*1 1861. 541 Vallejo.- States vs. United Vallejo. United States vs.
1. decree of the The Spanish Cortes relative crown lands passed ' 1813, to the state óf existed being inapplicable things pot
Mexico after the revolution of could have continued in 1820, there force unless the Mexican expressly recognised by Congress, then and not without being modified. essentially of 2. Spanish system different disposing public very lands
, from that the Mexican provided 1824, law by regu-
lations of 1828. The two and laws being repugnant inconsistent, the former was latter. repealed by the The law of 1824 and the
3. are the regulations laws of only on the
Mexico subject lands granting .public territories, those and (excepting regulating towns the authority missions,) and other governors officersis defined them. by 4. A not purporting land, be paper, registered, to. or noted in the is
recorded, proper inconsistent with known book,, well every regulated government, which practice requires all such acts shall enrolled. note of the at the attesting A false bottom of the secretary
5. grant, that it the effect has registered, been serious objection to the under it. claim Mariano the Land Vallejo
Don Guadalupe petitioned Com- Francisco for of his at San .confirmation claim mission the name oí Suscól, on the tract known north bounded east, and south Suisun Straits of Tulucay, It Island, includes Napa Bay. Carquin.es, the city Mare ,town of Benicia, Vallejo, navy-yard United the Pacific and' the States, depot Steamship Company, about square contains altogether eighteen leagues. show title in
The documents claimants .introduced/to A dated were: 1. colonization 15th Vallejo, March, the usual in the usual form, conditions, signed as Governor, Micheltorena Francisco countersigned by ad'interim. Arce, Another Secretary' grant, bearing 19, 1844, Vallejo date of June reciting requested SUPREME COURT. . States of the tract for sum dollars; of five thousand purchase the Governor had sold it himto for that and received sum, *2 and him to be of owner the land with- payment; declaring out restriction. This also to be and paper purported signed Micheltorena and Arce. 3. A dated certificate countersigned December; 26th of 1845, Pico as Governor, Pio signed attested Maria José forth that both Covarrubias, setting the mentioned had been above the grants approved by Depart- mental on the 26th of 1845. These Assembly September, papers all of the claimant produced.from.the private custody of the himself. Neither is referred to in cata- Jimeno’s grants in recorded the de Razón, Toma nor is logue, espedi- any ente found-for either of them the archives. The jour- among of the nals show that these Departmental Assembly were not before that either on 26th of body, September, 1845,as certified onor other bj^Pico, day. following dated at March letter, official 1843, addressed to Angeles, D. “Colonel Guadalupe commandant of the Vallejo, military line from Santa Juez to Sonoma,” Micheltorena, signed seal sealed with the of the also Departmental be authentic ref- claimant, produced by proved erence the recorded the Governor of for correspondence, n to which period belonged:
“I transmit tо the title of the named you Suscol, place cannot first jit 'accept regretting made; offers which because you supreme government nation tine has ordered that all pay suspended, back due before the became 1st of October, 1841, which will serve aas with subordinates; respect your which sus- you rfile was made to until continué pension should treasury be released from its embarrassments, and which I even had .by of a to suffer loss considerable amount, some-thousands do dollars; I offer of the five dol- thousand accept in lars articles of for the produce country troops, account of the have which I for imperious them, necessity order to I them, maintain for which send the schooner purpose California, that you load her may goodness
DECEMBER, ¿43 five hundred two hundred and maize, of fijóles, fifty fanegas two hundred of dried five meat, hundred arrobas pairs or the material shoes, them, which I am told it making send; will not be difficult for also that it you surmising will not be inconvenient for I very you, earnestly request will send me two thousand dollars in silver, considera- you the fact tion of short of department.is treasury as it has not funds, arrival, since there anything my received vessels; been no arrivals of besides having this, troops are furnished with cash in as my expedition hand, daily they are ato mode subject administration, and customs payment, different from the know, the same presidial troops, you manner as the rest of the national and for which sum it army, will be All of which I communicate to exceedingly grateful. your information, at same time of you you assuring my *3 and consideration esteem'.' and God Liberty!” B. R. J. testified that he was Cooper Califor- captain a or nia, schooner of tons goleta burden, eighty-five belonging to the and used to mails, and department, carry troops, supplies and the coast; down that 1843, about he up year took a full of wheat, of cargo supplies, corn, consisting barley, blankets, tanned beans, leather, shoes, peas, skins, and.deer from Petaluma San that these were for Gov- supplies Diego; ernor and Micheltorena, furnished that the Gov- Vаllejo; by ernor told him had offered Vallejo $20,000 Suscol, witness understood these were supplies go payment. (but
Four witnesses was character one tes- impeached) tified that the ranch was for a time occupied by Vallejo long after, before, 1843; as well as of no they speak occupancy by other that it, he on person, say buildings many horses, cattle, thousands of with extensive cultiva- hogs, It however, tion. that the ranch was appeared, used originally the mission of 'Solano, San Francisco the first improve- ments it were In 1839 it was made, taken padres. the Government for and it wrasunder the military purposes, of Colonel because he supervision was the Vallejo, command- ant of the northern his frontier, with at headquarters Sonoma SUPREME. COURT. vs. Vdllefo.
and his residence near at private Three wit- by, Petaluma. nesses the United States testified part knew they the'land; that it was called' ithe Nacional;” “Rancho that it was and cultivated occupied soldiers of the Mexican army down time of the American when were conquest, they di’iven that all the stock it was away; upon public property, beef, and used as such to the soldiers with &c.; and supply it for the Government as a Vallejo'had possession military officer; but never heard of claim to it until they any private after the long conquest.
