*w
 
 THE ARGUMENT 
 
 . I i . ST A N 1) IS I I 
 
 BEFORE CONGRESS, 
 
 EXPLAINING 
 
 Tin 1 J>c(t 1 1 hi en Til If in lite Lake Front L<ui.<lx 
 nl Chicago, in Section, 10, 
 
 WITH REASONS 
 
 Why They Should be Granted to the Beaubiens 
 by Congress, 
 
 And not Donated to Chicago, 
 II '//// JppemU.v C<>n1<iiniiii> 
 
 WASHINGTON, I- 
 
 N . \V .
 
 The Argument of WM. H. STANDISH before Congress, explain- 
 ing the BEAUBIEN title in the Lake Front Lands at Chicago, in 
 section 10, with reasons why they should be granted to the 
 BEAUBIENS by Congress, and not donated to Chicago. 
 
 This land, being described in Senate bill 773, and the 
 same land described in Representative Harrison's Lake 
 Front bill in the House, was ceded by the Indians, August 
 3, 1795, at the treaty of Greenville. It was not entered as 
 a reservation until 1824, and from August, 1812, to July, 
 1816, was not a post of any kind, and had no buildings on 
 of the Government, or soldiers or agents of the Govern- 
 ment in possession ; hence, between these last dates the land 
 was vacant and unappropriated, and susceptible of passing 
 in equity under the pre-emption and other land laws out of 
 the United States. 
 
 1st Attorney Generals Opinions, 292. 
 
 6th McLean, 517, U. S. vs. R. R. Bridge Co. 
 
 15th Peters, 407, U. S. vs. Fitzgerald. 
 
 To explain : when troops stop and camp on public land, 
 without having it entered in the Land Office, it remains ap- 
 propriated until they pass on, whether their stay is long or 
 short. After it has been entered as reserved in the Land 
 Office, they must not only move on, but the entry made 
 must be canceled; both these things then need to concur, 
 when the land falls back into its original condition, con- 
 trolled by the general land laws for disposition. 
 
 Second. Between these dates two pre-emption laws were 
 passed, by which all of the equitable title during that time 
 did pass out of the United States and become vested in Jean 
 B. Beaubien, the father of these claimants. 
 
 The first of these acts was made February 15, 1813. (2 
 vol. Stat, 797.)
 
 An amendment to this law was made April 29, 1816. (3d 
 vol. Stat., page 554.) 
 
 Third. The following affidavits show that Beaubien had 
 done more than to have purchased an early settlement claim 
 on this land, and not to have removed from the then Illinois. 
 Territory, which was all that was required by this law to be 
 a vested, equitable owner of the land. The affidavits re- 
 ferred to are those of Colonel E. D. Taylor, who is certified 
 to by Representative Morrison, of that State; Madore B. 
 Beaubien, who is certified to by Representative Ryan, of 
 Topeka, Kansas; also, those of John B. Letendre, David 
 McKee, Mr. LeVassar, all credible persons. 
 
 The evident reason why continued residence on the land 
 was not made necessary by this law, or something near con- 
 tinued residence on it, was because this law was passed when 
 we were at war, and having much trouble with the Indians 
 of Illinois Territory, and it could not be clearly foreseen 
 what the exigencies of the settlers of that territory might be. 
 It was deemed prudent to give them and their families lib- 
 erty to live where they might deem it most expedient and 
 safe until their lands should come into market, and so this 
 law was made accordingly. 
 
 In the case of Bird vs. Cravens et al., 1st Mo., 282, the 
 purchaser of one of these unentered rights left the land; his 
 whereabouts was unknown, and the person he had purchased 
 it from entered the tract in his own name, and got the patent 
 title, and was held a trustee of it for the absent settler he 
 had previously sold his unentered right to. 
 
 The act of April 29, 1816, also authorized a settler before 
 survey to take any uninclosed unappropriated land, in any 
 fractional quarter section in and around his buildings and 
 improvements he might then have on the land, and to au- 
 thorize the register and receiver to so divide the land when 
 it would come by him to be entered at the Land Office. 
 
 None of the land south of Randolph street, in this tract, 
 which is this land, was reserved, or in the use of the post, 
 prior to October 1, 1824, and this was true of nearly all the
 
 3 
 
 land in this fractional quarter section. The Government 
 field spoken of in the Wolcott letter, in 13th Peters, 498, 
 was not in this fractional quarter section, but west of State 
 street, in section nine. (See affidavit of Madore B. Beau- 
 bien.) 
 
 These laws were not limited in the time they should last, 
 like the 1830, 1834, and 1838 laws. They were to stand 
 until repealed. They have never been repealed. They were 
 not affected by the law of 1841, and are no part of that act. 
 That act and these acts apply to different cases that act to 
 later settlements, and to settlements now taking place and 
 likely to take place hereafter. That act was not made to 
 affect settlement rights that had become vested, and would 
 have been void to the extent it would have attempted to do 
 this. Therefore, the nature of this right has got to be con- 
 sidered solely by these early laws alone. 
 
 "Was it in the power of Congress in 1813 and 1816 to pass 
 a law that, before entry at the Land Office, would invest a 
 settler on public lands, or his assignee, with a vested inter- 
 est in them ? 
 
 It was, because the Constitution had invested it with sole 
 and unlimited power on the subject. 
 
 It could bind the Government by a conveyance outright, 
 or by a proposition to convey in the future to become bind- 
 ing, when any steps in it provided for acceptance should be 
 commenced to be performed, and by which the Government 
 might from that date stand concluded until a default should 
 be made by the settler, the same as if the proposition had 
 been from the fee owner of wild land to induce some one 
 to improve it. 
 
 What is a vested, equitable interest in land ? It is an in- 
 terest which the law protects, and authorizes the owner to 
 transfer to another, and invest the purchaser with all the 
 rights in it, which before sale the settler had. 
 
 Did these laws of 1813 and 1816 place such an interest in 
 the settler before the entry of his land at the Land Office ? 
 
 They did, because they protected him from the date of his
 
 settlement until all the time given for entry should expire; 
 and, before entry, authorized the settler to sell and transfer 
 all his right and interest, and place the purchaser in his 
 shoes. 
 
 The law contained no clause against assignment or trans- 
 fer before entry, but ran to the settler or his representative, 
 and such a clause in the case of Sawyer vs. Pritchett and 
 wife, 19th Wallace, 153, was held to make the word repre- 
 sentative mean a purchaser instead of an heir, where there 
 had been a sale; while in the cases of Hughes vs. The Uni- 
 ted States, 4th Wallace, 232, and Bird vs. Cravens, 1st Mo., 
 282, in each case it was distinctly held that a sale of one of 
 these settlement rights before entry invested the purchaser 
 with all the rights of the original settler all the original 
 settler would have had had he not sold, but entered the land 
 himself. These two last cases arising under this identical 
 law. 
 
 These were the only pre-emption laws in force, as before 
 stated, in Illinois Territory prior to 1830. Mr. Scott and 
 Mrs. Clyborne went to Chicago in 1826, and Mr. LeVassar 
 to Illinois Territory, further south, as early as 1817. Each 
 of these witnesses swear that prior to 1830, from the date 
 they first went to Illinois, these rights were sold and trans- 
 ferred before entry, for value paid, like horses or cows, 
 and were regarded as much the private property of the set- 
 tler as a patent title now is, and that it was understood that 
 when the land should come into the market that the laws of 
 the United States would give them the sole and exclusive 
 right to enter and buy their tract; and Mr. Scott swears 
 these rights sometimes would bring several times as much 
 as would afterwards have to be paid the Government for 
 the land. They were, in fact, as strong an equitable title 
 until default should be made, as a located military land war- 
 rant before patent. 
 
 How long was this equitable title to last without entry at 
 the land office ? Until within two weeks of the time that 
 the tract could be sold at public sale.
 
 What is necessary to do before any tract of land can be 
 sold at public sale ? It must have been by the President 
 proclaimed for sale through the Land Department. 
 
 When was this tract of land proclaimed for public sale ? 
 Never. (See statement of case of General Land Office. Such 
 is the fact. The suit hereafter referred to, shows it was not 
 included in proclamation of 1835.) 
 
 Then this equitable title is still in full force, and the time 
 to obtain the legal title at $1.25 per acre, as to any land the 
 Government still retains the legal right to, still exists. That 
 is the case. It could not be since, as it has not since been 
 certified back to the Land Department, through which de- 
 partment the proclamation would have to come. 
 
 Why don't you go there and get your title, and not bother 
 Congress ? Because the land has been taken out of the 
 Land Department by being reserved for military purposes, 
 and that is the only department that, by law was invested, 
 or is now invested, with jurisdiction to hear pre-emption 
 proofs and grant pre-emption certificates of purchase, and it 
 has not been placed back in that department to be disposed 
 of; therefore it has no jurisdiction to sell the land now, and 
 a sale to us now by that department, and even after patent, 
 would leave us just where we are now. It would be void, 
 like the sale of 1835. 
 
 As a matter of precaution we shall file our proofs there 
 before the late case there goes up, but shall fear a title al- 
 lowed by that department for this reason : If this is a reserva- 
 tion it cannot be vacated now by the Land Department mak- 
 ing a cancellation or setting aside of the record making the 
 reservation in 1824, for the reason, that all power to do that 
 in the Land Department, and invest that department with 
 jurisdiction to sell, has not resided in the Land Department 
 as respects military reservations since March 3, 1857. We 
 believe Commissioner Williamson was, however, honest in 
 his decision, and with his views, and what was before him, 
 did the only thing he could consistently. 
 
 The proof of compliance l>y said Beaubien with the terms
 
 6 
 
 of these two early laws is this Col. E. D. Taylor, who is gen- 
 erally known throughout Illinois most favorably, testifies that 
 he was the receiver of the first land office established at Chi- 
 cago, this being opened in May, 1835, and that when it opened 
 the said Jean B. Beaubien brought his old friends and 
 neighbors, who with him offered to swear he purchased a 
 house on this land in 1812, a house that had been occupied 
 since an earlier date than 1812, and a piece of ground that 
 had been cultivated in connection with it prior to that date 
 by the owner and occupant, and that it had been his house 
 since 1812, and that from that day, at different times, which 
 were in 1817 and 1823, he had purchased valuable buildings 
 on said land that he then still owned, and that both said 
 register and receiver were thoroughly satisfied that at that 
 time, that Beaubien had complied with all the requirements 
 of these early laws of 1813 and April 29, 1816, but not hav- 
 ing any blanks, for those laws for either the taking of proofs 
 or the issuing certificates, and having blanks for the 1834 
 law, which latter blanks had been furnished from Wash- 
 ington, these being in fact in rotation like checks in a 
 check book, with ends to each, they used these, supposing 
 that it would make no difference; and that if any fault is 
 imputable to any one that the proofs offered under the 1813 
 law were not taken and a receipt given under that law, it 
 is imputable to the United States and its agents, and not to 
 Beaubien, as he did every thing in that respect that could 
 be done. 
 
 John B. Letendre is now 84 years of age nearly, and well 
 preserved. He is well vouched for as a credible person. He 
 testifies that in 1815 he was 21 years of age, and worked for 
 said Beaubien, and boarded in said Beaubien's family in 
 the year 1815, on this land, at which time there was no build- 
 ing of the Government on this land, these having been 
 reduced to ashes; and that during 1815 said Beaubien culti- 
 vated a piece of ground on this tract of land, and no agent 
 of the Government was then on it. Letendre did not leave 
 Chicago until 1836, or later, and much of the time worked
 
 for Beaubien, and states that up to this time this land had 
 remained Beaubien's home. He also states that at that time, 
 in 1815, he learned by common report that Beaubien had 
 then owned that settlement claim for three years, since in 
 1812. 
 
 David McKee testifies, that he went to Chicago in 1822, 
 and that at that time, that an old house such as has been 
 described, stood on said land, then in use as a stable; that 
 this old house then in use as a stable had, from its appear- 
 ance, evidently stood there for thirteen or fifteen years or 
 more. 
 
 Madore B. Beaubien cannot recollect back further than 
 the spring of 1813, when he was about four years old, hav- 
 ing been born in July, 1809. 
 
 He testifies that at that time his father had a home on this 
 land and used to visit it yearly, spending a small portion of 
 each year on it, and the balance of his time he was on his 
 "business at Milwaukee and Green Bay, all then in Illinois 
 Territory; and that after 1813 his father did not live out- 
 side of Illinois Territory, and that, as he then learned and 
 understood from common report, as well as his father, his 
 father had purchased this house in 1812, and from that time 
 regarded it his home. 
 
 Beaubien always remained in Illinois, and his family 
 nearly all still reside in Chicago. Beaubien was residing on 
 this tract of land when it is claimed to have been dedi- 
 cated to Chicago. Hence no question of ignorance of rights 
 arises there. 
 
 Mrs. Clyborne and Mr. Scott, of Chicago, went there in 
 1826, and from and after that date, and previous to 1830, 
 testify that people coming to the country were in the cus- 
 tom of settling down on any unreserved land not occupied 
 by another, and making their improvements, and it was un- 
 derstood that the United States laws would give them a first 
 and exclusive right to buy the tract when it should come 
 into the market. In 1826 Mrs. Clyborne only went through 
 Chicago, stopping over in Chicago one winter, and went
 
 8 
 
 down to near what is now Ottawa, Illinois, some eighty 
 miles out of Chicago, where her father two years before had 
 purchased one of these unentered pre-emption rights, mov- 
 ing on to it from Ohio. Both of these witnesses swear that 
 these rights were regarded to be as sacred before entry at the 
 Land Office as patent titles now are, as much private prop- 
 erty as a horse or a cow. Up to 1830, it may be said, these 
 early laws were the only laws in force in Illinois. Hence 
 the rights they speak of were, in general, settlement rights, 
 that commenced at a far later date than this of Beaubien's, 
 under the same laws as his. 
 
 That there had been an early settlement on this land prior 
 to 1812 is a part of the early history of the northwest, re- 
 corded by various writers, and never disputed or questioned; 
 and even if Beaubien had gone on to this land even as late 
 as 1823, as the owner of this original right, it would have 
 been to him equivalent to a residence on this land from as 
 early as 1804, or thereabouts, as these rights by their terms 
 were, before entry, assignable, and invested the assignee with 
 all the rights of the assignor. Hughes vs. United States, 4th 
 Wallace, 232 ; Bird vs. Cravens e* al. t 1st Mo., 282, and 19th 
 Wallace, 153, Sawyer vs. Pritchett. 
 
 In this last case it was the construction of the same lan- 
 guage under a different law. The other cases were under this 
 identical law, and that, in 1823, that none other than Beau- 
 bien had any settlement right on this land, will not be ques- 
 tioned. Hence, he was not only the owner of the first, but 
 of all the settlement titles in this fractional quarter section at 
 that time, if the expression is allowable. We much prefer 
 that these affidavits, which are printed in the appendix, shall 
 be read, as an abstract of them does not do them justice. A 
 substantial abreviated statement of these facts has been for- 
 warded by us to the Chicago Daily Tribune and to the Chi- 
 cago Times, and are expected to appear Sunday, March 3d, 
 in print in both of them. 
 
