*1 v. Bitchie.. The United .States be taken at also, exceptions testimony may that And and, if then taken to the com- exceptions the final hearing; remove can opposite party testimony, petency decision, reserve the time court will give further proof, it. to the produce party on bill, for cause be set final also, that said heating And adduced, so exhibits, answer, testimony, second proofs, replication, 1856, on admitted, January, filed, and Monday for thé continuance unless be then shown court cause thereof. A. Ritchie.* States, v. Archibald Appellants, United
The Stats, 1851, March, (9 Large, 631,) at congress passed By an 3d of act of pri- commissioners to settle appointment made for the of a board of provision was California, case decided them to transfer of a claims and for the vate land district California, appeal. by way of United for court of the States court, not a The, was under law board commissioners This was constitutional. of the suit constitution, judicial powers; but commencement invested court, original pro- there, regarded as an must be the district when transferred that was ceeding. evidence to before The district court could hear additional board of commissioners. might or claimant file section the act directed that the United States The 9th court, pointed sections and other out petition, praying appeal an the district a the to this was all passed an on the 31st changed by act .proceeding. mode of But Stats, 1852, filing of a Large, 99,) August, which directed should, appeal. operate as an ipso facto, the district the clerk of amounts, also, party. opposite notice This Solano, Indian, particularly of land in an to tract The title of Francisco forth. set according to the laws of Although Indian, competent, he Mex- yet was an Solano property. grant, at the time of the to take and hold real ico Mexico, 1821, government of Iguala, revolutionary plan adopted country, an public and decrees of that and all the successive documents recognized Africans, Indians; inhabitants, Europeans, equality amongst all the whether colonization, citizenship of providing recognized the decree of for the Indians, right to hold land. their secularizing the mis- passed laws for In 1833 of Mexico sions, them in belonging to public granted the lands under which authorities same as other lands. manner lands, respect opinion expressed. In lands called Pueblo no to those of the United district court from the This appeal States of California. northern district to land in Cal- claimants act congress respecting claimed, ifornia, Ritchie and the title of under whom so set forth in the opinion particularly those has add reporter nothing topics. * Mr. sit in this cause. did not Justice Daniel court Mr. Cushing, It was (attorney-general,) argued Bibb, for the States, and Mr. appellee. for the into a became expanded printed The brief Mr. Cushing *2 of which is a of following pages, eighty-eight argument mere outline: March, 1851, on 3d of The act of passed congress Stats, contains a clause which is of declaratory 631,) Large, decisions of land law, of which the principles general in to be herein It is these words:— in California are claims governed. district and and the for, The commissioners provided on the of claim courts, in brought deciding validity any supreme act, of this shall be under the provisions governed before them by nations, of law of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, treaty customs of the from which the laws, usages, of decisions of derived, is equity, claim principles so are States, of the United far they appli- supreme cable.” of these five sources authority sep- Mr. Cushing analyzed of and ascertain the law view to settle with a principles arately, in course of caseand, bore argument, laws, how discussed, at question usages, length, great Pro- of a proved. and customs foreign government case, he contended Mariano to this particular ceeding claims, had no title to Ritchie under whom Vallejo, Guadaloupe reasons, title for various being, the pretended convey, void in law equity. null and horn Solano Guadaloupe Vallejo. I. Of the conveyance reason of the assumes 1. The claimant § take, of in Mexico Indians 13th articles Iguala, may plan hold, and sell lands. —: To reply since, but before the this, do not only plan They might be shown hereafter. doubt, all as will beyond Iguala, nor neither increased diminished the 2. The Iguala plan Indians, this respect. power could, an Indian in Cal- not, 3. The true whether question circumstances ifornia, land, and sell but under what hold conditions. can take, hold, the United States free citizen of Thus, any forms with- lands; and sell out which there can but the law imposes conveyance, also sale; be no valid and it cer- prescribes citizens, whole classes of tain safeguards conveyances their minors, others, women, as married prevent defrauded. entirely the these he discarded In the discussion of points, of the witnesses contended testimony de Indias, which was must decided Recopilación they where of its of the Mexican Republic, except pro- the law any or either been visions expressly, by necessary may repealed, code, from This Lib. since the Spain. separation implication, their 27,1572, forbade Indians 1,1.37, Tit. Law selling of a land, unless with pursuance permission form. prescribed re- contended, had never been of this he law, provisions treaties of Cordova did not treaties, Iguala.and pealed. plan them. This Mexican and these together plan 4he repeal examined. authorities, were then other particularly States, several Mexican The special legislation Indians, afforded conclusive evidence subject plan law, other law of the did not repeal Iguala (27,) Indias, Indians. Our for the de protection Recopilación for their forbidding conveyances, own laws protection, by to this law. Spanish analogous title