OCR Text |
Show 90 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT language in which the original documents were written, and not of the highest calibre, defended the government's interest in the land. The claimants, or at least those with the most at stake in large and valuable possessions, engaged the best attorneys to represent them. They were well compensated for their labor while the government attorneys and bureau officials were poorly paid, overworked, and unable to give the time necessary to prepare adequately for their tasks. Furthermore, lame duck Congressmen appeared before the courts as representatives of the claimants against the United States. For example, Hugh Lawson White of Tennessee represented 18 claimants before the Supreme Court between 1833 and 1836. Charles Downing, former Representative from Florida, appeared five times before the Court, on land claims. Other well-known members of Congress represented claimants even while they were members of the House or the Senate-among them, Daniel Webster, Thomas Hart Benton, John McPherson Ber-rien, and David Levy Yulee. For the largest claims in Florida, the Forbes and Arredondo claims, the government was hard put to find able attorneys skilled in Spanish law to take charge of the defense. The claimants originally employed John McPherson Berrien, Senator from Georgia; in 1829 Jackson's Attorney General, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts and one of the ablest lawyers of the time; and Joseph M. White. The latter was shortly to be engaged by the United States to prepare his great New Collection of Laws, Charters and Local Ordinances of the Governments of Great Britain, France and Spain Relating to the Concessions of Land in their Respective Colonies. . . .5 In addition to being employed to compile the statutes and decrees, White was finally paid by the government a retainer fee of $3,000 not to appear for the claimants in the Forbes and Arredondo cases, but he would not take part in the government defense. Because his Attorney General was committed on the other side Jackson had to call in William Wirt, who had been Adams' Attorney General, to handle the defense along with Richard K. Call, a Florida politician. Call assiduously endeavored to secure the original documents from Cuba, where the Spanish authorities had carried them, only to find that the attorneys for the claimants were able to secure documents that were closed to him. Call continued to believe that officials had been denied access to evidence that might have convinced the Supreme Court to decide the cases adversely to the claimants and might have added over 2 million acres to the public domain in Florida.6 Government attorneys defending the public title to West Coast lands against the ablest California attorneys had such a uniformly poor record in winning cases that when the very center of San Francisco was contested by claimants (whose titles were later shown to be based on antedated documents and perjured testimony), drastic action was necessary. The Limantour claims had been upheld by the Board of Land Commissioners, despite grave questions as to the authenticity and dating of the documents. Jeremiah Sullivan Black, United States Attorney General, resolved that so much was at stake that the best possible legal talent should be sent to California to attack the Limantour claims. Edwin M. Stan ton was appointed to handle the matter, and proceeded to show that the documents on which Limantour depended had been antedated and that the testimony in behalf of the claims was perjured. Black was later severely criticized for paying a fee of $25,000 for Stanton's services, though there is abundant evidence that the fee was not out 6 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1839). 6 When Berrien left the Attorney General's office he resumed his ties with the large claimants which had not actually been cut. Herbert J. Doherty, Jr., Richard Keith Call, Southern Unionist (Gainesville, Fla., 1961), pp. 58 ff. |