United States. Commission for Ascertaining and Set.

The Sutter claim, the evidence taken in Case 192 before the Board of U.S. Land Commissioners, together with the brief of the United States land agent online

. (page 5 of 5)
Online LibraryUnited States. Commission for Ascertaining and SetThe Sutter claim, the evidence taken in Case 192 before the Board of U.S. Land Commissioners, together with the brief of the United States land agent → online text (page 5 of 5)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


the Sacramento and north of the American. This is exclusive of the land claimed
south of the American river and east of Feather river, which may be set down at
an addition of two hundred square miles of land, over ail of which land the claim-
ant exercised jurisdiction, and all of which he has sold, as appears by his deeds on
file. Among the decisions of this Board wherein this principle is discussed and
decided are the following : Huber vs. U. S.; Morillo vs. U. S., No 432; McKee vs,
U. S., Feliz vs. U. S., No. 83; Semple vs. U. S.; Southerland vs. U. S., No. 263:
Amillaros vs. U. S., No. 163; Portilla vs. U. S. ; Soberanes vs. U. S. ; Heirs of
Satillades vs. U. S., No. 120. Now if the Board can seperate out from this large
amount of land eleven leagues or thirty-three leagues and say THAT SPECIFIC TRACT
WAS GRANTED, it will do more than the claimants themselves can do. It is true,
eleven leagues or thirty-three leagues can be located, and so they could if no grant
had been attempted ; but it cannot be said they can be located ACCORDING to the
grants, and within the spirit of the rules laid down by the Board in the cases above
cited.

37. The claim in this case is for thirty-three leagues of ARABLE land. The col-
onization laws of Mexico allowed only one league of irrigable land and four super
ficial ones dependant on the seasons to be united in one man as the owner. There Was
in that law an evident intuition to confirm the grantee to five leagues of land which
could be cultivated, allowing six additional leagues for grazing purposes. No ju-
dicial offic; r could have been induced to give, even if he had the power, a front
of a navigable river of one hundred miles or more, and thus exclude all others from
that amount. It was decided in the case of the United States against Hanson,
(16th Peters Supreme Court Reports,) that surveys of land under concessions from
the Spanish Government must not front on rivers more than one third of its longi-
tudinal extent back. The whole matter now rests with the United States Govern-
ment, and the claimant asks a patent which will cut off from the river Sacramento
all access on its east side, except through the lands of claimant from six miles be-
low the city of Sacramento to a line drawn east and west through the Buttes, a dis-
tance of about sixty milles, and the same thing is asked on the Feather river from
its mouth to the same line. Such a decree as is now applied for would be subver-
sive of the Jaw refered to, contrary to the practice of the Mexican and American
Governments, and subversive of the best interests of the country.

For the foregoing reasons, which with others, will be exhibited orally to the
Board during the argument, the claim should be rejected, and the sub-claims of
Hiram Grimes, on the east side of the Sacramento, and Roland Gelston, on the
south side of the American river be dismissed.

J, H. McKUNB, Law Agent.





1 2 3 5

Online LibraryUnited States. Commission for Ascertaining and SetThe Sutter claim, the evidence taken in Case 192 before the Board of U.S. Land Commissioners, together with the brief of the United States land agent → online text (page 5 of 5)