 If they are not true they can be disproved. We could 
 have cumulated this proof by going several hundreds of
 
 9 
 
 miles, to where the witnesses, then boys in Chicago, now 
 live. We did not think it necessary to do this, nor have the 
 means to spare, unless necessary. We can do so still. We 
 believe they will not be questioned. 
 
 In the case in 13th Peters, 498, the suit was at law a case 
 of ejectment, which it was known could not be maintained 
 on an equitable title, but as the State statutes of Illinois had 
 provided that a final Land Office certificate should be equiv- 
 alent to a patent to maintain ejectments, it was hoped to 
 make the certificate that had been issued under the law of 
 June 19, 1834, the basis of recovery, and this law only re- 
 quired possession on the date of the law, June 19, 1834, and 
 to have cultivated some portion of the tract in 1833. The 
 only thing that could avail was to show that the President 
 had not been by law invested with jurisdiction to reserve 
 this land in 1824, and that, therefore, the land was not within 
 the exceptions contained in the law of June 19, 1834, and 
 that by the act of June 26, 1834, and the proclamation for 
 public sale in 1835, not excepting this land, the land had 
 been restored to the jurisdiction, and was then in the 
 jurisdiction of the register and the receiver to sell, and that 
 their sale had passed the land to Beaubien on one of these 
 certificates under which, it was believed by the able counsel 
 in that case, ejectment could be maintained, this being, in 
 fact, so decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois in that 
 very case. 
 
 Now while in fact this land, as we think, was erroneously 
 reserved in 1824, as the terms of the 1813 law were more 
 than a license to buy the land in case it should at some time 
 be proclaimed for sale, and in fact guaranteed this right 
 to enter and pay whether the tract should ever or not be pro- 
 claimed for sale, and invested the settler before entry with 
 an assignable interest, for which if a note should have been 
 given, it could between the original parties be sued on and 
 a recovery had; and the law impliedly provided that within 
 the given time to enter and buy, the land should not be 
 reserved. (1st Att'y GenPs Opinions, 291.) Nevertheless^
 
 10 
 
 the president, having been invested with jurisdiction and 
 power to reserve, and having exercised that jurisdiction by 
 reserving his judgment, though erroneous, he having been 
 invested with jurisdiction to render it, so long as it would 
 stand, would be as conclusive as though the land reserved 
 had been at the time in the occupancy of a settler under the 
 1841 law. The difference, however, would be that when 
 the reservation in this case should cease, the rights of 
 the settler, and how far vested in this case are to be deter- 
 mined solely by the 1813 law, the law they arose under and 
 the construction that that law had received before and at the 
 time the reservation was made. 
 
 Gelpke vs. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall., 175, 205. 
 
 Chicago vs. Sheldon, 9 Wall., 50. 
 
 Caldwell vs. Carrington, 9 Pet., 86. 
 
 As the entry and receipt in that case, which was under 
 the 1834 law, was the sole basis for recovery, no case that 
 could be made by testimony, stipulation, or otherwise, under 
 any other or earlier law could avail, none was attempted. 
 That case was entirely an agreed case, for the sole purpose 
 of trying the virtue of that receipt, and not a single witness 
 in the case was called at any stage, and all the recitals in 
 it are based on the stipulations made to determine the effect 
 of the 1834 entry, the tract not having been subject to 
 ntry under the 1834 law ; nor would it have then been 
 under the 1813 law, because, still a reservation, it matters 
 not what would have been the effect of an entry then under 
 the 1813 law, which Beaubien had shown himself entitled 
 to had the land then been in the jurisdiction of the register 
 and receiver to dispose of under any law. 
 
 That question did not, and could not, until now arise, 
 that the record of reservation is now, for the first, as we be- 
 lieve, to be set aside, and thereby allow the older equitable 
 title still in force in abeyance to revive, and for which the 
 Government is solely trustee of the legal title, and as Beau- 
 bien was then the absolute owner of the equitable title, a 
 title that he could then assign and convey and vest the pur-
 
 11 
 
 chaser with all of his rights, and do with it all that lie could 
 with a perfected equitable title, that he could then have 
 been invested with by an individual legal owner. The Beau- 
 bien rights now are to be determined by the same rule that 
 in such a case would prevail. 
 
 We concede that by the entry and receipt of Beaubien 
 under the 1834 law, the subject of controversy in the 13th 
 Peters case, and called in that case Beaubien's purchase, 
 Beaubien acquired no title in law or equity whatever, 
 the entry having been void ; that that court was not invested 
 with jurisdiction to hear or determine any other ques- 
 tion than under that entry and so-called purchase, and did 
 not attempt to, and had it attempted to, what it would have 
 done would have been a nullity; therefore the case falls back 
 as to what were Beaubien's rights in the land when reserved 
 then in abeyance, and now to revive and be respected. 
 "What would they have been if that said purchase had not 
 been attempted, subject to the qualifications that these rights 
 are to be fixed by the 1813 law, as construed prior to 1824, 
 the case of 1st Otto, 330, answers. These rights are not 
 based on any entry, but on this early pre-emption law of 
 Congress, vesting the settler under it with an equitable title 
 in this land from the date of his settlement. No settlement 
 right arises from entry, but solely from the laws of Con- 
 gress authorizing settlement and entry. 
 
 When the reservation of a settler's land is canceled and 
 vacated the settler's right to the land, under the law that 
 right originated under and was created by, revives in full 
 force, the same as if his property had been taken for any 
 other public purpose, and that use had ended. (1st Otto, 
 330; Shepley d al. vs. Cowan et al.) 
 
 But when an old right like this revives it must not only 
 be considered by the old law under which it arose, but by the 
 construction that was given that law at the time. Qelpke 
 vs. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall., 175; Chicago vs. Sheldon, 9th 
 Wall., 50; Caldwell rs. Carrington, 9 Pet, 86. 
 
 That law authorized assignment from date of settlement
 
 12 
 
 and before entry, which the 1841 law never has. The 1813 
 law did not make a note given for one of these rights void, 
 as it is for a right under 1841 law before final and last entry, 
 and final payment. This 1813 law must be given its full 
 efficacy now. 
 
 But it is said that this revivor cannot take place in this 
 case for the reason that Beaubien's receipt was canceled by 
 a decree of court, for the reason that it had been issued 
 when his land was not subject to sale by the Land Depart- 
 ment. The following is a full record of everything to be 
 found in that case, a case that was commenced before 1839: 
 
 [No. 2,710.] 
 
 STATE or ILLINOIS, \ 
 Cook County, City of Chicago, j s ' 
 
 James "W. Brockway, being first duly sworn, makes oath 
 and says that, he is the Recorder of the county aforesaid, and 
 that all the records of the Recorder's office of said county, 
 existing on and before October eighth, eighteen hundred 
 and seventy-one, were, on that day and the succeeding day, 
 destroyed by fire, and that after said fire the constituted 
 authorities of said county purchased and placed in said Re- 
 corder's office certain original letter-press copies of abstracts 
 made before said fire by disinterested parties, the} 7 being a 
 firm of abstract makers in said City of Chicago, known as 
 Wilmauns & Pasdeloup, which said letter-press copies were 
 placed in said office in the charge of the Recorder, and that 
 certified copies therefrom, under the seal of the Recorder, 
 are used in business transactions in said city and county, 
 and that on pages two hundred and eighty-nine and ninety, 
 in volume number sixteen, of Letter-press Copies of Ab- 
 stracts of said firm of "Wilmanns & Pasdeloup, there appears 
 the following entries which affiant has caused to be copied 
 therefrom in full : 
 
 The said entries being as follows, numbered thirty-three 
 (33) and thirty-four (34) of abstract :
 
 13 
 
 [33.] 
 
 E. D. TAYLOR, 
 
 Receiver, 
 To 
 JOHN BAPTISTE BEAUBIEN. 
 
 Certificate No. 6, dated May 28, 1835, and recorded June 
 26, 1835, in book D, page 168. Pre-emption act, 19 June, 
 
 1834. Land office at Chicago, Illinois. Acknowledges 
 receipt of $94.61, in full payment for the southwest fractional 
 quarter of section 10, in T. 39 K, of R.^14 E., of 3d P. M., 
 containing 75.69 acres. 
 
 [34.] 
 
 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,") 
 
 vs. 
 JOHN B. BEAUBIEN, JAMES WHIT- \ 
 
 LOCK, EDMUND D. TAYLOR, SYD- j 
 
 NEY BREESE, and JAMES M. STRODE j 
 
 In the Circuit Court of United States for the District 
 of Illinois. In chancery. Bill to set aside the receipt last 
 shown June 13, 1840. 
 
 The bill in this cause having been taken pro confesso against 
 the defendant James Whitlock, and the other defendants 
 having answered, and the said cause having been brought 
 on to a hearing, &c., and it appearing to the said court that 
 the southwest fractional quarter of section 10, T. 39 N., of R. 
 14 E., of 3d P. M., situated in the Chicago land district was 
 a military reservation of the United States, and not subject 
 to enter and purchase by the said defendant John B. Beau- 
 bien by pre-emption, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and 
 decreed by the said court, that upon the receiver of the 
 United States Land Office at Chicago refunding or tendering 
 to the said John B. Beaubien the sum of $94.61, being the 
 amount of the purchase money paid by the said John B. Beau- 
 bien to Edmund D. Taylor, the then receiver of said Land Of- 
 fice, when the said Beaubien entered the said land on May 28, 
 
 1835, as mentioned in the receiver's receipt to said Beaubien, 
 that thereupon said Beaubien deliver and surrender up to
 
 14 
 
 the receiver of the Land Office at Chicago, for the purpose 
 of being canceled, the said receiver's receipt so given by him 
 for the purchase money of the said land ; and that he also 
 deliver to the said receiver to be canceled, the certificates, 
 given by the said James Whitlock and said James M. Strode,, 
 as Register of said Land Office, to the said Beaubien, of his, 
 the said Beaubieu's entry and purchase of said land ; and the 
 said court do further order, adjudge, and decree, that said 
 entry and purchase of the said tract of land by the said John- 
 B. Beaubien and the receiver's receipt, and the said register's 
 certificate be vacated, canceled, annulled, and held for nought, 
 and that said John B. Beaubien and the other defendants be 
 restrained and perpetually enjoined from ever setting up or 
 asserting any title or claim to the said land, by virtue of the 
 said entry and purchase, and that the defendants pay the 
 costs of this suit. 
 
 Affiant further states that the foregoing is the full text of 
 the items, number thirty-three and thirty-four as shown in 
 said abstract, in volume sixteen of said letter-press copies. 
 
 JAS. W. BROCKWAY, 
 
 Recorder. 
 
 Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence, this 
 8th day of December, A. D. 1877. 
 
 HENRY L. HERTZ, 
 [SEAL] Notary Public. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1 
 Cook County, City of Chicago, / 
 
 Samuel Daniels, being first duly sworn, makes oath and 
 says that he has examined the abstract from which the above 
 copies of entries were taken, and that said abstract does not 
 contain any entry or statement pertaining to said suit not 
 above copied and shown ; that affiant is one of the deputies 
 of said office to which this matter has been referred, and 
 that affiant does not know of anything in the Recorder's of-
 
 15 
 
 fice pertaining to said suit now in existence that will add 
 anything to the information contained in said entries above 
 copied. Affiant has examined about fifteen abstracts of 
 portions of said property this day, and finds nothing in re- 
 lation to said suit in any or either of them, other or dif- 
 ferent from that contained in the entries above, or that ex- 
 plains when it was started. 
 
 SAMUEL DANIELS. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of De- 
 cember, A. D. 1877. 
 
 HENRY ^. HERTZ, 
 [SEAL] Notary Public. 
 
 Certificate No. 6 Voucher No. 4. 
 
 RECEIVER'S OFFICE, 
 Chicago, Illinois, December 18, 1840. 
 
 Eli S. Prescott, Receiver of Public Money at Chicago, 
 Illinois, has this day refunded to me the sum of $94.61, 
 being the amount paid by me for the southwest fractional 
 section No. 10, in township No. 39 north, range No. 14 east, 
 of the third principal meridian, on the 28th day of May, 
 A. D. 1835. 
 
 The tntry of said land by myself being invalid, in consequence 
 of its being reserved for military purposes, as per letter from 
 the Commissioner of the General Land Office. 
 
 JOHN B. BEAUBIEN. 
 
 If this 1835 receipt was void from the time made, the 
 making of it, the cancellation of it, and the return of the 
 money left both Beaubien and the Government as they 
 would have stood if none of these things had occurred. 
 Void conveyances leave grantor and grantee as they would 
 have been without the void conveyance, and where the void 
 conveyance is canceled, and the consideration money re- 
 turned, prior rights still exist as before.
 
 .16 
 
 A pre-emptor's right under this 1813 law, did not and 
 could not arise from an entry under it. Under it like under 
 all other settlement laws, the settler's title arises from the 
 law itself, which is in equity a gratit by Congress of the land 
 itself to the settler from the date of settlement, when so pro- 
 vided in- the law as was the case here, while the entry 
 is only one of the modes provided to evidence the previous 
 grant. That title existed in Beaubien while none of his 
 land was reserved, and was from the date of its origin the 
 subject of sale, barter or exchange, and protected by law, 
 which are all the privileges pertaining to any property. It 
 was not annihilated by the reservation, but only placed in 
 abeyance and suspense. It is now to revive in Beaubien's 
 heirs in all its original force controled by this 1813 law. (1st 
 Otto, 330.) 
 
 The second bar or estoppel alleged is this : That August 
 1, 1854, Congress simply directed the Land Commissioner 
 to convey to Beaubien nine certain lots that were in equity 
 Beaubien's before the conveyance was made. This direc- 
 tion did not in the act even assume to either give or grant 
 anything to Beanbien, because evidently his before, or re- 
 quire anything to be surrendered by Beaubien not included 
 in these nine lots. The act is in 10th vol. Stat, page 805. 
 Read it. The surveyor sent to Chicago to survey these lots 
 made this report: 
 
 "I am requested by Mr. Jean Baptiste Beaubien to state 
 to the Department that he has had assurances from reliable 
 sources that it was the design of the framers of the act for 
 his relief, of August 1, 1854, so to have drawn it as to have 
 given him all the public ground lying south of the line of 
 excavation, except what was reserved for the marine hospi- 
 tal, and the streets provided for in the survey and plat of 
 Mathew Birchard, agent for the War Department, in the 
 year 1839; and Mr. Beaubien, therefore, requests that the 
 said fraction of lot ten of block number two, which lies 
 south of the line, may not be sold or offered for sale until 
 he can have an opportunity of petitioning Congress to pass
 
 17 
 
 an explanatory act for his relief on this subject. I beg leave 
 respectfully to recommend his request to your favorable 
 consideration, for the reason that from information I have 
 received from highly respectable sources, I am inclined to 
 think his impressions are well founded." 
 
