Lead Opinion
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The case as presented by this record involves some very interesting questions. Ever since the decision in Polk's Lessee v. Wendall,
It is sought by the plaintiffs to • bring this case within that rule; and it is, therefore, strenuously insisted that the patent for the. San Francisco pueblo is void to the extent that if embraces lands below ordinary high-water mark of Mission Creek, as that line existed át the date of the conquest from Mexico in 1846. In order to Sustain this proposition the claim is put forth that the Stratton survey was correct, and was never legally set aside; that the Yon Leicht survey, upon which the patent was issued, was wholly unauthorized in law and void; and that the premises in dispute being excluded by the Stratton survey, and being proved by parol evidence to have been below the line of ordinary high-water mark, were never legally included in the patent, and were not included in the decrete of confirmation.
It is a well settled rule of law that the power to make and correct surveys of the public lands belongs exclusively to the political department of the government, and that the action of that department, within the scope of its authority, is unassailable in the courts except by a direct proceeding. Cragin v. Powell,
The phrase, “under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior,” as used in these sections of the statutes, is not meaningless, but was intended as an expression in general terms of the power of the Secretary to supervise and control the extensive operations of the Land Department of which he is the head. It means that, in the important matters relating to the sale and disposition of the public domain, the surveying of
After referring to the act of July 4, 1836, which conferred plenary powers on the Commissioner to supervise all surveys of public lands, “ and also such as relate to private claims of land and the issuing of patents,” and also to the act of March 3, 1849, the' third section of which vested the Secretary of the
A similar question arose in Snyder v. Sickles,
In Buena Vista County v. Iowa Falls & Sioux City Railroad,
It makes no difference whether the appeal is in regular form according to the established rules of the Department, or whether' the Secretary on his own motion, knowing that injustice is about to be done by some action of the Commissioner, takes up the case and disposes of it in accordance with law and justice. The Secretary is the guardian of the people of the United States over the public lands. The obligations of his oath of office oblige him to see that the. law is carried out, and that none of the public domain is wasted or is disposed of. to a party not entitled to it. He represents the government, which is a party in interest in every case involving the surveying and disposal of the public lands.
Furthermore, the power of supervision and control exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over all matters relating to the disposition and sale of the public, lands, under § .453, Eev. Stat., is substantially the same as his power over the Bureau of Pensions, under § 471. That section provides: “The Commissioner of Pensions shall perform, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, such duties in the execution of the
There is nowhere any express power given to the Secretary of the Interior to hear and determine appeals from the Commissioner of Pensions; and yet the power is exercised daily without question. And such power was expressly asserted in United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black,
The same remarks apply to the powers of the Secretary of the Interior, under a similarly worded section of the Revised Statutes, (§ 463,) to supervise and control the management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which powers, so far as we are advised-, have never been questioned.
But even if there was any doubt of the existence of such power in the Secretary' of the Interior, as an original proposition, still the exercise of it for so long a period — going back to the organization of that department — without question, ought to be considered as conclusive as to the existence of the power. Hastings & Dakota Railroad v. Whitney,
We conclude, on this branch of the case, that the Secretary of the Interior had ample power to set aside the Stratton survey and order a new survey by Yon Leicht; and that his action in such matter is unassailable in the courts in a collateral proceeding. The Yon Leicht' survey, therefore, must be held' as a correct survey of the pueblo claim as confirmed by the Circuit Court. Moreover, the method of running the shore line of the bay of San Francisco, adopted by the Yon Leicht survey, was. approved by the Circuit Court itself in Tripp v. Spring, 5 Sawyer, 209; and on this point we entertain no doubt.
The only remaining question in the case, as we understand it, and as we desire to consider it, may be thus stated: Admitting that the Yon Leicht survey is correct and follows the decree of confirmation; admitting, also, that the patent followed the survey and the decree, and that the premises in dispute are embraced in the patent: Was parol evidence admissible to show that these premises were below the ordinary
To this contention we cannot give our assent; .and in the view which we take of the question, we think there was error in admitting evidence to show that the land was below, high-water mark of the creek, and that the Supreme Court erred in sustaining this ruling. For this and other reasons hereinbefore stated the judgment should have been for the defendant. ■
It is the settled rule of law in this court that absolute property in, and dominion and sovereignty over, the soils under the tide waters in the original States were reserved to the several States, and that the new States since admitted have the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction in that behalf as the original States possess within their respective borders. Martin v. Waddell,
Irrespective of any such provision in the treaty, the obligations resting upon the United States in this respect, under the principles of international law, would have been the.same. Soulard v. United States,
These observations lead directly to the determination of the force and effect of the title of the pueblo of San Francisco, derived from the former government of Mexico, as opposed to the title which it is insisted passed to the State of California upon its admission into the Union by virtue of its sovereignty over all tide lands in the State below the high-water line, even including such as are situated within the limits of the pueblo.
