The national Republican., 1869-03-02

laim. Judge ORicr, In whose court tnis 4
isgraccful transaction occurred, learning
his ffsuduisnt confirmation BY an order, In
Fhich ke sad IL
whersas ithas come 20 the knowiedss Of 4
" this sourtia this ease was frsuduisntiy oh.
ifiot attorney. p. Ord, and other counsel in the
,sse, and y appearing TO the sstisf.otion Of
Ihe court, from testimony on record In the
ior The unit.a States, % was. % AZ tS: time Of
making said decree, Interested In the land
claimed 10 SAID cause adversely to the United
there was no objection to tho s5narmstlon Of
the clsin siors.sia 90 The part i,s o. ,hs usi,sa
thus deeeiving the court, and obtnining . de-
cree in his own favor under the false pretence
O. reprc,.ntl.s The iatsts.s ot The uoitsd
eeedings heretofore hNd In said cause be set
aside, and the cause be put on the calendar,
snd set for trial Dc moro according to law.
Judge Ogier soon aftcr died, and =. W.
Haight wSs appointed as his successor.
MeGarrahan then objected to the validity Of
the second decree OF Judge Ogier for the |
want Of Jurisdiction, and on that ground II |
was held to be invalid; but Judge Haight, In
making his decision, saidi
with the mode and manner and reason for
the exercise OF the power assumed by my pre-.
deces.or no fault can be found. more gros,
case Of fraud by those charged with the care
Of public rights has rarely been presented'
The late district attorney, Pacinuus Ord. ESQ
owning shout two thirds ~ q ,he la land e,.imra,
the opinion OF the land commissioner and de-
ereeing n conhrmation TO the claimant for
s,es .sy he % Iss.t of doSSi, and eonarmstPon Of
the grant and .mount claimed would not pro-
ably have taken place u the matter had been
my predecessor. on learning the f,o,s, should
have been indignant and setthe whole ssi'ie.
Justice Wayne, In United States vs.. Go
mez, 90 Howard, page SO, referring to the
confirmation obtained by the consent Of Ord,
says
II 10 q dsiieste and most unweleome task
| we are performing, but u must be done In
| order that yioi,ted justice may be viniioated,
acu that ofieial purity Of conduct In our courts
mAv be preserved and be unsuspeetch.
| The rccord upon which thla ease was dock.
| eted and dismissed, In connection with the
| book OF exhibits sent to this court by Judge
Oxier, establishes In our view the following
That Mr.. Ord became the purchaser Of half
the land 10 controversy from uomeI, the
s.s ws's ssse ss va ,ss sss
@ pspss, sisass ~ ); q Gfo.sy, icy u. rs%oysi
| Of the cause from the board OF land cnmmis.
sioneys to the district court, tha, Mr.. Ord did
no. ofneisily, as district attorney, represent
the United States 10 the case In the district
l
be done BY Others who wrre Interested In es.
| tabiishing the claim OF Gomez, to whom he
gave hts Official confidence and who are shown
by the record not to have been the retained at
nasat to be taken sgalnst the Uultcd State.
w,hout, ,ss,ga,%Sen, Ss III. Psoiss,i"a o. pro-
to the land, BY saying to the court. iu his ON.
eiai charscter, that the United States had no
objection 10 the claim.
Justice Clifford, In United States VS.. Gomez,
1st Wallace, page 700, referring to the same
subject, says:
the decree was passed upon the ground thai
the decree had been fraudulcntly obtainei, u
appearing to the satisfaction Of the court
triot attorney was, at the time Of mSking N,
decree, interested In the land claimed 10 tn,
cause advt rely to the United States.
state ment OF the court also shows that tn,
district attorney represented to the court ths
there was no objection to the confirm alton o
, The elalm, aud tia. q decree wa. sons,
|. the merits OF the claim, and the charge 10 tina
the district attorney deceived the court ant
i false pretenee Of repre.entius The Interests o
q | the United States. Testimony was taken upoi
n the subject, and the charge as stated va, full!
proved
: The Supreme Court In Sd Wallace, 167, re
q affirms the fraudulent character of the con
n firmation, and decides against the claim a
a follows:
Regarding the case 40 regularly before tn
court, II becomes necessary to examine tn
he sI.m 1iln sossS.e sS.s Il .pieSen 4.
