from that of a destroying warrior to that of a kind pacificator. The duty was easier and of a more agreeable character. Upon the whole case, I am of opinion that General Scott has no right to the money claimed by him, either in law or equity. I am, sir, &c., &c., To the SECRETARY OF WAR. . FELIX GRUNDY. REPRIEVES AND PARDONS. The power of the Executive to grant reprieves and pardons extends to the remission of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, and costs in criminal cases, and may be exercised in degrees at different times at the discretion of the incumbent of the office. A portion of a sentence may be remitted at one time, and another portion of it at another time, and by another Executive And the same power is possessed by the Executive over a judgment after security for its payment shall have been given, as before. ATTORNEY, GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: In yours of the 12th of February, 1839, my opinion is asked as to the power of the President to remit the costs in the case of the United States vs. Martin. 66 The constitution of the United States clothes the Executive with the power to grant reprieves and pardons," &c. This power has been construed to extend to a remission of fines, penalties, and forfeitures; and the power to remit the costs in criminal cases, after judgment against the defendant, has been exercised, and has never been questioned, so far as I can learn. The view taken upon the subject seems to have been, that the costs are a part of the judgment or sentence; and the same constitutional power which can remit a portion of the sentence, may remit the whole sentence. This practice has prevailed so long, and is so well sanctioned by a fair censtruction of the constitution, that I presume it ought not at this day to be disturbed. The only remaining inquiry is, Has any thing occurred which deprives the Executive of the United States of the power which he possessed over the judgment at the time it was originally rendered in this case? The late President issued his pardon, releasing Martin from his imprisonment, upon his paying or securing the costs which had accrued in the prosecution. The said Martin did give security for the payment of the costs in two years, and was thereupon discharged from his confinement. That the Executive, possessed of the pardoning power, may exercise it in part at one time, and in part at another, I think can admit of no doubt. The pardoning power given by the constitution is plenary, cases of impeachment only excepted. Its exercise, and the mode of its exercise, are placed, without condition or limitation, wholly in the discretion of the President. He may, therefore, in my opinion, pardon or remit a portion. of the sentence at one time, and a different portion at another. I therefore do not think that the remitting the imprisonment by the late Chief Magistrate, upon condition of the defendant's paying or securing the costs, deprives the present Chief Magistrate of the power of remitting the costs, the payment of which was so secured. The giving sureties to secure the costs cannot, in a legal point of view, affect the power of the President. The security is but collateral. It is the judgment that is to be discharged; and if the money were paid by the sureties, it would be in satisfaction of that judgment. I should therefore conclude that the President possesses the same power now over the judgment, which he possessed at the time of its rendition. The expediency or inexpediency of exercising the pardoning power, in the form and in the case now presented, is a subject exclusively within the power and discretion of the President; and in relation to which I therefore forbear to express any opinion. I am, sir, &c., &c., To the SECRETARY OF STATE. FELIX GRUNDY. CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROPRIATION ACT. Where an appropriation act for the expenses of preventing and suppressing Indian hostilities expressed a sum for the aggregate less than the aggregate, in fact, of the several items therein enumerated-DECIDED, that the amount equal to all the items was appropriated, and that an erroneous addition of said items produced no effect upon the law. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 13, 1839. SIR: Yours of yesterday proposes for my opinion a question arising upon the act of the late session of Congress, entitled "An act making appropriations for preventing and suppressing Indian hostilities for the year 1839." The difficulty arises from the fact that the gross sum stated in the first section of the act is less than the amount of the several items which are enumerated in the act. The phraseology of the first section of the act seems to me to obviate all difficulty. It is, "that the following sums, amounting to one million eight hundred and four thousand seven hundred and seventy-four dolfars, be, and the same are hereby, appropriated out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. The sums enumerated and specified in the act are appropriated; and a mistake in the addition or otherwise, which shall produce an erroneous result as to the amount, can produce no effect upon the appropriation. The different items of appropriation should be looked to and respected; these Congress certainly intended to have effect, and an error which shall make the aggregate amount either greater or less than the different sums enumerated in the act should not be regarded. The appropriation would be perfect without the addition of the gross sum. The unnecessary insertion of a mistaken amount, in my opinion, produces no legal effect whatever. Yours, with great respect, To the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 1 FELIX GRUNDY. PLATS OF RIVERS, CREEKS, &c., IN LOUISIANA. The plats returned to the General Land Office by surveyors general, are evidence of the existence and general character of rivers, creeks, bays, &c., which the law requires to be marked upon them, and may be regarded as affording full proof for the purposes of settling preemptions and locations. Mistakes in these plats may occur, and when they do, may be corrected; but with respect to transactions occurring and private rights acquired upon the faith of the accuracy of the plats, and before correction of their mistakes, they should be left undisturbed wherever it is possible. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFIce, SIR: I have had the honor to receive your communication of the 22d of January last, submitting for my opinion the following question arising under the act of Congress approved June 15, 1832, entitled "An act to authorize the inhabitants of the State of Louisiana to enter the back lands." "When the tract sought to be entered is fit for cultivation, and borders upon a river, creek, bayou, or water-course, which is surveyed and laid down on the plat of surveys officially returned to the district and general land offices, are or are not the General Land Office and the district land office bound to respect it as such? or can they, after a private entry of the tract of land claimed as a back pre-emption right, with a view of permitting the entry by a back pre emption, and avoiding the private entry, go into parol testimony to contradict the return of the surveyor general, by showing that there is no such river, creek, bayou, or water-course as he has protracted?" In reply to this question, my opinion is, that the official plats returned by the surveyor general to the General Land Office and the several district land offices, are evidence of the existence and general character of those natural objects which the law requires to be marked upon them, and that they must be considered as affording full