New-York tribune., 1872-02-26
THE MCGARRAHAN CLAIM.

GRANDE, IN CALIFORNIA = BEfohE inE iI
SENATE COMMITTEE oN I'M
CIATus. FEB. "a, 1873
A. Su,v-Nayit please the Honorable Char
a,S crnqeuen of tAe COnmitee: You have before
,or nrinted and referred for your consideration by
Drdor Of the Senate the memorial OF William McGarra
han citizen the United States who petitions for the
delivery him OF certain patent or its equivalent to
tract of land situated in California known as the Rancho
Panoche Grande This patent, as is evidenced 10y the
records OF the General Land Office duly executed by
President Lincoln by his secretary for signing land
patents on the l4h day Of March, 1862 in pursuance OF the
erten opinions orders and decisions now on file OF TWO
of his Secretaries OF the Interior. Mr. Smith and MI
Usher and after formal arguments oral and written
had been madc before him by counsel of the memor1a
LAT and the then Attorney in opposition ordered
the delivery the patent thus executed Tho facts and
circumstances connected with the execution OF this
patent and It's suppression, and the fraudulent conceal
ent OF the record OF for many years by the ocors Vi
the General Land Oce and the subsequent ana quito
DETACHMENT Of that recOrdby those officers S
discovery by the memoriast are sLeched with fidelity
md considerable detail in the memorial OF the petOher
The memorial also sets forth the grounds upon "ch 'o
right the petitioner TO patent for this tract OF anu
rests as well as the consummatOn Of his legal right TO
IL by the execution of the patent which Is withheld III
oso describes in general terms the offensive instrument
ntes OF fraud, perjury forgery oaia! corTup1on hu
oppression, by winch the mem0rlailstS legaI Ilshs,
s6pletcd by the execution Of the patent 10 land III
question, have been made abortive to him.
THE PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY.
Ibespeak in your own behalf desiring finally to get
fun and precise comprehension Of this case, corefu
reading Of this memorial for it affords general outline
of the structure OF the memorallss case, brief ana
orderly sketch Of the intricate and muarous proceed
ncs in the courts in the executive departments and be-
nrncpes upon which the petitioner relies to establish
lis right TO the relief for which he pays My task before
Vou will be 10 exhibit in such detail as time VIII perm
the proofs which support the allegations OF the memorial
and 20 call your attention TO the cca principles which
fpp1g1 arv
into the atmosphere Of this case II at the outset we
make ourselves acquainted with the actual parties
to this controversy, which are the memCrialst,
william McGarTahan, on tho one hde ana u
F5g"h Sg ia1 a CSoniS by the name Of the
HewIdria Mining Company on the other, as an outside
his aoGSsiSn Of the title under Which he claims from
Vincente r. Gomez Dec 22 1851 was Tep2tsD.e WEI &
established, and prosperous wholesale merchant MN IN @ the
City of San Francisco. He had ready credlt with the
leading bankers OF the Pacific Coast his letters from
them testify and possessed means ior speeoation anu
investment outside of the capital requisite for his mer
he stood upon the Pacific Coast at that early day in the
history Of California and appreoiaed the possibilities OF
ture. ana known TO he richly mlaid with gold, ana
Rboundng in al precious metas h Is noI sHTpslng M
scrbe the strongest instincts of human ma
iUre, should have moved him to seek in magnificent
quantities the ownership Of such soil as this.
THE SOURCE OF TITLE
There had for several years but one source OF title
10 any OF this land IN California and that source
did not furnish a complete legal titleonly equitable
treaty and by statute law obligated itself to confirm and
make into legal title by proceedings resulting in letters
patent issued under the hand OF Lhe PRESIDENT rms
source OF title extended only to such grants of land as
the former Mexican authorities of California had made
TO Mexican citizens individuals before It's ceSson 10
settlement laws which prevailed underth Mexican rule
n9S 6r1 InsS ssI All the rest Of the territory belonged to
tie United states as part OF its puDc DOMAIN Dat, as
Mexican grants afford the only IneanstST some years OF
acquiring ownership in fee 10 land IN Caforna III was
grants should nave been
much sought after and their character web under,
10 California on tie discovery Of gold there:
These grants generally contained several leagues OF lana
each and were chiefly held by INDECENT Mexicans who
bad little appreciation Of their value except for puI-
poses Of pasturace and an mpr6vident ullage. Much
years after the acquisition Of California as to the validity
Of many Of these grants that were oher%se conceded 10
decide ana which expressly created y Congress
whether CccupaHcy under the Mexican rule OF the land
by the Mexican grantee were Essential 10 lhe iIe oI 'ne
grant.
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONERS on MEXICAN
TITLES.
This question was very much and very fully discussed
by the California public or some years Immediately sue
ceeding the settlement Of the State The validity or in
validity Of every grant claim OF grant from the Mex-
can Government had been decided and regarded as
finally decided by Board of Commissioners created by
Act OF Congress tlat purpose every respect except
law II is tine an appeal was authorized to the United
States and Supreme Courts tr0m the decision Oh
courts to pass upon such law questions this Of
Occupancv and to enable the District Court to hear
rny new evidence for against the existence or
The grant in case any should be discovered after the
Commission had disposed OF the case III was SIMPLY 70
provide the reception of additional evidence should
There be any found There 800 Of these grants
cn and vent ont Of existence by statute limitation in
1856 The Commission resolved its investigation into two
,ropos FIRST does the claimant SHOW that Ae mas
received grant from tho Mexican authorities; second,
has any condition necessary to be PerioT1ea IN OTGe 70
give VALIDITY naked grant, not been cOInpned
with Tie Investigations OF inc COMMISSION WeIe a.,
WAS the opinion OF the Commission tnaJ oc-
cupancy BY the grantee under o,ta me He1iGbn NC bn
authorities was necessary condition 10 ,.t9 tn9
validity these titles after the conquest by the United
states The United District Court for California
held to the view Hundreds OF appeals were iheTe
upon taken bS claimants in cases where the commission
had decided as u ne case OF Ihe grant unuSr En ,St Wo
claim in favor OF the existence OF the grant nat ~
where the grants proved To have been MADE, Dut
Lad rejected thom on the ground OF hohoGcupaHcy or
for some Oter fil9re OF ciahahOs 10 eonpH WY
ditiOns deemed indispensable 10 tlelr Nauuy one VI
these appeals reached ana tfled III tne supreme
Court OF the United States about one year DGore
rahau purchased this Gomez grant II was Ihe
celebrated Of FremOnts claim to the Marposa es
tate, which be had purchased rOh the
AvaradO. as McGaTrahan had purchased from the MeG
can grantee Gomez. The great questions involved IN
that appeal the erect OF nOn-Occuahcy' Ol ulul
on the part OF AlvaradO to obtain Mexican survey OF
the premises, and the absence from the grant OF map
showing the limits and location Of the land 1nese were
The questions FrenOnts case and their determine
lion depended have said the validity Of hundreds
OF these grants that were otherwise deemed finally es
tablshed. known to the Court and to the public
that great and controlling necessity existed Tor the
determination Of the questions involved in that appeal
as il carried with the title TO thousands Of and
nntOld wealth OF mining property III California. The
time the occa sion and the Interests at stake within and
without the Fremont case impressiycy called for
careful authoritative adjudication by the supreme
Court of heIUuted states Of snch decisive character
as 10 oreveet al the doubts that clouded these
UNITED STATES COURT DECISION
The Court decided that the naked Mexican grant con-
ferred valid title in fee-sinple absolute for the guam
.t., 90 caI.d IN he located within