If we have succeeded in showing that the tract in dispute was part of the land claimed by the city of San Francisco as' successor of the Mexican pueblo of that name; that it is within the four square leagues described in the decree of the United States Circuit Court for the district of California, entered May 18, 1865 ; that that court decided and decreed that the claim of title was valid under the laws of Mexico; that the official survey of the United States officers is correct and followed the decree of confirmation ; and that the patent of the government of the United States, following the survey and.decree, embraced within its calls the property in dispute; we think it clearly follfrtvs that the patent of the government is evidence of the title of the city under Mexican laws, and is conclusive, not only as against the government and against all parties claiming under it by titles subsequently acquired, but also as against all parties except those who have a full and complete title acquired from Mexico anterior in date to that confirmed by the decree of confirmation. This conclusion is fully sustained by the decisions of this court.
The case of San Francisco v. Le Roy,
The court held that the title of the city rests upon the dpcree of the court recognizing the title to the four square leagues of land, and establishing their boundaries; and that even if there were any tide lands within the pueblo the power and duty of the United States under the treaty to protect the claims of the city of San Francisco as successor to the pueblo were superior to any subsequently acquired rights of California over the tide lands. Upon the question involved the court said:
“We do not attach any importance, upon this question of reservation, to the deed of the tide-land commissioners, executed to Sullivan on the 3d of December, 1870, for the State did not at that time own any tide or marsh lands within tb,e limits of the pueblo as finally established by the Land Department. All the marsh lands, so called, which the State of California ever owned, were granted to her by the act of Congress of September 28, 1850, known as the Swamp Land Act, by which the swamp and overflowed lands within the limits of certain States, thereby rendered unfit for cultivation, were granted to the States to enable them to construct the necessary levees and drains to reclaim them. 9 Stat. c. 84, p. 519. The interest of the pueblo in the lands within its limits goes back to the acquisition of the country, and precedes the passage of that act of Congress. And that act was never intended to apply to lands held by the United States charged with any equitable claims of others, which they were bound by treaty to protect. As to tide lands, although it may be stated as a general principle — and it was so held in Weber v. Board of Harbor Commissioners,
In the case of Beard v. Federy,
“ The position of the defendants is, that as against them the patent is not evidence for any purpose; that as between them and the plaintiff the whole subject of title is open precisely as though no proceedings for the confirmation had been had, and no patent for the land had been issued. Their position rests upon a misapprehension of the character and effect of a patent issued upon a confirmation of a claim to land under the laws of Spain and Mexico.
“ In the second place, the patent is a record of the action of the government upon the title of the claimant as it existed upon the acquisition of the country. Such acquisition did not affect the rights of the inhabitants to their property. They retained all such rights, and were entitled by the law of nations to protection in them to the same extent as under the ■ former government. The treaty of cession also stipulated for such protection. The obligation to which the United States thus succeeded was, of course, political in its character, and to be discharged in such manner, and on such terms, as they might judge expedient. By the act of March 8, 1851, they have declared the manner and the terms on which they will discharge this- obligation. They have there established a special tribunal, before which all claims to land are to be investigated ; required evidence to be presented respecting the claims; appointed law officers to appear and contest them on behalf of the government; authorized appeals from the decisions of the tribunal, first to the District and then to the Supreme Court'; and designated officers to survey and measure off the land when the validity of the claims is finally determined. When informed, by the action of its tribunal, and officers, that a claim asserted is valid and entitled to recognition, the government acts, and issues its patent to the claimant. This instrument is, therefore, record evidence of the action of the government upon the title of the claimant. By it the government declares' that the claim asserted was valid under the laws of Mexico ; that it was entitled to recognition and protection by the stipulations of the treaty, and might have been located under the former government, and is correctly located now, so as to embrace the premises as they are surveyed and described. As against the government, this record, so long as it remains unvacated, is conclusive. And it is equally conclu
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions for further proceedings i/n conformity with this opinion.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
I concur in the judgment of this court and in the views expressed in its opinion. As a correct solution of the questions involved is. of vital importance to the security of titles claimed •under confirmed Mexican grants in California, followed by a survey made and a patent issued under the Land Department of the government, and as I have had personal knowledge of
The action is ejectment for the possession of certain premises within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco, and also within the boundaries of the tract of land confirmed to the city, as successor of a Mexican pueblo, as they are described in the official survey of the tract made under the direction and authority of the Land Department, and carried into the patent of the United States.
The tract confirmed is designated in the decree of confirmation rendered by the Circuit Court of the United States on the 18th of May, 1865, as “ a tract situated within the county of S§'n Francisco, and embracing so much of the extreme upper portion of the peninsula, above ordinary high-water mark, (as the same existed at the date of the acquisition of the country, namely, the seventh day of July, a.d. 1846,) on which the city of San Francisco is sitúated as will contain an area of four square leagues; said tract being bounded on the north and east by the bay of San Francisco ; on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and on the south by a due east and west line drawn so as to include the area aforesaid,” subject to certain deductions not material to be mentioned here. The decree declares that the “confirmation is in trust for the benefit of the lot holders under grants from the pueblo, town or city of San Francisco, or other competent authority, and as to any residue, in trust for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the city.”