.. a witness Watson, the United States, swore, produced by that in 1848 he the land proposed purchase from part told Vallejo,'and then him that he had Vallejo it from bought Indians; Suscol he United States Gov- expected ernment swindle him-out it, aud refused, for that would .reason, to sell with of title. warranty evidence claimant to establish the given by authen- was ticity grants contained Pablo deposition Guerra, who declared on de la his oath that he knew the hand- of Micheltorena and Arce, and that their writing signatures two to the best of his grants genuine, knowledge Arce, witness, and official was not called. attesting belief. -the evidence was closed and the After cause submitted, mo- made on the tion was the United States to part open Arce on their This mоtion purpose part. calling on two affidavits founded the'belief of the affiants expressing Arce .would false. It prove resisted, refused to take off court the submission. *4 claimant took the The of I. D. tes- deposition Marks, who to conversations tified with Micheltorena in Mexico he after California, which Micheltorena told him Governor he had powers Governor, and that extraordinary his The acts been same witness was approved. also told by Ramirez, Fernando of State of Mexico, José thát Secretary full. lands in California had been powers delegated Santa Anna, Micheltorena under Bases of Taoubaya. District Court affirmed the decree of the The Land Com- 545 Vallejo.
United States vs. mission, the title and the claim for the approving confirming whole tract described in the the United petition; whereupon States took this Court. appeal Supreme
Mr. Black, of Green, Missouri, Mr. Pennsylvania, the United States. Both these are destitute of what grants has court often held to a be record. indispensable namely, — The of 1848 is not index, on Jimeno’s and that is not on the Toma de Razón. Neither there an is espediente defects, for either of them. fatal, These are so that an clearly is useless. a The absence of argument concerning regis- them and an that- no try such espediente, prove ever grants issued. The of the journals Departmental show Assembly certificate is also a sheer fabrication. of..approval
The of these would be support wholly eviden.ee insufficient to establish even a -The private claimants paper. called Pablo de Guerra to prove handwriting sig- la. not natures, did who was life, in full Arce, within call the, bf court. when claimants jurisdiction Nay, closed the evidence without' witness, the calling subscribing United States to call but the him, motion was proposed suc- This court is bound cessfully presume resisted- claimants kept witness world who away knew only how, .when, whom the were made, for feai papers if truth, overthrow their told, case. The law does would allow not other construction to on such cоnduct. put is the letter genuine from only paper produced Michel- torena to it is inconsistent B.ut really every case which the claimants have part attempted make a oht. It refers to title called Suscol. What place In whose favbr? title? It is dated after the day first a and more than before the other. Would year grant, Governor have colonization if intended a. he made to'sell, sell ? And after he would transmit making bargain . a naked title without consideration, before reciting grant,, received the offers, he Of the purchase two money? him, the Governor has made neither Vallejo says intelligibly he defined. He cannot because first, back says accept pay i, von. *5 SUPREME COURT. ya.'Vallejo.
United States $5,000 the offer of produce, but he is accepts suspended; $2,000 him besides will send he Vallejo requests urgently indicate that the in all this to a word in silver. There is not . was land. No doubt had reference to the Vallejo offers any him, Government; Micheltorena dunning in debt to the or to to set off his back pay discharge Vallejo offering The latter the claim iu proposition produce. part the same time on insisted at to,’ acceded but having Governor the other side of correspondence cash If some besides. of- letter is, been Vallejo’s containing produced—that was it been understood. fers—the whole could have Why kept re'ason that Arce’s was- For the testimony out same sight? not suit withheld—the truth did purpose. are which was connected
Three other Vallejo this one: the Petaluma as on So referred’to throwing light record; evidence is found on this brante, which concerning How., Yulupi, How., Yumi, Lup 392;) (22 (22 392;) in this court. These which been already investigated are all dated in Suscol, with that grants, together .three is Arce; i’ecordéd, none of them 1844; all-countersigned-by been recorded. Here is a certified to have and are all falsely which 1844, dated in claims of all the printed copy grants, Commission, the Land set before up Exhibits,) (Limantour his whole of was at and it shows Jimeno post during one -to except and attested every registered grant year, that Arсe was never too, notice, It is himself. worthy to prove any unregistered grants called a:vwitness his name is which appended.' chief was limited the coloni- power political him no laws of 1824
zation they give either to sell lands lands; nor had he sell authority give or. and used like Ran- vacant, were not occupied for its Nacional, special cho necessary law the loose The effort change proving purposes-. course, is, and Ramirez of Micheltorena conversations un- entitled was' below Leyes A book judge cited availing. 58 is referred to. Here Mexico, at published page Vigentes, 58; a decree d contains ar here It is Leyes page Vigentes, Cortes made 1813 on Spanish of the crown subject *6 lands, but not a word in the remotest affecting question The it degree. does contain are provisions inconsistent with, and therefore the law of 1824. repealed by,
But, that the Governor a assuming not power given by the colonization law, he could sell a conceding public ranch for ocсupied does it follow that he military purposes, could it without his a act convey matter of record? making On this must be general principles answered in the negative. A not is recorded but the deed of the officer whó private makes it, in Luco’s case. In says Grier well Judge every regu- lated the deeds of its enrolled, officers are says Campbell Sutler’s case. A deed made Judge private aby for officer of part domain, public consider- upon ation to the officer is not paid himself, the public binding either law or equity.
