The national Republican., 1869-03-02

md the object of the claimants was very near I
ss oS,s %s,. Y ss
Attorney General Bates says, In letter TO
he Secretary OF the Interior, dated May 30, |
You suggest that an examination of these
papers Win probably convince me that no sp-
psr hs. ben Or can ncr be ,s,, taken is ne ease
tssy % have f.iisa to oonyioee ne hat no appeal
o. q he 20 ss n Ss
Of the counsel for the claimant to you, and 10
s' 81 sSsiSys sSssiy 70 p%jSss % Psas Ps"s.on 1U ON: o.
title, strong and convincing proof that y V
my duty to secure for the United states falr
aud impartial hearing OF the case in ths su'
I nov propose to state brieny the reasons
why this ease should be examined N the So.
preme Court, -nd why think that " may yet
oa the 9Th Of February, lss, Conner, by
p.eau. Ord b.; h,sd ~. e,.i% Sn,o5s
the board OF land eommissioners, And In
March, 1855, II was rejected. Since that time
Of Ia.,,cs. hui have s,roes reasoo 70 believe
that u II can be subjected TO such an examina.
tiop It will he proved TO bea naked, impudent,
Nv what fraudulent arts the Judicial expo
sure OF this fraudulent title has been pre-
vented now proceed TO state
commission, ord, the counsel OF domeI, was
the southern district OF Usiifornia, Having |
Of the land eommission to the district court for |
the northern district, tthe notice OF which, |
though .snsa sy ,pSsss 10 ~, ,tsa,sy1d
from tho northern to the southern district |
The interests Of the Unitcd states 10 the case
control, cont while occupying ihi. relation to the
cssr, he took from Conner, for the nOmtnri
confederation Of one dollar, transfer OF one
ance ia dated 2ith November, 1855. in June,
1851, the court being In session, Ord handed the
record to NJ, aartnsn and sold him ~, = ys ,ss
| claimant had no counsel and that " was de-
| sirabie to have Il disposed Of At Ord's re,
Sss; Il. S.snss a II 'snSs sss ssa
iha, the United States had no ohlection the
court ordered y to be confirmed, but no decree
was then signed.
| In any aspect, therefore, which the case may
| assume, the right Of the United states to a
hearing 10 the supreme Sourt & linus mus, pc son con,
| Of the fraudulent character OF the claim 10 this
case, and OF the fraudulent means by which II
duty II hesitsted to assert the right OF the
united States to fair hearing upon Its mer'
Much is said about the decision Of secrc-
taries Smith and Usher, and they are called
combinations Of this claim. It appears that
tho Commissioner Of the General Land Of
fee was Of the opinion that McGarrahan
was not entitled to a patent, and Secretary
Smith was appealed to upon the subject, and
gave his opinion, hot that the claim OF Nc.
Garrahan was right or Just, but that the dc.
cision Of the district court had become final
and the department could not go behind IT,
, lie says In so many words, 'thc suggcs'
I Al. I..s In Nlo,
ner Of procuring Its confirmation are rel
ddjtdieatd."
This was In December, 1869, and Usher
the successor of Smith, simply acquiesced In
. the views OF his predecessor In March, 1858
, There was no appeal pending In the su
preme Court at these dates, and both Secre
taries evidently thought that the judicia
controversy was ended. Let II be noticed
I however, that these Secretaries held that tn
A. decision Of tho judiciary In this case Is con
/, elusive upon the executive department.
That department must then hold, accord
? | ing to the Judgment Of the court Of last re
I sort, that the claim Of McGarrahan Is vol
= and worthless. 1t Is incredible that an
weight should be given to the opinions Q
executive officers, founded exclusively upo
the decision Of district court, when thn
: Identical decision has been reversed and SC
aside by the Supreme Court. Nine judges c
tho Supreme Court, after full argument b
. the most eminent counsel In the country
!. have unanimously decided that the claim
u McGarrahan was groundless and void, Will
!; one Judge Of q district court, deceived b
, y the trick Of dishonest attorney, and witt
. out any examination of the merits, rs b
9 says, has given judgment In favor Of Its VI
;, lidity. Divested Of all rubbish, this Is th
z way the judicial controversy In this cas-
10 stands before Congress.
" Two Attorneys General, distinguished
% their profession and thoroughly yersed
'e the history and law of California land III
~ cation, pronounce the claim OF McGarraha
Te worthless upon Its merits, while two Seer
ID taries Of the Interior give opinions In |
rr favor, founded upon the decision Of distri
y, Judge, obtained by fraud, and afterwards 7
W versed by an appellate tribunal. This Is Il
,e way the executive authorities In this ca
er stand before Congress.
er President Lincoln's name has been draw
q. into this controversy. One Of the parti
=, interested with McGarrahan says, In Il
is. ter TO the House committee, dated Janua
he 20, 1859, that In the spring Of 1854 Mr.. Ii
o. coin ordered the patent to Issue to McGarr
in han, and thereupon II was engrossed n
he signed, &c.
N This statement Is controyerted by the ass
Mt cinte Attorney General at that time. 7
" party interested says he made his apple
'1- ton In 1854, and the patent bears date 4
l
~ ~ this application was made the case "
W pending In the Supreme Court upon appc
W and the motion to dismiss for want OF jur
~ diction was argued In February, 1854; q
~ iu 1t would be very strange for the President
~, order patent to issue to party when
~, ,'a right thereto was In controversy before
he Supreme Court, where It might be decid,
-, as II was In this case, that he had no ril
NJ NJ to such patent.
~, ny Congress, for the purpose Of carrying
~ ~ the stipulations Of the treaty Of Guadalt
us Hldalgo, in 1851, passed IN act allowing
m 'mnh persons claiming lands under Mexican I'll
Me aa two years in which to present them for
'o' animation to board organized for that p
, pose. Provisions were made for an app
,he ls TO the district and and Supreme Courts Of
S,b United States. Twice the limitation of
ore act has been extended, and McGarrahan
hat had the full benefit Of oil Its beneficent p
visions.
sP Among the other provisions of that nc
tia is expressly declared that when land clG
shall be finally declared invalid by the
on. premc Court the land shall be "deemed, b
'Iny Iny and considered as part Of the domain OF
,ga United States" In December, 1865,
Zee Supreme Court finally decided tho claim
eli, McGarrahau to be invalid, and the land
had came part of the public domain, subjec
soI, settlement and purchase like any other I
RE- | of the public lands of like description.
low the 10th OF July, 1866, Congress passed
rec act authorizing persons in possession Of n
ted TED eral lands Of the public domain, upon cert
/, ,o, nf terms aud conditions therein prescribed
tbe | enter the same at the local land office
'est receive patent therefor.
not Certain citizens engaged In mining u
OF and in possession Of the lands in'dlspute
@ 'nr' the passage Of said act, and In pursuance
!, he Its provisions, have entered, purchased
lon paid for the same, and now occupy and eli
the under the title so acquired. Can Congr
re, , by an arbitrary act Of legislation, I
ord, this property away from those mir
the by authorizing patent to issue to MEGA
hat hani To say nothing Of such moral
iIg rage, would the courts uphold and emf,
,nn me such an acti Time and again It has
irer decided by the Supreme Court that whe
was patent issues to one person aud the rigi
as the land acquired under the pre-emp
. laws is In another, the presumption r
80 may draw to 1t, through the action of
np. Judiciary, the title conyered by the pat
'ha, Garland VS.. Wynn, 20 How, p. o. Line
uod VS.. Howes, Q Black, p. 55l; 1st Wallace
109.)
lent | IL ,nodo a., tho Hnuao rarn,