The weekly Butte record., 1867-06-15
Congregational Debate on the California
Land Bill.
(CoSrINUED FROM OUR LAST ISSUE. I

Mr.Hieby said: Does the gentleman desire to
have that report read only partially or in full!
Mr.. Julian: am willing it should all go into
the Globe. do not wish to consume my hour in
reading it in full.
Mr.. Highly: There may be vote taken before
members can see il in the Globe.
Mr.. Julian If it does not come out of my time
have no objection to having the whole of it read:
Mr.. Bidwell: do appeal to the gentleman from
Indiana to permit vote to be taken on the amend
ment IN the morning hour.
Mr.. Julian. shall make my argument just as
full and as thorough as | deem it my duty. The
question involved is an important one
The Speaker. Does the gentleman desire tn have
the whole of it read or only the part marked!
Mr.. Julian: Only the part marked. The remain
der will have inserted in the Globe.
1t will be seen by the facts stated in that report
that the act of Congsess of March g. 1868, OBJ
tanned by false aud fraudulent representations of
fact. as shall proceed more fully to show. But
first will ask To have read the rules of decision
which were adopted by the Land Office in the set
Element of these difficulties.
The Clerk read As follows:
Il. The land included in these cases was for a
considerable period regarded by many as a ranch
and designated the Susccl Ranch. As such it was
claimed by Don Mariana Guadalupe Vallejo. under
an alleged grant from the Mexican Government.
"Un the other hand there were those " ho con-
tended that the claim of Vallejo fraudulent,
and that the land was part of the domain of the
United States.
-. Inc contest AT length passed INTO the SUI
preme Court of the United States, and at the De-
cember term. 1851 it was rendered adverse TO Val
1ejo. and judgment entered on the 18th of March
in favor OF the United states.
..3 The immediate effect of this decision to
remove or destroy the claim of Vallejo and those
holding under him. Ii in fact declared that all
along the land belonged to the United States, and
as such had been. and must continue TO be, open
tn pre- emption under the general act OF Congress,
as any other part of the public land.
= fall thnf q
the requisite qualifications. who settled a pre-
enptor this land prior to the adjudication of
the supreme Court or subsequent thereto, and
prior to the special of Sd of March. 1868, and
who has properly kept up his inauguiated claim,
possesses vested right of which he cannot he de.
prived by any legislation of Congress. 1t Is indeed
not TO be presumed that Congress designed to dis
turb such rights by the special act.
80 This special act is in the nature of an ena-
bling OF remuneratye act and appears to he inten-
ded TO compensate. as far As proper the claim
ants under Vallejo for the loss sustained by them
as purchasers from him. in consequence of the de-
cision of the Supreme Court.
sc. II therefore requires that in order to estab-
lish a claim under the act il must first of all ap-
pear afirmatively that they are bona hde purchas-
ers from Vallejo OF his assigns.
al This implies two things. valuable consider
alton and the absence of notice of a valid adverse
pre-empton claim.
IS. Such purchasers. in the absence of valid ad
verse claims may be allowed the land originally
claimed by them TO the extent to which they show
that they have reduced il to possession. upon pro-
.lucing evidence OF compliance with the other pro-
visions of the law. This may include the whole of
the original purchase, only the part actually
cuped or possessed.
80. This occupancy or possession relates back to
the 24th of March. 1892. that being the period of
adjudication by the Supreme Court or the date OF
the entry Of the decree.
1.-The possession must then have existed: suhse-
quent reduction 10 possession cannot be consld-
cred.
The fact itself may be established by proof of
actual occupancy of the land at that date, or
the existence Of dwellings. improvements, OF en-
closures within marked trees stakes. stones. fem
ces az other visible lines or indications OF claims
to special tracts.
..l0. In addition TO proof of bona fde purchase
and OF reduction to possession, there must be proof
of settlement
BY settlement is meant residence within the
exterior limits of the ranch or original Vallejo
claim.
This settlement must necessarily be on a par
,icular tract and must be continued until the pre-
sentasien of the clau, at the local Office, or until
proven up.
Abandonment of a tract after the adjudication
of the Supreme Court. or before proving up, would
he forfeiture of claim.
The claim of non resident cannot be approved.
The fact OF residence on one tract, however
would give conditional validity TO 10 a claim for
other tracts Hence. a claimant establishing a
-
tacts il it appears that he purchased them IN good
faith from Vallejo or his assigns. and without no.
tce of an adverse valid claim. and that by employ
ees or tenants he had reduced them 10 possession
AT the date of the adjudication Of the Supreme
Court.
III. Conterminous claims rusv be allowed These
must come in ali other respects. within the re-
auirements of the act Of March 5. lssS-
IA The first section of the special act rendered
it lawful for me to cause the Suscol ranch 10 be
SURVEYED and have the plats returned 70 the local
Office upon they payment OF the expenses thereof
by the settlers according 10 the provisions OF the
tenth section of the act Of Congress of the seth o
May 1852, TO reduce the expenses of the survey
and sale Of public lands in the United States.
The required payment wsS commenced 9Th oe
tober, 1868, (sloo,) and completed November -
1865. and the plsts returned to the local Office IN
September. October. and December. 1858.
is. 1t must appear that the claims under ths
special act were presented 10 the local Office within
twelve months alter the return of the piats thereto
which took place as follows, namely.
n. Julian. The following letter will also b
found pertinent 10 the subject:
PHlLApELrHIA, May 50. 1856
have carefully examined the decision OF tn
Commissioner of the General Land Ohce of th
18th January last, in the Suscoi case; also tn
above argument of Hon. F. P. Stanton and other
in the same case. fully and clearly concur in al
the views set forth in said decision and argumen;
The general preemption law of lS4l was drawn b.
me As Senator Of the United States and membe
of the COMMITTEES on Public Lands and Of the judi
ciary Committee. ! was 3 member Of the Commit
tee on Public Lands in the United States Senaf
for neatly tao years, and Secretary OF the Treas
ury Of tie uaited States, en- appeal or refercno