The national Republican., 1869-03-02
The Me,.arrnhan CIsfm.

The following Is the report nasdc I'D tue
Senate Of the United States on the 2ith of
February by Mr.. Williams, on the bill for the
relief of VIM. McGarrahani
The undersigned, OF the Committee OIL Pri-
vate Land Claims, respectfully submit tho
following report as to House bill No. G5,
entitled IA bill for the relief Of Vim. Nc
Garrahan:"
Paramount to all other considerations con-
nected with this case, Is the question MS to
whether or not there was grant to Vincent
p. Gomez, by the Governor Of Upper Call
fornia, In 1874, as claimed by McGarrahau.
If there was no grant, 1t must be admitted
that the bill ought to be rejected.
To determine this question II Is necessary
to decide, In the first place, as to what con-
stituted grant of land In California In 1874.
Mexican law, and the decisions Of the Su-
preme Court Of the United States, settle this
point beyond all controversy.
Justice Davis, delivering the opinion OF the
Supreme Court in the case of Peralta vs..
United States, 8 Wallace, 40, says;
The record pas he grant, and without II the
utIp W Is NOT dIyested. The Governor was Te.
quired ~ give q document TO the party inter
ested, which was evidence Of title, aud enabled
him to get possession; but this "utulo" did
not diyest the title, unless record WAS made In
| conformity with law.
| Written documentary evidence, no matter
ported BY the Testimony Of witnesses, wiz not
| there II may be said that the archives OF the
couGtry may be lost or destroyed, and so, that
the party In Interest should not suffer. This
true; and the claimant s"G show , to she
made In conformity to law and recorded, and
that the record Of It has been lost or destroyed,
ary | syidenes OF Of il. But the sbssnce o, resoTd
evidence 10 necessarily fatal. unless that sb.
sence can be accounted for. Testing the case
connrmed. There 10 neither a grant nor ar.
chive evidence. II there had been grant ac-
oording to law, the expediente would have re.
msined In the hrchivesj but there 10 no trace
OF 1t there, and II 10 produced from private
hands, which tends strongly to shoY that the
Governor never saw 1t. 1.-THE grant had been
sion would have been glven to the grantee OF
the lands which were conveyed. This was not
done, and no reason 10 assigned for the omis.
sion.
In United States VS., Cambuston, 20 How,
the court say;
The court must look to these laws for both
the power to make the grant, anu for the mode
and manner Of Its exercise. For Augh'
has never been recorded In the proper book
or, indeed, In any book OF the spanish records
This 10 expressly required by The regulation
, | OF November, ls2s, and enJ ined In the gran
Itself. The record sh ould have been produced
for.
In United States VS.. Castro, "a How, $40
the Chief Justice In an elaborate opinion
said
Whenever, therefore, a party claims title tC
general rule 10 that the grant must be found IL
the proper office among the public archives
, this 10 the highest and best evidence.
. But In order to maintain title BY secondary
evidence, the claimant mast show TO the salts
, faction Of the court; lat, That the grant tBd
obiain,d and made In the manner the law re
aN at Inn md af
ne proper QBieej 3D. That the papers IN ha
Office, or some OF them, have been lost or de
stroyedi aud %; He must support this proc
by showing that within reasonable time afte
the grant was made, there was d judicial sur
psv Of the land, and actual possession BY hin. b
s ~ ss sst,sssa rss OTsr br III
party from some private receptacle, and IN,
handwriting OF the officiAl signatures prove'
executed when It bears date, It 10 but paro
testimony open to doubt, since Its auth henticit!
depends upon the truth or falsehood OF tn
R " he public s'aS records 81 s o. Tie Nation.
In United States vs.. Nelelgh, Black, 800
Mr.. Justice Grier says
I when a grant is produced for the hrst lin
from the pocket OF the claimant and is at
tempted to be established BY Ptooi Of the .ig
natures OF the governor and secretary, 70,
want Of an expedient or Arohive evidence II
expected to be excused by the proof that SOM
papers were lost and torn, when they wer
carried away OF mules oy poionsi FLenpp, ,l n,,
Pioo,s theory. The enormous Jraudi iohie
| kapS bssn dhsmpfed 10 be psrpeiTdied, depsndin
on IAI theory or The dsIiruetion ot records, hGv
eou.psilfd uS 10 reject u as altogether Jdbuioui
Thsse archives have been collected, and ar
iound In q very tolerAble state OF preserve
lion. Hence the propositions laid down y
the castro case, and others preceding w. Wer
An A6soiute necessity to save the goVeTnmen
from utter spoliatioh Of Its territory
These authorities are conclusive upon tn
question, and show that the record Is th
grant, and that without any record no It'll
passes from the Government totho claimant
No evidence has been submitted TO show tn
I eIistence Of recordi but, on the contrary
Il 10 assumed by McGarohaD, AMI the doeu