 The following authorities show that Beaubien, by taking 
 these lots, was not estopped from his right to his remaining 
 property: Brooks vs. Haynes, 6th Law Report, Equity (6th,) 
 page 25; Hickox vs. Buckingham et al, 18th Howard et al, 
 182; Brand vs. Virginia Coal and Iron Co. et al., 3d Otto, 
 326; Hoffman Coal Co. vs. Cumberland Co., 16th Md.,456; 
 Cumberland Coal Co. vs. Sherman, 30th Barbour, 574. 
 
 We have read somewhere in the books that estoppel is 
 odious to equity, and not favored ; that it is not presumed, 
 but must be strictly alleged and clearly proved by the party 
 who would avail himself of its protection, and that it is only 
 to be used as an aid and protection to equity, and never to 
 advance wrong; and that it can only prevail when the party 
 against whom it is prayed has not only done wrong, but 
 only where that wrong has been the cause of loss and injury 
 to him who invokes its protection. In summing up this 
 matter we find that the Government has had out of Beau- 
 bien's land $272,598, some of which it has enjoyed the use 
 of for thirty-nine years, for which Beaubien has never had 
 any allowance or compensation, and does not ask any. Is 
 this such a monstrous outrage and wrong by Beaubien that 
 he should be estopped from claiming any remaining part of 
 his land from the trustee of his that has thus treated him? 
 If so, then his heirs are estopped from claiming this grant, 
 otherwise not. 
 
 Is not this act one of the strongest recognitions of the 
 Beaubien equitable title in this land that the Government 
 could have made? 
 
 Could an ordinary trustee make such a conveyance of a 
 part of the trust property, and escape from conveying the 
 balance ? 
 
 If an executor had held ten blocks in trust, and conveyed 
 one by the same language as the Government used here, he 
 2
 
 18 
 
 would not have dared to plead estoppel to a bill to compe) 
 a conveyance of the balance; and does not the same rule 
 that would control the executor, bind the Government here? 
 
 It is claimed that Congress by the act of June 24, 1864,. 
 (15 vol. Statutes, 142,) directing the marine hospital at 
 Chicago to be sold to the highest bidder, thereby confirmed 
 to the City of Chicago this remaining land of Beaubien's. 
 It would seem that ratification in this case would be ob- 
 tained by a very circuitous route, and anomalous law. The 
 following being, as we have supposed, the law of ratification 
 where the sale to be ratified was voidable, not void: 
 
 "To render the ratification of such a sale effective and 
 conclusive, the principal must at the time of the ratification 
 be fully aware of every material fact, and this act of ratifi- 
 cation be an independent substantive act, founded on com- 
 plete information, and he must not only be aw^are of the 
 facts, but apprised of the law as to how these facts would be dealt 
 with, if brought before a court of equity" Hoffman Coal Co. 
 vs. Cumberland Co., 16th Md., 456; Cumberland Coal Co. 
 vs. Sherman, 30th Barbour, 574. 
 
 The deed which was made by the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury in 1872, for the old marine hospital we believe contained 
 some words and recitals a little broader than this act last 
 cited, or the act of May 25th, 1872, in reference to this 
 same matter, by which it is claimed that if no act of Con- 
 gress had ratified the void sales of the Secretary of War in 
 1839, that this recital by a department officer of the Govern- 
 ment would do it; that such a recital would be an act of 
 the Government. 
 
 We believe it a well settled principle that no officer not 
 having authority to do a thing can ratify it and make it 
 binding. If the recitals of the Secretary of the Treasury in 
 making this last deed to James F Joy, his authority being 
 limited, defined by these two last acts of Congress, could 
 ratify to any person their title to land outside of the marine 
 hospital grounds, he should while he was at it have fixed 
 everybody out in the United States, and this would settle that
 
 19 
 
 department officers can act as well without acts of Congress 
 to authorize them as with such acts, and that Congress had 
 best adjourn and go home, and not again meet, as any legis- 
 lation it may make is unnecessary, and is susceptible of dis- 
 approbation by department officers. 
 
 It matters not as to whether the sales of 1839 were au- 
 thorized or not, as to the right of the Beaubien heirs to 
 receive such title as remains in the United States, to the 
 open common between Madison and Randolph street, these 
 streets being considered as extended east to low water mark 
 on the shore of Lake Michigan, for as in 1839 the Govern- 
 ment was a trustee for Beaubien for any of the lands in this 
 quarter section, it remained such, and is such now, for any 
 title it retained, which is all the title it now has or can give 
 to any one, and belonging to the Beaubien heirs, she has 
 no discretion but to make the grant to them. 
 
 Assuming the dedication to have been valid, it was only 
 for the term that the land should remain vacant of build- 
 ings, and no longer. It was not an assurance that after that 
 time the residuary title retained in the Government would 
 also be donated to Chicago. It will be asserted that this 
 residuary title retained has no value, and therefore should 
 be donated. If this be so, why has Chicago labored for years 
 to obtain it from Congress; and if to be donate' 1 why shall 
 not the owners be consulted by their trustee before donation 
 is made. Let me suggest to you that there is a rule of law 
 that prevails in Illinois to fix the respective values of such 
 estates, and it is this : 
 
 First, what is the land in question worth as an open com- 
 mon? Secondly, what is it worth to do as you please with? 
 The difference of these two values fixes the true and legal 
 value of the estate Chicago now asks as a donation. 
 
 Under this rule, if condemnation proceedings are to be 
 had, the Government will receive at least two-thirds of the 
 value of the land in question, as the value of the whole title 
 would be fixed by any jury to condemn, and these proceed- 
 ings will follow if Congress is firm. As an open common.
 
 20 
 
 this land is now virtually a nuisance. We shall in a few 
 days have affidavits from reliable real estate agents of Chi- 
 cago to support these statements, that on this basis the title 
 now asked by Chicago as a donation, has a larger actual 
 value than the other title has which she now claims to own. 
 The adjoining proprietors did not cause the suit in 2d Bissell, 
 174, to be brought, because they preferred the open space to 
 depot grounds, but as the only means to force the City of Chi- 
 cago to divide and give to them the one-eighth of what should 
 be received of the proceeds, which by compromise as we are 
 advised by the Chicago press, has since been agreed on 
 between them and the city, when a sale of the property can 
 be perfected. But this land being ours, Congress has no 
 option to either convey to Chicago or retain to be condemned 
 She must convey to the Beaubiens or be a repudiator. 
 
 Will a grant to Chicago now aid her one way or another 
 in any controversy with the Valentine scrip hereafter in the 
 courts ? Does the value of land have anything to do w r ith 
 the nature of its title; and the setting aside of this land to 
 Chicago, having in fact been a void act, has this land not 
 since remained unappropriated unless held by being reserved 
 or by the Beaubien's equitable titfe, and has not all the title 
 therein been carried out of the Government by that scrip 
 that was lo^ table on any vacant unappropriated land, as this 
 in such u case was ? And as such location is iu fact equiva- 
 lent to an express grant of the land by boundaries, after a 
 repudiation of the Beaubien title, what would a grant to 
 Chicago now avail ? 
 
 Much restlessness was exhibited by the Chicago papers 
 why the grant they ask was not consummated at once by Con- 
 gress, when the recent decision of Commissioner William- 
 son, holding this land, has passed out of the United States 
 under the Valentine land scrip, was made. If this has oc- 
 curred, would the prayed for grant to Chicago amount to 
 anything? Is not Chicago in possession, and can she not 
 defend that possession if no title was passed under the Val- 
 entine land script, and can she, if the title has passed ?
 
 21 
 
 But if the grant is made of the legal title to the Beaubieri 
 heirs, they can assert their prior pre-emptive rights in the 
 land that have existed since April 29, 1816, and the Valen- 
 tine scrip location will pass for nothing, though the land 
 may have been vacant and unappropriated as to all others 
 than the Beaubien interest in it at the time that location 
 was made. 
 
 Since the Chicago press has come to understand this they 
 are not as urgent as they were against the Beaubiens. 
 
 The Illinois Senators and Representatives were called 
 upon by the Chicago press to vote, and that speedily, this 
 land to Chicago. 
 
 It is not necessary to remind these gentlemen that they 
 are acting under the solemnities of an oath, and that this mat- 
 ter between Chicago and the Beaubien heirs is to be deter- 
 mined on its legal merits, the same as though it was a mat- 
 ter between two equally obscure and uninfluential claimants; 
 and is to be determined on the proofs adduced, in legal and 
 proper shape, and not on that of irresponsible newspaper 
 assertions, and on the law applicable to these proofs; and 
 that, judged by this test, the claim of Chicago would not 
 stand a moment with any unbiased mind in Congress or 
 out of it. Her request is not claimed to be based on any 
 legal or even moral right. It is only a petition for charity. 
 The claim of the Beaubiens is that Congress perform a part 
 of its original promise to their father which, in similar cases, 
 since that was made, yes, in over a hundred thousand cases, 
 the Government has performed and recognized thereby that 
 it was both her moral and legal duty to do it, her duty in 
 none of these cases being any more binding than in this. 
 
 But it will be said that in these cases the land had not 
 attained so great value as this, nor the right have been so 
 long in force When was the increased value that had 
 attached to the settlers' lands held a sufficient justification 
 for the Government to repudiate its promise to convey, so 
 long as the settler had not placed himself in default? When 
 was that increased value ever accounted to belong to the
 
 22 
 
 trovernment, and not to the settler? Does not the same 
 principle and duty govern this case that does that of every 
 settler in the wilds of the West? Did not our father settle 
 here when the nearest post was 180 to 200 miles distant, 
 being Fort Wayne, Mackinaw and Detroit? Was he not in 
 possession and in no default when this land was reserved? 
 Was he not still in possession when this common is claimed 
 to have been set aside to Chicago, and even until the very 
 house the Government had assured him he might die in was 
 by the Government sold over his head, and he compelled to 
 get out of it? Did this inhuman and brutal treatment at the 
 hands of the Government make their duty less now, or in any 
 way impair or destroy the Beaubien rights in land still 
 remaining in the name of the Government? Has it not 
 always been accounted the older the equitable title the 
 better, so long as no default has occurred in it, and the legal 
 title is still in the Government? Must all the rules of law 
 and justice be subverted to rob the Beaubien heirs for the 
 benefit of Chicago? 
 
 Chicago is a most inordinate beggar. She begged that 
 this land be left unsold in 1839, for her to enjoy so long as 
 it should remain vacant of buildings. She got this done, 
 and thereby decreased the proceeds of that sale by several 
 thousands of dollars, as we have the proofs to show. She 
 claims to have procured nearly a mile front of park lands, by 
 donation from the canal trustees of trust property donated 
 by Congress for a canal; that adjoins this, and is now worth 
 several millions of dollars. Its Court-House square, now 
 worth over a million of dollars, was a donation from the same 
 fund. Also, from this same fund and by a tax laid on the 
 State of Illinois at large, it had a sewer built for it at an 
 expense of two millions five hundred thousand dollars, to 
 bear interest until returned; the State and this canal fund 
 undergoing this expense to drain Chicago, when the official 
 reports of the canal show the canal was serving and could 
 serve all the demands of navigation to be met by the im-
 
 23 
 
 provement, at an average annual expense of less than ten 
 thousand dollars. 
 
 In view of these facts we only suggest that if any more 
 charity is to go to Chicago from the General Government, 
 that it come out of the public treasury, and not from the 
 private estate of the Beaubien heirs. 
 
 One of the friends of Chicago has said to us that he has 
 no doubt that Beaubien fully complied with these early pre- 
 emption laws; but intimates that if this be true, and Con- 
 gress shall grant the Beaubien land to Chicago, the Beau- 
 bien heirs, who are very poor, can go into the Chicago courts 
 and sue and recover it. 
 
 Our opinion of any person who will entertain such an 
 opinion for a moment is, that he is either an imbecile or a 
 fraud. There is no difference between a trust interest in 
 bonds or 9 trust interest in lands. The Government is a 
 trustee for the bonds of every National Bank, to secure their 
 circulation. Suppose we suggest that Congress donate the 
 bonds of the Chicago National Banks to the City of Chi- 
 cago, and then tell the banks they have rights in the courts 
 to recover their property, and sue and get it. Would not 
 the cases be identical? 
 
 If the British or any other Government, holding property 
 of any kind in trust for one of our subjects, should know- 
 ingly deliver it to another, and then say to our subject we 
 knew at the time it was yours, but thought you could re- 
 cover it in the courts; unless the property should by that 
 government be returned at once, or atoned for, it would be 
 an act of war, and war would at once follow. 
 
 Because our Government is sovereign in itself, and can- 
 not in the nature of things permit any other power to inter- 
 fere between it and its own citizens in its trust relations 
 with them, it does not assume to use this cloak as a shield 
 to commit piracy on them. It is not supposed to wantonly 
 3,nd knowingly take and convey to strangers trust property 
 ^s a donation. If a department officer should admit that 
 he had knowingly conveyed the land of a settler to a
 
 24 
 
 stranger, it would cost him his position immediately; and 
 it would be such a gross perversion of his trust as to make 
 him personally responsible for any damages that might en- 
 sue to the settler. 
 
 This case has evidently been referred to have it found if 
 there are any private rights in this land that would make it 
 improper for Congress to convey it to Chicago, and there 
 being such rights, and these also in law and equity being 
 entitled to a conveyance from Congress to their owner, it is 
 trusted that the respective committees of the respective 
 houses of Congress will report against the asked for grant 
 of Chicago, and in favor of that asked for by the Beaubieu 
 heirs, and that Congress will ratify that action by making 
 such grant, so long delayed by the default of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 "We are told that in 1839 all the equitable title of this land 
 was placed in Chicago, the legal title being still retained by 
 the United States, and to substantiate this opinion, 2d Bis- 
 sell, 174, is referred to. 
 
 That case decides directly the reverse of this proposition, 
 that decision being that this laud was dedicated only so long 
 as it should remain vacant of buildings. 
 
 This residuary title we have shown is now worth more r 
 and would be condemned if not given away at a higher price 
 than the title the City of Chicago assumes to have. 
 
 But assuming all which that decision claims, that is that 
 on the record made in that case, and the things assumed 
 and conceded by each party to it to be true, that there was 
 such an equitable dedication as has been stated, the legal 
 title still in the Government, would not that legal title exist 
 in trust solely for the older equitable title, which is the 
 Beaubien title; and in that case could it be to any extent a. 
 trustee to the City of Chicago. Shall the rules of law be 
 subverted in his case, because Chicago has power, wealth,. 
 &c., and the Beaubiens are poor and humble ? 
 
 In regard to the second Bissell case it should be recollected 
 that the Beaubiens were not a party to it, and are not con-
 
 25 
 
 eluded by it, and that all parties concerned in it were inter- 
 ested in showing and making a case of dedication of some 
 kind appear; the purpose of the city being to sell, and gob- 
 ble all the proceeds; the purpose of those causing the suit to 
 be brought, and using the name of the United States, being 
 to let her sell, when she would make a division with them 
 of what is to be received from the property, which it is un- 
 derstood has been arranged. 
 
