The national Republican., 1867-04-10
THE COURTS.

SUPREME CoURT or THE UNITED STATES
TrEs1AI. April q 1867
On motion Of Mr.. Gushing, Henry Flanders,
esq., Of Pennsylvania, was admitted an attorney
and counsellor oi thiS court.
No. 42o. Josefa de Haro, OF al, appellants,
vs. The Uuited States. The argument Of this
cause was continued by Mr.. Attorney General
stanbery, Of counsel for the appellesSj by Mr..
Stewart, Of counsel for the appellants, and by
Mr.. Wills Of counsel for the appelees.
Adjourned till tomorrow at II o'clock.
Msriodn titles ia CdiiJornia-The de Haro
| cldir-Ihe tract claimed siiiridte3 at from I've
to J6j1een miiiions-Jo5efa de- Haro, ct al, ap.
psiiants %. The United Siatss, This Is q case
involving vast landed interests In California the
claim being for half square league Of land, Is.
timatsd, according 10 the location that shall
| finally bo given II, II the claim 10 allowed, at
| from Ave to fifteen millions Of dollars. II 10
claimed that the grants will be found to embrace
large portion-one third-of the city Of San
Franciscoi but the present claimants do not un.
dertake to establish title to any portion Of the
city.
The original grantees, from whom the claim.
\ ants derive title, Ramon and Francisco do
Haro, were killed at san'Rafasl, Marion county,
California, BY the Americans In the war Of 1s46,
which led to the annexation Of California To the
United state'. Their father, they being unmar.
ried, became their heir. he dying in 1s49. His
suNOosoott III lntoTobt WoIo InluOT Klrlh anu
one minor son. From these latter heirs the
estate passed into the hands Of numerous Of the
most respectable citizens Of the United States,
| resident In California, (among whom perhaps the
most largely interested 10 O. X. Gantson, now Of
New York; who until q recent period, shared In
the prevailing ignorance Of Spanish laws and
| customs, and had, like tho minor children from
whom they take title, "vsry It'll. knowledge Of
what the papers were on which they relied for
title. THAR nature and oonlanta ~
Almost every one who has known anything Of
California has some knowledge Of the history Of
the gross frauds which were practiced, afer those
lands became valuable, having become a portion
| Of the domain Of the United States. Such frauds
were It is alleged, perpetrated in many instances
BY the very oficial. who. under Mexico, were
| entrusted with the duty Of granting lands; and
the identity Of signature, the character Of the
signer, and tho confusion which prevailed
| In the archives Of the former Government, rem
dered 1t easy to impose spurious, antedated docu.
ments, not only on purchasers, but on the bar
and the judiciary.
| In this case the claimants wsre so imposed
certificate Of judicial possession. These spuri.
Gus papers they, II is alleged, in good faith pre-
sented to the land commission, established by
the act Of 1851, and the judges Of the commits
sion and special agent Of the Government were
equally unable to detect the fraud, and the
claimants title was allowed. Upon appeal to the
District Court these grants were found to bS
fraudulent, and the claim was rejected. subse.
quently the claim was revived on documents al
alleged to be genuine, the claimants themselves
representing thetw grants upon which they be-
fore relied and insisting that they shall not only
not bo adjudged parties to those frauds, but thai
their claims shall not be prejudiced by the fraud
of others, so perfectly executing the document,
that even the land commission was deceived BY
them.
There are two questions involved-arst Of titl'
and second Of location.
F. A. Dick, M. Blair, WIN. M. Stewart, Judg,
Black, and VIM. M. Evarts, for appellants.
H. s. Brown and Caleb Cushing for settlers.
Jos. N. Carlisle and Senator Colo for city o
San Francisco.
Henry stanbery, J. A. Wills for the Govern
| ment.