WASHINGTON'S OHIO
LANDS.
BY E. O. RANDALL,
Secretary Ohio State Archaeological
and Historical Society.
On June 15, 1775, the Continental
Congress passed the en-
actment establishing the Continental
army and after fixing the
pay of the commander-in-chief at five
hundred dollars a month,
proceeded, by ballot, to elect that
officer. Washington was
unanimously chosen and this result was
formally announced to
him on the next day, when the newly
elected general had taken his
seat. Rising in his place, with the
modesty and dignity so
characteristic of him, he "briefly
expressed his high and grateful
sense of the honor conferred upon him
and his sincere devotion
to the cause;" declaring with
sincerity his lack of fitness for the
responsible position, and then added,
"as to pay, I beg leave
to assure Congress that, as no pecuniary
consideration could
have tempted me to accept this arduous
employment, at the
expense of my domestic ease and
happiness, I do not wish to
make any profit out of it. I will keep
an exact account of my
expenses. Those I doubt not, they will
discharge and that is
all I desire." To that decision
Washington faithfully adhered.
Not only did he refuse the salary, which
might have been his,
amounting in the aggregate to $48,000,
but he further relinquished
also the land bounty, to which as
general-in-chief he was entitled,
from Virginia, viz., 23,333.33 acres,
which would have been worth
at the time he might have received them,
ten dollars an acre,
aggregating therefore $233,333.33. Thus the United States
received from General Washington his
services and gifts of the
value of $281,333, or more than half the
estate of which he died,
seized, which estate, including both
personal and real property,
he himself estimated not long before his
death, at over half a
million dollars.
When the French and Indian War arose the
royal colonial
governor of Virginia, in order to
encourage enlistments, offered
303
304 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
grants of land from Virginia's western
lands to those who would
serve in the war. In accordance with
this bounty promise, the
Virginia governor on December 7, 1763,
issued a land warrant
to one captain John Rootes, for 3,000
acres of land, locatable
on the lands of the colony northwest of
the Ohio River. On
February 14, 1774, General George
Washington, who had become
a large purchaser of land bounties,
bought this warrant of John
Rootes and took an assignment thereof.
On March 1, 1784, Virginia ceded
to the United States all
her lands northwest of the Ohio River,
but reserving that part
of Ohio lying between the Little Miami
and the Scioto rivers,
from a line between their respective
sources to the Ohio River,
this section was known as the Virginia
Military District of Ohio;
it comprised 6,570 square miles and
4,504,800 acres of land and
was thus reserved for the sole purpose
of satisfying the bounties
promised by Virginia to her officers and
soldiers who had served
either in the colonial or Continental
army during the Revolution-
ary War. Not a foot of this land was
ever sold by Virginia or
the United States government, but it was
located on warrants
issued to Virginia officers and soldiers
of the continental line,
their heirs and assigns. The bounty
recipients or their assignees
securing their warrants, had their
locations and surveys made
and assumed possession. This went on
until January 1, 1852
when Congress, by law, declared all
titles forfeited, the surveys
of which had not been returned to the
land office at Washington,
prior to the date of this act. In August
of the same year (1852),
at the request of Virginia, the national
Congress passed a law
by which the outstanding Virginia
Military Bounty Land War-
rants yet unsatisfied, could be
exchanged for United States land
scrips -good for location in the far
west. This discharged in
good faith. Virginia's pledges to her
colonial veterans, which
pledges the federal government
guaranteed when accepting the
cession of the Northwest Territory by
Virginia.
We cannot go into the intricacies of the
legislation by Con-
gress, at various times, or the
entanglements of rights growing
out of frauds, neglects, mistakes and
over-lapping locations by
the holders of land entries, warrants,
etc. But we may add
that the Virginia Military District was
the subject of national
Washington's Ohio Lands. 305
legislation until February, 1871, when
it was represented to Con-
gress that there were some 40,000 acres
of land in the Virginia
Military District, which through errors,
mislapping or incorrect
surveys, incomplete registration, etc.,
had never been actually
located and hence still belonged to the
federal government, though
occupied by squatters or non-titled
settlers. Congress then by
act ceded this surplus or orphan land to
the State of Ohio, which
at once accepted the same and turned it
over for the benefit and
use of the Ohio State University.
Various other Congressional
acts, pertinent to the legal settlement
of disputes concerning
the Virginia Military District lands,
were passed, one even as
late as 1899.