 There is no legal or moral reason why several hundreds 
 of thousands of dollars should be given to Chicago, even if 
 the Beaubions have no equitable right in the land. She did 
 not buy a farthing at the 1839 sale. This space was not 
 left open to enhance the amount received at those sales, nor 
 did it have that effect, but decreased that amount by from 
 $2,000 to $3,000, as no one can dispute who will look at the 
 list of what lots brought fronting this space and near it 
 compared to other parts, and make any reasonable allowance 
 for what this space would have brought. 
 
 This space was left open in violation of the instructions 
 to the agent who sold, and it was hardly thought by the 
 press of Chicago at the time, that it would give any title to- 
 the city, but was asked for, nevertheless, on the ground that,, 
 whether authorized or not, if left, they would get the bene- 
 fit all the same. 
 
 This agent had also been instructed that if he should not 
 be able to sell the land at Chicago, to adjourn the sale to 
 Detroit or New York a most remarkable order for a de- 
 partment officer to make, to have the land sold (if necessary 
 to effect a quick sale) at a place a thousand miles distant 
 from the land itself! 
 
 The sale had been ordered with all possible dispatch as 
 soon as the case in (13 Peters, 498,) was decided. The people 
 of Chicago on learning of it at once petitioned for delay, for 
 time for Congress to act in the premises, and assigned with 
 other reasons that it was a very bad time to sell, and gave 
 the reasons why it was a bad time, and good reasons too : 
 but the object was to get the land sold as soon as possible,.
 
 26 
 
 the money into the treasury, and improvements started be- 
 fore Congress could meet to intercept the outrage, hence 
 reasons for delay were needless. This space was left open 
 to reduce the indignation existing in Chicago against the 
 Government for this Beaubien outrage, which at that time 
 hardly had any bounds with party, people or press, and was 
 general thoroughout the west, and justly so too. 
 
 The object of this was, that if the land should be certified 
 back to the Land Department as the law required it to be, 
 it would go in the usual order provided by law for sale in 
 that department to the pre-emptor first, at public sale after- 
 wards, and then private sale, and Beaubien would step in 
 and take it, as he could make proof, and would have to pay 
 but $1.25 per acre. This title in Beaubien would have 
 enured back to April 29, 1816, and cut out a late cabinet 
 officer and his 'friends ; therefore such a sale must not be 
 made and was not made. 
 
 In conclusion, it being conceded that the legal title of 
 this land is still in the Government, and therefore held in 
 trust solely for the older equitable title, which is the Beau- 
 bien title, as well as in trust for any residuary title, which 
 in equity is the Beaubien's also; and it being the promise 
 legal, moral, and equitable duty of the Government to convey 
 to the Beaubiens, and no such duty, promise, or obligation 
 resting on it to convey to Chicago, it is trusted that she will 
 perform this obligation to the Beaubiens ; an obligation as 
 sacred in law and honor as any bond ever issued for money 
 borrowed by the Government, and as much within the power 
 of the Government to make when this early law was passed, 
 and no more in its power to repudiate; but if not that 
 she will not convey their propert} 7 to Chicago, and tell them 
 .as their rights are prior to sue, with no money to sue Chicago 
 in the courts and recover it. It would not be a very business- 
 like or honest spectacle for the United States Government 
 to make of itself, notwithstanding it is urged by Chicago's 
 friends. It would not be the law or justice usually meted out 
 to claimants equally poor, obscure and uninfluential, and
 
 27 
 
 would be such marked partiality as not to escape the atten- 
 tion of any. 
 
 An advocate for Chicago is represented as claiming: first, 
 that because a purchase by Beaubien at the Land Office m 
 1835, while this land was reserved and not in the jurisdic- 
 tion of the Land Department to sell, was held to be void, 
 that therefore this is a settlement of what his equitable title 
 would be when the reservation should cease, and the prior 
 equitable right existing in Beaubien before the reservation 
 should revive, which the United States Supreme Court, in 
 1st Otto, 330, says cuts oft' all subsequent accruing titles, 
 though a purchase during the time the laud was not sus- 
 ceptible of entry would have been void. 
 
 The United States Supreme Court in 1st Otto, 330, refers to the cases of 
 Frisbie vs. Whitney, 9th Wallace, and the Yosemite Valley case, 15th Wallace, 
 77, and then says : ' 'In those cases the Court only decided that a party by mere set- 
 tlement upon the public lands, with the intention to obtain the same under the 
 pre-emption laws (of 1841,) did not thereby acquire such a vested interest in 
 the premises as to deprive Congress of the power to dispose of the property; 
 that notwithstanding the settlement Congress could reserve the lands from sale 
 whenever they might be needed for public uses or for arsenals, custom houses, 
 or other public purposes for which real property is required by the Govern- 
 ment." ******** 
 
 " But whilst according to these decisions no vested right as against the United 
 States was acquired until all the prerequisites for the acquisition of a title is com- 
 plied with, parties may, as against each other, (as between the Beaubiens and 
 Chicago,) acquire a right to be preferred in the purchase, or other acquisition 
 of the land, where the United States have determined to sell or donate the property. 
 In all such cases the first in time in tae commencement of proceedings for the 
 acquisition of the title, where the same are regularly followed up, is deemed 
 to be first in right. 
 
 "So in this caseChartrand, the ancestor, by his previous settlement in 1835, 
 upon the premises in question and residence with his family, and application to 
 prove his settlement and enter the land, obtained a better right to the premises 
 under the law then existing than that acquired by McPherson by his subsequent 
 State selection in 1849. His right then instituted or initiated could not be preju- 
 diced by the refusal of the local officers to receive his proofs, upon the declara- 
 tion that the land was then reserved. * * So soon as the claim (of reserva- 
 tion) was held to be invalid to this extent by the decision of this Court in 
 March, 18G2, (after thirty seven years,) the heirs of Chartrand presented anew 
 their claims for pre-emption, founded upon the settlement of their ancestor 
 (in 1835.) * * * * * * * * 
 
 "With the decision declaring the invalidity of this claim to the land in con-
 
 28 
 
 troversy, all obstacles previously interposed to the presentation of the claim of 
 the heirs of Chart rand, and to proofs to establish it, were removed. * * 
 
 'It follows that the patent issued by the United States taking effect as of 
 the date of such settlement, (1835,) overrides the patent of the State of Mis- 
 souri to McPherson, (in 1849,) even admitting that but for the settlement, the 
 land would have been open to selection by the State of Missouri. 
 
 If B, owning a residuary title in land, when the present 
 estate and right to present possession rests in A until A 
 shall die, and B, during A's life should bring ejectment 
 against A, would any judgment that could in any court be 
 rendered in such a case preclude B's title after A should 
 die, and B's title come into life ? The reservation preclud- 
 ing Beaubien from buying or obtaining his property while 
 it should last has, since 1835, ceased, or is about to, and the 
 Beaubien right to the property come into force, cutting off 
 all subsequently accruing equitable titles. 
 
 As the court in the Peters case was not invested with 
 jurisdiction to have passed on Beaubien's residuary title, if 
 it had attempted to, it is a matter of little consequence 
 whether it attempted to or not, but as a matter of fact it did 
 not. 
 
 The suit before it was, as before stated, one of law purely, 
 an action of ejectment. No one of legal intelligence ever 
 yet thought of maintaining a suit in ejectment against the 
 Government on an unentered pre-emption right, as all rights 
 that Beaubien then had or might thereafter acquire, under 
 these laws of 1813 and 1816, were at that time, as his entry 
 had been, under the law of June 19, 1834. 
 
 What his rights were under this law of June 19, 1834, 
 was all that the court was in that case invested with jurisdic- 
 tion to hear or determine, or in any way that it attempted to 
 hear or determine. In Illinois then, as yet, the distinction 
 between law and equity prevailed in all the rigor that ex- 
 isted a hundred years ago in England. There was not then, 
 and is not yet, any blending of the two jurisdictions in one 
 and the same suit, or before one and the same court, as now 
 prevails in some of the States having codes. 
 
 The claimed law title on which this action of ejectment
 
 29 
 
 was based was a final Land Office certificate under the pre- 
 emption law of June 19, 1834. That law had authorized 
 pre-emptive rights only on' tracts that at its date were unre- 
 served, as was by that case decided, which did not and could 
 not have included this, as in 1824 it had been reserved. 
 That act only required the settler to have been in possession 
 on the day this act was passed, to wit, June 19, 1834, and 
 that he should have cultivated some portion thereof in the 
 year 1833 cultivation in any other year than 1833, and 
 residence on any other da} 7 than June 19, 1834, to give pre- 
 emptive rights to purchase the tract under the law that en- 
 try was based on, would not have been worth a cankered 
 pin or a beggar's sleeve. Nothing else than these sole facts, 
 and whether this land was on the 19th day of June, 1834, 
 reserved, was properly before that court. 
 
 No reference was in that case made from beginning to 
 end of the 1813 or 1816 pre-emptive laws for Illinois; 
 no entry having been made under those laws, the case 
 being one of law only. No question arising under these 
 laws of 1813 and 1816, under which we now claim, was or 
 could have been considered in that case. 
 
 The case only decided that this purchase under this 1834 
 law was void, and gave Beaubien no title, and there being 
 before that court no other question that it did or could de- 
 cide except the effect of this void purchase and entry, it does 
 not in any respect have any effect on what the Beaubien 
 prior equitable title created by the 1813 law, then resting 
 in abeyance and in equity, that could not then be consid- 
 ered in an action of law, and is now to revive, or has re- 
 vived ; and these rights were entirely unaffected by that 
 decision, save and except as that decision, and the one relat- 
 ing to the cancellation of this entry, conclude the Government 
 from now claiming that this tract of land was included in 
 the proclamation for sale of 1835, and, therefore, that the 
 time for entry by this decision is fixed to not have as yet 
 expired, and, therefore, must now be respected.
 
 30 
 
 That entry and purchase having been void, for the rea- 
 sons: first, because the land was not at the date of the en- 
 try and purchase subject to sale, being then reserved; sec- 
 ond, because the land was reserved at the date of the act of 
 June 19, 1834. It left Beaubien's pure, equitable rights in 
 the land the same as though the 1834 law had never been 
 made, or no right had been attempted to be asserted under 
 it. It left this case the same as though after 1824 no at- 
 tempt had been made by Beaubien to buy under either 
 the 1830 or 1834 law, and this decision had never been 
 made. 
 
 Now, an entry before a register and a receiver not au- 
 thorized by a law of Congress is a nullity. A settler's title, 
 as before stated, comes from the laws of Congress and a 
 settlement under them; and, as before stated, these early 
 laws had provided for this title to exist as sacredly before 
 entry as afterwards, until the time fixed for entry had ex- 
 pired, which has not yet taken place. The entry is only 
 evidence of prior compliance of the settler with the law, 
 and his title never starts from the date of his entry, but 
 from the date of his settlement. This prior equitable title 
 having revived, that in equity passed into our father April 
 29, 1816, and being now in force and older than all other 
 Claimed equitable titles, the Government being a trustee for 
 it alone, we ask to have the land granted to us. 
 
 Another point made by our Judge is, that this land has 
 already been confirmed by Congress to Chicago. If so, 
 then what more does Chicago need? And why has she ap- 
 plied for this grant, and why should it be made ? 
 
 Another point contained in this premature delivery of 
 our Judge, is in substance, that the equitable title of this 
 land passed to Chicago in 1839, but the legal title still 
 remains in the Government. Did Beaubien's settlement 
 begin before or after that date, and was he not then still 
 on this land? Assuming that what you state is true, we 
 would like to know when the Government became a
 
 31 
 
 trustee for a second or younger equitable title in lands of 
 which it retains the fee or legal title. Please instance the 
 case. 
 
 Do you mean to be understood also that all the equitable 
 title in 1839, or since, has passed to Chicago? Was not that 
 dedication, assuming all that can be claimed for it, limited 
 to the term or period of time that the land should remain 
 vacant of buildings; and has not the time that it can be pro- 
 fitably used in that way already expired? Pray tell. If 
 not, why is a sale being talked of for a depot? 
 
 Did Congress receive anything from Chicago in 1839 to 
 leave this open ? If so, name the sum. Did she receive 
 more or less than she otherwise would have received from 
 the 1839 sales by leaving it open ? Has Chicago received 
 less benefit from this space than the amount she has ex- 
 pended on it ? If so, wherein and how ? Was not this 
 space left open to appease the indignation of Chicago's citi- 
 zens against the outrage of that date against Beaubien's 
 rights, and to make it more possible to sell in Chicago, and 
 save the necessity of adjourning and proceeding to Detroit or 
 New York to make the sale? Let the correspondence be- 
 tween Burchard and the Secretary of War answer. Does the 
 bribery fund taken out of what was either Beaubien's or 
 the Government give Chicago any superior equities now ? 
 Did not the Chicago press of that date expressly state that 
 they would not pretend to claim this land if it was to be a 
 question between them, and the first, best equitable right of 
 the old settler, Beaubien ? Consult the files of the Chicago 
 Daily American, now in the possession of the Chicago Even- 
 ing Journal, or come around and read our sworn copies. 
 
 If it would have been dishonorable then for Chicago to 
 ask this land, if their asking was to prevent Beaubien get- 
 ting it, is it any more honorable for her to ask any part of 
 it now, or the Government to donate it, and deny Beaubien's 
 widow and children ? 
 
 Has Chicago had no aid out of funds provided and set 
 apart by Congress? Let the Canal Fund answer. Is there
 
 32 
 
 any reason now why Congress should surrender her title to 
 Chicago, any more than why Chicago should surrender hers 
 to the United States ? That is a question for Congress to 
 answer ; but as to the Beaubiens, the case is otherwise ; as 
 for them, she is a trustee and not an absolute owner in her 
 own right ; both at law and equity, as is the case between 
 her and Chicago. 
 
 WM. H. STANDISH, 
 Of Chicago, Attorney for the Beaubien Heirs and Widow.
 
 We res 
 vision j6f 
 
 jl Lane 
 B. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 bectfully call the attentionlof Congress to th 
 
 eneral Williamsop, the Commissioner of the 
 
 le application of Th 
 
 Office, in this matter of 
 
 ine to locate this 
 
 tion 6$swriere this title is, if n 
 
 we hav^Cseen, and ask them 1 
 
 having-'anVquitable title in it 
 
 unless this nuid belongs to 
 
 tion when tha\ scrip was file/1, it belongs to that scrip. 
 
 the mo\t able pres 
 in the Beau 
 read it; but 
 e Valentine 
 
 ti 
 
 in heirs 
 e Beau 
 e fails 
 
 aubiens, or was a res 
 
 de- 
 
 mas 
 nta- 
 that 
 iens 
 but 
 rva- 
 
 AFFIDAYIT OF E. D x . TAYLOR. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, \ 
 Countt/ of Cook, j 
 
 Personally appeared before the undersigned, a notary pub- 
 lic within and for said county, E. D. Taylor, who, being first 
 duly sworn, makes oath and says: That he will be seventy- 
 three years of age October eighteenth, eighteen hundred and 
 seventy -seven. 
 
 That his memory of past events is strong and clear; that 
 he resides in the City of Chicago and county aforesaid, but 
 spends a good deal of his time at or about Mendota and near 
 Lasalle, Illinois, and that he owns real estate situated in said 
 City of Chicago. 
 