The is below on a opinion mistaken view judge based the law, of and on erroneous of fact, to wit: that assumptions were admitted to be title-papers that there was a genuine; consideration for the and that money paid grant, possession under Mexican taken law. This is ordinary wholly wrong. was no such admission; There was denounced as false last, from first the record it. shows There is no relia- it; evidence that ever ble penny paid no pos- was ever taken session or given law, according custom, or usage. Reverdy
Mr. Johnson, Mr. MeCalla, of Maryland, The of these genuineness Kentucky. title-papers was.admit- in the The statement fact written opinion ted. is not conclusive below evidence of court it. only, ample, settled, United States will not be being permitted This court to raise the here Be- appellate question again. the evidence was sufficient without the admission sides, The executed. papers non-production show call failure to Arce are not, under the an espediente this case, the claim .circumstances any grounds rejecting want of does not that the titles The prove registry here. a. ¿48 SUPREME COURT.
were not certificate of the De- issued. As to the approval by difference no whether that be makes partmental Assembly, trae for an not. tó the not, approval necessary validity " the title. The counsel of the other side the cases which upon rely under -court has decided claims colonization against grants. ¿This claim a sale made to a is under citizen for a not within the is, thеrefore, consideration prin- paid, of thosé cases. The law of .1824 ciple regulations 1828 do not to it. apply such a. sale the Governor-to make is not a to be doubted. It existed anterior the colonization
thing law of and was taken that' law. The 18.24, not testi- away of Marks shows that it was claimed and. exercised mony *7 and that it was conceded the official Micheltorena, authori- by of the Government. Supreme ties But if the transcended even the strict limits Governor his as it was on a valuable con- authority, yet, made legal an sideration, it constitutes claim tó be equitable which ought A title confirmed.- that would been have confirmed by here; Mexican will be confirmed and this court Mexico is bound would confirm title which presume any whqt tobe confirmed. "With good ought regard conscience faith and her honor could Mexico refuse to admit the justice of a title was the' and' honesty paid by grantee, she had the in her of which it price treasury, applied It serviné? would be monstrous to suppose that^she could one who had her his about the quibble paid fnoney form in which his technical contract was made. letter of Micheltorena to admitted to be Vallejo gen- letter, That taken in connection
uine. with Cooper's.'evidence, shows that an honest and fair very conclusively price price —the the Government—-was for the’land by paid demanded in-ques- ' ' n tion.
General most-distir Vallejo guished one men of. thécMexican the most inr- Republic; performed years many services, valuable was. poi’tant highly appreciated as as well He is the Departmental Supreme 1861.
United States vs. one now of the most citizens California. His respectable character makes that he would assert impossible suppose a claim to land which was not his own. In fact, no point such as to this title ever entered suspicion the minds Cali- fornians. knew it all and in that conviction They right, numbers of have these large persons bought lands. Thou- sands are interested in the confirmation, there is no oppo- interest which deserves the favor. sing slightest Mr. Justice NELSON. This is an frоm a decree appeal the District' Court of the United States for the northern dis- trict California.