But we revert to the Washington claim.
In addition to the John Rootes claim,
which Washington
purchased, he bought, after the close of
the Revolution and prior
to the summer of 1787, a warrant of 100 acres of land
issued
to one Thomas Cope, for services in the
Continental line of the
Revolutionary army. In the summer of
1787, Washington placed
these Rootes and Cope warrants in the
hands of Colonel John
O'Bannon, a deputy surveyor of the
Virginia Military District,
northwest of the Ohio river. Colonel
O'Bannon, on said war-
rants, made the following entries of
land:
On January 17, 1788 (No. 1650), 839
acres in what is now
Franklin township, Clermont county,
Ohio; on May 13, 1788
(No. 1765), 1235 acres on the Little
Miami River, three and one
half miles above the mouth of its east
fork, in what is now Miami
township, Clermont county, Ohio. These two entries were
made on the Rootes warrant (No. 3753)
for the 3,000 acres. On
May 12, 1788, Colonel O'Bannon entered for Washington (No.
1775) for 977 acres; 848 acres of which
are located in Union
township, Clermont county, and 129 acres
in what is now And-
erson township, Hamilton county; 926
acres, of the above (977)
were made on warrant No. 3750, for 3,000
acres and 51 acres
were made on the Thomas Cope warrant for
100 acres, -the
remaining 49 acres of the Cope warrant
do not seem to have ever
been located or surveyed. Washington
thus secured in all 3,051
acres.
Vol. XIX-- 20.
306
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society
Publications.
On April 4, 1788, there was made for
Washington, survey
No. 1650, for 839 acres on the entry
numbered 1650; on May 26
1788, there was made for him survey No.
1775, on the entry o
that number for 977 acres; and on May
27, 1788, there was made
for Washington, a survey No. 1765, on
his entry of that numbe
for 1,235
acres.
These three entries and surveys, made by
Colonel John
O'Bannon, were duly recorded in the
books of Colonel Richar
C. Anderson, then the surveyor of the
Virginia Military Distric
of Ohio, whose office was at Louisville,
Ky., and who had serve
in the American Revolution as
aide-de-camp to Lafayette, an
was the father of Major Robert Anderson,
commanding at For
Sumter, April 1861, and of Charles
Anderson, who as lieutenan
governor succeeded to the governorship
of Ohio, upon the death
of governor John Brough, in August,
1865. These entries an
surveys were made under a law of the
State of Virginia enacte
in October, 1783, and General Washington
and his agents wer
under the impression that the warrants,
entries and surveys
before mentioned, should for that
reason, be returned to the lan
office of the State of Virginia at
Richmond, which was done
sometime prior to April 20, 1790. The Virginia
authorities is
sued the grants, which might be called
the patents, at any rate
Washington now supposed he was secure in
the title an
possession of his Ohio lands.
At this juncture an interfering law
crossed the path o
Washington's title. The ceding by
Virginia (1784) to the Unite
States, of its northwest lands,
reserving the Military Distric
for the Virginia Revolutionary veterans,
really left the fulfil
ment of Virginia's pledges to be worked
out through the machin
ery of the federal government. On August
10, 1790, the federa
congress passed a law, on this subject,
providing in substance
that the lands located between the
Little Miami and Sciot
rivers should be applied as agreed upon
in the Virginia cessio
and reservation; that the secretary of
war should make retur
to the executive of the state of
Virginia, the names of soldier
entitled to Virginia bounty lands, who
had not yet receive
warrants; those thus entitled to and
therefore locating lands i
the Military District should report
their locations and survey
Washington's Ohio Lands. 807
to the secretary of state at Washington,
where they should be
recorded; the president of the United
States was then authorized
to issue letters patent to the persons
entitled to receive the same;
it was then the duty of the secretary of
state to transmit these
letters patent to the executive of the
state of Virginia, who was
in turn to deliver them to the grantees.
Washington as president of the United
States signed this
law apparently without noticing or
understanding that it affected
the title to his Ohio lands, which title
he should have perfected
by recording, as provided, at the office
of the secretary of state
in Washington. Washington's locations
and surveys had been
reported only to the Virginia land
office in Richmond. He still
thought that was sufficient. He should
have at once complied
with this law by submitting his warrants
to the requirements
therein provided. On December 1, 1790, grants were
made by
Beverly Randolph, then governor of
Virginia, to Washington
for each of his three surveys, under the
belief, that, according
to the terms of the reservation, it was
incumbent on the State
of Virginia to thus complete the title.
