OCR Text |
Show lxiv FIFTY-SEVENTE ANNUAL REPORT OF I SIISSION INDIANS IN CALIFOENIA. I For the iirst time iu many years this office is able to report that some progress has been made in establishing the rights of these Indians to the lancls occupied by them and their ancestor& On January 31,1888, the Supreme Court of the State of California rendered a decision in the case of Byme v. Alas et a?., which fully con-firms the position of this office, that grants of lands to private parties are subject to the rights of the Indian occupants, and that suclb occu- I pants can not be legally ejected. Much credit is due to Mr. Shirley 0. I Ward, special counsel for these Indians, for his condoct of the case ! which resnlted in the decisiou referred to above.* This decision has so important a bearing on the welfare and protec-tion of the rights of the DIission Indians that I have deemed it best t@ I quote it entire. It is the most valuable thing which has been definitely secured for these Indians since public attention has been turned to their sufferings and wrongs, and had the decision been rendered several years ago it would have prevented no small part of the hardship, cruelt~, and flagrant injustice of which the Mission Indians have bee11 conspic-uous victims. The decision is as follows: SUPREXE COURT OX1 CALIPORSI&. (Filed Janoary 31, 1888.) BYRNE "8. t No. 11,855. ALAS ET AL. The complaint i n this action is in the ~l sneflo rm in ejeotment. The de f endantg over twenty in number--arc Miasianor Pueblo Indians, claiming the lend by vinne of their possessionand the continuous, open, and exclusiveuse and occupancy by their predeaessora and anoestors ever sinoe the year 1815. Theplaintiff had judgment in the court below upon the following agreed state-ment of facts : <'First. That the premises hers iu controversy ace included within the exterior boundaries of the Mexioan grsot of the San Jacinto ranoho, made December 31,1842; that sdd grant was duly confirmed by the United States ooorts, and that a United States patent isaued therefor January 17, 1880; that, at the time of the commence-ment of thi.aotion, plaintiff held legal title to the premises in controversy asthe legal Soco088oC of the patentee from the Government. "Seoond. That the defendants hero are Mission or Pueblo Indisos; that their an-cestors snd predeoessors have been in the continuons, open and notorious, penceable and exelosivepassession, ooonpanoy, and use of the premises in controversy, claiming adversely to all the worldever sinoe and for a long time prior to theestablishment of the Mexican Republic, to wit, ever sinoe the 7earA.D. ld15.; that the defendants never presented their claim to the land in controversy to the hoard of lard oomrnis-sioners, appointed bytbe sot of Congress passod Marah 3, 1831, and entitled 'An act to esoertailt and settle the private land claims iu the State of California.' It is further >>.greetdh at all defense of the statute oflintitxtions is hereby waived on tho part of tha defendants herein." ~ ~~ ~ .- . 'It is but just to say that Mr. Ward waa en~ployed fur this asrvit:e 1q tile Indian Rights Assooiation. When, in the superior court., judgnie~lt had been given against the Indians in default of defenae, the Aasooiation, tbrough him, got tbe,jndgmunt set aside aodthe case restored to the calendar. When tried the cam again\veet i~gsinst the Indiana, and the Association guvu security of$3,:300, su? had the case appealed to the Supreme Court. |