proof for these purposes -so far at least as the action of the land officers, both general and district, are concerned. These plats are designed by law for the information and guidance of the various land officers and persons desirous of purchasing a portion of the public domain. That purchases are made, and other legal acts often done, exclusively upon the faith of these plats, admits of no doubt; and all such transactions ought, in my judgment, to be protected. That mistakes will occasionally occur in making the surveys of the public lands, and drawing the plats of those surveys, must be expected; some power of correcting them should, therefore, be allowed, with the view to future action. But, with respect to transactions occurring and private rights acquired upon the faith of the accuracy of the plats, and before the correction of their mistakes,--these should be left undisturbed, wherever this is possible. The nature of the inquiry presented to me renders a more specific auswer to it impracticable in a legal point of view. I am, sir, &c., &c., J. To the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. FELIX GRUNDY. EXTRA COMPENSATION TO CLERKS FOR EXTRA SERVICES. Clerks and others holding regular appointments to places created, and receiving specific salaries affixed thereto by law, are not entitled to additional allowances for services rendered the government as the agent for surveying and selling Indian lands, the same being prohibited by acts of Congress. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 15, 1839, SIR: I have had the honor to receive your communication of the 13th instant, asking my opinion, upon two questions arising under the 3d section of the act of Congress approved the 3d instant, entitled "An act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year eighteen hundred and thirty nine." These two questions are as follows: 1. "A treaty exists with an Indian tribe, by which the general government becomes the agent of that tribe in surveying and selling its lands, the expenses of which are to be paid out of the proceeds of those lands. In the performance of this duty, it has heretofore been deemed proper to require the services of clerks and others holding regular appointments to places created, and receiving specific salaries affixed thereto by law, and to allow them for the services thus required a stated compensation, in addition to their regular and fixed salary, payable out of the proceeds of said lands. The additional allowances, in some cases, have been fixed by general regulations; and in others, by decisions of the competent officer on claims advanced thereto. Will the continuance of this arrangement be inconsistent with the above act?” 2. An individual in the service of the government receives a specific salary or compensation, fixed by law or regulation, for the performance of a certain duty, or class of duties. By an arrangement made prior to the passage of the above law, certain other duties are assigned to him, which in no manner are connected with, related to, or interfere with, the proper execution of the duty or class of duties first named. For these 'certain other duties' it was agreed to allow him an additional and specific compensation. Is the continuance of such an arrangement as this forbidden by the act referred to?" Having carefully compared these two cases with the provision of the act referred to, I am of opinion that they come within its prohibitions. I am, sir, &c., &c., To the SECRetary of War. FELIX GRUNDY. TRANSFERS OF CREEK RESERVATIONS. Transfers of reservations by assignees, whose assignments expressed them as a firm, are not valid when executed by one member thereof, but only when executed by all, unless the partner assigning exhibit authority to assign from all. But where the reservee assigned to a firm, as to "M. W. Perry & Co.," and the transfer by the firm was signed in that manner, the assignment is valid, and the patent may issue to the assignee. Where there are two assignors, and both names to the assignment are in the same hand-writing, the assignment is invalid as to him who did not sigu, unless the other exhibit authority. Where approved contracts are endorsed in blank, with the names of first purchasers endorsed thereon, the endorsement of the name of the purchasers on the approved contracts is evidence of their having disposed of them; and possession by others is sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of the patents to those having possession of the approved contracts. These assignments are not required to be acknowledged, and ought not to be made subject to any rule made after they were executed. Possession of a contract is not sufficient evidence of a legal transfer. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 6th instant, enclosing a communication to you of the 4th instant from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in which my opinion is asked upon six distinct questions-all relating to transfers of reservations under the Creek treaty of the 24th of March, 1832. It appears that the late President of the United States, in April, 1836, had directed patents to be issued only to the Indian reservee, or to the immediate purchaser from him. Subsequently, Congress passed the act of the 5th of July, 1838, entitled "An act to authorize the issuing of patents to the last bona fide transferee of reservations under the treaty between the United States and the Creek tribe of Indians, which was concluded on the 24th of March, 1832." By this act, the President of the United States "is authorized and required to cause patents to be issued to such person or persons as may be the bona fide purchaser, owner, assignee, or transferee of any selection or reservation which has been made to, or in behalf of, any chief or head of an Indian family," under the said treaty, "whatever may have been the number of intermediate transfers or assignments: provided the person or persons applying for such patent or patents shall adduce satisfactory proof to the Commissioner of the General Land Office of the fairness of said several preceding transfers or assignments." The intention of Congress in passing this act evidently was to carry into effect contracts which had been made for reservations, which contracts had been approved by the President, and which, from the lapse of time, the death and removal of parties and witnesses, had become inca. pable of being proved without recourse to courts of equity. And even before these tribunals the remedy would often be difficult and uncertain. In applying the law to particular cases, it should be borne in mind that, at the date of these transactions, no particular form of transfer had been pointed out, either by law or regulations of the General Land Office. And the act above referred to only provides that the person applying for a patent shall adduce proof, satisfactory to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, of the fairness of the several preceding transfers or assignments. Congress has not designated the kind of evidence which the Commissioner shall receive or require; he is left at full liberty to adopt such rules of proof and evidence as the justice and equity of the case may demand. Although his discretion is broad and comprehensive, still it is not arbitrary, but must be regulated by those rules of law and equity which afford security to the rights of each citizen of the community. With these preliminary remarks, I will proceed to an examination of the particular questions propounded, in the order in which they are presented by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. 1. "As to cases in which the approved contracts are in favor of a firm |