A survey and plat purporting to be of the tract were made by one Stratton, a deputy of the surveyor general of the United States for California, and was approved by the latter officer in August, 1868. The survey, instead of following from its commencement on the east side of the tract to its termination the line of ordinary high-water mark of the bay of
To the approval of the survey and plat, the city and county of San Francisco filed their protest and objections. The military officer of the United States in command of the Department of. California also filed objections to so much of the survey as related to the military reservation within the limits of the tract.
Surveyor General Day succeeded the officer who had approved the survey, and he forwarded the protest and objections to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, accompanied by his opinion that the objections were well taken in several particulars, and recommended among other things that the plat and survey should be amended so as to include the marsh land lying on Mission Creek within the four square leagues, and by the resurvey of the southern and eastern boundary of the military reservation. The Commissioner, however, disregarded the objections and approved the survey, founding his conclusion upon the alleged long acquiescence of the city and county of San Francisco, from which he inferred a recognition of its correctness and a waiver of the protest and objections.
The confirmation was, as already stated, “ in trust for the benefit of the lot-holders under grants from the pueblo, town or city of San Francisco, or other competent authority, and as to any residue, in trust for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the city.” The legislation of Congress releasing the interest of the United States to the city was also in trust for the beneficiaries named, (14 Stat. 4, c. 18;) so that the city of San Francisco had no interest in the lands within the confirmed tract other than as a trustee, except where parcels had been
Certain lot-holders were also permitted to appear before the Secretary and argue the case, as parties interested in the title. An appeal was also taken by the military commander of the Department, on behalf of the United States, to correct alleged • errors in the survey of the military reservation, which kept the whole survey open before the Secretary until it was finally determined. Any change, either by the enlargement or diminution of the reservation, necessarily affected other lines of the survey, reducing or extending them as the quantity embraced within the tract surveyed was increased or diminished.
Mr. Schurz was then at the head of the Interior Department, and he examined at great length the action of the Commissioner and of the surveyor general upon the survey; received a large amount of testimony upon the objections presented, and heard arguments of counsel thereon. And he held that the treatment of the survey by the Commissioner proceeded on the assumption that the United States had no interest in the matter, and that if the State and city were satisfied, the duty of the Department was to approve the survey. This the Sep-. retary held to be a grave error, observing that if the excluded tracts which the city claimed under the protest were above high-water mark in 1846, they ought to be included in the survey, and then the southern boundary line would have to be moved further north, excluding a corresponding quantity which would fall into the public lands of the United States. No stipulation or agreement, therefore, said the Secretary, between the State and the city and county could estop or relieve the officers of the Department from the duty of executing the decree. or of protecting the interests of the government, adding, that ifthe city and county should ask to withdraw the protest
The protest and objections of the city and county referred to tracts of marsh land lying near and south of Mission Creek. They alleged that such lands were not overflowed by tide water, except at the spring tides; that the line of ordinary-high-water mark upon them on the side of the bay was sharply defined by a growth of samphire, a marine reedy plant which grows down to such line and no further. The testimony before the Secretary showed that the line thus defined was traced with a blue pencil on the engraved map of the coast survey, made by officers of the United States between 1850 and 1857, and that the marsh lands, including the premises in controversy, were above the line thus designated. Testimony of old residents of San Francisco, some of whom had resided there as early as 1842 and others in 1849, and down to a period long after 1851, and were familiar with the character of the land fronting on the bay, corroborated from their personal knowledge the evidence of this map, as to the marsh lands excluded from the survey being above the ordinary line of high-water mark of the bay.
It also appeared before the Secretary, that by .an act of the legislature of California, passed March 26, 1851, the State had granted to the city of San Francisco the use and occupation for ninety-nine years of certain lands designated as beach and water lots; and that in describing those lands it had made one of their boundaries the natural high-water mark of the bay, the line of such high-water mark extending to its point of intersection with the southern boundary of the city. The act provided that, within thirty days after its passage, the city of San Francisco should deposit in the offices of the secretary of State and of the surveyor general, and in the office of the surveyor of the city of San Francisco, “ a correct map of
Such maps were made and deposited as required, and from that time afterwards they were referred to by all parties in the city as determining the- true line of ordinary high-water mark as it had previously existed. A copy of one of them was before the Secretary. They represented, as he held, the line of ordinary high-water mark which had been established, sanctioned and recognized in the most solemn manner by the State and city 'for years, and was the best available evidence of ordinary high-water mark of 1,846 around that portion of the city. That line, as traced on the maps, crossed the mouth of Mission Creek and the mouths of all other creeks which in 1851 emptied into the bay of San Francisco. He, therefore, ordered the Commissioner to direct the surveyor general to secure a correct and authentic copy of the map, designating the line of natural high-water mark, in accordance .with the act of 1851, and make it the basis of a survey of so much of the exterior boundary of the claim as it represented, and to modify the Stratton survey in accordance therewith.