confirmation Solano’s departmental As that such confirma- contended Mr. Cushing assembly for these to the benefit tion did not entire Vallejo, grantee, *3 reasons:— authorized law. 1. of Solano was not The Solano purchase valid covenant make a in rela- 2. had no to authority land, or title thereto. tion for further assurance fact, not, in covenant 3. There was any to the benefit could Vallejo. this instrument which enure case, Mr. contend- of this Cushing to branch another Passing Solano, to and void as conveyance by ed that alleged grant gov- fraudulent against Vallejo, and'Solano Sonoma, was commandant ernment Vallejo used Solano’s name overseer, and that was bailiff was his contended,-that the further cover fraud. He .mis- merely law. The follow- of the colonization were not subject sions n — a summary points: ing sale, Indian, not made in Solano, from the was 1. The alleged a, was, there- vendue; public justice, presence Solano to have had fore, void, good even null and supposing title from the Mexican government. action of This defect is not cured departmental 2. back, nor enure for the benefit which does relate not assembly, of Vallejo. who, 3. case testimony Vallejo, The rests mainly war- covenants seisin and Ritchie, having conveyed the title. witness, as a was incompetent, prove ranty, the whole Solano, No title 4. passed a fraud, instrument, of which transaction Solano was the being benefit of Vallejo. The land, land, mission was eolonizable; not and, therefore, to Solano null and void. pretended grant land, mission if Solano Being acquired (which denied) therein, interest he not could it to lawfully convey Vallejo of, form whatever; and on his conveyance by any ceasing, possession the land reverted to the domain. public title 7. The Vallejo, pretended through only him, fraudulent mission lands of San Francisco Solano. cover the device of a of the plunder, by part 8. The land is to be at not shown distance from necessary to make it frontier to colonization.' subject course, Of no title, Vallejo, could none to having convey Ritchie, and the land domain of the appertains United States. two the Mr. Bibb's first related the nature of the condi- points tions estate was matter that will be granted —a more noticed in the next of the United especially States v. Fremont. His third :was The United States have- not point a review of the decision of. the commissioners in the prosecuted manner and form 3, the 9th required section act of March by settle 1851, to ascertain and land claims in private Stats, State at ch. and there- Large, 41,) no fore have no no foundation grounds, whereon to standing, this court to review and reverse the decision of com- pray missioners. act, The 9th and 10th of this sections he contended, were sect, 1852, (Stats, not the act of repealed' by 99, ch. Large, 108.) IV. time when received a attorney-general decision commissioners does not record, it does not to the court that the appear notice was appear filed clerk district court within the of time the 12th section period prescribed by said.act would the United States; appeal prosecutéd by therefore, the as dismissed. ought regarded appeal *4 of the The final decree board of commissioners was pronounced 3, 1853; and recorded the notice the January by attorney- that would be was filed the general, appeal prosecuted, clerk sixteen 20,1853; seven months and had September days intervened; so the of the notice with the clerk have filing might the of six from time beeii after months the the lapse attorney- a had received and decision general transcript of the commissioners. the limitation to run be accounted began As -period 1854. TERM. Kitehic. United
The the who time of a fact attorney-general, from known only the the time he received notice, ought the that .gave court; the district have made to the record of been appear if it had been the would fact, plaintiff, alleged by But total traversable the been by by disregard respondent. 9th section of the act plaintiff provisions Ritchie, of the defendant, deprived opportunity rely in district statute limitations court. holds, V. The title under complete the appellee branch title, a and of under legal executive perfect grant' by —a branch, the Mexican government, approved legislative branch, consummated juridical possession judicial' inhabited, delivered to1the land was which the under grantee, fee, cultivated, and owner long improved, before and at the enjoyed by Hidalgo. treaty Guadaloupe of the soil no . that States acquired right By treaty, juris- but the powers, included this nothing political grant; that diction, and under a stipulation sovereignty, special enjoyment owners should property protected thereof. had been so severed that this land completely Before treaty, vested in Mexico, so from domain of perfectly no grantee fee, title in that property right by legal land the United States. passed California, all laws, per- and customs VI. usages, By races, had capacity between sons, without distinction Bibb’s ease, Mr. lands. point take and alienate Upon numerous. citations very considered 1. assembly governor departmental holding Solano’s an Indian did not from prevent land. of' laws, customs, govern- 2. and usages inwas the record wit- it. of this ment nesses. Proof permitted as facts. 3. These customs laws, proved usages, in North No colonies nation, Christian who or planted South denied to the America, capacity ever aborigines subordination tribes, them in selling lands as and of holding nation. governing to be that But did not Indian right consider Spain but a of mere right possession; perpetual occupancy treaties, under the lands held property guaranty they so military in the establishment highly respected royal site thereof either order, purchased post with, India .is of St. their permission, occupied 9 Pet. Mark’s. von. xvii.