The entries and surveys above mentioned
were well known,
at the time, to the locators and
surveyors in the Virginia Mili-
tary District of Ohio and also the fact
that they were made on a
"resolution" warrant. The
warrants of Washington were those
purchased from Rootes who was entitled
to them for services in
the French and Indian War and not the
American Revolution.
The Virginia Military District of Ohio
was reserved for bounties
accruing to Revolutionary veterans.
Were Washington's assignments from
Rootes good in the
territory so reserved? We revert to the
proceedings of the legis-
lature of Virginia, which on January 5,
passed a joint resolution
providing that all persons who had
served in the army of the
United States from May 1, 1779, until
the close of the war
between Great Britain and America and
had a land warrant in
his own right, or by assignment, before
May 1, 1779, issued
agreeable to the proclamation of the
King of Great Britain in
1763 -which confirmed the
promise of Virginia to the soldiers
of the French and Indian War - might
exchange the same with
the register of the land office for a
warrant, which he should be
308 Ohio. Arch. and Hist. Society
Publications.
permitted to locate on vacant land,
reserved on the western side
of the Ohio River, for officers and
soldiers in the Continental
army.
This "resolution" was supposed to cure any defect that
Washington's warrants and locations
might have had. Hence
Washington's warrants were called
"resolution" warrants.
That Washington regarded his titles as
secure and believed
his Ohio lands as valuable and promising
is evidenced by him
in an advertisement to sell, published
in the Columbian Mirror
and Alexandria Gazette, February 20, 1796, viz.:
"On the Little Miami, upper side,
within a mile of the Ohio,
830 acres; about seven miles up the said
Miami, 977 acres, and
ten miles from the mouth thereof, 12,235 acres. Total on the
Little Miami, 3,042 acres." These lots, he further states, "are
near to if not adjoining (the river only
separating them) the
grant made to Judge Syms [Symmes] and
others, between the
two
Miamis; and being in the neighborhood of Cincinnati and
Fort Washington, cannot, from their
situation (if the quality of
the soil is correctly stated) be
otherwise than valuable."
Then came another "cloud" as
foreshadowed by the follow-
ing letters, the originals of which are
now on file in the Library
of Congress:
MOUNT
VERNON, 30th July, 1798.
RICHARD C. ANDERSON, ESQ.,
SIR: -In the course of the last winter a
Mr. Massey passed through
Alexandria on his way to Philadelphia
and reported at the former place
that I should lose my land in the North
West Territory on the Little
Miami.
Not perceiving how this could happen
fairly, and not supposing
that it could be taken from me
otherwise, without allowing me a hearing,
I paid but little attention to the
report until Mr. George Graham called
on me the other day and in conversation
on this subject gave it as his
opinion that the land was in real
jeopardy by re-entry under some error
in the former proceedings, and advised me
to write to you relative
thereto.
This I now do under full conviction,
however, that as the former
surveys were made under your auspices;
examined and recorded in
your office; and patents granted
thereupon in the year 1790 with the
following recital. "In
consideration of a military warrant of 3000 acres
granted to John Rootes by Lord Dunmore
the 7th December, 1773 and
assigned by the said Rootes unto George
Washington the 14th of
February 1774 and exchanged by a
resolution of general assembly,
Washington's Ohio Lands. 309
passed the 30th of December, 1784, for a
warrant of 3000 acres No.
3753 and dated the 14th of February
1785." I say under full conviction
that you would not suffer the land to be
wrested from me by any sub-
sequent transaction in your office
without giving me notice thereof in
time to assert my prior claims, I now
give you the trouble of this address,
adding at the same time if anything is
necessary on my part to give
more validity or greater legality to
former proceedings, I am willing to
encounter the expense than enter into a
tedious and expensive chancery
suit which I assuredly shall do before
my property shall be taken from
me.
I would thank you Sir for full
information, and your advice relative
to this matter as soon as it is
convenient.
Most Obet. Hble. Servt.,
Go. WASHINGTON.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEAR LOUISVILLE,
September 5th, 1798.
SIR:-
Yours of the 30th of July I have the
honor to receive and cannot
conceive from what circumstances Mr.
