The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-03-29

The McGarrahan Claim.
The claim which II was supposed had been
finally disposed Of Is to be brought up again
In the Senate very shortly, and an effort will
DO again made to pass II. Amore iniqult-
Gus swindlc was never attempted upon the
Movement, to prove which, itlb oulyneces-
sary TO state tho bare facts IN the case, as
they appear in the following statement pub.
llshed In the San Francisco Times Of january
%, 1869. The California papers, with singu-
lar unanlmlty, all oppose the claim aud de.
nouuce II rs one devoid Of all merit, aud
covered all over with fraud. The statement
Is as follows, and Congressman are requested
to read II with care before giving their votes
for the bills
In the year 1853, one Vicente Gomez, q
native Californian, presented to the Board o (
Land Commissioners, claim for four square
leagues. of land in the county Of Monterey,
styled the rancho "Panoche Grande." The
claim was rejected by the board. An appeal
was taken to the District Court Of the South.
em district Of California. Pacihcus Ord,
who appeared as the attorney Of Gomez be-
fore the board, and to whom Gomez had
conveyed an undivided one half Of the ranch,
| had become the District Attorney Of the
United States for the Southern district of
California. Ord procured another attorney
to represent the claimant In the District
Court, and when the case was called, he
stated TO the court that he had examined the
papers, and that he knew no reason why the
claim should not 10 connrmed; and an order
was accordingly entered, directing the claim
ants counsel TO draw decree Of conflrma-
tiou. This order was Issued on the 5th day
Of june, 1857; the decree Itself was not Gu
tered until the nth day OF January, 1883.
At q subsequent term Of the court. 0gier,
the district judge, having heard OF Ord's in
terest In the claim, entered an order revoking
the decree Of confirmation. 0gier died, and
was succeeded by Halght. Haight made an
order annulling the order Of 0gier as i'm
provldently entered, the judge having lost
control Of the case by the lapse Of the term
at which the decree was entered. This was
legal reinstatement of the decree. Finally,
an appeal was taken from the decree Of con-
irmation 10 the Supreme Court OF the United
States. Upon the argument Of this appeal
several technical questions were raised by
the counsel for the claimant.
Among others, II was commended that the
appeal had not been taken within the Ave
years allowed by law. This point turned
upon the question whether the time was to
for the decree wal entered, or from Janu-
airy, 1858, when the decroe was actually
entered. The Supreme Court decided all The
points raised by the claimant, as barrier
between the court and the merits of the
case, against the claimant, and seized the
case with an unsparing hand. They declared
that the claim was entirely without merits;
they commented In the soyerest manner upon
the conduct of Ord, and unanimously re-
he aft ba Ill bo
case Is reported In the Esd of Howard and
the Sd of Wallace. A perusal Of both opln-
Ions will repay the labor Of the curious In
qulrer.
Whilst the case was yet pending In the
District Court, McGarrahan purchased the
remaining interest Of Gomez. The general
law concerning the survey OF these land
laims, and that which alone authorizes n
patent, requires that the survey shalt be pub
llshed for sixty days, and that any party In
interest may file his objections to the survey
in the Office of the Surveyor General within
that period. But in 1862 an act of Congress
was procured authorizing any claimant of
confirmed grant to have u survey made at
his own expense by the Surveyor General,
and making such survey, not the warrant for
patent, but priMd Jdeic evidence Of the
proper location of the grant. Under this act
McGarrahan procured survey Of the Gomez
Eiuut " uC uitut III loOSs Which was htNtI
published, but lay unchallonged In the
archives OF the Land Commissioner at WASH
lngton.
Upon this survey McGarrahan sought to
obtain patent, upon the ground that the
grant had been confirmed, and that the time
of taking appeal had lapscd. In this at
tempt he was thwartcd by the determined
opposition Of the excellent Commissioner Of
the General Land Office, upon the ground
al. s.l.
the opportunity Of contest, afforded the only
basis for q patent. This point he stoutly
maintained against the opinions OF two Sec
rctaries Of the Interior. The .contcc. UPON
this subject was ended by the perfecting Of
the appeal upon the part of the United
States. By the decision Of the Supreme
Court, the question Of the legal claim of
Gomez and his grantees was finally disposed
of.
But now comes McGarrahan to the Con-
gress of the United States, and says that he
purchased one half of this ranch from
Gomez, and that he was innocent and igno-
rant of the manifold frauds Of Ord and
Gomez, and prays that an act may be passed
by which he may be allowed to purchase, not
the half, but the whole of the Gomez claim
as It is located by the secret survey OF 1852,
at the price of S1.25 per acre. This bill, In
PRODUCED In the House of Representatives,
was referred TO the judiciary IOnmlttcc, anu
being reported upon favornbly, 1t passed that
body by large majority in the spring of
1868. Coming to the Senate, 1t was referred
to the Committee on Private Land Claims,
The active members Of this committee con-
sisted of Messrs. Williams, of Oregon, Ferry,
of Connecticut, and Howard, OF Michigan.
Further proofs were ordered, and the case
was deliberately argued " counsel on both
sides. Before this committee were read the
deposition of the Surveyor General of Cali
fornia and the certificate OF the Commits
sioner of the General Land Office of the
United States, from which 1t clearly appears
that, by the survey Of 1862, the Gomez claim
has been Aoated sixteen miles south, to make
II cover the New Idrla mines. This deposl.
ton and the certificate are too long to be In
| troduccd into this article; but they will be
left at the Office of the Times for the inspec,
tion Of any person who is curious enough "a
examine them. The evidence Is oyerwhelm.
ing, and Ii led to tho unanimous report Of
the committee recommending the indefinite
postponement of the bill. The report of the
committee was adopted, and the bill was In
definitely postponed.