Case Name: The United States vs. Andres Castillero; Andres Castillero vs. The United States
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1862-12
Citations: 2 Black 17
Docket Number: 
Parties: The United States vs. Andres Castillero. Andres Castillero vs. The United States.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 17–371

Head Matter:
The United States vs. Andres Castillero. Andres Castillero vs. The United States.
1. Paredes, President of Mexico, from 15th December, 1845, until 29th July, 1846, exercised extraordinary powers, but it is not certain that such of his acts as violated the law were ever ratified: — Semble, That such ratification was necessary to make his acts valid as against the government.
2. Conceding the power of the acting President of the Republic, ' to make a grant of land in California, the several documents attesting any supposed ’ grant are to be examined with care, since it thus becomes a question of construction whether it was or was" not intended to be a grant.
3. A part}1- asserting that he had discovered and denounced a valuable mine in California, presented a memorial to the Junta de Minería, asking a loan of money and materials to work it, and also requesting the Junta to recommend that the government grant him as a colonist two square leagues on his mining possession. The Junta communicated the memorial to the Minister of Justice, with their approval of the loan, &c.; but declined to give any opinion upon the propriety of granting the land. . The Minister of Justice in the name of the President concurred with the Junta, and with respect to the land, ordered the proper measures to be taken by the Minister of Relations, “with the understanding that the government accedes to the petition.” The Minister of Relations made out and gave to the applicant a dispatch addressed to the Governor of California reciting the pre\ ious proceedings and declaring that he did so in order that the Governor might put the applicant in possession of the two square leagues “in conformity with the laws and decrees on the subject of colonization.” The dispatch was' never delivered to the Governor : — Held, That this was not a grant for two leagues of land nor intended to be so.
4, The legal effect of the dispatch of the Minister of Relations ' was merely to authorize a regular application to the Governor by petition under the laws of 1824 and 1828 to be followed by such steps as those laws require, and a grant of land' if the Governor should ascertain that it was proper to make one.
5 To say that these proceedings at the City of Mexico were in themselves an absolute grant, either legal or equitable, of the land claimed under them, is a manifest error which this Court cannot be expected to sanction.
6.- The case of United Stales vs. Castillero, (23 How. 468,.) reviewed and shown to be entirely different from this in its facts, arid’ in the legal principles applicable to it.
1. If the mine was on private property, the Governor was wholly without power to make a grant of land there, for his jurisdiction under the colonization laws extends only so far as to 'make grants of public lands.
8. Nor would it benefit the claimant, if it were now shown that it was public land because his own representations prove that he fully believed it'to be private property.
9. A mining right or privilege under the Mexican ordinances relating to that subject, is a title to land within the meaning of the Act of 1851, and therefore the Board of Land Commissioners. had jurisdiction to investigate a claim to such right.
I). The ordinances made and established by the King of Spain at Madrid in 1183, prescribe the mode of acquiring titles to mines, and were in force throughout the Republic of Mexico-at the date of the American conquest of California.
U A strict compliance with the terms and conditions of those ordinances is required by the ordinances themselves, and is shown to be necessary on general principles by all the writers on the subject.
12 Registry is the basis of title to a mine, and no mine can be lawfully worked until it is registered; nor can any title thereto be acquired either by the discoverer or by any other person without a registry.
13 Registry consists of an entry in a book kept by the pioper public authority '
14. Claimant of a mining right filed with his petition, an espediente of his title certified by an Alcalde to be a true copy to the letter from the original in his office. It was afterwards proved that the expediente and the certificate were in the handwriting of a party interested, who had copied them from papers furnished by another party also interested, and that the'Alcalde had signed the certificate without seeing any original: — Held, That this document is entirely unworthy of credit.
15 Claimant produced another espediente certified by a Mexican Alcalde who could not write nor read writing. This expediente differed in some particulars from that which the claimant filed with his petition. The Alcalde, though a witness, was not asked to verify the document. It was in the handwriting of another witness who swore to that fact, but did not testify from what he had copied it: — Held, That such a document, so proved, is entitled to very little conside ration.
16. Another espediente was produced at a Subsequent period which the claimant alleged to be the original from the archives, though it differed materially from the two others previously alleged to be copies. A witness testified that he found it among the records in January, 1851, but it bore no official marks, it was never seen among the archives previous to that time, the claimant’s counsel had made affidavit in December, 1850, that the original expediente was in Mexico and could not be produced, nor a copy of it furnished, though it had been diligently sought for: — Held, That this document was not sufficiently proved, and that the testimony of Mexican officers and assisting witnesses who swore to its execution'by them at or about the time of its date did not establish it as an official paper.
.11 . fourth and still different expediente was introduced by claimant near the close of the case. It was certified (all but the act of possession) by an Alcalde who admitted on his oath that the papers had been sent to him from the mine, and he had signed the certificates without knowing what they were. The Mexican officer and his assisting witnesses were then called to prove that" the act of possession in this expediente was a duplicate original Upon these and other circumstances it was: — Held, Thai this expediente could not be regarded as a genuine document, and that its production at that late stage of the case, added to its glaring inconsistency with the evidence previously given, had the effect, not only to impair all confidence in the first expediente, but to discredit all the witnesses who had sworn to the papers of which it was composed
18. Title to a mine is vested by the adjudication or decree of the proper tribunal in a case duly presented for decision, and by •' the registry'of the adjudication, together with the proceedings on which it is founded. •
19. The mere fact of discovery without such adjudication and registry, gives no title to the .discoverer, though it is also true that without proof of discovery there can be no adjudication in his favor.
,20. To complete the adjudication and carry it into effect, the ' boundaries must be fixed ; else the title or claim, like other indefinite interests in lands, will be void for uncertainty; and this rule applies to mines situate on public as well as to those on private lands.
21. An Alcalde had no jurisdiction- under the mining laws and could make no title to a mine. The tribunal empowered to exer- . cise this jurisdiction was the Mining Deputation of the territory or the nearest one thereto.
22. The fact that no Mining Deputation nor no Courts of First Instance were established in California, would show that a law, giving jurisdiction over mines to an Alcalde, might have been a convenience to the people, but. it does not show that such a law existed.
23. It may be safely inferred from the character and history of Mexico, that its supreme government reserved to itself the power over its mines, and j. .irposely withheld all jurisdiction ,of that nature from the local authorities of its distant and frontier territories.
24. If the Alcalde had jurisdiction it would be necessary for the claimant to show that such jurisdiction was exercised in accordance with the requirements of the mining ordinances.
25. Some of the provisions of those ordinances are doubtless directory, and others conditions subsequent, but some of them are clearly conditions precedent.
26 Those provisions which appertain to the registry of the mine and the action of the tribunal thereon, and in respect to the judicial possession of it, are conditions precedent, and a discoverer cannot support a title without showing a substantial compliance. Want of registry and omission to mark boundaries on the ground are fatal defects in a mining title.
27 A discoverer who neglects to have his title adjudicated and registered agreeabty to the ordinance, or to have his pertenencias measured and marked, does not by such negligence forfeit his title; but simply fails to acquire any title which could be the subject of forfeiture.
28. Claimant went to Mexico six months after the alleged date of his mining title. He petitioned the J unta for aid and asked a land grant, as mentioned in note 3. He asserted that he had discovered and denounced a mine, but produced no title papers, and falsely stated that the mine was in the Mission of Santa Clara, suppressing the fact that it was on a- private rancho five leagues distant from that Mission. He requested the J unta to recommend the approval of the possession of the mine which had been given him by the local authorities of California The Junta agreed to furnish the assistance and recommended the approval or confirmation. The President approved of the agreement made by the J unta in order to commence working the mine (as one. of his ministers said) or (according to another) for the exploration of the mine, but made no decree concerning the title -. — Held, That these proceedings were not a confirmation or'approval of any title which the claimant might previously have obtained from an Alcalde in California, and therefore, the documents produced to show that he had such a title must stand ór fall by their own contents and the evidence which supports them on their original merits.
2S The Court discusses numerous acts of the original claimant and of parties interested in the mine, and especially those disclosed in a correspondence between them, and holds these acts to be evidence that the claimant and his alienees knew full well the invalidity of the title which he and they were setting up.
30. The assurance given by the Mexican Government when the ' treaty of peace was under negotiation, that no' title for land in California had been made of later date than 13th May, 1846 ; he assent to the tenth article which contained a similar declaration ; and her acceptance of the subsequent explanations contained in a protocol which promised the protection of the American Government only to such titles as were made before that time, ■ prove that Mexico herself did know, and must have known, that the pretensions of the claimants under a title of later date were unfounded.
These were cross appeals, severally taken ■ by the United States, and by the claimants, from a decree of the District Court for the Northern District of California, in a claim of Andres Castillero, for land, under the Act of March 8, 1851.
Before the commencement of the proceeding, the claim had been divided, and most of the shares in it were held by other persons, who, with Castillero, occupied the lands under the name of the New Almadén Mining Company. But the petition to the Board of Land Commissioners was presented by the attorneys of the company in the .name of Castillero alone, for his benefit, and the benefit of those holding under him.
The petition set forth that Castillero discovered a mine of cinnabar .in 1845; that having formed a company to work it, he, on the 22d of November, and 3d of December, 1845, de nounced it, and on the 30th of December received juridical possession indue form from the magistrate of that jurisdiction; that the record of his mining possession was afterwards submitted to the Junta de Fomento y Administración de Minería, who declared it to be legal, and recommended to the Executive not only that it be confirmed, but that two square leagues be granted him on the surface of his mining possession; that the grant of two square leagues was made on the 20th of May, 1846, and an order or patent of title issued to him on the 23d, with which he started to take possession, but was prevented by the war; that as soon as possible he got a survey made; that by virtue of these facts he acquired a perfect title, under which he and his grantees have held possession ever since 1845, expending immense sums of money upon it. The petition concludes with a prayer that the Land Commissioner will confirm to him “the two square leagues of land, as embraced in his mining possession and -grant as aforesaid.”
Along with the petition the claimants filed copies of the title documents under which they claimed the mine and lands. The mining title consisted of the following papers united together m the form of an expediente.
“ Señor alcalde of first nomination:
“ Andres Castillero, captain of permanent cavalry and at present resident in this department, before your notorious justification makes representation : That having discovered a vein of silver, with a ley of gold, on the rancho pertaining to José Reyes Berreyesa, retired sergeant of the Presidio Company of San Francisco, and wishing to work it in company, I request that, in conformity with the ordinance on mining, you will be pleased to fix up notices in public places of the jurisdiction, in order to make sure of my right when the time of the juridical possession may arrive, according to the laws on the matter.
“ I pray you to provide in conformity, in which I will receive favor and justice; admitting this on common paper, there being none of the corresponding stamp.
“Pueblo of San José Guadalupe, November twenty-second, eighteen hundred and forty-five.
“ Andres Castillero.”
“ This is a copy of the original to which I refer, signing it with two assisting witnesses, in the Pueblo of San José Guadalupe, on the 13th of January, 1846.
“ Pedro Chabolla.
“ Assisting witnesses—
Sansevain,
José Suñol.”
“ Señor alcalde of first nomination:
“ I, Andres Castillero, permanent captain of cavalry, before youi well-known justification, appearand say : That on opening the mine which I previously denounced in this court, I have taken out, besides silver with a ley of gold, liquid quicksilver, in the presence of several bystanders, whom I may summon on the proper occasion.
“ And considering it necessary for the security of iny right so to do, I have to request of you, that uniting this representation to the denouncement, it may be placed on. file, it not going on stamped paper, because there is none.
“ I pray you to take measures to this effect, in which 1 wiil receive favor and grace,
“ Santa Clara, December 3, 1845.
"Andres Castillero.”
“ This is a copy of the original to which I refer, signing it with the witnesses of my assistance, in the Pueblo of San José Guadalupe, on the 13th of January, 1846.
Pedro Chabolla.
“ Assisting witnesses:
P. Sansevain,
José Suñol.”
“ There being no deputation on mining in the Department of California, and this being the only time since the settlement of Upper California, that a mine has been worked in conformity with the laws —and there being no Juez de Letras (Professional Judge) in the See ond District, I; the Alcalde of first Nomination, citizen Antonia Maria Pico, accompanied by two assisting witnesses, have resolved to act in virtue of my office for want of a Notary Public, there being none, for the purpose of giving juridical possession of the mine known by the name of Santa Clara, in this jurisdiction, situated on the Rancho of the retired sergeant José Reyes .Berreyesa, for the time having expired,' which is designated in the ordinance of mining, for citizen Don Andres Castillero, to show his right, and also for others to allege a better right, between the time of denouncement and this date, and the mine being found with abundance of metals discovered, the shaft made according to the rules of art, and the working of the mine producing a large quantity of liquid quicksilver, as shown by the specimens which this court has; and as the laws now in force so strongly-recommended the protection of an article so necessary for the amalgamation of gold and silver in the Republic, I have granted three thousand varas of land in all directions,' subject to what the general ordinance of mines may direct, it being worked in company, to which I certify, the witnesses signing with me; this act of possession being attached to the rest of the expediente, deposited in the Archives under my charge. This not going on stamped paper, becausp there is none, as prescribed by law.
“ Jazgado of San José Guadalupe, December 30, 1845.
“.Antonio Maria Pico.
“Assisting witnesses:
Antonio Suñol,
José Noriega. ”
“I have received of Don Andres Castillero the sum of twenty-five dollars, on account of the fees for the possession of the quicksilver, mine, which is in this jurisdiction, under my charge, named .Santa Clara.
“ Court House of San José Guadalupe, Decémber 30, 1845.
“$25. “Antonio Maria Pico.”
“Writing of partnership executed by Don Andres Castillero, captain of permanent cavalry, with the commanding general, Don José Castro, and the Señores Secundino Robles and Teodoro Robles, and a voluntary grant which the partners make perpetually to the Rev. Father Fria, José Maria del Refugio Suarez del Real, of a mine of silver, gold, and quicksilver, in the Rancho of Don José Reyes Berreyesa, in the jurisdiction of the Pueblo of San José G uadalupe
“ Art. 1. Don Andres Castillero, conforming in all respects to the ordinance of mining, forms a regular perpetual partnership with the said persons in this form : The half of the mine, which is that of which he can dispose, will be divided in three parts, in this manner; four shares to Don José Castro; four shares to Señores Secundino and Teodoro Robles ; and the other four shares to the Rev. Father •José Ma. R. S. del Real, as a perpetual donation.
“ Art. 2. Neither of the partners can sell or alienate any of his shares, so that he who. may do so shall lose his right, which shall revert to the other partners.
“ Art. S. The. expenses shall be borne in proportion to the shares, a formal account being kept by an accountant, who will be paid from the common fund.
“ Art. 4. That prescribed by the ordinance of mining being complied with in every thing, whatever difference may arise will- be decided by the partners themselves.
"Art. 5. Don Andres Castillero will direct the labors expenses, and works, and in his absence the Rev. Father Friar Jose Maria R. S del Real.
“ Art. 6. Of the products, no larger quantities will be taken out tl an are necessary for the arrangement of the negotiation until the works may be' regulated, and whatever the quantity maybe, it must ■ bi • with the consent of all the partners until the negotiation may be ai ranged.
“ Art. 1. ■ These agreements will be authenticated by the prefect of tl 3 second district, Don Manuel Castro, the original document being d. posited in the archives of the district, (partido,) a copy certified b- his honor being left with the persons interested.
“ Mission of Santa Clara, November 2d, one thourand eight huna rid and forty-five.
“Andres Castillero
“ For the comd’g general, Don José Castro,
“Andres Castillero,
“ Jose Maria Del R; S. Del Real.
“ For the Señores Secundino Robles and Teodoro Robles.
“Francisco Arce
11 It is a copy of the original, to which I refer.
“ Santa Clara, December 8, 1845. -
“Manuel Castro.
“ Antonio M. Pico ”
To this expediente was appended the following certificate by James W. Weekes, who was then acting as Alcalde of San José.
“ Court of the Justice of the Peace, •
“ San José Guadalupe, Upper California.
“ I certify in due form that the foregoing is a faithful copy made to the letter from its original, the “ expediente” of the mine of Santa Clara or New Almadén, which exists in the archives under my charge, to which I refer. And in testimony thereof, I have signed it this twentieth day of January,, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight.
“James Weekes, Alcalde.”
Weekes being called by the United States as a witness, testified that the body of the papers, as well as the certificates, were written -by James Alexander Forbes, then one of the complainants, and that he (Weekes) had signed the certificate without seeing any original, but merely because Forbes requested him to do so, and in the belief that such a request would not be made unless it was right. J. A. Forbes swore that he made the copy, not from'official papers, but from papers furnished him by Alexander Forbes, another claimant. J. A. Forbes, being British vice-consul, added to the certificate of Weekes the fol lowing certificate of his own.
“British Vice Consulate for California,) San Francisco, j
“ 1 hereby certify that the signature to the above certificate is the true and proper handwriting of the person it represents, and that it is- worthy of all faith and credit.
. “In witness whereof, I have hereunto placed my hand and official seal this twenty-first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight.
“ Jas. Alexander Forbes,
“Vice Consul.”
!8ial or »i U. M. Vick Consulate.
Aftei the document was made and so certified it was returned to Alexander Forbes, who took it to Tepic, in Mexico, and there procured for it the following additional certificates •
“Jesus Vejar, Notary Public.
“ I certify and assure that the last preceding signature of the Señor Vice Consul, Don James Alexander Forbes, is his own, which said Señor is accustomed to use, I haviag become acquainted with it when I knew him during his stay in this city, on the way to Upper California, by various acts which he executed in the house of Messrs. Barron, Forbes & Co.
“ And at the request of the same persons I affix my notarial mark and signature to this testimony, in Tepic, on the fifteenth of March, one thousand eight hundred and fifty.
“Jesus Vejar.”
“ We, the Constitutional First Alcalde and Notary Public, who sign, certify and assure, that the preceding mark and signature are those which the Notary, Jesus Vejar, is accustomed to use in all the acts which pass before him. We thus prove it, in Tepic, on the fifteentn day of March, one thousand eight hundred and fifty.
“Eusebio Fernandez.”
“Consulate of the United States.
“I, George W. P. Bissell, Consul of the.United States of North America for this district, hereby certify that the signatures attached to the foregoing document are in the true handwriting of the subscribers, who legally hold the situations therein represented, and are worthy of all faith and credit.
“ In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and seal of office |-L -j this 1st day of December, in the year 1850, in the city of Tepic.
“ G. W. P. Bissell,
United States Consul.
“ Filed in office September 20, 1850.
“ George Fisher.”
It was a copy of this espediente and of the certificates appended to it that was filed with claimants’ petition. The papers is made out by James Alexander Forbes was not produced by them until August 18th, 1856, after the appeal to the District Court, when it was brought in upon a formal notice from the United States and an order of the Court. Upon its being compared with the espediente, afterwards alleged by the claimants to be the original record, it was found not to correspond with it, but differed in many and very essential respects.
On the 6th of November, 1856, the claimants introduced another espediente, certified as a copy from .the record,}) y Pedro Chaboya. ■ The certificate is dated 13th of August, 1846. Chaboya was second Alcalde that year. Juan Fernandez recognized it as being in the handwriting of Salvio Pacheco, who being sworn, testified that he had written it, certificate and all, except Chaboya’s signature, but gave no account of any original from which he had copied it. He added his belief that the signature was the handwriting of Chaboya. Chaboya himself was not interrogated on the subject. This document also differed from that previously, produced.
In was on the 30th of January, 1858, that the claimants put into the case the espediente which they asserted was the original record made up by the Alcalde at the time when the proceeding was closed .by the delivery of,possession to Castillero. It was. brought into Court from the recorder’s office of Santa Clara county, by Mr. Houghton, the deputy recorder. On the back of it was the official mark — “ Filed 25 February, 1853, at 12 o’clock A. M. J.'M. Murphy, recorder, by S. O. Houghton, deputy.” It appeared also, that there was on the paper a note in pencil, by Mr. Richardson, to the effect that it was filed 21st of .January, 1851. Richardson was then recorder. He .was not a witness, but Houghton made a deposition in which he gave the following account of the filing by him:
“ The first recollection I have of the document is a few days nefore the date of this filing on the back of it, which is ' Filed February 25th, A. D. 1853, at 12 o’clock, A. M., J. M. Murphy, Recorder, By S. O. Houghton, Deputy.’
“ I think • it was sometime in the month of February, I think so from the time this filing is dated. Mr. James A. Forbes came to the office and desired to see the record of this paper, describing the paper to me. I examined the' record and told him that it was not recorded there. He then looked for it himself and insisted that b was recorded there ; he did not find it. He was looking for the record of the paper, not for the paper itself.. Some days after that I found the paper in the office. There was a safe in the office, in the top of which were some papers ; there was also a.desk with pigeonholes containing papers, 1 found it in one or the other of them. 1 do not recollect which.
“ Q. When you found the paper, how did you recognize it ?•
“ A. By the description given of it by Mr. Forbes.
“ Q. If you had ever seen such a paper before in the office, would you not have remembered it ?
“A. I think that I should.
“ Q. Were you not surprised when you saw the paper ?
“A. I was surprised that such a paper should be there without its being known.
“ Q. Did Mr. James A. Forbes appear, to be making a thorough search, and about how long was he in searching for the record of that paper of which you have before spoken ?
“A. I think he and I together searched more than one day, he represented the paper to me. to be of great importance, and I made a very thorough search for'the record of it.
“ Q. Did you always keep your safe locked during business Hours, and did you always keep a strict guard upon those pigeonholes, or was it possible to insert a paper into the top of that safe', or'into those pigeon-holes, without your observing when it was done ?
“ A. The safe and the pigeon-holes were generally open during business hours when I was in the office; the books of record were kept in the safe, and the safe was kept open for the purpose of getting access to the books when persons came to examine them. There was no particular guard kept upon anything in the office. I never suffered any person there unless I was there. It is possible that anything might be inserted into' the top of that safe or those pigeon-holes without my knowing it.
“ Q. After you found the paper, what did you do with it ?
“A. I kept it there until Mr. Forbes came, and filed it at his request.”
Captain Halleck, superintendent-general of the. mine, and principal agent of the company, testified that he found the document in the office of the Mayor of San José, in January, 1851,; that he took it thence and carried it to the Recorder’s office, where he left it; Mr. Belden, the Major, being with him when he found it, and when it was delivered to the Recorder, lie confidently believed this to be same paper which he had so found at that time. The following is part of his cross-examinat on'
“Q. In September, October, November, and December of the year 1850, where were the papers of denouncement and juridical possession of the mine of New Almadén, being the same paper produced by Mr. Houghton ?
“A. I do not know.
“,Q. Were they not, to the best of your knowledge and belief, in Mexico ? •
“A. I have no knowledge of their being in Mexico, or of where they fréve. My belief is that they were in San José.
“Q. Have you a pretty good memory ?
“A. I have a pretty good memory of occurrences and of parsons, but not a very good memory for names or dates.
“Q. During the time of which I have just inquired, did you not verily believe that they were in Mexico ?
■ “A. I did not. I had no.reason to believe that they,were in Mexico, and my reasons for believing they were in San José are that I found them there in 1851, as I have stated.
“Q. It is now seven years since the period of which I have questioned you. The human memory is treacherous. I therefore desire you to reflect well upon the answer you have just given. Do you answer in the same manner ?
“A. I have no change to make-in my answer, except to say, as I have before said, that I cannot say positively that the paper produced by Mr.’ Houghton is the same found in Mr. Belden’s office I believe it to be the same, as I have before stated.
“ Q. You regard the paper which you found in the office of Belden as the original denouncement and juridical possession of the mine of New Almadén, do you not ?
“A. I dop
“Q. In reference to that paper, you then repeat the answer you have given above, do you ?
“A. Ido.
“Q. Did you not. in the month of December, 1850, declare on oath, in a court of justice, that the original denouncement and juridical possession of the mine was at that time in Mexico ?
“A. I may have done so. I had copies or a copy of that original denouncement and possession, and may have supposed then that the original, which is usually delivered to the parties, was in Mexico.
1 understood, and always have understood, it to • be the practice of • Mexican Alcaldes to make two originals of their judicial acts, one of whir' is made of record in their office, and the other delivered to the parties interested. I probably then supposed,, as i nave since, that a duplicate original had been given to Castillero and taken to Mexico. I remember to have written to Mexico to have such original sent to California to be used in .the litigation then pending.”
The United States then produced the record of an ejectment brought by Maria Bernal de Berreyesa, widow of José Reyes Berreyesa, against James Alexander Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw', for the land on which the mine is situate. This record showed that on the 18th of September, 1850, the counsel of the plaintiffs moved for an order of the Court on the defend ants, to produce in Court and file the papers upon which they claimed the mine, “and'all papers connected with the.said New Almadén Mine, or the land upon which the same is situated, upon which the defendants intend to found their claim to said land or said mine.” This motion “ was granted by the Court, and the said papers or copies thereof were ordered to be produced according to said motion.” Mr. Halleck was of counsel with the New Almadén Company, and as one of the attorneys for the defendants, in that action brought by Berreyesa, he put in an answer verified by his own affidavit, to show why the order of the Court could not be complied with. The answer and affidavit were as follows:
“ State of California, County of Santa Clara:
.James A. Forbes, Robert Walkinshaw, ads. •Maria Bernal be Berreyesa et als.
“ The defendants in this cause in answer' to the order of Court made on the 13th day of September A. D. 1850, requiring the defen dants to produce in. Court certain papers upon which they intended to rely as a defence in this cause, answer and say :
“ That they have exercised all due diligence to procure and pro-' duce the said papers in Court, by writing immediately on the receipt of the above mentioned order, to the parties in Mexico, who hold them, but to this date the defendants have not received them, this delay having been caused, as defendants verily believe, by the failure of the mail steamers running from Panama to San Francisco, to touch, as heretofore has been their custom, at the port of San Blais in Mexico, from which place the defendants have expected, and still expect, to receive said papers.
“ The defendants therefore ask your honorable Court such further time as may be necessary to procure said papers and comply with the said order of Court.
“And the defendants further aver that the said papers and other documents which they have sent for in Mexico, and which they are daily expecting to receive, are absolutely necessary to them in the above entitled cause and that they cannot proceed with the trial of this cause without said papers and documents.
“And the defendants specify, among others, the following papers and documents as absolutely necessary to them before they can proceed with the trial of this cause, viz.: (1) The original Denouncement of - the Mine of New Almadén and the Judicial possession given of the same in the year 1845. (2.) The confirmation of said Denouncement and possession by the Supreme Government of Mexico in the year 1846, and prior to the late Declaration of War by the United States against the Republic of Mexico. (3.) The original .grant of land including said mining possession, made by the Supreme Government of Mexico (prior to the Declaration of War as aforesaid) to the owners of said mine. (4.) The original documents showing the ownership of said mine and land in the parties from whom the defendants derive title: the defendants Verily believing that the land referred to in said documents is the same land as that upon which the pretended trespass is alleged in plaintiff’s complaint to have been committed, and that these documents are absolutely necessary for their defence.
“The defendants therefore .pray a continuance of the above • entitled cause to the April Term of this Honorable Court.
“ State of California, County of Santa Clara.
“ Henry W. Halleek, one of the attorneys in the above entitled suit, states on oath that he believes the facts mentioned in the foregoing answer, and petition are true, that all due diligence has been-exercised tcrjjroduce in Court the aforementioned papers, that further time is necessary to defendants in order to enable them to produce said papers, and that defendants cannot go to trial in this cause till said papers are procured.
“ H. W. Halleck.
“ Sworn to and subscribed before me.
“John H. Watson,
Judge.
“ Filed December 23, 1850.
“H. C. Melove,
Clerk.”
The New Almadén Company had several judicial controversies concerning their title to the mine. No record evidence of their title was produced in any of them, nor does it appear that any body having the custody of the Alcalde’s archives ever discov ered among them any papers relating to Gastillero’s title. E. C. Melone, who was secretary of the Alcalde’s Court before tin establishment of the. State government, and was clerk of ths County Court afterwards, testified as follows:
“Q. During the pendency of the suit of Walkinshaw agains, Forbes, and of the proceedings of Horace Hawes in denouncement.', was there offered in evidence or exhibited to you, any documem purporting to "be a record of the original denouncement of the New Almadén mine, and of possession of said mine, given by any Alcalde in the year 1845.
“A. There was none that I know of. I should have remembered it if I had seen it.
“Q. Look at the paper now shown you, which is the same which was yesterday in your presence produced by G. M. Yoell, Deputy Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, then under examination, and which the said Yoell testified wa.s a paper now on file among the records in the office, of the Recorder of said County, which paper is endorsed, “Posesión de la mina de Sta. Clara, Año de 1845,” and say whether this paper was offered in evidence in either the aforesaid suit of Walkinshaw against Forbes, or the denouncement by Horace Hawes of which you have spoken, or was exhibited to you or seen by you at any time during the said proceedings, or either of them.
“A. I think not. I do not remember to have ever seen this paper until a short time since. It was shown me in the Recorder’s office of Santa Clara County.
“Q. What opportunities have you ever had for making yourself familiar with the records and paj ers, books and documents, contained in the office of the First Alcalde of the Pueblo of San José, and of obtaining a clear knowledge of what papers were there recorded, filed or kept.
“A. I was clerk for Judge May, both as Alcalde and Judge of the First Instance, and had the custody of all the books and papers in the office, and did- the recording. After the resignation of Judge May, which took place some time in November, 1849, and the appointment of J. C. Conroy as First Alcalde and Judge Richardson as Judge- of' the First Instance, I continued to do most of the recording, and had access to the papers and books, and had the custody, in a manner, of said papers and books, until some time in April,'1850, when the State Government went into operation. At that time I took all the records, of every description, and the books' and papers belonging to all the suits in’ the Court of the First Instance, and carried them to my office as County Clerk, and delivered such of those as I thought properly belonged to the County Recorder’s office, to John T. Richardson, the then County Recorder.
“Q. During all this time of which you have just spoken, and all your connection with the records of which you have just spoken, did' you ever see among them, or in any of the offices of which you have spoken, or anywhere' else, the paper described in the 38th question as ‘Posesión de la mina,’ &c. ?
“A. I do. not recollect of ever having seen it until a short time ago in the Recorder’s office.”
Pedro Cbaboya was second Alcalde for the year 1846, and there is an inventory in the office of the papers handed over to him by the first Alcalde. -This inventory is dated 2d of January, 1846, and contains among other things, this': Acta de posecion dt Mina de Santa Clara a Don Andres Castillero. There is also another inventory dated November 10,1846, when Burton, the first person who was appointed Alcalde of San José, under American author Lty, received the archives from his Mexican predecessor. In this no mention whatever is made of the act of posséssion or of any other paper comprised in the claimants’ espediente.
Antonio Maria Pico, the Alcalde, whose name is to the act of possession, and Antonio Suñol and José Noriega, by whom it was signed as assisting witnesses, testify to the making of that paper, but neither of them refer to the petitions of Castillero. The evidence gives no account of them earlier than the time of their discovery by Captain Halleck, in January, 1851.
The Alcalde and his two assistants swore that the Act of Possession was written out by a man named Gutierrez, a schoolmaster in the neighborhood, who brought it to them to be signed at the house of Suñol. After the signatures were affixed to it, Guttierez took it away. Juan Fernandez was the Alcalde’s secretary at the time, and he says that it was brought by Guttierez to him, and that Gutierrez paid him three dollars and a half for writing it, although not having' written it, he was entitled' to nothing. The secretary does not seem to have done- any official act to make the paper a record, and on the subject of the identity of the paper brought him by Gutierrez with the document produced in the cause, the following passage occurs in his deposition:
“ Q. How do you know that the document you have testified about, is the same document that Gutierrez brought you ?
“ A. Because I know it.
“ Q. Was the document which Gutierrez brought you all signed ?
“ A. I did not examine it well.
“ Q. Did you not read it ?
- “ A. I did not.
“ Q. How can you know it to be the same document if you did not read it ?
“A. I do. not know. I have seen it tumbling about with other papers in the Court; I always saw it in the desk tumbling about.
“ Q. Did you read it when you saw it tumbled about amongst thw other papers ?
“ A. The superscription was what I always read.
a Q. What was the superscription which you always read ?
“ A. Possession of the mine of Santa Clara, I thir-.k it says. I did not pay much attention to it.
“ Q. Did you read no more than the- superscription ?
“ A. If I read any more, I do not remember it.
“ Q. Then how do you know that this document, of which you have testified, is the same ?
“ A. I imagine it is the same.
“ Q. Who wrote the superscription; did you write it ?
“A. I do not know who wrote it, I did not.”
Pico Suñol and Noriega testify that on some day, not long after the time'when possession of the mine was delivered, they signed the Actof Possession at the house of José Sunol, who lived in San José. Their testimony, as to time, was not from recollection of it, but they spoke with confidence and directness to the.fact that the-paper was made at or near its date, and within a few days of the time when the act was done which :'.t was intended to record. The document, alleged to be the original, had a blank in it for the day of the month — “ Decembe r, —— 1845.” It was the copy made by Forbes, and certified by Weekes, that supplied the day, and referred it to the 80th.
The “ writing of partnership” was not in the espediente found by Captain Halleck, but was attached to the one made by Forbes in 1848. In the former espediente there was a paper which was wanting-in the’ latter, namely, the following petition of José Castro:
Señor Alcalde of ls< Nomination of the Pueblo of San José de Guadalupe:
pueino de a Jose g. June 27. 1846. Let this b© included and archived as the party requests. pacheco.
I, José Castro, Lieutenant-Colonel of Cavalry . ., ,r . ,. „ , m the Mexican Army, a native of this Depart-* , , . ment, before your notorious justification (notoria justificación) appear and say: That representing at present the pérson and rights of Captain D. Andres Castillero, and other individuals who compose the company (I being one of the shareholders) in the quicksilver mine which the said Señor Castilleros denounced on the third day of December one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, and of, which possession was given- us on the thirtieth of the same month and year, in strict conformance with the laws of mining, title sixth, article first, which grants to discoverers of new mines, three pertenencias contiguous or disconnected, of the dimensions designated by law, and as accords with its rights, the company claims now, as a matter of course (dá hoy pordeducidas) before you, the three pertenencias in continuation of the first, it being proper that this petition' should be attached to the expediente of the denouncement, so that it may remain among the archives and appear through all time.
Not going on paper with proper seal, because there is none; I pray that I may receive favor and justice.
José Castró.”
Santa Clara, June 27, 1846.
José Castro testified very positively that this petition was made at the time of its date, signed by him, and sent to the Alcalde.
The petition was in the handwriting of Benito Diaz, and he declared on his oath, as a witness, that it was written some months after its date, and after the American conquest of the country; but the reputation of Diaz for truth and veracity was such as to make him unworthy of credit in the opinion of' the Court below, and that opinion, based upon the personal knowledge of the judges, was placed on record.
On the 17th day of July, 1860, the fourth espediente was brought into 'the case, accompanied by clear proof from the ilaimants’ witnesses, that it had been found among the papers of Robert Walkinshaw, deceased, who'in his lifetime had been a member of the New Almadén Company, and for a while one of its principal agents. This espediente had the following caption and summary of contents.
Tear 1845.
“ Expediente of the denouncement, possession, and partnership of the Quicksilver Mine, called Santa Clara, Jurisdiction of San José Guadalupe, in Upper California.
“November 22d, 1845. — Don Andres Castillero makes the denouncement of the aforesaid, in the Pueblo of San José Guadalupe for want of Deputation of Mining and of Judge, de, letras, .
“December 3d, 1845. — Writing which the said Castillero presented, testifying to having taken out quicksilver and other metals, asking that it be annexed to the espediente.
“December 30th, 1845. — An act of possession, which with'the assisting witnesses the Alcalde of the Pueblo of San José gave to Don Andres Castillero, of the mine of Santa Clara, because of the time of the notices being completed.
“December 30th, 1845; — Receipt for.the fees of the possession, signed by the Judge of San José.
“ December 8th, 1845. — Writing of partnership for the works of the mine, authorized by the Prefect of the 2d District.”
The writing of partnership, mentioned in the summary, was not connected with the espediente when produced to the Court. It was composed of. the other papers there described. Following each of the two petitions was a certificate with the name to it of Pedro Chabollo,' declaring that the respective papers were .copies from the original, and the certificates are countersigned by José Suñol and Pedro Sainsevain, as assisting witnesses. All the papers comprised in this 'espediente and the certificates thereto) (every thing except the signatures,) are in. the handwriting of Gutierres. Chabollo gave the following account of the manner in which his name was signed:
“ Q. What day, month, and year was it that you signed the two documents in “Exhibit J. Y. No. 1, W. H. C.,” purporting to be copies of two representations by Andres Castillero to the Alcalde of the Pueblo of San José, dated respectively the 22d November and 3d December, 1845 ?
“ A. I don’t remember the day, but it must appear on the papers. I think it was on the 13th February, 1846.
“ Q. What is it that fixes that date in your mind ?
“ A. Because I have been shown the papers here.
“ Q What else makes you remember that date ?
“ A. Nothing else ; if I had not seen them perhaps I should not have remembered them, it was so long ago
“ Q. Who showed you the papers ?
“ A. I was shown them the other day on my examination I was not shown them before
“ Q. Are you not mistaken; were they not shown to you in Mr. Barron’s office by somebody ?
“ A. No, sir; I was shown them here; also the signatures of Sainsevain, Noriega, 'Sunol, and my own.
“ Q. Who asked you to sign your name on that paper ?
“ A. A person- name Gutierrez, or a name very like that.
“ Q. What had Gutierrez to do with it; what is the reason he asked you ?”
“ A. They were papers relating to the mine. I was in authority at that time. I was asked to sign them, and I signed. I don’t know what Gutierrez had to do with them. T only remember that he brought them and I signed with the other witnesses
“ Q. Where did he get them from ?
“ A. I don’t know, but he probably got them from the mine.
“ Q. Who had them at the mine, perhaps ?
“ A. I can’t say.
“ Q. How did you know the papers were correct when you signed them ?
“A. I supposed they were correct, as they were brought by those people. I did not examine them at all; it was not for me to do that.
“ Q. What do the papers purport to be, in your opinion, and according to your present recollection ?
“ A. They are papers.
■“ Q. Look at these papers and read them ; say what they are ?
“ A. I can’t' read writing well; I can only read it with great difficulty.
“ Q. Don’t you know how to write ?
“A. It is with difficulty I can paint my signature. I never learned to write.
“ Q. When did you learn to paint out yotir signature; who taught you ?
“A. I learned alone, I had no teaching. I had a liking for Wilting and learned by own efforts alone.
“ Q. What compensation have you received, or are you to receive, for giving your testimony in this case ?
“A. I don’t know what I am to receive; I have only received my expenses. I have never been offered any payment for my test 1 tnony.
" Q. As you were only second Alcalde, what had you to do with the keeping of the documents, or the certifying to copies ?
“ A. It was my duty as Judge to keep the records. The first Alcalde was sick, and I acted for him. Dolores Pacheco was first Alcalde.
“ Q. How do you happen to remember now that he was sick at that time7 It was a very long time ago.
“■ A. Because we were named Judges together, and I remember that when he took sick I had to notify the Prefect, who required that I should act during his sickness.
“ Q. Who was the Prefect ? '
“ A. Manuel Oastro. I got an order from him to act as first Alcalde during the sickness of the incumbent, otherwise I should not have done so. ”■
' José Suñol, one of tbe assisting witnesses, was dead. Pedro Sainsevain, tbe surviving one, deposed that bis name was placed to tbe documents by bimself, at tbe time of tbe date, but he did not - say whether tbe certificate was true or false, and appears to have signed it without thinking it bis duty to inquire for tbe original. Two witnesses, Messrs, Sloan and Marks, testified to declarations of Sainsevain that tbe certificates were made in 1848, and not in 1846.
There was no certificate to tbe Act of Possession, as found in this.' expediente. Tbe claimants alleged it to be a duplicate original, and to prove it-such called Pico, Noriego and Suñol, whose testimony accorded with tbe allegation. Neither of these witnesses bad spoken in their former depositions of more than one original being made.
This Act of Possession, was dated 30th of December, 1845, there being no blank as in tbe other original;
All these expedientes were alike in some points, but no two of them corresponded in all respects.' Some of tbe points of difference were important and remarkable. But they are sufficiently set out in tbe opinion of Mr. Justice Clifford.
A considerable, portion of this voluminous record is occupied by evidence of the statements and declarations of Castillero himself. Besides bis own declarations made to Colonel Fremont letters written by him to General yallejo and Governor Pio Pico; letters of Pico addressed to person's in Mexico; a letter from Manuel Castro to Pico; dispatches from Mr. Larkin, United States Consul at Monterey, to Mr. Buchanan, then Secretary of State; articles from Mexican newspapers; letters from Mr. Larkin to Mr. Judd, Prime Minister of the King of Hawaii, and a newspaper entitled the' “ Polynesian'' printed in the Sandwich Islands — were given in evidence by the claimants, furnishing the ground of much remark in the Court below, and some little here; but inasmuch as they do not appear to have been noticed by this Court, it is not considered necessary to insert them in the report.
There was much parol testimony concerning the condition of the mine, the alleged discovery of it by Castillero, the work done at it, the possession given to him by the Alcalde, and the subsequent occupation of it by him and his alienees.