The claim of and his covers a tract of Vallejo land assigns the name of Suscol, Solano, known county Cali- fornia, bounded on the north lands named Tulucay Suisun, on the east and south the Straits of Carquines, Ysla and, del a de Estero without Yegua, Napa, limitation and embraces from to one quantity, hundred thou- ninety Mare acres, Island, sand on which the United States including established, their on the Pacific, and navy-yard the city Benicia, situate on of San Francisco. Two bay tract to Vallejo evidence—one a coloniza- given March, tion dated. 15th 1848, and the other a grant, a sale for the consideration founded of $5,000, dated 19th June, Both grants purport Michelto- signed by rena, Arce, and Francisco Governor, ad interim. Secretary a letter of
From Micbeltdrena to 16th March, Vallejo, after the date of the one colonization in which he day grant, *8 he a that transmits to him title for the states place named he the offеr to Suscol, $5,000 and that accepts pay same, it is reasonable to conclude the colonization grant sale; be founded the contract and intended to doubting, not maintained in this could be form, perhaps, grant second was reference executed without coloniza- laws. tion
A to he decree for the formal paper purporting approval two these dated 26th grants by Assembly, Departmental SUPREME COURT. and Pió Pico, and José Ma. Covar- 1845, by
September, signed record, is but there is no evidence of rubias, Secretary, seems to have been its as It up spurious. genuineness. given evidence of cultivation is In- The possession slight. deed, the tract it is en- considering magnitude granted, As the were dated 1848 titled .to weight. little very grants taken 1844, and the this Govern- country possession by two or three there could be but 1846, ment possession years’ them at the time of our under possession. or-occupation taking evidence cultivated the tract The Vallejo occupied which, of itself, is and unsatis- previous grants, slight further weakened shown, is still which is fact, factory, had been the ranch claimant as a occupied military with soldiers Government property. commandant witnesses, who as The as speak possession early this have confounded for the readily possession very might' with a of the Government possession uses himself. Vallejo to a so limited as to can possession Ve very.little weight give offered in of a extent, and in when support grant duration thousand acres of land. If the one hundred ninety its own force and effect, maintained posses- cannot it. then to the we sion will scarcely uphold Coming grants, one, the aside the first colonization at as well lay grant,- may within the law of 1824 defective -once, entirely ;document 1828. The in evidence is the only regulations. time, itself. It would be waste of after naked in this court- on these titles, numerous over the cases go title; to this source of objections is-the The next is the sale, grant.founded .which - entitled to consideration. one only to this main the want of objection it; make and this raises the whether the Governor question, the Governor to'make or not possessed any power lands of that conferred .the the act independently of 1828. 1824 and the regulations after the had off the- The Mexican thrown Congress, country erected new and an Spain', independ* government'of *9 TEEM, vs. Vallejo. States ent in its government place, representing sovereign nation, for law 1824 passed providing grant and colonization of the lands. public
The second section lands of the nation, provides which are not the or individual, property any corporation, town, are the law, this be colonized. Sec- subject may tion third: For shall, this of the States Congress purpose with the least enact laws and for delay, regulations colonizing within their in boundaries, all respective respects conforming to the act, constitutive constitution,and the estab- rules general lishedin this law.
The act then prohibits colonization of lands within any ten, twenty on or nation, within bordering leagues foreign sea-coast, without the of the consent leagues supreme in further, that the distribution of government; the lands is to preference citizens; be to Mexican that no person given shall be allowed to obtain a of more than eleven grant leagues; and that no who obtain under the law person shall may grant retain it if he out resides of the limits republic.
The sixteenth section then that the Executive provides, shall proceed, with the established in conformity principles law, to the colonization of the Territories of the republic. Executive under the Supreme above acting sixteenth the 21st section, November, 1828, established reg- ulations and colonization of the granting public lands and, others, Territories, California. among “ The first section declares, chiefs Gov- political (the are Territories authorized te> vacant ernors) hereby their Territories,” lands within “to either respective Mexicans them, or with the who may petition foreigners object settlement. cultivation or Said shall made be accord- to the laws of the of 18th general ing Congress August, under their qualifications.” follоws a series of Then preliminary proceedings, specially for the the fitness of the purpose enjoined ascertaining pe- receive a titioner to also of if the land grant, ascertaining asked without for-may granted prejudice m individuals; declared-, and it is these, view -Governor SUPREME COURT. land; made, will or not the but if the it must be *10 in strict with the laws the conformity upon subject, espe- with reference to made to .1824; the law cially grants individuals or families shall not be valid without definitively the consent of the previous Assembly. Departmental
Section The been defin- eighth. grant petitioned having itively. amade, Governor, the shall be issued, patent, by signed therein, shall which serve as a title to the that party, expressing the has been made in strict accordance with the grant pro- the law, visions of virtue of which be taken; shall by possession of all nine, section a record shall be petitions in a made book for that with the of the kept purpose, plats land granted. are
There other many stringent conditions provisions wrhich it is not to refer tо imposed important it is' specially; sufficient to that the thus established the sov- say, system by of the nation for the and distribution of power ereign lands, the exhibits a deliberation and care over the public sub- that is in contrast with striking the ject system granting the lands under our public and furnishes the evidence extreme interest the Mexican Govern- highest ment took or guarding against impositions frauds, chiefs in the political execution of the upon law. Now, the are above laws of the Mexican only Congress subject passed lands, with the granting public of those exception missions and relating "towns, which no upon No bearing question. others have been nor have our argument, researches found produced any, nor were others discovered any public agents authorized inquire particularly into Halleck’s subject. 1, March (See Rep., 1849, Exec. 1st 31st Doc., 119; Sess. Jone’s Cong., p. Rep., April 10, 1850, 2d Doc., 18; Sess. 31st Senate see also Calif. 3 p. Cong., Rep., 25; 23, 24, ib., ;38 20 37, 63; 21 pp. How., ib.,’177; 315; ib., ib., 349.) this, taken to ground uphold no concedes other has been conferred upon Govеrnor ex- by any act of Mexican but it is insisted press Congress; 553' States law of did not 1824, ofl828, and.regulations repeal power, if it to make a lands existed, public previously sale for a consideration; the decree of Span- pecuniary ish Cortes, of is referred to as 1813, January, confirming authority.
