The San Francisco call., 1896-02-29
THE GOVERNMENT LANDS
U. S. District Attorney Focte
Explains the Big Grant
Suits.
RICH LANDOWNERS EXCITED
Opposing Opinion Concerning the Con-
stitutionality of the Five Year
Limit Law.

The CAIL's exclusive account of the ex-
tenslve government suits against the Visi-
tation, Los Pulgas and Corde de Madro
ranches, published yesterday morning,
was provocative of wide discussion among
landowners and attorneys.
| In the language of the complaint in the
case of the United States VS.. the Visitation
Rancho abbey Land and Improvement
Company and la other defendants). the
most bald-faced fraud was perpetrated on
the Government.
Ex-United States District Attorney
Sharp is censured and accused IN the
strongest language. Besides connivine
with the surveyors when the latter ex-
tended the boundaries of the Visitation
| Rancho to take in hundreds of acres of
Government domain he is also charged
with having acted with the attorneys for
the defense in stipulation for dismissal
when suit was first brought, three and a
half years ago. The Attorney Genera
had repeatedly urged the bringing of the
suit and its vigorous prosecution. Sharp
was finally forced to act but according to
the complaint he acted with the defend
ants.
| Concerning the two similar suits to be
brought against the landowners in the Los
Pulgas and Ccrde de Madro ranchos Mon
day, the United States District Attorney
| said yesterday:
"Of course, the property incorporated
within the boundary limits of these two
ranches is very valuable, and it is more
than likely there has been grave fraud per-
| petrated. The conditions are similar to
| those existing in the Visitation Rancho,
| that is, the surveyors of the Mexican
| grants extended the lines so as to take in
! large tracts OF the public domain. 1t was
| fraud the same as that by which the VisI-
! tation Rancho increased Its area, and there
must have been conspiracy between the
| officers OF the Government. 1t devolves
on this office to bring the crime home to
the guilty persons.
ut may be that on investigation of the
! two suits to be brought Monday may re-
| port in favor of their dismissal. You see,
they differ somewhat from that of the Visi-
tation Rancho. In that case a palpa BILE
wrong was done innocent men.
| After they had purchased the Govern
ment land in good faith officers Of the Gov
| eminent in surveying the rancho extended
the limits so as oinclude Clark's and MUIR
| phys land in the Mexican grant.
| 'ln the latter cases, however, the Gov
ernmeIts incentive to action is not as
strong. The landowners in and about
Redwood City, in San Mateo County, and
| Belvedere, Marin County, Sought the land
in good faith, and it may be that the acre
age frauduieatly included in the Mexican
| grant surveys is not large enough to cause
| the Government to act unless the fraud
can be brought home. But, as I said, all
this will depend on the result OF my in
vestigations.
! both ranches incorporate within their
| respective boundaries much valuable land.
| The little hamlet of Belvedere, in Marin
| County, has been built up by wealthy men,
and Redwood City and many of the ad-
jacent estates include some of the most
valuable property in this part of the State.
! The Government, though, has no desire to
! deal harshly or arbitrarily, and it may be
| these two cases will not be prosecuted in
| the same way as that of the Visitation
| Rancho.
The Mexican land grant laws are very
| peculiar and have given rise to much liti-
CATION i'll this State. l have. been so busy
| of late that l have not had an opportunity
! OF going much into the question. The
suits being filed at this time, without
warning, as 1t were, is due to the necessity
Tor getting in ahead OF the bar of limita-
| ton. On the Sd of March the time for i'll
ing these suits will have expired
| ITO comprehend the significance of
| these actions on the part of the Govern
| ment one should first understand that
there are several kinds of Mexican land
| grants" said 2. l.. Koscialowski yester-
| day. II have had occasion to make a spe-
cial study of the old Mexican laws, and
! the farther | go the more am | inclined to
| sympathize with the jurists who have to
pass upon them. OF the different kinds of
| grants there are two which have figured
principally i'll the most extensive land lit-
| cations.
/ "The first is what is known as a grant
by quantity and may briefly be explained
| thus: A certain piece of land was de-
| scrlbed by meets and bounds known as ex-
terror limits, within which the grantee
was given a certain quantity of land, say a
| square league, by way of illustration. He
could select that square league anywhere
| within the exterior limits of the area from
| which he was to choose. Or he might
take half in one place and the other half
| somewhere else. In the other class how
ever, he could take his grant only in a GER
| tain place. so much and no more than
that specifically granted. The Visitation
| Rancho is of the second class.
| 1.-The law OF 1851, passed May 13 of that
year and entitled an act to quiet land
titles in California, provided that grantees
OF the Mexican Government should pre-
| sent their claims to a board of commits
| sioners, created by said act, within five
! years from the date of the passage OF the
act. Many attorneys who have made a
close study of Mexican law claim that the
act IS unconstitutional / am among the
number. 1t is obviously unjust to the
most superficial observer In 1851 the
/ means OF communication were vague and
primitive, and many there were holding
land in good faith, under Mexican grant,
who never heard OF the law until they
were notified by fraudulent agents that
their land had reverted to the Govern
ment.
"The Government suits can be success
| fully com bated on the same grounds. But
| be that as 1T may, they are of grave legal
| significance, and there may be no end of
litigation on account OF the several
millions involved