It is situate about fifty-five miles southeast from San Francisco, in a valley called “Lá Canada de. los Capitancillos.” This valley is bounded by the Sierra Azul on the south, and the Puebla hills on the north. It is watered by several streams, which rise in the mountains and find their outlet at the northwestern end of the valley, running thence towards the Pacific. On the north side the land is nearly level or slightly inclining to'the southwest, but nearer to the mountain, on the south side there runs, on a parallel with ¿he mountain, a range of hills, called lomas bajos — low hills. These hills were regarded-by some of the witnesses as part of the- Sierra,' and by others they were considered as being entirely distinct. It is in them that the quicksilver was found, and from an old opening in a peak, near the eastern end of the range,-came the ore which Castillero used in his experiments.
- For many years — probably long before the advent of the Spaniards into that country — the Indians knew that the'cinnabar, of which the lomas bajos were in a measure composed, was neither common earth nor common rock, for it was ruby red, and nearly two and a half .times ' as heavy as sand stone In fact it was a bi-sulphide of mercury, some of it almost as .pure as the vermilion of the shops. The Indians used it to paint their faces and bodies. Afterwards a quantity was dug out and carried to Santa Clara to paint the Mission Church. In 1824 and 1835, attempts were made to work it as a silver mine Late in the autumn of 1845, Castillero came to California on business, which took him to Sutter’s fort. He left that place on the 12th of November, and went to Santa Clara. Some of the ore being shown to him, he pronounced it silver with a ley of gold. The last of November, or first of December, at Santa Clara, he detected the presence of quicksilver in it, as shown by the following' testimony of Jacob P. Leese.
“ About the latter part of November, or first of December, 1845, I went into the mission of Santa Clara to dine with Padre Real of the mission; Mr. Castillero was there.- Our general conversation through dinner was about this mine, and of experiments which Castillero had been trying, to find Out what the mineral was. He made a remark, and said he thought he knew what it was ; if it was was what he supposed it was, he had made his fortune. We were anxious to know what it was. He got up from the table and ordered the servant to pulverize a portion of this ore ; after it was pulverized he ordered the servant to bring in a hollow tile full of lighted coals; he took some of the powdered ore and threw it on the coals ; after it got perfectly hot he took a tumbler of water and sprinkled it on the coals with his fingers; he then emptied the tumbler and put it over the coals upside down; then took the tumbler off and went to the light to look at it; then made the remark that it was what he supposed it was, “ quicksilver.” He showed all who were there the tumbler, and we found that it was frosted with minute globules of the metal, which Castillero collected with his finger and said it was quicksilver. He then said: to-morrow he would test it thoroughly and find out what it was worth, he con- • sidered it very rich on account of the weight of the ore, and if it proved as rich as the quicksilver mines in Spain, that the Mexican Government had offered to any one for the discovery of such a mine in the Republic of Mexico, one hundred thousand dollars.”
In one of the espedientes, the first representation of Castillero ia dated at Santa Clara, in the other at San José. There was no extrinsic evidence to show at which of thefejs places it was written, or when it was written, or that it was delivered to the Alcalde by Castillero, or sent to him, or that Castillero was seen to sign it, or known to have it in his hands. It is in the handwriting of Juan Castenada, whose deposition was not taken. The. testimony is equally silent on the subject of the supplementary petition, which, however, is dated in all the copies at Santa Clara, and. is also in the handwriting of Castenada. Several witnesses declared their belief, that the name of Castillero, as signed to both petitions,, was in his handwriting. It was admitted in this Court, that the writing of partnership, dated 2d of November, 1845, must have been misdated, and could not have been • made until after the experiment testified to by Leese, which was the last of November or first of December.
Upon these papers, and the accompanying parol evidence, the claimants contended that Castillero was the discoverer of the mine, since they show that he was the first to find ■ metal in it. The United States, on the other hand, maintained that the discovery of a mine consisted in ascertaining its situation, the extent and direction of.the vein, the true character of its product, and whatever else might- be necessary to give a correct idea of its value; that Castillero had learned none of these things; that when he made his original petition, he was utterly ignorant even of the metal,' believing the cinnabar to be silver with an alloy of gold; that when he put in his supplemental petition he mistook it for such a combination as nature never made — gold) silver, and liquid quicksilver — and this blunder he persisted in to the last; that the mine was never actually discovered, or its real contents known, as a discoverer should know tuem, until Alexander Forbes explored it in January, 1848
■ After the date of Castillero’s second petition, he employed a man named Chard to reducé some of the ore.. He took a gun-barrel, charged it with pieces of ore the size of a bean, stopped the touch-hole with clay, put the muzzle in a vessel of water and built a fire around the other end. The heat drove off .the mercury in the form of vapor, which passing out at the muzzle, was condensed in the water, and precipitated itself to the bottom in the form of liquid metal. Several gun-barrels, — as many as three or four, — were' used in this way at once, and the work was fceptup for a month or six weeks. -
"While this was going on, the Alcalde, Pico, Suñol, Noriega, Fernandez, Gutierrez, Padre Real, and some other persons, came to the mine where Chard was at work with his gun-barrels, and the thing was done which the claimants assert was the delivery of juridical possession, Pico was examined three times in this case, and once in the adverse case óf Berreyesa, and his several depositions, relating to the delivery of possession, are not without serious contradictions; some of which are adverted to in the opinion of the Court. All the witnesses concur in saying that there was no survey or marking of the pertenencias, nor was there any professor present, or other person skilled in mining, or competent to inspect it and declare its character. Chard could not recollect that Castillero was present; the other witnesses testified that he was there.
Some time after this ‘transaction Chard built a furnace near the creek, and packed down the ore to be reduced there; but some defect in the construction of the "furnace made it a total failure. Some old try pots were then procured, and by turning them bottom upwards- over a heap of ore, providing a mode of conducting the vapor to the water, and setting fire to three or four cords of wood over each one, he obtained a quantity of quicksilver, which was not weighed, but it could not have been less altogether than two thousand pounds. This continued until August, when Chard, and the Indians who were-helping him, suddenly quit work and left the place. Nothing whatever was done at or about the mine until April or May of the next year, when Walkinshaw and Alden came there. Alden testifies that he took charge of it as agent for the claimants, but he does not mention what specific thing was done by him. In November, Alexander Forbes, of the firm of Barron, Forbes & Co., came up from Tepic with workmen, money, and other appliances for business. The mine was thoroughly examined, and in January, 1848, the operations which have yielded so large a result were fafrly.- commenced.
Casti'lero left California in March, and arrived in the city of Mexico in May, where he memorialized the Junta de Minería, or Board for the Encouragement of Mining, as will be- seen by the documents hereafter to be mentioned. He never returned to California. In the winter of 1846-7, he sold certain shares of the mine to Barron, Forbes & Co., of Tepic, as well ■ as to other persons, and contracted for the habilitation of it. The bargaining on the part of Barron, Forbes & Co. was done by Mr. Negrete, to whom- Castillero showed the writing of partnership as his mining title, and that paper alone was recited in all the acts of sale made by him and his alienees and socios down to the year 1852.
Immediately after Castillero’s arrival at the City of Mexico, he commenced the proceedings which were given in evidence by the claimants as proof that the mining title was confirmed by the Supreme Government, and that a grant at the same time had been made to him of two square leagues as a colonist. The six following papers constituted that part of the title.
“ Stamp third — Four reales. — For the years eighteen hundred and forty-six and eighteen, hundred and forty-seven.
“ I, Andres Castillero, resident and miner in the Department of Upper’ California, before your Excellency and your Honor, as 1 best may proceed, say : That, having discovered in the mission of Santa Clara a miile of quicksilver, of leyes as rich, certainly, as were ever seen before, not only in the Republic, but perhaps in all the world, as proved by the assays made by the order of the Junta Facultativa of the College of Mining, which, mixing together of all the specimens I brought, from the best to the worst, have given a Result of thirty-five and a half per cent., while there have been specimens of the best kind which must produce much greater leyes, I see myself in a condition to satisfy my desires in favor.of the progress of my country, of benefiting exclusively Mexicans by the flattering and well-founded hopes which such a discovery offers. In virtue of this I have denounced and taken possession not only of said mine named Santa Clara, hut also of an extent of three thousand varas in all directions from said point. I have formed a company to work it. I have constructed the pit, and complied with all the conditions pre• scribed by the ordinance, the mine yielding ote, with the notable circumstance that the specimens which I brought and which have been assayed have been taken out pf the mouth. It would have been very easyr for me to have given the necessary extension to the negotiation by accepting the repeated and advantageous offers which have been made to me by several foreign houses in California ; but the undertaking does not require that kind of assistance, which wojild result in. advantage to foreigners, when it may be entirely national, and I have not, for that reason, hesitated to apply to your Excellency and your Honors to obtain the small and only resources which I need. These are reduced to a small advance of five thotísand dollars in money, in consideration of the excessivé scarcity-of- coin in that Department, and the quick remittance to it of retorts, cylinders, and other small distilling apparatus, and also iron flasks for bottling up the quicksilver.
“ I would have proposed a contract of partnership to the Junta, an avio, or some other agreement, if there had been time to be able to furnish the proofs and details which would be required for said contracts ; but being compromised by the Supreme Government to leave this Capital within a few days, I find it necessary to restrict myself to that which appears to present no difficulty, and which may • open a way to our future agreement.
“lam well persuaded that the Junta will accede to my request, so far as may be within- its power, and that it will send up- to the Supreme Government with a recomméndation that which may require the decision of the latter.
“ My propositions, then, are the following:
“ First. — The Junta, in the act of approving the agreement, will give me a draft for five thousand dollars on some mercantile house in Mazatlan.
“ Second. — On my part, I bind myself to place in said port, within six months after leaving it, fifty quintals of quicksilver, at the rate of one hundred dollars each, which I will send from the first taken out, with absolute preference .over every other engagement.
“ Third. — The Junta will order that there be placed at my disposition before leaving the Capital, the eight iron retorts which it has in its office, and all the quicksilver flasks which can be found in the negociación of Tasco, which are fit for use; and lastly, it will deliver to Señor Don Tomas Ramon del Moral, my attorney, the sums to pay for the retorts, cylinders, and other kinds of small apparatus, which may be ordered to be made for the negociación, to the amount of one thousand dollars.
“Fourth. — I will receive the retorts of the Junta at cost price, and the flasks which I may select at two dollars a piece, agreeably with their valuation.
“Fifth. — The ascertained value of said retorts and flasks, and) that of the sums which may be delivered to Señor Moral, I will return in the term of one year from this agreement, and also the premium on the draft on Mazatlan, in quicksilver, placed in said port at the price of one hundred dollars the quintal; but if tie Junta should wish to take one or more “ acciones” in the minep.it shall be left as a part payment of the sum corresponding to one bi' more barras.
“ Sixth. — "While the company is being formed, during-'the peiibd of one year, counted from the date on which this agreement shall' be' approved, and the five thousand dollars spoken of in the first proposition being paid, I will give the preference to the Junta in the sale of quicksilver placed in Mazatlan, at the rate of one hundred dollars the quintal. 1
“ Seventh. — The Junta shall represent to the Supreme Government the necessity of approving the possession which has been given me of the mine by the local authorities of California, in the same terms as those in which I now hold it.
“Eighth. — It shall also represent the advantage of their being granted to me, as a colonist, two square leagues upon the land of my mining possession, with the object of being able to use the wood for my business.
“Ninth. — For the compliance of this contract I pledge the mina itself and all its appurtenances.
“The subscriber subjects this request to the deliberation of the Junta, which, if accepted, may be made into a formal contract, and made legal in tie most proper manner.
“ God and liberty. Mexico, May 12th, 1846.
“Andrés Castirrero
" Copy. “ Mexico, April 23d, 1850.
“ O. Monasterio.”
“Junta for the Encouragement and Administration of Mining.
"communicates the ctnnabarf made^iñhí Presidio of Santa Clara. in Lower California, the assays of which have yielded the 'highest ley known, and with this motive communicates the result of the quantity Of quicksilver extracted until the end of March, in Guadalcazar.
“May 9th. 1846. “Noted with satisfaction the discovery and of having asked already of Señor Castillero the kind of resources he requires. “Noted also, the statement given of the quicksilver extracted by the miners of Guadalcazar.”
Most Excellbnt; Sir: — Professor Don Tomas Ramon del Moral having presented to this Junta . o • \. j> ..v tvt* • * some specimens of cinnabar from the Mission of Santa Clara, in Lower California, which Don. Andres Castillero sent him, together with tbe annexed copies, with the object of - inciting the Supreme Government, that it may be pleased to aid so important an enterprise, said specimens were immediately sent to his Excellency, the Director of the College, that the proper assays might be made. His Excellency, in an official communication of the twenty-ninth of last month, received yesterday, says that which follows : Señor Don Tomas del Moral, President of the Junta Facultativa of the National College of Mining, in an official communication of the twenty-fourth ult., says to me as follows : ‘ Most Excellent Sir: — The Junta Facultativa having examined the documents which your Excellency ' referred to on the twenty-first of the present month, relative to a deposit of cinnabar discovered in California by Señor Don Andres Castillero, and another of coal on the Bay of San. Francisco, has the nonor to inform your Excellency that the specimens sent by said Señor Castillero were deposited, some in the Mineralogical Cabinet, and others assayed by the Professor of Chemistry, Don Manuel Herrera. The assay gave a ley of thirty-five and a half per cent., a mean of the different specimens having been taken to make-the assay, for there are some so rich that they are puré cinnabar. The Junta believes that Señor Castillero has, by such an important discovery, made himself deserving of the efficacious, protection of the Supreme Government and of the Junta for the Encouragement of Mining, and is persuaded that your Excellency will interpose all your influence to the end that this individual may receive a proof that the Supreme Government knows how to distinguish and reward those citizens who contribute to the prosperity of the country,’
“‘And with this motive, I repeat to your Excellency the considerations o'f my esteem and respect. A nd I have the honor to transmit it to your Excellencies, as. the result of your dispatch on the matter.’
“ The Junta, on inclosing the foregoing communication to your Excellency, has the honor to inform you that it has already asked Señor Castillero what kind of aid or protection he needs for the encourangement of his .brilliant enterprise, congratulating' the Supreme Government on a discovery, which, if it meets, from the beginning, with all the protection it deserves, may change completely the aspect of pur mining, freeing it from the necessity in which it has been until now, of foreign quicksilver. With this motive, the Junta takes advantage of the opportunity to inform your Excellency that, as on the twenty-fourth of this month, the bounty terminates which the law granted, of five dollars premium on each hundred-weight of quicksilver extracted from the mines of the nation, the miners of Guadalcazar have proved that they have taken out one thousand five hundred and seventy-five quintals, from December, eighteen hundred and forty-four, to the end of March ‘last, which result exceeds the calculation, which, until now, had ■ been made, that the product of this mineral was one hundred quii 1-tals per. month. The Junta, on this occasion, reiterates to'you Excellency the assurances of its distinguished consideration ax d esteem.
“ God and Liberty. Mexico, May 5, 1846.
. Vincente Segura, President.”
Junta for the Encouragement and Administration of Mining
“Accompanies with retionofAndre?castiFiero for the encouragement of the quicksilver mine which he has discovered cia»ein'upper“cJiifo? niIU
“ GrantedTnthe8te'rms which are proposed, and with respect to the land, let the corresponding or-of relations forTh1"'prowirt“stheuuifaerstanmnl ment accecSesT»6t^e'petl[Rubric.]
“ MOST EXCELLENT SlR :-As this junta had the honor to inform your Excellency on the 5th in- . . . ._T _ '~ , ~ . stant, m JNo. 07 3, Señor Don Andres Castillero 7 ^as directed to it a petition, the orignal of which it has the pleasure to transmit herewith, regarding the assistance which he needs for the new dis- • _ ,, . _ 7 . J, . , covery of the quicksilver mine m the mission or 47 x Santa Clara, in -the department of Californias. The junta has no hesitation in recommending said petition to your Excellency; -for, being persuaded of the great importance of the enterprise, it con- • siders it entitled to all the protection of the Supreme Government, and also the particular circumstance's of that department, arid the just desire which his Excellency the President has snown to preserve the integrity of the National territory, render it‘ worthy of the giattest consideration. The junta is consequently of opinion that there should be immediately furnished to Señor Castillero the sum of five thousand dollars, in the terms he proposes ; that it should be authorized to furnish him with the iron retorts and flasks belonging to it, and the other thousand dollars, which can be employed in the construction of retorts, cylinders, and other small apparatus of distillation for said mine; although the law authorizing the Junta to make loans for the encouragement of deposits of quicksilver exacts a premium of five per cent, per annum on the capital loaned, it cannot be doubted that the proposal of Señor Castillero to pay the five thousand dollars with fifty quintals of quicksilver placed in Mazatlan, at the disposition of the junta, at the rate of one hundred dollars each, and in the term of six months, offers greater advantages to the fund than the said interest. The urgency shown by Señor Castillero to undertake his journey to that department, and that which his so doing may contribute under present circumstances towards the preservation of the National territory, is, in the opinion of the Junta, a sufficient motive to leave until a more opportune occasion the formation of a contract of partnership, or of “avio” for the encouragement of said mine. It remains, then, tp show to your Excellency that, although the possession given to Señor Castillero by the local authorities of California has not been in conformity with the ordinance, inasmuch as there have been granted him “pertenencias” to the extent of three thousand varas, which are equivalent to fifteen “pertenencias,” agreeably to the second article of the eighth title ; yet it is necessary to consider that he has in. his favor the qualification of being discoverer of an absolutely new hill, in which there was no mine open, and to such there is granted in the first article of the sixth title three “pertenencias," either continuous or interrupted; and if he shall have discovered other veins, one {“pertenencia") in each of them. He has also in his favor the circumstance that he works it in company with others, to whom there is granted that without prejudice to the right which they may have by the title of discoverers, when they are such, they may denounce four new pertenencias, even though they are contiguous and in the same direction ; but that which is most worthy of consideration is that Californiaa being a frontier' department, and frequently threatened by the emigrants from the United States of the north, and by the new colonists of Oregon, it seems proper to grant to the first mine discovered in a department so extensive a greater number of “pertenencias,” which view is corroborated by the reason found at the end of the eighth title, Article 1st, which says: “ Considering that the limits established in the mines of these kingdoms, to which those of New Spain have until now been made to conform, and are very contracted in proportion to the multitude, abundance, and richness of the metallic veins which the goodness of the Creator has been pleased to grant to those regions, I order and command that in mines which may hereafter be discovered in a new vein or without neighbors, these measurements be observed. 2d. Along the thread, direction, or course of the vein, be it of gold, silver, or any other mertal, I grant to every miner, without distinction of the discoverers, (who have their reward already assigned to them,) two hundred Castilian varas, called ‘varas de medir,’ measured on a level.” Lastly, in the first article, eleventh title, there are expressed these terms: “And because the capital of a single individual may not be sufficient for great undertakings, while that of all the partners may be, I will and command that such companies be encouraged, promoted, and protected by all convenient measures, my viceroy granting to those who may form such, every favor, aid, and exemption which can be granted them according to the judgment and discretion of the royal tribunal of mines, and without detriment to the public and my royal treasury.” In reference to the ownership of two square leagues which Señor Castillero solicits, as a colonist, upon the surface of his mining property, for the purpose of supplying himself with the firewood necessary for the reduction of ores, (beneficio,) the Junta not having the necessary information on the matter of which the Supreme Government has abundance, his Excellency the President will decide as he may think proper. In this view the Junta, in sending up to your Excellency the petition of Señor Castillero, has no hesitation in recommending it very efficaciously on account of the vital importance of the undertaking, and its incredible influence upon the general good and prosperity of the Republic.
The Junta has the honor, on this occasion, to repeat to your Excellency the assurances of its distinguished esteem and con sideration.
“ God and Liberty. Mexico, May 14, 1846.
Vincente Seguba,
President.
“Ministry of Justice and Public Instruction.
“ Most Excellent Sir : — Having reported to his Excellency, the President ad interim of the Republic, your Excellency’s note of the 14th inst., with which you were pleased to transmit, with a recommendation, the petition of Señor Don Andres Castillero, for the encouragement of the quicksilver mine which he has discovered in the mission of Santa Clara, in Upper California: his Excellency has been pleased to approve, in all its parts, the agreement made with that individual, in order to commence the working of said mine, and on this day the corresponding communication is made to the Minister of Exterior Relations and Government, to issue the proper orders respecting that which is contained in the 8th proposition for the grant of lands in that department.
“ I repeat to your Excellency the assurance of my esteem.
“ God and Liberty. Mexico, 20th May, 1846.
“Becerra
“ To. His Excellency, D. Vicente Segura, President of the Junta for the Encouragement of Mining.”
Ministry of Justice and Public Instruction.
■< issue^the orde'rareSeason.In ,he commu' Lanzas.r
“1 this da7 say to His Excellency, Don Vicente Segura, President of the Junta for the Encouragement of Mining, what follows :
“ Most Excellent Sir : — Having reported to His Excellency, th e President ad interim, your Excellency’s note of the fourteenth inst., with which you were pleased to transmit, with a recommendation, the petition of Señor Don Andres Castillero, for the encouragement of the quicksilver mine which he has discovered in the Mission of Santa Clara, in Upper California, his Excellency has been pleased to approve, in all its parts, the agreement made with that individual, in order to commence the working of said mine, and on this da) the corresponding communication has been made to the Minister of Exterior Relations and Government, to issue the proper orders respecting that which is contained in the eighth proposition for the grant of lands in that Department.
“ And I have the honor to transcribe it to your Excellency, to the end that,' with respect to the petition of Señor Castillero, to which his Excellency, the President ad interim, has thought proper to accede, that there be granted to him as a colonist two square leagues upon the land of his mining possession, your Excellency will be pleased to issue the orders corresponding.
“ I repeat to your Excellency the assurances of my consideration and esteem.
“ God and Liberty. Mexico, May 20th, 1846.
“ Becerra.
“ To His Excellency, the Minister of
Exterior Relations.”
Ministry of Exterior Melations, Government and Police.
“ Most Excellent Sir : — His Excellency the Illustrious Minister of Justice, in an official communication of the 20th instant, says to me that which I copy : ‘ Excellent Sir: — I to-day say to his Excellency Don Yicent Segura, President of the Junta for the Encouragement of Mining, that which follows:’ ‘Most Excellent Sir: — Having reported to his Excellency the President ad interim the note of your Excellency of the 14th instant, with which you were pleased to transmit, with a recommendation, the petition of Señor Don Andres Castillero for the encouragement of the quicksilver mine which he has discovered in the mission of Santa Clara, in Upper California, his Excellency has been pleased to approve, in all its parts, the agreement made with that person to commence the exploration of that mine, and on this date the corresponding communication is made to the Ministry of Exterior Relations and Government, that it may issue fhe proper orders relative to what is contained in the eighth proposition, with respect to the granting of lands in that Department.’
“ And I have the honor to enclose it to your Excellency to the end that, with respect to the petition of Señor Castillero, to which his Excellency the President ad interim has thought proper to accede, that as a colonist there be granted to him two square leagues upon the land of his'mining possession, your Excellency will be pleased to issue the orders corresponding.
“ I repeat to your Excellency, &c.
“Wherefore I transcribe it to your Excellency in order that, in conformity with what is prescribed by the laws and disposition upon colonization, you may put Señor Castillero in possession of the two square leagues which are mentioned.
“ God and liberty. Mexico, May 23, 1846.
“ Castillo Lanzas.
“ His Excellency the Governor of the Department of Californias.”
To the dispatch of Castillo Lanzas, the Minister of RelaPons, when it was filed by the claimants, the following certificate of -Jesus Vejar was appended:
“I, Jesus Vejar, a Notary Public, hereby certify and attest that the foregoing authentic instrdment, signed by his Excellency, the Minister of Foreign Relations, Government and Police, Castillo Lanzas, has been respected under that signature, and obeyed by the Mexican authorities that governed in Upper California in the year eighteen hundred and forty-six, according to insertions which the said authorities made of the said instrument in acts which they passed upon the subject of which they treat, and which I certify to have seen, and for this reason that signature Jn the said instrument should be esteemed as authentic and signed in the handwriting o? his Excellency, the Minister, and as, also, by proceedings that have passed under my observation, Señor Don Andres Castillero recognized it.
“ And at the instance of the Messrs. Barron, Forbes & Co., I have. placed hereon my signet, and sign it in Tepic, on this 1st day of March, 1850.
- Jesus Vejar,
“We, the undersigned, First Constitutional Alcalde and Notary Public, hereby certify and attest that the foregoing signet and signature which Don Jesus Vejar, a Notary, generally uses in all the acts is that performed by him.
“ This we certify'in Tepic, this 1st day of March, 1850.
Loreto Corona.
Eusebio Fernandez.”
To authenticate the documents further, the claimants brought to San Francisco, and there examined, Castillo y Lanzas, who in • 1846 was Prime Minister of Mexico, and had charge of the Department of Exterior and Interior Relations; Manuel Couto, Secretary of the Fonda de Minería and Member of the Junta de Fomento; José Maria de Besoco, Member of the Junta; Bias Balcarcel, Member of the Junta, and Director of the Mining College ; Antonio del Castillo, Professor of Mineralogy and Secretary of .the Junta; José Maria Yrrisarri, Keeper of the Archives in- the Ministry of Justice; Mariano Mariano, clerk in the Ministry o'f Justice, and A. Q. de Velasco, clerk in the Ministrv óf Relations. These witnesses testified that the documents produced were genuine; that they knew them to be true copies of such as were registered in the books of the several departments, and that they corresponded perfectly with the borradors existing in other cases. Some of them swore to' their personal knowledge of the fact that the documents were issued and the records of them made up at the times when they respectively bore date. By some of them was proved Castillero’s exhibition of quicksilver ores to the Junta and the College of Mining; the assays of it, and the results. Their testimony also showed that a report to -the Congress was made and printed in the fall of 1846, in which Oastillero’s discovery of quicksilver in California was referred to at some length.
Francisco Martinez Negrete, a merchant residing at Guada lajara, was called to explain the circumstances attending the sale of barras and other transactions of Castillero with Barron, Forbes & Co.
The claimants introduced divers letters, addressed by theii. counsel, to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney-General, together with some of the replies by those officers, in which were discussed, inter alia, the regularity and propriety of taking depositions in Mexico.
In 'the year 1857, and while this cause was pending in the District Court, process was issued requiring Mr. Davidson, a bankeT of San Francisco, to produce a package of letters which had been deposited with him by Henry Laurencel and James Alexander Forbes, subject to their joint order. He did so; the package was opened; the letters were read, and became a part of this case. The handwriting of the several parties, by whom they purport to be written, was proved by several witnesses. The letters were as follow:
“ Tepio, May 11, 1846.
“ My Dear Sir : — I wrote to you at great length on the 15th ultimo by the Rev. Mr. Macanamara, who intends visiting California, and who proceeded to Mazaltan in order to procure a passage ; but he is still there, and there is every probability that he will go by the vessel which takes this. I need not repeat what I have already 3aid, but it may not be amiss, in case my letter not reaching you, to state that its object was to request of you to procure as correct information as you could respecting the quicksilver mine, or mines, lately said to be discovered in California, one of which you mention as being woiked by Mr. Castillero. If quicksilver mines of value are discovered, it would be of immense interest for Mexico, as owing to the scarcity and high price of this article, the poorer silver mines of Mexico cannot be worked. . I therefore beg to request your kind attention to this letter.
“ I am, my dear sir, your most obedient servant, •
“ Alex. Forbes.
“ Addressed : James A. Forbes, Esq.
“ British Vice Consul, California,
“Endorsed: Alex. Forbes, May 11, 1246, relative to quicksilver mine. No. 1.”
. September 2, 1846.
- “ Mv Dear Sir : — I am much obliged to you for your offer to procure for me more information respecting the quicksilver mines, and I hope they may turn out to be of value. Anything certain which y ou may give me about them will be very interesting, as our mining establishments in this country must greatly be benefltted by the abundance of quicksilver, and which is now scarce and dear here. I understand Castañedo is still-in Mexico. Does not one of these mines belong to him, or has he disposed of it ?
“ I am, my dear sir, yours very truly,
“Alex. Forbes.
“ J. A. Forbes, Esq.
“ I received your power of attorney to James Murray, Esq., and forwarded it by last packet.
“ Endorsed: Alex! Forbes, September 2, 1846, relative to quicksilver mine. No. 2.
“ (In pencil.) — A. Forbes, private, 1st and 2d Sept., 1846.”
“ Tepic, January T, 1841
“James A. Forbes, Esq., California,
“ My Dear Sir : — I had the pleasure to receive your very obliging ' letter of the 29th of October last, which chiefly relates to the mine of quicksilver abirat which I wrote you at so much length by Mr. Macnamara. I had previous to the receipt of your letter been in treaty with D. Andres Castillero, respecting this mine, and on the arrival of Mr. Macnamara with the powers from the other proprietors, the treaty was much facilitated, and I am now happy to inform you that I have contracted for the ‘ Habilitation’ of the mine, and have also purchased a part of Mr. Castillero’s • Barras,’ all of which will be made known to you by Mr. Walkinshaw, who goes to California as my attorney and agent for the examination and working of the mines. Mr. Walkinshaw will wait upon you as soon after his arrival as possible, and will show you all the documents, and ask your advice and assistance in carrying out my views.
“ It is needless for me to say more, than that I count on you as a friend who will lend your best assistance to bring this negotiation to a good account, and as you inform me that you are the proprietor of two ‘Barras,’ it will be for your interest.and that of all others concerned, that every means may be used to make the most of it.
“ I have sent up a small sum of money to make a beginning, and if Mr. Walkinshaw is of opinion that-the business ought to be caried on to a large extent, .the necessary apparatus will be ordered, ant ample funds sent to carry on the business properly.
“ I have for the present only sent one hundred and fourteen iron bottles, but I can get a large quantity in this country when they may be required.
“Mr. Walkinshaw will inform you that everything is left open respecting the interest which he and others may take in this enterprise, and I trust you will also leave to me the regulation of the aifair which must depend on after prospects. For the present I wish no one to -run any risk or to incur any expense but myself, which, however, you must be aware will be very considerable; but if the mine turns out well, there will be sufficient for all.
“I, in conclusion, beg leave to recommend most strongly my friend Mr. Walkinshaw to your best attentions and assistance, and Í am sure you will find him most worthy of your confidence.
“ I am, my dear sir, yours, most sincerely,
“Alex. Forbes.
“James A. Forbes, Esq., California.
“Endorsed: Alex. Forbes, relative to mine of quicksilver, Jan’y . 7, 1847. No. 5.”
“Monterey, Oct. 1, 1847.
“ My Dear Sir : — You will no doubt be surprised to hear of my being ia Monterey, and I am so myself. I, however, resolved to take a trip to this country, which I have so long wished to visit, and arrived last afternoon in the ‘ William.’ where I have been kindly received by the authorities, and no difficulty of any kind thrown in my way.
“ I have sent to Mr. Alden to come over here, if he can, and take some people to the mine which I have brought with me, and it is very probable I shall accompany him, when I shall have the pleasure to see you.
“ Mr. Walkinshaw has come with me, but without his family. He has been very ill all the voyage, and is now on shore in a very weak state, but I hope he will soon recover. I have a thousand things to say to you, but must wait till I have the pleasure of seeing you.
“ Please inform the good Padre Real of my arrival, and tell him 1 don’t write him, as I am a bad scribe at Castillano, but that I shall soon be at his domicile.
“ Believe me to be, my dear sir, yours, very sincerely,
“Alex. Forbes.
“James A. Forbes, Esq.
“ We have had thirty-two days’ passage.
“ The American Army, under Gen. Scott, was within six leagues of the City of Mexico. 10,000 men — and a battle was daily expected. The Mexican say they have 32,000.
“ Endorsed: Alex Forbes, on 'his arrival at Monterey, Oct. 1st, 184?. No. 3.
(In pencil.) — Alex. Forbes, Monterey.”
“Mina, 19th Now., 184?.
“James A. Forbes, Esq.,
“ Mr Dear Sir : — I wrote you the other day, which did not find you at home. I am still here preparing the apparatus for making a better trial of the ores, but as Mr. Wallis, the artizan, is unwell, we go on but slowly. I am also very anxious to have the mine cleared out and put in a proper working state before I leave it, and for this purpose we have been sinking a 1 Plan ’ at the ‘ Respaldo Alto ’ in order to run a ‘ Testero ’ across the vein, and to discover the value and abundance of. the ores in its whole width. In doing this, we have most unexpectedly found that in this ‘ plan ’ there are no cinnabar whatever, although o\er it, in the upper part of the vein, there are ores. This puzzles us greatly, but we hope that in cutting across we will fall in again with ores towards the ‘ Respaldo Bajo.’ Can this mine he a ‘ Manto ?’ I must verify that, and so must you and the Padre with your own eyes. I see very good ores in the upper part of the mine in all directions, but why does it get into Borra lower down ? The Plan is about five varas lower down than when you and the Padre wrought, and on the other side of the vein. The people will go on cutting across, and when they again get into ' Metal ’ I will send you a man on purpose. I am confident we shall find them, but there will always be about two varas or more of the vein next the ' Respaldo Alto ’ without ores; at least I think so, and hope nothing worse may be the case. We still see good ores on the upper part of the vein near the ‘ Respaldo Bajo,’ where you and the Padre took out your ores.
“ I have been somewhat alarmed about this Borra, but I hope there will ultimately be no cause for this; yet I have thought it right to inform you and the Padre, and have no doubt but that my express carrier will in a few days carry better news.
“ I am, my dear sir, yours very truly,
“ Endorsed: “Alex. Forbes.
B.
“Alex. Eokbes, Mine of Almadén, Nov. 19, 1847.
“ Addressed: Sr. D. Diego A. Forbes,
Ausente, Al Sr. Padre Real, Santa Clara.”
“Mine, 2ith November, 1847.
“ For Mr. J. A. Forbes and the Padre Real, Santa Clara.
“We have at last found the vein or ‘cinta’ of ores which we were looking for, so that I have now the pleasure to inform you and the good Padre of our luck, as I promised I should do ; but I fear this mine will be reduced to this cinta, and the great body of it will be tepetate muerto; but, perhaps, the cinta may be wider below than it is above. To see whether this is so or not, has been the object of our labors-since discovering the proper direction of the vein of the whole mine, which discovery makes everything more plain. This direction was before entirely mistaken; of which and other things we will have a great deal to talk about when we meet. When Mr. Walkinshaw arrives and takes a look at the mine, I think we shall take a turn to the Mission. I expect him to be at Bernal’s Rancho this aiternoon.
“ I may say now, that it is impossible we can go off the main vein of the mine, as it is entirely different from the walls, (respaldos) they being of a hard rock, of quite different character, whereas the vein is quite soft and easily distinguished. All we have to do is to look for the cintas which have got. ores, which in my opinion will be reduced to one not very wide.
“A. Forbes.”
“New Almadén, January 1 %th, 1848.
“ My Dear Sir : — I am very much obliged to you for your very prompt attention to the business in hand, and return the espediente immediately.
“ I am much surprised at the result of your assay, and shall try what I have.
“ It will, of course, be better to say nothing about it, particulary as I have already written to Monterey that there is no mine, nor does there appear to be any quantity of this kind of stuff. I hope soon to see the Alcalde.
“.My dear sir, yours truly,
“A. Forbes.”
“ New Almadén, ls£ February, 1848
“ James A. Forbes, Esq.,
“ My Dear Sir : — I received an express last evening giving me all the news from Mexico, and informing me of the Natalia being about to sail for the Mexican coast and by which I have taken the opportunity to forward letters to Mexico.
“ I have had the imprudence to open your dispatch. They told me that it contained newspapers and as I knew General Miller’s hand, and it being a public letter, and that perhaps it might contain letters for me which I could not get if sent on, in time to allow me to write (if so required) by the Natalia; for all these reasons I broke open the packet. But although I know you will not be offended at what I have .done, yet I would rather not have done so, as I think nothing whatever can justify one in opening directed letters to others without their previous sanction.
“You will.find by the Alcanal of Guada and the Iris, what is going on in Mexico, and what my friends in Monterey write is to the same purpose. The present party, Péna y Péna, Herrera, .Otero, Bustamente & Co.', are by far the most respectable party in the Republic, and there is a better, chance for their doing something better either for peace or war than ever that most infamous rascal, Santa Anna, and his party, would have done. Now that they have got rid of that blackguard, there are better prospects than before, but the present party want energy, and the third party, the Puros, (Democrats,) will most probably upset them, when greater confusion than ever will ensue.
“You will find that the American President is getting more courage in prosecuting the war than before, and has recalled Mr. Trist, desiring the Mexicans to send to Washington if they wanted peace. I have, as you know, always thought that on their getting possession of a great part of Mexico, and their volunteers covering themsel ves with glory, the war would become popular, and they would go ahead and possess themselves of the whole of the Mexican Republic — particularly when they have got over the fears of European interference.
“You may now take my opinion a little farther, and set down Mexico as already, virtually, a part and portion of the Union, alias the ü. S.
“ It is said that Gen. Yañes goes to Tepic with 4,000 men; he is a superior kind of a man, and a most intimate friend of ours, so that our interests there will be protected in as far as depends upon him.
“ As Ascona’s letter gives a very good summary of the news, 1 send it for your perusal.
“ This being a rainy day, and being desirous to communicate what • I know in the shape of news, I inflict upon you this long epistle.
“ I am, my dear sir, yours, very truly,
“ Alex Forbes.
“ Please explain all this news to my good friend the Padre.
“You will see by Gen.-Miller’s list what a crash there has been in England. None of our friends are in this black list. Liverpool and Glasgow seem to suffer most.
“ I am, my dear sir, yours, &c.,
• , . ' "A. F.
“Addressed: James A. Forbes, Esq., &e., &c., &c., Santa Clara.
“Endorsed: Alex. Forbes, New Almadén, 1st Feb., 1848. No. T,”
“ Tepic, April 11, 1849.
“ Dear Sir : — We beg leave to refer you to Mr. Aléx. Forbes letter of the 9th inst., respecting the arrangement of the affairs of the mine of New Almadén, and beg to recommend that negotiation to your best care and management until we can forward the neces Bary instructions for your government. You may now rely on this mine being worked to the utmost of its capabilities of production and sale of quicksilver on the arrival of the apparatus, and we hope to make up for the delay which circumstances have hitherto pre-' vented this important concern from being productive. We shall soon have the pleasure of sending you a list of the company of which the “ habilitadores” are composed. The house of Jecker, Torre & Co., of Mexico and Mazatlan, and our own are chiefly interested, and as Don Ysidoro de la Torre has gone to Europe, he will concert with Mr. Barron everything which can tend to the successful development of this enterprise.
“We are, dear sir, your most obedient servants,
“Barron, Forbes & Co.
“Jas. Alex. Forbes, Esq., San Francisco.
“Endorsed: Barron, Forbes & Co., C., relative to habilitación of New Almadén. April 11. 1843.
“ Tepic, May, 20, 1849.
“ Sir : — From certain circumstances which you have communicated to us, it may be necessary to purchase some lands in the vicinity of the mine and hacienda of New Almadén, in California. We hereby empower you to make such purchases as may be necessary to the secure possession of this mine and hacienda, or to effect such other arrangement as you may deem necessary for that purpose —the price of such purchase not to exceed five thousand dollars, without consulting with us upon the subject.
“We are, sir, your most obedient servants,
“ Barron, Forbes & Co.
“ James A. Forbes, Esq.
“Addressed: James A. Forbes, Esq., California.
“Endorsed: Barron, Forbes & Co., authorizing the purchases of and. J.”
“ [ Very Private.]
“ Memorandum of the Documents which Don Andres Castillero will have to procure in Mexico :
“1st. The full approbation and ratification by the Supreme Government of all the acts of the Alcalde of the District of San .fosé, in Upper California — in the possession given by the said officer of the quicksilver mine situated in his jurisdiction, to Don Andres Castillero in December, 1845.
“ 2d. An absolute and unconditional title of two leagues of land to Don Andres Castillero, specifying the following boundaries : On .the north by the lands of the Rancho of San Vicente and Los Capitancillos, on the east, south and west by vacant lands or vacant highlands.
“ 3d. The dates of these documents will have to be- arranged by Don Andres. The testimony of them taken- in due form, and besides certified to by the American Minister in Mexico and transmitted to California as soon as possible.
“ Tepic, May 21th, 1849.
“ Endorsed: Copy of memorandum left with Alex. Forbes foi Castillero, in Tepic, May 21, 1849. I.”
“ San Francisco, October 28, 1849.
“ My Dear Sir : — I have been detained at this place until the present moment, occupied in completing the arrangements explained to B., F. & Co., under the date of yesterday, having raised the sum of $27,180 67g- from Probst, S. & Co., and Webster alone.
“•I must again call your attention to the importance of my suggestions relative to the perfecting the title of the mine of New Almadén; and, without entering now into the particulars already explained to yourself and to Mr. Alexander-Forbes verbally, I desire only to impress upon your mind the vast importance of securing from the Supreme Government of Mexico the documents comprised in the memorandum left with Mr. Alexander Forbes, when I was in Tepic, for Castillero. By my other letters by this conveyance you will be informed of all the particulars of the transactions that have occurred recently in the affairs of the mine, and you will see the risk in which this valuable property is placed by the •'delay that has occurred in the acquisition of the documents referred .to.
“ I remain, my dear sir, yours, sincerely,
“ James Alex. Forbes.
“ William Forbes, Esq., Tepic.
“ Endorsed : Copy letter to William Forbes (private) from San Francisco, October 28, 1849. III.”
[“ Private,.^ Santa Clara, October 30, 1849.