 Affiant states that he was the first receiver of the north- 
 eastern land district of Illinois, and that his headquarters 
 as such receiver were at Chicago, Illinois, and that the first 
 public sales of any public lands located in what is now Chi- 
 cago, Illinois, and the country continguous thereto, com- 
 menced at Chicago, Illinois, on the fifteenth day of June, 
 eighteen hundred and thirty-five, and not before that date; 
 3
 
 34 
 
 and that said lands had not been advertised to be sold before 
 that date at public sale, and that said sales of said lands were 
 made by this affiant as the receiver of the land district afore- 
 said on and after June fifteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty- 
 five, at Chicago, Illinois, in connection with the register of 
 said land district. 
 
 Affiant further states that on the fifth day of February, 
 A. D. one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, the Con- 
 gress of the United States of America passed a certain act en- 
 titled "An act giving the right of pre eruption in the pur- 
 chase of lands to certain settlers in the Illinois Territory,'* 
 which act is to be found in the second volume of the United 
 States Statutes-at-Large, on pages 797-798, which act affiant 
 is informed and believes was never repealed, except as it was 
 modified by subsequent legislation on the subject, and that 
 said act is made a part of this affidavit by reference to the 
 same as if incorporated into it verbatim. 
 
 That on the twelfth day of April, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fourteen, the aforesaid act, without the change of 
 a word or dot, was extended to a part of the State of Louisi- 
 ana and to the Territory of Missouri, as will be seen by ref- 
 erence to the United States Statutes-at-Large, volume three, 
 page one hundred and twenty-two. That in eighteen hun- 
 dred and nineteen in matters that arose in Missouri Terri- 
 tory, that this law was construed by the Attorney General 
 of the United States as creating in the settler from the date 
 of his settlement (where he had settled after the date of the 
 extension of said law to Missouri) a vested right to the tract 
 which he had settled on, which made it impossible for Con- 
 gress thereafter to reserve it, notwithstanding that at that 
 time no entry of the settlement right had been made at the 
 Land Office, as affiant understands said decision; the same 
 is to be found in the first volume of the Attorney General's 
 Opinions at page two hundred and ninety-one, and to which 
 reference is made. 
 
 The time given to the settler under the aforesaid act of 
 February fifth, one thousand eight hundred and thirteen,
 
 35 
 
 in which to first enter his land at the Land Office as a claim- 
 ant under the aforesaid law, did not expire until two weeks 
 before the land was to be offered at public sale, and that 
 within that time for a failure to make entry or the first pay- 
 ment, it was provided in and by said law that the settlers' 
 rights in his land should not be forfeited. The language of 
 said law on this point being in the words following, to wit: 
 
 " Provided, That all lands to be sold under this act shall 
 be entered with the register at least two weeks before the 
 time of the public sales in the district wherein the land lies, 
 and every person having a right of preference in becoming 
 the purchaser of a tract of land who shall fail so to make 
 his entry with the register within the time prescribed, his 
 right shall be forfeited, 'and the land by him claimed shall 
 be offered at public sale with the other public lands in the 
 district to which it belongs." 
 
 Within that time that is more than two weeks before June 
 fifteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-five, the first time ap- 
 pointed for the public sale of any public lands in Chicago, Illi- 
 nois, or that were located there. General John Baptiste Beau- 
 bien (whose name was sometimes written Jean Baptiste Beau- 
 bien, and at others Jean Baptist Beaubien) came to the 
 register and Receiver's office of the aforesaid land district 
 then in Chicago, and within two squares of the land heft- 
 after described, and brought with him his neighbors and the 
 oldest settlers then of that locality, and the said Beaubieu 
 and these old neighbors and old settlers then and there offered 
 to swear, that for twenty-three years the home of the said 
 Beaubien had been and was then on the southwest frac- 
 tional quarter of section ten, township, number thirty-nine, 
 north range, fourteen east of the third principal meridian, 
 in the county of Cook and State of Illinois. 
 
 The said Beaubien, and the said witnesses by him pro- 
 duced then and there before the said register and receiver, 
 also offered to swear that a house was built on the aforesaid 
 fractional quarter section of land several years before the 
 war of eighteen hundred and twelve, and was occupied up
 
 36 
 
 to shortly before the breaking out of said war, and that a 
 piece of ground on said fractional quarter section of land in 
 connection with said' house, and by the owner and occupier 
 thereof, was cultivated during each of said years, when the 
 owner and the occupier of said house sold and conveyed the 
 same, together with said cultivated piece of ground, to the 
 said General Beaubien, and placed him in the actual pos- 
 session thereof, since which time the said General Beaubien 
 had retained said house, and actually lived on said laud 
 from year to year and made it his home, and that he actually 
 occupied it before August, eighteen hundred and twelve, in 
 person, and cultivated said piece of ground before that date; 
 that from the last date until the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and nineteen or thereabouts, the said General Beau- 
 bien was a fur agent and trader among the Indians, and 
 while this business had caused him to be absent at intervals 
 between those years at Milwaukee and the region of Green 
 Bay, in the former Territory of Illinois, the wife and family 
 of the said General Beaubien had at times during such ab- 
 sence remained on this land to await his return, and that 
 Chicago during that period of time was the home of the 
 said General Beaubien, and that the said General Beaubien 
 
 offered to swear that he did not establish for 'himself any 
 
 * 
 
 otfcfer home after the year eighteen hundred and twelve, and 
 these witnesses offered to swear that this was true, and that 
 Chicago was where his wife's relatives had been living 
 during that period, and that it was where she had been 
 reared, and that it was the place said Beaubien became ac- 
 quainted with her, as was currently understood.' 
 
 The said Beaubien and the said witnesses also offered to 
 swear that after the spring of eighteen hundred and sixteen 
 said Beaubien had expended for improvements on said lands, 
 over fifteen times the stipulated price the Government had 
 previously offered to receive from him for said lands, any 
 time after their survey, and two weeks or more prior to the 
 time that should be fixed for their sale, and this stipulated 
 purchase price that had been fixed for the sale of said lands
 
 37 
 
 to said Beaubien by the Government, to include said expen- 
 ditures by him on said land, with the necessary and usual 
 proof of compliance with the terms of said law, he then and 
 there tendered to the said register and receiver, and re- 
 quested them to accept the same and to issue to him the ne- 
 cessary and usual papers, which the Government had prom- 
 ised him, entitling him to a patent for the aforesaid fractional 
 quarter section of land. 
 
 At the same time, by the same witness, the said Beaubien 
 offered to prove that he had complied with all of the things 
 required by the pre-emption law of June nineteenth, eigh- 
 teen hundred and thirty-four, and also tendered his money 
 under that law to said register and receiver for said frac- 
 tional quarter section of land, and requested that the neces- 
 sary and usual final papers from said officers be then and 
 there issued to him for the aforesaid fractional quarter sec- 
 tion of land. The said register and this affiant then con- 
 sulted together, and came to the conclusion that the said 
 General Beaubien had complied fully with all of the things 
 that had been prescribed by the said pre-emption law of 
 eighteen hundred and thirteen, and also that he had fully 
 complied with all of the things required by the said pre- 
 emption law of eighteen hundred and thirty-four, but owing 
 to the fact that the Government had some buildings on a 
 portion of said fractional quarter section of land, they deemed 
 it prudent and cautious for them to consult with the author- 
 ities at Washington, D. C., before taking any action in the 
 premises, and we made this conclusion known to General 
 Beaubien. 'Soon General Beaubien, very excited and in- 
 dignant, came and stated to the said register and this affiant, 
 words to this effect : " See here, my land is advertised for 
 sale; you are instructed to sell it; if you take time to write 
 to Washington you will rob me of my land." The said reg- 
 ister and receiver then looked at their instructions and found 
 to their satisfaction that what General Beaubien had stated 
 was true. The Department at Washington had seemingly 
 been particular to point out to them every section of land
 
 38 
 
 that belonged to the canal trustees, and in which Indian 
 rights existed, and even the land that abutted this piece or 
 fractional quarter section on the west, and also the tract that 
 adjoined it on the south, and had directed all these lands not 
 to be sold, but the said fractional quarter section of land 
 in question it had directed to be offered at public sale unless 
 it should be pre-empted within the time provided by law for 
 pre-emption rights to be entered. 
 
 It is affiant's opinion that at that time the pre-emptive 
 rights of the said Beaubien in the said fractional quarter 
 section of land, by the best judges in and about Chicago, 
 were then estimated to be worth not less than fifty thousand 
 dollars, at least they were supposed to be very valuable, and 
 the said register and receiver felt that they had no right to 
 hazard them, and, therefore, they concluded to take legal 
 advice nearer at hand than Washington, D. C. About that 
 time Mr. Baker, the United States District Attorney for Il- 
 linois, happened to be in Chicago at the office of the said 
 register and receiver, and they submitted the whole matter 
 to him, turning over to him everything. He made careful 
 examination, read over the law, and took time to consider 
 the matter, when he advised us that both the law and our 
 instructions made it our duty to let General Beaubien pre- 
 empt this laud, and that it made no difference to us whether 
 the fort and light-house were on a part of said land or not ; 
 that it was our duty to follow the law, whether it hurt or ben- 
 efited the United States Government, and thafcthelaw made 
 it our duty to let said General Beaubien pre-empt this land. 
 Although the said United States District Attorney enjoyed 
 the reputation of being a good lawyer, and it was his duty, 
 as we understood, to advise all United States officials in his 
 district, yet, before acting on his advice, we took that of the 
 Hon. Sidney Breese, who is now one of the Supreme Court 
 Judges of Illinois, and even at that day enjoyed the reputa- 
 tion of being an eminent lawyer. 
 
 At about that time he happened to be in Chicago, and at 
 the offices of the said register and receiver, and they sub-
 
 39 
 
 mitted everything to him for advice pertaining to the said 
 matter the same as they had to the said United States Dis- 
 trict Attorney, and they received from him the same advice 
 that they had received from said District Attorney. 
 
 Said affiant and said register then concluded to, and did 
 permit, said General John Baptiste Beaubien to pre-empt 
 said fractional quarter section of land. They had blanks 
 that had been furnished them by the Department at Wash- 
 ington, D. C., for the taking of proof, showing a compliance 
 with the pre-emption act of June nineteenth, one thousand 
 eight hundred and thirty-four, and for the certificates to be 
 issued by said register and receiver under said act to the 
 settler, and they had no blanks for use under the said act of 
 February fifth, one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, 
 and they supposed that it made no difference under which 
 of said acts they should take proof; they, therefore, on the 
 twenty-eighth day of May, A. D. eighteen hundred and 
 thirty-five, neglected and declined to take all proof then and 
 there offered by the said Beaubien, showing that he had 
 fully complied with the aforesaid act of February, A. D. 
 one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, and they took 
 proof and issued certificates to said Beaubien for said frac- 
 tional quarter section of land under the said act of June 
 nineteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-four, and under 
 said act they accepted payment in full for the aforesaid frac- 
 tional quarter section of land from the said General Beau- 
 bien, and then and there the said fractional quarter section 
 of land was entered on the record books of the said register 
 as sold to the said Beaubien, and receipts were then and 
 there issued and delivered by the said register and receiver 
 to the said Beaubien, of which the following, according to 
 the best of said affiant's recollection, are true copies, to wit: 
 
 No. 6.] Pre-emption Act, June 19, 1834. 
 
 LAND OFFICE AT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 
 
 May 28, 1835. 
 Received of John Baptist Beaubien, of Cook County, Illi-
 
 40 
 
 nois, the sura of ninety-four dollars and sixty-one cents,, 
 being in full payment for the the southwest fractional quar- 
 ter, of section number ten, in township, number thirty-nine, 
 north of range number fourteen, east of the third principal 
 meridian, containing seventy-five acres and sixty-nine hun- 
 dredths of an acre, at the rate of $1.25 per acre Bank Mich., 
 paper. 
 
 E. D. TAYLOR, 
 
 Receiver. 
 
 [No. 6.] LAND OFFICE AT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 
 
 May 28, 1835. 
 
 It is hereby certified that in pursuance of law, John Bap- 
 tiste Beaubien, of Cook County, State of Illinois, on this day 
 purchased of the register of this office the lot or southwest 
 fractional quarter, of section number ten, in township num- 
 ber thirty-nine, north of range fourteen east, containing 
 seventy-five acres and sixty-nine hundredths of an acre at 
 the rate of $1.25 per acre, amounting to $94.61, for which 
 the said John Baptiste Beaubien has made payment in full 
 as required by law. 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that on presentation of this 
 certificate to the Commissioner of the General Land Office,, 
 the said John Baptiste Beaubien shall be entitled to a patent 
 for the lot above described. 
 
 JAMES WHITLOCK, 
 
 Register. 
 
 Said affiant further states, that said proof offered that the 
 said Jean Baptiste Beaubien had made his home on this 
 fractional quarter section of land since prior to the war of 
 eighteen hundred and twelve, and had complied with all of 
 the things required by said pre-emption law of eighteen 
 hundred and thirteen, was credited by the said register and 
 said receiver, and that it showed a full and perfect com- 
 pliance by the said Beaubien with the said act of February 
 fifth, eighteen hundred and thirteen, and also a full compli-
 
 41 
 
 ance with the amendment to said act of April twenty-ninth, 
 eighteen hundred and sixteen, and that said proof was offered 
 within the time required by said acts to have it enure back 
 to the date of the latter act; and that no fault or negligence 
 is imputable to the said Beaubien because it was not taken, 
 but such fault or negligence, if any, rests on the United 
 States Government and on their duly accredited agents, the 
 said register and receiver. 
 
 Said affiant further states, that the time for proving up 
 any pre-emption right, if any had existed in any other party 
 to pre-empt said fractional quarter section of land or any 
 portion thereof, expired under the said act of February fifth, 
 eightee^ hundred and thirteen, on the first day of June, 
 eigl" x sen hundred and thirty-five; that the said affiant re- 
 mained as the said receiver in the said Land Office until 
 past the date last stated, and until the land sales that began 
 in said land district, at said Land Office, on the fifteenth 
 day of June, eighteen hundred and thirty-five, were com- 
 pleted, and affiant states that no person other than the said 
 General Beaubien, either before the said first day of June, 
 eighteen hundred and thirty -five or thereafter, made any claim 
 to the said receiver that he had any right to pre-empt the 
 said fractional quarter section of land, or any portion thereof, 
 nor did any person other than the said General Beaubien 
 offer any proof of such a right, or receive from the said re- 
 ceiver a receiver's certificate of pre-emption payment for 
 said land, or any portion thereof. 
 
 E. D. TAYLOR. 
 
 Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence, this 
 thirteenth day of September, A. D. 1877. 
 
 L. F. CUMMINGS, 
 [SEAL] Notary Public. 
 
 E. D. Taylor, of Illinois, is an old and greatly esteemed 
 citizen of that State. His statements are entitled to credit. 
 
