Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-26

WIFI DTydou, tuo Ciey PuAehncoN AAc
claim on the southerly side of Second
street, paying 81, 900 for a strip extend
ing from the south line of the street, be-
ing the north line of Dimmick's property,
% yards to the line of Anderson-from
the south line of the street, 22 yards
northerly.
The nature of the pueblo titles was
brought in controversy in this State at q
very early period. The first thorough
discussion was had in the famous case Of
Hart vs.. Burnett, 15 CAL, 513. Justice
Baldwin, at the outset of his opinion
lin that case, states that in conse-
quence of the immense interests in.
volved it had drawn to it laborious and
careful examination of numerous and
able counsel of the various points and
considerations of the controversy, and
that probably no cause ever submitted
to that court had been more thoroughly
and learnedly discussed, both at the bar
and in written and printed argument
that the court had postponed, from time
to time, the decision in order to afford
the most ample opportunity for argu'
ment, and for the presentation to the
court of reliable information from every
obtainable source.
Chief Justice Sanderson in Branham
vs. San Jose, "a CAL, in referring to the
case of Hart VS.. Burnett, says:
1.-The opinion in that case is a monu-
ment of the learning and Industrious re-
search of the justice by whom it was de-
livered. 1t is a clear and explicit ex-
position of the law as to the powers Of
municipal bodies under the Spanish and
Mexican regime, and of the tenure by
which their lands were held, and must
now be regarded as fnality upon those
subjects.
A great deal of the opinion of Judge
Baldwin was devoted to proving the
proposition that pueblo existed at San
Francisco at the date OF the change of
flag. In reference to Los Angeles, that
portion of the discussion is entirely un.
necessary from the fact that this was an
existing and recognized pueblo, as shown
abundantly from the documents now on
file in the United States Surveyor.
Generals Office of California, and which
we're referred to in that case. While
California was yet colony of Spain, in
1889, plan was formed for the town of
Pitio in Sonora, which, by direction of
the King of Spain, was to be taken as g
model for all other towns formed in that
commandancv, which commandancy then
included California. The right of .
town when organized TO lands is par
ticularly referred to and repeated In the
royal instructions with reference to that
plan. By Neve's regulations of 17S1, for
the establishment of the new pueblos of
San Jose and Los Angeles, the right of
distributing the lots was, at least in the
beginning, to be exercised by the Gov
ernor himself, or by person commits
stoned by him for that purpose. By the
Governors proclamation of November
IA, 1S43, Monterey and Los Angeles
were to elect Ayuntamientos, and these
Ayuntamientos possessed the power Of
granting and disposing of lands within
the pueblo. Justice Baldwin says:
1--WE think that the documents and
authorities to which we have referred
are sufficient to show that pueblos had
such right and interest in
the lands within their limits that
they could distribute, concede or grant
them, in lots, to individual settlers. sub
ject in this as in all other matters, to the
instructions and orders which might be
given them by the superior authorities,
land that under international law the oc.
cupation of a country by the Government
of the United States did not affect any
change in the laws of California in this
respect. The political connection be-
tween its inhabitants and their former
sovereign or state WAS interrupted or
suspended, but Notwithstanding this,
the former local and civil authorities
were not changed; that even where the
conquest is complete by concession or
treaty of peace, although the laws which
bound the country and it's inhabitants to
its former sovereign we're thereby COM
pletely abrogated, the municipal law
might continue in force until changed by
the proper authorities, and the existing
government and it's officers continue to
exercise the powers and authority con-
ferred by such laws, so far as they are
not inconsistent with the will expressed
or necessarily implied by the new
sovereign"
And again, although the "pueblos had
no absolute right of property In any part
of the four leagues of lands within their
general limits, and that the legal title
still remained in the Mexican Govern
ment, subject only to the use of towns
for the purpose and under the restriction
imposed by the laws and regulations,
| it by no means follows that upon
the complete conquest and concession
of California, this land became part of
the public domain of the United States. +"
| Again: "On the contrary, we are of
the opinion that Spanish and Mexican
towns had, under the general laws, such
a right or title to lands within their
limits as will enable them and require
the courts to protect them and those
iholding under them in the enjoyment Of
those lands"
And the court says further, after care.
fully examining the references to the
laws and text books submitted in tina!
case: ''It seems to US that, taken to.
gether, they show that under the old
Spanish system the lands assigned to
towns, whether by general law or special
act, were in the ser SO of endowments to
be held in trust for the purposes and OBJ
jects specified in the law or in the
particular grant" :
"The lands go assigned were for the gen
, eral object of building up and sustain
ing the town and its population, and
|, were to be applied to that object in the
manner which might be directed by
laws or by royal ORDERS"
IL "Undoubtedly th,
, right to control remained in the sover
eign, who might authorize or forbid an,
municipal or other officer to grant or dis
pose of such lands, even for the purposes
, of endowment or trust. Such genera
| 81. L l. LII -