The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-12-15

mentioned Gaze shall have been decided on the ap-
peal.
In my communication to you Of the 30th ultimo.
il Is shown that this office has taken different
view OF the matter and declined compliance with
an application for suspension OF the notices under
the act oil 9th January, 1851 in consideration Of
the terms OF the aforesaid seventh section Of the act
Of Goth May, 1924 the decree Of the Supreme Court
in the case Of Turner, and the requirement Of the
said act of 9th January, 1851. As the notices
tempated by the act of 9th January, 1851, will
not, however, be given until the official returns
shall have been made Of the public surveys within
the exterior lines Of said claim, some time will yet
eiapse before any final action will be had in the
way Of dispcsing of the lands within the limits OF
the said claim. .....
II is recommended that general law similar in
principle to the act passed in the Maison Rouge
case be enacted, SO as to relieve such settlers as
may be in a like situation other claims yet be-
fore the courts, and in which final decisions may
be rendered against the Spanish or French title.
On the Sd March, 1851, an act was approved
'lor the settlement Of certain classes of private
land clnims' within the limits of the Baron De
Basrop's grant and for allowing pre- emptions
to certain actual settlers, in the event of the final
adjudication Of the title Of the said De Bastrop in
favor Of the United States" The Supreme Court
Of the United States having rendered a decision
against the validity of the De Bastrop title, which
covered over million of arpens, this office, pufsn-
ant to the requirements of the sajd of Sd March,
1901, issued the necessary instructions, in order
that report might be made by the land officers
ON the several classes of claims under De Bastrop.
the Sd section Of the act will be laid before Congress
at an early day Of the ensuing session.
Pursuant to the act Of Congress approved March
3, 1851, for ascertaining and settling the private
land claims in California, the land commissioners
who had been appointed to perform the duties pre-
scribed by that law effected an organization in
the early part of the present year, and held their
fret session at San Francisco and since then, ac-
cording to advces dated in August last, they
preparing to hold session in that month at Los
Angeles, pursuant to the order of the President.
They had further been directed to hold session
on the 10th November, 1852, at Santa Barbara,
and on the 10th February, 1852 at Monterey, but
upon their recommendation Of the 10th August
last, the order for the sessions at Santa Barbara
and Monterey was revoked, and another session
at San Francisco was directed to take place on the
10th November instant. The reasons urged by the
commissioners for their return to San Francisco,
were that they might be able to despatch the cases
at that place which were ready for examination and
hearing, and which would remain in suspense some
eight or nine months from the date of their letter, II
the order for the sessions at Santa Barbara and
Monterey was carried into full effect In their com
municatIon to the Department of the 10th August
last, they represented that, sSince the organiza-
ton OF the board in January last, the commits
sioners have been industriousy employed in in
forming themselves in regard to the Spanish and
Mexican laws, ordinances, and DEGREES, applica-
BILE to land titles in this ate in examining into
the general nature and character OF those titles,
and in taking testimony in individual cases"
That "the novelty End importance of the various
matters to be examined and considered necessa-
riiy required time for the law agent, as well as
for tho commissioners, and it was not until
the l7th ultimo (July) that the arguments in
the first cases heard were concluded, and the
cases submitted;" that ION the Sd instant
(August) their first decision made, which
embraced moot of the leading and importantly legal
land claims in this State, and will form rule
for" their faction in large portion Of the cases
that are likely TO be brought before" them; that
"the whole number OF cases. then pending before
thc hnur1 to.t, t,ll t,l~o
on | l3 of them, large portion of which were
then ready for examination apd heaTing," SC.
Since then this office has received II printed opn-
ions of the commissioners rendered in August last,
in the cases OF Cruz Cervantes. Pearson b. Read
ing, and Carmen Sibrian de Bernal.
Referring TO those opinions, two OF the commits
soners, (Messrs Hiland Hall and James w il
SOM in a letter to the Department of 18th August
last, advert to them as showing that they shave
agreed upon and settled SO far as their faction is
concerned, most of the mportant legal questions
that are likely TO arise under grants of land made
by the Mexican government on the authority
of the Mexican colonization law of 1924 and
that "in conuexion with these three cases, and
another Of similar character, there was also ar
= gued and submitted" to them ga fin, in which
the grant was claimed to have been made by the
Spanish Cover Sofa, in 1920, which claim, upon
: the proof made" they "were unable TO agree
ui.on deciding in favor of the petitioners, and
which, by" their CORRECTION, ma jorty of the
Board. was postponed for further evidence ard ar
gument;" and that "the claim which is made in
the names OF the heirs and deviscc5 of Luis Peral
. ia is to very large tract of land lying on the
Bay OF San Francisco, opposite to the city, - &c.
After abiding to animadversion upon their
course in the matter. the commissioners state that
"n the hurry of preparing to leave for Los Angeles"
they shave only time to cay that the claimants in
the petition 10 the board claimed the land under
grant from the Spanish governor, Sofa, made
the 10th OF August, 1920. and referred to the royal
October "a, 1881, for the authority of the Cover.
nor to make it. (Haeck's Reports, appendix
No. p That the land called San Antonio was
described in the petition as containing an IN
known quantity, and as bounded on the north by
the rancho of one Castro, the east by the noun
tain range, on the south by the creek of San Le-
andre, and on the west by the coast OF the Bay OF
San Francisco. That no evidence was produced
that the land had ever been surveyed. That the
counsel for the claimants and the law agent stip
ulated in writing Tor the purpose of the hearing.
That the tract claimed was from twenty five to
thirty miles in length along the bay, and ten
miles in width; making from tvo hundred and
fifty TO three hundred square miles, being more
than three times the quantity that could have
been granted to any one party under the Mex
: lean colonization law of 1924. That in none Of
{ the papers connected with the grant ia the land
spoken of as containing more than five leagues
: and in some Of them 1t ia represented lees;
and that in all of them Inc description of the
. land is indefinite and obscure, other than the
northern and southern boundaries being men.
toned in any of them. That il appeared from the
papers that the order of Governor Sofa, of Au-
gust 10, ioGUs unucT WHICH petitioners Clh'in-
cd, was revoked in part within few weeks after
it was made, and the pary's possession curtailed
. by removing the northern boundary league
and hall further south; and that for this restrics
: ed boundary Governor Sofa issued certifying
&. document OF title, October Is, 1922, being the
only title given by him That the claimants now
produce (but Of the existence Of which the public
archives furnish no evidcnce) paper purporting
= to be n decree of Governor Arguelo, made June
40, 1923, by which the league and half of land
taken away from Pcralta by Sofa was ordered to
be restored TO him. That 1874 the claimants pc
ti,ioned Governor Mcheltorena without men.
tioniug the ArgueiIo titie) for n confirmation of
the land given him by Sofa; that the petition was
considered and acted upon by the Governor, and n
coutirmatory grant issued to the claimant, iinii
iiing The quantity Of land 10 fue square leagues"
That this title paper. which is doubtless in the
lands of the claimants, was not produced" That
the majority of the commissioners "were not salts
fed upon the evidence thus produced, and in The
abscnce Of evidence thus suppressed, 20 confirm
the title TO such an extensive tract OF land,
but desired a survey and further proof, for which
one OF them at the time OF the continuance as.
signed" rcnsons--a cooy Of which, with tran
rp "from the record OF book ttles'' 70. The year
1914 showing that the contirmetOry grant TO