14 Peters, 353.

The act of Congress under which title was claimed, being a private act, and for the benefit of thecity of Mobile , and certain individuals; it is fair to presume it was passed with particular reference tothe claims of individuals, and the situation of the land embraced in the law at the time it was passed.

The term “ new grant” in its ordinary acceptation, which applied to the same subject or object, isthe opposite to “ old.” But such could not be its meaning in the act of Congress of 1824. The termwas doubtless used in relation to the existing condition of the territory in which such grants were made.The territory had been ceded to the United States by the Louisiana treaty, but in consequence of adispute with Spain about the boundary line, had remained in the possession of Spain . During this timeSpain continued to issue evidences of titles to lands, within the territory in dispute. The term “ new”was appropriately used as applicable to grants and orders of survey of this description as contradis-tinguished from those issued before the cession. Ibid.

The time when the Spanish government had the “ power” to grant lands in the territory, by every reason-able intendment of the act of Congress of 1824, must have been so designated with reference to theexisting state of the territory, as between the United States and Spain ; the right to the territory beingin the United States and the possession in Spain. The language “ during the time at which Spain hadthe power to grant the same,” was under such circumstances very appropriately applied to the case. Itcould with no propriety have been applied to the case, if Spain had full dominion over the territory, bythe union of the right and the possession ; and, in this view, it is no forced interpretation of the word“ power” to consider it here used as imparting an imperfect right, and distinguished from complete-lawful authority. Ibid..

The acts of Congress of March 25, 1812, appointing commissioners to ascertain the titles and claimsto lands on the east side of the Mississippi , and west side of the Perdido, and falling within the cessionof France , embraced all claims to this description. It extended to all claims, by virtue of any grant,order of survey, or other evidence of claim, whatsoever, derived from the French, British or Spanish governments; and the reports of the commissioners show, that evidence of claims, of various descrip-tions, issued by Spanish authority, down to 1810, come under their examination. And the legislationof Congress shows many laws passed, confirming incomplete titles, originating after date of the treatybetween France and Spain, at St. Ildefonso. Such claims are certainly not beyond the reach of Con-gress to confirm; although it may require a special act of Congress for that purpose. Such is the actof Congress of July 2d, 1836, which confirms the title of William Pollard’s heirs, to the lot which isthe subject of this suit. Ibid.

A lot of ground, part of the ground on which fort Charlotte had been erected, in the city of Mobile before the territory was acquired from Spain, by the United States , had been sold under an act ofCongress of 1818. The lot had been laid out according to a plan by which a street, called Waterstreet,was run along the margin of Mobile river; and the street was extended over part of the site offort Charlotte. The lot was situated west of Water street, but when sold by the United States itseastern line was between high-water mark of the river. The purchaser of this lot improved the lotlying in front of it, east of Water street, having filled it up, at a heavy expense, thus reclaiming it fromthe river, which at high-water had covered it. When the lot east of Water street was purchased thepurchaser could not pass along the street, except with the aid of logs, and other timber. Water streetwas, in 1823, filled up, at the cost of the city of Mobile . Taxes and assessments for making side-walks’along Water street, were paid to the city of Mobile, by the owner of the lot. The city of Mobile had’brought suit for taxes, and had advertised the Jot for sale, as the property of a tenant under the pur-chaserof the lot. On the 26th of May, 1824, Congress passed an act, which declared in the first sectionthat all the right and claim of the United States to the lots known as the hospital and bake-house lots*containing about three-fourths of an acre of land in the state of Alabama ; and all the right and claimot the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals, either by this or any former actand to which no equitable title exists, in favour of any individual under this or any other act, betweennigh-water mark and the channels of the river, and between Church street and North Boundary streetin front of Mobile, should be vested in the corporation of the city of Mobile for the use of the citvforever. The second section provides, “that all the right and claim of the United States to so many