Massie or Mr. Graham could
found an opinion that your military
claim was in the least danger, no
other entry as yet to my knowledge
having been made on the same ground.
It is probable, however, that the
opinion was founded on a resolution
of Congress which was intended to
prevent those; who from the time
of service are not entitled to lands;
but from the liberality of the state
of Virginia obtained warrants by
resolution of the assembly, but, as
this in my mind was not your case, yours
being exchanged by a reso-
lution of Assembly, I did not trouble
your excellency with the con-
jectures of a few on that head; and you
may rest assured should any
attempt be made in this office, by entry
or otherwise that I shall take
the liberty of giving you immediate
notice thereof. And as it is a matter
of consequence, as I am informed yours
are valuable lands. Provided you
think there can be the least danger from
the lands being laid in con-
sequence of a resolution warrant that
you make yourself acquainted with
that particular circumstance and if you
think it in danger to send out
other warrants to cover its place.
With much respect and esteem, I have the
honor to be,
Sir Your most
Ob. Servant.
RICHARD C. ANDERSON.
Washington made his will on July 9,
1799, and at that time
was under the belief that his title to
his Ohio land was unassail-
able. With his will he prepared an
inventory of his estate and
310 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
sundry
notes descriptive of his property for his executors; the
item
naming these lands was as follows:
NORTH
WEST TERRITORY.
On Little Miami
.................. 839
On Little Miami ................... 977
On Little Miami ................... 1235
3051
Acres @ 5, $15,255.
To
the above item in his schedule he adds this note:
"The
Quality of these lands & their situation may be known
by
the surveyor's certificates, which are filed along with the
patents
- They lye in the vicinity of Cincinnati, one tract near
the
mouth of the Little Miami, another seven, & the third ten
miles
up the same -I have been informed that they will readily
command
more than they are estimated at."
His
will provided at great length and particularity for the
disposal
of most of his property, real and personal, - amounting
to
over half a million dollars - to certain persons and heirs
as
devisees; after naming the specific bequests he left all the
rest
and residue of his estate, real and personal, "not disposed of
in
manner aforesaid," to be distributed by his executors, of whom
there
were five, the two active ones being Judge Bushrod Wash-
ington
and Colonel Lawrence Lewis, his nephews, for the bene-
fit
of certain named residuary legatees, twenty three in number.
The
Ohio lands were comprised in this residuary estate. Wash-
ington
died December 14, 1799. What became of his Ohio lands?
Washington's
fears expressed by his letter to Colonel Ander-
son
were not without foundation.
On
February 26, 1806, one Joseph Kerr, then a deputy sur-
veyor
of the Virginia Military District of Ohio, - and later
(1815)
United States Senator from Ohio-well knowing the
Washington
entries, surveys and warrants, had not been filed
with
the Secretary of War, at Washington, made three entries,
completely
covering the Washington locations. Indeed a compar-
ison
of the field notes - giving metes and bounds - of the sur-
veyor
for Washington and those of Kerr are so identical that
Washington's Ohio Lands. 311
there is no doubt Kerr used the O'Bannon
figures and descrip-
tions, which are easy accessible. Kerr's
three entries, at Wash-
ington, were numbered 4847, 4848 and
4862, covering completely
and exactly Washington's entries
numbered 1650, 1765 and 1775,
respectively. The entry and survey No.
4847-Washington's
No. 1650 -Kerr entered for 839 acres in
the name of General
John Nevill, a Revolutionary soldier,
formerly living at Pittsburg,
Pa., but who had died July 20, 1803, and the
patent was issued
April 30, 1807, to Presley
Nevill and Amelia Craig, son and
married daughter and devisees of General
John Nevill. The
land embraced in survey No. 1765
(Washington's number) or
4848 Kerr's number, for 1235 acres, was
also entered February
26, 1806, and on April 30, 1807, patent
was issued to Presley
Nevill and Amelia Craig, devisees of
John Nevill. The tract
included in No. 1775 (Washington's
number) for 977 acres was
entered February 26, 1806, by Major
Henry Massie, founder of
Portsmouth, Ohio. A patent was issued
for this last entry, Jan-
uary 8, 1808. All these entries and
surveys were put through
the requirements of the law of 1790, and
the patents properly
secured. Subsequently, (in 1809) Joseph
Kerr purchased the two
surveys Nos. 4847 and 4848 of Presley
Nevill and Amelia Craig,
Kerr transferred to certain grantees and
the present owners of
the land hold through his title. Henry
Massie, patentee of Kerr's
survey No. 4862, duly sold to other
parties and the present
owners of said survey claim and hold
title from him.
