New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-08-14
FLON CALIFORNIA,
IRE. Or ow, Correspondents.

BAN FRANCISCO, Monday, July Is. 1854 ;.
The news ofths final split ofths Democrats N.s,,
Convention al Baltimore arrived here YESTERDAY mo
my and created an in'euse excitement Joy suooo ~.
kepubh'sns and depression among the Dsmoe,..~
Notwithstanding the fact that the DAY wa so,a.-
three extras were issued to announce the me-
az arrived by telegraph, and the cries of the ma, (
BOYS nled the stree from till dark. Al sups.,.
hundred gons weref fred by the "Democrais for mo,s,
for the purpose sometime before 10 tina, /,
iect The hrpg was not In rejoicing over the no nina
eher candidate, but rather because the money had 70
oe spent Inc Republicans now in hope. that tb.v
VIII cary 'ne State; ths foolish conduct Of the Cs;.
IofDis Delegates at Baltimore has p,.eed the .,..
mere I'D trouble IRON which they will not rsadI,y
,reae Inemse W. Inc Democratic organs d. not
Know what 70 oo whether TO declare for
or Douglas end they appear this morning IN hs sss.
awkward garb OF neutrality, waiting for sousiing |.
turn up.
The State has for some inc been In 0rea. co,,,.;.
sbont law matters The Supreme Court rendsTsd.
decision lately that the State Controller should d.
warrants TO the amount OF fN5,OOO in favor Of Tia
lessees Of the State Prison. This after tao Teo
lafure had declared the contract with The esses yod
for failure N Observe lie provisions and bad repealed
the law authorizing TIE contract. The question no
arises whether the Legislature the Supreme Cont
be the proper custodian Of the State Treasury aad
whether the orders Of the former addressed 70 hs
Of the Conrt.
The decision upsetting the Peter Smith title in hi,
city is almost equal in importance TO the Sautilan d.
e eon for il hes demolished a claim TO eight or u,
square miles of lard within the city limits II i. sad
that among the chief losers by this decision are Hsa
Pesrsops Myers +. Truet and Elliot j. Moore. While
some have os fortunes others have made fortunes BY
the decision among whom are j. G. Beideman, X. g.
Page, and 4. Il. Austin. These men had squatted il
early times on large tracts of land within the city
limits and then had induced the Council and the Lss
laue 10 pass an act granting TO them all the ctys title
in the land. This was at time when the city wx
deeply in debt and was swndlng her creditors under
the plea Of necessity and poverty and when these lands
would have commands very high prices.
As for that farce Of the trial Of Terry there is per-
hsps one fact which has not been stated In the New
York papers, and that is, that the Judge Hardy who
was in such hurry TO bring In verdict of :" MOI
Guilty" because The witnesses FOR the prosecution
were not present. when his watch pointed to 10 clock
is tie same who was the attorney TOT stovali In
the celebrated case of Arhy the slave IN regard 70
which our Supreme Judges, Terry and Burnett, vio
lated Justice sDd law in manner 30 gross as 10 call
down upon their heads the denuncstion aud rdicue Of
all parties.
fraudulent land claims in California has been pub
lsbed here and has given great oiiense. IL Is Iu Of
gross and malicious lies. He gays that the csims mafs
10 the sites of Sacramento Stockton, Marysve, and
Pe'alums, were bastd on forged grants. This s
VIGOROUSLY false. The grants under which the sites OF
Sacramento, Stockton and Marysville, are claimed,
are Of undOubted genuineness. NO suspicion h1
ever been entertained here by any welInforme1
man about the genuueness Of the Suffer grant at
Sacramento, the Weber grant at Stockton, or the
Nye grant at Msrysville. As to the Pstal1ms
grant that is probably genunei but 1 cannot
speak positively as to that. The Sacramento S
frmed. That at Msrysville was rejected becanss
not in a strict legal FORM but Mr.. Black In the middle
of biz report foeess the charge of forgery made in he
beginning and admits that it the Nye claim IA gena'
I'll MA rna
asserting that it was issued by Gov. Mcheltorrena
after his expulsion from the office Of Governor"
This grant was claimed under the general title,
decree issued by Gov. Mrchetorrena IN DE 'embT,
1874 declaring that all those in the northern
district Of California who had peoued for grams VI
land ard upon whose petitions favorable reports had
been made by the local officer should be considered as
owners of The land and this decree sbo1ld stand as
title for every one until be should have ne to make
out special deeds IL will be remembered that In all
the cases covered by this decree, tie petitioners had
implied in good faith with all the requirements Of the
Mexican colonization law, had gone upon the land ID
good faith were occupying it, had done their bestto
get leg 4, titles and, certainly, had already obtained
equitable titles These facts, in country where the
forms of law were treated with so little respect gave
the claim ants an equity strong that the Land Com
mission and strict Court did not hesitate TO confirm
them nor did public opinion hesitate 10 approve the
contirma'iors. But now comes Black, and says,
Mich.torena's action was grossly dishonest 10 is-
SUR this decrpe-a charge evidently fslse; Michel
torena soldier; his conduct was supply nsghgen
there would not have been the,least dishonesty in
making perfect deeds TO all the petitioners, aud hs dis
patchirg the affair with the Genefai Decree W1s
mere act of csrelessness.
And then Mr.. Bla goes to say that the fud
confirmation of this title by the United ates would
have transferred nine buodred square miles of land 20
persons " who entirely destitute OF any just title"
Well now, if this be true how did 1t come that the
Mr. Black dismissed the appeals from the DEGREES
of the lower Cont confirming the claims of John Bid.
well and Samuel j. Hensley, both of which claims
h.1d nd. Mo liza
mssals took place after the u ). Supreme Court had
rejected tie general title in at least case and they
rred the title of the land claimed inevocaby to
Bdwell and Hend'y, and this Was done under
Blacks order and his order alone. How is this t, be
explained sugges that Congress look into the facts
of this matter John Bdwell has published card here
to justify Black, and says that he BidwelD had two
titles, provisional title" aud general uls, and
therefore the Attorney General dismssed the appeal
1t happens however unfortunately for this explana.
tion that the Supreme Cont had previously rejected
"proyisona al tiles and will hardly be asserted that
two titles, each vod alone, and having no connection
with the Other make good title when together. The
only explanation of Back conduct given here Is that
John Bidwell was member of the Charleston Conyen-
tion an that Samuel j. Hensey is prominent Dem
ocrat and wealthy man. but this expl snatioa 10 not
good and I hope Attorney General Black will be
aowed to give better one 10 Congress, II he sh 'uld
not See t speak before that iDqu-tive body exam
ines whether there may not be frauds ID other matters
beside Mexican land grants
Mr.. Black puts down the "Teschemacher Claim "
fraudulent ana saysit was lgnominionsy rejected
by the United States Supreme Court aud am in
formfd that the claim is undoubtedly genuine and so
far from having been "ignompoasly rejected, it has
never been rejected at all by the United States Supreme
Court. This however, was 10 casual conyersstl IN,
ard ny informant may have been in error. And then
Mr.. Black puts down the Iturbide grant AS fraud,
whereas it is VIGOROUSLY genuine, though lot vLd,
because il was never located according TO law. us
said here that Blacks report is equally incorrect In
many other points, but do not remember the sPeci-
fcstious