The New York Herald Newspaper, February 19, 1851, Page 6

TAD SEVATE CALIFORNIA LAYD BILL. TO THE EvrroR OF TUE HEALD. We publiched recently, the bill to ascertain and | eettle the private land claims in Califoraia, as it passed the Senate, and as it is new pending before the House of Representatives. While some of ita provisions are founded on sound and just princi- ples, it i# in many respects objectionable. It is deficient and imperfect. I: does not clearly em- brace all the cases for which it should have pro- vided. It clogs, ‘eters end ¢ mbarrasses claimants, by rendering the employment of lawyers by them unavoidable in all casea, by the delays and pro- crastimation it anticipates, and not merely allows, but favors, in vexatious appeals, from the decision of judges of ite own selection, permitted by the United States in the Supreme Court at Washing. ton, and the ruinous expenses it obliges the claim- ents to incur. Jt seeks (and we think in the alsence of power by Congress to enforce such rule) to debar the grantees from resort to any legal remedy, by ejectment or otherwise, in the federal or State courts of California ; i: seeks to make the decrees of the extra judicial tribunal created by this act and oa the appeals it provides fer, conclu- sive egainst a claimant; thus biading him to the decision of judges appointed by the United States— che party adverse to him--end which decrees are | made under rules dictated by the United States. Et postpones the mos: meritorious classes of all the land claimants in California—the pueblo, ranchero and mission Indians, and gente de razon defers any recognition of, or action as to them, and as to their rights, to some future Congress, and it neglects to provide for allowances or donations to there in poesession of lands there, who may not have formal grante. We regard the latter classes of claimants as eminently entitled to the most in- dulgent and favorable consideration. The indivi- dual permissive occupants of lands uader the Mexican, or under the United States government, should be allowed to retain their occupancy, and it should be confirmed by the concession of full doevmentary title under reasonable but libeiai re- ‘guiations as to boundary. The native reeident of California, whether Indians, half caste, or of Spa- mish blood, ehoujd not be disturbed in what has been hitherto in that country esteemed to be his own property, and which he his exclusively pos- sessed and controlled end enjoyed as such, though he may not have procured a tormel grant or con- cession, ornamented with the official seals, and paroffes, and rubrics of the Mexican fuuctionaries. Thove of Indian blood can mghtfuily urge the title of the aborigival natives, which, to a certain ex- tent, the Urived States hes always admitted, and which our government has ever profeased to “ ex- tupguish” by treaties with the Ladians, before dis- posing of the laad to others. The enterprising pio- peer citizen of the United States, who has emigrated to the Paertic, is likewise entitled to favorable consideration. His riglits, founded on first settle- ment and occupancy vi vacant lands there, are not noticed in this bill, nor are they im any wise pro- cected by it. No jand 1s donated to hun —he is not evea given a pre-emption. He, forsooth, unless some other bill is, in embryo for his pretection, is to be whistled off as 4 ‘squatter,’ or an ‘in- truder,”” who should be thankful uhat he is mot in- dicted or prosecuted by a United States District Attomey, fined by a United States judge, and tmprisoned by a United States marshal, as a cri- minal, for cuiting dowa the * pubic trees,” digging tl public soil,” or hunting ont, and, after itis found, gathering, washing end melting the ‘‘ pub- fic gold dust” in the valleys or mountsigs of Ca- \fernia. This is ail wrong. [a tine, everything but the adjudication of Spanish or Mexican greats is lett fer other and future legislation by Gongress; for though the Commiseiouers are to ‘ascertain and report to the Seerctary of the Io- terior the tenure by which the mission lands are a held, and these held by the civilized Indians, and thoee who are cogaged in agriculture or labor of any Kind, and these which are occupied and cultivated by pueblos or rancheros [adians,” (vide sec. 16), Lo provision whatever is made for any Geciioa as © their dights, or for any protection, zecunty, or recogaition of them in eay degree, or CO any extent Further delay E as to full legislation by Con- areas in rela’i 9 California w utterly inexeu: ble The treaty of (j.udelope Hidalgo was finally atfied and proclaimed by Preeident Polk, as the sup tere low of the laud, eu tee ten of July, 1548. The deliy of Congr atarly three years al reaoy tlapeed, hus been in shameless violation o hetr Guties. Ifthe