The United. States n 6. The of native Indians and their descendants capacity take individually, by grant fee-simple, acknowledged various treaties between the United States and different tribes of Indians. No nation of white who have ever established people, themselves and their in America, government (however proud and confident in their over the fed men who were superiority found in the have ever denied that the occupancy lands,) Indians were human entitled to the beings rights humanity, to the natural and and rights. holding, acquiring, alienating real and property, personal, including marriage and descent. Here, let us cSll to mind the of Mr. marriage Rolfe, the man, white with Pocahontas, the Indian princess, whose descendants have held and now hold of honor places and estates, real profit, and let us not large personal; the virtues Pocahontas, her acts forget and noble courageous cause of which have her charac- darings humanity,
ter illustrious, and her of a niche in the portrait worthy capitol of the United States of America. the decree of the By 8.. supreme government of. States of as well as (before foreigners, quoted,) Mexicans were endowed with the receive capacity grants land, and to establish themselves thereon. Was Francisco Solano neither a nor Mexican? Were native foreigner civilized Indians, converted to the Christian faith, in full com- munion with church, the established Catholic excluded from privilege lands from the acquiring grants directly ? government 9. The historical evidence of the in Mexico, revolutions confirms the and that the Indians were position capable buying lands. selling plan treaties of Iguala,' Cor- dova, and documents, other all public recognize right. VII. has been so made to Solano in Although grant fee, said, it is authorized, that Solano was not yet capacity, had not to sell. for the sake of so. Suppose, it were Would the argument, act of sale, deed of making bargain make to him void ab initio to have grant annul capacity to hold, and States ? convey land the United June, Solano was of 10th- conveyance Vallejo 1842; 2d Feb- treaty Hidalgo signed Guadaloupe 1848; ruary, the ratifications exchanged May, this interval, During sale and between conveyance by. Solano and the the Mexican treaty Gaudaloupe Pfidalgo, never breach condition complained any any in this to Solano; never instituted proceeding, v. Ritchie. heirs, alienee, title, or the Vallejo, or his Solano divest domain. reunite it to land, on the date of Solano living At the treaty, alienee, and his 1851; or about the there, Vallejo, died year *6 1842, the land from until and cultivating was also in possession Ritchie, to his sale August, conveyance to the to Solano VIII. The alleges grant attorney-general been collusive fraudulent. case. examined the facts in the Mr. Bibb of the court. Justice delivered the Mr. NELSON opinion of district court for the This is an from a decree appeal of northern district California. before the board commenced proceedings originally California, of commissioners settle land claims private Stats, at 3, of Large, under the act of March congress 63!.) A filed that board Ritchie against was before petition by of land known States, forth a claim to a tract by setting Sonoma, of Suisun,” the name of situate the jurisdiction of 18,000 four square leagues, county comprising Mexican. be that the title confirmed. acres,) might (nearly praying Alvarado, a B. The title claimed is derived from Juan- by 28, Solano, dated of to Francisco January governor commissioners, case, on after hearing proofs 1853, ordered that the title confirmed the 3d of January, the claimant. On the 19th of a be- May, transcript board, fore the of decision, was filed with the clerk their the Uuited States district of Cali- district court for the northern notice'of fornia and on the 20th of September, appeal from the the to the"district court was filed with the clerk decision of the United States. attorney-general Further was and heard taken before the testimony court; and at a at the term, of San Francisco held special city on the November, 8th of of 1853, the decision of the board confirmed. commissioners was The case is the decree now before us on an from appeal the district court. Objections have been on taken part appellee " case; to hear determine the jurisdiction court, the district and, also, lo the board com- appeal regularity had it will assuming jurisdiction missioners — —which first to notice. necessary to, 8th of the act it section referred By already commissioners, de-, within after their duty thirty days cisión, same, with the reasons on which it certify founded, to the district of the United' States of the attorney dis- trict which the decision was rendered. And the 9th sec- tion, it is that in all cases of provided rejection confirmation board, claim should