“ My Dear Sir : — By my letters to yourself and to B-, F <& Co., from the 22d to this day, you will be informed of the great danger in which the mine of New Almadén has been thrown, and the disagreeable and vexatious proceedings caused me by Mr. Walkinshaw and his associates in.their denunciation of the mine for abandonment. You will, however, have the' satisfaction of knowing, also, that I am to be reinstated in the possession of that property, both mine and hacienda, in two or three days hence, by judicial process.
“ Although I feel much gratified at my successful defence of the case, yet I am extremly apprehensive of further difficulties in the event that those parties should succeed in purchasing the part of the land.of the Berreyesas that they have offered to purchase (which embraces the mine and. hacienda) for twentj^-five thousand dollars —-just five times the amount you all authorized me to pay for the same identical tract 1
“ Figure to yourself the position of the affair of the mine if I do not strike boldly at our opponents by purchasing the land at a higher price than they have offered to pay for it, and by thus frustrating their plans, secure the mine and hacienda from further risk.
“You will now readily perceive the great importance of my advice to you tó purchase a part both of the lands of Cook and of the Berreyesas. You were of the opinion that this measure would not be necessary, in view of the supposed facility of getting the tide to the mine perfected in Mexico..
“It is now more than five months since it was decided that Castillero should procure the necessary documents in that city, and that they- should be sent to me as soon as possible. On the one hand, I depend upon the precarious and illegal possession of the mine, granted by the Alcalde of this district to Castillero, who was, in reality, the judge of the quantity of land given by the Alcalde ; and, on the other side, I am attacked by the purchasers of the same land, declared by Castillero himself to comprise the mine. In the absence of the all-important document of the ratification of the possession so given, I am compelled to purchase the part of the land of the Berreyesas which Walkinshaw and his party have offerd to purchase, and you must not be surprised if I shall go far beyond the price that they have offered, because it is the only mode of securing the title to the mine and hacienda; for, if Castillero should fail in getting the desired documents from Mexico,
is the sole mode of safety of this property.
“ I shall endeavor to procrastinate, as far *s possible, this pur chase; and, moreover, to frustrate all the plans of Walkinsaw and his associates for accomplishing their purchase, and I do entreat you to use every effort to send me the document of the ratification of possession of the mine and the grant of land thereon at the very earliest opportunity, properly authenticated and certified, as explained by me when I was in Tepic. In one of my precited letters I requested you to send me a certified power of attorney from B„ F. & Co. to you, authorizing you, as the representative of the Compañía de Abio, to appoint other attorneys in fact under you.
• “ The object of this is.to be able to,refute the allegations of the lawyer of Walkinshaw that you had ho power to authorize me to take charge of the mine.
“I remain, my dear sir, yours, truly,
“Jas. Alex. ' Forbes.
“Alexander Forbes, Esq.
“Endorsed: Copy of a letter to Alexander Forbes, (private,) October 28, 1849. . II.” •
, Tepie, 80th November, 1849.
“ James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara,
“ Dear Sir : — We had the pleasure to write you on the 13th inst. by the steamer “ Oregon,” the chief object of which was to enclose a notarial copy of the grant of land by the Mexican Government to Castillero, and which we hope has come safe to hand.
“ We have perused with much interest and attention the whole of your letters and documents received by the steamers, the ‘ California’ and ‘Panama,’ and we beg you will excuse us from minutely entering into a reply to those valuable and important papers. Suffice it to say, that we not only approve of your proceedings, but have to give you'our most sincere thanks for the most energetic and able conduct in the whole affair, and we have to request that you will not hesitate continuing to take such steps a3 may seem to you fit for securing the mine from all attempts made by evil-minded persons to impede its being freely, worked for its .legitimate owners.
.“We are glad'to find that you had not been obliged to purchase Berréyesa’s land. This is certainly a most important point, and we trust that the document sent will be of great consequence in that respect, but you will of course take care that no risk is .and you will do in this affair as your best judgment will direct you, keeping in view that at all hazard and at whatever cost the property of the mine must be secured. Castillero we expect will soon be here from Lower California, and if anything can be done in Mexico he is the fittest person to procure what may be wanted. It is incredible that Mr. Walkinshaw should lend himself to such proceedings when he considered the very large capital invested in this enterprise, and when he well knows that by the mining laws no “ denuncio ” could possibly be heard under the. circumstances in which this mine has been occupied. We trust, however, that these vile machinations will by your active proceedings be put an end to.
“ We hope you will by the time this reaches you have got up at least a part of the apparatus, and that some of it will be soon at work. The price of quicksilver here still keeps up, and the supply as yet not abundant. Every body writes of the very high price it bears in California, and we have no doubt you will in a short time be able do supply the demand and to send us the surplus to San Bias. Trusting to the continuance of your best exertions in behalf of all concerned in the mine of New Almadén,
“Wé are, dear sir, your most ob’t servants,
Barron, Forbes &. Co.
“Endorsed: Barron, Forbes & Co., 30th Nov., 1849. No. 16.”
“ Tepie, 30th November, 1849.
“James A: Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara.
“ My Dear Sir : — I have received your most valuable letters by *fche two last steamers, “ California ” and “ Panama,” the latest dates being up to the 13th of the present month, and which gives the agreeable notice of Walkinshaw’s most villainous proceedings having been upset. I hope you will forgive me for not entering minutely into all the proceedings. But I can assure you that we all feel the obligation we owe to you for the very able and decisive measures you have adopted in' the whole of this affair, and I recommend you to proceed without,, fear of disapproval or waiting for instructions, in taking such measures as shall preserve this valuabe “negociación” from any risk from those unprincipled claimants who have lately given you so much trouble, or from any other proceedings which may take place; being sure that such proceedings will- be sanctioned by the company. We are quite of opinion with you, that we should' not be lulled into security from the belief that other proceedings will not be resorted to, and that principle will be acted upon, and every support from this will be given to what you may point out as necessary.
“ As you will not, I hope, have now to employ the large sum you expected to do in the purchase of the Berreyesa’s lands, you will have a large amount of funds for the object of the .mines. All the drafts and orders for the value of gold have been honored.
“ We are glad to learn that Mr. Probst has been so active in assisting you, and it gives me in particular much pleasure to find such a good understanding between you. I most earnestly hope the same friendship will take place between you and Dr. Tobin.
“Notwithstanding the many difficulties you must have in transporting the cargo of the Yicar of Bray, yet I hope a part of the apparatus will soon be got up to supply the demand of the placeres as well as to send us some here. It is of much importance to realize as much as possible of the large capital which now lies in the mine, laid out by the habilitadores, and to secure to the owners of barras something certain against an evil day which may some time or other overtake us.
“ In new countries nothing is very certain, and I, for one, (and in which I am sure you will agree with me,) am most desirous to be in possession and to see others in possession of at least a part of the riches of this mine, which has cost me and others so -much thought and so much laboi\ This I, as an individual, and for the good of all, beg leave to impress strongly upon your attention.
“ I am, my dear sir, yours, very sincerely,
“Alexander Forbes.
“James. A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara.
“Endorsed: No. 8.”
[“ Very private A, Tepic, December 1, 1849.
" “My Dear Sir: — The document sent up to you by the last steamer for the grant of the lands to D-. Andres Castillero, was, by mistake, not the one meant to be sent. I find now that the proper one was' registered by me in Monterey, and the original deposited there.
“ The one sent you was directed at the foot to the Governor of California, and the one deposited at Monterey was directed to D. Andres Castillero. The difference is, that by one the delivery by the Governor was perhaps necessary to make the grant valid, whereas the other being addressed directly to D. Andres did not require that formality, nor was any other proceeding necessary, thus making it a better document than the greater part of the other titles for lands in California. I fear you may have made use of the notarial copy sent — if not, you will of course apply for the copy of the one at Monterey. I however, have hopes that your well known cleverness will have enabled you to find out this .mistake, which would show itself, if you had applied for the document from Monterey. And at all events you may be enabled to withdraw the one sent and substitute the other; either, however, I take to be as good as the usual California titles, few of which have been officially delivered or sanctioned by the local authorities.
“ Another difficulty however occurs. A document was made out in the city of Mexico when I purchased the Bars from Castillero, fór the purpose of securing his consent and approval of the contract of Habilitación ;. in this document is also inserted the grant of the two'sitios, being an exact copy-of what has been sent you, and directed to the Governor. All this will show you how that matter stands. And as I think this document may be of use to you, I send a Copy of the whole, leaving you to your own good judgment, to make such use of this document, and of what I communicate, as you shall think proper.
“ I shall send the document alluded to in a separate cover to Probst, Smith & Co.
“ I .am, my dea* sir, yours very truly,
“Alex. .Forbes.
“ There is an approval of the Habilitación in all the documents of the sale of the other Bars.'
“Endorsed: No. 9.”
“ [Private] Tepic, Jan'y ?, 1850.
“James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara.
' “ My Dear Sir : — I have received by Acapulco and Mexico, along With your other correspondence, your private letter to me, of the 25th-and 28th of November, and beg to refer you to the letters of B., F. & Co. on the business of the mine.
“ I am very sorry indeed to see that there is likely to be a difference between you and Dr. Tobin. This is a circumstance which may lead -to very bad consequences; and it is strange that Dr Tobin should throw obstacles in the way when he sees you surrounded with so many already, and which can only tend to lessen his own profits.
“ It is clearly to be understood that no verbal agreement was made here with any one, nor any promises given which is not consistent with the contract as. it is written. His brother never was engaged ; on the contrary he t.old me that his brother went to see what could be done in California, and if nothing offered he would send him back to take our portraits. This might have been said as a joke, but shows that no employment at the mine was intended for him.
“No maintenance for himself (Dr. T.) or family was ever intended. He looked out here for a cook and took up one for that purpose. His .new contract is much more advantageous than his former one with me, as he has his percentage ón the whole two-thirds without limitation. I have read over this second contract with care, and it' appears to me quite clear in respect to his charge at the hacienda.
“ ‘Art. 2. The aforesaid James Tobin agrees to direct the operations of the extraction of the quicksilver to the best of his abilities, and is to have the said operations under his exclusive management.’
“ This does not show that he shall have the general management of the hacienda.
“.One of the causes for altering the contract, and for cancelling the limitation of his profits was, to make the contract less onerous as to the supply of ores, people and necessaries, which you will perceive by the 4th article. . You are only bound to supply ‘ as amply as circumstances will allow? whereas, by the original contract with me, it was obligatory on us to supply all those which he might require.
“ This, in the present state of things, is, I. consider, of much consequence.
“ This is mj' opinion of what Mr. Tobin has a right tv demand, Put I- am sure you will not stand on mere points of right, or risk the interests of negotiation for trifling pretensions which may be put forth. Much must be sacrificed in principles to conciliate a troublesome person, and I still most earnestly hope that your prudence will enable you to keep up cordiality between you. I shall write my opinion to Dr. Tobin, and give him my strongest advice to lay aside‘ail vexatious pretensions, and enjoin him to proceed in good will and amity, which can only tend to his own interests and ¿those concerned in the mine. I hope he will listen to my advice.
“ The amount of capital is getting to be enormous, and the company are beginning to get astonished. If, however, you ean once get under way all will be well, if you could only get a couple of cylinders up in any temporary way. They would supply the placares. .
" Whenever you have more than is wanted for that, you will, of course, send it down here, more or less, by the steamer.
“Strange, as it appears to me, a Mexican merchant, ‘Lizardo/ sends up one hundred and thirty-six flasks by this steamer, and between two and three hundred go by next conveyance. It is shipped by B., F. & Co., as agents ! We have not one bottle here; but there are some still of the California quicksilver in Sonora..
“I am glad you have taken young Mr. Thom in your house; please remember me to him, as also to Mrs. Forbes, and your family.
“I am, my dear sir, &c., yours truly,
“A. Forbes.
“ James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa .Clara.
1 “ Webster will go up with a pacatillo by this steamer if he can get his things on board. If you can do anything for him you will oblige me.
“A. F.
“ By the tenor of your letter, I have hopes that you will have got rid of the villanous proceedings of Walkinshaw and his party.
/‘I hope the document which now goes up, (the Habilitación, &c.,) will be useful. Castillero is somewhere in Lower California. We have not heard from him, but he must be” somewhere about La Poz.
“Mr. Spence of Monterey writes me of date of the 22d Nov., that he had advanced to Mr. Walkinshaw about $2,000, and informs me that although he had written him several times he had received no answer, and that neither principal nor interest had been paid. I have advised Mr. Spence to inquire of you respecting this transaction.
. “ I hope Mr. Probst, with your assistance, if necessary, will push the claim of the Mazatlan debt against Walkinshaw.
“ I have a letter from Alden, in which he speaks of Walkinshaw in strong terms. I hope you will keep poor Alden in your service he speaks of his former service not being properly paid for, and of his accounts not being settled.
“Endorsed: No. 10.”
“Santa Clara, 29th Jan’y, 1850.
“Mr Dear Sir: — I have rec’d the copy of the contract of Habilitación and as you request me to address myself to B., F. & Co., on the affairs of the mine, I have now written to them, upon this particular subject to which I request your earnest attention, not as regards , the habilitación, but another document which you know of.
“I am, my dear sir, yours faithfully,
“Jas. Alex. Forbes.”
[“ Very Private.'} Topic, February 3d, 1850..
“James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara.
“Mr Dear Sir : — I had the pleasure to write'you of date the 7th January, which went by last month’s steamer, to which I refer. I have since received your letters by Reyes dated the-27th and 31st of December, and 8th of January. I shall not go minutely into the whole valuable information you give me, nor into the statements so very interesting to myself and those concerned in the mine of New Almadén. By those communications I have every reason to believe that, by your indefatigable and energetic proceedings you will be enabled to defeat all the vile attempts which have been made to rob the legitimate owners of their property.
“ The conduct of Dr. Tobin is inexplicable, but I think I can perceive that you are somewhat of opinion that he may be heard and protected by the Company, but I ’will at once put you right upon that point’, and! assure you such will not be the case. All Aere are most indignant at his conduct. You mpst, and will, be supported, and all I wish and hope for on your part is, that you act in a manner towards him which may enable you if possible to avoid a rupture and contentions which may lead to bad results. You say that Dr. Tobin comes down in the next steamer, if so,- he will be here in a few days. This I shall not be sorry for, for the matter would'then be soon settled. He would most assuredly not be asked to' return, nor even permitted. He has no (right to desert his post, and I hope you have not given him leave of absence. I have no doubt but that you could, with.-Gay, Alden, and the other person you mention, do well enough for a time, and easily put up a part of the apparatus and work it until a proper scientific person can be procured and sent up to you.
“ It so happpns that almost the whole of the “accionistas” and “ aviadores” of the'mine will he here in a few days. Mr. Barron is now here, and is attorney for those absent. La Torre comes here to visit Mr. B. Castillero has returned and is also here, so am I and William Forbes. This leaves out only the four California bars, and I think I may venture to act for you, if necessary, as you verbally told me I might. This will give us power to deal wi1 h Dr. Tobin if he comes this way, and to regulate any other matters which may be thought necessary. For my own part I have no power, as you know, the management being in the hands of others, and therefore, I beg .you will take all I say as purely private and confidential, without attaching any authority to my suggestions. But, of course, as I am a proprietor, and in the confidence of the managers and other proprietors, my opinions and advice may be worth attending to, and be of some use to yourself as well as to them. I shall contihue to write to you as long as I remain here, and will be most happy at all times/to hear from you.
1 “I wrote by last packet to Dr. Tobin as a friend, and “attempted to conciliate him in a mild way, perhaps he makes too much of this ;letter, -and I think it better to send you a copy to enable you to see exactly what I have said to him. His leaguing himself with Mr. Walkinshaw is too bad. Reyes has told me of all that has passed, which is almost incredible. I am glad to find that you are peaceably .to get rid of Mr. W. Mr. Tobin has sent- a plan of his proposed establishment, this you must on no account allow to be put in execution.' You are aware that it would never do to go about large magnificent works at once, particularly as you- know the whole must be at the cost of the “ aviadores ” and left for the proprietors at the end of the contract. You are acting for the aviadores, 'and it is your duty to restrict the works within reasonable bounds, and to only erect temporary, and absolutely necessary, . works until some'funds shall be realized from the mine. However desirous that it may be that the works should be set up by Dr. Tobin, yet if he will not go on in good faith, or if he attempts to injure the company, or.refuses to obey your just commands, and resists your authority; or stops ir impedes the works, and thereby breaking his contract, I think he may be discharged by you, always •taking care that you have a very clear case, and nothing left in doubt to cause litigation. But this .is only my private opinion. I have no authority to' empower you to do so, but it would no doubt be approved by the company, none of whom look favorably on the Doctor’s proci edings. The most effectual and safe way, however, would he his coming here without leave. He has not written by last opportunity, nor will he be written to by tnis steamer.
“I have every reason to believe that the documents you mention will be found in the City of Mexico, and as Mr. Castillero will return there they will no doubt be procured, but we are at some loss to know what is exactly wanted; and I beg you will, by next steamer, give a sketch of the documents you allude to, particularly a description of the limits of the grant. I think you must not have received the information sent you of the existence of "the ■ grant of the twó sitios directly to Castillero, and registered in Monterey, nor am I sure if this will mend, the matter. In a few days, however, we will again hear from you and act accordingly.
“One-last resort I will mention to you, and it is with great repugnance that. I do so, which is, that if the Berreyesas were unreasonable and untractable, or insist on the extension of their lands to our hacienda, the company would be justified in promoting the invalidation of their own title to their Rancho.
“ If they make it over to any one else, and particularly to our enemies, certainly this course must be pursued. ' If no opposition or disclosures are made, and if the American Government turn out to be liberal in conceding the Ranchos to the present holders, the Berreyesas and others may be left in possession; but if active measures were taken by an adverse party, many of the titles would be worthless, and I have reason to think from what came to our knowledge when I was in California, the title of the Berreyesas is not of the best. This I throw out for your consideration and I should think these people would do themselves no good in opposing you.
, “ We think at present that it may be the best place to get an authenticated copy of the approval of the Mexican Government of the grant of three thousand varas given by the Alcade on giving ■possession of the mine. As a doubt may have started as to whether the Alcalde, acting as the “ Juez de Minería,” had a right to make this grant, yet if approved by the Government of Mexico before the possession of the country by the Americans, there could bé no doubt on the subject. This takes in our hacienda, and dnless opposed by the Berreyesas would, I should think, settle the question.
“ Castillero says such approval was given, and that on his. arrival in Mexico he will procure a judicial copy of it. This is the plan we shall adopt if we hear nothing from you to alter this resolution.
Since writing the foregoing I have looked over your private letter to Wm. Forbes, dated 18th October, and find you state the limits or boundaries as follows.
“ The boundaries must be expressed as joining on the north and northwest by lands of the ranchqs de San Vicente and de los (Japitancillos, and' on the east, south and west by Serainia or 'tierras baldias.’
“ Castillero is not certain of accomplishing this latter plan, and ' thinks the first, that is, the 3,000 varas, the best.
“ There goes up by the steamer another bill against Mr. Walkinshaw, and in favor of B., F. & Co., for $1,000, so that Probst, Smith & Co., have in our favor and against him:
“By A. Forbes, accepted......................... $1,758
“B., F. & Co., about................................ 10,000
“B.,F. & Co., bill................................... 1,000
“In all................................... $12,758
“ I am, my dear, sir yours, very truly,
“Alex. Forbes.
“James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara.
“ I send you five Atlas newspapers.
“ Endorsed: Private,.'A. F. 3d Februaiy, 1850. Answered 26th February. No. 11.”
[“ Private] New Almadén, February 26, 1850.
“ Alexander Forbes, Esq.,
“My Dear Sir: — Tour favor of the'3d instant came duly to hand, and in answer to that part of it relating to the documents sent up to me in November, serving as titles to this property, I will again address you- ‘por seperado.’
. “ I really did have inore faith in the tact and ability of Castillero, to perceive the important objects set forth in my memorandum of what was to be done nine months ago, in Mexico, by that eccentric, individual, and that with the powerful influence that he was to have exercised' by the efficient aid that was to be/ lent to him, he would meet with no obstacle-to the attainment of the important documents explained in that memorandum. But Castillero has deceived himself, for he thought that boundaries were not necessary,-as I shall presently shew you. He succeeded in obtaining the grant of two sitios to himself on the mining possession in Santa Clara while that very act of possession declares that the mine is situated on the lands of one José R. Berreyesa, five leagues distant from Santa Clara, and yon will at once perceive that such a discrepancy would not fail to attract the attention of the U. S. Land Commissioners and to put the case of the mine in great risk in the judicial ordeal to which its title will be subjected.
“ Without troubling you with what I have so many times written and explained to you verbally, on the importance of the acquisition of the document, I will only say now, what it must be, and it is this :
“ 1st. A full and complete ratification of all the acts of the Alcalde of this jurisdiction in the possession of the mine.
“ 2d. A full and unconditional grant to Castillero of two sitios of land covering that mining possession, expressing the boundaries stated by me in the memorandum I left with you in Tepic. Both of these documents to be of the proper date, and placed in the proper Governmental custody in Mexico, and '
“ 3d. The necessary certified copies of them duly authenticated by the American Minister in that capital, taken and sent to me at the earliest possible moment. I
“You will receive my advice of the 19th inst., regarding my views of not supplying W., with any quicksilver.
■ “Yóurs sincerely,
“Jas. Alex. Forbes.
“ Endorsed: Letter to A. F. Private, IV. February 26, 1850.
“ Tepic, March 2, 1850.
“Dear Sir: — We duly received your letters up to the 29th of January, per steamer Panama, which have had our best attention, and as our friend, Don Ysidoro de la Torre of Mazatlan has been appointed, and has consented to proceed by this steamer to California, with full powers to act in behalf of all concerned, it is needless to enter into any particulars respecting the various matters contained in your letters, as you will be enabled personally to communicate your views to him, and to arrange everything- in the best manner possible. Mr. De la Torre came to Tepic to meet Mr. Barron and the others concerned in this negotiation, and it was deemed necessary that some of the partners of the “ habilitación ’• sbon d proceed to New Almadén in order to consult personally with /ou, and to arrange respecting the future operations of this enterprise, and Mr. De la Torre has been prevailed upon, at much inconvenience to himself, to undertake the present charge.
“We are sure no one could be named more agreeable to you than Mr. De la Torre, and have no doubt but that his presence will be most useful in sanctioning and arranging a plan of future operations, and o^ assisting in adjusting any difficulties which now exist, particularly as he has the full authority of the association to act as to him shall appear necessary. Mr. De la Torre takes up with him Dr. Tobin, in the hopes that he will resume his labors and act in conformity with his duty.
. “Mr. Barron and Don Andres Castillero are about to proceed to the City of Mexico, and will attend to what you have recommended.
“ Soliciting your kind attentions to our friend, Mr. De la Torre, we are, dear sir, your most obedient servants,
“Barron, Forbes & Co.
“ James A. Forbes, Esq., New Almadén.
Endorsed: No. 12.”
“Tepic, March 11, 1850.
“My Dear Sir: — The-Oregon’s letters have just come up, and I give this a chance of reaching San Bias before the arrival of the Panama steamer: Mr. -Barron and Castillero have ■ gone off to Mexico, and I write them to-day respecting the document you know of, which if possible will be procured.- The news of your having got up four cylinders, gives us all much joy, and I gave the good news to my friends. M. La Torre don’t expect this — unless he knows by the steamer which touched at Mazatlan. You will perhaps see him and Dr. Tobin before this reaches you, who both go by this conveyance.' Let us have Quicksilver and all will-be well.
“ I am most happy to hear you have found an abundant mine oí Limestone, this is of'much importance. -Your official letter about the vessel will be forwarded to the Foreign Office.
. “In great haste, yours truly.
“A. Forbes.
. “Endorsed: Alex. Forbes, March 11th, No. 14.*’
“Tepic, April 1, 1850.
“My Dear Sir : — I wrote to you by the California, dated the 23d February, and since then have received by the “ Oregon ” yours of’ the 19th of that month. 1 was very happy to hear that you had got up some of the cylinders, and trust that you are at this time distilling quicksilver. I hope Dr. Tobin will now attend without any difficulty to the superintendence of the apparatus, and am sure that you will on your part do everything in your power to promote harmony and forward the interests of all concerned. You will, I know, find great relief and pleasure by the arrival of your friend La Torre. He will during his stay take much responsibility off your shoulders, and, from his decision and conciliatory disposition assist in smoothing many of the difficulties which surround you. Mr. Barron and Castillero have arrived in Mexico, and have every prospect of finding the documents you are aware of, and which will, of course, be forwarded as soon as possible.
“ I am, my dear sir, yours, very truly,
“Alex. Forbes.
“ James A. Forbes, Esq., New Almadén.
“I forward a letter received from Mr. Murray, of the foreign' office.
“Addressed : James A. Forbes, Esq., New Almadén.
“ Endorsed : Alex. Forbes, April 7, 1850.”
“ [Private.] Tepic, June 6, 1850.
“ My Dear Sir :■ — I had the pleasure to receive your letter of the 28th of April by the steamer, but of course not in time to reply by the one from Panama, which arrived the day after that from San Francisco.
“I remark what you say of Dr. Tobin and the cylinders,' which has caused me some uneasiness, and I wait with anxiety to know how those he is putting up himself will succeed, which we expect to do by the steamer which ought to arrive at San Bias on the 10th instant.
“ I find that it has been deemed necessary to appoint an Ameri-. can citizen as manager of the mine, and am most happy to know that this meets with your approbation. This approval on your part I am quite sure will be estimated as it deserves, and shows to those interested in this enterprise that you do not hestitate to sacrifice your own private interests for the general benefit of the concern. For my own paft, I feel most grateful and highly obliged, and the members of the hoüse of Barron, Foibes & Co express strongly the same feeling.
“We are all convinced that whoever may he in the management of the New AJmaden will receive the assistance of your .knowledge and experience; and the company and proprietors cannot fail to be sensible of your services. It gives me great pleasure to hear from yourself as well as from M. La Torre, that the closest friendship had existed between you, and that both were animated by the same desire of making the mine productive. I' had the pleasure to know Mr. Halleck at Monterey, and I think a better selection could not have been made. I think he is a gentleman with whom you will be much satisfied asYmanager of the mine; and who I have no doubt will be glad to avail himself of your experience in whatever may be new to him.
“I am very happy to hear that Mr. Walkinshaw has been settled with, and that all annoyance from that or any other quarter has ceased.
“ I shall avoid saying anything respecting the Berreyesa afiair tili the letters by the steamer come to hand, which will no doubt confirm the arrangement between them and Mr. La Torre.
“ I am, my dear sir, yours truly,
“A Forbes
“Endorsed: No. 15.”
“ Tepic, January 10, 1851.
“ J. A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara,
“ My Dear Sir : — I was duly favored with your obliging letters of the 12th and 29th of Nov., in which you mention, that I had stated some disappointment by your not- writing, and allude to some other matters I have no recollection of. I havé always reckoned upon you as a. friend, and am well convinced that you have every disposition to promote the interests of the mining negotiation a.s much as in your power, which William Barron confirms in his -late letters to the house.
“We have nothing to fear from the lawyer Jones should he come here, but I understand he has gone to the Sandwich Islands, and is likely to make a journey to the other world. Mr. Barron has caused a most minute examination to be made in the archives in the city of Mexico, the result of which has been that, neither Alvarado nor Micheltorena. were authorized to grant titles for lands in California, nor does there appear to have been any approval or confirmation of such grants as they took upon themselves to grant — so that the title of the Berreyesa’s land, either by Alvarado or by Micheltorena, if opposition is made, is valueless.
“ This being the case, few of the California titles would oe good if determined by the vigorous application of the Mexican law Mr. Barron has procured documents to confirm this view of .the case, but we have resolved not to make use of such documents' except hi our own defence, as we do not wish to injure any one; but in the case of the Berreyesas we are compelled to use all means in our power to counteract their proceedings or those of their abetters if they persist in their late proceedings.
“ If it was not that I am an interested party I would recommend to them to secure .their Rancho by silence, for I am well assured that by adopting hostile measures against us they, may lose it altogether. The Rothschilds have a large quantity of quicksilver on hand, and the miners thought that by competition between them and New Almadén it might come down greatly in. price, and kept off from purchasing, but an agreement has been come to between both parties, by which this competition is done away with, and the price will be maintained at a fair rate.
“ In consequence, however, of the expectation of the miners few sales have .been made, and little of the proceeds of sales realized, but from the arrangement alluded to, it is hoped that the sales will soon be considerable. You will find by B., F. & Co.’s letter that your wishes have been complied with, in debiting you with the $1,700 in the account of your share of the sales of quicksilver.
“ With best respects to Mrs. Forbes and- your family, I am, my dear sir, yours, very truly,
“Alex. Forbes.
“ Addressed: James A. Forbes, Esq., San Clara, California.
“Endorsed: Alex. Forbes, Jan. 10, 1851. No. 17.”
. These were the letters in the package deposited with Davidson. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. James Eldridge, who had an interest adverse to that of the claimants, had agreed to pay James Alexander Forbes $10,000 down, and $10,000 more at a future time, for the privilege of using them to compel a compromise and it was stipulated that until needed for that purpose they should remain in Mr. Davidson’s custody, whence they could not be taken by either party without- the consent of the other The- process which brought them into Court was issued at the-instance of the District Attorney of the United States, who. in doing so, acted upon his own sense of official duty, not prompted by ,any private party, and without knowing any thing of the agreement between Lawrence and J. A. Forbes. Forbes receive-1 the consideration he bargained for.
There was another letter from Alexander Forbes to James Alexander Forbes, not in the package produced by Davidson, of which the following is a copy:
“ Monterey, March 28, 1848.
“ My Dear Sir : — I have to apologize for not writing you before this, as I promised I would, respecting the purchase of your shares in the mine of New Almadén, but really, as your opinion of their value is so widely different from mine, I considered it almost hopeless to make you any further proposals.
“I do not, however, leave this without making the necessary arrangements to effect that object, and have therefore authorized Mr. Walkinshaw and" Maní. Dias to wait on you with my final offer., for the purchase of those shares.
“Were I not already so deeply interested in this negotiation I would never think of investing another dollar in it, but this interest renders it necessary for me to have the control of all the shares, in order that I may dispose of the whole, whenever an opportunity may offer, and save myself from the heavy loss that would ensue, should it unluckily leak out that, in fact the documents procured by Castillero in Mexico, as his title to the mine and lands, were all obtained long after the occupation of California by th'e Americans.
“ This unfortunate irregularity cannot be easily repaired, and serious objections might be made even to the legality of our new act of possession.
“ I need scarcely remind you of the importance of preserving profound secresy in all these matters, and in case you do not accept my offer, I hope you will not fail to send me your power to act for you in any arrangement I may make.
“ I send you three vols. of the Mechanic and Engineers’ Magazine, which I beg your acceptance of, and I hope you will continue your, correspondence as usual, and inform me of what is passing in California.
“ I am, my dear sir, yours, very truly,
“Alex. Forbes.
“James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara.”
J. A Forbes produced this some months after the others had been given in evidence. He swore it was an exact and true copy of the original, which he had received in regular course, and that the original was in the handwriting of Alexander Forbes. Why he did not produce the original itself he undertook to ex-'' plain, by declaring that he had it in a carpet-bag at a hotel in San Francisco, and while he was out it was stolen; though his room and his carpet-bag were both locked, and he did not per ceive, when he came back, that either had been disturbed. He was subjected to a long cross-examination, which did not establish the integrity of his conduct, pr the good- faith of his statements, but seriously injured his credit. In addition to this, the claimants attacked his general character.
James J. Birney was called to support the statement of Forbes, and he swore that the copy of the letter offered in evidence was made;by him; that it was a true copy ; that he knew the handwriting of Alexander Forbes, and that the original, from which he copied it, was written by Alexander Forbes. ' The answer of the claimants, to Birney’s testimony, was the production of witnesses who swore that his reputation for veracity was not such as to make him á safe witness.
When Mr. Trist went out'; Jo Mexico, in 1848, tc negotiate a treaty of peace, he was instructed by Mr. Buchanan, the Secretary of State, to insist upon a cession of certain territory, and to stipulate that all grants, in the ceded-territories, made by Mexico, after the 13th of May, 1846, should be absolutely null and void.
Mr. Trist reported to the State Department the treaty made by himself and the- Mexican Commissioners, which contained the following declaration on the part.of Mexico:
“ The Mexican Government - declares that no grant whatever of lands in Texas has been made since the second day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six; and that no grant whatever of land, in any of the territories aforesaid, has been made since the thirteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six."
Mr. Trist, in his dispatch to the State Department of January 25, 1848, (accompanying the treaty,) explains why the treaty had taken this form instead of the stipulation which he had been instructed to make.
“ With respect,” said he, “ to grants of land made by the Mexican authorities, the proviso contained in my instructions was strenuously objected to upon a point of national honor and decorum. No such grants had been made since the IWi May, 1846. This they knew, and consequently the proviso could have no practical effect. But it is implied that they have been made, ox.might have■ been made, and that, nevertheless, the Government committed the injustice of revoking them ; which, in fact, it had authority to do. Moreover, it involved an acknowledgement that, from the day when hostilities broke out on the north of the Rio Bravo, the Mexican Go vernment 'had lost the right to make grants of land in any part of its territory subsequently occupied by us. Feeling the force of these objections, I requested to make sure of the fact stated by them, and also in regard to no grants having been made in Texas since the revolution, which had been incidentally mentioned by one of them, (the Mexican negotiators.) ■ And this having been done in a manner which left no shade of doubt on their minds, the declaration which will be found at the end of Article 10, was agreed upon in lieu of the proviso.”
After the treaty had been ratified by the President and Senate of the United States, with some amendments, Messrs. Clifford, of Maine, and Sevier, of Arkansas, were sent out as commissioners to exchange ratifications with the Mexican Government. Their despatches to the State' Department, only a part of which has been. printed, show that there was much discussion between them and the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs on the subject of the land grants, and particularly with respect to the effect which might be produced upon the titles by the suppression of the 10th Article The necessary explanation was given to quiet these fears. The dispatches do not state specifically what the explanations were, because the substance of them was written down in the form of a protocol and signed by the representatives of the two Governments. The following is the explanation referred to, so far as it relates to this subject:
“ The American Government, by suppressing the tenth Article of the treaty of Guadalupe, did not in any way intend to annul the grants of land made by Mexico in the ceded territories. These grants, notwithstanding the suppression of the Article of the Treaty, presérve the legal value which they may possess; and the grantees may cause their legitimate titles to be acknowledged before the American tribunals.
“ Conformably to the law of the United States,-, legitimate titles to every description of property, personal and real, existing in the ceded territories are those which were legitimate, titles under the Mexican law in California and New Mexico up to the 13th of May, 1846, and in Texas up to the 2d of March, 1836. * * *
“And these explanations having been accepted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Mexican Republic, he declared in the name of his Government, that, with the understanding conveyed by them, the said Government would proceed to ratify the treaty of Guadalupe as modified by the Senate and Government of the United States.”
Most of the evidence was given after the cause came into the • District Court. This is but an outline of it. Many documents and numerous details of fact, some of them not altogether without a certain degree of importance, are unavoidably omitted ;■ the object being to give only such as appeared necessary to make the arguments of counsel and the opinion of the Court intelligible.
The Land Commission (Mr. Commissioner Thompson, dissenting,) confirmed the title of the claimants “to the mine, with the right of enjoying the privileges as mine owner, under the.Mexican law, of three thousand varas in every direction from the mouth of the mine.” All the Commissioners concurred in rejecting the claim to two leagues, under the Lanzas dispatch.
The claimant appealed to the District Court from so much of the decree “as rejects his claim for two square leagues of land granted to him in 'clonization,”- and-the United States appealed from that part which confirms the mining privilege.
The opinion of the District Judge was in favor of confirming the claimant’s title to the two leagues under the dispatch, but the Circuit Judge being of a contrary opinion, that part of the claim was rejected Both Judges agreed that the mining title claimed under the proceedings before the Alcalde, was legal and sufficiently proved, and it was accordingly confirmed with seven pertinencies eaóh of two hundred varas square to be laid out in such 'manner as the claimants might elect, but so that the original mouth of the mine should be within them.
From the decree of the District Court both parties appealed to this Court.
Mr. Archibald C: Peachy, of California, Mr. Charles O'Conor, ot New York, and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, for claimant.
In November, 1845, Andres Castillero, a Mexican military officer, whilst journeying through California toward Sutter’s Fort, on a public mission, discovered in a spur of the Sierra Azul or Blue Mountains, seventeen hundred feet above sea-level, the quicksilver mine now in question. The place had previously attracted attention. Openings had been made by the Indians and by the early white settlers. But it was Castillero “who first found metal in it;” and, therefore, by the express words of the Mexican law, he is “held as the first discoverer.” Ord. of 1783, tit. 6, Art. 7, Halleck’s Collection, p. 225. Nor has any rival yet appeared ; so his merit in this respect is unquestionable. . lie forthwith reported the fact to A. M. Pico, the nearest Alcalde, who gave him juridical possession “ according the laws,” as it was expressed, referring to “the Ordinance on Mining.” Castillero and his assigns, now known as the New Almadén Company, have had possession and worked the mine ever since. At the cost of a million of dollars they have fully developed the product. Great benefit has thence resulted to the gold and silver-bearing regions of North America. Until this discovery they were mainly dependent on Old Spain for quicksilver, the very life-spring of their industry. They are now amply provided with that indispensable material from a home-source at less than one-third of the'former cost.
According to proofs superabundant, and which, indeed, there has been no attempt to refute by evidence, the discovery, the denouncement, as the action before the local magistrate is somewhat inexactly termed, and the early working of the mine were matters of the utmost public notoriety in California during the winter and spring of 1845-6. These facts were officially communicated to the State Department by our consul at Monterey early in May, 1846. They were published in the Sandwich Island newspaper in July of that year, and were, soon after- . wards, reproduced in the public journals of the Mexican capital.
Lured by the reputed richness of the mine, two sets of speculators from the Atlantic States respectively purchased neighboring unsurveyed farms or ranches, soon after the acquisition of California, each hoping to procure such a judicial survey as would bring the mine within their boundaries. Berreyesa's Case, (23 How. 499;) Fossat's Case, (20 How. 413, and 21 How. 445.) The claim now before the. Court is indebted to this circumstance for the attempt to question its validity.
Castillero’s title was derived from the Mexican Government; out, by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, dated February 2, 1848, our Government solemnly pledged itself that “property of every kind" so held should “ be inviolably respected.” See Treaty, (9 Statutes, p. 929, Art. 8.) The Act of Congress, passed March 3, 1851, (9 Statutes, 631,) required all such titles to be established before certain commissioners, subject to an appeal to the District Court, and an ultimate appeal to this high tribunal. If a design to confiscate private property in violation of the treaty could be imagined, the pure and lofty tone of the 11th section would at once repel the idea. It provides that “in deciding upon the validity of every claim,” the tribunals' are to be governed by that treaty, “the law of nations, the laws, usages and customs of the Government from which the claim is derived, the principles of equity and the (prior) decisions " of this Court, “so far as they are applicable.” The decisions thus referred to are those “ in relation to titles in Louisiana and Florida which' were derived from the French or Spanish authorities previously to the cession” of those States. Fremont's Case, (17 How. 553.) The most enlightened and liberal equity pervades that series of decisions. No honest claimant could desire that his title should be tested by a higher or purer standard. In one of them, U. S. vs. Kingsley, (12 Peters, 485,) the Court repudiates the' narrow rules of the common law.” saying, that “ it has not applied nor will it apply” them. In the same, case, at p. 484, it is admitted that “the United States succeeds to all the equitable obligations” of the former government; .and that the Court in construing its grants must be governed by its supposable motives and policy in making them and securing them by treaty. In Fossat's Case, (21 How. 451,) the same doctrine is thus emphatically declared:“ The United States did not appear in the Courts as*a contentious litigant, but as a great nation, acknowledging their obligation to recognize as valid every authentic title, and soliciting exact information to direct their Executive Government to comply with that obligation.”
The law officers of the Government in resisting this claim, do not seem to have acted upon such principles or to have acknowledged the influence of such motives. Their course in relation to this controversy entitles it to a place among the “causes célebres” of the age. Castillero’s claim was presented to the Land Commissioners in December, 1852. Strict and formal proof having been insisted upon, their decision was not rendered until January, 1856. The District Court pronounced its judgment íd January, 1861, and the case is nowhere for final adjudication.
Castillero’s title was twofold.
Under laws which, with occasional modal variations, had existed for.-centuries, and were in force in California when we • acquired that country, any person discovering a mine, whether in public or private land, was rewarded with a perpetual property therein and ownership thereof, and of an easily ascertainable amount of surface, immediately above the mine, called. ■pertenencias or mining spaces. The fact of discovery was to be .represented to the proper local authority, and that tribunal was required to register it, to perform certain other acts, and to give . the discoverer immediate possession. In this case, all these things were done. Exactly in what way, and with how near an approach, in point of form, to the precision of a Coke or a Chitty, we may speak if we shall happen to hear any intelligible exceptions to the mode adopted.