Legislature of the State o California she assume (© take control of the vacant land- s limita, and to assert and enforce £0 ignty of t e over them, and the ownership of the State in them--a3 Mr. Soulé ard other distioguisbed statesmen and ju- rista Coutend the le'ter of the Mexican treaty, of the State coo , aud of the lew of nations aod the constiuron poles of this gyvernment allow tiem to do— * arguments in defeace and jumtati vuse cau be found in the necessity created by the remissnere of Coagress co do its duty with respect to those finda, and its weaton negiect of the rights and interests of the citizens of that State. ludeed there are many who coatend that et se would, in its ultimate re- sulte, be moe! bes ted States. Cer- with the genius the rights and dent ¢ “n f California—of those relatiog to the titles to : y—thould be under the arbi- ry control of # legislative body m session seve- hourands miles distant from them, composed heir necetsities, many of whom heir wante, and inccmpetent to ir nights; and some of whom have eliogs pot elwaye congenial with, cd often boetile to theirs, and who are wholly eponsible to the people cf California. The «opie of the AL States woul | not be satistied (such Lrgislature beld in Caltforeva was, ander y circumstances, to assume the control and set- t of tiles to real te here; and our having ny wo out of rixty Sena ad Two owt of two hun- ired and thirty Re t Legislature, would go but a lit us to such foreign despotian » Sefore the Amy ricen revolution, the Imperial Par- iarnent of Great Britain yielded to the loeal au- thoti'ies of the co'oo ne control of sneh mat ters; ard with refe ¢ to Oregon, California, “tah, and New M , Congress wil have, ere a justly called. oop, te The system hither- O poreurd » 12 On the States, and whieh oo gradually by (the steady ad- auce of the whie population wpom the [ndian frontier, heut any evtual seperation from the ved as to the y adjacent to is unsvited to, and a ties thousands of ed from us by end by lofty , exenpt ia a few ae are all wih Mexico. Bnvain from tee and as not by aay tiag betwee fornia, an i this coatiaen tev smen of this country tt premary natural dis milanity ries on the aree he con te im ec . Civ eg vod ott re by bine @ distawt f vast de wert of ¢ mo ' ile sa veges re wer rice of t ett ween the tone fail w the p.reat ec hem wity uf interes " 4 imerease, ant he atreng These who do pet snticipate the he resistence in afew years, by our fellow. citizens oa the Peefic, to laws by whet hey are con strained to poy $2 freight to American vessels to snd fom Aiduntic Staves, when they might eoploy (but for ruch awe) foreign vessels for § of to la@e compelling them to pry $2 for me vatac ot the A jentie States, tha it procured from her ceurtres they could get for $1, hos read history to but linle purpe In relation to the , ell the new Stetes wil umte with the adoption of mere liberal rules by vernment, and, if overruled, the li 8 will be rendered inoperative. Itis to suppose thet these States will han they ete constrained from , the chief pertion of the laada word aod coatrolled by + any ovher ivilaence outside bmi ernment admonish our n these hints, The opigion tof t nited States, Pol- Howard, 209, certainly Geren are Wty to in the right as eerted for the Seate ot Onliforn » those land, capecially if she dors rot accede to the conditions of the act of Congress for her admission There ser ms to heve States, co for as the ¢ is to be regatded as an ehocking apathy #@ to the honest ad faithful ful- ti'ment of cur obligations, growing ont of the treaty of Geudelope Hidalge, uoder the laws of nations, and 4 strange misconception of the rights of the United States, and ite davies with reference to the people of the Territories acquired by teat lex ot paby Atlantic g by the United Stetes Senate o, of that treaty, ond the alteration o, th @h oriole, as origionlly agreedto by Mr Tria, nd the Mexican Commission tended soenges Speaish apd Me: and in New Mexico some have con- those obligatioas with reapect to xican eels of lands in California { with respect, also, to the pro- | perty possessed the church and the Catholic | missions; and with respect, likewise, to the rights | | of oecupants founded upon naked possession, wi out formal written grants trom the authorities of former sovernments This is an error ex: | punged 10th article was in these words :— All grants of land made by the Mexican govermment, or by the oor pete: uthoritiee, 10 territories pre viously ap) te Mexico, and remaining for the | future within the limite of the United States, shall be respected as valid. to ths ame extent that the same grants would be valid it the said terrtteries had re- mained witbin the limits of Mexico. But the grantees of lands im Texas, put in