be lawful for the claimant or district States, behalf the United attorney, a present decision; to the district court review the petition praying and that the forth the nature the claimant, if should set petition, presented by the claim, with a &c., together board, and of the and other evi- report documentary dence on which it was founded. And the if petition, presented the district shall be attorney, accompanied by transcript board, shall &c., and set forth the which the grounds upon claim is invalid; and a alleged shall copy petition be served whom upon opposite party upon party; the service shall be be bound answer the same made.shall within the time of the district prescribed by &c. judge And section, it is made of the district court the'duty and render proceed judgment evidence upon pleadings in the cause, and further evidence be taken may *7 order of the by party against to the court; and, said on the of the appeal application rendered, whom the an judgment the court of United States. And the supreme by section, to either a of the entitle board of review com- party missioners, court shall be the in the notice of intention to file a district petition board within entered the of the journal sixty after the decision of the been notified to the claim has days par- and the ; ties shall be district filed in the court petition within after the decision has six months been rendered. The mode the above case from removing for prescribed the court was board of commissioners the district subsequently sect, of the act of the 12th 31st changed congress passed Stats, August, Large, 99.) This in section in case which the board provides every it decision, commissioners shall be their shall render final to have two their certified duty proceedings transcripts decision, and of the on which the evidence same papers founded, shall be of which filed out, one transcripts with court, the of the and the clerk district other trans- proper mitted States; to the of the and the United attorney-general shall, ipso as facto, clerk filing transcript operate with the an decision shall be ren- for the whom appeal party against claimant, dered and if bo private such decision shall against it shall be to file the clerk of with notice duty thereafter, within six of his intention months prosecute ¡.\ Ritchie. United Stales, it if the decision shall against appeal, shall be the United after of the within months six duty attorney-general, be filed the said notice to with cause receiving transcript, clerk aforesaid, appeal-will prosecuted And on the failure file such notice States. of either party clerk, with the shall be as dismissed. appeal regarded The removal of commis- before board proceedings sioners, court, took in this to the in district place conformity n withthe 1852, and, the act of provisions urged by for the counsel defective not that it is appellee, complying with of the requirement 9th section of the act of 1851. district, to the court therein for. respect petition provided But are of we vir- that the. 12th section of the act of 1852 opinion section, repeals tually dispenses petition thereby answer, as in the district preliminary steps hearing court. not essential to the They of the clearly removal cause, or of what is called the the 12th perfecting as appeal, section of the act of 1852 makes the re- filing transcript ipao turned commissioners facto, operate, appeal favor whom the decision had been rendered. party against court, and answer in filing petition the distrier the 9th section, form of prescribed by presenting, plead- issue tried, to be would have been more ings, conformity but, the nature and the.practice courts; looking heard,and character in these questions determined the court, before cannot be of pleadings' as these great very been the of commissioners. The case is importance, questions already especially subject both before the board examination by parties question practice particular rather a matter of form than substance. further, It is act of objected, 12th section of no makes for iiotiee to the whose favor the provision party has decision been rendered the'appeal commissioners'. there, to the district and that a be had hearing may the decision reversed in his But he has absence. notice .of'the board, as the appeal, the filing according t.o act, eil’eet; has that and then will diligence ordinary’ *8 Besides;- enable the court heard on' the party appeal. has doubtless, of the hear- time power, regulate rules,'so and for reasonable provide notice its as to. ing, pre- ’ n . vent surprise. It also is the law objected,'that prescribing appeal,to district the decision board from of. the of commissioners board, is as unconstitutional; as court' not a organized, constitution, cannot, under-the therefore, and be invested judicial govern* powers conferred'upon general
45* 534 .