) A very productive quicksilver mine, such as this was believed to be at the outset and has proven to be, was a desideratum of the very highest importance to Mexico. That metal is “ sparingly distributed in nature, and its mines are very rare.” Ure’s Diet. “Mercury.” The Royal mines of Almadén, in Old Spain, braving but one even tolerably formidable rival, had supplied the world with it for twenty-five centuries. Though of prime utility for scientific purposes, and in a very few of the arts, its chief consumption results from its use in separating gold and silver from their crude ores. 5 New Am. Cycl., titles “ Cinnabar,” “ Almadén lire’s Diet. “Mercury;” 1 McCulloch’s Greog. Diet. “Almadén.” Vast quantities are thus employed; a pound of quicksilver is usually consumed for every pound of the precious metals produced by mining. When the gold and silver ores are poor, that is to say, when they produce a low percentage of the metal, the consumption of quicksilver is proportionably increased. ' The Mexican ores are poor; and, consequently quicksilver was much in demand. Prior to Castillero’s discovery the Junta de Fomento or National Board for the Encouragement of Mining, sustained by special taxes and imposts and other legislation, was constantly engaged in strenuous efforts to obtain it at home, and thus to lessen the dependence on a foreign source. This dependence was felt to be a grievous burden. In fact it was so; for, in and prior to 1845, the daté of Castillero’s discovery, three-fourths of the annual supply was obtained by importation from Old Spain. By the Mexican law of May 24, 1843, numerous exemptions and privileges were enacted in favor of quicksilver mining. It “ granted a premium of $25,000, to each one of the first four operators who should [shall] extract in one year from the mines of the Republic, 2000 quintals of liquid quicksilver.” It further decreed that $5 should “ be paid for the term of three years for each quintal of quicksilver” so produced. Halleck’s Collection, p. 453, arts. 4,. 5. During and prior to 1843 and 1844, the National Junta commissioned experts for the purpose and prosecuted laborious and costly but essentially fruitless explorations for this mineral. Every department of the Republic was thus examined except, indeed, California. That remote and thinly peopled region, says Mr. Negrete, a witness of high intelligence, was regarded as “ the end of the world.” Tran» cript, p. 2435, question 189. Its mineral wealth was not even suspected until 1848. See Soule, Gihon & Nisbet’s Annals of San Francisco, p. 130; Transe, pp.. 2680, 3052.
In the rude and experimental way which was alone practicable, Castillero took immediate measures to work the mine.; and, in March, 1846, he sent a messenger to the authorities at the city of Mexico with specimens of the ore, and announcing his discovery. Soon afterwards he followed in person. During the first week of May in-that year, he appeared before the Junta, and, orally as well as in writing, he laid before that body an application for aid in his enterprize. On his first communication, and prior to his arrival, proper assays had been made and the remarkable richness of the ore ascertained. The facts were officially communicated by the Junta to the appropriate department. The Minister laid them before Paredes, who was then President, and, as such, exercising extraordinary powers. Acts of State, dated May 20th and 23d, 1846, recorded in the public archives of Mexico, copies of which have been exhibited, show that the possession which Castillero had received from the local magistrate was confirmed by the Government, and that two square leagues of land around the mine were also granted him by the President, in order to provide a supply of fuel for his works.
' On these documents, and proof of the connected facts, the Commissioners held that the land-grant had not been perfected; but they confirmed the claim to the mine with a pertenencia of three thousand varas in every direction from the mouth of the mine. This was an extra-sized pertenencia, and was equal in extent to about two-thirds of the land claimed under the two-league grant. The District Court also confirmed the mining title, but with only seven ordinary or regular pertenencias, comprising about fifty acres of surface. This was, in point of law, the true extent of the mining title; so far as it depended on mere discovery and the act of the local magistrate. Judge Hoffman was of opinion that tbe"two-league grant was valid and perfect; but, on this point, the Circuit Judge con curred with the Commissioners.
(The question whether a mining title was “land" within the meaning of the Act of 1851, and, therefore, cognizable in this proceeding, gave rise to considerable discussion in the tribunals below, and the point was argued at length here. The Court having affirmed the jurisdiction, the points and arguments on this head are omitted.)
The resistance to this claim, before the Commissioners, was conducted in a very adverse spirit. But the controversy was confined to points of law. No doubt as to any matter of fact was suggested until the summer of 1857. • At that tim.e, the New Almadén Company had been about twelve years in actual ant notorious possession and engaged in producing the mineral. During most of the time, they had costly and extensive works in full operation, and were supplying the whole country with quicksilver. They .had never been disturbed or interrupted in the exercise of their dominion as owners. For eight or nine years they had been engaged in active litigation with the speculators before alluded to, who had bought interests in the neighboring unsurveyed ranches, and who are known in this Court as the Berreyesa and Fossat claimants. More than a year had elapsed since the decision of the Commissioners; but, as yet, the reputation of Castillero was untouched. No one had ever suggested a doubt concerning the genuineness of his documents. His honor knew no stain. Edmund Randolph, since deceased but at that time private counsel of the Fossat claimants, was now (1857) introduced as a nominal advocate for the Government. Having assumed control of .the opposition he, at once, put in issue the verity of every thing alleged on behalf of Castillero. ' He denied every asserted act ■ in pais and ¿very record or other paper produced to support the claim. From this point, fraud, forgery, ante-dating, — indeed the whole circle of imputation, loudly promulgated by counsel, though supported by no scrap or shadow of any thing which common sense could recognize as evidence, — has rung in our ears, filled the papers, and formed the staple of the contention. This new line of procedure •has its inception in the record at page 165, or perhaps 252. Its date is the svmmer of 1857. Thenceforth, the opposition to Cas tillero’s title wore an attitude as contentious, and maintained a course of forensic practice as rigorously disputatious as has ever been exhibited by any private litigant, or been permitted in a Court of Justice. The stream of contention rolled onward and abroad, in all conceivable directions, until, at the end of 2652 additional pages of testimony, its power of expansion was at last exhausted. The practice pursued would be amusing, but for the time and money lost in contending with it, the temporary .doubts excited for the moment by some single detached portion of the testimony it elicited, and its offensiveness to honor and delicacy. Permanent mischief it could never do in any tribunal that was animated by a sense of justice and capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
The Alcalde’s act of juridical possession was first assailed. The original documents were brought in again by the government counsel, from the Recorder’s Office, for critical scrutiny. Witnesses were examined as to every handwriting in them, as to the blots or accidental ink-marks upon them, as to the watermarks of the paper on which they were written, and as to the manner in which the several sheets of paper were attached. Transe., pp. 253, 254, 673 to 675.' But this display was altogether nude and empty. Nothing resulted from the scrutiny or has ever been claimed as a fruit of it. Surmises of forgery and ante-dating were put forth upon the appearance of every discrepancy, however slight and palpably accidental, between any of the numerous copies which had been made from time to time. - And every similar incident was, in like manner, harped upon. These crude imaginations formed the basis of all the cavils concerning this part of the claimant’s proof W e have displayed their insignificance with appropriate minuteness of detail in our printed Claimant’s Brief, pp. 42 to 98. We rely upon that statement. It will appear to be faultless, unless precision be an offence, or treating the work as necessary can be deemed a want of courtesy to this Court.
Next the Mexican Documents were alleged to be posterior fabrications. The mode adopted to support this allegation was characteristic.
Tbe most conspicuous witness for tbe Government is one James A. Forbes. He had resided near tbe mine' for about seventeen years previously to Castillero’s discovery. He was neither a kinsman nor connection of Alexander Forbes, of Tepic, who afterwards became a principal owner of tbe mine, and a leading participant in working it. James A. Forbes took a small interest in it at an early period; and be was, for a time, employed as superintendent. This employment brought him into correspondence with Alexander Forbes and tbe firm of Barron, Forbes & Co., merchants at Tepic, wbo bad control of tbe mining operations. Prior to tbe summer of 1857, when Mr. Randolph thus set about drawing in doubt tbe fairness of Castillero’s title, this James A. Forbes bad become a bankrupt in character and foitune. On tbe trial ten witnesses impeached him as unworthy of credit; and not one witness could be found to hazard a word in bis favor. Bolton, Barron & Co., of San Francisco, tbe agents of tbe New Almadén Company, bad refused to lend him money; be was, therefore, on ill terms with them. Laurencel, owner of half tbe Fossat claim, and tbe client of Mr. Randolph, gave this desperate man $10,000 for tbe use of certain letters which be had received from bis employers, and certain alleged copies of bis own letters to them. This correspondence was to be used only in exciting apprehension and inducing a compromise. James A. Forbes expressly stipulated with Laurencel that be should not be called as a witness, and that bis letters should not be produced in Court as evidence. They were according shown to tbe agent of tbe New Almadén Company. He treated them with contempt, and disdainfully spurned tbe attempt at intimidation. Laurencel then produced the papers as evidenceand, in consideration of an additional $10,000, James A. Forbes came into Court and testified to their genuineness.
A paper, purporting to be a copy of a letter from Alexander Forbes to this James A. Forbes, dated March 28th, 1848, was produced by James A. Forbes, more than half a year subsequently to bis first examination. Tbe claimant insists that this was itself a forgery. Tbe whole story concerning it is a singular specimen of plagiarism in perjury. It is incredible in itself; and it reproduces, as if in a moral photograph, all the features of a fable, sworn to a few years previously, on a somewhat famous trial at Cooperstown, in central New York. There is reason to believe that some actors in that very case have an agency in this. One Eldridge, who appears on the record as Laurencel’s partner, owning the other half of the Fossat Ranch, came from that very part of New York. (The argument to this point is omitted. The counsel for the Government did not urge that this paper was genuine; nor did the Court,' in its opinion, rely upon it.)
Aside from that palpably fabricated paper, the purport of the alleged correspondence produced by James A. Forbes may be thus summed up: •
First. The same identical documentary evidence produced before the Land Commissioners, and then and still relied upon for proof of title in the claimant, existed from the beginning, and no thought or suspicion that any part of it was fraudulent, forged, or ante-dated, had ever entered the mind of any one.
Secondly. On comparing Castillero’s documents with his own notions of Mexican law, James A, Forbes formed the opinion that in strictness of legal construction, they were technically defective, precisely in the particulars since urged against them in this case. Hymann vs. Cook, (2 Denio, 203.)
'Thirdly. After the American possession of California, James A; Forbes, pertinaciously, and for a considerable period, urged Alexander Forbes, or Barron, Forbes & Co.,-to obtain from the Mexican authorities new documents pf the same dates, and to the same substantial purport as those already existing, but so worded as to be free from those supposed technical defects or blemishes. He'pointed out these defects, and explained them with great particularity.
Fourthly. To the manifest vexation of James A. Forbes, the thing so advised by him was not done. The letters so state, and the documents in the record prove it. These documents are now producedby the claimant, and relied upon by him and his assoc ates as the basis of their title. They exhibit upon their faces all the real or imaginary defects and blemishes mentioned by James A. Forbes, and urged by him as inducements for their suppression, and for the substitution of ante-dated forgeries. The correspondence thus identifies the title-papers now. relied upon by the claimant, and verifies their genuineness, both as to tenor and as to dates. Instead of impeaching the claim, this correspondence conclusively repels the suggestion of any actual forgery or ante-dating. If the correspondence fails to show that these fraudulent suggestions were promptly met by a stern rebuke — if they justify an inference that the seducer’s unworthy proposition was for a moment entertained — it would be quite immaterial in point of law. U. S. vs. West's heirs, (22 How., 318.) It should not be overlooked, however, that prudence and.the desire “to conciliate a troublesome person” may have dictated the style of reply. Transc. p. 398. And it is entirely impossible to conclude from these letters,, either alone or coupled with any other proof in the record, that to any extent, or in any degree a fraud, an ante-dating, or a forgery, was actually perpetrated. In common fairness, the design should not be imputed to any one save . the vile instrument of our opponents, James A. Forbes. At least one of the alleged copies first produced by James A. Forbes was a manifest fabrication It is dated October 28th, 1849. Transc. p. 392. The claimant subsequently produced the true original letter- of that date. Transc. pp. 844, 846. But the summary now given is accurate, whether this false pretended copy be received into the series or rejected. And it results that there is absolutely no evidence of any sort in this record, impeaching any of the claimant’s ‘documents, or throwing the slightest doubt upon any of his allegations. Every one of those allegations is sustained by testimony altogether free from doubt, and so abundant in quántity that it might well be censured as excessive.
Every witness produced for the claimant, who gave testimony concerning any document' or paper which such witness wrote or signed, or of which he had any cotemporary knowledge, testified, in effect; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief the same was not ante-dated, but was really and truly made according to its_ purport. No witness produced for the Government testified otherwise except one. This was Benito Diaz. Transe, p. 676. This man was the copyist of a single very unimportant paper. Indeed it was wholly useless. Closely scrutinized, his obscure testimony, if taken for truth, gives but the very faintest support to the charge of ante-dating. But, on his own showing, he is an habitual prevaricator. His well-known worthlessness is certified in the record. Transe, p. 8477.
Not a single witness produced for the claim is in the slightest degree impeached. On the other hand, but three witnesses were called by its opponents on any point connected with the merits; that is to say, James Alexander Eorbes, Bobert Birnie and Benito Diaz. Every one of these men was shown to be utterly unworthy of credit. If the fabricated paper of'March 28, 1848, had been abandoned at an earlier period, the impeachment of James A. Forbes and Birnie would have been an act of wanton cruelty. In' all other respects, their testimony tended to verify the claim.
Judges McAllister and Hoffman separately examined the charges of forgery and ante-dating. Their opinions show that the task was performed with great care and with close attention to the most trifling minutiae. Indeed,' for the purposes of their scrutiny, they seem to have improved upon every imaginary scruple touching the verity of the claimant’s proofs. They elevated to the dignity of a substantial charge every hint of a possible doubt, yet they concurred in rejecting, as wholly unfounded, all these charges, scruples and hints.
The impediments encountered by the claimant in producing testimony should not be passed unnoticed.
Through some inadvertence the Act of Congress made no provision for issuing a commission; and the Mexican Government does not permit its great -seal to be used for the authentication of copies from its public archives. The law officers of the United States, availing themselves of these circumstances, successfully opposed the claimant’s prayer for a commission. They then opposed, and, by their influence, defeated an appeal made to Congress for an amendment of the Act in this respect. Though the claimant offered to pay all the expense, they declined to employ an agent or agents to visit Mexico, there to examine the archives and investigate the facts. They also pro cured an order from the Department of State, forbidding our diplomatic and consular representatives in Mexico even to take ex parte depositions for the claimant under the general law allowing such proceedings as a. common privilege. Every means that the most illiberal policy could devise or that could be dictated by a total blindness to common justice, was put in force to embarrass and defeat the claimant’s efforts to examine witnesses residing in that country and ,to obtain documentary evidence from foreign public archives. These impediments did not avail to suppress all means of vindicating the claimant’s integrity. 'Nine witnesses, who, as officers of the Republic, had officiated in the various stages of the transactions in question at the city of Mexico, were brought to San Francisco and there examined and cross-examined. By their testimony the Mexican archives were directly and fully verified. Among these witnesses were two ministers of State. . One of them had been a public officer in various stations for thirty years. He had been twice Prime Minister, and for years Minister resident near the Governments of Great Britain and the United States. They were both men of the highest respectability. Two members of the Junta, or National Mining Board, were produced and also several clerks in, the public departments. The National Archives were searched, and copious extracts' were taken from them and exhibited' in proof. These extracts contained not only the 'evidence of Castillero’s proceedings in the city of Mexico and the action of the Executive thereon, but also a multitude of extrinsic transactions, with their dates and the names of numerous actors therein. The most perfect means of testing their verity were thus afforded; indeed, it seems idle to speak on this subject. The evidence is all in one direction; it is overwhelming in quantity and unexceptionable in quality. It is wholly uncontradicted and wholly unimpeached.
It only remains to inquire whether the facts, as alleged by the claimant, create a title legal or equitable under the laws and usages of Mexico. By the Spanish laws, which were adopted in the Mexican Republic, and were in full force when the United States acquired California, mines did not pass under agricultural or other ordinary grants. By a general grant or concession they were assigned, in absolute property, to any person who would discover and work them. 1 Heathfield’s Gamboa, pp. 136-7-8; Ord. of 1783, tit. 5; tit. 6, art. 14, Halleck’s Collection, p. 222, 228. See more ancient laws: Halleck’s Collection, pp. 6 to 15, 17 to 61, 69 to 123; Law of Mexican Congress, Oct. 7, 1823, Halleck’s Collection, p. 403, 404. Tbe ancient ordinances prescribe certain forms. The discoverer is directed to make a written statement of the discovery to¿a local tribunal; that is to' say, the mining deputation of the territorio. This paper is to be returned to the party for his protection, after the deputation has noted in its book of registry the time of its presentation. Within ninety days thereafter, the vein is to be opened and a pit formed. One of the mining deputation,.that is, one of the Judges of the Court, is then pérsonally to visit it; and, says the ordinance, " possession shall immediately be given, measuring to [the discoverer] his pertenencias,” causing him to mark his boundaries by stakes, and giving him a copy of the proceedings. Provision is made for affixing notices; and if, within the ninety days, any one should present a better claim, a summary hearing is to be had, and the mine adjudged to him. Ord. 1783, tit. 6, Arts. 4,5. Halleck, p. 224. These forms were substantially observed with one exception. The pertenencias were not measured; and, of course, no stakes were set up. This omission was quite immaterial. The pertenencia is an easily ascertainable space of land, measured upon the surface. The ordinance gives the rule of admeasurement in the most precise terms.’ Ord. 1783, tit. 8, Halleck’s Coll., p. 235. The number of pertenencias to which Castillero was entitled, was in like manner ascertainable.; it was seven. Id cerium est quod certum reddi potest. Ord.of 1783, tit. 6, Art. 1; tit. 11, art. 2, Halleck’s Coll., pp. 223, 252.
It is quite clear that this mere piece of surveying might be deferred without serious ill consequence to the discoverer until the interest of other persons should induce them to quicken the miner. The Ordinance of 1584, arts. 22 to 31, Halleck’s Coll., ■ p. 78, was never repealed. Its 24th article gave a summary process for compelling any discoverer who should neglect that precaution, to set up his stakes. Halleck’s Collection, p. 80; Heathfield’s Gamboa, p. 297. And the Ordinance- of 1783, expressly provides, that if a miner have no neighbors, (i. e. adjacent miners,) or can do it without injury to them, he may change the boundaries of his pertenencias at any time after they have been measured off to him, and may alter the location of his stakes accordingly. Tit. 8, art. 11, Halleck’s Collection, p. 236. This mine was in an uninhabited, mountainous region, far distain from neighbors of any kind. Nearly all the Mexican grants which have been allowed in this Court were, as in our common law talk we express it, merely inchoate for want of a survey and for the omission to obtain juridical possession. Our Courts readily supply this merely formal defect. It is far easier to measure to the New Almadén Company their seven pertenencias than to locate most of the agricultural grants which this Court has confirmed. Indeed, it is the simplest ánd easiest operation in surveying that can be imagined.
Surely the bookbinder’s argument, that the Alcalde!s stitcht d recórd is not a book, will not avail. Besides, it.is an universal rule, that omissions by a public officer in the mode of complying with forms prescribed to him as his duty, are not pemitte d to affect the party.
The jurisdiction of the Alcalde is unquestionable.
I. There never was a mining deputation in California; and, by the common law of Spain and Mexico, the judicial powers of all special jurisdictions, in their default or non-existence, devolve upon the ordinary tribunals. Salgado’s Retención de Bulas, Part 2, ch.,12, No. 53, and onward; Agustín Barbsa’s Oommentario, ch. 5; Castillo’s Controversias, tom. 6, ch. 146; Pena y Pena's Practica Forense Mexicana, tom. 2, pp. 53,371, 421.
It is proven by - several uncontradicted witnesses, that throughout the Republic of Mexico the practice has long conformed to this rule. In States, Departments, or Territories, which had no established- mining tribunals located within their limits, registries and denouncements of mines were always made before the Judges of first instance or before the Alcaldes acting as such. Transo., pp. 29, 30, 133, 135 to 140.
The only judicial officers in California were the Alcaldes or Justices of the Peace, and by a law of March 2, 1848, it is directed that • in California^ “justice be punctually and fully administered in the first instance by Judges of that grade should they exist thei r by the Alcaldes” or Justices of the Peace. See Observador Judicial of 1843, pp. 230, 231.
II. By the Ordinance of 1783, tit. 6, art. 4, Halleck’s Coll., p. 224, the proceedings are to be taken before the Mining Deputation of the “territorio or the one nearest if there should be none there.” And it is contended, that Castillero should have gone to the nearest of the far off Mexican States in which a mining deputation could be found. This is guite a frivolous exception. The vahóle frame of the ordinance shows that the word territorio, in this place, is equivalent to city, town, or village, in our phraseology. It means a small mining district, torin, or place. Within the time prescribed by the law itself, it was utterly impossible to have gone to the distant State to which such a construction would have directed Castillero. Neither could the judges of such remote tribunal perform any of the duties enjoined as to giving notice, hearing objections, visiting the mine, or giving, possession, Ord. of 1783, tit. 6, arts. 4, 5. See also, titles 1, 2 and 3-, Halleck’s Coll., 224, 193 to 220.
III. The fact of a meritorious disco very vested Castillero with a perfect and unimpeachable title in equity, independently of forms; consequently his claim was binding upon the Mexican government in honor and conscience. Besides, he made a bona ynie'effort to comply with all the prescribed regulations. And if there be any defect in this respect, it must be admitted that his acts were the closest approximation to exact and literal com pliance that was possible under existing circumstances. When these forms were .prescribed their main object, and indeed it would seem that their sole object, was to secure the collection of a tax or royalty upon mineral .production which was then reserved to the crown. Heathfield’s Gamboa, p. 143. At that time quicksilver was a royal monopoly. But in 1811, that monopoly was surrendered; and in 1823, as has already been shown; all taxrs and imposts on that branch of mining were abolished In their stead, premiums and rewards, payable from the public treasury to stimulate its production, were substituted. Decree of Cortes, January 26, 1811, Halleek’s Collection, pp. 381 to 385; Act of Mexican Congress, Oct. 7, 1823; Ib. 403, 404; Decree of Dec. 2, 1842, art. 10, ib. 437; Decree of May 24, 1843, ib. 452, 453. Since quicksilver mine's were placed-on this favored footing, these forms had no object except benefit to the discoverer himself. And when, as in this case, there were no neighboring mines, they became almost if not absolutely unimportant.
IV. The action of the Supreme Government obviated the defects, if any there were, in the Alcalde’s proceedings. It confirmed Castillero’s title to the mine itself and was a direct and effectual grant to Castillero of two square leagues, his miné being the centre thereof. It may be admitted that the latter concession could not take effect on any lands except such as may ultimately appear to have then been ungranted portions of the public domain. The Government had no power or intention to give lands which had been previously granted to others, . nor does the New Almadén Company claim any such lands.
1. During Spanish rule the Viceroy had power to extend special and unusual privileges to meritorious mining enter-prizes, by enlargement of the pertenencias and otherwise. Ord. of 1783, tit. 6, art. 15 and 17; Ib., tit. 11, art. 1; Halleck’s collection, pp. 2,29, 252; Lare’s Derecho Administrativo, pp. 91, 93. Since Mexican independence, this power has. been vested in the President.
2. As to grants of land, the rule was the same. In testing their validity, this Court holds that the colonization law of August, 18th, 1824, is the guide; 20 How., 63; 1 Black, 653. The Californias were a territory, and the 16th section of that law plábed the public lands in the territories, at the disposition of the executive.
Acting ymder this authority thus conferred on him, the President of Mexico, • by the regulations of November 21st, 1828, “dictated” to the Governors of the Territories, as his subordinate agents, “ some general rules” for their government in granting lands. Thev were to observe certain formalities and tbeir final action was subject to the approval of the local legislative assembly. These regulations reserved an appeal to the President himself in case of disagreement between the Governor and the local legislature. In all cases the ultimate power was with the President. It is objected that the grant to Castillero' was not made in the manner prescribed by these regulations. That is true; but it is quite immaterial. The regulations were “ dictated” by the President to control others, his own subordinates. They did not bind him. In a case precisely analogous, this Court said: “It is apparent that these general .regulations were intended for the government of subordinate officers, not to control and “limit the power of the person from whose will they emanated;” Delassus vs. XT. S., (9th Peters, 135.) Besides, at the time of this ratification and grant, President Paredes exercised all the powers of government. There was no written constitution; there was no legislative body in being, nor was there any existing law whereby a legislature could thereafter come into being. For this purpose, and for administering the government in the interim, there could be no resort, except to the extraordinary powers then exercised by Paredes. We do not claim for him powers absolutely despotic, in the extreme sense of th£ term. But it seems clear that all acts of his administration which were performed in good faith, were just and reasonable' in themselves, and were conformable to the established policy of the Republic, should be held valid as between the government and private individuals, whether the precise methods of procedure prescribed by previous laws . were observed or not.
Castillero, through the mining Junta, stated to the President his discovery and that the local authorities had given him possession of the mine with at least twice as much surface as • ’that inferior tribunal had authority to give. As the Junta understood and construed-the Alcalde’s act, fifteen pertenencias .had been granted. Castillero represented “to the Supreme Government the! necessity of its approving the possession” so' given, and “the ad vantage, of there being granted to him, as a colonist, two square leagues upon the land of his mining, posses- : sion, with the object of enabling him to use the wood for his burningsTranse, p. 1802. The President’s answer was given upon the margin of the application, in these words: “ May 20, 1846. Granted in the terms which'are proposed; and with respect to the land, let the corresponding order issue to -the Minister of Relations for the proper measures of his office, with the understanding that the Supreme Government accedes to the petition.” Transe, p. 1798. Three days afterwards that minister delivered 1 to Castillero a dispatch addressed to the Governor of Californias, transcribing the decision of the president on "the petition of Mrt Castillero, to which his Excellency, the President, has been pleased to accede, that there should be granted to him as a Colonist two square leagues of land upon the land of his mining possession, so that in accordance with what is provided in the laws and dispositions upon the subject of colonization, you (the Governor) may place Mr. Castillero in possession of the two leagues referred to.” Transe, pp. 2200, and Í807.
Writing the word " granted” on the foot or margin of a petition, was the common method of making an absolute cession of lands- in Spanish America; and this Court has often decided, that, in point of form, it is quite sufficient. “It must be referred - to everything referred to in the petition.” Smith vs. U. S. (10 Peters, 332 : 23 How., 498; 18 How., 563.)
The mining possession was ratified unequivocally. Among the things sanctioned was a loan of money to Castillero, to be repaid in quicksilver from this mine, and to be secured by a mortgage on the mine. The two leagues of land were conceded by a grant in prsesenti. ..The words cannot be otherwise construed. It has been said that it was merely a reference of the petition to the Governor, to the end that he should act upon it conformably to. the regulations of 1828. This is not according to the words; and it is quite irrational. When the President says, " I grant his petition,” can he mean I give him leave'to’petition my subordinate? That was the common right of everybody. But the notion is baseless. The regulations were not applicable. They refer exclusively to a different class of applicants; that is to say, those "who may ask for” lands “for the purpose of cultivating or inhabiting them.” Hardly one of their details, is, in any degree, adapted to this transaction, or capable of being moulded to fit it. See these regulations. They are to be found in Ex. Doc. of 31st Congress, 1st Sess.,' No. 18, pp. 38 to 40. To say that the Governor was directed to proceed according to the regulations would be absolutely _ absurd. It was impossible to do so. They did not apply. The 16th section of the law of 1824 was alone appli- • cable; it, authorized the President to grant lands in the territories. The governor had only to -give juridical possession which was the civil law livery of seisin. This was a mere formality; and he was the proper local officer to-give it, or to cause it to be given. The omission of such forms has always been disregarded by this Court.- 17 How., 563 ; 18 How., 6, 7, 563, 565; 19 How., 364; 23 How., 497, 318. The island cas 3 is directly in point. “Emanating.as the dispatch did, from the supreme power of the Nation, it operated to adjudicate the title to the claimant, leaving no discretion to be exercised by the authorities of the department.” U. 8. vs. Castillero, (23 How., 469.)
Mr. Black, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. B. R. Curtis, of Massa chusetts, for the United States.
In the bulk of the record, and the magnitude of the interests at stake, this is probably the heaviest case ever heard before a judicial tribunal. Firmly believing it to be illegal and fraudulent, the United States .have always met the claim with uncompromising hostility. From first to last they have shown it nothing but the edge of the naked knife.
But the character of this opposition is complained of as being unfair. Specific accusations are made, intended and well calculated to produce the impression that the claimants have been hard.y, if not wrongly dealt with. “Now mark how a plain tale will put that down.”
The. claimants were unwilling to produce their witnesses.at-' San Francisco, as the law required. They desired to examine them in Mexico, where the United States could not follow them. The District Court refused them a commission for that purpose. They appealed to Congress for a ohange in the law, and Con gress refused to make any change. Thereupon they asked the Attorney-General to consent, in violation of the law as ex pounded by the Court, and adhered to by Congress, that depositions should be taken in Mexico. This he declined to do, because (among many other reasons,) there was no fund upon which he could draw for the expenses of counsel, to represent the United States in a foreign country. Then it was that they proposed — yes, openly and plainly and boldly proposed — to pay all expenses themselves; to take the counsel of both sides' under their own pay. This proposal was of course rejected with the indignation and scorn it deserved. And the claimants were notified that from that time forth they must keep their distance.
But tin did not end the struggle they made to a,void pro ducing their witnesses where the law required them to be, and where the proper officer of the government could be present to cross-examine. They gave notice that depositions would be taken in Mexico any how. Our consul at the City of Mexico and the Minister Plenipotentiary were to be used for doing that which the judiciary, the legislature, and '■-he executive, had declared to be unlawful and improper. The Secretary of State instructed our diplomatic and consular officers not to prostitute their functions by allowing themselves to be used in any such way.
What was meant by this effort m the face of all law to get Mexican depositions which they must have known could not be read, — for the Court had previously so decided, — remains a mystery yet. We know the case was not made out by the evidence which was afterwards legally taken; but we do not know what they might have got Mexican witnesses to testify in ex parte affidavits. We know from the record that a title ■ dated previous to the war was asserted and sworn to by them, or some of their agents, — and that title is now wholly abandoned as a thing which never existed. — but it is not’certain "that somebody else might not have sworn to it also, if- the testimony had been taken where no punishment could be inflicted upon perjury, and no cross-examination could expose its character. They may have the admission as frankly as they wish it, that we never trusted them; and this want of confidence is abundantly justified by the evidence on record. The men who had avowed in .their own letters to one another, their intention to forge a title for the property in contest, and to retain possession of it “ at all costs, and at every hazard," are not the persons who can excite sympathy, or place themselves in the interesting predicament of injured and ill-used gentlemen, by showing that the government doubted their integrity, and refused them unlawful opportunities to consummate the fraud . they were known to be contemplating.
The claimants assert two titles: — 1. The first is called their mining title, which on its face is a grant to Don Andres Castillero, by. Antonio-Maria Pico, Alcalde of San Jose, dated December SO, 1845, for three thousand varas in every direction from the mouth of the mine. This would make a square measuring six thousand varas on each of its sides — about a league and a quarter of land, with the mine in the centre. 2. The ■other title paper is a dispatch dated at the City of Mexico, 20th May, 1-846, signed by Castillo y Lianzas, Minister of Relations, addressed to. the Governor of California, and requesting him to put. Don Andres Castillero in possession of two leagues on-, his mining possession, in conformity with the colonization laws. The claimants insist that this is a grant for two leagues with the mouth of the mine in the centre of it also ; that is to say, a grant of the same league and a quarter given by the Alcalde in December, and three-quarters of a league more.
This enormous claim is founded upon these two papers alone. The bloated body of the claimants’ case is made up of evidence, oral and written, which is meant to show that these papers are genuine,, and that a right to the land in question passed into Castillero when they were made, and by virtue of their legal operation.
The United States object to the. Lianzas dispatch that it ia without show or semblance of legal validity, as a grant of land, because—
1. The Political Chief of the Territory alone is authorized by the Mexican law to divide the public domain among colonists. The decree of 1824 and the regulations of 1828, limit the power and control its exercise.
2. If the Supreme Government has the power it must be exercised by its responsible head. The Minister of Relations cannot do it of his -own will; and there is no evidence here that the President of the Republic authorized his act.
8. This dispatch of the minister does not purport to be a grant. It is a simple request that the political chief will execute the .colonization laws in such manner that Castillero may acquire- a title in accordance with those laws to two leagues of land' not designated or described. The dispatch itself, by every rational construction of it, required the Governor to receive a petition and a map designating the land-; to inquire what public interests and what private rights would be affected by the grant; and to decide, after a full hearing of all concerned, Whether a' title to Castillero could be properly made or not. Castillero took the paper and the Governor never saw it. If it had been presented to the Governor he could not, and the presumption must be, that he would not, have made a title to this land, because the first step of the investigation which the law bound him to make would have shown that it had been granted long before to other parties.
4. If the Governor had actually made a grant for the land now claimed under the dispatch, it would still be a conclusive ’ and unanswerable objection to it, that it was at that time private property. The fact is proved by the record and not denied by any body, that Lari os and Berreyesa had titles, under which they were in possession for many years. Could the Government or any officer of the Government take away their rights and vest them in Castillero ? No; even a despot cannot do that without breaking up the foundations of society. It is the crime for which Ahab’s family was doomed to be extinguished and his wife eaten by the dogs. It is not less an offence against Mexican than it is against American law. The proof is conclusive, that' Castillero knew this to be private property. If he concealed the fact from the officer, then he was trying to cheat the Government and his neighbor both. If he communicated it, and the officer attempted to make a title notwithstanding, then the two were engaged in a base conspiracy to cheat. Either way it is as corrupt in morals and as void in law as the nak^ijest forgery which he could have made with his own hand. - ,-
6. But if we concede that the Minister of Relations had power to make a grant of these two leagues, and that he did exercise • the power by issuing this dispatch; admitting, in short, that the paper is a valid and good title on its face, still the fraud committed by Castillero, in his written representations to the Govern: ment, would render it utterly null and void. In his memorial to the Junta de Minería he describes the mine as being in the Mission of Santa Clara, which is public land. In truth, it was on private property, near the line between Berreyesa’s ranch and that of Larios, fifteen miles away from the Mission lands. And he cannot deny that he 'kiieW'this very well, for his other title, dated four months earlier, describes the mine as being on the ranch of Berreyesa.
6. There is another- fatal objection to this title paper. It is dated 20th of May, 184.6, after the declaration of war by the United States against Mexico, which event took place on the 18th of May. When the treaty of peace was under negotiation, Mi. Trist, the American Commissioner, proposed to insert a provision that all titles made subsequent to 13th of May, 1846. should be void. The Mexican Commissioners declared it to be unnecessary, and assured him in the most solemn manner, and after more than one examination of the .record, that no titles for land in California had been made after that date. On this basis the treaty was agreed to, with that declaration repeated in the tenth article; and when the ratifications were exchanged, Messrs. Clifford and Sevier • assured the Mexican Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that all titles dated before the 13th of May would be protected. On these facts we maintain that the validity of- the claimant’s title was tried and determined and pronounced by the Mexican Government itself to be no title at all. From the treaty, tbe dispatches of Mr. Trist, the protocol appended, and the correspondence of Mr. Clifford, while Minister, no other inference can possibly be made than one of these two ; either this dispatch of Lanzas was not then bn record, and is therefore a subsequent fabrication; or else it was adjudged by all the chief officers of the Supreme Government to be totally destitute of that legal validity which would bind either Mexico or the United States to regard it as a title to land.
7. This title is not only repudiated by Mexico, but the parties who claim under it have themselves denied' its value as a legal title under circumstances which give that denial thqgreatest weight. Their correspondence concerning it is on tin's record. Their own letters admit that they cannot hold the land under it; and they were so entirely sure of this that they agreed to procure another and a different title to be forged, and use that forgery in place of this. Common charity will require us to suppose that these men would not have determined to commit a great offence against God and man without perceiving the clearest necessity for it. We cannot suppose that they .were impelled by the mere love of crime for its own sake. ■
The other branch of ■ the case — that which the claimants call their denouncement or mining title — is perhaps more impor tant; certainly some parts of it are less simple and less easily disposed of.
It is admittéd that a mining right may be acquired under the laws of Spain and Spanish America by one man upon the lands of another; but he acquires no title thereby to the land itself. The mines are public property and' the Sovereign can exercise the right of eminent domain by taking so much private property for that public use as may be necessary to work them, providing that just compensation be made to the owner. The laws of Spain and Mexico embody on this subject precisely the principles of our own State and Federal Constitutions. The delegation to an individual of this right of eminent domain— dominio alto — so that he may work the public mines, constitutes the substance of a Spanish mining title But a miner has no more title to. tbe land under whibh tbe mineral lies, nor to the mineral itself, than a turnpike company in this country has to the soil on which its road is laid. (Yide. Gamboa, chap. 2.). We submit, therefore, that the Land Commission had no jurisdiction of this case,' since its power is limited to the investigation of titles to land only.
But we put this point to the Court merely because we cannot be' faithful to our convictions without doing so. We shall be glad to find it decided the other way, for that is not our defence against this claim. We oppose it for these two substantial and powerful reasons: 1. That it is not on its face a mining title; and, 2. That the evidence shows it to be spurious and fabricated.
The assertion that this is not a mining title according to the . law of Mexico, does, not mean merely that it is informal, irregular, or defective in some, particulars. It is unlike the title required by the plainly written statute in form and substance; in every feature of its form, and in all parts of its substance; all through, from beginning to end, it not only disobeys but insults the law. It is a contradiction and a violation of the ordinance in the aggregate and in the detail; in its general aspect and in all its lineaments; in the sum total and in every item by which the sum total is made up Let us see what the law is, and then compare this pretended title with its provisions.
Three distinguished counsellors engaged in this cause for the claimants have written books on Spanish and Mexican Mining law — Messrs. Rockwell, Halleck and Benjamin. We make no accusation against them of wilful bad faith, but we deny theii authority on the points disputed here, and we do not happen to need their help. Heáthfield has given us a faithful version of Gamboa’s great work, and Thompson has translated the ordinances in a manner never complained of. Both those gentlemen were eminent English lawyers and accomplished scholars in the Spanish language. Their books were printed for public information, and were not suggested by the wants of any particular case. He who studies this subject impartially, with these lights tq guide him, will hardly go wrong. But it may aid the investigation to look, at the legislation of other countries. Mines are regarded as public property and worked under public autho* rity in nearly all the countries of continental Europe. The general principles of every code are the same as those on which the Spanish system is founded. There is no subject on which the laws of so many governments are so nearly alike. We refer the Court to Peyrrett — Lallier—Legislation des Mines; Blavier — : Jurisprudence des Mines- en Allemagne; JDelabecque — Legislation des Mines, en France et. Belgique. The last book, besides full commentaries on the mining codes of France and Belgium contains an account of the laws on the same subject established in Bohemia, (38); Saxony, (48); Austria, (47); Hungary, (45); Prussia, (62) • Hanover, (56); Sweden, (104.) The Repertoire des Mines furnishes the Ordinances of Sardinia in Italian and French.
If there be any one proposition more clearly undeniable than another, it is this: That no man can or ever could acquire a mining title in Mexico without a registry by the proper public authorities. Such is the high aud unquestioned authority of Gamboa, who- devotes Chap. V., of his Commentaries to the task of proving that registry is the very basis and foundation of the miner’s right, and that it would be unsafe, unwise and unjust to dispense with it in any case. The ordinances, themselves, command it in express and unquivocal words. It is a principle of public law that every act of a public officer under which a ■private right is claimed must be made matter of record. Every mining code in the world so far as we know requires it. All writers, great and small, concur in the opinion that there can be no pretence of title without it.
What is a registry ? That is easily answered. We need not resort to translators. The word is the same in Spanish and in English. Both derive it from the Latin — liber rerum géstarum —which the Boman lawyers contracted into registrum. To register a thing is to write it in a book; and this, Gamboa says, is especially required in the case of a mining title to preserve it from the danger of simulation, defacement, fraud and loss to which separate papers would be exposed.
Here .no registry is proved or even alleged. It follows uresis tibiy that the claimants have no color of title. That ought to be an end of the case, and it would be the end of any case except this.
But they produce three or four loose papers which they call “ the Espediente of a Denouncement.” The very use of this phrase shows that they have no title; for a title approximating in form or substance to that which the law requires can have no denoimcement nor no espediente about it.
A denouncement, denuncia, is the delation or accusation which one who desires to rehabilitate an old mine makes of the. default which the former owner has committed and by which the previous title has been lost. The ordinances employ it in this sense; the legislators and authors use it so ; it is so defined by Escriche, the standard lexicographer of the Spanish law. It has no proper application to any thing connected with the title of a hew mine. As signifying the representation of a discoveror,. it has been introduced into California parlance for the benefit of this case, and it is countenanced by a note to Mr. Rockwell’s book; but such use of it is against all authority.
The word espediente has long been familiar here. It is the junction of all the separate papers made in the course of any one proceeding, and which remains in the office at the close of it. (See Escriche in voc.) But in a mining title there are no separate papers. The first representation with which the miner presents himself before the Deputation is returned to him after its substance is transferred to the registry. The registry, pure •and simple, constitutes not only a necessary part but the whole of the title, the beginning, middle and end of it. No one can. read the ordinance and fail to see that the assertion of an espediente contradicts the assertion of a legal title.