possession thereof who, by reason of the oireumstances of the country, since the f the trouble between Texes aad the Mex- ment, may bave been prevented from ful- ali the conditions of thelr gramte, shall be under the sbiigalion to fala the said conditions with- in the periods limited im the same, respectively; euch periods to be now counted from the date ot the ex- change of ratifications of this treaty, in default of which the said grante shall not be obligatory upen the State of Texas, in virtue of the stipulations contained ene reek stipulation i 4 to f ° ulation in reger antees o land in Teean, is extended to all Fieutess of the land _ im the territories afcresaid. elsewhere than in Texas. putin possession. under such grant d, io default of the fulfilment of the condition: ny such gral within the seme period. which, as is above sti with the day of the exchange of the ratiiicatio: of this treaty. the same shall be null and veid, &c. President Polk, in his message of 23d of Feb- ruary, sending the treaty to the Senate, recom- mends this article to be expunged. He said:— To the tenth article of the treaty there ere serious objection lated or authorized ite insertion The public lands within the limits of Texas belong to that State, and this government hes no power to ose of them, or to change the conditions of grants al made. “All valid titles to land within the other territories ceded to the United States will remain unaffected by the change of sovereignty; amd I, therefore, submit that this ob not be inserted as @ part of the treaty. —(Vol 7. Bx . Doo. 1847-8--1st Sea, 30th Con.} The 9th article was modified, and certain clause im it referring to church property stricken ou doubtless because the law of nations and the othe provisiops were deemed a full guarantee. It is worthy of notice that a remarkable feature of this treaty is, that it does mot contain any ex ress words Of cession or transfer by Mexico to the nited States, of the pulic lands or other publie Property in California and New Mexico. exico seems carefully to have aveided this. Why it was that the precedents of the treaties of Louisiana and | of Florida, both containing such clauses, were dis- regarded by our negotiators, we cannot pea amg unless Mexico was urgent in objections to them. The boundary line to exist thencetorth, between Mexico and the United States, is distinctly pre- scribed and defined in and by the treaty. This is, doubtless, a virtual acknowledgment and cession of the sovereignty over all the countries north and east of that line, to the United States; but the doc- trine that this acknowledgment, ex proprio vigore, reste on the federal government of the United | States, the ownership, as absolute possessore, of the lands there, not before then disposed of by the former authorities, has been disputed. It has | been denied that by force of such agreement as to the national ,boundary of Mexico, (though it involved a ceesion of the sovereignty of the country this side of the line to the United States,) the United Statea succeeded to all the rights of the central government of Mexico, and also of the local provincial governments in California and New Mexico, under the constitutions of that republic, with reepect to the proprietaryship of such lends. It has been strongly the delegated and restricted powers and_attri- butes of sovereignty vested by the constitution of the United States, in the government of the ‘ confederacy, are not such as allow that govern- ment to become such owners or proprietors of land, | without express trensfer and investiture of title. | It has been disputed that the federal government hag any inherent prerogatives akin to those unger which lands escheat to the crown of Begland, if no other owner exists. It has been denied that aoy analogous rightin the United States results from the circumstances attending the acquisitions under this treaty. It bas been contended that the exer- cite of the right of ownership of these lands by the Vnited Statee, to the exclusion of the local sove- reigaty of California, is aa usurpation. It has been ergued that the vacant lands within the limits of the State of California, upon the extinction of the euthority of the centre! government of Mexico over them, reverted to the local sovereiguty ; and | the State goverament in | upon the organization of California, (before Congress assumed toexercise any control of these lande,) that control devolved upoa that State, and thet they all, under the laws of na- | tions, revertto and belong to that State It has been asserted, that by the Mexicen lawsall the powero disposal or control possessed by the central govern mert, wes as trus’ee for the local or provincial government, which w.s regarded as the true pro pnetor, been etoted thet the