Subsequently, after Mr. Schurz had ceased to be the head of the Interior Department and Mr. Teller had become Secretary, application was made to the latter officer to review the decision of the former, and upon such application argument of counsel was heard and a most extended consideration of the whole matter was had. Secretary Teller observed that all the material questions relating to the boundaries of the tract confirmed were settled, except the single inquiry whether or not, in running the line of ordinary high-water mark of the ocean, and especially of the bay, the main shore or course line of such body of water identified by its larger description should be followed, cutting across the mouths of streams, estuaries and creeks which, intersecting the body of the peninsula, find their entrance into the ocean or bay, or whether such estuaries as fall below high tide should be segregated by following up the tide line on one side and down on the other, so as to make them as it were a part of the sea. He said that his predecessor had decided that the former was intended by the decree and ex
“When we look,” said the Secretary, “at the calls for boundary there is no ambiguity, no doubtful phraseology. Said tract being bounded on the north and east by the .bay of San Francisco; on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The tract bounds upon the bay and ocean, not upon estuaries, creeks and' streams intersecting such tract, even though they be navigable and technically termed arms of the sea.” The boundary, he added, was not the stream, but the bay; consequently the ordinary high-water mark must be the high-water mark of the shore as pertaining to the sea, and not the high-water mark of the bank as pertaining to a river or stream ; so that, although Mission Creek was alleged to have been as wrell a tidal inflow as an outlet for the inland waters, it nevertheless fell within banks instead of resting upon shores, and must be considered an inland water for all purposes. lie added that it was plain that the high-water mark extended to the shore of the bay, leaving out any reference whatever to the inland channels of the streams intersecting the granted peninsula. He accordingly directed a substantial adhesion to the decision of his predecessor, and overruled the application for its review.
After much difficulty with the surveying officers a survey was made pursuant to the directions given, and was approved by the then Commissioner of the General Land Office, and upon that survey a patent was issued to the city of San Francisco, bearing date the 20th day of June, 1884. This patent was forwarded to the mayor of San Francisco, and wras accepted on behalf of the city and county.
When Mr. Lamar succeeded Mr. Teller as the head of the Interior Department, application was made to him to recall the patent and issue a new one in accordance with the Stratton survey. In support of the application it was strenuously contended, by the same parties -who had resisted the action of his predecessors; that there wras a want of jurisdiction on their part to review the decision of the Commissioner of the Land Office. Such contention was urged upon the supposed meaning of the statute, and on the ground that the supervisors of
The Secretary, in considering the objections, referred to the fact that the supervisors, subsequently to those resolutions, had requested him, before whom they admitted the case was then pending relating to the boundaries of the military reservation, to take up and decide the case without further delay. And after a careful review of the question of jurisdiction, and the proceedings preliminary to the issue of the patent, he refused to recall the patent, holding that an order by him to that effect would be illegal and void, and that the matter presented for his consideration in the past proceedings of the case did not justify any recommendation to the legal department of the government to institute proceedings to recall, or modify, or in any manner interfere with the patent.
I have stated with as much brevity as possible the steps taken for the confirmation of the title of the city as successor of the Mexican pueblo, which are set forth more in detail in the opinions of the different Secretaries of the Interior laid before us on the hearing, for the statement is important to a •clear perception of the character and import of the rulings of the referee and of the court below. An extended narrative of the proceedings would occupy a much greater space and would show that parties claiming an interest in the ■ lands left out of the Stratton survey, and resisting the approval of the official survey subsequently made, had also applied to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and to Congress for aid to carry out their pretensions, and were met by the declaration that to obtain a remedy for any errors alleged, resort should have been had to the Secretary of the Interior, as the only revisory authority over the action of the inferior officers of the Land Department. It would also show that in obtaining a recognition of its claim, the city had met from them at every step the most strenuous opposition, and that every possible objection taken to the claim and survey since,
The parties who carried on the long and protracted contest in the Land Department, againsLthe confirmation of the claim and its survey as finally approved, asserted the acquisition of an interest in those premises under certain deeds of the tideland commissioners, created by the legislature of California.
•On March 30, 1868, that legislature passed an act to survey and dispose of certain salt-marsh and tide-lands belonging to the State. ■ It empowered the governor to appoint three persons, who were to constitute a board of tide-land commissioners, and authorized them to take possession of all the marsh and tide lands, and lands lying under water, situate along the bay of San Francisco and in the city and county of San Francisco, belonging to the State; to have the same surveyed and maps of the property prepared; to sell the interest of the State therein, and to execute conveyances to the purchasers. Laws of California, 1867-8, c. 513.
