Los Angeles daily herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1873-1876, 1874-03-28
important Land Decision.

Importance and we make room for its
publication in full:
Dept OF THE INTERIOR,
General Land Office.
Washington, ID. c., Feb. %, 1874. J
Register and Receiver, Marysville,
California.
GENTLEMEN:-This office has con-
sidered the contested case of the State
of California VS.. The California and
Oregon Railroad Company, involving
the right to the E J of Sec. 3, e of
Sec. 9, and w ! of Sec. Is, 4 16 N,
ROW.
The Railroad Company claim under
the act of Congress approved the 25th
of July, 1866. The lands in question
are within the indemnity limits, and
were withdrawn with the other lands
in the thirty-mile limits for the bene-
fit of said company under it's grant by
Commissioner letter of September
25th, 1868. The State seeks to acquire
title to the lands in question under the
acts of July I'd, 1862, and March 30th,
1871. The applications are all dated
Aug. 2lst, 1873, and are as follows:
No. 319-NE 1 Sec. 8; No. Bose I
Sec. 9; No. 321-NW J Sec. Is; No.
324-NE / Sec. 8; No. 325-SE I Sec.
3. and No. 326-SW Sec. Is, all in T
16 Mr. NV.
The State alleges that the lands in
question, although within the indem-
nifty limits Of the railroad grant, do
not inure to the Railroad Company,
for the reason that at the date when
the right of the road attached to lands
in that locality they were within the
claimed limits of the Mexican grant
claim of Manuel Diaz. The applica-
tions of the State, although dated
Aug. 21st, 1878, appear to have been
presented Oct. LIST, 1873, the date on
which they were restored by reason of
the final adjudication of the grant
claim by the Supreme Court, and the
Register on that date rejected the ap-
plications for the reason that the lands
were within the indemnity limits of
the withdrawal for the aforesaid road.
The case is therefore before this office
on appeal by the State.
The history of the case is briefly this:
The State originally made application
for these lands on the 25th Of Septem-
Der, 1871, and the applications were
rejected by the Register for the same
reason that he assigns for the rejection
of the subsequent applications on the
LIST of October, 1878. Upon appeal by
the State, this office on the 4th of Jan
uary, 1873, sustained the action of the
Register in rejecting the application,
upon the ground that the lands We're
within the withdrawal for the benefit
of the Railroad Company, and also
within the claimed limits of the Daz
grant, which was then pending before
the Supreme Court of the United
States, and consequently the lands
were not subject to selection by the
State. Appeal was entered by the
State from this decision, but it was
not prosecuted. The subdivisional
survey of the Township was approved
August 20, 1871, and the plat was filed
in the local office on the 25th of Sep
TENDER following. 1t seems that the
Survey0r-General in transmitting the
plat to the local Office did not refer to
the fact that the lands in said town
ship had previously been suspended
on account of the alleged DiaZ grant,
and the Register treated the lands as
other public lands withdrawn for rail-
road purposes.
The question presented in this case
is this: Were the lands within the
claimed limits of the Diaz grant, and
on that account excluded from the
operation of the grant to the railroad
company?
In considering the proposition, I
deem it proper to notice briefly the
history of the adjudication of the al
legged Diaz grant.
The claim was presented to the land
Commission August 81, 1852, and re-
jected October 81, 1854, upon the ground
that there was no authenticated map
accompanying the papers, and that
such defect was not supplied by any
extraneous evidence which would en-
able the Board to describe the land in
a decree with sufficient certainty to
locate and identify the particular tract
intended to be granted. On the 18th
of March, 1858, the United States Dis
trict Court, Judge Hoffman, entered
a decree affirming in all things the
decision of the Board, On the 18th of
April following, the same Court re-
stored the case of Diaz to the trial
docket, and gave permission to intro
duce further testimony.
The3case remained upon the docket
for about seven years, and was then
transferred to the Circuit Court, on
account of the interest of the District
Judge in the subject matter. The Cir
cult Court, on the 1st of July, 1867,
affirmed the decision of the Board.
The Supreme Court of the United
States ON the Sd of March last, Deem
Der term, 1872, entered decree at.
firming the decision of the Circuit
Court. All these decisions refer to the
Judgment of the Land Commission by
which the grant was rejected because
definite to identify the boundaries of
the grant. The alleged grant was for
eleven square leagues. Itappears that
the Surveyor General, while the case
was pending in the courts in Califor-
MIA, reserved seven townships on ac-
count of said grant, viz: II. 16 aud II
N, r. 2, and 4, and II. II N, r.
w. On the 10Th of December,
1868, after the decree. of the Cir
cult Court had been rendered, the
Surveyor General modified the sus-
pension so as to embrace only T. Is
and II N, R. 2 W., E. J of T. 16 n, r..
W., and sections %, %, "a, 25, 26, q,
81, 35 and SO, It. II N, r. 3 W., en-
bracing with others the lands in this
controversy.
This order of the Surveyor General
was, in my Judgment, sufficient to
identify the lands included in the fur
ther suspension, as properly pertain
ing to the claim pending in the courts.
All the lands claimed as part of q
Mexican or Spanish grant become a
reservation by act Of March Sd, 1851,
and so remain until the case is finally