The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1870-11-25

HAOAAJ uHduOuOltAou, anu WHICH
would have been an arbitrary exer-
else of power not conferred upon
him.
The urgency with which the Sec
retary insisted upon deciding the
matter in question, in favor Of the
New Idria Company, and issuing to
them a patent for the land in qU) :
ton, irrespective of the report which
the Congressional Commit 90 sbonld
make, and the decision Of CONGRESS-
upon the subject, y.naking his with.
drawal from the. Cabinet an alterna.
tive would either indicate that the
oeoreta'" was interested in the deci-
SioD of the question, or that be re-
IPArded himself as the power behind
the throne greater than the throne
itself," and not subordinate officer
whose duty was TO obey the direc-
tion of 8 Superior officer. In either
case he met with a merited rebuke,
and his withdrawal from the Cabinet
was, perhaps, the most judieious ac-
ton of his administration, though it
should put him on the list of perma-
nently retired public servants.
That our readers may bave clear
understanding of the matter, we
give below a succinct history of the
case, from which it would appear that
the course Of the SECRETARY was in
defensible, and that the President
acted strictly within the line of his
duty, when he refused to allow the
Secretary to carry is to effect his
rash conclusion, and directed him.
to await the action of Congress. But
to the case:
Some twenty years and more ago,
McGarrahay,, then merchant in
San Francisco, purchased claim
which onfy Gomez, a Mexican, had
to a thr e league tract of wild land
In CaU fornia. This claim had been
prese nted to and rejected by the
I'M ted States commissioners who
We're appointed to examine and adj
judicate private land claims in that
state. 1t was rejected, not be-
cause of any apparent defect in
the grant itself, but because of want
of occupancy. Subsequently, in the
famous Fremont case, the decision
was made by the supreme court that
want of occupancy was no bar in
law to the efficacy of a Mexican
grant. Thereupon Gomez's case
was presented to the United States
district court in California, the deci-
sion Of the commissioners was reversed
and the right Of the claimant de-
creed.
In this state of the case McGarra-
ham became the purchaser of the
claim, paying for it a price equiva-
lent to its apparent value, for the
land embraced in the grant was of
little worth for agricultural or pas
toral purposes, and no minerals had
then been discovered on it. But
very soon afterward, and before Nc
Garrahan could have it surveyed and
patented, it was found to contain
rich and extensive deposits of Gin
nabar. The miners who made the
discovery squatted upon the land,
and quicksilver mining company,
now known as the New Idria Com
pany, was formed, which took pos
session of and now works these |
mines, which are not very inferior
in value to the New Almaden quick
silver mines. Under the general |
mining law passed by Congress a
few years ago each miner has pre-
emption right to a certain space of
mineral land; and the members and
employers of the New Idria Com
pany, each claiming the space al
lowed, cover with their pre-emption
claims the whole mineral bearing
surface of McGarrahan's grant.
As the law allowed to the govern
.ment or to a claimant term of five I
years to take an appeal from the de-
cision Of the district court to the su-
preme court Of the United States the
decree granting the patent toMcGar-
raham was appealed from, and some
most remarkable proceedings took
place, involving the integrity of
judges, district attorneys, clerks of
courts, attorney generals and other
persons high in office, and in the
course of which it appeared pretty
conclusively that Gomez's pretended
grant was fraud, that the papers
in support Of it were forged and the
evidence sustaining it was perjury.
The supreme court therefore decided i
against McGarrahan, and he, assert II
ing that the supreme court had no t
legal jurisdiction of the matter be- !
cause Of the expiration of the time !
when the appeal should have been t
taken, appealed to Congress for re- c
lief, and his petition was referred to
the Judiciary committee in the house t
of representatives. That committee
heard most elaborate arguments on !
the subject last session, but has {
not yet made any final report or ! !,