The national Republican., 1869-03-02

cen placed upon tho report Of the House Q
judiciary Committee In favor lof this bill, a
ut II is 10 be noticed that upon the subject
4 the grant no allusion Ia made 10 the law
Mexican regulations and all the decisions OF
he suprcme Court touching that vital point
n the case are wholly ignored. Congress
,annot hold that there was grant In this ,
,asc without disrcgnrding the law under |
which II Ia alleged the grant was made, nor I
without trampllng under foot the repeated
md uniform decisions OF the Supreme Court
upon this subject, and unscttllng and over
turning tho whole system Of land titles In
California, upon tho stability Of which mil
Sons Of property and the peace Of whole com
depend for their existence.
To decide this question according 10 law
would be 10 reject the bill upon the ground
above stated, but an effort ls made 10 main
tain this claim upon rumor, hcarsay and
other evidence, which would not be con-
sidered for one moment In court Of justice.
Gomez alleges, In his petition to tho board
OF commissioners, that the land in question
was granted to him, and that his original
title papers were lost or destroyed, and II |
facts, as they are called, are enumerated In |
the House report In proof of this statement, |
one half Of which consists Of what Gomez |
said and did at various times about this |
matter. |
to prove the existence Of grant, but two, |
and the chief Of them, are the statements Of
Abrcgo and Moreno, who testify that they
saw the grant. One Of these was a witness
before the board Of commissioners, and the
other has since given his or pdrte affidavit.
Gomez, Abrego and Moreno are suitable as
sociates. They are equally notorious for the
forgeries and pcrjurics In which they have
been concerned. Gomez and Abrego were
the chief instruments Of forgery and false
swearing In the great Limantour swindle that
attracted 80 much Of public attention some
years ago. Ex-Secrctary Stanton visited
| California In 1858 In behalf Of the United
States In connection with land cases, and
| found that Abrego had been q witness TO
support SO, and Gomez 12 Mexican claims,
most Of which were ascertained 10 be frauds
or forgeries. Justice swaync, In the last Of
the California land cases, decided by the
Supreme Court, o Wallace, $50, In which
Gomez was convicted of forging false date,
| says:
Pieo, the governor, and Moreno, the seere-
tsry, testify that the d>tes are COZ rect, but u
| 10 admitted that their characters are so deeply
affected BY fraud aud perjury 10 other csses
that no weight eau safely be sirea to their
No written or record evidence OF a grant
Is produced, and to make the title to real es-
tate, worth at least half million OF dollars,
to depend upon the breath Of q couple OF
venai and pcrjurcd Mexicans, fortified by a
few unimportant circumstances, Is an out
rage upon the administration OF law and
justice.
Independent Of tho absence Of the proof
necessary to show grant, there Is a6lrma-
tive and cogcnt evidence that no grant was
ever made. The petition Of Gomez, the ref
crence by Jlmeno, and the report Of Rodri-
gucz, are produced from the archives, as 1t
Is said, but no grant Is produced. II Htulo
| Il. L.. Ill al,.HI
have been fonnd with the other documents.
Why should the deed be separated from
the papers to which II appertainsi Why
should the deed be destroyed and the less
valuable documents relating to the title be
preserved ! Imperfect expedientes, like the
: one In question, are not uncommon In Cali
fornia, and have been decided by the court:
, to be OF no effect.
Governor Micheltorcna, It Is said, made
this grant to Gomez In 1874. Jlmeno, thu
= secretary, who, II Is said, made the referenc,
| In this case, kept q book called "Jimeno'i
4 Index" which has been presented TO tn,
committee, In which there is q perfect ant
= complete index to every grant made by thu
v governor In that year. Besides this, ther,
q was book kept by the Mexican authorities
= known as the "Toma dc Razon," In whicl
. the grants made by the governor in 1874 ar
d more particularly. described. No allusiol
t whatever Is made In either Of these books +
=, the Gomez grant, and the courts Of Califor
!, MIA and the Supreme Court have uniforml
rejected as spurious any pretended grant
a made by the Mexican governor In 1874, t
70 of these carefully prepared records. As /
n the value Of these books, see 22 How, 405;
" Wallace, 742; Black, 29S; Black, 404; 2
l. How, $40.
Iy Great prominence Is given to the pare
evidence OF Abrego and Moreno in the Hous
report, but no notice Is taken Of these unin
peachable and unchanging records whic
where the question has arisen to be test
Of the gcnuineness and validity Of Mexica
lc land grants In California In 1874. Nothlr
has been said In argument about the falsi
, Of the Endorsements upon the petition
l. Gomez, and there Is some evidence Of the
70 genuineness; but large numbers of forg,
D, documents have been found among Il
C. archives from which 1t is said these We
taken, aud no man In California was mo
a. experienced or expert In forging such pape
10 than Vincent P. Gomez. Judging by any
AZ the recognized rules Of evidence II Is impo
IL sible TO hnd the fact to be that Gomez cv
u; had any grant for the land in dispute.
ID Reliance, however, Is chiefly placed
McGarrahan upon the judicial and exec
ry tive decisions made In favor OF his claiI
n and 1t Is alleged In the House report tn
a. five such decisions have been made In
u favor, when the fact Is that not one court
lis officer OF the Government has ever affirm
the validity Of his title upon Its merits, bl
he on the contrary, the board Of commission,
g. and the Supreme Court, the only two trih
nails In which the law and evidence apple
h. bic In the case were examined, have
,e. jected It rs void and worthless.
"a Respecting the proceedings before t
nd board OF commissioners 1t Is only necessa
In to repeat what was said by this committee
Its former report:
,er On the 9th OF February, 1883, Conner pc
lot California for the confirmation OF his ella
NJ 70 the Phnoohe Grande rancho, Representing
NE his petition that 4 was ot the extent Of q
his bly, destroyed. -Four Witnesses were cal
ne before the board Of land commissioners
HsrEo ssaeS that IN he yssr sss fstS Con
CD, showed him the title to the land called
nd, PAnoehe. Oscar de qrandkArque testines Il
40. tract Of land which he called Panoche Gran
be snythinE. J. I: ord ts;.inss that 10 Jsnas
re. were destroyed. lose castro testines thn,
.dv'SS ao%sT 70 sspP to the
The afterwards he heard that Conner had made
sen piioAtion and received a grant for 1t. Vi
OF jected the claim OF Conner, for want OF I
not session.
hs To obviate the effect OF this decision, |
said In the House report that the supre
W. Court In the case Of Fremont, II Howa
542, decided that omission to take possess
9th Of the land did not Of itself forfeit the Ri
oS oSe or grant.
sn, ssn, No such declsion was ever made by /
ok, court In any case, but the court held /
rds such an omission did not Glicays forfeit
ons title, and then proceeds to show that
an "a grantee was prevented by hostile Indl
led from taking possession, which the law
condition Of the grant expressly requii
IA In that case the record title was perfect,
ion the failure to take possession was repoi
to and approved by the Mexican Cove
a, meut.
,hso To show the understanding OF that
ia cislon by the House committee, 1t Is o
es necessary to say that the Supreme Co
since that case, have repeatedly decidet
.sry 80 MANI words, that "judicial posscssit
s ,ra, after the execution of the grant was ess
re- tial to the inyestiture Of the title. Mala
! In vs.. United States, Wallace, $780, Grab
nat VS.. United States, 4 Wallace, 261 and
oei oe decision Of the court In this Identical c