Amador weekly ledger., 1858-03-13


presents his property in fee" second because
of the hostility Of the Indians in that locality
the survey could not then be made, which
was stated in the petition to the Governor
and notwithstanding the usual custom of pre-
vious surveys, the Governor in the legitimate
exercise of his discretionary power made
the grant and third, that the Governor had
the power to make grants for and in consd-
Grafton of patriotic services and that he did
make this grant accordingly ; reciting therein
that in consideration of patriotic services
performed by the petitioner in the civil wars
which was then prevailing in this country, the
grant was made All of these reasons APP
pearin the expediente of the claim Hence, the
Court held that Immediately after the execu-
tion of the grant the interest vested in Gov.
Alyarado was passed to Fremont. Upon
close examination of that case it will be seen
that it principally turned on the argument
that there was consideration for the grant
and therefore Gov Alvarado was rather to be
considered as a purchaser than gratuitous
grantee
Now by reference to the Pico Grant YOU
will see that none of these reasons can be
urged in its favor T; you will there observe
the want of any indulgence on the part Of
the Governor to dispense with the necessity
of making survey and establishing the
boundaries you will find no suggestion that
it cannot be accomplished because of the hos
tilty Of the Indian tribes You will not find
any words which convey title in fee F; you
will find there no consideration as an induce
ment to the nation to confer the franchise ;
you will find simply an ordinary grant, with
conditions affixed which are to be complied
with, or else why are they put there 1t
was made to promote colonization, as grants
were made in Louisiana and Florida, and to
populate the country. Now, Messrs. Editors,
how it is that the District Court confirmed
case, cannot for the life of me understand !;
| have fears that the case went off on some
other point. Those cases cited in the argu-
ment Of the Fremont case, which the Court
refused to overrule, but labored SO hard to
show, were not in point to defeat that case,
must, have the audacty to say, control the
determination of this case | cannot see how
it can be otherwise. / have the temerity to
assert that they had ought to have governed
in the decision of the Fremont case, and
am not alone in this position. Justices Cat
ron aud Campbell held the same opinion in
that case, and our late Chief Justice Murray,
whose legal ability none can deny, so express
ed himself on the same point, and upon the
whole, think, tho Supreme Court will, upon
reflection, see that they have gone too far in
this case and will avail themselves Of the first
opportunity, if not to oyerrule, at least to
retrench that case, and draw such nice dis
tinctions between that ard other cases. as to
neutralize its effect Undoubtedly they will
refuse to extend the doctrine of that case to
cases where it can have application and es-
pecially when it would be doing violence to
principle and justice.
But now about the inconcl clusiveness of the
survey, have not the slightest doubt, unless
the Supreme Court eat all their former de-
cisions, which | do not suppose they will do.
/ differ with your correspondent in regard
to pre-emptioners being third parties within
the provision of the laws of Congress. |
think they are and he thinks they are not
In my next letter will give You my reasons
why I think so, and would like "Amador's'
reasons for his position More anon.
CADMus.