The difficulties and disputes growing
out of locations ir-
regularly entered, patented or
relocated, -as we have before
stated-led to several acts by Congress,
one of which passed
May
3, 1800, provided that patents issued by Virginia on the
cession reserved by that state could be
validated by filing with
the proper officer, the previously
granted entries, surveys and
patents, provided such patents did not
conflict with grants al-
ready legally perfected; where conflicts
occurred, the later party
could be recompensed by claiming other
unoccupied lands. This
act (1800) gave Washington's executors
the opportunity of per-
fecting the title to his lands, since
Kerr at this time had not made
his entries. But they did not avail
themselves of the opportunity.
Meanwhile notice of the hostile action
of Joseph Kerr
312
Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
reached Bushrod Washington, one of
Washington's executors,
and he wrote, on March 4, 1806, a letter
to the register of the
Virginia land office, at Richmond,
asking for the warrants and
papers connected with the title to the
three tracts in question.
This letter was carried to Richmond and
delivered in person by
Chief Justice Marshall. On March 14,
1806, the executors of
General Washington, Judge Bushrod
Washington and Colonel
Lawrence Lewis, presented a petition to
Congress asking it to
confirm Washington's title to his three
surveys. This petition
was referred to the Committee of the
House on Public Lands.
The matter went over to the second
session of (the 9th) Con-
gress, when an act was passed on March
3, 1807, "authorizing
patents to issue for lands located and
surveyed by virtue of cer-
tain Virginia resolution warrants."
This act, which though a
general one, was passed especially to
protect the Washington
entries, and provided that any officer
or soldier of the Con-
tinental army, to whom a warrant has
been issued "by virtue
of any resolution of the legislature of
Virginia, as a bounty for
services," etc., should obtain a
patent for the same if the location
was made within three years from March
23, 1808, and the sur-
vey be returned to the Secretary of War
within five years from
the same date. This act, known as the
"Washington Act," be
it remembered was passed March 3, 1807.
But the Kerr entries
were made February 26, 1806; the surveys
May 20, 1806; and
their recording made on June 2nd and
3rd, 1806; April 30, 1807,
patents were issued from the United
States for the Nevill sur-
veys and on January 8, 1808, for the
Massie survey. These
United States patents of Kerr therefore
forestalled the perfecting
of the Washington "resolution"
warrants.
Judge Bushrod Washington died in 1829
and Lawrence
Lewis died some four or five years
later. Neither they nor the
other executors had done anything to
secure the Ohio lands to
the heirs, and that realty was lost to
the estate, which seems
practically to have been settled up by
1840, though in 1859, one
of the Washington heirs was appointed as
administrator, by the
court in Fairfax county, Virginia, to
adjust some unsettled bus-
iness - an heir had been overpaid
several thousand dollars and
it was necessary to recover this and
readjust it. At various
Washington's Ohio Lands. 313
dates subsequent to 1852, as before
noted, bills were enacted by
Congress concerning the unsettled claims
of Revolutionary vet-
erans or their heirs, who held warrants
in the Virginia Military
District. These were relief bills, one
as late as 1899, and they
provided in the main that holders of
such unsatisfied warrants
might exchange them for government land
scrip-entitling the
holder to locations in the West.
But there were no administrators of the
Washington estate
to avail themselves of this form of
relief and the lost Ohio lands
of Washington, remained unnoticed or
forgotten until the year
1907, when this matter was brought to the attention of the
heirs
of Washington by Mr. Nelson W. Evans of
Portsmouth, Ohio,
an attorney with wide experience in the
land titles of Ohio and
Virginia. The result of his discoveries
and investigations led
to the appointment, October 29, 1907, by the
Fairfax county,
Virginia, circuit court, of Robert E.
Lee, Jr., as administrator
de bonis non of General Washington. Robert E. Lee, Jr., is the
son of Major General William H. F. Lee
of the Confederate
Army, and grandson of the late
Confederate general-in-chief,
Robert E. Lee, who in 1831 married Mary
Randolph Custis,
granddaughter of Martha Custis
Washington. Robert E. Lee,
Jr., and other living descendants of the
Washington estate pro-
ceeded to have the Nevill and Massie
surveys appraised by John
Nichols-resident of Mount Washington,
Anderson township,
Hamilton county, Ohio;-Frank Davis,
resident of Batavia Cler-
mont county, Ohio, and William R. Fee of
Portsmouth, Ohio.
