The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-03-31
TIE MGARRAHAN CLAIM.
nov THE CLAIMANT OBTAINED A DE-
CREE IN ms Fff OR,
And Secured from the Court n Mandate NJ
recting him 60 he rut In Possess. On The
Long Fight for Valuable Land Grant.

recting him 90 he rut In Possess on The
Long F'sht for Valuable Land Grant.
WASHINGTON, March 9D.-Thrcc hours Of
to-day's session on tho McGarrahnn cnsc was
taken up with useless and generally irrelevant
discussion. Only one witness was examined.
Henry u. Cooke. who testified that in 1867 he
was in Monterey. Cal, and that II was the ecn-
cra rcputc there that Vinccnte Gomez had n
grant in the san Juan region bu, he could not
rccollcct the name Of the ranch said to he his
The counsel for the New Idria Company then
showed by the r, rrds Of the supreme Court
that the dates Of which Little Shaw. McGarra-
hans counsel. had represented that appeals
had bcentaken in seven California cases were in
correct Matt II. Carpenter. one of McGarrahans
big counsel. wanted to know what this had got
To do with The Gomez ease. He was told that
Little Shaw had attempted to prove that seven
cases. including the Gomez case, were appealed
nj certain time. and this evidence was simply
10 show that the six cases which he claimed
were appealed ut the time the Gomez cnse was
were not appealed. At that date Mr.. Carpenter
etill could not see what this had to do with the
McGarrahan ease. and the committee and tho
counsel for the New Idria agreed with him that
1t had no relevancy whatever. but II was peril
nent TO show that shaw had attempted to mis-
lead the committee. Carpenter appeared to be
very much disgustcd. and shortly aftcrward
took his leave. Shaw consumed another hour
IN putting in lot OF papers from Executive
toinmiitno documents which had no p"rtnrncy
w his side ot the case. and then the committee
took recess for half an hour.
Upon the rcassembling OF the committee
Shaw continued to put in what he was pleased
10 term record evidence, consumng nearly an
called /" the s,nnd and az sed To- ,rI What WI" hs
knew about the proceedings in the District
Court Of southern California in the matter of
The appeal Ii must Ice remembered that after
the Land Commission had rejected the Gomez
claim an appeal WAS taken TO the United States
District Court The then, District Attorney.
Paciiicus Ord deceived the Judge. and by mis-
representation obtained n deere Of conilrma-
ton; An appeal was subsequently taken. and
McGarrahan camc here to get the Attorney
General to dismiss this appeal. If he
had succeeded in this. he would have
the Aitorney-General was final. He brought
Gen Mcaeher's and Dan Sick influence to
bear upon Judge Black to induce him to do 1t.
They made an impression 10y their appeals. but
the more Judge Black examined the case the
more he WIS persuaded that he ought not to
order the appeal dismissed The appeal how
ever. was dismissed 10y the supreme Court. and
mandate issued directing the District Court
time Judge Ozicr Of the District Court disrov-
crng that he had boon imposed upon. reported
M the facts TO the supreme Court, and on mo-
ton OF Attorney General Black the mandate
WAS revoked. and the ease was ordered to be
rsheard anew on It's merits in the District
Court. But Judge Ozier died, and then McGar-
r0hHn and his friends secured the appointment
OF Judge liaight who was pledged In advance
- decide i'm their interest. The letters Of Nc
Garrahnn which have been put i'm evidence
show al these facts. They prove that every eN-
ertion was made to influence Judge Black and
MIR. stanton. then Assistant Attorney General.
and that NlcGarrahan vainly endeavored to cor
When they got Haieht appointed. their efforts
were DIRECTED TO prevent hearing until the five
years allowed for an appeal had expired. and
then they intended to sci up the claim that the
Limitation having not expired no appeal could
be- taken They Controlled Haight and got aon:
swlmmingly Tor time; The clerk Of the court
was their creature, AMI did their bidding. They
Thought they had the ID strict Attorney. also. hut
in this they reckonod without their host. as the
result proved. An net Of Congress was PASSED
In 1867 allowing the District Attorney To certify
up the record when the Judge and the clerk re-
fused or neglected to do il. This the District
Attorney did. and tn" supreme Court thus got
an opportunity To pass upon the merits OF the
cnse. and decided that the Gomez grant was q
fraud al ndio. The VI Guardian people r.