oil four leagues Of land, whereas the only doeu
2 mcnt introduced In support OF It which 10 q
o insI claim snt as having asked for but thre
l leagues. Document referred to purports to b
3 the petition of the claimant to the Governor
=, but there is 10 concession or grant, nor
- there any satisfactory evidence that any III
y OF any kind was ever issued by the Goyetnc
n | to the claimant. He states In his petition
Ii the land commissioners that he obtained VI
Ia map In the record from the Proper officers
but The FoSl ssse .ss .
IN examined by the claimant before the lsr
lg commissioners, but only one OF the numb
ty pretended that he had ever seen tho gran
Of and hts statements are quite too Indefinite
y. br received as satisfactory proof
~ ~ Instead OF proving possession under u
ed grant, IL Ia aatisfacfotily shown thathe new
he Occupied 1t at all, and Is doubtful u he sr
re saw the premises during the Mexican rul
~ Land commissioners rejected the claim, u,
rs court his attorney had been appol lnted III
OF triet attorney for the United states and u
or the land to the district attorney. Circu
" stances of the confirmation Of the claim
the District Court are fully stated In u
oy 9pinion OF ths eonrt, given Whsn ,,nS ne m,
m. upon those circumstances are unnecehsaI
at except to say that the confirmation was frat
Il. ulently OOthineu.
nr Considering that every court and Judge
al fore whom this claim was ever brought Ia
nj denounced 1t, as indicated In the foregoi
srs extracts from their opinions, II Is very lit
IN. remarkable that the House report shou
"a say that II had been twice judicially
rc- termined by the action of the courts th
McGarrahan was the legal owner Of t
he rancho Panochc Grande.
~ Elaborate arguments have been submit
-. u.
Court had no Jurisdiction of the case of /
III. United States VS.. Gomez, because Ave yct
10 had elapsed before an appeal was taken frC
I'm the District Court. Upon this question
10 Supreme Court, In l Wallace, pages o.
b,. 900, says:
led Appeal to this court was allowed on
to 26th day Of August, 1852. Opinion OF the co
ose confirming the claim was delivered on the
lez day OF June, 1851, more than Ave years bef
La the appeal was taken. Claimant assumes Il
IN shs
out not be sustained, as Is evident from momer
Ms. OF as rsS0Ss 20 Ss Eay
ns, formity to such opinion. No decree Of :
10 kind, however, was drawn up, entered, or II
hat that on the 7th day OF January, 1855, a dec
APP was hled in the case, and the decree Its
p5n after referring to the fact that the claim
,os. states that, Having been omitted to sign
enter a decree therefor at the date last afC
L Ia said, It 10 ordered that the same be done n
mo for them" Decree As thus filed was for tn
ny square leagues Of land, more or less, situa
lrd, | In the county OF Monterey, State OF Gall
Ion mia, aud bounded on the north by l,ndi
ght Julian Uraura, on the south by hills, on
east by the valley Of TulaTes. and on the "
h., by lands Of Francisco Arias. Donee was
nut satisfied with the decree, and on the tth da,
nat February, 1858. obtained leave to amend
the same by substituting another IN Its stead.
the suant to that leave, on the following day
ans filed new decree, enlarging the deScript
Ia OF the tract to four square leagues, and
anu same was catered and signed by the dist
red. Judge. Argument can add nothing to the fO
and OF this statement, As drawn from this rec
tel Plainly there was no decree OF any kind 10
,rn- case until the Itf OF January, 1858, and As
''" was ordered to be amended by substitut
smother In Its stead, the final decree In
de- case was that OF the 9th OF February follow
My Five years, therefore, had not elapsed a
,Irt the decree was entered before the appeal
4 ~ taken, and consequently the hrst ground
= ~ sumed In the motion cannot be sustained.
On As TO the want Of citation, about whicl
zen much Is said, 1t Is simply ridiculous to
irln peal to Congress upon q question Of
'am kind, when both parties appeared and arg
the the case fully upon Its merits.
'ase McGarrahan has filed printed docum