 W. N. MORRISON.
 
 42 
 AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID McKEE. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1 
 
 County of Kane, j ' 
 
 David McKee, being first duly sworn, makes oath and 
 says that he is now aged near seventy-eight years, and that 
 he now resides near the City of Aurora, in the aforesaid 
 county, and that in an early day in eighteen hundred and 
 twenty-two, he went to the, now Chicago, Illinois, to reside, 
 and was the blacksmith of the place, and located at or near 
 old Fort Dearborn. 
 
 Affiant not then being able to speak the Indian language, 
 did not fully post himself as to who had or had not been 
 living at said place between the year eighteen hundred and 
 twelve and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-two, when 
 affiant first went to said place to live. Affiant, however, 
 does recollect that when he went to said place to live, that 
 there was then still standing east of old Fort Dearborn, 
 south and west of the then Chicago river, an old house then 
 bearing the appearance of having stood there some twelve 
 or fifteen years, or perhaps longer, which old house was then 
 in use as a stable, and from the best information and belief 
 that affiant has, the said old house had then stood on said 
 land that long, and this old house was on the fractional 
 quarter section of land that was east of the now State street 
 in Chicago, and north of Madison street in said city, and 
 south of the Chicago river. 
 
 DAVID McKEE. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me this first day of Jan- 
 uary eighteen hundred and seventy-eight. 
 
 LYMAN W. FOSTER, 
 [SEAL.] Notary Public.
 
 43 
 AFFIDAVIT OF JEAN B. LETENDERE. 
 
 STATE OF KANSAS, 1 
 County of Shawnee, J 
 
 Jean B. Letendere, being first duly sworn makes oath and 
 says that he resides near the City of Silver Lake, in said 
 county; that he is over eighty-three years of age, and that 
 from in the fall of eighteen hundred and fifteen until after 
 the year eighteen hundred and thirty-five he resided in and 
 about what is now Chicago, Illinois, and in the fall of eigh- 
 teen hundred and fifteen affiant entered into the employment 
 of Colonel John B. Beaubien., of that place, and remained in 
 his employment the most of the time until the year eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-six; and that in the fall of eighteen hun- 
 dred and fifteen, and for years thereafter, affiant boarded 
 much of his time in the family of the said Beaubien, who is 
 now deceased. 
 
 Affiant states that at the time in the fall of eighteen hun- 
 dred and fifteen, that affiant began to work for the said Beau- 
 bien. and live in his family; the said Beaubien was then re- 
 siding in a house near the then ruins of eld Fort Dearborn, 
 and near where it was rebuilt about the month of July or Au- 
 gust, eighteen hundred and sixteen, the said house being 
 then a few hundred feet cast and south of said ruins of a 
 former fort, as it was stated, and on that tract of land which 
 after survey came to be known and described as the south- 
 west fractional quarter of section ten, township number 
 thirty-nine, north range fourteen, east of the third principal 
 meridian, and in the now City of Chicago, County of Cook, 
 and in State of Illinois, and north of what is now, or was 
 when affiant lived in Chicago, known as Madison street, and 
 east of State street and south of the Chicago river. 
 
 At the time that affiant entered the employment of the 
 said Beaubien in the year eighteen hundred and fifteen, and 
 then began to board and live in the family of the said .Beau- 
 bien, then living and residing in a house on said land, affiant 
 learned from the said Beaubien and wife, and from the citi-
 
 44 
 
 zens generally of that neighborhood and vicinity, that the 
 said Beaubien had purchased said house from the rightful 
 owner thereof in the year eighteen hundred and twelve, or 
 at about the time of the breaking out of the then late war; 
 and that the said Beaubien had resided therein a portion of 
 each year since that time, and had each year cultivated a 
 patch of ground for garden, &c., in and around said house, 
 and on said tract of land, and this seemed to be a generally 
 conceded fact in and about that region at that date. 
 
 As affiant learned in the same way as he learned about 
 the facts of the purchase of said house, he also learned that 
 the same had first been built about the year eighteen hun- 
 dred and four, and occupied the most of the time from that 
 date as a private residence, up to eighteen hundred and 
 twelve, as well as since eighteen hundred and twelve, and 
 affiiaut says that in eighteen hundred and fifteen the said 
 house bore the evidence of age, and looked then as though 
 it had been erected ten or more years previously to the year 
 eighteen hundred and fifteen. 
 
 Affiant states that in the same way that he learned the 
 before mentioned facts, he also learned that Jossettie Beau- 
 bien, the second and the then wife of the said John B. Beau- 
 bien, was at the time the said house had been purchased by 
 the said John B. Beaubien, then living on an adjoining 
 fractional quarter section of land, and that in said neighbor- 
 hood she had been reared, and that in said neighborhood 
 her family relatives were and had been residing, and for 
 many years thereafter continued to reside, and that the 
 said John B. Beaubien in the year eighteen hundred and 
 twelve purchased said house for a home, and that soon after 
 said purchase his marriage to the said Jossettie Beaubien, 
 whose name before marriage was Jossettie Lafromboise fol- 
 lowed, when they went to living in the aforesaid house, and 
 had made the same their home. 
 
 Affiant states that from and after the time affiant in the 
 fall of eighteen hundred and fifteen, entered into the em- 
 ployment of the said Beaubien, and began to live in the said
 
 45 
 
 Beaubien's family, the said Beaubien did not during the 
 time affiant was in the employ of the said Beaubien up to 
 and after the year eighteen hundred and thirty-six, abandon 
 the said piece of ground as his home, and that he had a 
 house thereon, and his home thereon on the twenty-ninth 
 day of April, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, 
 and that the said Beaubien had as affiant knows of his own 
 personal knowledge, used and cultivated a part of said tract 
 of land in the year eighteen hundred and fifteen, and had in 
 that year resided on the same. 
 
 Affiant states that between the years eighteen hundred 
 aud fifteen, and the years eighteen hundred and nineteen, 
 the said Beaubien spent a part of his time at Milwaukee, 
 that is near what is now known as Milwaukee, and some of 
 his time at the head of Green Bay, and used to go to Machi- 
 naw for supplies; affiant often accompanying him, and some- 
 times the wife of the said Beaubien accompanied him as 
 far as Milwaukee, awaiting until the said Beaubien was 
 through with his circuit of trip, when she would return with 
 him to what is now said City of Chicago, but that said trips 
 were not made for the purpose of abandoning the home 
 which the said Beaubien had established in Chicago on the 
 aforesaid land, as when absent the said Beaubien and wife 
 always in conversation in the presence of affiant, used to 
 speak of the place on the aforesaid land as their home. 
 
 Affiant states that at the time he began to work for the 
 said Beaubien, as aforesaid, in the year eighteen hundred 
 and tifteea, there was no fort or building owned by the 
 Government standing on the aforesaid land, as that term is 
 commonly understood in a new country; that the fort that 
 was said to have been on said land from the year eighteen 
 hundred and four to August, or thereabouts, in the year 
 eighteen hundred and twelve, was said to have been aban- 
 doned by the Government at the latter date, and not until 
 after being abandoned to have been destroyed by the Indians 
 of that region, and the said tract of land was then totally 
 abandoned by the Government, and on the twenty-ninth day
 
 46 
 
 of April, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixteen, was said to 
 have been then totally abandoned by the United States Gov- 
 ernment for a period then of near four years, and the war 
 with the British Government had then been ended for the 
 space of about two years, and that it was not then known 
 in the region or vicinity of said land that the Government 
 intended to or ever would resume possession of said land,, 
 or any portion thereof, and, as affiant is informed, the said 
 lands had relapsed into the condition of all other public 
 lands, and were then as susceptible to the attaching of pre- 
 emptive rights thereto, under pre-emption legislation and 
 residence on said land, as if the partial appropriation thereof 
 from the years eighteen hundred and four to the month of 
 August, eighteen hundred and twelve, by the United States 
 Government had not existed. 
 
 Affiant further states of his own knowledge that about 
 the month of July or August, eighteen hundred and six- 
 teen, and after the twenty-ninth day of April, A. D. one 
 thousand eight hundred and sixteen, the United States Gov- 
 ernment retook possession of about four acres or less, of 
 what after survey came to be known as a part of the south- 
 west fractional quarter of the aforesaid section of land, and 
 that at said last date there were no surveys in that region, 
 and that the said Government, on retaking possession of this 
 small portion of the aforesaid tract of land, designated the 
 portion it intended to make use of by enclosing the same 
 with a fence, and that said Government fenced off and re- 
 tained for their use a much larger field on the west of the 
 buildings and small field aforesaid they then used, which 
 larger field was west of what was known as State street, 
 Chicago, Illinois, at the time affiant left said city, and which 
 larger field, west of said State street, was in the fall of 
 eighteen hundred and twenty-four still enclosed by fence, 
 and then known as the Government field, and which in the 
 fall of said last named year, with said small field, was the 
 only land at that date in use by the Government, or known 
 as the Government soldiers land.
 
 47 
 
 Affiant further states that he knows of his own knowledge 
 that in the fall of eighteen hundred and twenty-four, and on 
 the first day of October, of that year, the said John B. Beau- 
 bien was then in the actual occupancy, and then actually re- 
 siding on said tract of land, outside of the said theretofore 
 enclosed and appropriated limits that had been in use by the 
 Government, and that on this portion of said tract of land 
 since, on the twenty-ninth day of April, A. D. one thousand 
 eight hundred and sixteen, the said Beaubien had made for 
 that date, and region, large expenditures for improvements, 
 and which improvements were then still standing on said 
 portion of said tract of land, and still were owned by the 
 said Beaubien, and that they were popularly known as said 
 Beaubien's private property, and that they were then, by 
 the custom and usage of that region, as much an article of 
 sale and purchase, and the title of the settler thereto; as 
 much respected as though the same were his cow or his 
 horse ; and, as affiant is informed, the settlement law in 
 force at that date for the territory of Illinois, not only au- 
 thorized the sale and transfer before entry of such improve- 
 ments, but also of the guaranteed pereferential right from the 
 Government of the first and exclusive right to purchase the 
 land itself, which right, as affiant is informed and believes, 
 contained the further promise of the Government ; that the 
 right of entry and purchase should not be predicated on, 
 whether the land of the settler should ever be proclaimed 
 for sale, and that save and except for a failure of the settler 
 to enter his land within the time fixed by the settlement law 
 his right of entry should not, as affiant is informed, be for- 
 feited by the Government or others. 
 
 Affiant further states that he has no interest whatever in 
 who is the owner of any portion of the fractional quarter 
 section of land, first above described, and that he is not an 
 Indian, but a Frenchman, and that he has lived at and near 
 Silver Lake, Shawnee County, Kansas, for twenty-six years, 
 last past ; that he has attentively listened to the careful read- 
 ing of all of the aforesaid affidavit, and fully understands its
 
 48 
 
 contents, and that affiant is well and extensively known in 
 the region aforesaid. 
 
 his 
 
 JEAN B. LATENDRE, M 
 
 mark. 
 
 Witness : DR. W. F. HAZELTON. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me, and by me read over 
 to affiant before signing, this twenty-first day of December, 
 eighteen hundred and seventy-seven. 
 
 WM. F. JOHNSTON, 
 SEAL.] Notary Public. 
 
 I do solemnly swear that I have known Jean B. Latendre, 
 (whose signature is attached above,) for fifteen years, and 
 know him to be a respectable witness and citizen of Shaw- 
 nee County, State of Kansas. 
 
 W. F. JOHNSTON, Postmaster, 
 
 Silver Lake, Shaionee County, Kansas. 
 
 W. F. Johnston, who is personally known to me, appeared 
 and was duly sworn to the fact set forth in above affidavit, 
 December 21st, 1877. 
 [SEAL.] W. F. HAZELTON, N. P. 
 
 I have been personally acquainted with the above-named 
 W. F. Johnston for twelve years, and know him to be an 
 honorable gentleman in all things, but I have no acquaint- 
 ance with Jean B. Latendre. 
 
 THOS. B. RYAN, M. 0. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT OF MADORE B. BEAUBIEN. 
 
 STATE OF KANSAS, "| 
 County of Shawnee, \-ss. 
 
 City of Silver Lake, ) 
 
 Madore B. Beaubien, being first duly sworn, makes oath 
 and says that he resides at said town of Silver Lake; that he is 
 past sixty-eight years, of age, and that he was the second son of
 
 49 
 
 Colonel John B. Beaubien, otherwise named Jean B. Beau- 
 bien, now deceased; and who was an early pre-emption set- 
 tler on the southwest fractional quarter of section ten, town- 
 ship thirty-nine, north range fourteen, east of the third prin- 
 pal meridian in the now City of Chicago, County of Cook, 
 and State of Illinois. 
 
 Affiant states that his memory of the matters hereafter 
 stated runs back to the spring of eighteen hundred and thir- 
 teen, and these matters and things herein stated as having 
 occurred prior to that date are based on such information as 
 affiant, after the spring of eighteen hundred and thirteen, 
 obtained from his father and from his stepmother, Josettie 
 Beaubien and the other people then living in and near the 
 aforesaid fractional quarter section of land, and are true ac- 
 cording to such knowledge and the best of said affiant's be- 
 lief. 
 
 With this qualification affiant states that in the year eigh- 
 teen hundred and twelve the father of affiant purchased from 
 the rightful owner thereof a dwelling-house on the aforesaid 
 fractional quarter section of land that had been built thereon 
 about the year eighteen hundred and four, and used and oc- 
 cupied from and after the year eighteen hundred and four, 
 and from and after said last date a piece of ground on said 
 fractional quarter section of laud, and in and about said house 
 by the rightful owner and occupier of said house had from 
 year to year been cultivated. 
 
 Affiant personally recollects that early in the year eighteen 
 hundred and thirteen the father of affiant, and with affiant, 
 and with the stepmother of affiant, and then the wife of the 
 father of affiant, were all residing in the said house on 
 said tract of land, that, as before stated, had been pur- 
 chased by him during the year eighteen hundred and 
 twelve, and that each year thereafter the said John B. Beau- 
 bien occupied said house and land a portion of each year, 
 and at all times from and after that date spoke of the same 
 as their home, even when absent from it; that in eighteen 
 hundred and seventeen, or thereabouts, the said John B. 
 4
 
 50 
 
 Beaubien purchased another house on said tract of land of 
 one Dean, and from and after that date during his yearly 
 stays at the now Chicago, Illinois, ceased to occupy and use 
 the aforesaid house that had been built about eighteen hun- 
 dred and four, and purchased by him in eighteen hundred 
 and twelve; and the said first house was turned into a stable 
 or barn, and from and after eighteen hundred and seventeen 
 or thereabouts was so used. 
 
 Affiant states that when the said John B. Beaubien in 
 eighteen hundred and twelve, purchased his said first house 
 on said land, that he was then about to marry, and soon did 
 marry Jossettie Lafromboise, who had been reared in that 
 locality, and whose relatives then resided there, and that 
 she was then residing on an adjoining fractional quarter 
 section of land, and that the said purchase was made for the 
 his permanent and future home, that the said marriage wa& 
 made, and the said Gen. John B. Beaubien and wife remained 
 residents of Chicago, aforesaid, on the aforesaid land, until 
 after eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, on which tract of land 
 there was born unto them as the fruit of said marriage a 
 very large family of children. 
 