At that time one George W. Ellis had settled upon lands excluded from the Stratton survey, and after its passage he applied to the board of tide-land commissioners and obtained from it- two deeds, dated in November, 1875, covering the premises. His grantees carried on the contest, but not in their own names, against the location and survey of the tract confirmed before the Interior Department, and in every possible way sought to defeat, its action and secure such a survey as would leave the lands claimed by them without the limits of the pueblo. The interest which the plaintiffs below, the United Land Association and Clinton C. Tripp, had or claimed in the premises covered by the patent to the city of San Fran-, cisco was founded upon these conveyances of the tide-land commissioners. Relying upon a title from that source the present action was brought.
The plaintiffs claimed title to the premises in controversy under the deeds mentioned. The defendant relied upon the-fact that the premises were within the boundaries of the tract patented. They were situated in what constituted in 1854 the channel of Mission Creek, above its mouth. A witness produced by the plaintiffs testified that he knew their location and had made surveys in their neighborhood in that year, and that they were then below the line of ordinary high-water mark. He did not add “ of the bay; ” but as the premises w;ere where the water of the creek formerly ran, and where, for aught that appears in evidence, it may now run, it was to the high-water mark of that creek to which he had reference.
The plaintiffs also gave in evidence the final decree of confirmation of the claim of- the city of San Francisco rendered by the Circuit Court of the United States, and the Stratton survey, mentioned above, with the certificate of approval of the surveyor general and the confirmation thereof by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Objection was made to the introduction of this survey on the ground that it was not competent evidence, not being matter of record; and that 'it had been cancelled and' superseded by another survey made in accordance with instructions of the Secretary of the Interior. The referee overruled the objections under the exception of the defendant, admitted the rejected survey, and, among other things, held that in approving that survey the commissioner was acting in a judicial capacity, and that his -judgment thereon was not reversible and was not legally reversed.
The defendant, to show that no title ever vested in the plaintiffs under their alleged deeds from the tide-land commissioners, gave in evidence the patent of the United States issued to the city of San Francisco, dated the 20th of June, 1884; also the plat of the pueblo lands finally confirmed to the city
It was conceded that the patent included within its boundaries the premises in question. The referee admitted the evidence thus offered of the patent and survey, with the concession that they included the demanded premises, but refused to find for the defendant thereon, and the defendant excepted.
The decree of confirmation, as seen above, bounds, the tract confirmed on the north and east side by ordinary high-water mark of the bay of San Francisco. The Stratton s irvey and the proofs before the referee did not show that tl>- \ premises in controversy were below that water mark of the bay, but only that they were below that water mark at a point in the channel of Mission Creek, and yet the referee held that the Stratton survey and the parol proofs in the case showed that the premises were outside of the specific boundary of the decree, and therefore remained the. property of the State. He accordingly gave judgment fo.r the plaintiffs.
His rulings on the trial exhibited several errors. He gave, no effect to the general rule that in actions of ejectment patent of the United States, issued upon a confirmation of land claim to which protection had been guaranteed by treaty, cannot be collaterally assailed for mere error alleged in the action of the officers of the government. He admitted in evidence, against the objections of the defendant, the rejected survey of Stratton, in contravention of the principle that a rejected survey of officers of the Land-Department is in lav/, no survey, and inoperative for any purpose. It has so been held in numerous instances and never to the contrary. In the, particulars in which the Stratton survey was modified by direction of Secretaries Schurz and Teller, it was of no more efficacy as a legal document than so much waste paper. Be apparently perceived that there was something bizarre in receiving as evidence a rejected survey, or a modified survey, except in the particulars in which the modification was lu<I, and sought to avoid this position by holding that the aofoa
There were several hundred claims to lands in California, under Mexican grants, presented for confirmation to the board of' land commissioners created by the act of 1851. They em-l raced many millions of acres of land, and in a large number, probably the majority of cases, where the claim was confirmed, the survey thereof by the surveyor general for "the State, after being considered and approved or rejected by the Commissioner of’the General Land Office, passed under the supervision of and were in some respects modified by the Secretary of the Interior as the head of the Land Department of the United States. If the position taken by the referee, .that the action on the survey of such claims by the Commissioner was final, could be sustained, every patent issued upon a survey of a claim which had been in any respect modified or changed by direction of the Secretary of the Interior would be open to attack, to the frightful unsettlement of titles in the State and to the infinite disturbance of the peace of its people.
