The herald., 1896-02-02

firmation. a.a
III his brief he says:
/ STRONG POINTS
Mr.. Montgomery's Presentation at wsshinss
| ton About the Invalid drants
In this connection the attention Of the
president and congress is especially called
to the act of congress entitled:
IAN act to ascertain and settle the pfi-
vate land claims in the state of California;
passed March 3, 1851.
sSection 8 of this act, in fixing and Iim~
iting the Jurisdiction of the board Of land
commissioners, by designating the nature
and character of the land claims which tho
board should hear and determine, prod
! vides: -i
''Section s. And be It further enacted
that each and every person claiming Iand4
4 in California by virture of any right or title
derived from the Spanish or Mexican govj
ernment, shall present the same to the
said commissioners, when sitting as q
board. together with such documentary
evidence and testimony of witnesses a. the
said claimant relies upon in support o&
such claim; and it shall be the duty Cd
the commissioners, when the case is readyl
for hearing to proceed promptly to examin4
1 the same upon such evidence. and upon
the evidence produced in behalf Of the
United States, and to decide upon the W.
| lidity of the said claims'', etc. ~
NOT A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION
This board Of land commissioners waa
not q court of general jurisdiction with
! power to hear and determine all kinds Cd
cases in law and equity, that might come
before it; nor was it clothed with power tcI
determine all kinds of claims to land; but
| it was special tribunal created for spe4
| cial purpose, namely, to hear and deterS
| mine in the language of the act, the claim
of teach and every person claiming landa
in California, by virtue of any right or titId
derived from the Spanish or Mexican govx
ernment." ,.. 49,
Now, the truth is, that large numberon
claims for vast tracts of California lands
were confirmed by these commissioners in
compliance with petitions that failed to-
show any right or title derived from the
| Spanish or Mexican government, but
which showed conclusively that there wa0
no right or title whatever derived from
either of said governments.
| DE CELLS GRANT CITED
| For example, in the case of the petition
| of one Eulogio de Cells, asking for the con,
flrmation to him of the so-caIied San Fer
nando mission grant; the said petition,
filed October 9TH, 1852, stated facts which
showed clearly that the grant was in direct
violation of law and utterly void. Said pc.
tition alleged and the so-called grant ac.
cempanying the petition showed that in-
stead of grant made pursuance of the
Mexican law, it was an attempted sale in
violation of law for sl4 900, of tract Of
land alleged to contain about IA square
leagues, sidf er ei
In the case Of the United States vs..
Vallejo, in passing on an attempted sale Of
land by Governor Picc, made about
the same time and for the same alleged
purpose of raising money to defend the
country against the American forces, the
supreme court of the United States said:
1.-THE main objection to this grant is the
want of power in the governor to make it;'s
and after fully considering the question:
| the court holds that there was no such
power; and on that ground held that
Vallejo had no title.
Again, in the case of the United States
VS.. Workman, the supreme court said:
"The governor of California had no powea
on the Sth day of June. 1916, either under
the colonization law of August IL, 1S74v
and the regulations of November l, 1925
nor yet under the dispatch of March 1Od
1916, from the minister of war, under the
proclamation of Mariana Paredes Y Arri<
laga, president ad interim of the Mexicau
republic, dated March 13, 1S46-these two
last being made in anticipation Of the in<
vasion of California by the forces of the
United States, nor under any other authors
ity, to make valid sale and grant OF ths
mission of San Gabriel, in California.
A PRETENDED SALE
But if a pretended sale of the "Sahl
Gabriel mission Iands,'' made on June s.
1916, by the governor of California, was
absolutely void for want of power in this
governor to make it, was not another sale
just like it, by the same governor. embrac4
ing the "San Fernando mission landsv
made nine days later, equally void for the
| same reason?
And if such sale was absolutely voids
then. when the claimant presented his
petition for confirmation to the board Of
land commissioners, setting out, as he did.
the very facts that made his claim void,
can it be said that the claim so presented
ticular class of claims over which the act
above quoted gave the board jurisdiction
to hear and determine? That is TO say,
did such petition show that the petitioner
was a "person claiming lands in California
by virtue of right or title derived from
the Spanish or Mexican government" On
the contrary; if the supreme court decis.
ions above cited are to he taken as the law,
and they have never been oyerruled, did
not the petition of the claimant show con-
clusively that the petitioner was s'person
claiming Iands in California, by virtue offs
no ''rieht or title derived from the Spanish
or Mexican government?''
POSITION STRENGTH ENED.
The position here taken is greatly
strengthened when considered in the light
of other portions of said act creating said
board and defining its powers and duties.
Congress seems to have been we'll aware OF
the existence Of the Mexican law. denying
to the governor of California the power to
grant mission lands; and helice by section
l6 of the oct referred. it Is provided:
"That it shall be the duty of the commio>