But one into this law will that it provides see looking for a different of these lands from that very -system disposing found in the Mexican and .the 1828; law of regulations and unless would necessa- excepted, specifically recognised and inconsistent with rily repealed repugnant system After for the reduction of the lands adopted. providing in.the and with the private ownership way qualifications stated, the the vacant declares, half of and crown' lands act shall be as a for-the monarchy security pay- reserved *11 ment of the debt, national and.of to the those whom nation is indebted, who are- to the of lands inhabitants villages are and made adjacent; for the provision distribution of them to the creditors to these also public belоnging villages; distribution the officers and. soldiers of the for among army; and then of these tracts shall location he provides, made a board of of the to which the magistrates villages lands are and the are afterwards to be adjacent, proceedings sent to the for provincial deputation approval.
The law'then for of the residue of the vacant'. provides grants or crown lands who ask to inhabitant of villages every has no cultivation, them "for the of and land of his purpose are The to be made board own. patents magistrates are and approve provincial free charge, delegation . not all decree was to The be published only among them. ' armies, the national and kingdom, among the people all that'it come in so might knowledge.of every way, subjects. . referred as the foundation
This law be very properly may in the lands Mexican titles to the and source many or in the Government, and also of titles Territory, province derived it if were under California, authority during of Government would Government. of the Spanish change this and the made them. But after not affect grants change, SUPREME COURT States establishment of a new and Government, independent present different Grants under this law very were question. to be creditors, made' and officers, soldiers old Govern- ment. called were rewards and They patriotism., were not to be extended individuals other than those who serve may or in the war, who have served between present the Em- (war then or in peror Napoleon Spain dis- existing,) quelling in turbances some sea. provinces beyond Individuals, who had not served in men, their or districts, con- military in tributed in other this or -any way war, disturbances in and "who America, or injured crippled, disabled in in were included made. battle, to be Serious dis- existed in the turbances of Mexico at this vice-royalty time, out of headed revolutionary Mo- arising struggles, by Hidalgo One of the relos Bravo.' law objects was to com- the defenders of the mother encourage pensate Govern- ment these movements. revolutionary against further, we
"Withоut think inquiry pursuing quite clear that this law could not been in force after the change unless expressly Mexican recognised without first then, not mod- Congress; being essentially in its ified purposes; unless policy certainly, thus terms modified, conferred power express Territories to chiefs of the public lands on political can be derived its sale, no such from provisions. are serious
There other claim. objections It is di that a made “note be of it rected title-paper the re book;” and ad interim declares at the Secretary spective *12 “note has been made this title foot of the in the grant, re seen, have book.” The as we was made grant, 19th spective The of records of that is 1844. book June, year existence, record was made of condition. No the and in title. The good note, is untrue. It was well said, Secretary that “in Sutter, How., every States 175,) (21 well-reg1lated officers, deeds of its conveying parts Government of. enrolled, are furnish domain, registered perma public of the their evidence to its title.” grantees An origin nent a record is admissible as of such evidence exemplification ' United States vs.
the same as of the itself. 233; Peters, dignity (5 How., 1.)
This rule exists in States which have the civil law. adopted In those States the deed is archives, preserved copies are as authentic acts—that is, acts which have certain given and accredited and merit confidence. The acts thus authority are instruments, and all preserved' doubts that arise public be delivered are upon resolve'd refer’- copies may ence to the from which the are protocol taken, with- copies out which have no they authority. is add, also,
We that a record important, should be made of these so that the Government be advised in grants, may to the of the domain respect portions public that have been nr and as a of, sold the frauds of disposed security against officers whom the public upon power making granls has been conferred. Grants of this when made description, form, in due and are either made at. the seat оf orderly govern- where the records are ment, public record can he kept, made, if or, officer at a readily public signed residing are deemed not till the different.place, record is proper made. the officers
Without as, in guard, grants, making the Governor and instance, would be enabled present Secretary, with them in their travels blank forms, carry dispose will, domain at leaving without moans information till the subject pro- from the duced pocket grantee. the examination further,
Without in' view pursuing every able to take of the we are ease, we have been satisfied that the that should not bo confirmed, is one and we shall order reversed, below to be and the record remitted judgment to enter for the the court United States. judgment I cannot consent, Mr. Justice silence, by my GRIER. should be drawn that I concur in inference an opinion I delivered. confiscate the agree cannot just property thousand of some un- purchased our-fellow-citizens/who der this made value of improvements title many *13 SUPREME COURT. Vallejo.