The United States
Canter,
Co.
American Ins.
The Ritchie. for, he asks and to him, for land which from procure sources, the be titles-which for may his secur- proper ity, being necessary and that will also admit this common there you paper, none this corresponding stamp place. “ (Signed) Francisco Solano. “ Sonoma,January 16,1S37.” “ Sonoma, January “ The undersigned grants, temporarily provisionally, Solano, Francisco chief the tribes frontier and of this captain ‘ Suisun,’ of that name, lands him belonging natural between and actual Said land right possession. comprehended ‘ Portzuela and the Salina de Sucha.’ The party interested will ask governmental state the usual titles, in order make his valid rights conformity order of colonization. new M. G. Vallejo.”
“(Signed) He continued in the down possession occupation when made his to Juan application attorney, Vallejo, Alvarado, B. constitutional governor Cal- department — : ifornia, tract, title in form to the as follows — To his the Governor: Excellency [seal.] “ The Sonoma, resident of and undersigned, respectfully appears that, before makes, representation in virtue your excellency, him, as shown in the annexed belong decree, he is in actual petition marginal possession ‘ lañd known the name of Suisun,’ with its together depen- and, dencies ; in order to secure and said he legalize ownership, that in consideration of humbly petitions, your excellency, document to, referred be him the may pleased corre- gjrant concession, title of sponding perpetual hereditary, land, aforesaid in order in no time, may petitioner heirs molested of his pacific enjoyment prop- erty. “ Wherefore, will yóur petitioner your prays excellency the favor he 'asks for, he deign swearing he no actuated and such as is re- malice, other oath &e., &c. quired, “ As the petitioner, attorney “ Vallejo. (Signed) Juan Antonio “ January Monterey, 15,1852.” January Monterey, 28, 1842. “ In consideration at the tins petition beginning expediente, and the report commandant-general, merits services 'the Lidian called Francisco ren United States' him to be Sonoma, I declare owner frontier on the dered £ extent four Suisun,’ in square called of the place fee in leagues, shown boundaries corresponding and with out, will patent corresponding map. *10 excellent junta the most departmental directed expediente approbation. its Alvarado, department constitutional governor B. “Juan Of decreed, and ordered, Californias, signed. thus the of I certify.” 1842, the title in form was granted, 21st the And, January, on — as follows: “ constitutional of Alvarado, the governor B. Juan [seal.] the Californias. department “ Solano, for his own the Francisco aboriginal per Whereas has asked for the that of his land family, and benefit sonal he is Suisun,’ native, which place name the known by Sonoma, and of the frontiers the tribes being chief and he caused to be for the quietness reward worthy the unchristianized people; that proper proceed maintained by made, been as required examinations having and previously ings conferred on me and powers laws regulations; using by have nation, I to him the Mexican granted the name himto land, it ownership adjudicating above-mentioned By to the and to the of the most approbation subject being these presents, conditions, junta, following excellent departmental — to wit: “ it, without inclose prejudice he cross- That may it servitudes, roads, enjoy freely exclusively, ings, of it as see fit; cultivation he but use and may making house, a he shall build and it shall be in- one year within habited. “ place shall ask the give juri- 2. He magistrate order, in virtue of this whom the it, by possession dical he out; them, be marked shall shall place boundaries landmarks, some fruit or forest trees of some esides utility. £ “ is to land mentioned the extent four sitios 3. The herein with the limits square de mayor,’ ganado (four leagues,) expediente. shown on the accompanying respective map who it will have measured magistrate gives possession that ordinance, excess result to leaving according may to. nation, for its convenient uses. “ (cid:127) conditions, he these he shall lose Ms If shall contravene land, denounced another. right may “ In I order that these be held firm consequence, presents valid, book, be taken of it in register proper Kitchie.