Central goveroment in Mexico carefully avoided aa exprese cession of the pro perty in these lands to the United State 8 bein, in violation of its constitu ‘ional trust—bat preferre the fixaion of the rational boundary merely, leaving the settlement of the question as to the ownership of the lands to be a'r. Unued Stetes and the provine We do not venture to express our opinion as to the correctne or ipcorrectness of any of these po: tions. e State of C-lfornia did not, when formed and adopted her constitution, and applied fer admission as a Srete, yield up her claim to these Jands. She carefully and purposely re- frained frem making euch reliognishment in that constitution, which had been required of several other S y Congress. Yet, she was fully ad- mitted by ngrese and the President asa State Her Senators und Representatives were allotted seats in Corgress. If she persists in her claim, in derpite of the “condition subsequeat” stipulated in the act of admission, declaring — See ©. That the seid State of California ts admitted into the Union upom the ex people of eaid State, through their Legislature or otherwise, sball pever interfere with Girporal of the public lands within ite limits and sbail pare no law and ¢o no act whereby the title of the United States to raid t to dispose of the same thall be impaired or questioned, and that they shall lay any tax or arsessment of any description ih the public domainot the United States shail now-resident proprietors. who are Btates, be texed higher than of Bept. 9, 1860 | ly with these conditions, what can Congress do? Will California be ex. peiled from the Usion? Will the enforcement of the federal cleim to these linda be attempted oy arms rgainet the people and government of that State?) We rather presume vot. Congress is then left to the utterly puer ffictient redress which may be afforded by sv by the United States ia the f- deral tribunale, e State or i's citizens, as to lands within her limits oceupied ly those civzens, under titles conferred by the Stete. Legtelation by one party will be met by coua- terveilirg legislation %y the other partyJand what- ever federal judges may deeide, the lands will con- nue to be occupied and ex joyed by the citizens cf State, regirdle the claims of the United States; «nd t would net be couse of surpriae, if, Ultimately, Congrece should egree not only to yield the lar but to pay ali the expenses of the State and its citizens incurred by reason of the dispute. The history of the Tasseli's case, and of the But- 4 Worcester coves, should not be n by any of the of the federal executive or je pended a milar e enacted by other di whenever federal eie'e rded by the citizen {Ae And refures to n Georgia, pert ny lative, eapect to them rilly a8 #n usurpa- power, ore thetrory, tyrenmies!, unjust, or oppreseive. In Califernia, repecially, its remote- nees from the reat of feders) authority, the eireum- stances altending is visition by the | nited ond ita admission «# a State, and the bold entcharaieristics of her citi all tend ce such atta e of eficirs We should not pe estonished if the tardiness and flegrant remiveness of the federal goveroment should provoke mea- eures at the present seseion of the Sate Legisla- ture of California, for the security of the land claiments, gran or occupants, which may ac. celerate the results suggested as likely to e We are yuite certain thet every day's delay affords nereeeed opportunities for grantees aad other Clasmants to combine and strengthen they inverests ar uence, by sales and donations of their clems, end by arsociations The interests of the ty asses of the citizens in California are supposed, b seine, to be somewhat adverse to those of the large claimants This opinion, however, has been haved wpon the confidence thet federal legislation woul! eneble those not eleim nts under greats to obtain | lands from the United States upon more reasonable term h the grentersexce'+d. When they fiad that this cor fidence has been misplaced, when they dis. cover that the federal monopoly ia as how ile to their interests a8 the monopoly of the crantees, the con. equence will be a union and conbination of all their intereste against the United States it should be remembered that it is the representatives of these interests, in the State Lrgicle who wil control he policy «f the State os to the vacant | fa well as to thoce claimed under Mexican The federal interests in the State mteer advo cater, end theee will, it is predicted, be neithera | very numerous host, nor porsess very powerful control But corcede that the treaty with Meaico vielded to the United States not oply the sovereignty, bat neferred to the United States sli the | vacent lands, and all the public property, as well of the provincial governmen' of the