They placed the value of the 3051 acres
in question at an average
of $100.00 per acre,--it is probably
worth double that amount-
not taking into account the improvements
on the land. Robert
E. Lee, Jr., of Lexington, Va., Lawrence
Washington, of Wash-
ington, D. C., and Samuel W. Washington
of Charleston, W. Va.,
drew up a petition to the Congress of
the United States, stating
the facts in the case and asking that an
enactment be passed
authorizing the government to reimburse
the estate of General
Washington, the sum of three hundred and
five thousand one
hundred dollars, with interest thereon
from the date of the peti-
tion. On December 5, 1907, bills were
introduced both in the
Senate and in the House of
Representatives, first session of the
314 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
60th Congress, calling for the amount
named; "to reimburse the
estate of General George Washington for
certain lands of his
in the State of Ohio, lost by
conflicting grants made under the
authority of the United States."
Senate Bill No. 1238. (60th Congress,
1st Session.)
A BILL to reimburse the estate of
General George Washington for
certain lands of his in the State of
Ohio lost by conflicting grants
made under the authority of the United
States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the Secretary
of the Treasury be, and he is hereby,
directed to pay to Colonel Robert
E. Lee, Jr., administrator de bonis non,
with the will annexed of General
George Washington, the sum of three
hundred and five thousand one
hundred dollars, in full compensation to
the estate of General Wash-
ington for the loss of his thirty-one
hundred acres of land warrants
and the grants made thereunder, and for
any and all claims which said
estate might or could make against the
United States on account of land
warrants or grants held by him or his
estate upon warrants locatable
northwest of the Ohio river.
House Bill No. 5489. (60th Congress, 1st
Session.)
A BILL to reimburse the estate of
General George Washington for cer-
tain lands of his in the State of Ohio,
lost by conflicting grants made
under the authority of the United
States.
Whereas at the close of the
Revolutionary war General George
Washington was the owner of a
three-thousand acre land warrant pur-
chased by him; and
Whereas the legislature of Virginia in
seventeen hundred and eighty-
five, at his request, granted him a new
warrant to be satisfied in the
Virginia military district of Ohio,
which, together with another warrant
of one hundred acres owned by him, was
located in seventeen hundred
and eighty-eight in said district in
three surveys-sixteen hundred and
fifty, seventeen hundred and sixty-five,
and seventeen hundred and seventy-
five; and
Whereas said locations were approved by
Congress in the act of
August tenth, seventeen hundred and
ninety, opening the district for
location; and
Whereas Congress, on the third day of
March, eighteen hundred
and seven, passed an act entitled
"An act authorizing patents to issue
for lands located and surveyed by virtue
of certain Virginia resolution
warrants," which was enacted on
petition of the executors of General
Washington to enable them to confirm
their title to said grants; and
Washington's Ohio Lands. 315
Whereas by oversight and neglect of the
proper officers of the
United States, before and after the
passage of said act, other parties
were permitted to locate on General
Washington's lands and obtain
patents therefor from the United States,
and the grantees of these
patents and their assigns have held the
land ever since; and
Whereas these patents were obtained
during the time allowed by
the act of March third, eighteen hundred and seven, to
the executors
of General Washington to perfect their
title; and
Whereas the estate of General George
Washington was never in any
default in completing its title after
the opening of the district on August
tenth, seventeen hundred and ninety:
Therefore
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress
assembled, That there is hereby
appropriated and shall be paid by the
proper accounting officer of the
United States to Colonel Robert E. Lee,
junior, appointed by the circuit
court of Fairfax County, Virginia,
administrator de bonis non, with the
will annexed, of General George
Washington, the sum of three hundred
and five thousand one hundred dollars,
which shall be taken and received
by said administrator as full
compensation to the estate of General
Washington for the loss of his three
thousand one hundred acres of
land warrants and the grants made
thereunder and for any and all claims
which his estate might or could make
against the United States on
account of land warrants or grants held
by him or his estate upon war-
rants locatable northwest of the Ohio
River.