When the patent to the city was brought before the referee, and it was conceded that the land in controversy was' included within the boundaries embraced by the survey embodied in it, judgment should have been rendered for the defendant. The title under the patent necessarily antedated any possible claim of the State of California to the lands within the limits of the pueblo. It went back to the acquisition of the country from Mexico. When the United States acquired California the inhabitants were entitled by the. law of nations to protection from the new government in all rights of property then possessed by them. Jurisdiction and sovereignty passed from one nation to the other by the cession, but not private rights of
By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States also stipulated for such protection, and that implied that rights of property, perfect or imperfect, held by the inhabitants previous to the acquisition of the country, should be secured to them, so far as such property was recognized by the laws and constitution of the new government; and for that purpose that the holders should receive from the new authorities such official and documentary evidence of their rights as would assure their full possession and enjoyment. Pueblos in that respect stood in the same position as private individuals. All their rights of property, legal or equitable, were alike entitled to protection. Whatever property was ceded to the United States from Mexico, whether marsh lands or tide lands, passed subject to the obligation to protect existing claims to them of all parties. The State could take no greater interest than the United States acquired; all lands she received went under her control charged with the equitable claims of others, which the United States were bound by the treaty and the law of nations to protect. The marsh lands granted to her by the act of Congress of September 28, 1850, were thus affected. And the same was true of the tide lands. Whatever lands of that nature passed to the United States were held for the future State, subject, however, to any trust from the former government which might require their disposition in some other way. The duty and power of the United States in the execution of their treaty obligations to protect the property claims of all persons, natural or artificial, were superior to any subsequently acquired interest of the State or of individuals. Mexico owned the tide
The obligation of protection imposed upon the United States by the law of nations, and assumed by the treaty, was political in its character, to be performed in such a manner and on such terms as the United States might direct. As held by this court in Beard v. Federy,
And what was the effect and operation of this instrument? It was not merely a quit-claim or conveyance of whatever interests the United States held in the lands embraced; it was something more; it was, as declared in the case cited, record evidence upon the title of the claimant from the former government. .' As there said: “ By it the government declares that the claim asserted was valid under the laws of Mexico; that it was entitled to recognition,and protection by the stipulations of the treaty, and might have been located under the former government, and is correctly located now so as to embrace the premises as they are surveyed a/nd described. As against the government, so long as it remains unvacated, it is conclusive. And it is equally conclusive against pa,rties claiming wider the government by title subsequent.” The patent being thus conclusive, can only be resisted by those who hold paramount title to the premises from Mexico antedating the title confirmed, that is, by persons who can successfully resist any action of the United States in disposing of the property or in perfecting the title of the claimant.
In the case from which I have cited the court added, in order to impress the importance of this doctrine for the stability of titles in the State resting upon confirmed and patented Mexican grants: “ It is in this effect of the patent as a record of the government that its security and protection chiefly lie. If parties asserting interest in lands acquired since the acquisition of the country could deny and controvert this record, and compel the patentee in every suit for his land to establish the validity of his claim, his right to its confirmation and the correctness of the action of the tribunals and officers of the United States in the'location of the same, the patent would fail to be, as it was intended it should be, an instrument of quiet and
The doctrine of that case.has nevór been departed from,.but,, on th,e contrary, has always .been followed and approved. Numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of California, commencing with the 13th. volume of its reports and extending down to a late period, express the same doctrine with equal clearness and emphasis. Moore v. Wilkinson, 13 California, 478, 484; Yount v. Howell, 14 California, 465; Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 California, 11; Leese v. Clark, 18 California, 535; Ward, v. Mulford, 32 California, 365; Chipley v. Farris, 45 California, 527; People v. San Francisco, 75 California, 388.
But notwithstanding the, superior and conclusive character of the title presented by the patént, and the emphatic decision of the highest tribunal of the country, and repeated decisions of the State Supreme Courts to. the same effect, that until vacated that. instrument was .conclusive against, the government and parties claiming by title subsequent, the. referee found otherwise and held that, the plaintiffs, who derived whatever interest they possessed twenty-nine years subsequently.to that of the city, held the better right and were entitled.to judgment for the demanded premises; and such judgment was entered in one, of the Superior Courts of the. city. From that judgment an appeal was taken to the,Supreme Court, of the State, where it was affirmed. A rehearing being granted, a reargument was had, and a second time the judgment was affirmed by four judges, of the court, the remaining three dissenting. From the latter judgment the case is brought to this court on a writ of error..
From the opinions upon both affirmances it appears that the court below, equally with the referee, lost sight of the principle that in actions at law a patent of the United States, upon a confirmation of a private land claim asserted by virtue of rights acquired under a,foreign government, is not open to
That the land commissioners and the Circuit Court of the United States had jurisdiction to hear and determine the valid-' ity of the claims asserted by the city of • San Francisco is not open to question.' The laws of the. United States gave,them such jurisdiction, and when that claim was confirmed the law directed by what officers its boundaries should be established and surveyéd. It was the exclusive province of those officers to ascertain whére the line of true boundary ran, subject to the control and supervision of the Interior .Department. To say that those who directed and supervised the survey had not jurisdiction to perform that duty, is to deny efficacy to the laws of Congress..
The court below upon the first .affirmance rejected the boundary as established and surveyed by the officers appointed by law for that purpose, and assumed that the line of ordinary high-water mark of Mission Creek running into the bay, was, as far as such line extended, the true boundary designated by the decree, and held that land, below, such line was the property of the State. In other words, it assumed that the boundary of the pueblo was to follow the line of high-water mark of the creek, and not be confined to the high-water mark of the bay. It thereupon stated that the question .involved was whether the officers of the Land Department had power to' patent land outside of the natural boundaries given in the decree of confirmation.