ned on their position that no appeal could he
against them they alleged that the record upon
which The supreme Court acted WAS not COM
10 avail themselves Of that fact because they
had controlled the Judge and tho clerk Of the
court. aud prevented the record from being GER
Tho object u M.G ,rrahans testimony to-day
was To- SHOW vat NE District Attorney Ind vio-
bad made with VI Guardians counsel. To the ~
feet that no moy" should b" madc W thout notice
- them Th" District AZ .rnry had 'rtiii.d up
the record. as the law %, lSG2 authorized linn To-
do. and now Shaw propos sd To- uitack this cor
tfratc by oilcrIn, in eyid ,nce a coIN of tn" let
tor the Distrit Attorney had written 10 on' of
McGmrahan's counsel many years ago Tic
copy WAS not rcrtliit There WAS o.. cN Ilrul.t
that the original had been lost. AMI ro gfrun /
whatever WIS laid Tor Offering tn copy. tn
committee dnrii,i that INC rorv could No., To-
T"ccived, and iuiimnted that II the or-..iudl Wa
produced Il would no, BE- evidence pert .ncut 20
the case. On TINS an argument, or rth, a
travelled over the Who'll. case and ou'sl,i Of H.
H. was followed 10y ex-senator Logan. who
spoke AN hour and "a quarter. but dirt Tot touch
upon single point nNolvrdin H. o1-r. soma
tor v - maid had frequently interrupt 1 Nutw
70 tell MIN that tic ""mnliii,e couii not r'yicw
the action 81 thr supreme Count. !; could DE-
undertake to hear "vll"n c qu"-tluu'nE jl'
wisdom 81 that court. Tho uiinos; il could go
VIZ to ~ II lMu'niy am examine 'arHu!y.
It's I" grant hin rnicf Shaw mnuiairrl tl.t
McGtrrahan had h. equities: Flr-t.tl. O0.,.l
grant. and. second he was an Innocent tlr-
chaser after the do'ree OF conriI alton hy "a.
ton was that nan &C. uld not huy al 'Iu ty
under grant. He only acquired III" rgii Of
The original grantee. II the grantee hal no
title hccoud not claim that le WIS an innoeo M
purchaser and ST M an equitable claim. Tho
supreme Court had decided that Gomez had
not established ia" validity Of tbs grant; Tho
committee could hear cvienc" tending 10 show
That the grant was valid, aud re-. mmrnd relief
II good case was made out. Gen. Logan
argued that the committee could invesiigats To-
iini ont whether or not n" supreme Court had
;nri ed lmtroIrliy IN deciding " case upon an
The reply to Shaw and Logan was made 10y
Judge wilson oi Iowa IN iit"en- minute
speech. IN which lc clearly showed that IL was
too lat" t. talk about the record. because 1t was
in the hands of the Suprem" Court more than a
yrur ncfnre tho rasu wins argued and th,r wls
VI llne Tor theih TO correct any detects u there
lhe eommittce Is evidently tired OF the case.
Nrnpnr GurlNht n rcd resolution tlat here
NJ rhp cy!G'n"r IN regard T. the DECISIONS #
r. Suurcme 'Qur should be- received and
tn' ih"y 81 .. h' confined 90 the question of
We grant giona Ths docs not sui lhr \ "
ifta people. ~ want to slow By M.Garra-
lans l"tt"r- tont survey obtained by NJ GAR
Tnh' ~ "as l'in ur' 1 'y corrupt m"nis Wruugh
Ned u ii WHO WIS appointed Surveyors ti"l-