The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-08-02

In confirming the title ordered decree Of the
sioner which confirmed the claim according the quantity
and boundaries set forth In the judicial possession Of the
aeaide, 70 be reformed to conform TO the locality
TENT and boundaries described the original grant and
map This rule Of decision has since steadily adhered
To by the court except in the where the ade in the
act OF Judicial possession has observed strictly the terms Of
the grant The DEGREES of confirmation by the district court
differ therefore, in from the DEGREES OF the last
when the commissioner confirmed 10 the claimant about
the district court regarding the aleades act OF
deia possession erroneous confirmed the claim for only
tct has rejected but two three claims which the oomms
sioner had confirmed These rejected the ground of
vagueness, want OF capacity in the grantee to take
Another why there should be discrimination in
the dismissal of the appeals by the United States to be
found the opinions Of the commissioners confirming two
three theie claim which they their belief that
the grants fraudulent but that in the absence Of all evil
the United establish fraud they
bound to confirm them, in accordance with the unim
peached evidence of the claimants When such
heard nopo the district court with the additional evil
denoe that may be offered, the result may be different
The effect of indiscrmnate dismissal of all the appeals
land commissioners, would my opinion give standing
large fraudulent rsnt To do this would be act Of
injustice many who settled good faith upon
public lands claimed under fraudulent grants Besides
it might give rise to strong spirit OF opposition In some
parts of California not only such bad titles but to many
good which might be enormously cassed with the few
it will be permitted me- however in justice to those claim
ants whose grants unquestionaby valid to say in
cuson, that the long and proaced litigation Of such claims
BY the United States has been great hardship Of about
land commissioners, have doubt Of the validity OF at
Of them These should be patented by the
United States with little delay possible after passing
through the United States district courts In few
only would i be proper to appeal to the Supreme Court OF
General in relation to this subject he justly declares his in
tenon to discontinue all appeals in these land cases. on the
part Of the United States, where justice requires it,
have the honor to be, very respectfully your obedient
servant, . # -. - -. L. oRD, AZ.
House Of Representatives
Now sir let how the provisions of the proposed
bill will operate. A claim is presented to the board of
commissioners and by them confirmed to the claimants.
1t then appealed to the district court and there rejected
II then taken to the Supreme Court Of the United States
and rejected there also Pass this BILL and you override
decisions of the Supreme Court and the district court
fall back the decisions OF the commissioners and issue
patent for claim that had been rejected by the highest
tribunal in the country Again. sir by the passage OF this
bill you would set aside the decisions of the district court
referred TO by Judge Ord in which frauds discovered
and issue patents according to the decisions of the commits
sionera. ...
The board Of commissioners really considered as
nothing than examining court. and were never
intended to do anything than to take testimony in
the presented for their consideration and to express
opinion whether the United States the claimant
had the better right to the land in question: leaving IL to
the superior tribunals TO give final decision. The act OF
Congress creating the board of commissioners declares the
by which conflicting claims and the rights OF third
parties shall be determined 1t is proposed in effect
annul this act Of Congreso set aside the decisions OF
the courts and confirm the action of the commissioners
notw hsandng they have cases. expressed doubts
the genuneness OF some of the claims presented ask
IL such procedure is proper7 ask if would be right
thus set aside the laws of the country and break up the
decisions of the courts Z
Mr. Speaker viii recur to the decisions Of the Su-
preme Court and endeavor show that their late de-
csons in reference TO the land claims in California have
reversed all Che decisions by them formerly made in SINH
lar claims in Florida and louisiana The doctrine laid
down by the Supreme Court In the adjudication Of titles
derived from France Spain, in the State Of louisiana
was that Hwbere grant cannot be located by mees and
bounds il title in action Of ejecment"
In otser words the land have been surveyed to
separate it from the public demainthe survey such that
il could be understood that the land might be strictly
identified the locus IN quo. See DenTe al Rug
ges l6 Howard, 243 244 The opinion Of the Sapreme
Court unanimous. The points taken in the
briefly these;
In the circuit court Of the United States for the district
Of Missouri the jury was instructed as follows:
"The court is Of opinion that the grant to Renault,
aided by survey under the French Spanish government
did not separate the land from the public domains that
now, from its uncertainty be located 1t Is not
therefore grant for any specific lands and does not entte
ths plaintiff to the locus IN quo"
The case brought up the Supreme Court BY writ
Of The question turned upon that point Of
strucon applicable to the grantthc absence Of
anty The Supreme Court decided that correspondent
survey could be made for uncertain calls in grant, and
that they should have been established by French or
Spanish survey the might be- The court cited the
calls OF the grant and stated the fact that some Of the OBJ
rc called for TO be found upon TIA ground but still
that they vague and too indefinite 10 be respected
without being previously established by actual survey
The language Of the court is as follows;
are therefore, Of opinion that the circuit prop
ery held that the grants did not separate any specific tracts
Of land the public domain and that the jury could
locate it,
The legal effect therefore Of this decision that grants
on paper without survey, do not separate any specific
tract from the public domain unless specially made
TO define with perfect certainty the metes and bounds
and therefore that any lands actually surveyed after.
wards and occupied by authority Of law by any
settler, separating thereby much from the public do
mAin within the supposed grant which uncertain and
not surveyed, viii hold against The latter.
The Supreme Court have substantyey continued 70 adj
here 10 this doctrine which b less the law Of the land
than It is the ongconnued uninterrupted and wise pol
icy Of our government.
The leading case In the State Of California (which per-
baps may be relied for the other sde does not in the
slightest degree affect this doctrine II is IL
distinction TO be raised and respected in such camsa Of
personal iserriceneitorous serpiees-nohing The
principle established however In the Of Denise d
al vs Rugges s reafrmed and applied directly to
that class OF cse and TO that itself give In order
10 detail in perfect fairness the true spirit OF the opinion
the entire paragraph which refer in the decision of the
Fremont case do tbis without going at present into
eny minute detail Of the antecedents which however
would show that the took such view Of the
greatly strengthens and In my Judgment fully confirms
my position and maintains the amendments which have
offered
The case OF Fremont o. the United States win be found
i1 IL Howard page 542 and at page 55s the following Is
the language Of the court to which refer
al" Is argued that the description Is 50 vague and
tain that nothing passed by the grant, and that he had
vested interest the land surveyed and the part In
tended be granted severed BY lines known boundaries
from the public domain but this objection cannot be main
ts where the qusnty granted to Avsrsdo be locs
ted had obtained grant from the government
BY specific boundaries before Avado had made his survey,
The title grantee could not be impsred BY
1 IA A hats tndf