OCR Text |
Show lxviii FIFTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF ish Goveroment. This grant shows that the same old rights were recognized and ed-hered *the right of Indims to cocupy lands upon whioh they had beeoplaoed, and that the fee shunld be granted, if at all, subject to alloh right of occupancy. The grant did not annul the rights of the Indians. or estop them from claiming the same ; on the oontrary, it by its term expressly preserves those rights. From the examinn-tion we have been able to give the Spanish and Mexican laws, we thiok that the etstement of William Cmev Jones. which me have onotad above. isfullv sustained bv the authorities. If there has been any set of the legialrt,ive or exacntivr department of either the Spanish or Mexican Government, for the oxtinpnishment of the usufruo-tnary interest of the defeodints or their ancestors, we havebeen unable to find any record of it. The grant being a part of the Mexicxn archives, is a public document. (2 How., 405; 1 Wall., 742.) 2. It becomes neoesasry to inquire to what extent, if at all, the coefirmation of the Estudillo grant and the United State8 patent sfteoted the olaim of these de-fendant~. The fifteenth seotiou of the aor of Maroh3,1851, provides that the decrees, or any patent issued under the act., "shall be oouclusive between the United States and olsimrsots oulg, and sball not affect the interests of t1,ird perrlna." Uuder this olau8e the rights of theludians were preserved without presenting their oleitns. The patentee took the title in fee, snltjsot to the lndinn right of occupancy. Therights of the defendants and their xneeators, exist,ing before the obange of sovereignty, were preserved $0 them. The ooofirrnntioo of the grant to Estt~dillow as d s o a confirma-tion of defen~lants' rights. Eatudilio took all ha was entitled to and no more-the legaltitle. That was all the United States eollld give him. The right whiohthe de-fendants ond their anoostors held, and could bxve enforced at the t,inls of the treaty of Guadalnpa Hidalgo as against a Mexican grantee, pssned to Est,udillo in trust for them by the decree of confirmation and the patent. The patent was based npon a Mexican grant. The land never was any part of the public domain of the United States, altho~zgh held subject to tho trust of protesting t,he interestsof olaimsnts nnder the former sovereign. The patent, therefore, passed the legal title to the pat-eptee burdened with whatever eqnitiesexisted at the time of the cession of California in favor of t.hird persons. Under the treaty the Go\-ernmmt of the United States stood in the olaoe of the Mexican Govermnent. Ita onteut confirmed the -er aot., o.r o-clsimed it to be good-neither added to nor detraated from it in any way. l o left the title of Estndillo just a8 i t was st the time of the treaty... 80 far ss the Indians were concerned, and it-remained thereafter as to them just as it noulcl have remained if the treaty had not been made. If the Indians were entitled to posseseion before the date of the patent they were entitled to it aftarwecds so long aa soy of the commn-nity remained in actnnl possession. So far as we heve been able to learn, nothing re-mained for them to do under the laws of Spain or Mexioo to complete their right of possession. Neither was there any act or writing required on the part of the Govam-ment. Their right waa, therefore, compl~te. (Leese ve. Clark,3 Cal., 24; Teeohmaker v8. Thompson, 18 Id., 11 ; Bogga us. Meroed Mining Cotupany, 14 Id., 297 ; Waterman as. Smith, 13 Id., 415; Beard us. Pedery, 3 Wall., 489.) Furthermore, section 16 of the aot of March 3, 1851, provides "that it shall he the duty of the commissiouera herem provided for to ascertain and report to t5e Beore-tary of the Iuterior the tennre by whioh the Mission lands are held; aud thoso held by civilized Indiana, and those who are engaged in agriculture or labor of sn7 kind,; also, those whioh are occupied and cultivated by pueblo or ranoheros Indiilos." This language indicates that Congress did not intend that the rights of the Indians should be out off by s, failure on their part to present their olsims, bnt that it should be the duty of the comn&isaionerst o ascertain and report the tenure by which they held their lands; and this is in harmony with the suggestions made in that behalf by Mr. Jonea. Inasmooh as the rights of the Indians wore valid rights, existing at the date of the |