In this statement the learned- court fell into an error. No such question was involved in the case. The approved surv'ey upon which the patent was issued crossed the mouth of Mission Creek and included the lands above its mouth, among them the premises in controversy. The question involved, therefore, was whether in an action of ejectment for the pos
Proceeding on the assumption that a different line from the one officially established constituted the true boundary line of the tract confirmed, the court below declared that it was- the' duty of the surveyor to follow such different line—though otherwise directed by the highest officer of the Land Department, who had the sole right of control in the matter — and, that as the surveyor did not follow that different line, he included, according to its judgment, lands within his description not within the decree of confirmation.
I may speak of the decree with some confidence as a member of the court by which it was rendered, and a distinct recollection remains with me of the circumstances under which the •language used was adopted. The original decree of confirmation was rendered in October, 1864, and stated the land confirmed to be “a tract situated within the county of San Francisco, and émbracing so much of the upper portion of the peninsula on which the city of San Francisco is situated, as WÜ1 contain an area of four square leagues,” as described in the petition. A motion for a rehearing was made, which kept t.he case, open until the following spring, the judge who pro'nounced the decree being absent from California in Washington in attendance upon the Supreme Court. On his return the question of a rehearing was brought up, when it was suggested by counsel' that the decree needed correction, so as' not to include in the claim confirmed the beach and water lots conveyed to the city by the act of the legislature of 1851. Preference was made to.the map prepared under the directions.
In addition to this fact it may be observed that at the time the Circuit Court was not ignorant of the universal rule governing the measurement of waters, to which the Supreme Court of the State makes no reference in its decision, and of which it seems to have been entirely oblivious, that where a water of a larger dimension is intersected by a water of a smaller dimension, the line of measurement of the first crosses the latter at the points of junction, from headland to headland. The existence of tide lands in the intersecting water in no respect affects the result. For illustration, in the measurement of a body of water like Long Island Sound, when the Connecticut Liver is met the line of survey does not follow up that river to Hartford because the tide is felt at that place, but it crosses the mouth of the river from headland to headland. So, too, the measurement of Chesapeake Bay does not include the Potomac Liver up to.Washington because the tide is felt .at the site of the capital. It would be absurd to include in the measurement of the bay of San Francisco the waters of the river Sacramento as far as the city of that name, nearly a hundred miles above the bay, because the tide is felt there ; or to embrace the river San Joaquin as far as Stockton because the tide reaches to that place. This is so plain that it excites surprise that any question should have been made upon the subject. And if a river extending a hundred miles or more could not be included in the bay, even though affected by the tides, neither can a stream of less dimensions, though not ex
When the survey here was pending before one of the Secretaries of the Interior, application was made to the head of the Coast Survey of the United States for the rule adopted by that bureau in the measurement of waters, and the answer was the statement of the rule which I have given; and it is a singular fact that, as an illustration of its application, reference was had to the bay of San Francisco and Mission Creek, and the declaration made that in the measurement of the bay.the line of the survey would cross the mouth of that creek. Admiral' Rodgers, who was at one time the head of the Coast Survey in California, and had surveyed the line of ordinary high-water mark of the bay óf San Francisco, filed his affidavit to the effect that he had since 1851 been stationed in California in charge of the United States survey of the coast thereof, including the peninsula of San Francisco; that the traced’chart or map showing the line of ordinary high water along the eastern side of the peninsula of San Francisco from Rincon Point to and including Islais Creek, as surveyed by the Coast Survey-of- the United States in 1852, was prepared from the published, surveys of the Coast Survey of the United States, and that the line laid down on that map in blue pencil, from Rincon Point, around .Mission Bay, to and including Islais Creek, and crossing Mission and Islais Creeks, was a true delineation of the line of ordinary high-water mark as it existed when he first knew it in the year "1852. He added that “ in determining a boundary line stated as the line of ‘ ordinary high-water mark,.’ on the bay of San Francisco, there can be no other course than to follow the stated line of ordinary high tide on-the shore of the bay, crossing the mouths of all inferior tidal streams or estuaries, many of which enter into San Francisco Bay at different points, and not to-follow the meanders of any such inferior tidal streams or estuaries.”
