New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-12-03

were settlers in good faith, and that they had oeea
in possession Of the land long before the American
conquest. True, the titles were not made With
precise legal forms; but those were not to De ex-
pected under the careless government of California
Ii was by no fault Of the claimants that the alto
was inforrnal they had merted perfect title and
had done all they could TO get one In considera-
ton of these facts, the United States Land Commits
sion and the United States District Court invariably
confirmed these titles aud in one Of them patent
has been issued; but when the ranch of Eye came
before the Supreme Court, Justice Campbell dis
covered that the ancient possession and ndubiable
equity of the case not sufficient, and be- in
the name of the Court, rejected the claim notwth-
standing the facts that the proclamations Of the
American Generals in 1916 promised the confrma-
fion of title TO all land held under color Of right"
and that the statute of 1851 TO settle titles declared
that equitable titles should be respected think
have made out a pretty plain and strong case
against Mr.. Justice Campbell in the matter Of Nye
Another blunder of Mr.. Campbell was committed
in his first decision in the Fossat ease (reported IN
Goth Howard, 4l3). In this case, the Governor
says that whereas Justo Larios, the original
grantee, has petitiOned for certain tract Of public
land therefore he grants 'said land TO him. The
written description in the petition, and copied IN
the grant, is as follows:
"The land known by the name Of Capitancloss
bounded by the Sierra, by the Arroyo Seco on the
side of the Mission of Santa Clara by the rancho OF j..
n. Berreyesa which has for boundary line running
from the junction Of the Arroyo Seco and the Arroyo
de los Alanlitos southwark TO the Sierra, passing by
the eastern base Of the HILL situated in the center OF
the Canada. The map herein referred TO Is one
square league little less as is explained BY
the map accompanying the petition"
The above description is no. ineligible, without
much explanation, to person who has not seen inc
place but il is sufficient to say that there are clearly
defined boundaries three Sides and the map accom-
panying the petition as well the language of the
grant, Indicate plainly that the foot of range Of
hills was TO be the fourth and last boundary. Con-
sidering the matter in this light, Judge Hoffman,
when the matter came up before him, treated the
tract as having fixed boundaries, and confirmed it
TO the claimant, in the language of the original
grant, as a. one league, more or less'-the true
amount as since ascertained by survey, being one
league and thrce-fourths. At this Justice Campbell,
when the matter comes before him on appeal.
flares up and says:
ave reject the words little more or less as hav-
ing no meaning in system OF location and
survey ike that of the United States, and
that the claim of the grantee is valid for the
quantity clearly expressed. II the limitation OF
the quantity had not been 30 explicitly declared,
( n it might have been proper TO refer 10 the
petition and diseao map accompanying the petitionl
or to have inquired IL the name Capitancos had any
Specification as connected with the limits of the tract,
in order 10 give effect to the grant But there is no
necessity for additional inquiries The grant is not
affected with any ambiguity. The intention Oh inc
Government of California is distinctly declared, and
there is no rule of law 10 authorize 20 depart from
the grant to obtain evidence 10 contradict, vary, or
limit It's import.
In so FAR as that language represents the purport
of the grant, it s grossly, evidently, and malicious
" false The grant described tract of land by all
its boundaries and referred for further explanation
to the map accompanying the petition. and stated
that the ranch was one league more or less,
meaning something less than two leagues. When
land was granted by natural boundaries, IN those
days when there were 10 surveyors In the country,
more or less" was necessary part OF the descrip-
ton and it ia not out of use, nor without legal
force in any part of the United States; and its
ordinary legal meaning was recognized by tho
United States Supreme Court itself, IN the case
of the United States against Sutherland, wherein,
speaking about the quantity0f land granted, they
they said, "If more or less was intended IN
a. the grant, it was carefully stated" But Justice
Campbell says the grant Is an explicit conveyance
of the exact amount of one square league, and
therefore it would be very improper in him to follow
the boundaries, the map, or the meaning OF the
name Capitancill0s which had fixed meaning Of
the whole tract claimed The opinion in this case,
though, az compared with his other blunders, q
mere trhe in the direct injustice done to public n-
terests and TO the claimant in the sut-lt despos
the latter of only about g. 900 acres of land in rich
cinnabar dstrict-furnishes perhaps the most con-
elusive proof of the incompetency of its author for
his high position, for no lawyer, nor even general
reader OF ordinary intelligence can fail to SEQ the
gross errors of Justice Campbell in his statements
If there be any doubt about the in the mind Of
the reader he will find everything relating TO it in
the Goth volume Of Towards Supreme Court Re-
ports, page 4I3 previously referred toy Only one
fact of note is not stated there and that is the total
amount of land within the specified boundaries was
one league and three quarters. j trust that ths
other members of the Supreme Court will attend
hereafter closely to the Californian land cases.
and see that if Justice Campbell renders the deci-
sons there shall be, at least, small show of reason,
learning, knowledge of the facts, and correct state
ment in the opinions. For the present. truce to
Nr. Justice Campbell.