But let that pass. What did Castillero do to give him or his graútees a decent pretext for claiming the. mine ? He came to California in the autumn of 1845, and went to New Helvetia. He left Sumer’s fort on the 12th of November for Santa Clara. From the latter place on the 22d of November, he addressed a letter to the Alcalde of San José, declaring that he had discovered a vein of silver and gold (which was false) on the Rancho of Berreyesa, (but he does not say where,) and requesting tba; notices be put up which never were put up. On the 1st of December, at Santa Clara, he detected the presence of quicksilver in the ore as testified by Lease, and on the next day wrote again to the Alcalde that on opening the mine he had taken out besides silver, with a ley of gold, liquid quicksilver in the presence of several bystanders. All this was false, he had not opened the mine and there was neither gold, silver nor liquid quicksilver there. Soon afterwards he got one Chard to reduce some very small quantities of the ore by heating it in gun barrels. While this was going on the Alcalde and some other persons came to the mine, and they swear that possession was given of it that day. But Chard, the only witness free from the suspicion of being professional, swears that Castillero was not there to receive the possession. Castillero left for Mexico in March, and never returned. Chard worked on a while with gun barrels and afterwards with trypots, but in August he suddenly dropped the business and went away salivated. It is not pretended that any more work was done until, the spring afterwards, when Walkinshaw and Alden came up, and it is not proved that they did any. But Alexander Forbes came up from Tepic in November, 1847, discovered the mine, which, until-then had been undiscovered, ascertained the extent and direction of the vein and the richness of the ore, and in January, 1848, he began to work it, and- simultaneously to fabricate titles for it with false certificates.
These are the res gestee as proved, not by the liber rerum gestarum, but by loose papers and oral testimony. Taken collectively or separately, is there any thing in them (the docu- ' ments or the facts) which looks like a mining title ? Analyse the Ordinance of 1788 from which this title derives its life, if it has life, and compare its provisions with the acts of Castillero _ and Pico. The requirements of that law are plainly these:
“ 1. The grantee of the right must have discovered the mine.
“2. He mustyiresmi himself before the mining deputation of the territory or distant, or if there be none there, before the nearest. one.
"3. He must presetl, to the deputation a written statement* ■ exhibiting his own name and the names of his partners, their residence, profession, ’&c.
“4. The statement must also contain a description of the place where the mine is, embracing the most particular and distinguishing features of the sitio, (spot,) sierra, (mohntain,) or cinta, (vein.)
“ 5. All these things shall be entered on a hook of registry, to be kept by the deputation,, and the written statement shall 'be handed lack with an attestation upon it for the due security of the discoverer.
"6. Ninety days' notice shall then be given to the public of the application which the discoverer has made.
“7. Within the ninety days he must dig a pit in the vein, one yard and a half in width and ten yards deep.
“8. A member of the mining deputation must then go personally accompanied by the secretary, if there be one — if not, by two assisting witnesses, and by the mining professor of the district, to inspect the mine.
“ 9. He must ascertain the course and direction of the vein, its width, its inclination to the horizon, its hardness, or softness, the solidity of its sides, and the kind of mineral it contains, and all these things must be carefully noted and added to the registry.
“10. The evidence that possession was given must also be inserted in the registry.
“ 11. Possession must be accompanied by a measurement of his pertenencia, and by fixing stakes to show the boundaries.”
Every one of these provisions was based upon principles of public policy,, which experience had proved to be not only sound but necessary. and every one of them was disregarded in the present case. Castillero was not the discoverer of the mine; he knew no more about it than what was known to the Indians for a hundred years before he came there. He did not present himself before the mining deputation of the territory, or take the legal alternative of .going to the nearest, but wrote to an officer who had no authority. ’He furnished no designation or descrip-' tion of the mine, by which it could afterwards be known, nor did,he disclose the names of his partners; There was no registry made, nor no notice given to the public; no inspection, nox no opening to be inspected; no assignment of pertinencias; no measurement or marking of tbe ground.
Here then, is a title — if it be a title — made in 1845, to a mine that was not discovered until 1848; made by an officer, who had no jurisdiction, to a company that is not named; without designating the subject-matter of the grant by even the vaguest description ; without a registry, without notice, without inspection, without survey or stakes. To call this a title according to the laws, usages, and customs of Mexico, may pass in California, where so many'curious things are done-; but before the supreme tribunal of the Union, it would be absurd to fear it. Knowing it to be impossible that you can pronounce this a title, it is allowable to say, that such a decision, if it were made here, would provoke the loud laugh of the whole world.
It is worth a moment’s time to-observe how these fatal defect! in the title were treated by the Court below. One of the judge-9 passed them over in profound silence, as not thinking it necessary to determine whether the claim was founded on a lega] title or not. The other judge examined the documents elaborately, and thoroughly analyzed the ordinances. Of course, he saw that the objections of the United States were well founded in point of fact. . But it was his opinion, that Castillero had a title by discovery, which was not forfeited by his acts in violation of the ordinance, or by his omissions to do what the ordinance required. This, we submit, was in the very teeth of both the fact and the law; of the plainly-proved fact that Castillero never discovered the mine, and of the plainly-written law that the title of a discoverer is absolutely nothing without a registry and mark ing of boundaries. It was never asserted that Castillero had for feited his right: he never had any right which could be forfeited.
It is true, however, that if a title had vested in him it would have been forfeited. Neither he nor his alienees’ever paid into the public treasury u cent of the share to which it was entitled from the proceeds of the mine. Besides, the mine was never really worked until 1848, more than two years after the date of the pretended title. It is not asserted that any thing at all was done ‘at'it, evefl. with gun-barrels or trypots, from August, 1846, until late in the spring of 1847. Now, it is expressly provided by the ordinance, that if the owner of a mining title shall suspend the working of the mine for four months within the space of one year, his title is absolutely and completely gone'-; any other ^person may register it, and the original owner cannot lawfully work it again without getting a new title, by means of a new registry. If, therefore, it were conceded that Castillero got a perfect title, by the act of Pico, in December, 1845, it is never theless clear, that when Barron, Forbes & Co. took possession in 1848, they were mere naked trespassers, without color or shadow of right to the property at which they were grasping.
But they say their mining title was confirmed. That is impossible; for a mere nullity is incapable of confirmation. Besides, the mining title” was never exhibited to the Supreme Government. Castillero vaguely and falsely referred not to this mine, but to a mine which he had denounced in the Mission- of Santa Clara. Neither the President nor any of his ministers knew the situation of the mine, or saw any papers relating to it. Nor did either of them say a word about the title in any official act, order, or decree.
Another objection to the mining title, equally formidable and equally clear, is that the evidence shows it to be spurious, fabricated, and' false. Many grounds of strong suspicion may be seen on the face of the papers. -
■1. The want of a registry can hardly be accounted for with out believing that the papers were made after the conquest Castillero had the ordinances, and knew that a registry was required, and would' have had one if he had been getting a title in 1845. But in 1848' it was a difficult thing to make a book and put it among the records.
2. This proceeding appears to have been closed up on the 80th of December, 1845, thirty-eight days after the' date of Castillero’s first representation to the Alcalde. He could not but'' know that the law required him to wait ninety days. The Alcalde knew it, and recites in the “ Act of Possession” that the - time.has expired. There is no fact proved, or suggested, which can account for this illegal and unnecessary haste op the tbepry that the papers are genuine. But if they are false, it is easily understood. Antonio Pico must sign, for nobody else would do it, and the last paper must, therefore, be dated when he was still in office. He went out of office December 31, 1845. The “ Act of Possession” is dated the dXy previous. The other papers had to be dated after Castillero came into the country, and this is the reason why the whole proceeding appears on its face to have been crowded into the space of thirty-eight days.
3. The papers are all in the handwriting of different persons, Castanada, Benito Diaz, and Gutierrez. None of them was written by the claimant, by the Alcalde, by the Secretary, or by either of the attesting witnesses. - None of the persons who wrote them is called, except Diaz, and he swears that his share of the work was done long after the intended date of the papers. We cannot assert that the character of this witness is perfeót, but it is as good as that of Castro by whom he is contradicted.
4. But there is another circumstance here, which is more than a ground of mere suspicion — it is perfectly conclusive. The “ writing of partnership,” which is párt of their espediente, and the sole foundation of title to twelve out of the twenty-four varas, describes the mine as a mine of gold, silver, and quicksilver, and is dated on the 2d of November, 1845; when it is absolutely certain that no human being had .ever thought of such á thing as quicksilver being there. The very moment when "the presence of quicksilver was first detected in the ore is ascer tained beyond dispute from the evidence produced by the claimants themselves; and they admit here, that no idea of such a thing existed earlier than the last of November or first of December. The counsel not only admit that fact, but they admit our inference from it that the paper is ante-dated. Though this conclusion was successfully resisted in the Court below, it would be mere vanity to deny it here. These chronological blunders are the besetting dangers of men who make false papers. They often occur in' fabricated titles, and when they do occur, they always furnish the means of most triumphant exposure. Many years ago a Spanish grant of land in .Louisiana was discovered to >be a forgery by an officer in the Land Department, who noticed that' Bayou Mason was referred to in one of the papers, which bore date before the time when that bayou was known by that name. In the case of Lady Ives, a long chain of title-papers, ingeniously fabricated, was totally destroyed, by showing that one of the deeds, dated in the reign of William and Mary, aiscribed to the king and queen a style or title which was not adopted until after the date of the deed. It was only at the last term that this Court pronounced the claim of José Castro to be fraudulent, mainly upon the ground, that in the grant Pio Pico was made to call himself Constitutional Governor, whereas at the date of the grant he was First Vocal and Governor ad Interim, and did not become Constitutional Governor for several days afterwards. In none of these cases was the proof of fraudulent ante-dating one whit stronger than it is here; and the proofs which sweep the writing of partnership away carry with them the other papers also; for it is so important, a part of the title, and- is so connected with all the other papers that the y must suffer a common doom. ■
What evidence have they produced to authenticate their espe diente ? If it be genuine it was archived at the time it was made; it was deposited among the records of the Alcalde’s Court with the superscription of the proper officer on it; it remained there until the time of the conquest; it was then delivered to the authorities of the United States, and has been am American record ever since. If this were its history it would prove itself; for record evidence, if it be truly such, is always simple and conclusive. It would have needed no bolstering by the oaths of the officers who signed it, nor no false certificates from their successors. The claimants could and would have gone to the records at once, in the beginning of the contest, and by merely producing it, would have silenced all denial of its truth. Instead of this they resorted to copies, now known to be false, and did not produce what they alleged to be the original until eleven years from the time of its pretended date. Conscious that it was not a record, they resorted to evidence in pais to show the execution of the several papers, and to establish the facts which they set forth. Let us see how they have succeeded in doing this; and what proof they have given that the papers were either made/ or filed and archived, at the time of their date.
Of the two petitions, which are part, of the espediente, it is a remarkable fact, that not a scintilla of evidence is given. Even the Alcalde, to whom they are addressed, does not say that he ever saw them. Pico, Noriega, and Suñol testify that they signed the Act of Possession, bnt not that it was filed or ordered to be filed. It was brought to them ready written by Gutierrez, who took it away again. None of these men swears to any act connected with the paper which might not have been done by a private individual as easily as by an officer, and after the conquest as well as before. Fernandez, the Secretary, says, Guttierrez brought it to him, but he did not file it;' he only saw it there, tumbling about among other loose papers. Under the pressure of a strong cross-examination, the truth oozed out of this witness, drop by drop. He admitted at last, that he never read it, did not know it, and had only sworn to its identity because he imagined it to be the same. That is the evidence of its being filed among the archives; the imagination, of one false witness, too treacherous or too timid to carry out the purpose with vrhich he began.
There is not on the paper the slightest mark that it ever was seen by any Mexican officer before the conquest. But another paper is produced — an inventory signed by Chaboya, second Alcalde for the next year, in which among other documents is mentioned “ Acta'de Possession de Mina de St"- Clara a Don Andres Castillero.”- This does not speak of the espediente, but only of one paper, and does not identify even that.
They have introduced another set of facts, which are not evidence, and which it is scarcely possible to speak of with patience. Castillero was one of the most mendacious of human beings. He wrote and spoke every variety of falsehood about the mine, the work done at it, and his right to it. And these false statements of his own are produced at second, third, or fourth hand, as proof of his title — witnesses detailing his words or the words of somebody else, who had heard him speak — letters .-from' himself — letters from others who repeated his state ments — newspapers in the City of Mexico — newspapers in the Sandwich Islands, detailing a story which the editor got' from Judd, and Judd got from Larkin,, and Larkin got from Castillero; — all this is paraded as evidence of title. Tfe deny that the mere repetition of Castillero’s falsehoods, by other persons, is any evidence of their truth. Nay, the production of them in Court is a plain palpable badge of fraud. No honest claimant, with an honest title, would think of going to the Sandwich Islands for hearsay evidence to prove it. The experience of this Court may be safely appealed to for that. No case was ever confirmed here that had any thing like this on its record. But every false and dishonest claim comes loaded down with this kind of trash Misc.able must be the condition of a country where such testimony is not only brought out and listened to, and debated at the bar, but where grave judges sit gravely on the bench and discuss it in their written opinions. On this side of the Rocky Mountains no justice of the peace would give judgment upon it for the price of a sheep, but in California it is' allowed to swing a court from its moorings in a case involving uncounted millions of dollars. It is one of the saddest tales of these sad times, that men’s rights should be so trifled with in a court of justice.
The claimants have produced four different espedientes. One of these they allege to be the original from the record of the Alcalde’s Court, and to it the evidence already mentioned applies. The other three profess to be copies. But the three copies differ from each other, and each copy differs from the original in material and most important respects. These flat contradictions, apparent on the face -of the several titles produced at different times by the claimants, are so numerous that it has been thought best to exhibit them in a kind of tabular form, and therefore a chart of them is inserted in the brief of the United States. This enables the Court to see at a glance the decisive evidence that all of them are false.
No. 1, the “ Weekes' espediente” is certified to be a true copy from the original by James Weekes, Alcalde of San José, 20th of January 1848. It was written out by James Alexander Forbes. one of the claimants, at the instance of Alexander Eorbes, another claimant. There was.no original in the office. Weekes certainly signed the certificate without seeing any original; and he himself afterwards swore to that fact. James Alexander Eorbes, being British vice-consul for California, certified under •his official seal, that Weekes’ attestation was “worthy of all • credit,” and then gave back the document to his confederate, Alexander Eorbes, who took it to Tepic, where he got the addi tional certificates of several Mexican officers and the American consul. This false paper, thus falsely certified, was filed in' the Land Commission, as the basis of the claimants’ title, and the ■ decree of the Land Commission was founded upon that gross imposture. After the cause came into the District Court, it was exploded, and the claimants found it necessary to take new ground.
No. 2, the Salleck's espediente, is the one which Captain (now General) Halleck testified in 1857, that he had found among the records of the Alcalde’s Court at the Mayor’s Office, in January, 1851. This is- the original if there be any original. Mr. Halleck does not speak with certainty of its being the same paper but only to the best of his knowledge and belief from the contents and general appearance. But he regards this as the original denouncement of the mine, and says he has not, and never had, any reason to believe that it was in Mexico or elsewhere out of its proper place among the archives. General Halleck was mistaken — possibly about the identity of the paper — certainly in the judgment he formed that it was an old record — as the following facts clearly show:
It seems there was an ejectment pending in 1850, between the Berreyesas and the New Almadén Company for the mine and adjacent land. The Court made an order upon the defendants (the present claimants) to produce their title papers, or a. copy thereof; Mr. Halleck, their attorney, answered it by an affidavit, declaring that the order could not be complied with; that is to say, they could not produce the original papers, or any copies thereof, though all due diligence had been used, because the title papers were in Mexico, and among others particu larly specified is this very paper, the original denouncement of the mine.
If this affidavit is believed, it .puts beyond controversy the fact that this espediente was not among the archives in December, 1850, and proves conclusively that it had not been there a month when General Halleck found it. And who shall dare to deny the truth of the affidavit ? Will the claimants attempt to„ sacrifice upon the altar of the false god they worship the character of a man who has served them so faithfully, by asserting the want of all truth in a statement to which he pledged his oath for their benefit ?
The affidavit is true. It avers no falsehood and conceals no mental reservation. General Halleck did use due diligence; he looked for the papers in their proper place and did not find them, because they were not there. We deny that he was capable of equivocating about two originals or paltering with the Court in a double sense-. Especially do we repel the imputation which the unkind construction of the Court below would' fasten upon him, of taking the oath from his employers, and like the lowest professional witness, swearing -what they told him to swear, without knowing or caring whether it was true or false.
The supposed contradiction between the affidavit of 1850 and the deposition of 1857, amounts to very little, and that little is easily accounted for by lapse of memory and error of judgment. But there is enough in it to confirm the faith of the Court in the wisdom of the rule which excludes oral evidence .altogether as a means of proving, title. If General Halleck with his unblemished character and high position is liable tp mistakes, what can be the value of such witnesses as Pico, Noriega, and Fernandez ? “ If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the’wicked and the ungodly appear?”
But the affidavit is true, and the espediente was therefore a false and simulated record, not merely because General Halleck has. so sworn, but also because that oath of his is corroborated by other evidence conclusive and irresistible.
Between the years 1846 and 1851, the title to this mine was in constant dispute. Half a dozen suits were heard and deter mined by tbe local courts, in which Castillero’s right was asserted on one side and denied on the other. Every body living near, whether in public or private life, must have been, excited and interested in the clamorous controversy which was so long and so fiercely carried on. Yet this espediente on which, if it existed, all these contests must have turned, was found by no officer, seen by no witness, and produced by no party. Whén this is considered in connection with the fact that the records in the Alcalde’s Court were very meagre and few — a list of them does not cover half a sheet of foolscap — the non-existence of the paper becomes as clear as any negative fact can be’ made by judicial evidence.
But that is not all. The papers of the Alcalde were on two occasions made to go through very narrow places, where only one could pass at a time, and then under the inspection of vigilant eyes. When the last Mexican Alcalde delivered the records to the first American officer, a list of them was made out and receipted for. This espediente was not on that list. Again, when the State Constitution was established the Alcalde’s office was abolished, and the records previously kept there were distributed among the new officers; some going to the Mayor of San José, some to the Clerk of the County Court, and some to the Recorder. The officer who made this distribution and examined the papers, one by one, for that purpose, swears that this espediente was not there then. Can demonstration go further?
It may be added, that it could not have been among the Alcalde’s archives when Weekes signed the certificate for Forbes in January, 1848. They were not guilty of a gratuitous fraud. They would not have got a'false copy falsely certified if a true copy with a true certificate could have been had as easily, for they must have known that in such a case truth would serve them, not only’as well, but much bette: than falsehood.
The paper was produced in Court by Mr. Houghton the Deputy Recorder, and is by him marked filed 25th February, 1853. which he swears he did at the request of James A. Forbes. Capt. Halleck says that he and the Mayor, Mr. Belden, took it to the office of the Recorder, who was then a Mr. Richardson. Neither Belden nor Richardson have been sworn. But it is shown that on the back of the paper there is a note in pencil, that it was filed by Richardson 21st January, 1851. How or when that note came upon the paper does not appear. It is tolerably fair to infer that it was not there on the 25th of February,. 1853. Why would Mr. Houghton have marked it filed on that day, if there was already on it a file mark of earlier date ? This pencil mark of Richardson is a mysterions but not very important affair.
If the espediente went to the Recorder’s office in January, 1851, it must have disappeared again soon afterwards. Houghton, who had charge of the office did not see it there until February, 1853. In that month he was visited by James Alexander Forbes, and requested to search for the record of Castillero’s mining title which was this paper, as described by Forbes with great exactness. They searched diligently for more than one whole day", without success. But after Forbes went away Houghton found it when he was not looking for it; it turned up just under his hand. There can be no reasonable doubt that Forbes, while pretending to search for the paper had slipped it into a pigeonhole clandestinely. The letter of 1st of December, 1849, from Alexander Forbes to James Alexander Forbes, shows how highly the “ well-known cleverness ” of the latter gentleman at such tricks was appreciated by his confederates.
Such is the Halleck Espediente — produced by the claimants as the original record evidence of their mining title. There is not a scintilla of legal evidence, to sustain it. Apart from the contradictions and falsehoods of the witnesses who swear to the act of possession, this Court has many times decided that parol evidence, for such a purpose, is inadmissible. The allegation that it is a record, is not only unproved but is met by overwhelming proof to the contrary. Its history cannot be traced back with any certainty further than February, 1853. It is plain to demonstration, that it was fraudulently dropped among the archives at some time not earlier than December, 1850.
No. 3, the Fernandez espediente is so called merely because it was introduced as an appendix to the deposition of that witness, who swore that it was in the handwriting of Salvio Pacheco. Pacheco being called, testified that he wrote it, but did net say that it was a copy of any original. Chabolla, by whom it purports to be certified, under date of 13th of August, 1846, was asked no question concerning it. The introduction of this document, as it was introduced, without the least proof to sustain it, confirms the falsehood of the others, not only because it differs from them, but because- the want of all evidence to show what it was copied from makes the inference irresistible that no original was in the -office when it was made. If it had been truly copied in 1846 from an original record, which was then in its proper place, it cannot for a moment be supposed that the claimants would have failed to prove it by Pacheco and Chabolla, who were both on the stand.
No. 4. The Walkinshaw espediente. It is scarcely credible, but it is true, that, after these three failures, the claimants were bold enough to produce a fourth espediente, differing from all the preceding ones. . It came from their own custody. They found it, as they allege, among the papers of Walkinshaw, one of the claimants, who had died; and it bore on its face the évidence that it was mutilated. The testimony, by which they tried to authenticate it, sets the fraudulent character of the claim in a very strong light. The two petitions of Castillero are certified by Chabolla as copies from the record, with date of January 13, 1846. To the act of possession there is no certificate at all; probably because the certificate for that was torn off with the writing of partnership which the heading shows to have been a part of it, as originally made up. The espediente then, as produced, consisted of the two petitions, each certified by Chabolla, and an uncertified copy of the act of possession, with evident marks that one or more subsequent papers had been detached' before it was brought into Court. Chabolla was called to prove that the two petitions were truly copied at the date he certified. He swore that he could scarcely read; that he could write ' nothing but his name; that the papers were brought to him from the mine, and he signed them without knowing what was in them; he never saw any originals; all he knows, about them now is that they are papers. This fraudulent imposture upon the ignorance of Chabolla was practised by Guttierrez. The espediente and certificates are all in the handwriting of that infamous man; so is the ante-dated writing of partnership; and so is most of the Halleck espediente.
But the " Act of Possession" was not certified as a copy, and sc the claimants determined to prove it as an original. When Pico Norriega and Suñol testified, several years before, to the Halleck document, they swore to the making of only one act of possession. But in 1860, they supplemented that testimony as the exigency of the case required, by swearing that two originals were made, and that this Walkinshaw document was one of them.
The Court below received this paper and treated it as genuine! The contradiction of the witnesses by their own previous depositions; the admitted falsehood of Chabolla’s certificates; the mutilated condition of the paper itself; the difference between this espediente and each of the three others, which the claimants liad before alleged to be true; non'e of these things seem to have excited a suspicion in the minds of the judges unfavorable to the claimants. The confiding 'simplicity of their faith is touching, but the example is not edifying.
Such are the four espedientes — the original and its three copies — destroying one another by self-contradiction; differing by the absence from one of-whole papers found in another; differing in what purports tó be the same papers; differing even in matters so important as dates of time and place. ' The original (the Halleck) claims to have been archived at the time it was made, but no official mark on its face or on its back justifies the assertion, and it is proved by the affidavit of the claimant’s own counsel, and by the uncontradicted testimony of other good witnesses, not to have been among the records for at least five years after its date. Of the three pretended copies, one (the Fernandez) is without any proof whatever, though the person who wrote it with his own hand, was not only in full life, but actually called as a witness by the claimants. The certificates appended to the other two (the Weelces and the Walhinshaw) are proved to be false by the very officers who made them.
All the known facts and circumstances connected with the case, and the whole conduct of the original claimant, his associates and grantees, are inconsistent with the belief that this title or any part of it was made at the time it bears date.
Castillero went to Mexico in March, 1846. He had no papers with him like those. He claimed that he had discovered and denounced a mine in the Mission of Santa Clara, but he neither mentioned nor showed such a title as this. When Mr. Negrete, as agent of Forbes, began to bargain with him for the purchase of shares, he was called on to show his title, and he showed nothing but the “ writing of partnership —the paper now admitted to be ante-dated — and he did not allege that he had any other title.
When he came to make a formal conveyance of the shares to Forbes, and to recite "his title in the act of sale, he recited only the writing of partnership. No other title is recited by him, or by any of his grantees, in any of their numerous conveyances, down to the year 1852, when references to the espediente first begin to appear in their deeds.
The petition of José Castro, one of the socios, ignores this title for nine hundred pertenencias by asking for three more pertenencias in continuance of the first.
When Alexander Forbes petitioned the Alcalde for four consecutive pertenencias, he certainly could not have intended to claim under a title which gave him nine hundred. -
The effort of a party to get illegal evidence into the case is •always a fair ground of something more than suspicion. These claimants, besides their struggle for Mexican depositions and their introduction of hearsay from the Sandwich Islands, have • filled the record with matters not only irrelevant, but unauthorized by the loosest rules practised in other cases. ÍEx uno disce omnes: They caused the exparte affidavit of Alexander Forbes to be taken at the Mansion House before the Lord Mayor of London, introduced it into their case, and it actually comes here as part of the record. •
But there is another class of facts in this cause which cannot fail to make a profound impression upon the mind of the Court. We refer to the various acts of fraud determined upon; attempted and actually perpetrated by these claimants, or some of them.
The certificates appended to both branches of their title, as filed in the Land Commission, were false, and known by the claimants to be false. One was the Weekes’ certificate, already adverted to. The Lanzos dispatch was certified by Jesus Vejar, a notary public at Tepic, in Mexico, who declared under his' official seal that the dispatch had been respected and obeyed by the Mexican authorities that governed in Upper California in 1846, according to insertions which those authorities had made in acts passed on the subjects of which they treat, which insertions, he, the notary, had seen. All this was false. The dispatch never was in California until long after the Mexican authori-. ties had been expelled, and, of ■ course, the notary had seen no acts of theirs on the subject. He says, in the certificate itself, that he made it at the request of Barron, Forbes & Co.
That the “ writing of partnership ” is ante-dated has already been mentioned as a material fact. View it now as a moral circumstance, affecting the status' of the parties in Court. It is their most important paper, if any one be more important than another; and they themselves have always treated it so. The first representation of Castillero to the Alcalde asserted the previous formation of the partnership. Possession was delivered to the Company not to Castillero. The title to one-half the barras at this moment depends upon the fact that the Socios had an interest to that extent in the mine by virtue of the previously existing partnership; for they claim it on that ground alone. It wa.s, therefore, manifestly necessary for them to show that a partnership had been formed before the other proceedings commenced. They could not prove this by parol, and did not attempt it. They produced a written agreement of partnership, dated to suit the purpose, and that agreement is now admitted to be ante-dated. This paper they put into the first espediente they produced, got it certified by an Alcalde to be “ a true copy to the letter” of an original in his office; filed it with the petition as one of. their muniments of title, and passed it on the Land Commission as a genuine, paper with a true date. In the District Court they adhered to it with the same inflexible pertinacity, stood over it steadily, resisted iiercely every attack which' went to impugn its absolute verity. The Judges were imposed upon; they believed the paper to be truly dated, and found that, as one of the facts upon which they based their decree. The guilt of all this seems to us horridly aggravated by the consideration, that the evidence was, all the while, 'within their immediate reach, by 'which they could have shown how, when, and why the paper was made, and fully explained the false date, if it was capable of explanation. Gutierrez, who wrote it; Arce, who' signed it as attorney for one of the parties, and Manuel Castro, the Prefect before whom it was celebrated, were all competent to testify, were all in full life, and none of them was called; but Antonio Pico, the ever-ready and willing witness, was relied on to make the false date appear like a true one. But now, the case being here on appeal, the counsel for the claimants look carefully over the record, and with the frankness which might be expected from their high character, admit in their briefs and in their arguments, that the evidence which shows the paper to be ante-dated is too clear for contradiction. Their candor explodes in a moment the imposture which the claimants persisted in for ten long years.
Look at the letter from Alexander to James Alexander Forbes, dated 1st of December, 1849. Nobody pretends that more than one dispatch was ever issued by Lanzos, and that was addressed to the Governor. But here another one, totally different, and addressed to Castillero himself, is spoken of as being in possession of the claimants. It must have been a forgery. What is worse, the writer of the letter, after stating the superior value of the forgery over the genuine document, coolly suggests- to his correspondent, that he withdraw the one from the record and substitute the other in its place.
Upon these facts we put no harsher construction than the Judges of the District. Court did when they granted the injunction, as may be seen by their opinions, printed in McAllister’s Reports. But the view then taken was somehow overlooked when they came to make the decision now under review.
The legal and just weight to which these fraudulent acts of the claimants are entitled, would make them decisive against a far better case than they have made out. The odium spoliatoris is always a perfectly fair element in the judgment of a Court He who spoils the evidence or perverts the means of ascertaining the truth, or otherwise poisons the stream of justice, especially if he does so by putting false papers into .the case ceases to stand on the same level with honest suitors. Common sense applied to common affairs follows the same rule; a knave once detected in trying to, cheat you is never trusted again. It is a maxim of the common law, as it was of the Roman law, and a rule of logic which all experience proves to be sound, that qui semel est malus, semper presumitur esse malus in eodem genere. When, therefore, a fraud is discovered in one paper, all other papers produced by the same party are presumed to be fraudulent. This presumption is not slight or easily repelled. Omnia presmuntur contra spoliatorem — all things are to be presumed against the spoiler — and we have a right to invoke the natural indignation and anger which an honest man feels against those who commit these base and mischievous crimes; for this presumption is made “in ODIUM spoliatoris” — in hatred of the spoiler. We have not overstated the rule. Every text book on the law of evidence will bear us out. We may refer especially to Best on Presumptions, and the cases there cited.
But -the portraits of these parties are painted by themselves, and the picture they have drawn is a part of the record. The letters they have written to one another describe their moral character, and show that they were actually engaged for a long time in using their best efforts to get false and fraudulent titles fabricated for the mine and lands in dispute. When it is once ascertained that a witness is capable of committing peijury, all he swears to is rejected as false. In reason and in law the rule is the same when a party is found to be capable of forgery: the papers not known to be fabricated must share the fate of those'which are proved to be-spurious; for every thing is cor- rapt that comes from a corrupted source. Falsus in uno,/alsus in omnibus.
The way in which these letters came out has been much commented upon. Their genuineness being admitted, it makes no difference how the Government got possession of them. But it was all perfectly natural. James Alexander Forbes was sore, and perhaps malevolent towards his former confederates in crime; because he and his family had been deprived of all share in that imperial fortune which was the fruit of their joint iniquity. He had filed his mind for Banquo’s issue. While he was contriving the fraud, and doing his. full share in the execution of it, they praised his " well known cleverness,” counted on him “ as a friend,” and told him that he was working for “ his -own interest” as well as theirs. But when the deed was done, he was quietly dismissed to poverty and contempt.
Mr. Laureneel, a French gentleman, then residing in California, and Mr. Eldridge; had, or thought they had, an interest in opposing the claim, and they devoted 'several years with- great enefgy, skill, and ability to the sole business of exposing the fraud. They knew that James Alexander Forbes had been in active correspondence with the claimants at a most interesting period in the history of their title, and they rightly conjectured that the letters then written would throw a- flood of light on its character. They asked him to produce them, and when he was tempted by a consideration his “poverty but not his will con eented,” so far as to let them be used for the sole purpose of compelling a compromise. He did not dream that his former, friends would continue to prosecute the claim, when threatened with the infamy which the publication of such a correspondence would produce. But the experiment appears not to have been tried. The District Attorney, learning that these letters were deposited with a banker, subject to the joint order of Laureneel and Forbes, issued a subpoena duces tecum, had them brought into Court by the Marshal, and there the whole disgusting con «piracy was laid bare.
The genuineness of these letters has never been seriously denied ; the handwriting of the parties is clearly proved; there is not the least doubt of their authenticity. But there is one other letter, not worse than these, which the claimants allege to be a . forgery. It purports to be a copy of one written by Alexander Forbes, and it is a true copy, unless James Alexander Fcibes and another witness named Birney, are both guilty of perjury They have attacked the general character of these witnesses under the circumstances that will not shake the faith of the Court. The statement that the original was stolen out of a carpet bag, at a hotel, without forcing the lock, either of the carpet bag or the room door, does not seem improbable, when we consider the skill of thieves, and recollect that none but a thief of “well-known, cleverness” would be employed for such a purpose. But it is true that James Alexander Forbes was damaged on cross-examination, and it is much against him, that he is not only a Forbes, but admits his complicity in the guilt he charges upon the others.' The Court will decide whether these considerations are sufficient to reject that one letter, and if so, attention will be confined to the others.
Those others are amply sufficient to show that the claimants formed a conspiracy to commit the most stupendous fraud that has ever been attempted against the United States, or any other Government; that they deliberately resolved to get false papers made at the City of Mexico, have them deposited among the archives, and afterwards taken- out and certified as genuine; that these papers were to be made after the form furnished lay one of the parties, and approved by the rest, with boundaries ■ and dates agreed on; that two of the conspirators went to Mexico for the purpose of carrying out the design; and that they had every prospect of success. They did succeed, at least in a measure, for there is one letter which shows that a forged dispatch from the Minister of Relations was in the hands of the claimants, and sent to California to be used there. Besides, thf affidavit of their attorney and agent, made in 1850, proves -that they then claimed under a grant which was certainly a forgery, for it was dated before the declaration of war, and it is not now pretended that a genuine grant of such date was, or could have been made. When these facts are considered in connection with the other fact that both their titles, as actually filed, were coupled with certificates from Weekes and Yejar known to be atrociously false, the claim must be regarded as utterly corrupt. If such a title could be sustained here, the courts of this country would cease to be a terror to evil doers, or a praise unto them that do well; virtue and vice would stand in equal favor, and all distinction between guilt and innocence would be wholly oblitetated.
We think we have shown from the record, and by reasoning, which admits of no satisfactory, or even plausible, answer.
L That the Lanzas dispatch, besides being obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation, is no title to the land in dispute, or to any land whatever, and was not intended to be a title.
II. That the papers produced, as a mining title, supposing them to be genuine, and the acts of the Alcalde, supposing them to be as asserted, are all of them palpable violations of the law, in letter and spirit, confer no right, and are totally void.
III. That this mining title, so far from being confirmed by the Supreme Government of Mexico, was never seen, or even heard of, by the officers of. that Government, and consequently was not, and could not have been, pronounced upon by them.
IY. That those papers are not genuine, or made at the time of their date, but are ante-dated and spurious,; because,
1. The alleged originals are not proved to have been archived, but on the other hand are shown, by plain and powerful evidence, to have been absent from the archives for at least five years after their date.
2. Nor is there any evidence by parol, that they were made at the time of their date. The two “ Petitions” are without a witness to speak for them; the “ Writing of Partnership” is admitted to be dated before it was made; and the “ Act of Possession has nothing to sustain it, except testimony which is not only incompetent, but manifestly untrue.
3. Of the three copies, one is wholly unproved, and the certificates to the other two are proved to have been falsely made, at the instigation of the claimants.
4. The copies and the original differ, and by their mutual con tradictions, each one accumulates the proof that itself and all the others are false.
5. The non production of this title, for several years, and the attempt to claim under a different title, are convincing proofs of its non-existence then.
6. .The silence of Castillero, and his grantees,.concerning it, and the absence of,all reference to it in their deeds and. other -transactions, show that it was neither made at the time of its date, nor afterwards used in good faith.
7. The numerous frauds of the claimants; their use for many years of a paper now admitted to be ante-dated; the false certifi cates of ~Weekes, Chabolla, and Yejar, made at their instance, and uttered by them as true; the counterfeit dispatch from Lanzas; the grant they asserted to be made before the declaration of war; the deliberate determination disclosed in their letters to get other title papers fabricated; all this raises a powerful presumption. against the honesty of the claim,' covers it with odium, and makes its rejection the unavoidable duty of the Court.
Claimant's counsel, in reply.
The Court has heard a speech, teeming with imputations on the claimant’s good faith. Every fact asserted in his behalf has been flatly denied. One of the counsel imputed fraud, forgery subornation of witnesses, and consequent perjury. He has unqualifiedly charged falsification of the public archives and corruption of public officers of every grade, from the grave ecclesiastic, who was Bishop of Puebla and a Minister of State, down to the humble rustic who administered legal remedies as a Justice of the Peace. It is difficult to meet these charges, except by a rebuke uttered in such mild and decorous form as may become the dignity of this place and presence ; for there is no proof in the record affording the slighest support to any of them. Nor has either of the counsel distinctly presented even an imaginary proof tending to any such inculpa’tion. The printed brief furnished us by the counsel for the Government as the basis of their argument here and as the evidence' of their preparatory research, does, ih'deed, áttéráfrt to designate some impeaching evidence. To or perceptions.it contains only eight criticisms. We delivered to the counsel for the Government, before this argument commenced, a short printed note on each of them. By that note it was plainly shown that each of these criticisms was founded on a total and perfectly palpable mistake as to the actual contents of the record.. That short commentary on the Government’s brief is before the Court. Its effect was to prevent the only counsel who spoke to the facts, from using his brief at all, or laying his finger upon any oDe definite charge indicating any one piece of inculpatory evidence or, in fact, giving us anything definite to answer.
Perhaps this will not be considered a, fair statement of our adversaries’ course. It is true that, in a loose and general way, allusions have been made to some topics of impeachment. To each of these we will give a distinct answer.
1. Castillero is charged with misrepresentation in his petition to the Junta. His title to the two leagues of land and the ratification of his mining title are attempted to be impeached on this ground. Let us see with how much justice.
In a letter sent from Santa Clara to his friend, Ex-President Herrera, he says " at a distance of five leagues from .this Mission to the west, ,.[i. e., the Mission of Santa Clara,] I have discovered,” &c., Transe, p. 1784. In his more formal petition to the Junta, he says, “having discovered in the Mission of Santa Ciará,” &c., Transe, p. 1800. Both of these statements were true; for the mine was five leagues from the Mission village called Santa Clara. And in common speech “ the Mission” embraced a considerable' extent of territory. He did not mean that his mine was within the village; nor could he have been so understood. ' In order to appreciate the folly or-presumption of this chargg. one must bear in mind, that both of these statements were laid before the Junta; they were both presented by the Junta to the Government. Surely there was no deception in this verbal difference.
' 2. To the local magistrate, Castillero stated that the mine wan on Berreyesa’s rancho. This statement is not repeated in the ap plication to the Junta. The cause of the change is fully explained.
We have produced and proven, in Berqeyesa’s own handwri ting, his false representation, that his ranch was two leagues in extent. His heirs did not dare to produce in this Court the alleged grant for two leagues of which he so furnished a copy to Castillero. They only set up a grant for one league: see their case, 23 How. 500 ; Transcript, p. 2730, § 4, lb. pp. 2728, 2741, 2735-2740. At first, Castillero acted on this misinformation; but soon afterwards he discovered the fraud. Transe, pp. 559 560, § 4, pp. 543/441, 3049. Surely he was right in not repeating his mistake when addressing the Junta.
3. It is said that Castillero’s mining title was not exhibited to the Government. There is' not the slightest proof of this; nor is there any reason whatever to presume such a negative. The suggestion is the merest subterfuge. In his petition he stated— “ I have denounced and taken possession not- only of said mine, but also of three thousand varas in all directions, and complied with all the conditions of the ordinance.” And in the 7th clause he stated — “the necessity of [the Government] approving the possession, which has been given me of the mine by the local authorities of California, in the same terms as those in which I now hold it.” - Transe., pp. 56, 57. Surely here is the most distinct reference to the fact that he had this title. After being thus notified of it, if the Government did not see the papers, it could only have so happened because they did not desire to see them, and therefore did not call for them. Indeed, no man can doubt but the' Government was bound, in honor, conscience, and by its established policy, to confirm the mining title, even had it been utterly destitute of form or technical regularity.
The’ Junta, in their' representation to the Minister of Justice, dated May 14, 1846, minutely discussed the legality of the “ possession given to said Castillero by the local authorities of California.” Transe., p. 54. Is it not the height.of folly to presume that they did this without having the papers before them? Besides, how stale is this imputation! Señor Bassoco,*a'member of the Junta, and a participant in all these transactions, was produced and examined in California. Miranda and Yrisarri, then clerks in the Ministry of Justice, were also produced. The Government’s counsel did not ask any of .these witnesses or any one of the Mexican officials whether he saw the mining title at the time in question. And suppose, through inadvertence, Castillero did not exhibit his mining title, what then ? He talked to the Junta of it; he wrote concerning it; but, not being asked for it, he did not happen to show it. Where is the law or the principle of equity which .would make such an omission fatal, or in any degree prejudicial to his claim ?
U. On the 26th of May, 1848, the Commissioners who, on the part of Mexico, negotiated the treaty, stated that “no grant of lands ” in California had “ been made since May 18,1846.” This statement is .supposed to have some influence on the case. For many reasons it is altogether without probative force — as mere evidence of the fact it is wholly without weight. 1st. The Commissioners had no access to the National Archives, as the capital and all the public documents were then in our military possession. They could only speak from report of such clerks or former officials as happened to be within reach at the moment. 2dly. The period referred to was two years distant, and the date of this grant was but a single week later than the date mentioned. 3dly. According to any view the Commissioners could have had, the grant in question was most insignificant in extent and value, and was most likely not to be remembered with precision as to its dáte. It was a common practice to grant gratuitously eleven leagues of good, level farming land to any one who would undertake to build a house and live upon the tract. This grant embraced only two leagues and was on an uninhabitable mountain. Mines, strictly speaking, were never granted. The mere-discovery was a meritorious basis of right. It gave an equitable title, ipso facto. The forms of registry or confirmation, were indeed necessary. But they could not be justly 'denied to .the first discovérer, if. he merely asked for their observance. 4thly. Certain other circumstances taken in consideration, this statement is quite destitute of force. Nearly all the grants of land in California were made by the Governors and Departmental Assem blies without any intervention of the Supreme Government. It was impossible that those Commissioners could have known whether any such grant existed or how many of them had been made subsequently to May 13, 1846. Several of later date have been confirmed by this Court-.
