Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-04-02
THE NATIONAL CAPITAL.
BLAINE AND SHERMAN HAVE AN
INTERVIEW.
More of President Harrison's Ap-
pointments Confirmed-Vessels
Ordered to Apia.
ESPECIAL DISPATCHES 10 rHz RHoosD-Us1oN.l
IMPORTANT LAND DECISIONS.
ESPECIAL DISPATCHES TO rHz BEoosD-us1oN.l
IMPORTANT LAND DECISIONS.
Los Angeles and San Francisco Cases In
volving Large Estates.

Los Angeles and San Francisco Cases In
volving Large Estates.
WASHINGTON, April 1st.-The Supreme
Court to-day rendered decision in case
221, Lizzie Buxton and Anna ]. VOORHEES,,
plaintiffs in error VS.. Hattie L. Travers ct
al, in error, to the Supreme Court of Cali
fornia. The case OF plaintiffs rests upon the
contention that their father acquired by oc-
cupation of uEsurveyed lands of the United
States the right of pre-emption, which,
at his death descended to plaintiffs under
the laws of the United States. The Court
holds that this contention is not well taken.
Settlements upon public lands in advance
of public surveys, the Court says, is al
lowed to parties who intend when the sur
veys are made to apply for their purchase.
If within certain time after the SURVEYS
and return of the plats to the local land
offices, the settler takes certain steps re-
quired by law, he acquires for the first time
the right of pre-emption to land, that is,
right to purchase it in preference to Others
Until then he has no estate in the land
which he could devise by will, or which,
in case of death, would pass to his heirs
at-law. As has been heretofore held by
the Court, occupation and improvement of
public lands with view to pre-emption,
does not convey vested rights in the lands
so occupied The United States enters into
no obligation that lands occupied shall
never be put up for sale, but simply de-
clares in csse they are offered for sale oc-
cupants shall have the privilege OF pur-
chasing them before all Others The iudg.
ment Of the lower Court against the plain
tiffs right is affirmed.
The opinion was rendered by Justice
Field. An opinion was also rendered in
No. 1870, Brigid o. o. Botiller ct al, plain
tiffs in error, vs. Domingo Do ninguez, in
error, to the Supreme Court of California
This is an action of eiectment brought by
Dominguez against Botiller and others to
recover possession Of the ranch Los Vir-
gines, in Los Angeles county, California.
Dominguez's title is derived from a grant
made by Mexico in 1884, but which grant
never has been presented for confirmation
to the Board of Land Commissioners ap-
pointed under an Act of Congress of March
3, 1851, to settle private land claims in CAL
been issued by the United States. 1t is
contended by Botiller that the tract is pub
lie land, and open tc entry under the gen.
eral land laws.
The lower Court held that as Domin-
guez' title to the land from Mexico was
perfect at the time of the acquisition of
California by the United States, he was not
compelled to submit the grant for confirma-
ton to the Board of Land Commissioners,
and that his failure to do so did not forfeit
his grant.
Judgment was therefore given against
Botiller, and from that judgment an ap-
peal was taken to this Court. In an elab-
crate opinion by Justice Miller, the Su-
preme Court holds that the lower Court
was in error, and therefore reverses the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Califor-
mia. The Court says there is nothing in
the language of the statute of 1851 creating
a Board of Land Commissioners, to show
that its proceedings were to be limited to
the settlement of implicit and inchoate
claims, and that claims already per-
fected under Mexican law were to be ex-
cluded from the jurisdiction of the Com
mission. Nowhere in the statute is there a
hint of an attempt at any distinction as to
claims to be presented between those which
are perfected and those which are imperfect.
1t was not the purpose of the statutes to
settle titles between private citizens, max
ing claims to same lands. The object was
to separate and distinguish lands which
the United States owned, from those which
belonged, either equitably or legally, to
private parties, under the grant from Spain
or Mexico. 1t was equally important to
the object which the United States had IN
the passage of it. that claims under perfect
grants from the Mexican Government
should be established, as that imperfect
claims should be established or rejected SO
that the Government might be enabled out
of all of its vast domain, to say: This is
my property" and that Mexican claimant
who bad just claim, might say, This is
mine"
In conclusion the Court said there can
be no doubt of the proposition, that no
title to land in California, dependent upon
Spanish or Mexican grants, can be of any
validity which has not been submitted to
the Board provided for that purpose in the
Act of 1851, and the judgment of the Su-
preme Court of California is accordingly
reversed.
The opinion in this case. it is said, will
affect title to large quantity of California
lands.