central government of the regublie of Mexico within © lifornia, New Mexico and Utah. Nobody, having fay pretensions to in'elligence, ever imagined that the Mexican government had the right to @ranafer ceded and t and no instructions given to Mr. Trist | rgued that | and cestne gut truest, end hence it has | ed between the | governments. | | | indemnity in all cases, and especially in ocbe Unied States the private property or avy ie as to property, * hether equitable or lega!. of Mexican citizens, or others, in these territories. Certainly, the Ureaty does aot coptain aay provision justitying the euppesition that Mexiwo toleaded to imppaur in ‘he slightest degree the rights of tudrvi- duals, either |¢ gal or equitable, pertect or acheste, to prope rty of aay Kind ia the territories. [f, when the treaty was negotiated, it had been proposed to Mexco to cootiseate by it, of to sagction the confiscation by leg's!atioa the United 5 ares. afier the cession, any of the rights of pro perty, equitable or legal, of Mexican citizens or others in these countr es, and vest the pro- perty 80 eonfiseated in the United States, such proposition would have been scouted as infa- mous, If sueh stipulation had been inserted in the treety by the negotiators, it would have been io- stantly expunged with seorn by the United States Senate, when the treaty was submitted for its ad- vice and consent as to its ratification. Such provi- sion would have shocked the moral sense of the civilized portion of mankind. So tar from anything being inferrable sguinst claimants to lands in the ceded territories, from the striking out of the 10h article of the treaty by the Senate, and so far from anything being found in the treaty as ratified, justi- fying Congress for the pi of any law impatr- ing or iniuriously affecting the titles of Mexican grantees to their landed possessions, or of unjustly molesting or distur! those who were permissive occupants of lands, without written grants, anterior to the cession, the entire treaty, (and especially the Sih end %harticlee,) displays the manifest inten- tion of both parties to protect all the rights of in- dividuals to property in those te! ries, according tothe Mexican laws. The two srticles specitied contain no less than three distinct clauses, by which the faith and honer of the United States is solemnly plghted for the protection and security of those rights. Articie eighth declares— Mexicans now estabiivhed in territories pre Seay to Mexico, ond whioh remain for within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they mow reside, or to remove at any time to the M ican republic retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposmng thererf, aud removi: the proceeds wherever they please, without their beii sudjected on that accouns, te any contributions, tax whatever. ain, the 34clause say s:-- In the said territozies, property of belonging to Mexicans, not established there, shai > inviolably resyected. The present ow: tise heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by c hall enjoy with respect to i} ry kind now it guarantess eq: eas if the same belonged to cit: zens of the United tates. The Sh article declares that— M-xicens who in the territories aforesaid shall not Preserve the character of citisens of Mexican re- public, conformably to what is stipulated in the pre- ceding article. shail be incorporated into the union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time, to be judged of by the Congress of the United Btates. to the epjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to the principles of the constitution; ard, in the meantime. shaii be maintained and protected in the free ej ryment af their Liberty and pro persy, and eecured in the iree exercise of their religion without restriction accordance with, the established precepts of the laws of € States has declared in several cases, that without any express stipulation for the protection of private 1 hte of property, ina cea of cession, the laws of nations would efford full protection to indivi- duals. In the case of the United States vs. Sou- lard, 4 Peters, 51, that Court says :— “By the treaty by which Louisiana was acquired, the United States stipulated that the iahabitants ot the ceded territories sbould be protected in the tree enjoyment of their property, The United States, asa just pation ard this stipulation as the avowal of a principle which would hare been held equally sacred, | aithowgh it hod not been inserted in the treaty.” “The term property, a8 applied tolands, compre- bends every species of tile, inchoate or complete, Lt is supposed to embrace those rights which lie in con- those which are executory, as well as those wbich are «executed, Ip this respect, the relations ot the inbabitents of