 The business of the said John B. Beaubien did not permit 
 him to be permanently located at any one point for a whole 
 year. He was then an Indian trader, and was required to 
 be some of the time in each year at the now Chicago, Illi- 
 nois, some of the time at the now Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 
 and some of the time at the now Green Bay, "Wisconsin, all of 
 which points at that time arid for years thereafter were in the 
 then Territory of Illinois, but that the said John B. Beaubien 
 never at any time in his life resided or did business at Mack- 
 inaw, save and except as he visited that point to take his 
 furs, and purchase his supplies for use at the aforesaid posts 
 in the then Territoy of Illinois. 
 
 On these trips to these posts in the then territory of Illi- 
 nois the wife and children of the said John B. Beaubien, 
 from 1812 to 1819 or thereabouts, usually accompanied him, 
 going by way of boat; and particularly was this the case as
 
 51 
 
 to his trips to the now Milwaukee and Chicago, as these 
 points were quite near each other, and by a water route con- 
 nected. These trips to the north by the said Beaubien were, 
 however, for business purposes solely; and as soon as that 
 business necessity ended the said Beaubien settled down and 
 remained permanently on the aforesaid tract of land in Chi- 
 cago, and during absence on these northern trips the said 
 John B. Beaubien and wife always used to speak of the said 
 Chicago place as their home; and at none of said northern 
 posts during the continuance of these trips, or the time they 
 were being made, did the said "John B. Beaubien make any 
 such purchases as the said Dean purchase, or the eighteen 
 hundred and twelve purchase of improvements on the afore- 
 said tract of land, so far as affiant is informed; and had such 
 purchases been made at these northern posts affiant believes 
 he would have known of them. 
 
 Affiant states that from and after the time his father pur- 
 chased said house on said tract of land in the year eighteen 
 hundred and twelve, that he did not remove at any time 
 thereafter, in any period of his life from the then Territory 
 of Illinois, and that on the fifth day of February, A. D. one 
 thousand eight hundred and thirteen, the said tract of land 
 was not in the occupancy and use of the United States Gov- 
 ernment for any purpose whatever, and therefore as affiant 
 is informed and believes was not a reservation by occupancy, 
 and that at said date no part of said tract of land had been 
 entered as reserved at any Government land or other office, 
 as affiant is informed and believes, that the said tract of land 
 was not then a reservation for any purpose either by occu- 
 pancy or entry, and that no part of said tract of land was at 
 that date reserved from sale by any act of Congress, nor 
 had any part thereof been directed to be sold in town lots 
 or out lots, and therefore that as said affiant is informed, 
 the said tract of land became and was subject to the 
 attachment of pre-emptive rights thereto by settlement, 
 theretofore made, or thereafter to be made on said tract of 
 land, under the provisions of the pre-emption law of the
 
 52 
 
 above date, for the then Illinois Territory, with the excep- 
 tion, that the aforesaid tract of land on survey might be 
 found to be a fractional quarter section of land, and held to 
 be excluded for that reason from the pre-emption settle- 
 ment, and that to meet such a contingency and other contin- 
 gencies, affiant states that an amendment to said act was 
 passed and approved, April twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred 
 and sixteen^ making the said law applicable to fractional 
 quarter sections of land, and that on the date of the passage 
 of this amendment the said tract of land had not in any way 
 been in the occupation or use of the Government for nearly 
 four years, either by an agent in possession, nor did it have 
 a building thereon, or a forl thereon of the Government, 
 nor had it had for the space of about four years, and the 
 said John B. Beaubien was then in the actual possession, of 
 said tract of land with a house thereon, and had had posses- 
 sion thereof and cultivated a portion thereof for several 
 years, and at said date the Government had not been in 
 possession of any part of said tract of land for a period of 
 near four years, nor was it known in the vicinity of said 
 land at that time, that the Government ever intended to 
 resume possession of any portion of said tract of land, nor 
 at said last named date, so far as affiant is informed and 
 believes had any portion of said tract of land been reserved 
 by any former act of Congress, or directed to be sold in 
 town lots or out lots. 
 
 Affiant further states that after this tract had thus passed 
 in equity to the said John B. Beaubiein, under and by vir- 
 tue of the said legislation of Congress, giving him a pre- 
 emption right therein, one of the officers of said Govern- 
 ment with a company of its troops, in the month of July, or 
 thereabouts, of the year eighteen hundred and sixteen, took 
 possession of about four acres thereof, and enclosed the same 
 by a fence, thereby designating the extent of the land thus 
 appropriated, and erected a Government building inside of 
 said fence, which post so fenced and enclosed was not at the 
 time known would include any of the land, which by an
 
 53 
 
 equitable grant from Congress had previously passed to, and 
 become vested in equity in the said Beaubien, as it was 
 found when the said tract came to be first surveyed by the 
 Government of the United States, which said first survey 
 was not made until about the year eighteen hundred and 
 twenty-one, as affiant is informed and believes, and that, as 
 affiant is informed and believes, the land in said tract or 
 fractional quarter section of land, not in July, eighteen hun- 
 dred and sixteen, for the use of the Government, taken pos- 
 session of would have remained, by the terms o; the said 
 two pre-emption acts, subject to pre-emption settlement after 
 that date, had the same not before that date been settled on 
 and been then owned by the said John B. Beaubien, and 
 affiant states that on the said part of said tract, or fractional 
 quarter section of land, outside of the enclosed limits of said 
 fort, rebuilt in eighteen hundred and sixteen, were both the 
 houses and cultivated piece of ground purchased by said 
 Beaubien in the year eighteen hundred and twelve, and the 
 house, that in or about the year eighteen hundred and sev- 
 enteen the said Beaubien had purchased of one Dean, this 
 Dean house being then comparatively new, and for that date 
 of much value, and the said part of said tract of land that 
 was outside of the post limits had been, and was the home 
 and residence of the said John B. Beaubien at the time said 
 tract of land was first surveyed, and at the time the survey 
 and plat thereof was tiled and approved in the proper office 
 therefor, and the said Beaubien was also in the possession 
 and actual occupancy of the said land on the first day of 
 October, eighteen hundred and twenty-four, and then had 
 valuable buildings thereon, procured at his own private ex- 
 pense, and then regarded his private property, at which lat- 
 ter date, as affiant is informed and believes, the said build- 
 ings of the said Beaubien, and his said land were, without 
 his knowledge or authority therefor, reserved for the use of 
 the General Government without any compensation there- 
 for being made to him, the said Beaubien, and that from 
 and after said last named date, the said tract of land re-
 
 54 
 
 mained reserved for the use of the Government until the 
 spring of eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, and that a part 
 of said tract of land did not cease to be such a reservation 
 until on or about the twenty-fifth day of May, A. D. eigh- 
 teen hundred and seventy-two. 
 
 Affiant states that he has read the said acts of February 
 fifth, eighteen hundred and thirteen, and the amendment 
 thereof, dated and approved April twenty-ninth, eighteen 
 hundred and sixteen, and that he is familiar with what the 
 said John B. Beaubien did in compliance with the terms of 
 the said acts, and he states that at the time of the said ap- 
 propriation of about four acres of said tract or fractional 
 quarter section of land by the Government of the United 
 States, the said Beaubien was in no default with any of the 
 terms of either of said acts, and was then in the actual pos- 
 session of said tract of land; and that when a reservation of 
 the residue of said tract or fractional quarter section of land 
 was made by entry in the Land Office on the first day of Oc- 
 tober, A. D. eighteen hundred and twenty-four; that the 
 said John B. Beaabien was then in no default with any of 
 the terms of either of said acts ; and that on said last date, as 
 before stated, the said John B. Beaubien was also in the pos- 
 session of said tract of land then residing thereon. 
 
 Affiant further states that he is advised and believes that 
 the said reservation, notwithstanding the said private rights 
 theretofore and then in said land in favor of the said John B. 
 Beaubien operated to exclude the said land from either entry 
 or sale until it should cease to be used by the United States 
 Government, and the reservation of the same entered in the 
 Land Office, should be canceled and vacated; and that while 
 this reservation should last the pre-emption right of the said 
 Beaubien could not in any way be asserted; and that if he 
 should attempt to assert it his act, whatever it might be, 
 would be void; but that nevertheless his pre-emption right 
 for the period of time the reservation would last would con- 
 tinue to exist in abeyance in the land to revive upon the 
 reservation being vacated.
 
 55 
 
 Affiant states that he is advised, and believes, that the 
 said reservation as to a part of said tract of land was first 
 vacated in the spring of the year eighteen hundred and 
 thirty-nine, by the issuing of an order for the sale thereof; 
 and that the said order was then made by the Secretary of 
 "War that he, as Secretary of War, would cause the same to 
 be sold, after being subdivided into lots and blocks, and be 
 sold in single lots to the highest private bidder, and not 
 otherwise, which lots were of about the size of twenty-two 
 feet front by usual and ordinary depth for city lots to alleys 
 in the rear, and some perhaps a little larger; that the man- 
 ner and terms of said order were of themselves a prohibi- 
 tion to the said John B. Beaubien; that the said tract would 
 not in whole or in any part be sold to him as a pre-emptor; 
 and that being ordered to be sold by the Secretary of War, 
 the said order was a refusal to give the said John B. Beau- 
 bien the privilege to first prove and enter and purchase the 
 same, as the law, as affiant is advised, required, for the 
 reason that at that time the said Secretary had no authority 
 or jurisdiction, nor has he ever had, so far as affiant is in- 
 formed, to hear a.id determine pre-emptive proofs, or to 
 Issue and deliver pre-emption certificates of purchase ; nev- 
 ertheless, affiant states that the said John B. Beaubien was 
 then ready and anxious and able to make the necessary 
 proof of his settlement on the aforesaid tract of land, and of 
 his compliance with the requirements of the aforesaid pre- 
 emption acts ; and that the said John B. Beaubien was then 
 in the actual possession of said tract of land, residing thereon, 
 and that the said Beaubien and his heirs have always been 
 ready and anxious to make the proper proof, entry and pay- 
 ment for said land under said law, and that they are still 
 ready and prepared to do this, but that no hour or moment 
 has, that affiant is aware of, ever been allotted them to make 
 this proof, entry, and payment since the aforesaid tract of 
 land was reserved, as aforesaid, and while the said pre- 
 emption title of said John B. Beaubien was in full force, 
 -and before he had made any default.
 
 56 
 
 Affiant further states that the said early laws are, as he is- 
 advised, still in full force as to said early settlement, and 
 unrepealed, and that the time allotted by them for pre- 
 emptive proof, entry, and payment of said tract of land has 
 not as yet expired, and that quite a large tract of said land 
 now claimed by the city of Chicago still remains as an open 
 common, unsold and unconveyed, with the legal title still 
 in the United States Government, and subject to the trust 
 in favor of the said Beaubien and his heirs that existed on 
 the days that it was appropriated and reserved, as aforesaid,, 
 as affiant is informed and believes ; and that the heirs of the 
 said John B. Beaubien, nearly all of whom still reside in 
 the city of Chicago, Illinois, aforesaid, are now ready and 
 willing and anxious, as they have been at all times hereto- 
 fore, to tender proof of compliance with said law by their 
 father, and to offer and pay the sum of one dollar and 
 twenty-five cents per acre, fixed by a solemn act of Con- 
 gress as the price to be paid therefor, to induce the said 
 John B. Beaubien to remain on said tract of land and make 
 large expenditures thereon for buildings, while the same 
 was unreserved and unappropriated, and which in fact had 
 that effect and operation. 
 
 Affiant further states that in addition to the aforesaid act 
 of estoppel as against the United States Government, to 
 make good their solemn and written promise to convey to 
 the said Beaubien and his heirs the said tract of land, or 
 any remaining part thereof at the price aforesaid, before 
 they would permit it to be sold, granted or conveyed to others, 
 that the said United States Government, in and by the said 
 pioneer residence of the said John B. Beaubien, received a 
 great reward and benefit from the said John B. Beaubien in 
 this. That he came to said locality when the United States 
 was unable or failing to maintain a suitable force in that 
 locality to cope with the then powerful tribe of Pottawatamie 
 Indians, then inhabiting the country in and about the now 
 City of Chicago, and when the garrison of troops there had 
 all been murdered, and the white settlers had been or were
 
 57 
 
 compelled to flee for their lives, and remain absent for the 
 space of about four years. This tribe of Indians at this 
 time were wholly under the control of the British Govern- 
 ment, and during our then war with that power their fast 
 allies, and such agents and persons, as the United States 
 Government had sent in among them, to prevent and break 
 up this alliance had been unavailing, arid it was necessary 
 and desirable to the United States Government for some 
 one to go and be with them that could and would materially 
 aid in this task. The said John B. Beaubien being an 
 American citizen by birth and education, and then and at 
 all other times truly and thoroughly loyal to the United 
 States Government, and having been born and reared in the 
 now City of Detroit, Michigan, and surrounded with Indians 
 from the time of his birth, and fully understanding their 
 character, and in a large measure enjoying their confidence, 
 did at this critical time marry Josettie Lafromboise, then 
 one of the said tribe of Indians necessary to be conciliated, 
 and through her and her family, who were very influential 
 members of said tribe of Indians, and then somewhat more 
 enlightened than the generality of the other members of 
 said tribe of Indians, the said Beaubien did all in his power 
 without any fee or reward, to bring about this reconciliation 
 of these Indians to the United States Government, and in 
 this he was aided by his wife the mother of the larger part 
 of the now Beaubien children and heirs, claiming title to the 
 aforesaid tract of land, the desired result was secured, and 
 the said Indians after that war became the most loyal to the 
 United States Government, and instead of being a great 
 menance to pioneer settlement, became a strong police force 
 to aid in. their protection, and in the Indian war that occurred 
 in that region, or west of there, in the year eighteen hun- 
 dred and thirty-two, these Indians rendered meritorious 
 service in aiding the United States Government to suppress 
 it, and from and since that date it is believed by affiant that 
 they have been truly loyal, and well disposed to the United 
 States Government, and all its citizens and subjects.
 
 58 
 
 Affiant further states that not desiring to rest his father's 
 loyalty and the value of his said services on the testimony 
 of a son, he takes occasion and does refer, for further proof 
 of these qualities in affiant's father to the resolutions adopted 
 at an indignation meeting held by the citizens of Chicago, 
 Illinois, on the day of June, 1839, on the occasion of the 
 Government of the United States, through an alleged agent 
 of the then Secretary of War, causing the said land so 
 promised as aforesaid many years theretofore by Congress to 
 the said John B. Beaubien by a solemn law to then in re- 
 pudiation of said law and promise to be subdivided as afore- 
 said into little lots of about twenty-two feet front, and to be 
 sold to the highest bidder, and the proceeds placed in the 
 United States Treasury, under which, with other parts of the 
 said land of the said John B. Beaubien as the said alleged 
 agent of the then Secretary of War, had caused them to be 
 sold away from the said John B. Beaubien the very house 
 that then in his old age he was inhabiting, and in which he 
 had resided in since Illinois was a Territory, and which 
 house had been procured at great expense to the said Beau- 
 bien, and in which a large family of children had been born 
 unto him and partly reared; and in and around which house 
 on the said land so sold and conveyed were also the graves 
 of the departed children of the said Beaubien. 
 
