Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/385

 DALLES CITY V. MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 373 �their report that it appears from the evidence that the society was in the "possession" of the land on August 14, 1848, and that, as soon as the danger from Indian hostilities admitted, it endeavored to "re-occupy" the premises, but the United States "troops had ere then taken possession" and ineluded them in the military reservation. �The committee seem to have avoided saying that the soci- ety was in the occupation of the premises on August 14, 1848, but chose the more indefinite and convenient term "posses- sion." In passing the bill, however, congress made no dec- laration on the subject. This is one of the matters alleged in the answer, which was excepted to as impertinent. So far as these suits are concerned, it only amounts to this : Upon the ex farte representations of the defendant, congress was induced to pay $20,000 in satisfaction of its claim for one- half of the premises, and the value of the improvements thereon, whether destroyed by the volunteers under the pro- visional goverimaent, the Indians, or the United States troops, and estimated by it at $4,000. As has been stated, ne rea- sons were given by congress for the passage of the act, but, in fact, varions ones may have and probably did influence the action of members in favor of the appropriation. �Probably the strpngest consideration in its favor was the fact that although the defendant might net have been in the occupation of the station in August, 1848, still it had main- tained a misson th ere for nine years prier to September, 1847, during a portion of which time the title to the country was in dispute, and therefore there was a strong equity in favor of its receiving some compensation in eitber land or money. Again, the very fact that the defendant is the representative of a popular and powerful religions organization, for whose good will and favor the average congressman in Oregon and elsewhere has a lively regard, may not have been without its effect on the resuit. �But, be this as it may, the action of congress in making provision for the payment of this claim cannot, under the circumstances, have the effect to invest the defendant with the title to the premises. In legal effect, ail that was done ��� �