The herald., 1896-02-03
JUDGE R. N. V|DNEy'S SAY
Regarding ROgerio Rocha's
Claims to Mission Lands
SOME OF THE LEGAL PHASES
The Mission Indians and the Land
Commission
Rochas Grant uestioned-Contention That
Any Title lie May fiave Had Has
SOME OF THE LEGAL PHASES
Rocha's drant uestioned-Contention That
Any Title lie May Have Had Has
Been Extinguished

kindly said that the columns of THE HER.
AID were open TO any article I might pre-
pare on the subject. Of this l will avail
myself, and will present as nearly as can
| facts and not sentiment founded upon
imaginary facts.
| The articles appearing in your paper
seem to be editorial or reportorial, as no
names are given for its other authority.
The subject matter. SO far as your paper ia
concerned, is merely hoarsay, as none of
your editorial force were eyewitnesses of
any OF the original matters.
| The subject, therefore, is to be consid-
cred under the facts and under the laws
under which we live.
| The root of the whole matter Is an at
tack on the San Fernando title, and the
milk in the cocoanut is that the attacking
They are not working for their health or to
put money in the treasury of the United
States. Tho attacking party says the
lands are worth $12 100000. This is tho
| plum. If the lands were worthless we
would hear nothing on the subject. If the
title were thrown back to the government.
the government would only get the paltry
sum of $3.50 per acre, and private parties
would take in the rest of the twelve
millions.
None of the present owners had any,
thing to do with the original Mexican
grant or its confirmation. They are all in
| nocent purchasers at from $50 per acre up
of them have valuable orange and fruit
orchards on these lands as well as other
improvements. Is il called equity to try
and divest them of title?
But if the original grant and patent
could be set aside, no good could result to
. fNeny tSr.z -.Vrs
gress Of July Is, 1866, section z, pro.
vides. "That where persons in good faith,
and for q valuable consideration, have
purchased land of Mexican grantees or as
signs. which grants have subsequently
been rejected, or where the lands so pur-
chased have been excluded from the final
survey of any Mexican grants, and have
used, improved and continued in the actual
possession OF the same according to the
lines OF their original purchase, and where
no valid adverse right or title Except of
the United States), exists, such purchasers
may purchase the same, after having such
lands surveyed under existing laws, at the
minimum price established by law"
U. S. statutes l a, page 21S.
Under the above the title would rest just
where it now is. So nothing that the at
tacking parties can do will disturb present
ownership. But the San Fernando title is
perfect and can not be disturbed.
II
quoted in your article of 2nd inst. that tho
grant was void because De Cells paid $14,-
600 for it,and that the land commission and
courts had no Jurisdiction over the case
He is fundamentally and legally at vari.
ance with the act of congress and decision
of the courts.
The act of congress gave jurisdiction to
the land commission and courts to hear
and determine the claim of leach and
every person claiming lands in California
by virtue of any right or title derived from
the Spanish or Mexican government" and
that such person shall present their claims
and the proof in support thereof. as well as
the evidence of the United States, land it
shall be the duty of the commissioners
when the case is ready for hearing to pro-
ceed promptly to examine the same upon
such evidence and to decide upon the va
lidity of such claim"
Here is express jurisdiction to hear and
determine the validity of all claims, good,
bad and Indifferent, and to determine the
validity of such claims. The act also pro-
vides for appeals to the courts, surveys and
patents and makes the proceedings final.
The United States supreme court has de-
cided as follows:
"There is no distinction as to the jurisdic-
ton of the board to settle private land
claims in California created by the act of
Marcel. 3, 1857, between claims derived
from the Spanish or Mexican government,
which were perfect under the laws of those
governments ,sahd those which were in
cipient, imperfect or inchoate."
Botiller vs.. Dominguez 13O. U. s. 238.
No title to land in California dependent
upon Spanish or Mexican grants can be of
any validity which has not been SUBJ
mitted to and confirmed by the board pro-
vided for that purpose by the act of March
8, 1857, or If rejected by that board, con-
firmed by the district or supreme court of
the United States.''
Same case.)
Under this any purported grant from
Micheltoreno to Rogerio and forty others is
absolutely null and void and constitutes
no grant or title or right whatever, there
fore when I assert that Roserio had no
and forty others had any such purported
grant and did not present it to the COM
mission it was undoubtedly because it
was too glaring a fraud. 1t re-
jected by the commission it must have
been fraud. To assume that Rogerio
never heard of the land commission is too
violent an assumption. The country at
that time was filed with the ablest attor.
neys, who searched the Mexican archives
and examined every clue to grant, for
the purpose of presenting it for a fee. The
fact that it is found in the surveyor-gener-
ais report for 1880 and not in the arch
ieves of the land commission is conclusive
evidence of its worthlessness.
The United States supreme court has
also decided ''unler the act of congress OF
March 8, 1857 for the settlement Of prl-
vate land claims in California, persons
claiming land by title derived from the
Spanish or Mexican government were re-
quired to present their claims to the board
of commissioners created by the act within
two years from it's date, and were bound
by Judgment of the board, if confirmed
by the courts on appeal, and by the survey
and location of the claim by the land Off
GERS, following the final decree of confirm
a.io..7i
More v. Steinbach. 1877 u. s., 70.
IA patent Issued after the survey and To-
cation Of California land claim under the
act of Congress of March Sd, 1857, ia
conclusive as to The validity, extent and
boundaries of the claims" (Same case.)
Under the above decision the result of
the De Cells grant having been regularly
presented, confirmed and patented, is that
it is conclusive"
When the parties now attacking that title
have studied law long enough to know what
conclusive" means they will cease their
Don Quixotic attacks. The title has been
confirmed over 40 years and the U. S. pat
ent has been issued over % years.
The supreme court clinches the nail after
driving it through, as follows:
"Under the act of March 3, 1857, a case
is within the jurisdiction of the board of
commissioners, which shows O claim by
virtue of right or title derived from the
Spanish or Mexican government"
Beard v. Fedey, 3 Wall, 478.
"The board having acquired Jurisdiction,
it's subsequent proceedings cannot be col