The weekly Butte record., 1867-06-15

slight. Indeed considering the magnitude of the
tract granted it is entitled to very little weight
As the grants were dated 1s43 and lS44, and the
country taken possession Of by this Government in
lS46 there could be but two OK three years posses
sion or occupation under them al the time of our
tskug possession. The evidence that Vallejo oc-
cupied and cultivated the tract previous TO the
grants which, of ITSELF is slight and unsatisfactory.
is still further weakened BY the fact, which is
shown. that the ranch had been occupied by the
claimant as 8 military commandAnt, with soldiers
and Government property.
The witnesses who speak of the possession as
early as ls4l, might very readily have confonnded
this possession for the uses OF the Government with
possession for Vallejo himself. We can give very
little weight to possession limited Is to duration
and in extent, when offered in support Of q grant
of ninety or one hundred thousand acres Of land.
Ii the grant cannot be maintained by its force
and effect. this possession VAL scarcely uphold IT,
So much for the possession in the early history
of this grant.
Now, sir, in noticing further the pretended equi-
ty of these claims let me refer TO some additional
facts Let me first mention that Gen. Frisbie. W no
holds under Gen. Vallejo bought the whole of these
ninety thousand acres at rates VARYING from thirty
three to sxty-six cents per acre average
the records of the Land Office show-land that was
worth, suppose. at the east calculation ten times
the amount Gen. Frisbie bought it for a compara-
tive song and when he got Possession of it know
ing as he evidently did, that the title was invalid
and not being willing To risk it. he proceeds 20
make sales Of the ranch. These sales have no ex-
PLANTATION except in the fact that he felt himself
that the title was invalid or exceedingly doubtful.
give some facts taken from the records of the
Land Office as samples;
In November 1856. one Harbn bought two hun
dred and ninety acres. for fifty dollars, giving his
note for Sl,l03 IS on confirmation of the title.
This was ten days before Frisbie professed to have
bought it.
In December, 1855, John Tormey, Peter Pagan,
and J. Lankershim bought twenty-sx hundred
acres for sls 500, being about seven dollars per
/ acre. TheSs lands lie in two townships. They
] claim land in twelve sections and as will he no
ticed by the way, could not be settlers all the
land.
In August, 1856, one Sheehy bought fourteen
hundred acres for s2s42 being about two dol
lars per acre. He claims land in two townships
I and various sections.
All these lands when sold were worth from forty
to fifty dalars per acre, as am informed by intelh
gent gentlemen from California The rents which
they bring. as learn. will make their value more
than stated. These purchasers bought an uncer-
tainty. and knew they were so buying, and paid
tritling price accordingly.
So much for the equities of these Vallejo claim
ants. They bought at price propaby more than
ten fold less than they could have purchased if the
title had been good and they knew it. They he Id
it for years and years. building exterior lines of
fences around 1t, plowing and Cultivating 1t. and
reaping the fruits of their toll They had all the
benefits of it without owning an acre of the land or
having any legal rights on it. Sir. think they
ought to feel satisfied in not being called to account
for their unlawful use and occupation OF the lVld
! for successive years. And yet these men. purchas-
ing land for trite of man who had no title, and
receiving its unlawful fruits for term of years,
come to Washington in 1863 with their bastard
equity and besiege Congress by Misrepresentation
| and lies to enact law for their benefit and not
content still, they procure from the Attorney Cen
eral an opinion which cheats tine preemptors of the
United States for the benefit Of these land jobbing
advenfurerS:
/ But it is argued that the right of preemption
does not apply to this Spanish grant. That 1t does
apply, prove by citing
/ THE act of March 3. 1851, Statutes at Large.
vol. 8, p. 633) entitled An act to ascertain and
settle the private land claims in the State of Cali
1 forna,' the thirteenth section OF which reads IN
part as follows: That all lands the claims t. which
have been finally rejected by the commissioners
manner herein provided which shall inally be
decided to be invalid by the District Supreme
Court shall be deemed, held and consider
ed part of the public domain of the United
States
And again. the act Of March ), 1853, (Statutes
vol. TO- p. 244.) entitled An act to extend pre-
emption rights IN certain lands therein mentioned,
reads in part as follows: That any settler who has
settled may hereafter settle on lands heretofore
reserved on account OF claims under French. Span
i>h, other grants, which have been or shall be
hereafter declared by the Supreme Court Of the
United States to be invalid shall be entitled to all
the rights o: preemption granted by this act and
l. dOi VI 4th ScpttHtttI, lN3i eUi!ieu All W
appropriate the proceeds of the public lands and
TO grant preemption rights after the lands shall
have been released from reservation. in the same
manner as If no reservation existed. -.
Even if Congress. as contended by Montgomery
Blair and others, had exempted Spanish grants
from the claim of preemption, the exemption
could not apply to roid grants like the present,
which of course is no grant at all. marvel that
SO obvious consideration seems never to have oc-
CURED to the learned counsel for the spectators.
respectfully refer them to he case OF Clement VS.
Warner GA Howard. page 397.) The only lands
excepted from the operations of the preemption
laws on account OF occupation !. Parcels and
lots OF land occupied for trade and not agriculture.
,. Lands in the occupation of any Indian tribe in
California. Latter clause of section six, act of
Congress. entitled An act TO provide tor the survey
of the public lands in California; etc, passed
the Sd of March, 1853. Uester. p. 207.) 3. Lands
in actual occupation of half breeds mixed bloods.
Section two of act of Congress of May l9. 1858,
entitled An act concerning lands belonging to said
halt breeds. etc. (Lester 1913. Section ten, act
OF September 4, lS4l. Lester, p. g..
But it is said that the right of preemption cannot
attach to lands inclosed by third party, whose
title rests upon occupany. This doctrine is in di-
rect antagonism to every land law of the United
States since the act of Congress of 1907 which is
still in force, entitled IAN act to prevent settle
ments being made on lands ceded to the United
States until authorized by law | need not waste
time in refuting a proposition the bare statement
of which refutes itself Ii the law were, stated
anv man, by nclosing the Suscol ranch, after the
decision Of the Supreme Court, could have exclu-
ded every man claiming the right of preemption or
homestead in any portion of this immense domain
The principle would make good law of the opinion
OF California judge. who decided, as have heard,
that a fence around the entire State would exclude
all pestilent preemptors from all quarters. Ger
tainly need not dwell on this point.
But come now, passing over many things de-
sired to say, to question on which hope we shall
have an intelligent vote in this House. The Land
Office has decided every of these cases. so far
it has decided at all. in favor OF the rights of
the preemptors this ranch. Gentlemen from
California; of course do not speak of members
of this House-gentlemen interested largely in
lands in that State who have been belaboring men,
bers here for some time past with great industry
have procured appeal from the Interior Depart
10 the Attorney General of the United States,
and that officer has gveu opinion which think
one of the most extraordinary legal performances
of this generation. | ask the Clerk TO read the
passages which have marked. They so inter
esting that ask the House TO listen to them.
The Clerk read as follows
lands of the United States. matter how long contin
ued confers no right against the Government. 1t only
gives the settler the right under the preemption laws
the land occupied and improved when it is
open sale. and when he has complied with the cond
proof Of settlement and improvement and
payment OF the consideration prescribed by the stat
utes. l; is in compliance with those conditions that
alone rests an interest the land.
The land continues subject the absolute dispos