SEC. 2. That the act of March third,
eighteen hundred and ninety-
nine, entitled "An act making
appropriations for sundry civil expenses
of the Government for the fiscal year
ending June thirtieth, nineteen
hundred, and for other purposes,"
in so far as it required Virginia mili-
tary land warrants to be presented and
surrendered to the Secretary of
the Interior within twelve months from
the passage of said act or be
forever barred and invalid, is hereby
repealed.
These bills were referred in the Senate
and in the House
respectively to the Committee on Claims.
Hearings were had
before the committees, particularly that
of the House, by the
petitioners and counsel for the estate.
But no action was taken
by either branch of Congress or by the
committees, during the
first session of this (60th) Congress, a
session continuing from
December 2, 1907, to May 30,
1908. Nor did this Congress in
its second session -December 3, 1908, to March 4, 1909-take
any action in the matter. But the House
committee gave respect-
ful consideration to the bill and
granted attentive hearings to
Messrs. Nelson W. Evans, Greenlee D.
Letcher, of Lexington
316 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
Va., and Judge W. A. Washington of
Kankakee, Ill. The state-
ments made by these gentlemen to the
committee were published
by the committee, which, however, made
no formal report. The
Senate committee took no action
whatever. No attention what-
ever was paid to the subject in the
special or first session of the
61st Congress, whiich convened March 15,
1909, and adjourned
August 5. The bill was re-introduced in
the second session of
this (61st) Congress which began
December 6, 1909, and con-
tinued till June 25, 1910. In the Senate
it was referred to the
Committee on Claims, which shelved it in
a sub-committee, where
it rested undisturbed. In the House it was referred to the
Committee on Private Land Claims. This
committee gave the
matter some serious consideration; it
requested a statement of
the facts and opinion from Mr. R. A.
Ballinger, Secretary of
the Interior, who made an investigation
of the records and laws
in the premises in the proper
departments, and reported the
same to the House committee. Mr.
Ballinger closed his commu-
nication to the committee with the clause, "the department
(Interior) accordingly recommends that
the bill be not enacted
into law." The
committee, however, gave the petitioners two
respectful hearings, a report of the
second of which was pub-
lished, containing a report of the
committee favorable to the
enactment of the bill, for the committee
says:
"The committee finds that the lands
out of which General Wash-
ington's surveys were made were accepted
from Virginia by the United
States on March 1, 1784, in trust for
the satisfaction of Virginia mili-
tary bounty-land claims of the same
character as those held by General
Washington, in his Rootes warrant for
3,000 acres, No. 3753, and in
Cope warrant for 100 acres No. 3670.
"That when this trust was created
no time was fixed in the contract
between Virginia and the United States
in which its execution was to be
completed, and none has ever been fixed
subsequently.
"That this obligation of the United
States to satisfy this claim was
recognized and affirmed in the first
clause of Article VI of the Federal
Constitution.
"That the first Congress of the
United States in the act of August
10, 1790, accepted this trust, and
undertook its performance.
"That in the compact between the
United States and the State of
Virginia, expressed in the resolution of
the general assembly of Virginia
of date April 12, 1852 (Virginia, acts
of 1852, p. 318), and in the act of
Washington's Ohio Lands. 317
Congress of August 31, 1852 (vol. 10, p.
143), known as the 'scrip law,'
and in the resolution of the general
assembly of Virginia of date De-
cember 6, 1852 (Virginia, acts of 1852,
p. 357), accepting the scrip law,
there was no limitation on this
obligation. There has been no further
compact between December 6, 1852, and
the present time, and consequently
no limitation of any kind exists to the
demand for the allowance of
this claim. We find it to be, as an
obligation, a part of the public debt
of the United States and, as such,
governed by the provisions of the
first clause of the sixth article of the
Constitution, and by section 4 of
the fourteenth amendment, and that
claimants have the right to demand
its satisfaction and payment, so long as
there is any representative to
demand its payment, and so long as the
evidence can be procured to
establish it."
It seems to have been the intention of
the committee to
submit this report to the House, but
that was not done and thus
the matter rests, pending the next
session of Congress.
And this is the narrative of the curious
claim of the Wash-
ington estate for the reimbursement of
General Washington's
Ohio lands. It is a controversy of a
century and a quarter and
rivals, in fact, some of the humorous
fictions of the law's delays,
in the stories of Dickens and Mark
Twain. It would seem that
this is an instance where the proverbial
ingratitude of republics
should not be permitted to prevail.