Louistava to their governmrat, is not changed, The new government takes the place ot that whieh bas passed away.” So in Delaseus va. The United States, 9 Peters, 7: stipulations of the treaty ceding Louisiana to jes, affording that protection or securi- ty to claime under the Fretch or Spanish government et of Congress refers, are in the first, ey extended to al anember of the Uni perty, unti) Levirie yato which tbe Bt '¢ to be incorporated oon ae porsible ‘end admitted to all the rights, ad- vantages std in munities of citix of the United pertect inviolability and secuity of mong these rights.” tof property ir protected and secured by 4 DO princ!pix ie better settiod in this n that an inchoate title to lands is proper'| oft country, bia right would have been racred, independem toveteign who acquires an inhabited coun- ; but this dominion the vested rights of indt- The larguage ot the treaty jana, txclades avy idea cf interfering roperty.”” ‘ Beier al . vs. United States, 9 Peters. 4 to the title claimed im this case, prereuted to the superior der the provicions of the acts of ment of land claims in Florid tS irg bow with private Soin Mite which bed Middie Flori: of Copgrers ru of this court as a court of equit: often aud unitormly construed in its rep ont, ecnfer the eame juriadiction over | aperfect, in- choute. end inceptive tithes, am legal @04 perfec! ones, and require the court to cecide by the same rules claims submitted to it. whether legal or equit Also in United States vs. Percheman, ~ Even im cares of conquest, it ia very uousual for the conqueror to do more than to dirpiace the sove- | reign and arsume dominion over the country. The | medern e of vations. wich has become law, | would be violated; that pense of justice and of right. which is acknowledg: d and felt by the whole civilzed world would be outraged; if private property should be generally coufireated, and private righ'e annulled | on a change in tbe sovereignty of the country, by the Florida treaty. The people change their allecianse thetr relation to their ancivat sovereign is dissolved but their relations to each other. and their rights of property rrmain undisturbed. lad Florida changed ite eorereign by an sct containing ro +tipulation re. apecting the property of individuals, the right of pro. perty in all those who became sudjects or citizens of the new government would bw the change. It would have under the ancient rovereig The language of the second article of the treaty the United States and Spain, of the 22d Feb- 1819, by which Florida was ceded to the 'nited s jorms to thie gemeral principle. ‘The eighth article of the treaty must be intended to stipulate expressly for the security to private pro- the lows and usages of nations would, with stipulation have conferred. No constraction id impair that security, furtber than its ds require. would seem to be admissible yithout it, the (itles of iadividuals would rem Telid under the new government, as they were under A yee titles, 60 far at least av they were t be asserted in the courts of the ta endently of this erticle See likewise, 12 Peters, 416, Strother vs. Lucas ly the federei constitution, the ti y is the su- preme law, Congrese connot rightfully enact any law avoiding ane} evading the fair and honest and faithful fulfil ment of tpulations. above quoted, according to their spirit. The treaty is to be ex- pounded, and is to be exceuted and sustained, ac- cording to the laws of nations. Congress cannot rightfully enact any law with respect to the coun- tres acquired by (he treaty, contrary to the laws of nations. Such acts would be null and void. The rights of property made inviolable by the laws of nations; and whieh the United States are boug to respect and protect by the teaty, ere not merely what common law lewyers dewignate es lega rights, i. €., complete, perfected, vested, and abso lute titles, but equitable nights (as they are termed by the common law) are also included No etetesman or jurist of intel) ce willden this, however common law attorneys, in or out of Congrese, who heve derived their learaing on such subjects mostly from some mis prive vade mecum miay be diepore yee the point. The civi law borrowed fi Spain, prevailed in Mexico,and was cheriehed im every etate and province of the ble. The distineticn recognized by the com mon law, between legal and equitadle rights, is not regarded by the civil aw. Under the system pre- vailirg inthe ceded territories, equitable nghts are nm unall emained the same as | to New Yotk as legal righte. The protection of borh is y the object cf the clauses of the tresty quoted, and the laws of nations extends to the one ax wellastothe other. The supreme court of the L d States, in the case of Soulard va The United States, 4 Petera, S11, declare