1804, March 27, act of Congress gave to November 30, 1804, and allowed transcripts instead of originals, &c.
1805, March 2d, act of Congress gave to December 1, 1805, to file their grants. And in fact to Jan 1, 1807, time when the sale might begin.
1807, December 15, the British claimants memorialize again.
On no one of the acts did the British claimant take any step towards specifying his claim or its location, but remained inactive till the time was expired, and then remonstrated to his government that we had not given them time sufficient. And on the last of 1805, instead of having come forward with his claims, ready to avail himself of the third term which was then to be asked, and which was granted nominally to December 1, 1805, but in effect to January 1, 1807, he stays at home inactive, and on the 15th of December, 1807, again gives in a memorial that we have not given time enough, but still takes no step to inform us what and where his claim is.
Although these titles may have been confirmed by treaty, yet they could not thereby be intended to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction or conditions on which lands are held even by citizens. It is evident that these claimants are speculators, whose object is to make what profit they can out of the patronage of the government, but to make no sacrifice of themselves either of money or trouble. They are entitled, therefore, to no further notice from either government. However, Mr. Erskine may be informed verbally, that as the day of commencing sales of lands there is now put off to January 1, 1809, if any of these claimants will, before that day, file their claim, with its precise location, the executive is authorized to suspend the sale of any particular parcels, and will as to that, till the proper authority can decide on the title, but that the settlement of that country in general, is too pressing to be delayed one day by claims under the circumstances of these.
TO MR. GALLATIN.
April 23, 1808.
The leading object of the enclosed application from the owners of the Topaz, is to send witnesses and documents to save the property of the ship and cargo seized. But as the Topaz would be insufficient to bring home the whole property if cleared, the permission of sending a vessel may be on the ordinary ground of bringing home the property. But do the restrictions of the embargo laws (for I have them not) inhibit the passing from port to port as proposed in the enclosed? And do they admit, (in case the Topaz and her cargo are condemned,) that the vessel sent out should bring home other property to cover the expenses of the ineffectual voyage? On these questions I must ask your opinion, as General Smith will call on me to-morrow. The questions had been brought to me originally by Mr. Taylor, because he happened to come at a moment when you were confined. Affectionate salutes.
TO WM. RODNEY.
April 24, 1808.