The instructions from the Department of State to Mr. Trist, our Commissioner, mentioned May 13, 1846, as a fit date to be suggested in the negotiations. It was the day on which Congress recognized the existence of war with Mexico. But no importance was attached to the precise day. “ If necessary,” say the instructions, “the date may be changed to the month of September 1846, when the American forces took possession of California.” Transe., pp. 2958, 2959. .The discrepancy in date oetween this grant and the 13th of May, 1846, is about a week. History, the Act of Congress, and the proof in this case, all show that the Americans took possession of California July 7, 1846, yet here we find our Secretary of State, on the 15th of April, 1847, asserting that possession was not taken until some time in September, 1846. This is a discrepancy of eight weeks! Was that Department guilty of fraud and misrepresentation ?
This declaration of the Mexican Commissioners certainly has ■ 10 legal or technical force. Our Government has denied it 'ecógnition, as forming any part of the treaty; and it has been entirely repudiated. It has been regarded, throughout, as a thing of no validity.- 31st Congress, 1st Sess., Senate Doc. No. 1, p. 84.- The Act of Congress, under.which this claim is made, expressly concedes that the power of Mexico to grant lands in California continued until July. 7th, 1846. 9 Statutes, p. 634, § 14. And this Court has frequently so decided. U. S. vs. Pico, (23 How. 326.)
III. Two,remote circumstances of the most petty description are gravely urged as throwing some doubt on the validity of the Mexican two-league grant.
1. The dispatch.of Castillo Lanzas, as Minister of Eelations, was proven by that gentleman himself, and by Yelasco, the clerk in his Department, who wrote it. Transe., p. 2201. It was verified by aumeious witnesses, and a host of collateral circumstances We cannot suppose that its genuineness is seriously disputed yet, on this topic, a singular piece of captiousness is displayed, Vejar, a notary at Tepic, in March, 1850, certified this to be an authentic instrument; and, according to the custom of Spanish notaries, he gave the knowledge on which his conclusion in favor of its authenticity was based. It was that it “ has been respected and obeyed by the Mexican authorities that governed in Upper California, A. D. 1846, according to insertions which the said authorities made of the said instrument in acts which they passed.” He adds, by way of emphasis, and, as it might be thought, for a climax, that “Señor Don Andres Castillero recognised it.” Transe., p. 68. This has been exclaimed against as a false and fraudulent certificate. It is said this poor notary meant to certify that he had been away off in the wilds of California, and had there seen the Governor of California put Castillero into possession.! Could any suggestion be more frivolous ? His meaning is evident. On December 17th, 1846,- Castillero, at Tepic, the residence of this Mr. Vejar, by solemn act. before notary Nazarib Fuentes, confirmed the contract of Avie for working this mine. On that occasion this dispatch was produced, recognized as genuine by Fuentes, and inserted in his official record. Fuentes being dead, Vejar, on the strength of thatrecord, expressed the opinion in question. Transe., pp. 1195 -1203. This certificate never was or could have been used as evidence. It never was so used; and, indeed, it is perfectly true.
2. Mr. Alexander Forbes, of Tepic, answering by letter, one of the technical scruples suggested by James A. Forbes, states that he had deposited, or registered at Monterey, a counterpart of the land grant, which was directed to Castillero, himself, instead of being directed to the Governor. Transe., pp. 843, 396, 401. James A. Forbes, who was intimately conversant with the acts of Mr. Alexander Forbes in California, whilst testifying in Laureneel’s pay, and under the influence of great vindictiveness against the New. Almadén Company, admitted that he never searched at Monterey for this paper, very desirable as he must have deemed it. He testified that he forebore to search from a conviction that Mr. Forbes was “ mistaken.” Transe., p. 490
IV. The attack upon the claimant’s title papers, connected with the proceedings before the Alcalde, belongs to a school happily heretofore unknown in legal practice.
A brief narrative of the facts deducible from the record affords the readiest means of exhibiting the emptiness of this assault.
Castillero first supposed he had discovered a mine of gold and silver; he so represented to the Alcalde November 22d, 1845 > Soon afterwards he ascertained the presence of quicksilver, and he made his second representation to that effect on December 3d, 1845. The Alcalde visited the mine on the 30th of December, 1845, gave him possession, and executed in duplicate his ■ act of possession. One of these was deposited in the jusgado or Alcalde’s Court house, the other was returned to Castillero ; and, at its foot, he- took the Alcalde’s receipt for his fees. By accident, the date " 30th” was left blank in the duplicate which remained with the Alcalde.
Sometime'between the discovery of the'quicksilver, late in November, and the 2d of December, 1845, Castillero formed.a partnership with José Castro, Real and the Robles for working the mine. Doubtless the article of partnership was written in November, and a blank left for the day; but it was not signed until December 2d. They then filled in that day, but neglected to alter the month. By its terms, M. .Castro, the Prefect, was to furnish certified copies to the parties. He did so. His certificates of authentication all bear date on December 8th, 1845.
On 13th January, 1846, Castillero caused to be made a duplicate of each of his two petitions to the Alcalde Pico, and had them certified by Pedro Chabolla who had succeeded Pico as Alcalde. He then made up, for himself what, according to the Spanish practice and phrase, might properly be called a complete espediente or record of his -mining title. To this he -himself, with his own hand, prefixed a heading or table of contents. That table truly stated the contents; and they were 1st, a copy of his first petitition of November 22d, 1845, certified by Chabolla January 13th, 1846. 2d, by a copy of his second fetition of December 3d, 1845, certified by the same person. 8dly, his original duplicate act of possession, dated December 30th, 1845. 4thly, the receipt for • fees. 5thly, Ms copy of the article of partnersMp authenticated by the Prefect, December 8th, 1845.
When Castillero went to Mexico in April, 1846, he took this espediente with him. We call it Castillero’s espediente. Late in December, 1846, he confirmed the contract of Avio and sold several of Ms shares to Alexander Eorbes. He thereupon delivered tMs espediente to that gentleman.
' Mr. Alexander Eorbes had it in his possession wMlst in California in 1848. He returned to Mexico in March, 1848, leaving tMs espediente with Walkinshaw, the local Director of the 'mining operations.- Walkinshaw was dismissed from office in 1849, and thenceforth until his death, he was on ill terms with the Aviadores. In 1853, he sued them. In 1854 Ms suit was dismissed. He was a peculiar man and in very ill health for two years prior to May, 1858. At that date, he went to Scotland • and soon died. In July, 1860, this espediente was found in the hands of Ms executors, in an envelope endorsed in Walkinshaw’? own handwriting. All the papers, as called for in the table of contents, were found with it except the copy of the article oí partnership. How that became detached is not proven: it is unknown. Perhaps James A.- Eorbes has it.
In 1857, Alexander Eorbes being very aged, had retired from business, and gone to reside in London. Walkinshaw was hostile to the Aviwdores, and petulant from ill health. All who had been intimately conversant with the minute details of the transactions, were thus beyond reach except James A. Eorbes, and he was plotting with Laurencel. The whole juggle about discrepancies between copies was gotten up at this.date under his instructions. It was the offspring of his subtle and fraudulent gemus.
On January 20tli, 1848, Mr. Alexander Eorbes was at the mine, giving attention to its development. Walkinshaw was director. James A.- Eorbes was living near it, and was, no doubt, striving to supplant Walkinshaw, which he effected soon afterwards, though his own term in office was of brief duration. At this time James A. Eorbes seems to have been quite officious He played the anxiously subservient to Alexander Forbes. Among other things, James A. Forbes, at this date, wrote out, for what reason none but himself can now tell, a very formal espediente, doing every part of the work with his own hands. He did not copy this from the papers in' the Alcalde’s office but from Castillero’s espediente, then in the possession of Alexander Forbes. .He made two alterations from it. This was perfectly idle, and is only .explicable by his tendency to falsification. He altered the date of Castillero’s first representation as to place, making it.“Pueblo.of San José Guadalupe,” instead of “Mission of Sta' Clara.” He left out of the receipt for fees the repetitious statement, that the mine was on Berreyesa’s land. He presented this paper to James W. Weekes, then Alcalde, who signed the certificate prepared for him, that it was a true copy, “ made to the letter,” .of the “ espediente," in the archives of the jusgado. Weekes was an American sailor; he was ignorant and intemperate, but intelligent and honest. Such is the proof. He had often seen the originals in the jusgado. He thought the papers a true copy, and .did not advert to the necessity of making a comparison. This is the paper which the Government counsel call the Weekes espediente. It was not given in evidence, or relied upon by the claimant. His attorney’s clerk, indeed, used it in making a copy to be annexed to the petition before the Land Commissions.. No other use was ever made' of it, except by the Government’s counsel. They put it in evidence, in the District Court, in 1857, for the purpose of showing discrepancies in copies.
The title papers given in evidence by the claimant before the. Land Commissioners, and alone relied upon throughout, were the originals which had always remained of record; first, in the Alcalde’s jusgado, then in the office of the Mayor of San José, to which it was removed from the jusgado, with a great quantity of other Spanish documents, on the change of Government, and afterwards in the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, to which it was removed in January, 1851. The custody in these respective offices is most explicitly proven by a vast amount of unimpeached and clear testimony in each and every year from 1846 to the time when this claim was filed. See Claimant’s Brief, pp. .69-81. The only hint against this evidence is in the testimony of two clerks in the office. H. C. Melone did not hear of these papers being" in the office. . Houghton testified that in February, 1853, he searched for a record of them in the books, at James A. Forbes’ request, but “ not for the paper itself.” He further said, “ I think I must havq found it by accident, because no one ever asked me to search for it.” This was in 1853. The Government counsel proved the genuine official endorsement upon it of a prior file mark. “Filed 3 o’clock, P. M., 18th Jan’y> 1851; J. T. Richardson, Recorder; S. C. C.” Transcript, pp. 253, 323, 321. But it is insinuated that James A. Forbes, the Government’s own witness, “foisted ” this paper into the Recorder’s office in 1853, and that, too, in opposition to his own testimony.
The set cf papers thus produced from the public records, superabundantly proven, and their continuing public custody-clearly established, we have called the Alcalde’s espediente. The Government’s counsel is pleased to designate it the Salleck espediente.
The Government’s counsel speaks of another paper-which he dignifies with the title of the Fernandez espediente. This paper performs no very important office. It was put in evidence merely as part of the chain of circumstances showing continuous custody of the Alcalde's espediente in thejusgado. It is an exact and faithful copy of that paper, made by Pacheco, the Alcalde.’s secretary, and certified by Ohabolla, then Alcalde, on August 13, 1846. It is distinctly verified by únimpeached evidence. Transcript, pp.622-624.
The article of partnership, though inserted in Castillero’s own espediente, does not appear in the Alcalde’s. It was not necessary to file it with the Alcalde. It was deposited with the Prefect. Castillero appears to have thought it proper to have the fact noted in the Alcalde’s record, that a partnership had been formed. When going to Mexico, in April, 1846, he drafted and left with General Castro, his partner, a petition setting forth the fact. Castro afterwards, in June, 1846, had this petition engrossed, signed it, and presented it to Dolores Pacheco, then Alcalde, who ordered it to be archived. It was accordingly then attached to the Alcalde’s espediente._ The claimant’s counsel did not put in or. prove this petition, as any part of their case. They regarded it as immaterial. The Government’s counsel put it in evidence in the District-.Court in 1857, as part of the game of difference in copies.
This idle show about trivial differences in copies, naturally induced the claimant to put in much evidence merely to answer it, but which was otherwise wholly useless. The attempt to confuse on one side, has led, on the other, to the multiplication of oral evidence of little moment and to the production of papers essentially unimportant. Thus the record has been expanded and the case complicated with a variety of irrelevant issues But the opposition will not succeed in this attempt,
“ to rise,
By nonsense piled on nonsense to the skies.”
Diligence is indeed somewhat tasked by the mass of materials; but-the most moderate share of intelligence is enough to enable integrity to see its way.
When Castillero’s espediente was found among Walkinshaw’s papers,’ in 1860, it was put in evidence. Many of the witnesses were recalled and some were added. Its authenticity was fully and clearly proven. But it had no office to perform, except the superfluous one of giving a precise clue to every one of the trivial discrepancies in copies before adverted to. Except in some place where the very madness of imputation reigned, these discrepancies would be regarded as insignificant and unworthy of any answer or ‘any notice. 1 Black, pp. 284, 285.
It is a gross mistake to say that the claimant produced paper proofs of title, which though professing to correspond, are found to conflict. -Sis mining title-paper, from first to last, — his only documentary proof of that title before the Commissioners or at any stage, — was the original record of 1845, as found in the filed record; that is to say, his two original petitions and the Alcalde’s act of possess’on. Every other paper came in incidentally in the singular assault made upon this title or in the resistance to. that assault.
It is not true that Castillero, in any of his- deeds, ever referred to the article of partnership as a basis of his title. He referred to it merely in his covenants that the restraint upon alienation imposed by it should not be an impediment to his vendee’s title, and that his partners shall ratify that title. This plainly appears oy his deeds in the record. His'deeds were drawn by Mr. Romero, an able Mexican lawyer. They state his title to be as discoveror, which was precisely the fundamental truth. It was not necessary nor is it usual to detail, in a deed of sale, every thing doxe by the grantor to secure his title. Transcript, p. 1208. Besides, how frivolous is this notion of non-reference. Surely no tt-»: can deny, without a blush, that Castillero did in fact, lake some proceedings before the Alcalde! And again, a reference, to the article of partnership was itself a reference to those proceedings. The article asserts that Castillero conformed "in all respects to the ordinance of mining.”
In December, 1850, Jones, the counsel for Berreyesa, desiring to take some technical exceptions to the title of the Almadén Company, sought for the original title papers. The original, in Spanish law and practice, is not the record in the public office, where legal action is had, but the copia autorizada, or authenticated document, issued from such office. ..
We have seen that this original of the Alcalde’s act of possession, i. e. the duplicate delivered to Castillero was, at this' time, in the possession of Walkinshaw. He was full of rage and hostility, on account of his dismissal from office in 1849, and it was not known to be in his possession by any of the Aviadores, or their agents in California. It is presumable that the Castillo Lanzas’ dispatch was then in Mexico. It certainly was in Tepic, in that year. Transe., p. 68. General Halleck testified, that he believed these documents were in Mexico. Transe., p. 233. ' This is absolutely urged as evidence that they did not exist at all 1! Can this suggestion deserve an answer? Much is said, too, about this deposition stating that the land-grant was made prior to the de» claration of war. This is a very petty criticism. War never was ■ declared. An Act of Congress was passed, May 13, 1846, which recognizf d war as existing. On May 12,1846, Castillero applied for the two leagues of land; and on the 20th, they were granted to him. In ...1850, without the papers before' him, or being able to specify their precise dates, General Halleck'testified to his belief that the grant was made before the declaration of war.' What a shocking anachronism! Are we contending with men of" common sense; or with men merely seeking a pretence for ■ confiscation, and willing to cover the wrong by any paltry subterfuge?
The denial of our allegations is absolutely frivolous. Notori ous facts, which it is impossible materially to post-date, or ante date, raise só strong a presumption in the claimant’s ifavor, that, in the absence of all written evidence or other direct proof, it would be an irresistible inference, that transactions essentially of the nature indicated by him must have taken place at the very times alleged. The proceedings before the Alcalde are precisely such as the circumstances would naturally have given rise to; and he had no means of resorting to any other. That they ' could have been omitted is incredible. And if the city, with all things therein, had been swallowed up by an earthquake, shortly after Castillero’s visit to Mexico, in May, 1846, no fair mind would doubt his having appeared before the Junta previously to the catastrophe, related his discovery, solicited governmental aid, and received at least as much as is now claimed to havé been conceded.
To impugn the known truth, as your Honors are urged to do. ’ or to violate the public faith, by confiscating the estate of private individuals, on such petty pretences as have been suggested, would be a reproach to the American name, and a lasting stigma upon the justice of our country.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD.
These are appeals from a decree of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, brought here under the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1851, entitled " an Act to ascertain and settle the private land claims " in that State.
Provision was made by the first section of that act for the appointment of Commissioners to examine all such claims, and decide upon their validity; and it was provided by the 8th section of the act, that every person claiming land in that State by virtue of any right or title derived from'.the Spanish or Mexican Governments, should present the same to those Commissioners for their adjudication.
Pursuant to that requirement, Andres Castillero, on the 30th day of September, 1852, presented the claim in controversy for adjudication to the Board of Commissioners constituted under that act, and at the same time submitted certain documentary evidences of title, to show that the claim ought to be confirmed. Among other things, he represented in his petition to the effect, that, in the year 1845, he discovered a mine of cinnabar in the then jurisdiction of San José, which is now known as the County of Santa Clara, in the State of California; and that having formed a company for working the miné, he, on the 3d day of December of that year, received from the Magistrate of that jurisdiction, in due form, the juridical possession of the mine, and also of certain adjacent land, to the extent of three thousand varas in all directions, averring, in-the same connection, that all the facts so alleged would appear by the duly authenticated papers issued from the office of that Magistrate, copies, of which were submitted with the petition. He also represented, that soon after his discovery, the record of his mining possession, or a testimonio of the same, was submitted to the Junta de Fomento y Administrativa de Minería, the highest mining tribunal of Mexico; and that the members of that tribunal, on the 14th day of May, 1846, after an examination of the laws relative thereto, and mature deliberation, declared that the juridical possession so given, although embracing an unusually large extent of land, was in conformity to law, and fully justified by the circumstances of the case, and recommended to the Presi dent through the Minister of Justice, not only that his mining possession should be confirmed, but that two square leagues oi land should also be granted to him' in fee for the benefit of his mining operations. Petitioner accordingly claimed the two leagues of land in fee as well as the mining possession, and in support of the claim to the land, he alleged that the Minister oí Justice, on the 20th day of the same month, informed the Junta is Fomento that the President had acceded to the reeommenda tipn and granted the land; that on the same day he also notified the Minister of Relations of the same, fact, in order that the proper decree might be issued; and that the Minister of Relations, on the 23d day of May, 1846, issued his order to .the Governor of the Department, directing him to put the petitioner in the possession of the same two square leagues of land. Referring to the last dispatch, and assuming it to be a grant, he also alleged in his petition, that on receiving the same, he started to go to that Department'for the purpose of surveying the land and taking juridical possession of the same, but was interrupted in . his journey-and prevented from so doing by the operations of the war between the two countries.
Such is the substance of the representations of the petition so far as respects the title of the claimant, but he also alleged that he had ever since continued in possession both of the mine and the land, and that he and those claiming under him had made extensive and expensive improvements on the premises. Claimant presented certain documentary evidences of title before the Commissioners which it becomes important to notice, because it was upon those that he relied to show that the prayer of his petition ought .to be granted. They consisted of certain proceedings alleged to have taken place before the Alcalde of San José Guadalupe in respect to the registry of the mine, and certain subsequent proceedings of the Junta de Fomento and other public authorities of the home government, which were introduced as showing a confirmation of the doings of the Alcalde in respect to the registry of the mine and an absolute grant of the two square leagues of land.
I.- Petitioners in such cases are required by the act of Congress not only- to present their claims to the Commissioners, but also the documentary evidences of title on which they rely to support the same; and in obedience to that requirement the claimant presented the documents referred to in his petition, of which the following is a summary :
1. His petition, dated November 22d, 1845, addressed to the Alcalde of first nomination, representing that he had discovered a vein of silver with a ley of gold on the rancho of José Reyes Berreyesa, which he wished to work in company, and request ing the Alcalde, in conformity with the ordinance on mining, to fix up notices in public places of the jurisdiction, in order to make sure of his right when the time for the juridical possession should arrive, according to the laws upon that subject. Immediately following the petition is a certificate signed by Pedro Chábolla, certifying that the petition is a copy of the original to which he refers, and which certificate purports to have been executed on the 13th day of January, 1846, at the Pueblo of San José Guadalupe, and to have been signed in the presence of two assisting witnesses.
2. Claimant also introduced another document purporting to be a supplemental petition to the same Alcalde, dated the 3rd day of December, 1845, in which he represented that, in addition to silver with a ley of gold, he had, in the presence of several bystanders, taken out liquid quicksilver from the mine, and requested to add that statement to his previous representation in order to secure his right. Both of the petitions purport to have been executed at the Mission of Santa Clara, and to liáve been signed by the claimant. Appended to the supplemental petition, also, is a certificate signed by Pedro Chabolla, which is .of the same date and in all respects similar to the one con uected with the first petition.
3. Following the last named petition and certificate is the document filed before the Commissioners as the copy of an original then relied on by the claimant as the proper evidence to show that he made due registry of the mine, and that the juridical possession of the same was duly given to him by competent authority in accordance with the regulations of the mining ordinance. Considering the importance of the document it will be given in full. Unlike what is usual in title papers executed by Mexican officials, it has no introductory caption whatever, but the translation reads as follows :• 1
"There being no deputation on mining in the Department of California, and this being the only time since the settlement of Upper California that a mine has been worked in conformity with the laws, and there being no Juez de Letras, (Professional Judge,) in the Second District, I, the Alcalde of First Nomination, citizen Antonio Maria Pico, accompanied by two assisting witnesses, have resolved to act in virtue of my office for want of a-notary public, there being none, for the purpose of giving juridical, possession of the mine known as Santa Clara, in this jurisdiction, situated on the rancho of the retired sergeant José Reyes Berreyesa,for the time having expired which is designated in the ordinance of mining, for citizen Don Andres Castillero to show his right, and also for others to allege a better right, between the time of denouncement and this date, and the mine being found with abundance of metals discovered, the shaft made according to the rules of art, and the working of the mine producing a large quantity of liquid quicksilver, as shown by the specimens which this Court has; and as the laws now in force so strongly recommend the protection of an article so necessary for the amalgama'ion of gold and silver in the Republic, I have granted three thousand varas of land in all directions, subject to what the general ordinance of mines may direct, it being worked in company, to which I certify, the witnesses signing with me; this act of possession being attached to the rest of the espediente, deposited in the archives under my charge. This not going on stamped paper, because there is none, as prescribed by law.
"Juzgado of San José Guadalupe, December 30, 1845.- .
" Antonio Maria Pioo.
"Assisting witnesses:
" Antonio Suñol,
"José Noriega."
Annexed to this document, or immediately following it, is a receipt signed by the Alcalde, and purporting to have been executed at the same time and place as. the principal document, in which the signer certifies that he has received $25 on account of the fees for the possession of the quicksilver mine, named Santa Clara, which is in the jurisdiction under his charge.
4. Connected with the document, appertaining to the proceedings before, the Alcalde, is another of considerable importance in the investigation, which is dated the 2d of November, 1845, and is denominated in the transcript as the writing of partnership.
Like the preceding petitions, it was executed at the Mission of Santa Clara; and by its terms it purports to be a partnership between the claimant and José Castro, Secundino Robles, and Teodoro Robles, and José Maria R. S. del Real, for the working " of a mine of silver, gold apd quicksilver, in the rancho of José Reyes Bérreyesa, in the jurisdiction of the pueblo of San José Guadalupe." Article 1 provides to the effect that the claimant, " conforming in all respects to the ordinance of mining, forms a regular perpetual partnership" with the persons before named, adding that "the half of the mine, which is that of which ke can lispose, will be divided into three parts" — that is, "four shares to José Castro, four shares to S. and T. Robles, and the other four shares" to the Padre Real, " as a perpetual donation." Parties were restrained by the instrument from alienating their shares ; and the provision was, that the expenses should be borne in proportion to the shares. Stipulation was also made that the claimant should have charge of the operations when present, but in his absence they were to be conducted by the Padre Real, and it was also stipulated that the agreement should be authenticated by Manuel Castro, the Prefect of the Second District. His certificate is appended to the document, in which he certifies, under date of the 8th of December, 1845, that it is a copy of the original, and the certificate purports to have been executed at Santa Clara, in the presence of the Alcalde, to whom the petitions were addressed. Congress recognized the existence of war between Mexico and the United States, oto the 13th of May, 1846, and it is not; denied that the official functions of the Mexican officers in that Department entirely ceased as early as the 7th of July in that year. Reference to these dates becomes necessary. especially to the latter, because after that time the civil officers in that Department during tbe war were such as were appointed by our military commanders.
5. He also introduced • another certificate, which applies to each and all of the foregoing documents. It is signed by James W. Weekes, Alcalde of San José Guadalupe, and reads as follows:
" I certify in due form, that the foregoing is a faithful copy, made to the letter from its original, the 'espediente' of the mine of Santa Clara, or New Almadén, which exists in the archives under my charge, to which I refer. And in testimony thereof I have signed it this 20th day of January, 1848."
Eoui additional, certificates are also appended to this espediente, as it has been called in argument at the bar. • Of these, the first was executed at San Francisco, and is signed by James Alexander Forbes, British Yice-Consul, in which he certifies under date of the 21st of January, 1848, that the signature of the last named Alcalde is the true and proper handwriting of the person it represents. None of the other three were executed in California, but respectively bear date at Tepic, in the Department of Jalisco. One is signed by Jesus Yejar, a notary public, in which he certifies under date of the 15th of March, 1850, to the effect that the signature of the British Yice-Consul is gen uine. Another is, the signature of the first Alcalde at that place, in which he certifies under the same date that the mark and signature of the notary are those he is accustomed to use, and the last is the certificate of the Consul of the United States at that place, in which he certifies, under date of the 1st of December, 1850, that " the signatures attached to the foregoing document are in the true handwriting of the subscribers."
H. Other documents were also introduced by the claimant as showing a confirmation of the doings of the Alcalde in respect to the registry of the mine, and which it is insisted by his counsel establish his right to the two square leagues of land. They do not purport to be originals, but were admitted in evidence as sworn copies of originals, alleged to be on file in the archives of the Junta de Fomento, and other Departments of the Supreme Government at the capital of the Republic. Briefly described, the documents of this class, introduced before the commissioners, are as follows:
1. Copy of a letter from the claimant, dated at the Mission of Santa Clara on the 19th of February, 1846, and addressed to Tomas Ramon del Moral, in which he states in effect that he has discovered an abundant deposit of cinnabar, and that he sends with the communication some of the ore and a little quicksilver, that it may be assayed.
2. He also introduced a copy of a letter from J. J. de Herrera, which was addressed to the same person as the preceding letter, in which the writer, under date of thé 13th of- April, 1846, pro fesses to give certain extracts from two letters received by him at the City of Mexico from the claimant, while the latter was at the Mission of Santa Clara. These letters, as described in the copy of the communication given in evidence, were dated on the 19th and 22d of February, in the same year, and the extracts represent the claimant as saying that at the .distance of five leagues from the Mission to the west he had discovered and denounced a very abundant mine of quicksilver, and that he had sent to his correspondent some of the ore procured from the top of the vein to confirm his statement, together with a little quicksilver which was taken out with the greatest facility.
3. Copies of two communications, showing that the specimens of ore so sent were submitted to the Junta Facultativa, and that an assay founded on a mean of the different specimens, gave a "ley" of twenty-five and a half per cent.
.4. Copy of a letter or report from the President of the Junta to the Minister'of Justice, under date of the 5th of May, 1846, communicating the fact of the reception of the specimens of ore and of the successful result of the assay.
5. Copy of the reply of the Minister of Justice, dated four days afterwards, in which he states that the President ad interim of the Republic' learns with satisfaction that the claimant has discovered a deposit of quicksilver of excellent quality.
6. Claimant also introduced a copy of a communication signed by him under date of the 12th of May, 1846, addressed to the Junta for the encouragement and administration of mining, as fully set forth in the transcript.
Referring to his discovery as a mine of quicksilver in the Mission of Santa Clara, he states that he has denounced and taken possession, not only of said mine named Santa Clara, but also of an extent of three thousand varas in all directions; that he has formed a company to work it, constructed the pit, and complied with all the conditions prescribed by the ordinance. Intimation is there given that he could easily have secured aid from foreign houses, but that he preferred that the establishment should be entirely national, and for that reason had not hesitated to apply to the Junta for such assistance as he at present needed. His representation was that he only wanted a small advance of $5,000, on account of the scarcity of' coin in that Department, and an immediate remittance to the mine of retorts, cylinders, and other small distilling apparatus, and also iron flasks for bottling up the quicksilver.'. He suggested that he would have proposed a contract of partnership to the Junta as an avio, or some other agreement, if there had been time to fur.nish the proofs and details which would -be -required for such an arrangement, but being obliged to leave the capital within a few days, he found it necessary to restrict himself to " that whieh appears to present no difficulty and which may open a way to a future agreement." What he desired of the Junta was not only that they should accede -to his requests as far as they had the power, but that they should send such as they could not grant to the Supreme Government, recommending their adoption, and with that view he submitted nine propositions, which were as follows:
"First. The Junta, in the act of approving the agreement, will give- me a draft for $5,000 on some mercantile house in Mazatlan.
"Second. On my part, I bind myself to, place in said port, within six months after-leaving it, fifty quintals of quicksilver, at the rate of $100 each, which I will send from the first taken out, with absolute preference over every other engagement..
. " Third. The Junta will order that there be placed at my dis position before leaving tbe capital, tbe eight iron retorts which it has in its office, and all the quicksilver flasks which can be found in the negociación of Tasco, which are fit for use; and, lastly, it will deliver tó Señor Don Tomas Ramon del Moral, my attorney, the sums to pay for the retorts, cylinders, and other kinds of small apparatus, which may be ordered to be made for the negociación, to the amount of $1000.
"Fourth. I will receive the retorts of the Junta at cost price, and the flasks which I may select at $2 a piece, agreeably with their valuation.
"Fifth. The ascertained value of said retorts and flasks, and that of the sums which may be delivered to Señor Moral, I will return in the term of one year from this agreement, -and also the premium on the draft on Mazatlan, in quicksilver, placed in said port at the price, of $100 the quintal; but if the Junta should wish to take one or more 'acciones' in the mine, it shall be left as a part payment of the sum corresponding to one or more 'barras.'
" Sixth. While the company is being formed, during the period of one year, counted from the date on which this agreement shall be approved, and the $5,000 spoken of in the first proposition being paid, I will give the preference to the Junta in the sale of quicksilver placed in Mazatlan, at the rate of $100 the quintal.
" Seventh. The Junta shall represent to the Supreme Go vernment the necessity of approving the possession which has been given me of the mine by the local authorities of .California, in the same terms as those in which I now hold it.
"Eighth. It shall also represent the advantage of there being granted to me, as a colonist, two square leagues upon the land of my mining possession, with the object of being able to use the wood for my business.
"Ninth. For the compliance of this contract I pledge the nine itself and all its appurtenances."
7. On the 14th of the same month the President of the Junta communicated the letter of the claimant, or petition as he calls it, to the Minister of Justice, and in that communication the mine is described as the quicksilver mine in the Mission of Santa Clara in the Department of California. Claimant also introduced a copy of that, communication. Among other things, the writer states that the Junta " has no hesitation in recommending the petition" to the favorable consideration of the Government; that they, the Junta, are of the opinion that the sum of $5,000 should be advanced to the applicant on the terms proposed, and that they should be authorized to furnish him with such iron retorts and flasks as they had on hand, and to advance him the other $1,000 asked, which, as they stated, could be employed in the construction of retorts, cylinders, and other small apparatus for the use of the mine.
They also refer to the reasons assigned by the claimant for deferring the formation of a contract of partnership, or avio, and state, in effect, that they, the Junta, regard it as satisfactory. Reference is also made to that part of the claimant's petition in which he represents that he has denounced and taken possession not only of the mine, but also of an extent of three thousand varas in all directions, and their views upon that subject were, that the possession given by the local authorities was " not íd conformity with the ordinance," because it embraced an extent greater than the ordinance allowed, but, notwithstanding that fact, they presented various arguments for the consideration of the Department to show, that, under the circumstances of the cases, it might be sustained. In respect to the two square leagues of land solicited by the claimant as a colonist, the Junta declined to express any opinion for or against the application for the reason, as stated, that they had' no information upon the subject, and therefore left that matter to be decided by the President as he might think proper.
• 8. Both the petition of the claimant and the recommendation of the Junta were, by the Minister of Justice, laid before the President, and the former on the 20th of May, 1846, sent a dispatch to the' Junta, informing them that the President had been pleased to approve, in all its parts, the agreement made with the claimant, " in order to commence the working of said mine," and that the corresponding communication was made to the Minister of Relations to issue the proper orders respecting that which was contained in the eighth proposition for the grant of lands in that Department. Under the same date a-decree, so called, was entered by the Minister of Justice in the margin of the communication received by him from the Junta, in the following terms: " Granted in the terms which are proposed, and with respect to the land ; let the corresponding order issue to the Minister of Relations for the proper measures of his office, with. the understanding that the Government' accedes to the petition." Copies of the dispatch of the Minister of Justice and of the last named document were also introduced by the claimant.
9. On the same day, the Minister of Justice sent a dispatch to the Minister of Relations, informing him of what had been done;' in which it is also stated, that the President had acceded to the petition of the claimant, and that the dispatch was transmitted to the end that there might be granted to the claimant, as a colonist, two square .leagues upon the land of his mining possession. Copy of that dispatch was also introduced by the claimant:
10. Finally, the claimant introduced, a copy of a dispatch from. the Minister of Relations to the Governor of California, dated on the 23d day of May, 1846, in which the former, after-transcribing the dispatch to him from the Minister of Justice, and incorporating a copy of the same into his own dispatch, as an explanation of the • transaction, adds as follows: "And I. transcribe it to your Excellency, that in conformity with the provisions of the laws and decrees relative to colonization, you may give Señor Castillero possession of the two square leagues above mentioned."
Remark should be made, that in alb of the documents introduced as copies of originals on file in the Department of the Supreme Government, the mine is described as one discovered by the claimant in the. Mission of Santa Clara; and in no one of them is any allusion made to the fact that it was situated on the rancho of José Reyes Berreyesa, as represented in the first petition of the claimant, and repeated in the act of juridical possession alleged to have been executed by the Alcalde.
11. Parol testimony was also introduced by the claimant in support of his claim, both to the mine and to the two square lea gues of land, to which some brief reference will be made. He proved by Charles S. Lyman, that he, the witness, made a survey of the land around the mine in the month of February, 1848, at the request of James Alexander Forbes, of California, and Alexander Forbes, of Tepic, in Mexico, who was at the mine at the time of the survey. His orders were to lay out two square leagues; and he states that he was shown a grant, or a copy of a grant, for that quantity from the Mexican (Government. They requested him to locate the grant so as to' 'cover certain mining rights called " pertenencia," extending three thousand varas in every direction from the mouth of the mine; and he states that it was so surveyed as to have the mouth of the mine as nearly in the centre as could be without covering land of the neighboring ranchos claimed by individual owners. Field notes of that survey were exhibited, and Fernando Alden, who was also examined by the claimant, testifies that he assisted in making a part of it, and he confirms the testimony of the first witness as to the location of the alleged grant. By his testimony it also appears that he heard of the grant in 1846, when he was in Mexico, and that he was employed by Alexander Forbes, the agent and partner of the claimant, to go to California for the purpose of working the mine, erecting buildings, and occupying the land so granted; and he testifies that he first went to live on the land about the 1st of April, 1847, and continued to reside there until about a year before he gave his testimony, acting as the agent and overseer of the company holding under the claimant. Witnesses were also examined by the claimant to prove that the copy of the act of possession executed by the Alcalde, and the other papers included in that espediente, were true copies of the originals, and that the originals were genuine documents. To prove these facts, he called and examined Frank Lewis, Deputy Recorder for the County of Santa Clara, who, upon being shown a certain paper entitled " Posesión de la mina de St" Clara de Año 1845," stated that he obtained it from the office .f the Recorder of that county. Having made that state ment, the witness was then requested to compare the. copies filed in the case with the corresponding parts of that paper; and after naving done so, he testified that they were true and exact copies. Two witnesses,-Antonio Suñol and José'Noriega, who, it will be remembered, were the assisting witnesses to the act of possession executed by the Alcalde, were also called and examined by the claimant in respect to the authenticity of the supposed original document. They were accordingly requested to examine the same, and having complied with that request, respectively testified that all the signatures, including their own, were genuine. Claimant also called and examined José Maria La Fragua in respect to the class of documents introduced as copies of originals on file in the archives of the Supreme Government, and his testimony was to the effect • that he had compared all those documents with the originals in the City of Mexico, and found them to be correct.
Commissioners, or a majority of them, adjudged that the claim to the mine was valid, and confirmed the mining right or privilege of the claimant, as pertenencia, to the extent of three thousand varas in all directions from the mouth of the mine; but they unanimously adjudged the claim to the two square leagues of land to be invalid, and rejected that part of the claim.
Appeal was taken both by the claimant and by the United States to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.
Much additional documentary evidence was introduced in the District Court, and'more than one hundred additional witnesses were examined in respect to the matters involved, or supposed to be involved, in the controversy. Parties were' fully heard, and on the 18th day of January, 1861, the.District Court entered a decree confirming the claim to the mine, but' diminishing the mining right, or privilege, as compared with the decree of the Commissioners, and adjudging the claim to the two square leagues of land to be invalid and rejecting the same, By the terms of the decree, the mining right, or privilege, of the,claimant is described and defined ns '"a piece of land embracing a superficial area, measured on a horizontal plane, equivalent to seven pertenencias," regarding each pertenencia as a solid of a rectangular base two hundred varas long, of the width established by the ordinance, and in depth extending from and, including the surface, to. the centre of the earth.
Whereupon both parties appealed to this Court. No. 123 is the appeal of the claimant, and No. 133 is a cross-appeal of the United States.
Power to decide upon the validity of any .claim presented to land in California, by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican Government, as matter of original jurisdiction, is, by the Act of the 3d of March, 1851, exclusively con-' ferred upon the Commissioners appointed under the first section of that Act. Appellate jurisdiction, however,- is conferred upon the respective District Courts of the United States for the Northern and Southern Districts' of California, and finally upon this Court. In deciding upon any such claim, the rule of decision is, as prescribed by the eleventh section of the Act, that the Court' or tribunal making the decision shall be governed by the treaty under which the lands were acquired, the law of nations, the laws, usages, and customs of the government ceding the same, the principles of equity, and the decisions of this Court, so far as they are applicable.
III. Enough has already been remarked, in view of those provisions, to show that there are three principal questions involved in the record of very considerable importance.
First. Whether the claim of the petitioner to the two square leagues of land, under the rules of decision already mentioned, is shown by. the documentary and other evidence to be a valid one within the meaning bf the eighth section of the Act providing for the adjudication.
Secondly. Whether the Commissioners had jurisdiction to decide upon the validity of the claim to the mine and mining right, or privilege, as described in. the petition; or in other words whether the claim to the mine, together with the pertenencias to the same, as recognized -in- the Mining Ordinance, is a claim to land within the meaning of the provisions of the 8th section of that Act.
Thirdly. Whether the claim to the mine, including the mining right, .or privilege, as set forth in the petition, is shown by the documentary and other evidence to be a valid one under the rules of decision already described.
Title to the two square leagues of land, it is insisted, became vested in the' claimant by virtue of the documents on file in the Department of the Supreme Government, as evidenced by the copies filed in the case at the time the petition was presented to the Commissioners. They consist, it will be remembered, so far as that part of the claim is concerned, of the communications from the claimant to the Junta de Fomento, their report or recommendation to the Minister of Justice, his reply to the same, together with the decree made by him in the margin of their communication, and his dispatch to the Minister of Relations, and the dispatch of the Minister of Relations of the 23d of May, 1846, to the Governor of the Department where the land was situated. Forty witnesses or more, mostly from the City of Mexico, were examined by the claimant to prove the authenticity of those documents, or of the corresponding originals, on file in the archives of the Supreme Government, and various other proofs, in the form of exhibits, were also introduced for the same purpose, filling a large space in the transcript,which contains more than three thousand five hundred pages of closely printed matter.
Such testimony and proofs were regarded as essential, because it was and is insisted by the United States that the documents were fabricated, but in the view we have taken of the case it will not be necessary to decide or consider that question, and consequently neither the testimony pf the witnésses or the exhibits on that point will be, reproduced... According to the evidence introduced by, the claimant, .^M^iano Parades y Arrillaga, assumed the functions of President adñi$pr,im of fthe Republic on the 15th day of December, 1845, and-the same prpofs show that he continued in authority as. such, until the 29th day of July of the following year, when he surrendered his power, and for a time took command of the army.
Counsel for. claimants assume that during that period the President was in the exercise of extraordinary powers, aid it must be conceded that the evidence is full to that effect, although it may well be doubted whether such of his official acts as were in violation of law have ever been ratified by the Mexican Government. Assuming that the President was in the exercise of extraordinary powers on the 23d day of May, 1846, the claimant insists that the dispatch of that date from the Minister of Relations to the Governor of the Department of California, especially when it is considered in connection with the marginal decree and dispatch of the Minister of Justice .of the 20th of the same month, is of itself an absolute ' grant of the two square leagues of land described in his petition.