this, in rms, to be the law. The doctrine is found above veted, also in other decisions of that ¢ Meet cf the common law distineti see,” and titles to land, derived from the old fe del evetem in force in England from the time the corquest, are net known to the civil law, ne aie our numerous different forms or styles of action and the aege rules distinguishing law frem equity, are é¢ d by ite precepts. The polar etar of the civil law ie equity and justice. Its “beds ot jus uce” are not hke that of Proerestes. eivher ecutive por judicial eutherities, in countries where it preveila, heve theit discretion stultified, or are they manacled in the edmimistration of justice, asia sin es Where the iron restraints of tne common lew are upswervir gly cdhered to, and where rigid ect formity to its uny elding rules and forma is de- mended. Forteitores and penalties ere nursed by he comn en law as well as for the now fuifilimen of contracts—or the conditions of g i) lende, es in all other transactions favorites of the civil law. It prefers the rale « jost end equitable compensation, remuneration or | asea of ant fron at to Its , to the The he non fulfillment of conditions in a the crown to its subject, or the governm: isthe civil baw liberel aad benie mrt, teugh he may be ia default common law rule by which all title is forfei +. ch non-fulfillment is abhorred It prefers that meet com; querey should be medety the delinquent to the party ipjured thereby. By the civil law many eon- ditions not essential to the interests of a grantor,end the performance of which 1s unnecesearily deman- ded by @ rigorous grantor, (and of which the com mop law exacts the rigid performance to the letter,) are considered as td merely ‘* direetory,” and the new pestirmeanse of them will not work a for- feiture, however explieit and peremptory the terms of euch condition may be. [t requires poreiag idte, uaconsciopable or unreasonable. With all the vaunted claime for the superior wisdom of their system, put forth 4 the champions of the common taw, from Lord Coke down, they have bees com- pelled to borrow or steal from the civil law codes, the rulea by which relief 18 granted in chaneery, et forfeitures and penalties, by which the spe- cifte performance of contracts is enforced, and by vhich a party defendant may demand in the de- cision of the suit against himself, ‘* recoupement” from his adversary. 1a numerous other instances hes the civil law been engrafted on the common lew by the courts of England, and of the United States, and its principles substituted by statute for the old English rules. What wickedness would it be for the ment in Califernia and New Mexico, of the techni- cal rules of the common law, as to titles to real estate acquired by the inhabitants of those coun- tries, where a totally dissimilar system has pre- vailed, and under which their lands and other pro- perty was possessed when the countr! ited for by the civil law. for the del These provisions are but dee!aratory of, ani in | ons. The Supreme Court of the United | | aoa | yurt of | | im | vests, p | the girl bad ac given as high consideration es those distinguished | to the United States, and under which they were continued to be held till the Jawa were changed aa to the future, by the local governments. We question the power of Congress soto do. Concede that Congress may have power to provide by law for the ascertainment and settlement of the titles | 30 lends in the ceded territories, founded on Span- ish or Mexican grants, yet it by no means follows that in passing such acts it can prescribe rules for deciding upon such claims, to the prejudice of the claimants, inconsistent with the lawson which the grents are founded, and under which the lands are | held. Who can doubt that such act would be a grove violation of the plighted faith and honor of the American people, given to Mexico in the clauses of the treaty cited? No act of federal or state legislation can annul or impair a Spanish or Mexican grant, made in conformity to the Spanish or Mexicanlaw. Nosuchact can prescribe a retro- active rule asto the kind or character of posses- sion (either possessio pedis, or constructive posses- sion) of the lands conceded to him, necessary to Jegalize his title, nor what performance of condi- tions contained in a grant, shall be deemed neces- sary tomake the grant absolute. retrespecuvely change the Mexican laws, to the detriment ‘of the grantees or occupants. It can- not rightfully elter the rules of evidence as to the establishment of such grants under the Mexican laws, so as to create obstacles to on honest claim- ant in the proof of his tith thet would sustain his case under the Mexican laws, anterior to the cession, muat be received now end must be given the same