The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1870-11-23
GheQntelli4errer.
THE McGARRAHAN CASE.
General Buffers View Of 1t.
LOWELL, Nov. II, 1860.

NV attention llNS been called 10 The sew
oral statements Of the newspapers about
the McGarrahan claim, and its relation to
the controversy between Secretary Cox
and the President l do not think the
merits and the position Of the case are eX-
aCtly understood by the country; ccrtainly
one view OF them has not, to my knowl-
edge, been stated.
It became my duty, as a member OF the
Judiciary Committee Of the House, to
take part in the investigation Of the case,
and 10 hear the very long and able argu-
ments on either side in behalf of the Nc.
Garrahan claim and that OF the New 1dra
Company for many days during the last
Congress and after the fullest inyeStiga.
ton and the most patent thought | could
give TO the subject-and, l will add, from
motives of personal friendship TO those
urging tho claim on the part Of McGarra'
han-I found myself unable to come to
the conclusion that McGarrahan had any
right in the premises.
His claim may be stated briefly in q
few words. Almost at the very moment
Of the abandonment OF California by
Michael TOrrena, the Mexican Governor,
one of the clerks in the office Of his com
missary, Vicente p. Gomez, claims that
Michael Torrena gave him a grant OF the
large amount of land now in dispute, con-
tanning many leagues and alleged 10 be
worth a number Of millions. Tho proper
md formal documentary evidence, how
ever, of title were not found in the Next
can archieves. Tho claim was brought
before the Land Commission established
by Congress to adjust such titles, and was
BY them rejected. Upon appeal to the
District Court, however, after the decision
of the Fremont case, the claim was adju'
dictated by that Court in favor OF Gomez,
the clerk in the COmmissary Department,
under whom McGarrahan claims. But
the unfortunate fact was that one E'aciti.
Gus Ord, tue United States District Attor'
ncy, who ought to have protected the
rights of the United States, was at the
same moment joint owner in the claim,
having purchased half OF it Of GomCz-a
fact which, in my judgment, taints the
whole proceeding, and this faint is not in
any way lessOned because in other McXi-
can grants Gomez admits that he was nc
custOmed TO forge the title grants in such
claims, showing his Capability in that line
BY doing it in open Court in presence Of
tic Judge. After adjudication ofthc Dis
trict Court, md before ali appeal was tn.
ken, McGarrahNn, without any notice Of
the fraud of Gomez, for aught that ap-
pears, except that the papers show that
Ord, the District Attorney, was owner Of
an interest in the claim, bought the claim
for n valuable consideration.
But the United States, represented by
the late Edwin NJ. Stanton, Nflerward ap'
pealed the case to the Supreme Court,
and after proceedings there Of great
length and cost-somc Of which could
well have been different, and which 1t Is
unnecessary to go into-thc claim was adj
Indicated us wholly void, and set aside.
In the meantime, some four persons had
entered upon the land under the mining
laws of California, and under the name Of
the New-Idria Mining Company had de.
velOped the quick silver mine in the land
in dispute, worth, rs alleged, some five
millions OF dollars. This company has
always appeared in the courts and before
Congress, IL various, forms rs the Oppo'
nCnts of McGArrahan, Ginning title to the
land, and the question has always been
dealt with as il it were one interesting
only to those two claimants.
McGarrahan sought an act Of Congress
comforting the title Of the land to himself
upon the ground that he bought without
knowledge of any defect in the Gomez
title, II any exists, after the judgment Of
United States Court had been given con.
firming that title. The majority Of the
Committee were not convinced Of the
validity of his claim or Of his equitable
rights, because, first, Gomez did not up.
pear ever to have had any title, and
secondly, that the very ingenious and able
attempt 10 impart the principles OF law
securing the rightsof purchasers, without
notice, of commercial paper before 1t is
due, into the law concerning real proper
", could scarcely succeed. Upon that
point the Committee were inclined to hold
that purchaser Of land bought no great
or title than the seller had 10 sell, hOwcv-
or much title the seller might have up.
peared 10 have; and for that, and because
the matter had been fully Ndjudicatcd in
the Courts, reported against the prcten-
sions of Mr.. Garrahan.
Before going on with the hearing, how
ever, the Committee directed Its Chairman
10 request the Secretary Of the Interior
not to issue patent to anybody to the
land until the Committee had finished
the investigation in the premises. This
request Of the Committee tho Secretary
al first promised to comply with, but NJ
forwards was very unwilling to adhere to
his promise, being quite desirous, appar-
emily, to give patent to the NGw-ldria
Company and asked the opinion Of the
Attorney General, whether he was bound
to withhold the patent at the request OF
the Committee. OF course the Attorney.
General replied that be was not so bound
by law, but the Committee came to the
conclusion that they would make 1t very
lnconvenient for Mr.. Cox if he would not
listen to their suggestion and keep his
promise to them. The Secretary, howcV'
er, upon consideration, thought 1t best
not to issue the patent till the Committee
had finished their labors.
When the Committee had agreed upon
report us to the rights of Mr.. McGarra-
han, not with unanimity, however, one Of
their number suggested another consider
alton as seeming TO him worthy OF inves.
tigation, which was that while the United
States had spent some quarter OF million
Of dollars, more or less, in defending this
land from McGaFrahan's claim, oil that
money seemed to be spent in the interest
of the Ncw-Idria Mining Company, and
that member of tho Committee desired 10
inquire by what title the New-Idria Min.
Ing Company claimed to hold the land, and
was informed 1t was only under the min.
Ing laws Of California. lie then raised
tho question in the Committee how II was
that four persons, who could only hold,
under the mining laws Of California, as il
WIS understood, one thousand feet each Of
mining lands, could claim many leagues Of