Daily Los Angeles herald., 1879-08-15

| lho tdiu0 Vi wv ioA1 III WIG
block, covered by the Ellis deed,
was estimated by good ju iges, un-
der oath, TO be from $75, 600 to $780,
600
Mission Block go was fenced in
in 1870, aud had boen filed at a
cost OF 100000. The portion of this
block conveyed to Ellis was worth,
without the buildings thereon,
from $4,000 to 100000, and, with
the buildings thereon, some $780,
900.
Mission Block 40 has been filled
In for sbou' ten years, at a cost OF
$4,000 to $4,000. The portion con-
/ veyed to Ellis is worth about $780,
900, and belongs to the German
Savings Bank. 1t will thus be
seen, leaving out of the estimate
the value of old Channel street and
Mission Creek, and the three small
pieces of land, being parts of closed
streets, Ellis was making quite
nice speculation in well.improved
property, ready for private use or
rent.
The Committee examined, under
oath, every member oftheTideLa Land
Board and they, one and all, SEEM
ed to be astonished to fiud out what
they themselves bad done. Ex-
Governor Pacheco stated that lie
was surprised when he learned from
the papers the extent of the grant
made to Ellis; that he did not know
a foot of the land; said that after
the auction sales he asked if there
was any land left, and the Secretary
informed him that there were few
triangular pieces; that it was pro-
posed to convey these small pieces
to Ellis-pay him off with a shil-
ling-which was agreed to; that a
few days before he went out of office
being in the Governors Office, in
Sacramento, the other Commits
sioners came in with Ellis and the
Secretary, having some fifteen or
twenty deeds, and he was request
ed to sign them; that he said:-
"Gentlemen, / suppose these are all
right W That he was assured they
were, and signed them without
reading them or Knowing their
contents; that he supposed they
were conveying to Ellis only some
triangular pieces, aud that he never
knew Of the existence of the Act
making the grant of Mission Creek
to the city. He said the deeds were
presented to him for signature, by
the Secretary, Mr.. Green, and Mr..
Gardner.
Ex-Controller Green states that
he never saw the map "Exhibit
A." until af er the papers began TO
attack the Ellis sale; that he never
knew what the Ellis claim con-
tanned; that he tried to have the
Attorney General advise the Board,
but could scarcely ever find him;
at last succeeded in getting him to
write short direction, which was
copied in the minutesof the Board,
at page 2S9, which is as follows:
SAN FRANcIsoo, Nov. s, 1871.
hereby advise the state Bo ,rd of Tide
| Land Commissioners to dispo c OF all lands
where there is no litigation, and where
they can ascertain to whom the State title
ought to go, in pursuance of the Tile
Land acts. JOIN l.. LOVE,
| Attorney General.
Green states that he knew moth
ing of the Act making the grant to
the ,ity; that he signed the Ellis
deeds, not knowing what they con-
tained; never read them. Mr.. Green
further states that the only map
before the Board about the Ellis
sale was the small map, showing
the three small pieces of land con-
veyed to Ellis; that the Attorney
General showed an unwillingness
to attend the Board; said it was
none of his business. He further
states that when the sale was made
is Ellis, he had no idea they were
conveying to him what it has since
transpired they did convey by those
deeds
Ex.Attorney-G General Love testi-
fed that he never knew of the Act
making the graut to the city of
Mission Creek; that he considered
Eilis's claim the merest nonsense,
and refused to sign those deeds and
many others.
The ex-SurveyorG General swears
that he never saw the map "Ex-
hibit A" until after the sale was
denounced in the papers; that the
only map he saw was u small one
which he requested Mr.. Russell to
bring to Sacramento with the
deeds, but it was not done, and he
signed the deeds without reading
them or knowing their contents;
and had he known their contents
he would not have signed them /;
that he was deceived, but by whom
he does not know; that he knew
nothing of the Act making the
grant to the city; that he had no
idea they were conveying to Ellis
any part of Mission Creek, or any
thing else, save two or three trian-
gular pieces of land represented on
the small map. He further stated
that he never told Governor Pache-
co that the deeds were all right.
The Ellis deeds (copies of them
are herewith presented; one con
tains thirteen pages and the other
fourteen. And your committee
think 1t little strange that these
Com missioners should sign deeds
as yoluminous as these were with
out reading them, when they all
seemed to be sure that the awards
to Ellis were of two or three small,
triangular pieces of land. Prudent
men, 1t does seem to us, would feel
, curious to know how 1t would take
, two voluminous deeds to convey
three small pieces of land.
1t further appears to the commit
tee that oil these officers were gross
. ly negligent In this matter, and
took no care to see what they were
doing.
In conclusion, your committee
submit the following:
First-That the Ellis deeds con-
yey no title to any part of Mission
Creek or old Channel street, for the
reason that, by legislative grant,
the title to the same was conveyed
to the City and County Of San
Francisco prior to the organization
of the Board, and 1t was not in the
80 tCtda Topd pna ri m