United Stаtes vs. millions, on first raised a here as suspicions integrity to be in- the grant country universally acknowledged genuine where it I do not intend enter to into originated. any argu- ment with brethren of the If are satisfied my they majority. with conclusion, is, is presumption minority mistaken. And I would not wish to weaken any arguments to this wholesale I confiscation. may justify urged shall a few of the mention facts and on which merely principles I been constrained to dissent. (cid:127) This has a bound itself solemn re- treaty all claims which the spect citizens of California just held at its date. I shall not comment faith with upon good has been observed, whether it was obligation acting faith to new citizens these good owner a compel every or title a under Mexico to enter into long expensive at here; home and litigation, beginning ending litigation, too, costs, with one who no it while was paid ruinous to the retained claimant, who, if he one-half for himself, when suc- fortunate. cessful, considered Instead of protection their were, instances, left a possessions, they many prey wаs,a This squatters champertons’ attorneys. evil, great one. The perhaps necessary from change sovereignty Mexico to this Government at once value to lands which gave before had and which none, Mexico was glad give away -There colonists for unit of measurement nothing. was a square and eleven of to 50,000 league, equal these.(nearly acres) maximum. sudden affluence of only those of the settlers former retained who considerable proportion of their and of those who square purchased titles leagues, their a trifle, caused a mania for land only speculation, but a not of extensive ^frauds, with system forged grants perjured, witnesses, such as the world has seldom If a witnessed. large California, of land in like the one before us, sud- from of some pocket obscure dénly produced such person, de la Rosa or Santillan, José should excite suspicion be scrutinized utmost But where a rigor. notorious, without of fraud or suspicion, forgery— where consideration was to the Mexican large paid Govern- taken and held for sixteen has been ment —where possession *14 have, made numerous improvements years purchasers —where it it is the court to ac- millions, worth the deal with duty rules of instead to the justice, equity applying cording decision to inflict a forfeiture. rules.of sharp In a where land had no where it was country value, freely, . ¿nd to all asked, who without without in given money price, amounts not to exceed thousand it acres, will be supposed fifty there are few cases to be found where .the Government could raise the it. sale of This the money is, perhaps, only case to be found where such has a sale been made. The laws 1824 and laws; 1828 colonization they grants regulated of land this made.for restrained the purpose, power local as to the amount to be to one government person. given and forms They prescribed proceedings necessary such This sale to not a validity grants. colo- Vallejo nor were nization of 1824 grant, regulation^ ap- nor the this it, decisions of court in the rаtification plicable under them. That there was sale the Governor to for .a con- Vallejo sideration when the Governor find paid, could no other way to raise funds is satisfac- support It was a matter of torily proved. at general time. notoriety of a letter from the Governor to the copy accom- grantee the title is found the archives. The first panying title among defective another form, in being .the sale given confirming consideration acknowledging Possession paid. has fol- lowed it. Its was admitted in the pursuance authenticity But we are court below. about to forfeit the title he Governor, land ground though might give away had no .to amount, it It authority money. .sell because assumed, that there was special power given' by colonists, statute to therefore he had no other power. court has decided that This of a frequently Gov- authority make such a ernor to will be from the presumed fact he did make it, that it those who upon lay deny of it. power prove want
But it is assumed that the did not exist since reg- SUPREME COURT. vs. States
ulations of 1824, because it was not exercised. It is a much better for thé reason -want aof land would not precedent (cid:127)be sold where had so little value that it be had as a might to the extent of gift 50,000 acres.
If this is to be executed treaty faith Govern- good ment, should we forfeit for which a why property large price has to the Mexican Government, on paid assumption be.en that the Mexican Government would it, not confirmed (cid:127)but would have it for want repudiated of formal authority? was an officer of Vallejo in the confidence of army, high the Government. His as an officer been arrear. salary a time of In he furnishes difficulty provisions money How do we know that Mexico Territory. would have a sale of as a repudiated 80,000 acres robbery *15 its when decent colonists, two a territory, any few having horses and cows, 100,000 could for nothing?
I believe the Mexican Government would have acted hon- their valued servant, with estly honorably that the same rests on force us obligation treaty.
Now that the land under our has become of value these enormous; court has a may appear n duty perform under which us no treaty, gives authority forfeit a bona it not suit our ito because notions grant may fide prudence propriety. not, are for
We to be astute in reason, for searching reasons to a confiscate man’s because he has too much. property us therefore, that in the case before the claimant Believing, a has for consideration presented genuine grant paid, which the Mexican Government would never have disturbed for any reasons now offered it, I must express, confiscating mos't dissent from the respectfully, my opinion majority tire will not court, suffer the hope Congress numerous forfeit the millions very purchasers expended the faitk of treaty obligations.