The United States interested, for his voucher it be and other given party purposes. “ Given this one thousand twenty-first January, day' eight hundred and at forty-two, Monterey. “ “ Juan B. Alvarado, (Signed) Jimeno, Secretary”
(Signed) Manuel October, 1845,- On 3d grant approved by — as follows: departmental assembly, “ — Most' Excellent Sir: The committee vacant lands has ordered the expediente, Indian, formed instance Francisco Sol- (Indígena,) * ano, for the known the name of Suisun,’ and place satisfied that the had in said expediente sufficient for the purpose, superior should the' said offers granted deliberation of place, your — : excellency following proposition “ The superior government depart- ment title issued, with 28th Solano, Í842, legally date January, Indian, in favor of the Francisco (Indigena,) place ‘of known the name Suisun,’ situated in the jurisdiction *11 Sonoma, of article in accordance with the law of 18,1824, and August 5 of the of November, 1828, regulations approved. “ committee, city Angelos, Septem- of Hall the of the Los 29,1845. ber “ (Signed) Francisco» la de Guerra. “ (Signed) Marceso Bartel a.” “ 3, 1845. Angelos, October “ of this the the re- In session of day, proposition foregoing the most excellent was assem- port bly, ordering approved departmental the to be expediente returned his excel- original the suitable governor, lency purposes. “ “ Pío Pico, President. (Signed) Augustin Secretary. (Signed) Olona, “ same the On the was issued the day, copy proper party interested.” tract was the fixed, boundaries and the duly surveyed, put judicial possession, with the con- grantee conformity ditions and which possession grant, corresponded the ceded to him in 1837. provisional possession previously 1842, the 10th On Solano sold and the May, conveyed prem- ises to Mariano in full for the con- Vallejo, Mexican Guadaloupe property, sideration one thousand and, on the 29th dollars; sold 1850, and Ritchie, the same to A. May, Vallejo conveyed A. the for the consideration of thousand appellee, collars. fifty is made as to the No and question faith of genuineness good Indian, Solano, to the nor but that it original grant competent authority dispose lands. public taken to its and it objections validity, upon which only the effect and that had is denied lands operation separate domain, axe: That public granted Indian, was not to the laws competent, according Mexico lands at the concerning disposition public to take and hold real hence, time grant, property; approved that mental should grant by governor, Tby -depart- and, void; and competent That, if it assembly, inoperative that Solano was to take held hold still, the that void, real the tract property, ground ” “ name of known mission Suisun lands belonged California, which the authorities department had no power grant. we 1. In first are answer referred objection, to the plan adopted Iguala, revolutionary government Mexico^ 24th a short time to the subversion of February, previous in that in which it is Spanish power declared, that country, “ all the inhabitants of New distinction, without Spain, whether Africans, are Indians, citizens of this Europeans, monarchy, to their post right employed according merit every ” “ virtues; person property citizen will be respected protected by government.” referred of Cordova, also 24th treaty Ve August, 1821, between viceroy Spanish revolutionary party, which the was for the. time independence country and to the declaration of established; issued 28th independence 1821, all September, reaffirming principles plan Iguala. firsf; Two decrees of the are also congress referred to one and the other 9th adopted February, A.pril, The first: The declares the sovereign congress equality civil all the free inhabitants whatever empire, *12 be four their in the of the earth.” may other 1 origin quarters The of reaffirms three of guarantees plan Igualas 2. The Catholic Union of Independence. religion; all of Mexicans race. whatever also, There is, another act of the Mexican congress 17th into effect this funda- September, carrying practical “ mental of as the new follows: principle government, Mexican with a constituent view to sovereign congress, give 12th to the article due eft'ect of as one plan Iguala, Kitchie. basis of the form the of which social edifice our of those inde- determined to decree and does decree, has pendence, “ 1. That in or Art. docu- register every private of the name citizens ment, classifi- entering empire, them to their shall be emitted. origin cation regard “ virtue article, 2. That Art. although by preceding of class on the books, be no distinction there shall that which parochial be is at will continued in the .observed present regu- of the civil ecclesiastical taxes, lations for the graduation in some other method until shall be more these arranged just and proper.” , fundamental with this of the Mexi- In principle consistency in the several can as declared acts above referred government, of all the to, inhabitants, without dis- citizenship namely, face, is the 9th article of the decree tinction of blood or of 18th “ colonization, 1824, on which in the dis- provides, August, are lands, citizens tribution of the between them no distinction is due to in the lands to be distributed preferred, be shall made as except only and services rendered to the merit or country, special circumstances, residence the-place-to equality are and the 16th