National parsimony has no
place in patriotism. Washington gave, absolutely, his services
to his country, services perhaps no
other one at the time, could
have contributed with successful
results. As Mr. Nelson W.
Evans states in his plea for the
petitioners, before the House
committee, it is not any bounty that is
being asked, but rather
the discharge of a just debt. Congress
satisfied bounties in land
to Virginia officers and soldiers to the
amount of 4,334,800
acres and to the same class in land
scrip bounties 1,041,916 acres.
The whole number of warrants issued by
Virginia, says Mr.
Evans, for military and naval bounties
to her officers was 6,146.-
950 acres. Congress bestowed rewards to
many of the Revolu-
tionary generals, for example, General
Peter Muhlenberg, 13,194
acres: General Hugh Mercer 10,000 acres; General Daniel Mor-
gan 23,334 acres; General Charles
Scott 15,278 acres; General
Baron Steuben 15,000 acres; General
George Rogers Clark 10,000
acres. Thaddeus Kosciusko, the Polish
patriot, who was a col-
318
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
onel in the United States army during
the American Revolution
received the sum of $12,280.49 as regular pay
and in addition
Congress gave him, April 1800, warrants
for 500 acres of land
which by the way, he located in Ohio,
Franklin County, Perry
township, on the Scioto.
General Lafayette was the favorite of
our national muni-
ficence and gratitude, for on March 3,
1803, Congress gave him
11,520
acres of land; on December 28, 1824, it gave him $200,000
in money and a township of land
estimated worth $115,200;
all of this in addition to the pay of
major general which he re-
ceived during his service as the friend
of America's freedom, a
pay amounting to $24,400. England gave
the Duke of Wellington
the estate of Strathfieldsaye, costing
$1,315,000 for one day's
work in the Battle of Waterloo. General
James Wilson, at a
banquet at Delmonico's February 22, 1894, related
that when he
first visited the princely estate of
Strathfieldsaye, he was sur-
prised and gratified to see a portrait
of Washington, by Stuart,
occupying the place of honor in the
Duke's drawing-room. In
answer to General Wilson's look of
inquiry, the eldest son, of
the deceased Iron Duke remarked,
"It was placed there by my
father, who esteemed Washington as
perhaps the purest and
noblest character of modern
times-possibly of all time-and,
considering the material of the armies
with which he success-
fully met the trained and veteran
soldiers of the Old World,
fairly entitled to a place among the
great captains of the
Eighteenth Century."
Will Congress repudiate a just debt, a
debt, it has ever
acknowledged to the "purest and
noblest character of modern
times." the founder of this
republic, upon which, in fulfillment
of the prophecy of Daniel Webster,
"the nations of the earth
gaze with awe and admiration."
WASHINGTON'S OHIO
LANDS.
BY E. O. RANDALL,
Secretary Ohio State Archaeological
and Historical Society.
On June 15, 1775, the Continental
Congress passed the en-
actment establishing the Continental
army and after fixing the
pay of the commander-in-chief at five
hundred dollars a month,
proceeded, by ballot, to elect that
officer. Washington was
unanimously chosen and this result was
formally announced to
him on the next day, when the newly
elected general had taken his
seat. Rising in his place, with the
modesty and dignity so
characteristic of him, he "briefly
expressed his high and grateful
sense of the honor conferred upon him
and his sincere devotion
to the cause;" declaring with
sincerity his lack of fitness for the
responsible position, and then added,
"as to pay, I beg leave
to assure Congress that, as no pecuniary
consideration could
have tempted me to accept this arduous
employment, at the
expense of my domestic ease and
happiness, I do not wish to
make any profit out of it. I will keep
an exact account of my
expenses. Those I doubt not, they will
discharge and that is
all I desire." To that decision
Washington faithfully adhered.
Not only did he refuse the salary, which
might have been his,
amounting in the aggregate to $48,000,
but he further relinquished
also the land bounty, to which as
general-in-chief he was entitled,
from Virginia, viz., 23,333.33 acres,
which would have been worth
at the time he might have received them,
ten dollars an acre,
aggregating therefore $233,333.33. Thus the United States
received from General Washington his
services and gifts of the
value of $281,333, or more than half the
estate of which he died,
seized, which estate, including both
personal and real property,
he himself estimated not long before his
death, at over half a
million dollars.
When the French and Indian War arose the
royal colonial
governor of Virginia, in order to
encourage enlistments, offered
303