The question as to what was the boundary line of the tract confirmed also became the subject of judicial inquiry in the Circuit Court of the United States in 1878. An action was brought by one Tripp, who is one of the plaintiffs in this case, for- a parcel of land constituting a portion of a block in the city of San Francisco. The premises were situated where Mission Creek formerly ran, and distant about a mile from its mouth. All that part of the stream covered by the block in which the premises were situated had been filled in and buildings erected thereon, which were occupied as private residences. The plaintiff claimed title under the same conveyances of the board of tide-land commissioners upon which the plaintiffs below rely in this .case, and the same contention was made there as here The question presented was whether the title to those premises passed by the tid'e-land commissioners’ deeds or whether they were within the limits of- the pueblo claim as confirmed, although not at that time patented. The court said: “ Whether the waters of the bay were ever carried by the tide over the lands is a matter upon which the evidence is conflicting. The creek was often swollen by water from the adjacent hills so as to overflow its banks, and the tide some
As thus appears, the identical question involved in this case was decided in that. No case was ever tried with more care, or greater consideration, and at the conclusion- of a trial of several days the court decided that judgment must be entered for the defendant. ■ The presiding justice stated the grounds of the decision orally, and observed that as the questions involved were deemed of great importance he would .at a subse
Counsel for the plaintiff then stated that special findings in the case were desired, in order that should the case reach the Supreme Court it might be finally determined there. Upon that suggestion the entry of judgment was stayed, and an adjournment of the court had, that such findings might be prepared. On the next day the case was dismissed by stipulation of parties.
The opinion of the court, pronounced at the close of the trial, and subsequently written out was, notwithstanding the dismissal, as much authority on the questions of law presented as though a formal judgment had been entered, although the judgment ordered, because not entered on account of the dismissal, could not be pleaded in bar of a future action.
The court below having assumed that another line than the one officially established was the true one, took the extraordinary ground that the error committed in that respect by the surveying officers, though acting under the express directions of the Land Department, was jurisdictional and fatal to their action, rendering it void, and opening the patent embodying the survey to collateral attack. And it proceeded to cite several decisions in supposed support of this view, but which only were to the effect that where the Land Department had no jurisdiction over the subject matter considered, its patent could be assailed collaterally.
In thus holding, the court failed to distinguish between what was, upon' its own statement, mere error in the action of the Land Department, and matters which were entirely beyond its jurisdiction. The ascertainment of the true line of the boundaries of the claim confirmed was a matter especially entrusted to that department by the laws of Congress, as already stated. If the officers of that department in executing the survey made mistakes, ran erroneous lines and included
The distinction between errors committed where jurisdiction exists to take the proceeding in which the alleged error arises, and where there is an ‘entire want of jurisdiction over the subject matter considered, is too familiar to be discussed. The distinction is constantly applied with reference to the proceedings of ordinary tribunals. If they have jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, their judgment cannot be collaterally assailed for mere errors committed in the proceedings leading to it. The remedy for errors must be sought by application for a new trial or by appeal for a review to an appellate court: The same distinction prevails with reference to the proceedings of the special tribunal or department of the government to which is entrusted the supervision of measures for the issue of its patent.
The cases referred to and dwelt upon as supposed to support the opposite doctrine are not susceptible of the meaning attributed to them. The. principal cases cited are Smelting Co. v. Kemp,
The attempt is futile to use these cases, or any other case,, to establish the. proposition that if an error can be shown in the action of an officer of the Land Department in a matter subject to its jurisdiction the proceeding of the officer may be treated as a nullity and the patent- issued thereon be collaterally assailed. This view is untenable, and does not merit serious consideration. If it could be sustained it would be subversive of all security in the ■ judgments of ordinary tribunals, as well as in those of special tribunals, like the Land Department. Nor is there any pertinency in the observations as. to the reservation from grant of the seashore under the law of the former government. No claim was ever made in the Eueblo Case for any part of the séashore. Those terms apply in this country only to land covered-and. uncovered by the daily tides. They cannot possibly have any application to the banks of creeks or to land under their waters. The rule of the civil law of Europe that lands covered and uncovered by the tides.at their highest flood daring the year constitute the shore of the sea has never
The reasons given by the court below on the second affirmance of the judgment of the referee are marked by the objections stated to its former opinion. The true doctrine as to the effect of patents in actions at law is stated in a decision of the court below in De Guyer v. Banning—rendered whilst this case has been pending here, in which that court, following a long line of previous adjudications, unbroken except by this case, declares that upon a confirmation of a Mexican grant the patent issued by the United States to the claimant is the only evidence of the extent of the grant, and that if there is a conflict as to its location and.extent between it and the decree of confirmation, the patent must control. It is the only .doctrine which will insure peace and tranquillity to parties holding under patents issued upon confirmed Mexican grants. Any other doctrine would introduce endless confusion and perplexity as to all such, titles. If there be, in. fact, any material conflict between the boundaries given in the decree, of confirmation and'those described in the official survey, the only remedy is to be sought by direct proceedings instituted by the government, or by its authority. Until the alleged conflict is thus determined and adjusted, the patent' must control.
From the views expressed I am clearly of opinion that the. Supreme Court of the State erred in affirming the judgment
Even then the opposition to the just claim, of the city and of parties holding under the city did not cease, but has been continued in one form or other ever since. It is to be hoped that all annoyances and litigation from such opposition will now be ended.