Conceding the power of the acting President of the Republic to make such a grant of the public domain, the question then is one of construction, and in that view of the case it becomes necessary to examine with care so much of the several documents as relate to the claim for the two square' leagues of land. Petitioner's representation to the Junta de Fomento was that he desired' such a grant in order that he might be able to procure sufficient fire-wood for his mining works, and the effect of his request, as stated in his eighth proposition, was that they, the Junta, should recommend to the Supreme Government that there be granted to him, " as a colonist," two square leagues upon the land of his mining possession. When he- made that request for a- grant as a colonist he evidently referred to the colonization laws as containing the authority to comply with his request and make the grant. Those laws had then been in operation for more than twenty years, and consequently he must have expected, even if the Government acceded to his petition, that the grant wolild be' issued in conformity to those laws, and of course must be executed by the Governor, subject to the approval of the Departmental Assembly.
Such also was the view taken of the matter by the Junta in their communication to the Minister of Justice, • as plainly appears from the language employed by them in describing his eighth proposition. They refer to it as a petition in which the' claimant solicits as a colonist two square leagues of land "upon tbe surface of his mining property for the purpose of supplying himself with the fire-wood necessary for the reduction of the ores," evidently showing that they regarded it as an application under the colonization laws. Nothing is expressed in the decree or memorandum made by-the Minister of Justice in the margin of the communication from the Junta which, if .rightfully understood, affords any countenance whatever to the views of' the claimant. Reliance is placed upon the introductory words, to wit •: " Granted on the terms proposed," but it is so obvious from what follows' in the same connection, that those words refer to the terms proposed as an arrangement for exploring and operating the mine, that it is difficult to see how any one can be misled in regard to their import. Justification for that -remark will be found in the directions immediately given " with- respect to the land," which are that the corresponding order be issued to the Minister of Relations for the proper measures of his office, with the understanding that the' Supreme Government accedes to the petition. Strong doubts are entertained whether the order, "with- respect to the land," was intended as anything more than the usual office direction to the corresponding clerk in the Department to prepare and put in form a dispatch upon the subject which should express the views embraced in the marginal directions.
Support to that view is certainly derived from the fact that a dispatch was prepared and sent on the same day, which, in its concluding sentence, contains substantially the same language, in the.form of a request that the "orders corresponding" may be issued. Other matters, however, are stated in the dispatch which ought not to be overlooked. After stating the fact that he had laid the communication of the Junta before-the President, he proceeds to say that " His Excellency had been pleased to approve, in all respects, .the agreement made with the claimant m order to commence the working of said mine,"'adding that he communicates the information that there may be granted to the claimant, as a colonist, the two square leagues of land, and requesting the Minister of Relations "to issue orders corresponding." Additional orders, therefore, were assumed to be necessary, and the concluding sentence of tlie dispatch to the Minister of Relations. written on the same day, and already referred to, shows what kind of orders were contemplated at the time the marginal . decree was made. Prepared as those documents were on the same day, they must be considered together, and when, so considered, it is clear and beyond doubt, that the marginal decree with respect to the land was not drafted or intended as a grant or any evidence of a grant; for if it had been, the officer who drafted it never would have asked for any order upon the subject from a co-ordinate Department of the Government.
Request was made by the claimant, in the first place, that_ a grant might be made to him as a colonist, and it conclusively appears, we think, from an examination of those dispatches, that the Mexican officials who wrote them never for a moment con templated that the claimant was to- have a grant of land in any other mode than by the usual proceedings under the colonization laws. Abundant confirmation of that proposition, if any be needed, is to be found in the dispatch from the Minister of Relations to the Governor of the Department, which is the document that the claimant professes to regard as an absolute grant of the land described in his petition.' Mexican officials, in their correspondence upon official matters of domestic concern, usually transcribe and incorporate into their own dispatches such communications as they have previously received upon the same subject from other official sources. Such was the course pursued by the Minister of Relations in his dispatch to the Governor of the Department. He accordingly- transcribed into his dispatch a copy of the one sent to him from the Minister of Justice, in which is also contained a copy of the before mentioned communication to the Junta, and referring to the entire dispatch, he state's in effect, that he transcribed it to the Governor in order that he, the Governor, in conformity with what is prescribed by the laws and dispositions upon colonization, may . put the claimant in possession of the two square leagues of land • which are mentioned in the communication. Conformity to the laws an i regulations upon the subject of colonization grants is plainly , contemplated and required by the directions of that dispatch, and consequently it is clear that the Governor could not put the claimant into the possession of the described tract in. any other mode than by the usual proceedings under those laws.
Claimant calls this a grant, and it is his privilege to do so if he sees fit; but it is 'min for him to expect that this Court can give its sanction to any such manifest error. Vacant lands in California belonged to .the Supreme Government, and the laws for the disposition of the same emanated from that source. U. S. vs. Knight, (1 Black, 242.)
General rules and regulations upon the subject were accordingly ordained, authorizing the Governors of Territories, under certain specific conditions, to grant such lands to such of the persons therein described as might ask for the same for the' purpose of settlement and cultivation. Persons soliciting such lands were required by those rules and regulations to address a petition to the Governor, setting forth their names, country,' profession and religion, and also to describe the land asked for as distinctly as possible, by means of a diseño or map annexed to the "petition. He was not required to prove his representations, but it was made the duty of the Governor to obtain the necessary information to enable him to determine whether the case fell within the conditions specified in the regulations, both as regarded the applicant and the land. None of these conditions, of course, were ever complied with, because the proofs show, and it is conceded, that the dispatch was never transmitted- to the Governor, and that the claimant never returned' to- that Department. Application for a grant was never made under that dispatch, and so far as appears, the Governor of the Department was never informed that it had been issued. Unless the lands were vacant, such an application would have been fruitless, as the Governor had no power to, grant any other than vacant lands. Suppose it to be true that the mine is on the rancho of José Reyes Berreye'sa, or that of Justos Darios, then the power of the Governor to make .he grant was entirely wanting ; and it would not benefit the claimant if it were now shown that the mine was and is on public land; because, if his representations are to be credited, he, and all those associated with him, fully believed that it was not a part of tl e public domain. . Contrary to this view, it is insisted by tbe claimant that inasmuch as the President, by whose direction the dispatch was issued and delivered to the party, was in the exercise of all the powers of- Government, the non-delivery of the dispatch to the Governor of the Department is wholly immaterial, that the dispatch itself was -a decree of concession, and the placing it in the hands of the grantee was a sufficient delivery to vest an equitable title at least in the claimant.
Power in the President to make such a grant is not denied by the United-States; but the question is, whether he exercised or • attempted to exercise any such power, which under the circumstances must depend upon the construction to be given to the dispatch of the Minister of Relations addressed to the Governor of the Department. Explanations already given show to a demonstration, we think, that such is -not the true construction of the dispatch, and consequently the proposition of the claimant cannot be sustained, and in rejecting the proposition as untenable, we place our conclusion upon the ground that the proposition assumes an erroneous construction of the dispatch under consideration, and is based entirely on that assumption.
Attempt is made to support the proposition by some of the remarks of this Court in the case of U. S. v. Castillero, (23 How., 468,) but it is evident that the construction given to the opinion of the Court in that case is quite as erroneous as that given to the dispatch of the Minister of Relations.' Title to the island of Santa Cruz, near the coast of that Department, was claimed in that case by virtue of a regular grant from the Governor. Such grant it is true had been issued by the Governor, under a special-dispatch from the Minister of the Interior, but the statement is nevertheless correct that the claimant held the island under a formal grant which was in the list of grants included in the Jimeno index. Lands of the islands prior-to the 20th day of July, 1838, had never, been granted by the Governor of that Department, and the better opinion is that the colonization laws did not confer tjie power to make such grants. Authority upon that subject was on that day conferred ;upon the Governor in connection with the Departmental Assembly by a general order, as is more fully explained in that opinion. Direction was given to the Governor on the same day by a special dispatch that one of the islands, such as the claimant in that case might select, should be assigned to him before they proceeded under the general order. He accordingly selected the island mentioned, and the Governor issued title papers to the donee. Objection was made here' to the confirmation upon the ground that the grant had never been approved by the Departmental Assembly, but the Court overruled the objection. Absolute directions Were given in that case in respect to lands not authorized to be granted under the colonization laws, and the power so conferred had been exercised and the doings of the Governor in making the grant acquiesced in for a period of eight years before the jurisdiction of the territory was acquired by the United States. Compare that statement, which is -undeniable, with the facts of this case and it is obvious that the supposed analogy utterly fails.
By the terms of the dispatch under consideration the proceedings in this case were directed to be "in conformity with what is prescribed by the laws and dispositions upon colonization," and of course the discretion of the Governor and that of the Departmental Assembly were to be exercised in the performance of their respective duties underthe obligations imposed' by law. Something also remained to be done by the claimant in order to call forth the exercise of that, discretion. He must prepare and present his petition describing the land, and he must also prepare and present, if required, a diseño or map of the land in order that the Governor might have the means of ascertaining whether the tract solicited was vacant and so situated that it might properly be granted to the applicant. No such petition was ever presented, and no action of any kind ever took place upon the subject. But we forbear to pursue the comparison, as it must be obvious, we think, to every unprejudiced mind, that the two cases are in no substantial respect alike. Eor these reasons we are of the opinion that the claim to the two square leagues of land, cannot be sustained.
IV. Before entering upon the examination of the questions involving the validity of the title of the claimant to the mine and mining right or privilege claimed by him, it becomes necessary to consider and decide the question whether the Commissioners under the Act of the 3rd of March, 1851, had jurisdiction over such a claim. Counsel for the claimant maintain the affirmative of that question,'but the jurisdiction of the Commissioners is dénied by the counsel of the United States upon several grounds:
1. They' insist, in the first place, that the ownership of a mine under the Mexican law was not the ownership of the land in which the mine was situated; that it was simply the ownership of the right to take from the soil the minerals therein to be found, and was recognized as a right, severed from all public and private land which was vested in the sovereign and which did not pass by a grant of the land, and was capable of being acquired only by a title from the sovereign power, wholly distinct from the title to the land.
2. Several of those propositions, if properly restricted and rightly applied, may well be admitted, because when so restricted ' and applied they are ^undoubtedly correct. Mip.es under the Mexican law may be -the subject of rightful ownership, distinct from the land as such for agricultural or other ordinary uses. Ownership of a mine, however, as secured under the mining ordinance by registry and juridical possession, does not consist alone in the right- to take from the soil the minerals therein to be found, but it also embraces, if necessary to the working of .the mine, a. right to the exclusive possession and use of the surface of the land for an indefinite period within the boundaries of the pertenencias appertaining'to the mining right or privilege. Such rights are by law regarded as severed from private land and also from public land when granted by the usual forms of conveyance fpr agricultural or other ordinary purposes. Gamboa by Heathfield, p. 132, sec. 5. EÍights to a mine not registered can only be acquired from the sovereign power, and it is true, as corttended by the United States, that the forms of such a con- ' veyance are .wholly distinct from those employed in the ordinary process of granting lands. ' Another branch of the same proposition, not yet reproduced, may also .be admitted in the same qualified sense. Mining rights under Mexican laws undoubtedly are usually held upon conditions not affecting the title to the land as derived under the ordinary conveyances, and it is also true that such rights may be acquired and held by others besides the owner of the land under the ordinary grants, and that such rights are terminable when by their use the minerals contained in the soil are wholly removed. Granting all this, still the question arises whether a mine, together with the mining right or privilege appertaining to the same, is not land within the meaning of the Act of Congress under which the Commissioners were appointed. Persons claiming lands in California by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican Governments are required to present the same to the Commissioners for adjudication, and of course the Commissioners have jurisdiction to decide upon the validity of all such claims. 9 Stat. at Large, 632.
S. Questions concerning miñes and mining rights in Mexico depend in a great measure upon the provisions of the Ordinance of the 22d of May, 1783, which, although ordained long before her independence, by the sovereign of the parent country, is still in force and constitutes the principal code of the Republic upon that subject. Omitting unimportant words,'article 1, of the 5th title, reads as follows: Mines are the property .of my royal crown as well by their nature arid origin as by their reunion declared bylaw. Article'2 contains the following provision : Without separating them from-the' royal patrimony I grant them to my subjects in property arid -'possession.' in such manner that they may sell them, rent them, pass them by will, either in the way of inheritance or legacy, or iri any other mannei alienate the right which in the mines belongs to them, on the same terms in which they themselves possess it, and to persons capable of acquiring it. Rockw. on Mines, p. 49 ; Halleck Coll. 222.
Discoverers of a new mine in which no pit or shaft had beer opened might acquire three pertenencias, and if worked* in com pany a certain additional number not exceeding seven in all. Writers" do not exactly agree as to wbat is a pertenencia, but the better opinion is that it is a square of two hundred varas, or five hundred and fifty feet. Prima facie, the owner of freehold lands, says Bainbridge, is entitled to all the minerals on and underneath the surface with the exception of royal mines, but he admits that the rule just stated is only a presumption of law, and that a mine may form a distinct possession and inheritance by the production of a title distinct from that to the surface. Bainb., p. 4. He also admits that when mines form a distinct inheritance and are not attached to the ownership of the lands in which they are situate, or form a part of a demesne of a manor, a title to them may be acquired or lost in the same manner as to a common estate of freehold. Bainb., p. 31. Property in minerals unsevered from the land, says Collyer, whether held together with or separately from the property in the. land, is what the law terms a corporeal hereditament, as distinguished from the mere right to work for them, which is an incorporeal hereditament; and he also says that an estate in minerals is considered an estate in land, and is transferable only under the same restrictions, whether conveyed with or without a conveyance of the adjacent soil. P. 1.
4. Courts of justice also have had occasion to assert the same general principles. Plaintiff-, in ejectment was allowed, in Turner vs. Reynolds, (23 Penn. R., p. 199,) to recover a coal mine which be had described in.his writ as land, although his title was under a conveyance to him, not of the tract of land, but of the coal which was unsevered. Coal and minerals in place are land, say the Court in Caldwell vs. Fulton, (31 Penn. R., 483,) adding in the same connection that it is no longer to be doubted that the/ are subject to conveyance as such. Minerals beneath the surface of the land, it' is held in the same case, may be conveyed by deed, distinct from the right to the surface, and in enforcing that view the Court remark that nothing is more common in that State than that the surface right should be in one and the mineral in another, and we have, no doubt that the rule there laid down is correct. Comyn vs. Wheatley, (Cro. Jac., 150.)
Regarding the claim to be fully proved as set forth, in the / petition, which is the proper view to take of the case in determining the question under consideration, we are of the opinion that the objection to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners cannot be sustained, and it is accordingly overruled. Rockw., chap. 11, p. 519-529; 530-532.
Y. Having come to that conclusion, it becomes, the duty of this Court to examine the third question presented for decision, which, is, whether the claim to the mine, including -the mining right or privilege as set forth, in the petition, is shown by the evidence to be a valid one within the rules of decision already described.
1. Property in mines not discovered, and registered according to law, whether the mine was on public or private lands, was vested, as has already appeared, exclusively in the Supreme Government, so that private persons could not acquire it or any interest in'it in any other mode than that prescribed in the provisions of the mining ordinance. Reference therefore must be made to those provisions to ascertain what they are and what the discoverer is required to do in order to acquire such a property. Persons discovering one or more mineral hills absolutely new, in which there is no mine or trial pit open, may, under article 1, title 6, of the ordinance,, acquire, in- the principal vein which they may select, three pertenencias, continuous or interrupted, according to certain prescribed measurements, and if they have discovered more than one vein they may have one pertenencia for each, to be determined and marked out within the term of ten days.. Halleck Coll., p. 223, title 6, art. 1.
Discoverer of a new vein in a hill known and worked in other parts may have in it two pertenencias, provided he specifies them witbin ten days, as mentioned in the preceding article; p. 223, art. 2. Article 3 provides that he who asks for a new mine in a vein known and worked in other places shall not bé a diseoveier. Such persons as are described in the preceding articles who desire to secure the benefit of those provisions are required by article 4 of the same title to present themselves with a wi itten statement before the Mining Deputation of that Territory or the nearest one, should there be none there, stating in it their names and those of their partners, if they have any, the place of their birth, their residence, profession and employment, and the most particular and distinguishing feature of .the place, hill or vein, of which they ask adjudication; all of which circumstances and the hour in which the discoverer presents himself shall be noted in a book of registry, which the Mining Deputation and Notary, if there be one, shall keep, and this being done, his written statement shall be; returned to him. attested for his due security. Notices are then to be affixed to the doors of the church, the Government houses; and other public places of the town for due information, and the command is that the discoverer within ninety, days shall make or cause to be made, in the vein or veins of his registry a pit or well (pozo) of one and a half varas in diameter at its mouth and ten varas deep, and that as soon as this shall be done, ofie of the deputies shall personally go, accompanied1 by the Notary, if there be one, and if' there be none, by two assisting .witnesses, and by the professional mining expert of that Department, to inspect the course and direction of the vein, its width, its dip or inclination to the horizon, called lay or slope, its hardness or softness, the" gfeater or lesser solidity of its sides, and the kind or principal indications of the mineral, taking .an exact account of all this in order that it may be added to the corresponding part of his registry, with the evidence of possession, which shall immediately be given to him in the name of the sovereign measuring to the party his pertenencias, and causing him, as required in the subsequent directions of the ordinance, to fix stakes in his boundaries. Following these regulations, an,d as the conclusion of the article in which they are' contained, it is ordained to the effect that when all this .is done " there will be delivered to him an attested copy of the proceedings as a corresponding title." '
Contestants appearing during the ninety days may prefer a counter claim, and in that event it becomes the duty of the tribunal to adj idge the right- to him who shall make the better proof but no one shall have any right to be heard unless ha' Bhall appear within that time. Halleck Coll., p. 224, arts. 4 and 5.
Strict compliance with the law is required, as- appears by all the writers upon the subject, and the 13th article, of title 19, provides in effect that the regulations shall be executed with' the greatest exactness, precisely as they are written and i&tended. Halleck Coll., p. 307; Rockw., p. 110; Thompson on Mines, 183.
Properly speaking, says Gamboa, the register is the book in which deeds and grants are entered for perpetual remembrance thereof, so that if they be lost, torn or defaced, or if any question be raised as to their identity or authenticity, recourse may be had to such book. Registry, says the same author, is the basis of a title to a mine, ahd the attributive cause of the subject's right, of property in it; the Crown having subjected the proprietor to this obligation when he made the mines common, so, that "no mine can be lawfully worked until registry is made, without which it is liable to be registered by any other person; the form of .the ordinance not having been complied with." Although that commentary was written before the date of the ordinance' which must furnish the guide in this case, still the views of the writer have an important bearing upon the questions .presented, as showing the universality of the rule, that not even the discoverer can acquire any'title to a mine without registry. Gamboa, pp. 143, 145.
' 2. Petition in this case was presented to the Commissioners on the 30th day of September, 1852, and on the 8th day of January, 1856, their decree was made, confirming the claim to the mine and to the entire mining right or privilege as therein set forth. When the petition was filed, the claimant, as required by law, also presented the documentary evidences of title on which he relied to show that the claim ought to be confirmed Throughout the whole period that the case was pending before the Commissioners, those documents appear to have remained on file as the foundation of the claim, and were finally urged upon the consideration of that tribunal as true copies of originals existing in the office of the magistrate before whom thev purported to have been executed. Pinal adjudication was made . by the Commissioners and the claim confirmed upon that ground, and so far as appears, without the- slightest suspicion that the ' copies filed in the case as documentary evidence under the Act of Congress were not true copies of originals on file as alleged, or that the originals did not import absolute verity. They of course regarded the documents as authentic, and considering how fully they are attested by official certificates, and that all of the signatures were' thoroughly proved by the positive testimony of two witnesses, it is difficult to see how they could have come to any different conclusion, especially as there was no opposing evidence in the case. Additional testimony, however, of a very important character was taken upon the subject in the District Court while the case was pending there, and it now becomes the duty of this Court to decide the question upon a very different state of facts. Other parties it seems, besides the petitioner, are interested in this claim, and in order that the evidence may be understood, and the testimony of the witnesses properly appreciated, it becomes necessary to advert to the cir- • cumstances under which some of these parties acquired their supposed title.
According to the testimony, the mine is within the county of Santa Clara, and is situated in a spur of the Sierra Azul or Blue Mountain, some sixteen or séventeen hundred feet above the level of the sea, and fifteen miles southwardly from the city of San José. Discovery of mineral there was first made by the Indians at a very early period, and they were accustomed to obtain the mineral and use it for paint. Civilized men also had knowledge, of the mineral and of the location of the mine more than twenty years before the discovery made by the claimant, but it no where appears that any one had discovered that the mineral • contained quicksilver. Two persons, Antonio Suñol and Louis Chaboya erected a mill on a stream in that neighborhood some time during the year 1824, and tried to get silver out of the mineral. People generally knew that there was a mine there, but they did not know what kind of a mineral it contained. By authority of the Government the claimant, in'the autumn of 1845, made a journey to the fort of John A. Suttei, to negotiate with the proprietor for its purchase. Proceeding from Monterey, he and his party, consisting of José Castro and four others, besides a guard of some twenty soldiers, travelled on the route leading through Santa Clara, and his testimony shows -that when near that place this mine was mentioned by his principal companion. While there, some of the specimens of the ore were shown to him, and one of the witnesses testified that he visited the mine. Some examination of the mineral was • made by him at that time, but he presently left and pursued his journey to Sutter's fort, where he arrived on the 11th day of November, 1845. Remaining there but a short time, he then returned to Santa Clara, where he pursued his investigations by certain rude experiments, and discovered that the mineral con •tained quicksilver. His first step, as alleged, was'to form a partnership for working the mine. Such an instrument bearing date the 2'd day of November, 1845, is one of the documents which was filed with the petition. Original interests in mines are usually acquired under a division of the mine into twenty-four parts, called barras or shares, and by reference to' the instrument of partnership it will be seen that it was framed upon that principle. Four shares were assigned to, José Castro, four shares to S. and T. Robles, four'shares to the Padre Real and twelve shares were retained by the claimant. They commenced working the mine in a small way, and the claimant remained there until some time in the month of March or April following, when he left for the City of Mexico and never returned to that Department. Affairs of the mine were left, at least for a time, in hands of the Padre Real.
On the 18th day of January, 1846, James Alexander Forbes, British Vice Consul for California, wrote to Eustace Barron, of, the firm of Barron,, Forbes & Co., at Tepic, that the claimant was working a quicksilver mine near the Mission of Santa Clara •Alexander Forbes of the same firm and British Vice Consul a Tepic, on the 15th day of April, 1846, wrote to J. A. Forbes requesting the former to furnish him as correct information-as possibl i respecting the quicksilver mine mentioned in his pre ceding letter. Possession of the mine' was, prior to the 22d day of September, 1846, delivered to James Alexander Forbes by the Padre Eeal, the agent of the claimant, as appears by the fact that on that day he wrote to Alexander Forbes, of Tepic, that he whs in charge of the mine and was about making a bargain for four shares. Two shares were purchased by James A. Forbes of S. & T. Eobles about the time he took possession of the mine. Arrangements were made with equal activity by Alexander Forbes to get control of the same property. On the 24th day of November of the same year he instructed his agent in the City of Mexico to purchase shares for .him of the claimant, and on the 28th day of the same month he concluded with the agent of José Castro a contract for a lease of avio of the mine for the term of sixteen years, which term is not yet expired. His agent purchased five shares for him in the City of Mexico, and other shares were also purchased by James A. Forbes. Shares were also purchased by Eobert Walkinshaw and other parties in the City of Mexico and elsewhere. Most or all of the deeds of conveyance, whether executed by the claimant, Castro, .the Messrs. Eobles, or the Padre Eeal, refer to the writing of partnership as the foundation of the title, and none of them make any reference whatever for any purpose to the supposed act of registry, or to the act of juridical possession supposed to have been executed by the Alcalde of San José Guadalupe.
3. Appeal was taken by the United States to the District . Court on the 15th of April, 1856, and from that time to the date of the ¿nal decree the case was pending in that Court.' Seasons for the appeal, as assigned by the United States, are that the claim is invalid, and that is the principal question that remains to be considered. Written notice was served upon the claimant by the District Attorney of the United States on the 18th day of August, 1856, to produce the original paper of which Exhibit A is a copy, to be used in the examination of witnesses. Exhibit A comprisés the documents filed with the petition as copies of originals on file in the proper .office of the Alcalde Claimant acc 'rdingly. produced the document which is the one denominated Exhibit E, No. 2, in the record. Eecurring to the document it will be seen tbat while it has all tbe certificates appended to it which are described in tbe copies filed witb the petition, still it shows to a demonstration tbat tbe copies were neither faithful' nor to tbe letter, as was well said by tbe District Judge when bis attention was first calledHo tbe subject. Certificate of James W. Weekes is one of tbe number of certificates appended to tbe document. . When produced it was shown to him while be was under examination as a witness, and upon being asked whether be bad ever seen tbe paper before, be answered tbat be bad, and tbat tbe signature tó tbe certificate was bis signature. At first be seemed to suppose tbat it was a copy of what remained in tbe archives at tbat time, but immediately stated that be himself recorded it in tbe book of registry, and tbat be received tbe document which be so recorded from James Alexander Forbes. He was appointed Alcalde in 1848, and be expressly states tbat tbe person before named brought tbe paper to him and requested'him to record it, and tbat he did so while be was Alcalde. Original document was presented 'to tbe witness, as be' states, by J. A. Forbes, and tbe copy was also made by him, showing tbat tbe witness not only made tbe record without any other knowledge of tbe paper than what he received from bis employer, but tbat be also signed the certificate certifying tbat it was " a faithful copy made to tbe letter from its original," without ever having compared it witb tbe paper presented, and when in point of fact it was not a true copy. Examination of James W. Weekes took place on tbe 18th of August, 1857, and on tbe 14th of December, in tbe same year, James Alexander Forbes was also examined by the United States upon the same subject. His testimony fully confirmed tbe statements of James W. Weekes tbat tbe copy was made on the 20th day of January, 1848, and that tbe certificate of. tbe Alcalde, as well as tbe body of tbe instrument, were in bis owe. bandwriting, showing tbat all tbe Alcalde bad to do in the matter was to affix bis signature to a paper already prepared. Witness last named thinks be prepared tbe copy at tbe mine; and be states positively tbat be obtained tbe paper which be used as tbe original from Alexander Forbes who was then at tbe mine. Pressed to explain where he got certain words appearing on tbe first page of tbe document, be frankly admitted tbat be did not know, andj finally stated tbat be copied tbe paper tbat was banded to bim by bis namesake and associate in that business. Attempts were made to impeach tbis witness, but his material statements are so fully confirmed tbat it is unnecessary to reproduce tbe evidence in tbat behalf. Unmistakable proof therefore is exhibited tbat tbe adjudication of tbe Commissioners was based upon documents which were . fabricated, and it follows as a necessary consequence tbat tbe claimant, when be filed bis petition, did not comply with tbe provision of law which required bim to present to tbe Commissioners tbe documentary evidences relied on by bim in support of bis claim. Those papers, strictly speaking, are denominated tbe registry, tbe act of juridical possession and tbe writing of partnership, but tbe counsel at tbe bar have treated tbe entire document as an espediente, and as tbat is a convenient designation, it will be adopted in tbis investigation.
4. Espediente No- 1, called by tbe Attorney-General tbe Weekes' espediente, must be rejected as invalid. Certain characteristics of tbe paper, however, should be noted in addition to those already- mentioned, in order tbat tbe other documents subsequently introduced may be compared with it as a test of their verity. Caption and indorsement as translated are " year 1845. Espediente of tbe denouncement, possession, and partnership of the quicksilver mine called Santa Clara, jurisdiction San José Gaudalupe, in upper California." Contents are: 1. Petition of claimant announcing the- discovery of a silver mine with. ley of gold. 2. Supplementary petition stating that besides silver and gold be bad taken out- liquid quicksilver. 3. Act of pos session signed by Antonio M:-Pico. 4. Receipt of same for fees amounting to $25. 5. Writing of partnership. ' Date of act of possession is Juzgado of San José Gaudalupe, December 30, 1845. Articles of partnership are for a mine of silver, gold and quicksilver, and are dated on tbe 2d-day of November, 1846, some twenty-five days before quicksilver was discovered.
Noting these characteristics as proper to be considered in connection with those previously mentioned, we dismiss the document as wholly unworthy of credit.
5. Second espediente, called the Fernandez espediente by the Attorney-General, is the one introduced by the claimant on the 6th day of November, 1857, when José Fernandez was examined a second time as a witness. His first examination was on the 28th day of March, 1855, while the case was pending before the Commissioners. No such espediente was exhibited then, and no inquiries were made of the witness upon the subject. Request was made of the witness on this last occasion to look at the- document shown him by 'the' 'claimant and say whether he ' •knéw in whose -handwriting it was, and whether the signatures' of Pedro Chabolla or Cbaboya appearing thereon were genuine. Answer of witness was, that the document was in the hand. writing of Salvió Pácheüo, añd that the respective signatures of Chabolla were genuine. Other docunients were then shown to 'the witness, and updn being asked whether the signatures were genuine, his answer was in the afiirmative. Those documents are as follows: 1. Petition of José'"Castro, dated the 27th day of June, 1846, áddréssed to'the Alcalde of first nomination of the Pueblo of San José de Gaudalupe, iñ which, among other things, he solicits three pertenencias for himself and associates in addition to those previously conceded,'and requests that the petition may be attached to the former espediente. Margin'of that paper contains an order signed Pacheco, and dated Pueblo of San José Gaudalupe, June 29th, 1846, as follows: Let this be included and arohived as the party requests. '2. Claimant's two petitions in respect to the registry of the- mine. 8. Alcalde's act of possession, which is dated Juzgado de San José Gaudalupe, December,-, 1845. Signatures to the act of possession are Antonio Ma. Pico with Antonio Suñol and José Noriega as assisting witnesses. Separate certificates of Pedro Cbaboya are appended to each of those papers. Three of the certificates are without date, but the one appended to the act of possession is. dated on the 13th day of August, 1846. Writing of partnership, so called, is wanting in the espediente, which came from /he hands- of the claimant. Although Pedro Chabolla was examined as a witness by the claimant, still no questions were asked him respecting this document. Testimony of Salvio Pacheco shows that the whole body of the instriiment is in his handwriting, but he' omits to state from what he copied it, and Pails to give any explanation upon that subject. He says he is acquainted with the signature of Pedro Chaboya, and that his signatures to his certificates are genuine, but he did not see him sign his name, and does not state how he became acquainted with his handwriting. Signer of. th^ certificate testifies that he could not write, that he could only "paint his name," and that it was with great difficulty that he, could rpad any kind of writing. Caption of the dopumput is No. 1, and it is endorsed "Diligencias en el Registro)" .which signify that it should be promptly registered. Receipt of -Antonio Ma. Pico, as shown on espediente No. 1, is wholly .granting in this document. Considering that th'^ signer of th^ certificates could not write or read writing, ana has not been.called as a ^witness to verify the document, it is'entitled to very little consideration. Circumstances, however will render it necessary to .recur to this paper again after referring to certain other, documents introduced by the claimant.
6. Espediente No. 8, called by the Attorney-General the Halleck espediente, ip endorsed as filed in the case, on the 30th day of Jscipary,, 1858, but it is certain that testimony respecting it w-a,s introduced at an earlier date. Deputy Recorder of Santa Clara); County was examined by the United States in respect to a similar paper on the 18th day of August, 1857, but insisting upon his right to retain the document, a traced copy of it was made, and on the twenty-ninth day of the same month, the copy was filed in the case by the United States. - On the 23d day of October following, another Deputy Recorder of that County was examined by the claimant in respect to the same or a similar document. Exhibiting a document, entitled "Posesión de la mina Sta. Clara, año de 1845," he stated that he obtained it from the office of the Recorder. Enquiry was made of him when he went into that office, and whether he did not, in 1852, see there the document-produced. His answers were that he had the entire charge of the office from the fall of 1852 to the summer of 1853, but that he had no recollection of seeing the document there during the first year. Explanations were then given by the witness, in which he stated that the first recollection he had of the document was a few days before the date of the filing on the back of the paper, which is as follows: "Filed February 25th, A. D 1853, at 12 o'clock. A. M. — J. M. Murphy, Recorder, by S. C. Houghton, Deputy," who is the witness; and he goes on to say that just previous to that time, James A. Forbes called at the office of the Recorder, and after describing the paper, desired to seethe record of it. Search was accordingly made by the witness, but he could find none such there, although he says that he and the applicant searched for it more than a day. What the party was looking for, says the witness, was the record of the paper, and not the paper itself, but they could find nothing of the kind, although the search was thorough and faithful.
Unsuccessful though they were at that time, still the desired . document, in the course of a few days, was found there without any further search; for the witness states that some days afteT that, he found the paper in the office, either in the top of his desk or one of its pigeon-holes, and he says that he was surprised that it should be there without his knowing it, but having found it, he kept it safely until the party who inquired for it came, and it was then filed at his request. Attention is called by the claimant to the fact that there was written in pencil on the back of the paper, as follo'ws, "Filed 3 o'clock, P. M., 18 January, 1851 — J. T. Richardson, Recorder, S. C. C.," but in view of the circumstances which surround the paper the fact referred to cannot have much weight. Pencil marks could be added to the filing quite as easily as the paper itself could be foisted into the pigeon-holes in the desk of the Recorder. Interrogatories were also propounded to H. W. Halleck in respect to that document, and the time when it was deposited in the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara. County:
Speaking of the document, the witness said he thought it to bf the one taken by the Mayor, " in my presence," from his office, and transferred to the office of the County Recorder in the winter of 1851, during the session of the Legislature, and he thought in the month of January of that year.
Recollection of fitness is • that .he first went to the office of the Recorder for a copy ofr the papers connected with the mine, but was told that the greater portion of the old Alcalde papers were in the office of' the Mayor. Learning that fact, he went to the latter office, where, on overhauling certain old papers in an old desk, he found this one among them. Witness, as he states, only remembers the papers he found there from the general subject-mattér of i1 í contents, as purporting to be an original paper, containing the denouncement and juridical possession of the mine. Document embracing a copy of espediente, number one, was shown to the witness, and he was asked whether it was not a copy of the one he found in the office of the Mayor; to which he answered, that he could not remember whether it contained the same papers as that, more of less. Obviously the recollections of the witness upon the subject are very imperfect and indistinct, and consequently his statements are so qualified and so far short of positive declarations that they can hardly be regarded.as evidence. Indistinct, however, as the recollections cf the witness are, still it is evident that he regards the paper as the original denouncement and juridical possession of the mine, because he says so in answer to the direct interrogatory put to him by the United States, but his opinion in that behalf cannot be' regarded as satisfactory proof of the fact, especially when considered in connection with his previous answers as to his means of knowledge and the state of his recollections.
7. Those interested in the mine could not have believed on the 13th day of December, 1850, that any such original document, or duly authenticated copy thereof, was in the State of California, as is evident from the affidavit of their counsel, signed and sworn to on that day. Suit had been commenced in the County Court, by the widow and heirs of José Reyes Berreyesa, against all of the persons in possession qf the mine, to recover possession of a certain tract of land, including that in which the minervas situ ated. Defendants were Isidoro de la Torre, of Mazatlan; Alexander Forbes, William Barron, and Eustacho Barron, of Tepic, John Parrot, of San Francisco; and James A. Forbes, and Robert Walkinshaw of the County of Santa Clara. Court granted a rule on the 13th of September, 1850, requiring defendants to produce " certain papers or copies thereof," to be used in the trial of that cause. Among those specified in the motion were certain papers of a pretended denouncement of the mine in 1845. Papers were not produced, and the affidavit of the counsel was filed to support a motion for a continuance. Affidavit stated to the effect that the original denouncement of the mine of New Almadén, and the act of juridical possession given of the same in the year 1845, were held by parties in Mexico, which had not then been received, although the defendants had exercised all due diligence to procure and produce them.
Referring to the contents of this espediente, it will be seen that it contains: 1. Petition of José Castro, already described. 2. Petitions of claimant. 3. Alcalde's act of possession.
None of the certificates exhibited in the other espedientes are to be found in this document. Testimony was adduced to show that the several .papers were genuine, and the witnesses most relied on for that purpose were José Castro, Antonio Ma. Pico, together with Antonio Suñol and José Noriega, the two assisting witnesses to the act of possession. Full proof was exhibited that ño one of the papers was written by the person or persons who signed it, and it was satisfactorily shown that each paper was in a handwriting different from all the rest. . Satisfactory proof also was exhibited that the petition of José Castro was in the handwriting-of Benito Diaz, and he testified that he wrote it ire or six months after our conquest of that Department. Writing of partnership, and the receipt of Pico for his fees are both wanting in this document. Caption of the document is: " Posesión de la Mina de Sta. Clara, año de 1845," and the act of possession is dated Juzgado de San José Guadalupe, December —, 1845.
8. Two inveñtories, purporting to contain a list of documents in the Juzgado of San José, were also introduced. Included in the schedule of the first one, which is dated on the 2,d day of ' Tanuary, 1846 ;s the following: posesión de la Mina de Sta, Clara, a D. Andres Castillero; but tbe second, which is dated on the 10th day of November of the same year, shows ncf. trace of any such paper. Testimony of H. C.'Mel one should also be noticed in this connection, as he was the first clerk of the Alcalde's Court, under our military occupation. His statement is, that he never saw the document or heard it spoken of, although he had occasion to examine the papers there, one by one, in order to select such as should go to the office of the Recorder from such as he was required to keep as county clerk.
'9. Fourth espediente is the one called the Walkinshaw espediente by the Attorney-General, and is the last of the series introduced by the claimant, as the documentary evidences of his title, to the mine and mining right, or privilege described in his petition. Contents of the espediente are as follows: 1. Petitions of the claimant, as in the first espediente. Appended to each is also a certificate of Pedro Chabolla, dated the 18th of January,' 1846, certifying that the petitions respectively were copies of original's, and each certificate purports to have been signed in the presence of P. Sansevan and Jose Suñol, as assisting witnesses. 3. Pico's receipt for twenty-five dollárs as fees. Introductory part of the receipt corresponds to that in the first espediente, but he also describes the mine as one "in lands pertaining to Don José Beyes Berreyesa." Castro's petition and the • writing of partnership are both wanting, and there is no certificate of Pedro Chabolla appended to the act of possession or any certificate of any kind. Another peculiarity of this document consists in its caption, and as that part of the paper is of con siderable importance in the investigation, it will be given without abbreviation. It is as follows:
"Tear 1845.
*Espediente of the Denouncement, Possession, and Partnership of the Quicksilver Mine called Santa Clara — Jurisdiction of San Josl Guadalupe, in Upper California.
"November 22, 1845. — Don Andres Castillero makes the denouncement of the aforesaid, in the Pueblo of San José Guadalupe, for want of Deputation of Mining and of Judge de letras.
"December .3, 1845. — Writing which the said'Castillero presented, testifying to have taken out quicksilver and other metals, asking that it be annexed to the espediente.
"December 30, 1845. — Act of possession, which, with the assisting witnesses, the Alcalde of the Pueblo of San Jose gave to Don Andres Castillero, of the mine of Santa Clara, because of the time of the notices being completed. <
" December 30, 1845. — Eeceipt for the fees of the possession, signed by the Judge of San José.
"December .8, 1845. — Writing of partnership for the works of the mine, authorized by the Prefect of the 2d District."
Partnership of the quicksilver mine is one of the matters enumerated in the title of the caption, and the writing of partnership is one of the documents circumstantially described in the last article of the same. Espediente produced, contains no such paper, and the inference is a very strong one that it has been spoliated by some one having an interest to suppress the missing paper. Description of the paper, as exhibited in the last article of the c'aption, gives the date as of the 8th day of December, 1845, which is a very material variation from the other copies ¿resented in this record. . Discovery that the mineral contained, quicksilver, notwithstanding what is stated in the articlés of partnership, was not made until late in November, 1845,.áftér the claimant returned from Sutter's Fort. - Articles of partnership, as exhibited in the first espediente, were dated before the quicksilver was discovered, and yet the discovery, as set forth in fhat document, was described as of a mine of silver, gold, and quicksilver, which inconsistency tended strongly to impair confidence in the entire espediente.' Petition had been pending nearly eight years when this espediente found its way into- this case. First espediente was. filed on the 30th day of September, 1852, and this one was filed on the 17th day of July, 1860. Time enough, certainly, had elapsed to énable a party to examine and ascertain what, if any, contradictions or inconsistencies appeared in his proofs, and to give him an opportunity to employ all proper means to obviate any. such difficulty. Produced, as this document was, at so: late a stage of the litigation, it must be held that tbe burden of proof is upon the party producing it, not only to establish the authenticity of the .paper, but to do so by clear and satisfactory evidence. On the 27th of July, 1860, Pedro Chabolla was examined in respect to this espediente. Inquiry was made of him, whether his signature, and those of the assisting witnesses were genuine, and upon looking at the document, he answered both questions in the affirmative, although he admitted, in the same deposition, that he never learned to write, and that-it was with difficulty that he could "paint his name." His account of the matter was, that the papers were brought to him from the mine; and he says he signed them- because he was requested to do so; and when asked how he knew the papers were correct, his answer was that he did not examine them, adding that "it was not for me to do that." One of the assisting witnesses, José Suñol, is dead; but the other, Pedro Sansevan, was examined, and confirms the statements of the preceding witness as to the genuineness of the signatures; but two witnesses examined by the United States, testified, without qualification, that the witness had previously stated to them that he signed the documents in the year 1848, and that they were copies.
