The herald., 1896-02-17
A Very Convincing Statement
of the Facts
WHAT THE RECORDS SHOW
The Grant Of Pico to E. de Cells No
Grant
II Wss q Bargain and Sale for q Stipulated
Sum Of Monsy-Some Old Frauds
Are Retoid

There are those who still think and insist
that Rogerio Rocha was defrau1ed OF his
rights and his lands and turned out in the
road, with his bedridden wife to die. One
of the gentlemen who thinks this way has
written the HERALD as follows:
In labored article in the HERALD of
February Sd, Judge r. NJ. Widney tries
very hard to discredit the claim of the old
Indian, Rogerio Rocha, to certain lands in
the San Fernando valley. You may not con-
slider it too late to publish a reply to Wild
ney's article that will present certain facts
bearing upon the matter of Rocha's title
which cannot be successfully disputed
Judge Widney being interested in the lands
in question as cl aimant, it would natur-
ally be expected that he would present as
strong case as possible in his own behalf,
but it s susceptible of proof that in doing
this he has indulged in some very rash
statements.
He says: "None of the present owners
had anything to do with the original Mexi-
can grant or its confirmation. They are
all innocent purchasers" etc.
The so-ca.led grant bears date June II,
1S46. 1t purports to be signed by Pho Pico
conclusively shown by the records that Pic
Pico was at Santa Barbara on the ! 9TH of
June, 1916.
The petition to the land commission is
dated October z, 1852 the confirmation is
dated July 8, 1855; the patent is dated
January s, 1878: the deed from Euiogio de
Cells to Pho Pico is dated November %,
is 81; the deed from Cells to Maclay is
dated August 81, 1874: and the deed from
Pico to the San Fernando Farm Home
stead association (the predecessor OF the
present Los Angeles Farming and Milling
company is dated July 2, 1869.
A careful etudy of the dates of the fore
going instruments will show that all of the
transactions we're prior to the date of the
patent, which eiTectually disposes OF the
plea of innocence made by Judge Widney.
If it pe replied that Cells himself was
party to the proceedings to obtain the pat
ent and that therefore purchasers under
him were innocent, attention is called to
the following facts which are provable by
the record:
The original claim to TIE San Fernando
mission was for four leagues. In his petition
to the land commissioners Cells asked for
fourteen leagues. The opinion of the COM
missioners was that thirteen leagues could
be confirmed, but they confirmed fourteen
leagues in accordance with the petition.
Fourteen leagues is little more than 62,-
900 acres. The patent conveyed over
10000 acres, or nearly twice as much as
the commissioners confirmed.
The so-called grant was antedated.
The United States surveyor general,
under instructions from the commissioner
of the general land Office. reques eel Eu-
logic F. de Cells. administrator of the
estate OF Eulogio de Cells, to accept the
patent as it now appears OF record. This
Cells, administrator. refused to do. and he
AYERS that the patent was surreptitiously
taken from the office of the United States
surveyor general, without his knowledge or
consent, and placed of record. This J.;
shown by the affidavit of the said Eulogio
+. de Cells. also the affidavit of Mr.. Porter,
one OF the present claimants. These facts
cannot be controverted.
Judge Widney in trying TO refute the
argument against the Jurisdiction of the
matter: "The supreme court elinches the
nail after driving it through
Under the act of March 8, 1857 uS51
was probably meant, a case is within the
jurisdiction of the board of commissioners
which shows a claim by virtue of a right
or title derived from the Spanish or Mexi-
can governments. J"
Exactly. The s'atute gives the commits
sioners jurisdiction over claims derived
from the Mexican and Spanish govern
ments.'' But the petition for the San Fer
nando shows on it's face that this was not
a case of claim 'derived from the MeNi-
can or Spanish governments" but a case
of sale Of mission lands by Pho Pco,
purely private transaction. and one that
did not come within the purview of the
powers of the commissioners. 1t was a
case of sale by Pico to Cells.
1t will be in order to ask Judge Widney
few questions about the rights of the In
dians in these lands, which he ought to
possess the information to answer prompt
ly;,,
Was there not an agreement entered into
between Pic Pico and Cells on the one
hand and the Indians on the other, to the
effect that the Indians were not not to ap-
ply for patent, but to permit Pico and
Cells to get the patent and then convey to
the Indians their portion of the lands?
Was there not agreement between Eu-
logic F. de Cells and Porter & Maclay, at
the time the latter purchased the lands,
that the Indians should he protected in
their rights in these lands:
Did not Porter 'S Maclay. bring suit
against Rinaldi and others under similar
grant to one Samuel. an Indian?
Did not Porter 4 Maclay bring an action
of ejectment against Odon, an Indian. and
others in which this same claim for which
Rogerio Rocha is:contending was set up as
defense?
Did not Porter & Maclay bring suit to
eject the Domecs from a tract of 16O
acres which they and their ancestors had
occupied long prior to the alleged grant by
Pico to Cells, in which suit Brousseau &
n atch, attorneys for the Domecs. consented
to decree in consideration of the plaintiffs
paying to defendants $1,000, and did not
Maria and FRANCESCA Domec convey to b.
I. Porter all their interest in the north half
of the en- Mission San Fernando in settle
ment of this controversy? (The Domec
girls deny knowing that they were convey
ing any other interest than the 16O acres
referred 10. Brousseau claimed that they
we're not, and when he found that they had
he blamed the mistake upon Hatch.)
Did not B. f. Atherton obtain a deed
from Rocha for 15 acres of the same land
Rocha now claims:
Have +. +. and b. L. Porter not obtained
deeds frou various persons supposed to be
descendants of some of these same forty
Indians
If Judge Widney is not informed as to
the foregoing matters, he Is displaying
remarkable lack of interest in his own
claim to these lands.
Judge Widney claims that the Rogerio
title is a fraud, and that it never was
brought before the land commissioners.
he report of the surv eyor general for
1880 gives list of certain grants found
among the archives of the former Spanish
and Mexican governments, which have
been in the surveyor generals office since
the early sos. Among these is this grant
to Joaquin Alcade and forty companions.
II follows in consecutive order of date, as
all genuine papers on file among these
archives do Those not found there are
not considered genuine. The Judge cannot
find there any mention of grant from Pho
PicO TO EulOpiO de t,elis or anv Othor narIy