article pertinent; “ conformably principles provides, government, law, the- established in this colonization shall proceed of the republic.” territories situate, lands in- California, which the question Upper one of those territories. And the first regulation territories, November, 1828, was 21st colonizing pro- authorized, of the territories are vided that the governors with the laws of general compliance congress and under the conditions hereafter specified, August, their territories to such vacant lands in respective grant contractors, families or whether single persons, (empresarios,) or ask for them for the Mexicans who may purpose foreigners, or them.” cultivating inhabiting The Indian race in the having participated largely struggle in the -of the arid in the overthrow Spanish power, resulting that in erection of was natural independent government, of the new the foundations government, previous laying distinctions, or and social in favor of the political European abolished, blood should Spanish equality established. Hence the article to.this effect privileges of the first decree declaring plan Iguala, congress race civil Whatever their equality may rights, These solemn declarations of the country. political power had the effect, invest Indians necessarily, (cid:127) as had the citizenship effectually privileges *13 States Ritchie. The United States, of the United of 1776, to independence declaration with these in the those privileges all persons residing invest n to the time, who adhered interests of the at the and country ' 99, 121. 3 Pet. colonies. Indians,-under the influence of of the The improvement in New which had been establishments Spain, missionary mother protected country, encouraged" specially had, in a measure for the doubtless, them qualified enjoyment institutions. some of the new of the parts benefits In of the advancement had been made in considerable very country the race. From their degraded christianizing civilizing condition, however, and generally, privileges ignorance administration them government required extended to still, doubtless, its limited; and been they must care protection. fostering to race, that, under the we think impossible deny, as a But ho was made end laws country, constitution as it, distinction and the to citizenship, privileges belonging this and the European Spanish between Equality blood. seen, has been affirmed in them, as we have repeatedly between the most acts of the solemn government. was a civilized frontiers of Indian, in this Solano, the grantee California, held of his race chief a principal the Mexican and is spoken commission army, .a captain’s and meritorious officer. as a brave the witnesses by”” is, he was one the citizens of Our conclusion him, at the time grant the Mexican government take, hold, and sttch, he was convey as competent other citizen of the same as republic. any property, real 2: that the tract question belonged As objection in California authorities lands, which the mission public for to be no foundation there had no appears grant, power .this objection. decreed 1833, the congress As as Í7th August, early “ the missions secularize will proceed government ” and various California; Lower regulations of Upper into effect. this policy carrying prescribed it is declared that same November, the- year, Again, all measures which adopt empowered the seculariza- effective render the colonization and shall secure Lower being tion. of missions Upper the.. manner convenient property in the most authorized Touse territories, for that purpose.” said uses, devoted to pious declared that it is of 14th a decree April, Again, be secularized.” will the missions- republic “.all laws, authorities empowered these Under have dealt these mission lands establishments the public other same domain; portions had to who control of them, previously charge clergy, confined the ecclesiastical and di- simply spiritual rection of the missions. *14 Wé could had refer, to a time, we this body authority of the case, in addition to above mentioned; but we part deem it close the decree of shall unnecessary, by affirming the district court. It is conceded that the lands in do not question belong lands, class ealled Pueblo we do not intend respect to to either express grant opinion, authorities power or the Indians to convey. CAMPBELL.,
Mr. Justice
I concur in the
of the court
the facts
judgment
upon
disclosed
in the record.
I am unable to find
to show that the lands in
evidence
dis
were attáehed to the mission of
pute
San Francisco Solano,
for the
sentence
single
deposition
Vallejo,
rules of secularization,
according
hajl
the grantee
acquired
is too
possession,”
include
vague,
too little of a reference to facts to rest
any argument
to Solano was of
mission lands,
to the laws of
contrary
Mexico.
I therefore am not
willing
pass any judgment
of the mission
upon
subject
lands of California. Nor do I
consider that +-he
sufficiency
Solano to
conveyance
us.
Vallejo,
question before
of Solano
conveyance
before a
officer,
recognized
and has been
followed by
For the
possession.
of this case this
purposes
is sufficient.
This was decided in
Percheman’s
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the record, from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, and was counsel. argued by On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decree of the said district this cause be and the same is affirmed. hereby XVII,
VOL.