The Shasta courier., 1856-01-26
ActunI Settlers.

favor of protecting the rights Of all our citizens,
and securing to all the fullest aud most ample
liberties in our power. still we see difficulties in
the way of the passage of any laws which would
give relief, as the right Of property is already
vested, not in the State, but in the United States
government, and in opinion the right is not
given to the State of California to Legislate on
this subject. AS police regulation we may
perhaps say that parties in possession shall have
better right to hold possession, than any one
else who cannot produce better title, but we
cannot 60 further than this, because we have
not jurisdiction the property, but simply
over the people.
Congress may be memorialized on the ubject,
and in justice to the people of this State, may
linquish her title to US, and the State may then
donate to actual settlers in good faith. We can
with good grace ask this at the hands of the
General Government, for we have already paid
for the lands twice told And even if this not
so, the increased value Of property here, the i'm
mense addition TO the national wealth, the new
avenues of trade, which the settlement of Cali
fornia. and the development of her hidden
wealth, would abundanily repay the General
Government, or the older States for their por
ton Of the original expense of purchasing this
new found Ell Dorado. So as matter of right,
we could ask that our elder sisters release to US
their right in the soil Of our State.
A similar policy adopted ir regard to Or
egon, and this too when her claims upon the
General Government were not half so strong as
those which present. In the case OF Oregon,
there was no increase of popuation-foreigners
did not seek that country for home, and an in-
vestment of their capital. There was no gold,
no peculiar inducements held out for emf gra-
ton and settlement, and the consequence was a
mere change of residence by the citizens of the
frontier States, without adding a new inhab-
itant The population was merely transferred,
not increased. Then too, in the case of Oregon
the parent Government still protected her, still
paid for her legislation, still provided for the
enforcement of her laws, and acted in every re-
spect toward her, as protector and supporter
The strong argument used in our legislative
halls then, was, that the people had incurred
heavy expense in migrating thiiher, and it was
but a simple act Of justice TO them, that home
should be furnished the weary emigrant free
from all cost, and that this should be an her-
aage to their childrens children.
This was all right, it was just, it was gener
GUS; but have we not equal claims, nay, stron-
ger than theirs? Have not people endured
the same fatigues, have they not suffered the
same privations, and will not they be just as
FL
son why they will not be, and hope that our Pc
tition will be heard and granted-that the Leg
islature will memorialize Congress on this sub
ject, and that our prayer may be answered
But there is another subject which seems to
be confounded with the rights which we have
been attempting to set forth-but which is
founded upon different State of things, and
over which no government, in our opinion, has
any right of control. We alude to the power of
the State Government to legislate on the subject
ofSpanish grants, and the right which the Leg
islature has pass laws affecting the interests of
the grant holders.
We say that the Legislature Of the State has
nothing to do with this subject, except perahps
as we before remarked as a police regulation.
The title to this country, is derived from the
Government Of Mexico. Under the treaty with
Mexico, the vested rights which citizens held
under that Government, were to be respected,
and whether ttis provision had been inserted or
not, we imagine the actual owner of these grants
could not have been deprived of any rights ves-
ted under the constitution and laws Of the Mex
lean Government.
Mexico could not cede this territory as her
own, for the simple reason that she herself had
giren it to prirate individuals and no nation has
arisht to take private property, and sell, or 9th
wise dispose of it, without the consent OF the
owner, or in case of urgent necessity, by paying
a fair equivalent therefor.
Then at the time of ceding this territory to
the United States Government, these grant.
were private property, and no laws can now be
passed by the State. which can divest the
owners Of any of their rights. Consequently, in
would violate the soundcst principles of repub
lican government, and be unconstitutional ant
void
Itismuch better to trust to the Justice and sense
of right Of the individual land owners than at
tempt to legislate on subject over which yos
can have no control without violating private
rights and treaty s,ipulatious.
Supply and demand regulate prices, and W.
have no fears that the lands now claimed unde
the Spanish grants, win be long held at prices
above their true value nor do we fear acts o
oppression from the landlord to the tenant. fo
public opinion is the strongest law that car
be broaght TO act upon those who are disposes
90 prove tyrannical
Ifpsssona have invested largely on ihes'
grants. without knowledge Of their existence
and Il perehance in individual instances the,
becume snGerers, il is but what others wh,
have nsde invessments in merchandise, ant
other snhjeeta of traffic have done, and willis
we pity. ~ en- only adviss them to be NOR,
cautions failure, but % ~pick the fint and try
- - 1.~ 49,