The daily union., 1852-08-04

lying between certain hills. streams. SC. as shown BY
rough sketches attached petions that" these sketches
frequently contain double the amount OF land included IN
the grants And even now very few of these grants have
been surveyed their boundaries definitely hxed tina,
some OF the land titles given by the Californian govern
men. contain conditions respecting Their SALE &c, whch
spirit OF our laws" that these generous conditions
should be removed by act OF Congress-; that !" mum
per OF The grants Of land made by the governors OF Cali
ornia have been confirmed by the territorial egs
alure that " in that body has positively re-
fused ITS appreciation" some cases II had " merely
declined to act until furnished with certain information
respecting the amount asked for its boundaries &c IN
others again. the petition though before the legislature,
was moi reached previous to it's final adjournment in july
1876 and Il probable that some Of these titles through
cdrrlessness, were submitted to that body Tor ap
proval and it had been alleged by very~respectabe
authority that certain titles TO land were given by Gov
ernor Pco after the United States had taken possession
OF the country and made hear date prior the 7h OF
Jay 1910 J" that these grants have. Of course. never
ooen confirmed by the territorial legislature for that
body adjourned the sh of July, the day after flag
was raised at Monterey have they been recorded in
any book OF records among the government archives, al
though, i said they pupor TO be recorded J" that
10 settling land titles in this country broad distiDc
ton should be made between titles of this kind and
those winch were gwen in good faith by the California
governors, previous TO our taking possession OF this
country, but which have failed to receive the requisite
tora legislature" (Ex Doc No IT, Isl sess 3lst Cong
p 1925 and page 29) that the mission lands and other
property which have not been sold in accordance with
he provisions Of lazy, are still the property Of the gov.
ernment and may be disposed of accordingly" that
such was the legal condition OF the missions OF Cali
fomia when on the 7h OF July, 1885, the American flag
was raised IN Monterey, and the country taken formal
possession OF IN the name OF the United States !; that
soon after General keany assumed the civil govern
mtnt in California, representations were made to him.
from the most respectable sources that the grants and
sales OF mission property by Governor Pico, just as he
leaving the country, without the authority OF
law and that, though evidently made after the 7th OF
July 1916, they h4d been antedated in order to give
recorded in the usual books Of records the govern
men archives, but purported TO be recorded in some
other book which as yet has never been found" and
that Spectators had bought up these doubtful titles,
and now demanded to be put in possession OF their prop
ery."
Yet the" confidential agent OF this government, sent
out BY the government in july ls49 reported in the face
of all these facts, and OF the decisions OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States defining what "perfect
grant is that the land claims in California were mostly
perfect hss as perfect piece OF mposure and decep-
non as was ever attempted TO be practsed at the
OF government upon enlightened people, and designed
as subsequent events have shown for ulteror and sns
ter purposes, resulting in the establishment of exen
sive scheme OF land monopoly, sustained by vigorous
and numerous class Of specuating adventures. with
whom an issue is now TO be made by the national iegisa
lure Tor the protection OF the dearest personal rights of
the people Of California, and the best interests of the
federal government
BY The treaty Of ls4s with Mexico the absolute fee in
the soil OF California passed to the United States ex.
property by pecihc and well defined boundaries. and
vested upon consummateQ perfect titles In the
OF Wggns al the January term in ls40, OF the Supreme
Court OF the United States, it is declared in regard to
this class OF titles 10 be the established doctrine Of this
court that they pre- ntrinscAy valid" and need no
sancnon from the legislative Judicial departments OF
this county" But what is the doctrine OF that court 10
respect TO grants unaded by actual survey
them from the public domain, and 10 their standing in
conr, in an action Of eeclmenti
In the case OF the United States King e al, in is45,
he of Of writ IN he M
a grant for certain land from the Spanish governor
general OF Louisiana came under investigation, and its
validity as against the title OF this to the
land under The treaty ceding Louisiana to the United
States, was discussed and considered The Supreme
Court, referring 10 the grant from the governor general
OF the province held that il had not the aid OF any auhen
c survey 10 ascertain and fix the limits OF the land and
to determine its location; !; that the instruments them.
selves contain lines OF boundaries, whereby any de
hnte and specific parcel OF land severed from the
public domain and declared" that has been settled
by repeated decisions in this court and in cases too
where the instruments contained clear words of grant,
that II the description was vague and indehne, as IN
that case and there was official survey 10 give il a
certain location, j, could right OF property in
auy particular parcel OF land which could be maintained
in court OF justice" Al The time the referred
10 several decisions in which this doctrine had been ad-
vanced. and stated that after such repeated decisions
upon the subject, all affirming the same doctrine, the
question cannot be considered open in this "
that the land claimed was not severed from the public
domain by the Spanish authorities, and set apart
private property, and consequently passed TO the United
States by the treaty which ceded to them all the public and
unappropfiated lands y ha, " If these instruments were
regarded granis and IT. appeared that the original
amant bad rignally selected this very district the
place where the grant intended to be located and
emgranls introduced BY him had been settled upon it in
performance of the conditions OF his contract and If it
had been held that he bad thereby acquired eQuita
bic right TO have the quantity OF land mentioned iN the
paper OF 1877 laid of to him this place still il would
be defence against the United States" The court
then referred 10 the of Choueau Eckhar and
Hicky Stewart, in regard 10 imperfect titles, and
slated that "these decisions stand upon the ground that
such titles not confirmed by the treaty tse to
bring them within Judicial cognizance and authority y
thai II rests with the political department OF the govern
ment determine how and by what tribunals justice
shoald be done TO persons claiming such right" " that
% therefore, this controversy was in court OF equity.
could not be supported against grantee OF the United
States. because Congress has not confirmed author
lied ary other tribunal to determine upon It's validity "
but that the then under consideration WAS I'm a
Of law, the petory action brought by the United
Saies; being in the nature OF action o electment,
in which The decision must depend the legal title. and
tha, ue undet the treaty OF cesson, being the United
States equitable ttIe If the defendant could
show one, would be no defence"
ihs, and other decisions bearing with equal force upon
the point establish the doctrine beyond controversy
that IN no in which claimant has not complete
legal title from the former government can he sustain a
claim IN court Of law TO specific parcel OF land against
title IRON this government What control, then, does
Congress have the subject and what IN The opinion
OF the court, are its obligations and dutesS
In the case OF Chouteau Eekhar the court held, in
regard TO incomplete titles derived from the Spanish
horltes to land in Upper Louisiana, that Congress
" acted as the of the general n,endency and
had the discretion to confirm, and the sovereign
u.ty l.. "a