The herald., 1896-02-03


any Spanish or Mexican claim to land in
California is conferred upon the commits
| soners."
| Costillero VS.. U. S. 2, Black i.
As to whether Mr.: Montgomery's opinionl
will reverse the decisions of the United
States supreme court is not a question for
| sane persons to consider.
Neither congress nor the president can
| set aside the title of the San Fernando
| rancho. For such an act would be uncon-
| siitutional as impairing the obligations OF
contracts and judgments, which are con-
| trscts.
The president has not presented any
message to congress relating to extending
the time in which the government may
bring suits against Mexican grant titles.
His recent message relates only to railroad
land grants which, under special statutes,
require an extension of time as l now rec
ollect the message.
Ii therefore any syndicate Is being formed
| to prosecute such claims they will sooner
| or later find that they are only putting up
money to fee attorneys who have nothing
to lose, provided they get their fee. 1t is
form.
The Rogerio Rocha hue and crv is only
an eifort to divert attention from the char
acter of their present work, and to aid in
working" on the credulity and sympathy
of others. The origin of the Rogerio Rocha
claim was purely an effort to extort money
from myself and others. At the time the
original ejectment was pending, certain
parties came to me and offered for $4,000
to remove Rogerio Rccha from the play.
would not submit to any such biackmail.
Prior to that time Rogerio Eocha dis
claimed any title or right. The next step
by these parties was the assertion in 1886,
fns.t III H.
ped ten acres, the bounds of which were
clearly Defined" and that the de Cells
grant contained ''clause excepting the
land occupied by the Indians"
Now in ten years the claim, under the
| manipulation of parties interested, has
grown to grant of 44OO acres of the rich
est lands OF the San Fernando valley,
worth 81 100000. I do not hesitate to
denounce the blacknailng scheme which
has thus grown from "a tsn-acro we'll
defined lot," offered for $4,000, to a
l2l ,OOO-acre ranch, alleged to be worth
$12.O0O,O0O. All of which will eventually
end in few people being duped into put
ting up some money for attorneys fees
under the promise of getting large prize
by healing up the title.
1t is the ''sure.thing" tbree-card monte
trick.
If these men are working out of sympa-
thy for Rogerio Rocha, why do they not
put up some money and send to him, in
stead of trying usulessly to upset the de.
cision of the United States supreme court.
1t will be observed that in the affidavita
made by Rogerio Rocha that he nowhere
refers to his ever having had grant from
the Mexican government for 440O acres.
He never set up a title in himself in court.
In his affidavit published in The HERALD
of the Sd inst. he does not claim any title.
He says: ''After my father died I re-
mained in possession Of the ranch where
he died, and cultivated the same" He
also says that his father and mother died
long ago.
This corroborates the statement that
Rogerio had no right whatever. For the
old Mexican grant says that De Cells, 'cov-
old Indians in their landsfor the remainder
of their days so that they raise their crops,
with the sole condition that they cannot
ALLEVIATE the land which they may cul-
tivate, and any other lands which
they may. possess, without previous
title from the departmental government"
That is, the actually old Indians at that
time were to remain undisturbed during
their lives. And Rogerio now, in his atfi-
davit, states their death was long prior to his
removal. And he was not one of the ''act-
ually existing old Indians in 1846. The
clause in the grant prohibited the aliena-
ton by the old Indians of their possession,
and therefore no right of possession could
be transferred by them to Rogerio. Neither
could Rogerio, even il one OF the ''actually
existing old Indians" ALLEVIATE any title or
claim. Hence his deed would be void
Hence the necessity Of abandoning all
claim under the De Cells grant, and at
say fabricating, for under the act of con-
gress of 1857 and the decision of the land
commissioners and courts his pretended
grant is void and a fraud. 1t could not be
introduced as evidence in any court, for
the United States supreme court has said:
"A grant of Pho Pico was rightly excluded
from evidence, it never having been pre-
sented to the board of land commission
ers for confirmation, as required by the act
of March 3. 1857, and never confirmed"
Beard v. Fedey, 3 Wall 478.
The statement that the ten acres where
college. is within my personal knowledge
falsehood pure and simple. The swampy
character of the ten acres would make
such a use ridiculous. The college is
located mile distant from the ten acres
referred to. When Rogerio was elected
Senator Maclay supplied him with pro.
visions and offered through me to rent him
a house either in San Fernando or in Los
Angeles city, and to pay his rent for the
winter. But kogerio, under bad advice, re-
fused, and his effects were left by the road.
None of the parties that had deceived him
tnen OllereQ him any nelp. ROgerlo seeing
the hollowness of their ofessions, came
to Senator Maclay and stated that he had
been deceived aud misIed and asked for
help. Senator Maclay took him to the
store and told him to order what he wanted.
He did SO and the goods were paid for by
Senator Maclay, and Rogerio went away
without word of complaint. I would
suggest that in addition to
this that you publish the affidavit
of c. Maclay and the deputy sheriffs relat-
ing to the matter which furnished your
reporter some time ago. 1t is hardly fair
to print such elaborate afIidavits on the
other side and not print the ones made by
the actual eye-witnesses of the matter. I
was in San Fernando that day and per-
sonally know that it was not ''blinding
rainstorm." I know it was clear, sum
shiny day when Rogerio was elected.
Please do not infer from this article that
1 reflect in any manner on the editorial de-
partment, for such is not the case, an you
expressly stated to me that you had no
interest in it except as a piece of informa-
ton that others had brought to your office.
My condemnation is against the original
instigators who do not allow their names to
be known. r. NJ. WIpNEY.
February 8, 1896.