Theory of claimant now is, that espediente No. 3 is the original filed in office, and that the espediente under consideration was a duplicate executed at the same time and delivered to the party. Three witnesses, Antonio Ma. Pico, Antonio Suñol, and José Noriega, were recalled and examined to prove that the document was executed in duplicated They stated nothing of the kind in their first examination, nor did 'they do so in their second depositions. When, called for the third time, after the fourth espediente had been discovered and introduced, the witness first, named said that the 'document was signed on the day of its date, and he had no doubt he delivered it to the claimant; but the other two witnesses were less positive, and were only able to say that they supposed the document was signed at its date. Learned counsel admit that the theory in this behalf was started at rather a late stage in the investiga-. tion, but endeavor to excuse the claimant upon the ground that the fact was unknown to his attornies, and that his witnesses did not remember it. Attorneys are certainly without fault, and so are the witnesses, unless they have finally attempted to remember what never occurred, which, from all the circumstances, there is too much reason to fear.
Parties holding large and valuable interests in real éstate are generally careful to secure title papers which are supposed to be correct in form, and their solicitude and vigilance in preserving them are more or less active, according to their importance and the magnitude of the interest involved. Contrary to what might have been expected, as shown by experience, the claimant in this case, and those holding under him lost all the original title papers to the mine, although the espediente, as they allege, had been executed in duplicate, and the mine and mining right or privilege were of incalculable value' and importance. Fortuitous circumstances artistically described in the testimony, led, it seems, according to the theory of the claimant, to the discovery of the third espediente, called by his counsel the original, in the depository where-it belonged, and where every one who made any enquiries upon* the subject must have known that the ' papers of the Alcalde's office had been deposited.
10. Impressions still prevailed, as the claimant represents, in the minds of those interested in the mine that there was somewhere in existence a duplicate original, but all enquiries and search for it:had proved ineffectual until the time when the fourth espediente was discovered under the extraordinary circumstances detailed in the record. Those circumstances arc well described by the witness, Thomas Bell; and inasmuch as they were even more fortuitous than those under which the third espediente was discovered, it may be well to allow the witness to state them in his own language He was examined on the 17th of July, 1860, the day this last espediente was filed. Witness -says:
Some time, about three weeks ago, at the request of Mr. Bill- ings, I was looking for-the documents relating to the barras in the mine of New Almadén, which at one time had belonged to Padre-Real ; not finding one of the documents which I was m search1 of among the papers of the mine, I asked Mr. Young to get the box containing the papers relating to the estate of Walkinshaw to see if it could not be found there. He produced the box, and then we proceeded to overhaul the papers. I saw a bundle marked — "Papers relating to the disputed barra," which I opened, and in looking over these papers I found one endorsed " Titles of Mines." I was struck with the antique appearance of the paper, and knowing that it was suspected that Walkinshaw had had documents relating to the Almadén mine in his possession, after glancing over the papers, I took them to the office of Messrs. Peachy and Billings, to ascertain more particularly their nature. It was then discovered that it was an espediente which they had- been anxious to obtain for a long time.
Explanation of the transaction as given by the claimant is, that Robert Walkinshaw, the undisputed owner-of two shares in the mine, brought suit against Bolton, Barron & Co., to establish his right to a third share claimed by him on which the defend ants refused to pay him dividends. He employed counsel and gave him certain papers which the counsel, who is now one of the counsel in the case, retained in his possession from January, 1858, when he was employed to bring the suit, until May, 1858, when he returned them to his client who gave him a receipt for the papers. Receipt is dated' on the 14th of May, 1858, and the first paper named in it is a document in Spanish, headed " Ano de 1845, Espediente de denuncio posesión y compañia de la Mina de- Abogue nombrado Santa Clara, jurisdicion de St. José Guadalupe, en la Alta California." Five pages writing and certificate, endorsed " Titles of Mine."
Day after the date of that receipt the party signing it sailed for Scotland, where, in the following August, he died. Document remained among the effects of the deceased in the care of his son-in-law and the executor of his estate until it was brought to notice in the manner already described.
Deposition of the son-in-law, who was the executor of the estate, was also taken by the claimant. He confirmed the statement of the preceding witness, but adds that he had previouslj examined the papers of the deceased in search of documents relating to the title of the Almadén mine without , any such success. Where the box had been kept, and whether so situated as to be accessible to other persons or not, the witness does not state; but he does state that the decedent before he left the country, handed him the documents found in the bundle, and that he enveloped them " in a piece of paper " and labelled the envelope.
His search on the former occasion, as the witness admits, was especially , directed to find the testimonio of the act of juridical possession, but he made no such discovery at that time. First search, as in the matter of the third espediente, was unsuccessful, but the second was attended with no difficulty. Such a discovery at that stage of the controversy was doubtless thought to be an acquisition as valuable as it was unexpected, and if the document could be regarded as an 'authentic paper, free from suspicion, the claimant and those holding under him, in one aspect of the case, might well be of the opinion that its importance could hardly be over estimated.
Assuming the other espedientes to be genuine, still the evidence in regard to them, even if viewed according to the theory of the claimant, showed conclusively that article 4, title 6, of the Mining Ordinance had not been complied with, because it was conceded that no attested copy of the proceedings had been delivered to the acquirer of the mine as " a corresponding title." When he filed his petition before the Commissioners, he also filed copies of the first espediente. Both the copies and the original, subsequently produced, represented that the act of juridical possession contained the day of the month on which it was executed, and besides the document embraced the receipt of the Alcalde for his fees and two certificates of Pedro Chabolla dated on the 13th of January, 1846, appended to the two petitions of the claimant. Those particulars were all wanting in the respective documents subsequently introduced. Favorable adjudication under such a state of facts could not rationally be expected, unless these glaring inconsistencies could be explained, because their effect was not only to impair all confidence in those doeu merits, but also to. discredit all the witnesses who, under oath, had verified the first espediente and the several papers of which it was composed.'
Mention is made of these circumstances as showing the urgent necessity there was for additional proof and the corresponding inducement to-commit fraud by fabrication and forgery. Counsel of the claimant admit in their brief that from the time James A. Forbes was examined as a witness in relation to the first espediente, until May or June, 1860, it remained inexplicable, whence' ca'me the word thirty in the date of the fir£t, copy of the act of juridical possession, whence came the copy of the receipt of the Alcalde for his fees, and whence came the' copy of the two certificates of Pedro Chabolla which follow the respective petitions of -the claimant. All these were found in thé cop3r produced and. filed as the first espediente, and up to that time had been treated by the claimant as parts of a genuine document. "Whence they came," say the counsel, "was the mystery," but their theory is, that the mystery was solved by what they now call the duplicate copy of the act of juridical possession, and in support of the theory they suggest, that it had long been supposed that such a copy must have been deliv- ) ered by the Alcalde to the claimant. Suggestions were also made as to the mode in which Robert Walkinshaw might have become possessed of the supposed original document; but it is a sufficient answer to all these suggestions to say that they are founded on mere conjecture, are not supported by the evidence, and have little or no foundation in the probabilities of the case. Production of that espediente, say the counsel "furnished the means of bringing in the testimony of all the witnesses concerned in (its) preparation who were yet living." Accordingly those witnesses wño were called for the third time and- reexamined, and although in théir former depositions they had uniformly spoken of the espediente supposed to have been- executed before the Alcalde in the singular number, without any intimation in respect to a duplicate, yet at last, after the petition had been pending nearly eight years, they were, as they state, able to recollect that a duplicate was executed at the same time and delivered to the claimant, but tbeir recollections upon tbe subject are by no means as distinct as tbé'y 'wére on a former occasion tbey testified to the effect that the first espediente was a genuine document. Sucb testimony under';tbé Circumstances, is not entitled to credit, and sucb theories as' those set up in respect to tbe supposed existence, loss 'áhd -discovery of tbe third and fourth espedientes as genuine origihal documents are too speculative, sound too much in fiction, áhd are too thoroughly saturated with improbability to receive credence in a Court of Justice.
11. Frequent reference is made by tbe claimant in this connection to tbe evidence adduced as .to tbe proceedings of tbe Junta de Fomento and other Departments of the ^ Supreme Government, as tending to confirm tbe testimony introduced to prove tbe genuineness of these documents, and it may'be conceded that tbe evidence referred to has some indirect-bearing in that direction, but it must be- borne in mind that no one of those documents," nor any part thereof, was ever submitted to those Departments, or to any one of them, and it is by no means certain that tbe officers of those Departments, or any one of them, ever beard that any sucb documents bad -been executed. Tbey bad doubtless beard -what tbe claimant bad stated in bis communication to tbe Junta de Fomento, but there is no evidence to show that tbey bad ever beard any thing more than -that in respect to any of the supposed proceedings of tbe local authorities upon that subject. None of tbe documents were presented to them by tbe claimant, and of course there could have been no action in respect to tbeir genuineness, which is tbe question now under consideration. Arguments which confound the question as totbe genuineness, of tbe documents, supposed to have been executed before tbe Alcalde, with tbe. question of confirmation by tbe Home Government, afford very little aid in tbe decision of tbe case, and, in point of fact, are entitled to no weight, because tbeir effect, if any, is to mislead.
Strong, however, as oür impressions - are that tbe evidence fails to show that any one of tbe four espedientes, introduced by tbe claimant, is entitled to credit,- still we are disinclined, in view of the great complication of the evidence upon the subject, to rest the decision of the case upon that ground.
YI. Two other principal objections are made to the confirmation of the claim;
First. It is insisted by the United States, that it is not shown by competent evidence, that a public tribunal, empowered by law to take jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the acquisition of a mine, or mining right, dr privilege, has ever acted in this case, and, adjudicated to the claimant the title to the mine, as alleged by him in the petition.
Secondly. That if such a tribunal is shown by competent evidence to have taken any action in the case, still it does not exercise its special and limited jurisdiction in á manner required by law so as to constitute or evidence any title to the mine claimed by the petitioner.
1. Mines under Mexican laws, as before explained, whether situated in public or private lands, belong to the Supreme Government, and private persons can only acquire a title in one not previously discovered and made individual property according to law, by conforming substantially to the conditions ordained in the provisions of the 4th article of the mining ordinance as herein previously recited. Applicant must resort to the proper tribunal and present his written statement, specifying in it his name and the names of his partners, if he has any, the place of their birth, their residence, profession and employment, and the most particular and distinguishing features of the place, hill or vein, of which he asks adjudication. The title to such properties are acquired by the citizen or subject wherever Spanish law prevails by the adjudication of the proper tribunal having jurisdiction of the subject-matter. Contrary to what 'is supposed by the claimant, is the adjudication, or decree, of the proper tribunal in a case duly presented for decision, and the registry of the adjudication together with the proceedings on which it is founded, which vest the title in the applicant, and not the mere fact of discovery as was supposed at the argument. Without proof of discovery by the applicant, there can be no adjudication in his favor, but tbe discovery of a mine, by a party in whose favor there has been' no adjúdítion by a tribunal having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, secures no right or title to the discoverer. Boundaries also must be fixed to carry the adjudication into effect or rather to complete it, else the title or claim, like other indefinite and uncertain interests in lands, will be void for uncertainty. Marking of boundaries also is essential under all 'circumstances, whether the mine is situated in public or private lands, for if the location is in public lands, comphance with the requirement is essential to show what extent of the public domain has been segregated from the mass of such lands and has passed into private ownership.
2. Public convenience, therefore, in such a case requires that the boundaries should be fixed, and, besides, unless the limits of the pertenencia were fixed and staked, or monuments set, other tribunals, whose duty it is to adjudicate lands to applicants for agricultural purposes, would be subjected to embarrassment and be led into error. Definite limits also to mining rights or privileges are equally necessary and important, where the same happen to be located upon the lands of private individuals, in order that the land owner, as contradistinguished from the owner of the mine, may have the means of knowing and be judicially notified, as to what portion of his land has been condemned and appropriated to the use of another.
3. Registry, also, is expressly required by the very article of the mining ordinance under which the party in this case claims title to the mine, and it is a great error to suppose that a compliance with that provision is shown by proving that sheets of paper, not executed at the same time, but assumed to constitute an espediente, were at some time placed in the' office of the Alcalde and remained there for a time in one of the pigeonholes of his desk. Such a suggestion is destitute of any foundation. On the contrary, the requirement is in express terms that the statement of the discoverer; together with the time when he presented hin.self, "shall he noted in a hook of registry, which the deputation and notary, if there be one, shall keep, and in respect to the action of the tribunal on the application, the provision is that an exact aocount shall be taken " in order that it mav be added to the corresponding part of the registry with the evidence of possession, which shall immediately be given. Act of possession, therefore, is .to-:be added to the registry, together with the action of the tribunal on making the adjudication,- unci'they are both required to be noted in a book (Libro) of registry.
4. Strict compliance with that provision is required as matter of public policy, because the mines of a country like Mexico are a great sources of .revenue to the Government, and because it tends to prevent disputes and litigation; prevent fraud and false swearing; secure such rights of property, and promote order and a good understanding among miners holding and working contiguous pertenencias. 1 Gamboa per H., pp. 143, 144.
The tribunal empowered by the mining ordinance to exercise this jurisdiction was "the Deputation of Mining" for the territory or district where the mine was situated, or the nearest one thereto, should there be none there. Halleck Coll. 224. Former ordinances, especially that of 1584, on which Gamboa wrote, conferred the power of adjudicating such titles exclusively on the Mining Court within whose jurisdiction the mine was situated. Ord. 1584, art. 17, Gamboa per EL, 139. Section 17th of that Ordinance also provided " that in case such registry be not made in the manner, and within the prescribed time, any person may' register such mine, and shall thereby have and acquire the right which such discoverer or other person who might have required the registry, would, have had if he had caused the registry to be made." Gamboa, p. 141.
• 5. Cases occurred under that Ordinance where mines were discovered in districts having no Mining Court, and in that state of the case there was no tribunal in the parent country which had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and of course the matter had to be referred .to the sovereign'power, and to remedy the embarrassment arising -under such circumstances from the want of a court to adjudicate such titles, it was provided, in the mining Ordinance of 1783, that the court "nearest thereto" should have jurisdiction of such á case. ' Parties concede that the ordinance last named was in force at the date of these proceedings, and unless it. can be shown; (and the burden is upon him who avers it,) that the provision referred to has been modified or .repealed, it is clearly applicable to this case. Constitution of Mexico vested all the judicial powers of the Republic in one Supreme Court of Justice, and other courts and tribunals to be constituted in conformity to the instrument. Coll. Mexican Constitution; tomo 1, titulo 5, art. 123. Pursuant to that provision the Tri; bunal-General of Mining, on the 20th of May, 1826, was deprived- of its powers. -New regulations were then adopted, which were from time to time amended, but it is not important to notice those decrees, because on the 2d day of December, 1842, a new system, carefully digested, was put in force, the 4th article of which constituted and regulated the tribunals of mining. • Halleck Coll., pp. 409, 424, 434, 441.
Among other things it provides for the creation of. " Courts of the First Instance ' in each Department, and for the mode of the r election, and also provides that those courts, within their respe; tive districts, shall exercise the executive, judicial, and econorr ¡ cal powers given by the old ordinance. Halleck Coll. p. 441 title 4, art. 26.
6. Courts of the First Instance were never organized in the Department of California, and the argument of the claimant is, that in consequence of that fact the ordinary tribunals, as for example, an Alcalde could take jurisdiction over su,ch. a subject-matter, and on the .application of the discoverer, could adjudicate the title. But the position cannot be sustained, because by the express law of the Republic, as evidence in the special decree of the 14th of January, 1843, it is provided that territorial deputations may continue to exercise their functions " until the Courts of First Instance are established." Halleck Coll., p..443. Support to the positioh cannot be derived, as is supposed, from the fact that the law was'so in some of the dependencies of Spain prior to 1783, because it is from the express terms of the Ordinance of that year that the Mining Deputation derived their exclusive jurisdiction .over the subject, and inasmuch as the supposed analogy on which the position was based fails, the. position must fall with it.
7. Mexican policy also, and administration in regard'to that Department, afford strong ground to conclude that no such power was intended to be conferred upon any of the officers of' the Local Government. Those officers were a Governor, appointed by the Supreme Government, a Departmental Assembly, consisting or seven members, who were chosen by electors,' but their election was subject to the approval of the Home Government.
Most of the important functions of the Local Government were performed by the Governor and the Departmental Assembly , but the law also made provision for the appointment of Prefects, who were to be nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the General Government; also, Sub-Prefects, who were to be nominated by the Prefects and approved by the Governor. Provision was also made for Ayuntamientos or Municipal Councils, whose ordinary members were elective; and also for the appointment of Alcaldes and Juaces de Paz or Justices of the Peace, whose numbers were to be fixed " by the Departmental Assembly, in concurrence with the Governor."' Arrillaga, Recop., pp. 202, 214, 223, 230. Judicial functions were exercised by the Prefect as well as the Alcalde, and no reason is perceived for holding that the latter could adjudicate a mining title which might not be adduced with equal and even greater force to show that the same important duty might be performed by the Prefect; but the truth is, there was no law which gave either the one or the other any pretence of jurisdiction in any such matter Theory of claimant is, and so is the argument, that the jurisdiction must have been confided to some of the officers of the-Department, and that the presumption is, that the Alcalde had jurisdiction, inasmuch as it is not shown that Courts of First Instance had been constituted and organized.
Giving the argument, however, its utmost force, it only'shows that a law conferring upon an Alcalde such a jurisdiction would have been a convenience to the inhabitants, and especially to the claimant; but it has no tendency to show there was any such law, which is the question to be decided. Opinion is expressed by two or three of claimant's witnesses that an Alcalde might make such an adjudication, but they exhibit no law to that effect, nor do they attempt to prove there was any'such general usage; and inasmuch as their opinions are not competent evidence, their testimony may oe dismissed without further remark. Authorities of Mexico had long dreaded the influence of foreigners in that Department, and although the policy of the Home Government was to promote"the settlement and growth of, the Department, still they had always manifested an unwillingness to confer any more power upon the Local Government than was necessary to accomplish those objects.
Mineral wealth, if discovered, would furnish a motive to attempt the conquest of the Department, and it may well be inferred that the authorities of the Home Government had determined to reserve the adjudication of titles to such important public interests to the Federal tribunals. Strong support to that view of the case is derived from thé course pursued by those authorities when the land system of the Department was devised and put into operation.
'8. Power to grant vacant lands was as early as the 18th of August, 1824, vested in the Governor, in concurrence with the Departmental Assembly. Additional regulations upon' the subject were adopted on the 21st of November, 1828, which exhibit a system as complete and perfect as is to be found anywhere. Granting vacant lands for agricultural purposes was by n<5 means regarded as a matter of so much public importance, as the adjudication of titles to newly discovered mines. Those provisions and regulations confer very ample power upon the Governor' to grant vacant lands in, concurrence with the Departmental Assembly, but they confer no power upon them or upon any of the local authorities to, adjudicate titles to mines. Grants of land made under those laws did not convey to the grantee the unsevered minerals in the soil or any interest in them, and-there is no ground whatever to hold that the Supreme Government ever conferred upon any of the local tribunals any jurisdiction upon the subject under consideration. Authority of- the Alcalde; therefore, cannot be inferred from the fact of its exercise, or from the fact that no other tribunal of the Department was- -antho rized to exercise such a jurisdiction.
VII. But if the Alcalde bad power to take jurisdiction of the subject-matter, still it is insisted by tbe United States in the second place that he had only a special and limited authority, and that he did not exercise it in the manner required by law. 1. His proceedings were based upon the written statement of the claimant, and that was upon its face exceedingly imperfect if not absolutely insufficient. Some of the provisions of the mining ordinance are doubtless merely directory, others may be regarded as conditions subsequent, but'those appertaining to the registry of the mine, together with the action of the tribunal thereon, and in respect to the juridical possession of the same, are evidently conditions precedent; so that it is necessary, in order to support a title to such a right or privilege as a discoverer, to show that the party substantially performed those conditions. Unless a claimant shows a substantial compliance with those requirements the conclusion is inevitable, not that he has forfeited his right, to the mine, but that he never acquired ' any such title. Forfeiture is of that which a party hath, but he cannot be said to have forfeited what he never had acquired, as the title to that which he had never acquired, must always have been in the State or in another person.
2. Nothing like forfeiture is pretended by the United States, and no such question arisés in the case; but the proposition is, that the claimant never acquired any right or privilege in the mine even if he was the discoverer, because he did not, as required by law, pursue the necessary steps to give vitality to the inchoate privilege or pre-emption accorded to the discoverer to proceed according to law, and ripen such privilege or pre-emption' into a perfect or complete right by a registry of that which he had discovered before the proper tribunal, and by securing ' the juridical' possession of the same under a legal adjudication of the title, gis discovery, and its registration, as is well said by the. counsel\>f the United States, gave him a. right, within ninety days-to make an opening into the vein, and the further right to apply to the proper public authority and have that which he- claimed to have discovered defined and set out to him, and its boundaries marked,- and a record made of his title to the defined pertenencias. When all this is done according to law, the inchoate privilege or pre-emption of. a discoverer so to proceed is then ripened into a perfect or complete right, and his title to the mine comes into existence.
3. Returning to the written statement which in this case is the petition of the claimant addressed to the Alcalde, and noting the representations it contains, it is clear that it is not a compliance with the requirements of the ordinance in many respects. . Ordinance, for example, requires a written statement of the most particular and distinguishing features of the place, hill, or vein of which adjudication is asked, or of which he asks the grant, as the phrase is rendered in some of the translations. Representation in the statement or petition is, that he, the' claimant, has discovered a vein of silver with a ley of gold " on the rancho of José Reyes Berreyesa, which was a hacienda of a league square, mostly table,land, with disputed boundaries." Another require-' ment of the ordinance is, that the applicant shall give "the names of his partners, if he has any, and the place of their birth, their residence, profession, and employment;" and by article 6, óf title 7, the discoverer is expressly forbidden to denounce a mine for himself having entered into a contract of partnership, and yet the claimant's petition which shows that there was a partnership, fails to disclose the names of his partners or any of the required particulars, and it also shows that he denounced the mine to himself alone. .
4. Strong doubts are entertained whether the Alcalde, even if he had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, was authorized to proceed and adjudicate the title upon the basis of such a statement; but it is not necessary to decide that question, as there are two other defects in the proceedings which are fatal to the pretensions of the claimant. No such registry of the particulars concerning the mine, or of the action of the Alcalde upon the allegations of the petition, or of his proceedings in respect to the juridical possession of the mine was ever made, as is required by the provisions of the ordinance, nor were the pertenencias measured or definitely located, or the boundaries fixed, or the stakes set, as is therein required. Registry has been required ns the basis of the title to a mine wherever Spanish law has pre . vailed for more than three centuries, and probably no case ever occurred within that period which more fully showed the absolute necessity for such a rule or more fully exemplified its wisdom than the case under consideration.
Whon the Alcalde was first called and examined in another suit concerning the proceedings before him, in respect to the registry of this mine, and the supposed juridical possession given of the same, he testified that the claimant applied to him to go and give him possession of the mine, according to the Mexican custom. Taking the account óf the matter, as he then gave it, to be true, he went there with the claimant and others, and pointed out such boundaries as he thought the claimant ought to have; but he expressly stated, on that occasion, " that no fixed possession was given to him," for the reason that there was a dispute between him and José Beyes Berreyesa, on whose rancho the mine was situated.
Berreyesa, as the witness stated, would not consent that possession should be given unless the claimant would admit that be, Berreyesa, should have an interest in the mine, and as the claimant would not do that, he, the witness, did not give any fixed possession of the mine. Witness was three times examined in this case, and- on two of the occasions, he was interrogated upon this subject. His statements are'to the effect that he, with the claimant. and others, went to .¿the mine; that after they arrived there, he sent for José Beyes Berreyesa, the proprietor of the Bancho, and that he accordingly came to the mine; that he, the witness, made known to- Berreyesa what it was that was proposed to be done; that.at first he objected, but finally consented, and that he, the witness, delivered the possession to the claimant. They made no survey, fixed no boundaries, and set no stakes, and the witness expressly states that he had no idea whether the three thousand varas in all directions were to be laid out in a square or round; that a part of the tract only was to be located around the mine, and the residue on the public domain in that neighborhood.
6. Nothing was done on the land; and if the witness is to be believed, very little was said, except that he stated that he delivered the three thousand varas in all directions to the claim ant. During the examination' he was reminded of his former statements upon that subject, and was requested to explain the differences, but his answer was that, according to his understanding, there was no contradiction between his testimony then given and the statement in the act of possession. Alcalde Antonio M*- Pico had a secretary by the name of José Fernandez, who. was a witness in this case, and who was also the escribano of the Court, but the Padre Real expressed a wish that these documents, whatever they were, should be prepared by one Gutierrez, a teacher at the Mission of Santa Clara, which was a league or two .from'the Juzgado of San José Guadalupe. They were not, therefore, prepared by the Secretary of the Court, and a]j he knowá upon the subject is, that two or three days after the party returned from the minie, the schoolmaster, Gutierrez, brought him the' document, and said, " there, now, it is all finished, and here is your fee," giving him three dollars and a half, and " so," in the language, of the witness, " the document remained in the Court," but'" he expressly states that he never read it, or examined it and when asked by the United States what he did with it, he answered: "It remained there in Court.. I did nothing else .with it."
Other witnesses were examined upon these topics, but the statement given contains the substance of the evidence on both; and all the witnesses agree that there was no survey, no stakes set, and no boundaries marked many manner. On this state of the case, it is insisted by the United States, that the acts of the Alcalde were absolutely void, but the claimant insists that even conceding the irregularities to 'have been such as represented, still that the acts of the Alcalde were not absolutely void, but at most only voidable, and' that they were, afterwards ratified and confirmed by the Supreme Government.
7. Reliance, it is proper to remark, is placed by the' claimant upon the eVidence of ra ification, as affording a sufficient and complete answer to all the objections taken to the claim made by him to the mine. Examination of that evidence, as exhibited in the copies of documents, introduced as true copies h original» on file in the Departments of the Supreme Government, has already been so fully made that a brief reference to it in this stage of the investigation will be sufficient.
Statement of the claimant in his communication to the Junta de Fomento is, that he had discovered a mine of quicksilver in the Mission of Santa Clara; that he had denounced and taken possession, not only.of the mine, but also of an extent of three thousand varas in all directions, that he had formed a company to work it, had constructed the pit, and had complied with all the conditions' prescribed by the ordinance. Required, as he was, to make the representation in writing, it was of course prepared with deliberation; and yet he falsely states that the mine is situated "in the Mission of Santa Clara," and suppresses altogether the fact stated in his petition, and repeated in the act of possession, that the mine was situated on the rancho of José Reyes Berreyesa.
He refers to none of the documents, and none were produced, and this remark applies as well to his seventh proposition as to his representations'in the preliminary part of his communication to the Junta. They adopted his seventh proposition, and recommended to the President, through the Minister of Justice, that, the possession given to the claimant by the local authorities, as he represented, should be confirmed. Two- accounts are given, as- to what was the action of the President on the occasion. First, in the dispatch of the Minister of Justice, and secondly, in that of the Minister of Relations.
In the' first, the language is, that the President " has been pleased to approve in all its parts the agreement made with (the claimant) in order to commence the working of said mineand in the sécond, the language is the same, except that the purpose of the agreement, as described, was " to commence the exploration of that mine'' Neither the one or the other contains a word which, by any proper construction, can be held to confirm the acts of the local authorities, or any of them, or to vest in the claimant any right, title, or interest in the mine. None of the documents, executed by the Alcalde were before the President, and it does not appear that be ever heard of them in any other manner than by those vague representations, or others of a similar character. Action of the President evinces caution and circumspection, and the several communications, taken together clearly show that he did not act at all upon the seventh proposition of the claimant, or upon his representations in respect to the juridical possession of the mine; and there is nothing in the marginal order in any respect inconsistent with this view of the case, as it is evident that the purpose and intent of that order was accomplished in the contemporaneous dispatch of the Minister of Justice. Credence was evidently given to the .representations that a mine had been discovered, and the President was. willing that an advance of $5,000 or $6,000 should be made to thé claimant to enable) him to commence its exploration. Directions were accordingly given to approve the agreement to that extent, and to make the advance and furnish the retorts and other apparatus therein mentioned.
8. Second grants of land in the Department of California were seldom made by the Governors, and as the claimant already had one, he could hardly expect to obtain another without the special approbation of the Supreme Government. Hence his.' eighth proposition that a grant should be made to him, ' as a colonist," which was approved by the President so far as appears in the dispatch of the Minister of Relations already explained. Grants of that description conveyed no interest in the minerals, as was well known to the claimant; and in respect to the eighth proposition, the .President was silent, evidently reserving that matter for further information and a more deliberate consideration. Irrespective, therefore, of the question of fraud, we are of the opinion that, by the true construction of the several communications,.the claimant fails .to show that the acts of the Alcalde have in any manner been ratified or confirmed by the Supreme Government.
It is clear, therefore, that the respective documents executed before the Alcalde must stand or fall, by what appears in the instruments, when considered in connection with the evidence, showing what was lone at the time of their execution. Conceding fall, cj edit to the vitnesses, and giving the utmost scope to theii testimony- consistent with the language employed, still it is obvious from the claimant's own showing that he never made any registry of the mine, within the meaning of the provision requiring it to be made. Such a document cannot be said to have been registered/ merely because it was handed to the Secretary of the Alcalde, before whom it was executed, and was for a time somewhere in the courthouse,' especially when it appears that it was subsequently abstracted from the depository, if such it may be called, and was' not returned to it • for years afterwards, and then clandestinely and under circumstances of the greatest suspicion. -Constrained as we are to regard-the facts in point of view, the conclusion is inevitable that there was no legal registry of the mine, and the evidence is all one way to show that there was no survey of the nine hundred pertenencias granted, and no boundaries were fixed, and no stakes were set as required in the ordinance. Assuming, therefore, that the Alcalde had jurisdiction over the subject-matter, -still, as it was but a special-and limited authority, in order -to give any validity to his acts he must exercise it in the manner required by law, and not having done so, his acts are void.. U. S. vs. Osio, 23 How., p. 283; U. S. vs. Castillero, 23 How., p. 466.
VIII. Conduct of claimant throughout shows that he knew that he had no title as is plainly to be inferred from the fact that in the several conveyances made by him he never referred to the registry of the mine or to the acts of juridical possession supposed to have been executed before the Alcalde as the source or foundation of his title.
1. Whenever he referred .to the source of his title he uniformly pointed to the writing of partnership, Sale of five barras •or shares of the mine was on the 17th day of' December, 1846 made by the claimant to Alexander Forbes, of Tepic.
2. Negotiations for the purchase and sale commenced on the -5th of the same month between the claimant and Francisco M. Negrete, the agent of the purchaser. Several interviews took place, but the negotiations were suspended to await the arrival of the Padre Ugenio McNamara, the agent of José Castro; He arrived from Tepic a short time before the contract of sale was completed, and Negrete testifies that up to that time he had seen no other-document than the writing'of partnership, and no other had been mentioned. Padre McNamara brought with him the contract of lease or avio, which had been concluded between-him, as the agent of José Castro, and Alexander Forbes.
3. Claimant approved the contract of avio, voluntarily putting into it his claim to the two square leagues of land-. At the same time, also, he executed the conveyance of the five shares to the purchaser, but in none of these transactions was any mention made of the registry of the mine or of the act of juridical possession, leaving it to be inferred that the writing of partnership was the only document ever executed before the Alcalde, or certainly that there was no other, that the claimant thought proper to exhibit to a purchaser.
IX. Much stronger evidence, however, is exhibited in the record to show that the parties most interested in the mine, and who were engaged in working it, knew full well that the supposed title was invalid, as is fully shown by the correspondence between James A. Forbes and Alexander Forbes, or between the former and BaTron Forbes & Company. More than forty letters between these parties are exhibited in the record.
Brief references will }>e made to such as have the most direct bearing upon the question under consideration, omitting all such parts as are not material to the inquiry, but preserving the substance. 1. Under date of the 5th May, 1847, James A. Forbes suggests to William Forbes, but evidently in reply to letters received from Alexander Forbes, that it is of the most vital importance to obtain from Mexico a positive, formal and unconditional grant of the two sitios of land conceded to the claimant according to the decree appended to the contract, and also an unqualified ratification pf 'the juiNical possession which.was given of the mine by the local authorities, including, if possible, the three thousand varas of land given in,that possession as a gratification to the discoverer. He also suggests' in the same letter that the documents should be made out in the name of'the claimant and his partners.
2 No letter is produced which is a direct reply to that com munication. Record shows that Alexander Eorbes visited California early in October, 1847, and it appears that he remained there until near the close ,of March, 1848, engaged, at least for a part of the time, in exploring the mine and in overseeing the. prudential affairs of the Company. ' During that 1 eriod other persons acquired an interest in the mine, and among the number were Barron, Forbes & Company, and they accordingly wrote to James A. Forbes, under date of the 11th of April, 1849, informing him that hereafter he might expect that the mine would be worked to the utmost of its capabilities of production. On the 20th of May, 1849, they wrote another letter to the same individual, saying in effect that from certain circumstances that he had mentioned it might be necessary to purchase some lands in the vicinity of the mine and hacienda of New Almadén, and authorized him to make such purchases, not to exceed in price the sum of $5000, as might be necessary to the secure possession of the mine and hacienda, or to effect such other arrangements as he might deem necessary for that purpose.
8. Seven days after the date of that letter, and before it was received, James A. Forbes arrived at Tepic, and while there left with Alexander Forbes the folllowing memorandum to be delivered to the claimant: "Very private." Memorandum of the documents which Don Andres Castillero will have to procure in Mexico.
" 1st. The full approbation and ratification by the Supreme . Government of all the acts of the Alcalde of the District of San . José, in Upper California — in the possession given by the said /officers of the quicksilver mine situated in his jurisdiction, to Don Andres Castillero, in December, 1845.
"2d. An absolute and unconditional title of two leagues of land to Don Andres Castillero, specifying the following boundaries : — On the north by the lands of the Rancho of- San Vicente and Los Capitancillos; on the east, south, and west by vacant lands or vacant highlands.
" 3d. The dates of these documents will have to be arranged oy Don Andres, the testimony of them taken in due form, and besides, certified to by tbe American Minister in Mexico, and transmitted to California as soon as possible.
"Tepic, May 27, 1849."
Proofs in the case show that the author of that memorandum returned to San Francisco, and on the 28th day of October following, in a letter to William Forbes, he again called his attention to the importance of his former suggestions as to the necessity of perfecting the title to the mine. In that letter he also referred to verbal explanations~previously given by him to his correspondent and Alexander Forbes, and then proceeds to impress upon the mina of his correspondent the vast importance of securing from Mexico the documents comprised in the memorandum left with Alexander Forbes, when he was m Tepic, for the claimant. Two days afterwards he wrote again to Alexander Forbes, in which letter, among other things, he says to his correspondent, you will now readily perceive the great importance of my advice to you to purchase a part both of the lands of Cook and of the Berreyesas. You were of the opinion that this measure would not be necessary in view of the supposed facility of getting the title to the mine perfected in Mexico, and he complains that more than five months have elapsed since it was decided that the claimant should procure the necessary documents in that city, and that they have not been sent to him.
4. His description of his situation shows plainly that he was in great, want of the documents, because he says that on the one side he depended upon the precarious and illegal possession of the mine granted by the Alcalde of the District to the claimant, who was himself in reality the judge of the quantity of land given by the Alcalde; and on the other side, he says he was attacked by the purchasers of-the same J.and declared by the claimant himself to comprise the mine. Evidently that letter was regarded as one of importance, for it called forth two replies, one from Barron, Forbes & Co., and one from Alexander Forbes. By the one first mentioned, he was informed b/ his correspondent that on the 13th of the same month they had enclosed to him á notarial, copy of the grant of land made by the Mexican Govern ment to the claimant.
They acknowledged therein the receipt of his letters, thanked him for his able conduct, expressed satisfaction in view of the document sent, that he had not been obliged to purchase the land of Berreyesa, but submitted the matter to his best judgment, requesting him, however, to keep in view, " that at all hazard, and at whatever cost, the property of the mine must be secured," adding, " Castillero, we expect, will soon be here from Lower California, and if anything can be done in Mexico, he is the fittest person to procure what may be wanted." Recurring to the other letter, it will be seen that it was more guarded, but the writer recommends that his correspondent and agent' should proceed, without fear of disapproval, or waiting for instructions, in taking such measures as shall preserve this valuable " negotiacion" from any risk from those unprincipled claimants who have lately given him so much trouble, or from any other proceedings that may take place.
5. Another letter, also, was written by Alexander Forbes to James A. Forbes, under date of the 1st of December, 1849, in which he stated that the copy of the grant of land made to the claimant was, by mistake, not the one meant to be sent; and he explains the difference, which was, that the one sent was directed át the foot to the Governor, but the proper one was directed to the claimant, and was. deposited at .Monterey. Explanation is also given as to the difference in the legal effect between the two documents, which was, as explained, that by the first one the delivery by the Governor was perhaps necessary, whereas the other, being addressed directly to the claimant, did not require that formality,, nor was any other proceeding necessary, thus making it,, as the writer affirmed, a better document than the greater part of the other titles for lands in that Department.
Having made these explanations, he then expressed the hope that the well known cleverness of his correspondent had already enabled him to. find out the mistake; suggesting, but rather doubtingly, that the one previously sent should be withdrawn, and the second one substituted in its place; but presently, as if upon reflection, mentions another difficulty which might arise, and that was fh«t the copy of the grant of the two sitios of land inserted in the contract-of lease or avio was also directed to .the Governor, and in view of that fact he finally decided to send a copy of all the documents and leave it to the good judgment of his correspondent to make such use of them as he should think proper. ' Nothing need be remarked respecting the copy of the document last sent, except to say that if it was addressed to the claimant it was a forgery, as the whole evidence shows that but one dispatch upon the subject was ever issued by the Minister of Eelations, and that was directed to the Governor.
6. Eeference will next be made to another letter from Alexander Forbes under date of the 8d of February, 1850, which is also addressed to the same person as the preceding -letter. Among other things the writer states that he has every reason to believe that the documents mentioned by his correspondent would "be found in the City of Mexico, and as the claimant would return that way he had no doubt they would be procured. In another part of the same letter he also states that at present they think it may be the best plan " to get an authenticated copy of the approval of the Mexican Government of the grant of three thousand varas given by the Alcalde on giving possession of the mine," "as a doubt may be started whether the Alcalde, acting as the ' Jues de minería,' had a right to make this grant, yet if approved by the Government of Mexico, before the possession of the country by the Americans, there could be no doubt on- the subject."
Castillero says such approval was given, and that on his arrival in Mexico he will procure a judicial copy of it. This is Che plan we shall adopt if we hear nothing from you to alter this resolution. Writing from the mine, James A. Forbes, on the 26th day of February, 1850, replied to that letter, and the importance of that reply makes it necessary to give a somewhat extended extract from it as disclosing the intent and purpose of the entire series. Speaking of the claimant, he says:
- " He succeeded in. obtaining the grant of two sitios to himself on the mining possession in Santa Clara, while that very act -.of possession declares that the mine is situated on the lands of one José E. Berreyesa, five leagues distant from Santa Clara, and you will at once perceive that such a discrepancy woulc. not fail to attract the attention of United States Land Commissit tiers and to put the case of the mine in great risk in the judicial oí deal to which its title will be subjected.
' "Without troubling you with what I have so many times written and explained to you verbally, on the importance of the acquisition of the document, I will only say now what it must be, and it is this:
"I. A full and complete ratification of all the acts, of the Alcalde of this jurisdiction in the possession- of the miné.
"2. A full and-qnconditional grant to Castillero of two sitios of land covering that mining possession, expressing the boundaries stated by me in the memorandum I left with you at Tepic. Both of these documents to be of the proper, date, and placed in the proper governmental custody in Mexico; and'— •
" 3. The necéssary certified copies of them duly authenticated ' by'the American Minister in that capital, taken and sent to me at the earliest-possible moment."
Prompt reply was made by Barron, Forbes & Co., to that com munication, under date of the 2d of March, 1850, in which they say: "Mr. Barron and Don Andres Castillero, are about to proceed to the City of Mexico and will attend to what you have recommended. When that letter was written, the persons therein named were about to proceed to Mexico, but Alexander Forbes, nine days later, .wrote a letter to the same correspondent, in which he stated that Mr. 'Barron and Castillero have gone off to Mexico, and I wrote them to-day respecting the document you know of, which, if possible, will be procured." Wishing, doubtless, to keep his correspondent well advised of the efforts being made to comply with his requisition for the title papers to the mine, he wrote him again on the 7th of April, 1850, in which he stated "that Mr. Barron and Castillero have arrived in Mexico, and have every prospect of finding the documents you are aware of and which will, of course, be forwarded as soon as possible."
Counsel for claimant admit that every one of these letters are genuine, and the proofs in the case are full to that effect. Com Wts upon these extraordinary documents are unnecessary as they disclose their own construction and- afford a demonstration that those in the possession of the mine, holding it under conveyances for the claimant, knew full well that he had no title.
X. More than that can hardly he required-in this case, but it is equally true, and satisfactory proofs are exhibited in the record to show it, that Mexico herself knew; must have known, that the pretensions of the claimant were unfounded, else she. never could have agreed to the 10th article of the treaty, or, when that was stricken out, never could have given her sanction to the corresponding explanations that were signed by the duly authorized representatives of both countries. Remarks^ however, upon that topic are unnecessary, and we forbear to pursue the subject.
The decree of the District Court in No. 133 is reversed, and, in the-.other the appeal is -dismissed, and the cause remande with directions to dismiss the entire petition.