The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-04-08

hSius' hhFe pcrsOnhily Known Plantations
on which for series Of years seventy five
per centum Of the natural increase Of the ne
groes were literally murdered after that fash.
ion, 1t being the received theory Of profitable
planting under slavery's rule that 1t was
cheaper to buy able hands from the eastern
and northern slave-holding States than Ia
raise them.
what the McGarrahan Claim would
| Cost the Government.
In former articles upon the subject OF thu
McGarrahan "swlndle" or "claim," as hi
friends choose to call Il, We have demon
strated to the satisfaction of every reason
able mind that his "clalm" is not only worth.
less, but that II had Its birth In fraud, and
has grown up in crime. But there is another
aspect In which the case should be consid.
cred, and that Is Its probable cost to the Gov
eminent aud Its relation to titles to land In
the State Of California. From the report OF
Senators Williams and Ferry already cited
In previous articles, we take the following
paragraphs bearing upon this point:
"slxty-nine California land cases have
been decided by the Supreme Court, COM
mencing with Fremont's case, In the nth of
Howard, and ending with Stearns VS.. The
United States, In the 9th Of Wallace. In 80
OF these cases the claims have been rejected 4,
and In 80 confirmed. This report affirms,
and contradiction from any source Is chal-
lenged, that not one of the 80 claims rejected
was so weak In the Supreme Court as this
claim OF Gomez vs.. The United States, upon
which Congress Is asked to give to McGar-
rahan property worth hundreds Of thousands
OF dollars, made by the labor and means OF
other people.
"Many Of the towns and cities of Califor-
mia, and most Of San Francisco, are covered
by these rejected claims; and II Congress s
to readjudicate and reverse one case upon
or pdrte evidence, then the other IS will be
resurrected, and an army OF land sharks,
lobby agents and lying witnesses will invade
the Capitol and dehle the halls OF legisla-
tion with their schemes of forgery and per-
Jury.
"Considering the progress that this case
has made In legislation, how ought the
farmer and miner In California to tremble
for their homes and lands, covered by some
Old Mexican claim that has been condemned
as fraudulent by the Supreme Court, when
It is brought before Congress, and a bag full
OF the affidayits OF drunken and venal Mexi-
cans, who can be hired for five dollars
apiece to swear to anything, is produced to
show the Supreme Court was mistaken in
Its decision"
II McGarrahan's claim was at all Just, or
If 1t was founded upon proper basis, we
would be among the last to urge its rejection
on account Of any cost in which 1t might In.
yolye the Government Of the United States,
or because 1t would unsettle land titles In
California. But we have had no evidence
yet that the claim has so much as n shadow
Of foundation. On the contrary, all the
records, all the decisions of the courts, the
opinions of Attorney Generals of the United
States, &C., are against it-all agreeing that
1t should not receive the countenance of the
Government. McGarrahan claims to have
obtained good title from Gomez, and In
order to pass good title 1t was first neces-
sary that Gomez should himself have an in
disputable claim. He did not have that,
and upon this point we quote from the very
able argument Of Mr.. Titan J. CofIey, as
follows;
"Now, Gomez produced neither the record
off grant nor tbs grant Itself. He nepsr had
a grant, No California land claim ever went
before the Supreme Court more destitute of
proof either of grant recorded or of grant
actually made, and II the court had con-
irmed this claim they would have tram
Piled down the whole current of their decs-
Ions, and thrown the California land law
into hopeless confusion. Congress is asked
to do this now.
" When a grant has been satisfactorily
proped, the Supreme Court has been most
liberal In recognizing the equities OF claim
ants, overlooking technical and even i'm
portant defects Of title to enforce the will of
the Mexican Government. But without a
grant the title OF Mexico never was Invested
and the claimant had no equities under the
treaty Of Guadalupe Hldalgo. Hence, when
the court, In this case, found that Gomez
had no grant, aud no proof that grant had
ever issued, they rejected his claim. They
did not inquire, las they otherwise would have
done, whether his preliminary petition, or
der for report, and report Gall the papers he
ever had) were genuine or forged. As the
court say, In United States vs.. Palmer, (24
How, 1885, where there was no grant, she
did not ShoW eysn an inehodte e9tdty.'
"SoJ did Gomez ever take possession Of
the laid claimed. We have seen that the
Mexican law expressly required this. (See
Regulations Of November 81, 1928, articles
18th and l2thi Rockwells Min. Laws.) The
necessity of possession, under the COLOMBIA
ton laws Of 1924 and 1928, to a valid grant,
has been repeatedly affirmed by our Supreme
Court In these cases. Many cases might be
cited. In Malarn VS.. United States, q
Wallace, $780, and in Graham VS.. United
States, q Wallace, 26l, the court say that
by the Mexican law, formal delivery of
possession, after the execution of the grant,
was essential to the inyestlture Of the title,
which formal delivery was called giving
'juridical possession" Fremont's case Is
to the same effect for, the paper title and
record proof Of 1t being perfect, the court &c.
cepted proof Of an attempt to take possession,
which was prevented by the presence OF hos
tile Indians, as an excuse for not taking pos
session, as required by law and by the terms
nation Of the opinion in Fremont's case, by
the Chief Justice, in United States VS.. Cas-
tro, ga Howard, 3i6O and see United States
VS.. Noe, (23 How, 3l2.)
"In the United States VS.. Yorba, q Wal,
4l2,) 1t was commended the grant was in
valid, becaused II did not contain the usual
condition OF soliciting and receiving posses
sion; but the court held that, the grantees
having been In actual possession when they
petitioned for the grant, the insertion of that
condition was unnecessary, and they would |
not reject the claim for an ON Isslon In a |
matter OF form.
"McGarrahan's counsel has made q new |
discovery, viz that those regulations which |
required cultivation and occupancy of the |
granted land applied only to grants TO en-
prsSSdriOs, and not to heads Of families or
private persons. Our answer Is:
"lst. That the Supreme Court, for thirteen
years, In numberess cases, has recognized
the necessity Of cultivation and occupancy
to validity OF title In grants to private per-
sons, and the distinction now discovered was
never heard of before.
"2 That the grants to private persons by
The Mexican Governors In California, con-
aimed as conditions that the grantee, within
year, should build house aud inhablt IT,
md that he should solicit the proper magis-
rate to give him legal possession In virtue
u the title, by whom the boundaries should
'e traced OUT &c. (see form Of grant by
Governor Micheltorena to q private person,
n Appendix No. 8, to Halleck's report on
avs and regulations relative to grants or
tales Of public lands In California, page 81,
Library. See also grants In
al the reported cases.) And, Sd. In this