Mr. Justice- VAYNE. I have this case with examined much attention, concur in brother, my conclusions haye add, Q”ier; and Mr. that as neither will seen Justice I 1861. United States in the case so conclusive as the
nor heard judicial anything I have brother, McAllister, of оur determined opinion Judge which take to that the course counteract con- best I.can has come in clusion to which this court will be to case, law of the as his case more expressive adopt opinion I than could add. The dissent which my anything part it as follows: I refer to is “ case is to considered as in This be one which the title- are to be admitted of a payment papers genuine, money consideration claimant, was paid, possession under the laws and of Mexico, taken estab- ordinarily usages sole taken lished.' The on which grounds is resisted, of this claim are: the validity That no witness that a house was “1. built within proves from date of the of 1843. That a one grant year house the land the date of either built prior upon grant by is That a second house claimant clearly proved. not in the case an built, ab- subsequent especially condition,) (as could not authorize court of sale, to forfeit solute equity has which become vested the claimant. interest “ is, The second of 1844 grouud invalid, is without and for а restriction, because consideration of $5,000 money. “ the Governor has exceeded his 3. Because power making of eleven excess leagues. last two “The objections, urge void a sale for a it was consideration, and money because because *16 eleven will be quantity it exceeds considered leagues, to- These second objections apply grant gether. its an to be on face absolute sale. very
w7hiehpurports in the deemed, cannot be “This of the Su- grant language of the United States in the Court Cambustoncase, preme (20 ‘a donation without How., pure consideration pecuniary 64,) rendered to services meritorious Government.’ Nor issued under the to be does Mexican..coloni-z-at-ion' purport 'of 1828. It is 1824, or treated law of regulations by ji rne7’ an is, at unrestricted sala really wfhat ajpure. H it oeen ... .hidoration. ecuniaiy .donation, for a l SUPREME COURT. United States made under the laws of Mexico, professedly professing-to issued virtue been of those and in of the laws, by pursuance terms aof provisions them, prescribed by proof compli- ance with restrictions the Governor- would not have by been afforded the -recitals in the of his done grant having so, if there had been doubt of the bona of the especially Jides This is the extent to which the court went in the grant. Qambustoncase.
“It does not ato bona all made to apply jides; supply wants of the necessary to the removal applied of them. If so its intended, effect would practical (cid:127)esent and all eases to analogous nullify applications
,ie which are ‘principles made one of equity,’ the rules ff deeision the act of for this court in the exer- Congress cise of the conferred on it. jurisdiction was said Nothing Court to Supreme such conclusion. In justify that case use which indicates that if they language had not grant been mere donation,, had been free from for meri- suspicion, torious services rendered to the Government, or a pecuniary consideration, claimant would have stood on a different , How., They ‘In the footing. say, examination of (20 64,) this case, we have found it difficult to resist a very suspicion as to the bona It is a grant. pure donation, with- Jides out-pecuniary consideration or meritorious services rendered to the Mexican Government.’
“In the case of Fremont vs. States, C. J., Taney, says: ‘And the was not out the merely carry colonization policy Government, but consideration *ofthe public services of the patriotic This grantee. inducement set out in the carefully title-papers; although-this cannot as a be regarded money consideration, making transaction from the purchase it is the Government, yet acknowledgment a just cíaim, equitable when the was made on that consideration the title in a court of to be equity ought firmas and valid as if it had”been purchased money the same conditions.’ in this
“Now, was made case.the for a consid- money eration and* Governor, who did. obtain, obtain by it, *17 1861. 561 vs. Válido. the means to maintain the soldiers of the starving country at a critical' moment of its then condition. This fact ascer- tained the to official communication of the Governor the by 1843, found in the Mexican for the grantee, archives year referred to in another same record for the year. grantee was in and notorious, for three undis- possession, open years, turbed, to the Ameri- prior occupation country by cans. Under such Govern- cii’cumstanees, could Mexican ment, continued, had it to have refused recognised claim of the or justice grantee' equity?
“If the facts, Government received'a'pecuniary, and, .for consideration, must ne- appears, aught adequate avoid, the with the cessarily other,.circumstanee, that grants, of land exceeded eleven quantity granted square leagues, must be it. done because these are within the operation 1824, colonization law of Mexico of in relation to tha distribution of lands donation, out the colonizado i carry .to and which ‘restricts policy exclusively, quantity land? one individual any leagues. eleven under certain made restrictions, evi- áThe.power give fraud in did distribution, not, prevent dently impli-' if it sell cation, existed, to power, repeal previously if consideration, bona exercised. pecuniary fide “ That such did exist in Governors, court will now its for the consider, reasons conclusion give to which arrived. it is
“In a work in 1829, Mexico, published city among to be laws retained Mexico is the decree supposed 4th, Cortes This evinced law Spanish January more liberal than had evidently spirit policy previously animated and which did not Spanish legislation, probably op- of its then colonies, but, erate it is reasonable Spain, common believe, that in with other decrees of .the Spanish was called into active existence Cortes revolu- Spanish was in time tion of force at the of the independence of Mexico. “ Com, is the enunciated the board of Land Such view ease San Francisco vs. missioners City of i. vol. SUPEEME COUET.
United States *18 States, and the publication decree in in Mexico, of the retained as of laws, force, as.one opinion confirms.thе of the board.
“The Court of this Supreme State, the case of vs. Cohas Raisin, Cal., affirm its and cite existence, the (3 443,) distinctly in which it is compilation 58. given ‘Leyes Vigentes,’ p. “That tribunal, Sullivan, the case of vs. Cal., (8 Welch 168,) affirm the existence of this again decree. The the decree say of the Cortes in 1813 directs, etc.
