The herald., 1896-02-23
JUDGE R. M. WIDNEY
Again Talks of the Rights OF Rogerio
ROcha
Response to a Recent Statement In The
Herald Relative to San Fernando
Lands

EDITOR HERALD-In your issue of the
18th inst. some one thinks he has made a
very convincing statement Of facts. Now,
assume that he has practically exhausted
the subject, and l have no doubt he has, for
there is nothing in it.
Take his first proposition, that the grant
bears date June II, 1S46 in Los Angeles,
and that it can be conclusively shown that
Pic Pico, who signed it, was on that day in
Santa Barbara.
There is nothing stronger than this in the
whole mess of charges in his article.
The date cuts no material figure. Nego-
tiations had undoubtedly been pending for
some time, and the papers ordered drawn.
The secretary probably wrote out the
papers on the 18th and Pho Pico signed
them on his return to Los Angeles. Or,
possibly, they were sent by some courier to
Santa Barbara and signed there; or, pos
sbly were drawn up in Santa Barbara and
signed on the 18th. the Los Angeles head
ing being for the reason that, officially, Los
Angeles was headquarters.
Frequently deeds are drawn in Los
Angeles, by our best lawyers, dated the
day the lawyers drew them, the grantors
at the time being in New York or Chicago,
and on their arrival here the signatures are
attached. The date cuts no material figure.
Your writer next attempts to quote some
dates as to issue of patent and dates OF
purchase of present owners, and then he
says "A careful study of the dates of the
foregoing instruments will show that all OF
the transactions were prior to the date OF
the patent which effectually disposes of
the plea of innocence made by Judge Wild
ney."
Well, this is sample of the bundering
trash dispensed to deceive the public by an
unscrupulous writer.
He says the patent was dated "January
Sth, 1872 that the deed from De Cells to
Maclay is dated august 3lst. 1874"
over a year and half later. Yet he has
the brazen eflrontery in the name of justice
TO coolly assert that the deed of De Cells
antedates the patent. Hoping thus TO
deceive the readers of the HERALD who
may not take the time TO compare the
dates. and expecting them to believe his
statement that this falsehood 'eifectua!ly
jisproves the plea of innocence made
by Judge Widney.'
Again he attempts cool faisehood by
saying that the deed from De Cells to Pho
Pco is dated Nov. D., 1854. Thus trying
10 induce the public to believe that DE Cells
decided back TO the governor who made tho
grant part of the land. No such deed
exists in the records of this county. There
is one of the above date to Andres Pico.
but not 10 Pio Pico. In 1862, sixteen
years after the grant, Pho Pico bought an
interest of Andres Pico for $1,000.
Tue next piece of legal lore ia in the
statement that the U. S. surveyor.general
requests De Cells to accept the patent as it
now appears of record, and that De Cells
refused.
just imagine this great government on
its knees "requesting'' DE Cells to "accept"
the final judgment of the nation in the
form of patent. This Is only paralleled
hy the government requesting convicted
criminal TO 'accept" the sentence of death.
De Cells could not help himself. The law
dragged him and his claim before the
courts. it's own courts, and investigated his
claims and entered it's Judgment and that
was a finality, which the government can.
not now set aside
4 claim is q claim, no difference on whet