 Affiant states that the resolutions of said meeting, which 
 were printed in all the city papers of Chicago aforesaid at 
 the time, and which are still in existence, did not overdraw 
 the picture as to what the said Beaubien had done for said 
 locality and the United States Government; but affiant 
 knows as a fact that they left many things in the favor of the 
 said Beaubien unsaid which might have been said. 
 
 Affiant further states in explanation of the letters of Dr. 
 Wolcott, written from Chicago to the Department at Wash- 
 ington, D. C., advising a reservation to be made of the afore- 
 said fractional quarter section of land for the uses of the Gov- 
 ernment, and that a larger tract than the whole of said frac- 
 tional quarter section of land was then under fence and in the
 
 59 
 
 use of the Government, or language to that effect; that the 
 larger part of the land thus referred to was outside of the said 
 fractional quarter section of land, and in section nine in the 
 aforesaid township, and that in the said Beaubien fractional 
 quarter section there was then only about four acres inclosed 
 and in the use of the Government, or that at any time since 
 the retaking possession thereof in 1816, had been in the use 
 of the Government, and that the part of the said Beaubien 
 fractional quarter section then in use or inclosed by the Gov- 
 ernment is correctly represented by the western inclosure 
 shown in a picture of Chicago in the year eighteen hundred 
 and twenty, which picture was shortly since shown affiant by 
 William H. Standish, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, with the word 
 "Childs" printed on it, while the eastern enclosure shown 
 on said picture shows houses and buildings then owned by 
 the said John B. Beaubien, and to show the field above 
 referred to in section nine of said township that had been 
 fenced in and used by the Government to raise vegetables, 
 &c., for the soldiers at the post. The said affiant has caused 
 the following map to be drawn : 
 
 L a k eMi o h i g a n . 
 
 EXPLANATIONS. No. 1 \sn4vt. and enclosure on the Beaubien tract of land. 
 The other enclosure ia wear of the Beaubiea tract of land.
 
 60 
 
 Affiant states that he was residing at the city of Chicago 
 aforesaid when that part of the reservation by occupancy 
 aforesaid that had been made in July, 1816 r or thereabouts, 
 and after survey was found to be in section nine aforesaid, 
 was vacated and ceased to be used by the soldiers at Fort 
 Dearborn, and until after the sale and disposition thereof 
 was made and affiant states that the part of said reservation 
 in existence by occupancy, on the third day of March, eigh- 
 teen hundred and nineteen, situated in said section nine upon 
 becoming after that date vacated, was permitted to and did 
 relapse back into the condition of public lands that had 
 never been appropriated or reserved, and was sold and dis- 
 posed of in the same manner as the other public lands in 
 and about Chicago aforesaid that had never been sold or 
 appropriated prior to the grant to the State of Illinois for 
 canal purposes, and said field was not sub-divided, sold 
 or disposed of by the Secretary of War, notwithstanding 
 that the said lands were sold and disposed of between the 
 years eighteen hundred and nineteen and eighteen hun- 
 dred and fifty-seven by grant of public lands to the State of 
 Illinois. 
 
 Affiant further states that at the time a subdivision of the 
 aforesaid tract of land known as Fort Dearborn Addition to 
 Chicago, Illinois, was made, platted, and filed of record, and 
 at the time all the Fort Dearborn sale of lots out of said 
 tract, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, was 
 made, and at the time the City of Chicago took possession 
 of a part of said tract of land that at said sale was not sold, 
 the said John B. Beaubien was in the actual possession of 
 said tract of land, residing thereon with his family, and the 
 said City of Chicago, and all parties concerned, had full no- 
 tice of all his rights in said tract of land, and as affiant is 
 informed and believes, that before said alleged sale, and 
 while it was progressing, they were publicly notified by one 
 of the then able and noted lawyers of Chicago that said sale 
 would be invalid and convey no title to a purchaser thereat. 
 
 Affiant further states that the said John B. Beaubien was
 
 61 
 
 in the actual possession of said fractional quarter section of 
 land on the twenty-ninth day of May, A. D. eighteen hun- 
 dred and thirty, and that he cultivated a, portion of said tract 
 of land in the year eighteen hundred and twenty-nine. 
 
 Affiant further states that the said John B. Beauhien 
 was in the actual possession of said fractional quarter sec- 
 tion of land on the nineteenth day of June, A. D. eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-four, and that he cultivated a portion 
 thereof in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-three. 
 
 Affiant further states that that part of the aforesaid frac- 
 tional quarter section of land now claimed by the City of 
 Chicago, and that other part known as the railroad grounds, 
 were neither to any extent in the occupancy and use of the 
 United States Government, on and prior to the first day of 
 October, A. D. eighteen hundred and twenty-four, for any 
 purpose whatever, and as before stated as affiant is informed 
 no part of said parts of said fractional quarter section of land 
 were, until October first, eighteen hundred and twenty-four, 
 reserved in any way by the Government of the United States, 
 and further affiant saith not. 
 
 MADORE B. BEAUBIEK 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me the 28th day of Janu- 
 ary, A. D. eighteen hundred and seventy-eight. 
 
 JOSEPH B. OLIVER, 
 [SEAL.] Notary Public. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., February 6, 1878. 
 I have been personally and well acquainted with Madore 
 B. Beaubien during the last past twelve years, and I regard 
 him as a most upright, honest and truthful man. 
 
 THOS. RYAN, M. C., 
 
 3d Kansas.
 
 62 
 AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIS SCOTT. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, ^ 
 County of Cook, \ss. 
 City of Chicago. J 
 
 "Willis Scott, being first duly sworn, makes oath and says 
 that he now resides in said city at the northeast corner of 
 Green and Washington streets; and that he came to said 
 Chicago to reside in the year eighteen hundred and twenty- 
 six; and that since that date he has resided at said Chicago, 
 and in northeastern Illinois, contiguous to said Chicago. 
 
 Affiant states that when he came to Chicago aforesaid to 
 reside in the year eighteen hundred and twenty-six, and 
 during each year thereafter prior to the year eighteen hun- 
 dred and thirty, as well as after the year eighteen hundred 
 and thirty, it was the custom ot the settlers to select a piece 
 of government laud and settle down on it and improve it, 
 and where the land had not heen surveyed so as to mark 
 the lines of quarter sections and of fractional sections, the 
 settlers on the prairie used to plow a furrow to mark their 
 boundaries, and in the timber they used to mark and blaze 
 their timber, and what would be found inside of these lines, 
 was understood to be the settlers lands, commonly called 
 his settlement claim. 
 
 These titles by the settlers were regarded as sacred as the 
 land and home of any man now who has his deed, and the 
 settlers evinced the same interest in building on and im- 
 provingtheir claimsas though they then had their patent from 
 the Government, as it was understood that after survey, and 
 before the time for public sale b}^ the Government, the set- 
 tler would have the first and best right to enter at the Gov- 
 ernment Land Office and buy his claim or tract to the extent 
 of one quarter section of one hundred and sixty acres< as 
 the boundaries should be fixed by survey and made to in- 
 include his improvements and buildings; and prior to this 
 time of such entry and purchase at the Land Office these 
 settler or pre-emption rights were sold and exchanged, and
 
 63 
 
 were regarded as much as a sacred right and the private 
 property of the settlers as though the same were his horse 
 or his cow. 
 
 Affiant, however, is not aware that any of these claims in 
 and about Chicago aforesaid were entered at any Govern- 
 ment Land Office until after the year eighteen hundred and 
 thirty, and thinks that they were not so entered, as it was 
 then understood that the settler would have until the time 
 his tract would be proclaimed for sale in which to enter and 
 purchase his land as a pre-emption settler ; and so far as 
 affiant is informed and believes none of the lands in and 
 about Chicago of the General Government were proclaimed 
 for general sale until about the year eighteen hundred and 
 thirty-five, when the Chicago Land Office was first estab- 
 lished, and then it was that many of the old settlers first en- 
 tered their claims and obtained their Land Office certificates. 
 These claims sometimes used to sell before entry for quite 
 large sums of money; many times more than the Govern- 
 ment price. 
 
 WILLIS SCOTT. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this twelfth day of 
 January, A. D. 1878, at the city and county aforesaid. 
 
 C. R. MATSON, 
 [SEAL.] Notary Public. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) 
 
 Von 
 
 Cook County, City of Chicago. J 
 
 Mary Clyborne being first duly sworn, makes oath and 
 says that she is the widow of the late Archibald Clyborne, 
 of the_ city of Chicago aforesaid, now deceased. That she 
 was the daughter of James Galloway, formerly of Ohio, near 
 Sandusky. That in the year eighteen hundred and twenty- 
 four the father of affiant left his said home in Ohio near 
 Sandusky and came out to Illinois, and returned to his home 
 in Ohio in May, eighteen hundred and twenty-five, and on 
 his return reported to his family that he had bought out a
 
 64 
 
 settler's right in Illinois, near what is now known as Mar- 
 sailles, Illinois, a town about eight miles from what is now 
 Ottawa, Illinois. 
 
 In the year eighteen hundred and twenty-six affiant's 
 father removed his family, including affiant, from Ohio, and 
 wintered over that winter in Chicago, Illinois, and arrived 
 the next spring at the claim he had purchased on his trip 
 three years before, and from that time until in the year eigh- 
 teen hundred and twenty-nine, affiant lived on the land her 
 father had purchased in eighteen hundred and twenty-four 
 or eighteen hundred and twenty-five as aforesaid, the claim 
 or right as affiant understood, being a legal right in the land 
 given by law, to hold and control it until it would be sur- 
 veyed and come into the market by the Government, when 
 it was stated and understood the settler within this time 
 would have the right to enter his land at the land office 
 and purchase it at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. 
 These were the only titles then known in any part of that 
 region of country ; they were bought and sold among the 
 settlers, and were regarded as the private property of the 
 first settler, or of those who had purchased from him, and 
 were deemed as sacred as their horses or their cows, and the 
 most of these settlements were stated to be new. 
 
 In the year eighteen hundred and twenty-nine, when affi- 
 ant married and removed to Chicago aforesaid, there had been 
 no entry at the land office of the United States by the set- 
 tlers of that region, nor by said affiant's father. 
 
 Affiant however learned from her father that after his 
 removal to Chicago, aforesaid, he entered and purchased 
 his claim of the Government as a pre-emption settler, but 
 whether he made his entry and proof under a law passed in 
 eighteen hundred and thirty, or a later law, or under a law 
 passed prior to the year eighteen hundred and thirty, affiant 
 does not know. 
 
 Affiant now resides at number six hundred and fifty-two 
 Elstern avenue in Chicago, aforesaid. 
 
 MARY CLYBOURN "M 
 
 mark
 
 65 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 24th day of Jan- 
 uary, A. D. eighteen hundred and seventy-eight. 
 
 HORATIO HILL, 
 [SEAL] Notary Public, 
 
 From January 5, 1875, to January 5, 1879. 
 
 The words "the next spring," and "on his trip ten years 
 before" on first page, and the words "of" and "were" on 
 second page interlined before signing. 
 
 MARY CLYBOURN. 
 Attest : 
 
 HORATIO HILL, 
 [SEAL.] Notary Public. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, \ 
 Cook County, / ss ' 
 
 John Bates, being first duly sworn, makes oath and says, 
 that he now resides in the aforesaid city, at 74 Van Buren 
 street, and that he has resided in said city since the year 
 eighteen hundred and thirty-two; and that from that time 
 to this he has been acquainted with the condition of the so- 
 called Lake Front in said city, in the southwest fractional 
 quarter of section ten, town thirty-nine north, of range four- 
 teen east of the third principal meridian, and between Ran- 
 dolph and Madison streets, and that he verily believes that 
 said city has received more revenue for its use than it ever 
 expended thereon, aside from the use it has had of it as a 
 park. 
 
 JOHN BATES. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 5th day of Feb- 
 ruary, A. D. 1874. 
 
 D. F. FLANNERY, 
 [SEAL.] Notary Public. 
 
 We have an affidavit of JameVApplpton, of ^hicaafo, who 
 has resided there\mce 1842, to thVsame effect asSj^e above, 
 
 and can pile this/iHs of affidavits racHqitain 
 5
 
 Hon. J. A. WILLIAMSON, 
 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 DEAR SIR: Assuming that the proclamation for the public 
 sales of public lands that took place in Chicago, Illinois, in 
 June, 1835, did not include the southwest fractional quarter 
 of section number ten, town thirty-nine north, of range four- 
 teen east, of the third principal meredian, in the now City of 
 Chicago, County of Cook, and State of Illinois, as was deci- 
 ded by the court to be the case, has this tract ever yet been 
 proclaimed for public sale. If so, when ? State what the 
 showing of the records of your Department are on this point. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 W. H. STANDISH. 
 MARCH 6, 1878. 
 
 [No. 24,638.] 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE, 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., March 7th, 1878. 
 W. H. STANDISH, ESQ., 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 SIR : Your letter of the 6th instant, asking if the south- 
 west fractional quarter section ten, township thirty-nine 
 north, range fourteen east, of third principal meridian, Illi- 
 nois, was ever proclaimed, has been received. 
 
 In reply I have to state that it appears from a letter of 
 this office, to Hon. J. C. Calhoun, of the 1st October; 1824, - 
 that fractional section ten, said town, and range, was re- 
 served for military purposes. The tract however does not 
 appear to have been expressly excepted in the proclamation 
 of February 12th, 1835, embracing said township, which was 
 offered June 15th, 1835. No proclamation embracing said 
 township subsequent to the above appears on the tract book 
 of this office. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. A. WILLIAMSON, 
 
 Commissioner.
 
 The court in 13th Peters, 498 case says : " But we go fur- 
 ther and say thatVheresoever a tract of land shall have once 
 been legally appropriated to any purpose, from that mo- 
 ment the land thus appropriated becomes severed from 
 the mass of publicyands, and phat no subsequent law or 
 proclamation or sale\ would 
 to operate upon it, although 
 it." Argument then Xollows 
 elusion that this tract 
 1834 law, or the Februar 
 
 onstrued to embrace it, or 
 reservation were made of 
 illustrate this, with a con- 
 as neither included in the 
 1835, proclamation for sale, 
 
 while in the case in whi 
 teenth page of this brief, 
 raeut, this point was expres 
 it had not, in 1835, been in 
 and the receiver to sell, being 
 This tract not having been 
 it has never been proclaimed 
 pre-emption entry by Beaub 
 not expired ; and they still r 
 and prepared, and now offer 
 
 recoi d is given on the thir- 
 
 n Beaubien and the Govern- 
 
 decided as to this tract, that 
 
 e jurisdiction of the register 
 
 en reserved. 
 
 purchased in 1835, nor since, 
 therefore the time for the 
 his representatives has 
 Illinois, and are ready 
 and purchase the land 
 
 described in these bills in the House\and the Senate.
 
 '
 
 "i> 
 
 r f >