“But there is internal evidence afforded the Mexican le- subject colonization, the existence of gislation decree the of 1813 known, was enacted legislation view of some of its The diseño provisions. the bound- making aries the land which is petitioned for, required accompany the the is in Governor, application to the decree conformity conditions inserted in the Again, coloni- usually zation under the Mexican law and grants are sim- regulations ilar to those in the 2d section of prescribed that decree. This, in its. other declares preamble, its among to be things, object with this class ‘.to furnish of lands in aid of the (public lands) necessities to reward public meritorious defenders (wants) and citizens their who hаve no country, The evi- property.’ dent intent of this decree, is, declared on its face, that common lands should be converted into .publie private property, O.r should be distributed in full granted lands and with property, established metes bounds. a careful Upon revision of this be, decree conclusion must that in the absence of other le- out this decree must have carrying devolved on gislation executive department, Governors of California, under instructions of the Supreme would have common lands. power Now that decree land to one individual was quantity granted not limited to but as to it was any quantity; persons, limited given to citizens. “The instance in which only limited is in quantity certain certain donations to official to whom small persons, lots of pre- scribed extent to be This decree authorized granted. to meritorious' and a defenders, sale of land to aid necessities; and such made in sale, would ¡public faith, good 186Í.
United States unless the exercise of power, provisions legitimate have been subse- decrеe repealed by confirming been Have they repealed, expressed
quent legislation. law of 1824 of fair the colonization or' Mexico, implication, by ? of 1828 regulations view of her interests, a more liberal Mexico “Animated.by to afford she determined inducements emigration, as well as citizens, her lands to foreigners opened donations for colonization determined to make to all purposes the terms which, distribu- who strictly complied fraud. she land, prevent tion of the prescribed Among of land in donation to a quantity these limiting are There reasons to eleven many person leagues. single her Mexico to surround of coloniza- system the legislation *19 the and limits when Governors were to dis- checks tion with do not to a bona sale lands, apply the tribute fide is not a case Such im- which, consideration. by for money the colonization laws. The be should brought within plication, action of those from the whose it law, aof duty construction when should considered out, it to is to endeavoring carry the The intentiоn of fact that Legislature. ascertain the. lands Governors of made quantities been by sales would who donation eleven to a grant by than leagues, more ais circumstance not to eleven, than be dis- not more colonist regarded. vs. States case, records of No. Rodriguez,
“By of the board of Land files of Com- papers 479, among that Governor Pio made to Pico issued it is missioners, appear in consideration of the sum twelve leagues a grant the Government. The board, indebtedness $12,000, past the claim. confirmed The land in Commissioners Land district, in the southern records is situated case to ascertain whether and it us, imipracticable inaccessible or been dismissed. The made, has been is pending, any appeal file archives however, is, among of the board opinion' In that it is stated, office. opinion General’s Surveyor in the consequence of the two of the importance questions ‘that SUPREME COURT. advisement, the court took the case under and also involved, case would settle for the reаson the determination of a number cases so far as undetermined, fate large The first of action of that concerned.’ those tribunal in the involved the two taken present. questions only grounds It whether the of the Government of was, California, power under Mexican existed sell or for a authority, or consideration of with limits to exceed in amount money, The board decided that he had eleven such leagues. power. The “In the case of UnitedStatesvs. M. 321, G. No. Vallejo, affirmed the same tribunal decided principle pre and confirmed case, vious the claim to fifteen In leagues. their the board ‘there no opinion say, appears objection claim, confirmation of this that it exceeds in except amount the maximum authorized to be under the granted provision the colonization law. last five do not leagues appear a;a have been under those but a sale for granted provisions, actual consideration the Government of received two by thou This sand dollars. considered point and decided fully bona, the court case and the doctrine that a recognised made for full sale, consideration, the Governor of Cal fide ifornia, the Mexican laws, under vested in the purchaser both interest, of which he equitable would not legal be di v ested the Government rules of law by any equity.’ No power, certainly, colonization law was.given of 1824, the Governor to authorizing graht by way sale, under any circumstances. he If¿ therefore, does not possess of that *20 law, independently nowhere, and a exists con money ¡3. need-not sideration to been referred to the U. Supreme illustrate Court equities parties for a con applying their firmation of grants.
“In case, How., Cambuston as (20 they a 4,) assign reason for a strict of the claimant’s interpretation and its grant, want there had that been no equity, pecuniary consideration paid. Fremont’s case, In How., refer 558,) (17 they fact that for meritorious and given patriotic services,,and should the claimant on a place with one footing who had pur-
Unitеd States a claim chased with and thus just equitable give money, in a court of title to which against equity would be firm and valid. could amount seem, money,
“No it would sale, that if it be conceded no title, be so as to a power legal pass kind a ex- of the Governor to make part Court isted. It when me, Supreme does appear as in the refers consideration of vesting money so have at least holder of it doing superior equity, by they act the" was void. not decided that Governor’s “ acted under the must have impression power They in the or that the Governor, sell in faith was equity good ‘a claim case was such just equitable against gave would Government,’ the title to which court equity view, In either bn the and valid.’ be ‘firm especially California, from of a Governors apart ground faith, a sale of law, land, to aid good colonization that a decree affirm- court considers necessities, this the public in this case must of Land Commissioners of the board ing entered.” Mr. Catron, Mr. Justice Justice, Justice Clifford, The Chief of Mr. Jus- concurred Mr. Swayne, opinion Justice Nelson. tice reeord with a remitted, the District reversed Court
Decree of bedismissed. that the claimant’spetition ordering mandate