consideration, and have like effeet. Any act of Congress doing that by indirection, which Congrees caunvt do directly, would be in contravention of the treaty, and of the luws of nations, and, therefore, a nullity. The rights of the grantees, or possessors of landa, depend entirely on the Mexican law, and not upon the legislation of Congrees. So rigid is the rule that thoee rights are to be determined by the Mex- ican laws and usages and customs, and not by rules presented ‘n legislative acts by Congress, or the Legislature of the State of California, in dero- gation of the Mexican laws and usages, that the courts would he compelled to disregard such act of Congress. Congress may, in its liberality,or for reasons of sound and wise policy, relax the opera- tion of :tringent rules, and release claimants from their effect, but it cesses NO power to impose new restraints. What the Mexican law was, is purely a judicial question, and is not ia any degree a legislative question. Congress cannot by its de- claratcry act, purporting to state what the Mexican Jaw was,in any degree modify that law or pre- scribe rules for judicial decision as to its effect. or to eye the title to lands acquired under it. The United States is the adverse party in interest to the claimant, and it would therefore be unjust and un- becoming for Congress, represen'ing such party, to | decide its cause. [thas no right to prescribe new rules as to posseesion, or new principles as to the law of prescription, prevailing in Mexic terior to, and at the time of cession, or new doctrines to govern as to the presumption of grants from lovg undisturbed occupation. If by the Mexican law an individual in possession of lands in California, 1s recognized ae the legal owner, upon his posses sion for three years being preved, Congress cannot require proof of five years possession. If, by the Menxtcen law, a grant will be presumed in favor of a claimant who shows an undisturbed exclusive possesion for ten years, Congress cannot change this rule ard exact fifteen years. So, too, if the Mexican laws and long- continued usages (for such useges become to be laws) invest an individual with the proprietorship of a mine upon his ‘' de- nouncin it to the proper public authorivies, and claimant proves that anterior to the cessio),he con- formed to the Mexican law, no act of Congress iring bis right thus acquired and perfected before the United States obtained the coun- try, would be of the hteet force. If such cus- tome and usueges of Mexico, recognized the poe- sessory rights of the Pueblo or other Indians, be- fore referred to, or of the missionaries among them, as to the lands at and contiguous to the missions or elee where, Congrees cannot disregard thore rights wr hout the perpetration of wrong and injustice We have extended these remarks beyond what | we expected, and are compelled to defer some comments on the provisions of the bill, not ia ac- cordance with the general principles above ad- vanced, to a future paper. 't of General Session: telle, of No 94° roadway. onthe 24th of December Inet 6 property was stolen from the premires above-named by « person who © by Mr Orrin C. Dodge. t Mr. om with the clet or part of it, This witness followed Gallagher fort street, down Fran ros ' up thence Broadway to Grand through E where od to Jackson etreet ria it wae not proven that Mr Kerrig thing to do with them. The neel for th about twenty ye characte id been. heret«f beyord eurpicton. ropted by the District Attorn Court and jury that be did p iited to the jary. they, wit! returned a verdiet of ne A man named I’ Mi the prison jowed to No ho came in to sp On this te acquitted ld Coin, by @ Dishonest Sercant.—A yo 153 yeare of age wae po® on trial, roeny im stealing $45, in gold col. from her emploser. Mr. John R. Post in January last. Mr Post testified that he employed the prisom on the 284 day of Jawun: rrant On the 28th the came home, in ebarge of a policeman, who stated that she had been found in posession of considerable old coim, which she enid she bad found in Canal street. Sr Port bad considerable gold coin in « stocking, stowed away under a mattrees in a room to whic! On hearing the statement her arrest be went to hie depository. and found that $45 in gold coin bad been removed within a short | me. The prisoner: ad been te the store of Mr Banta. in Bleecker at .and purchased about $18 worth of goods and bad. by ber manner aroused the suspicion of shop- men She left rome gr which +h« purchased in the store, raylng the would call for them in the morning. Mr. Bante procared a poliseman to ecme to hie eters, and in the morning when the accused came for the goods bad her arrested, There seemed to be no doubt of the prisoner's quilt The jury rendered a verdict of condemnation, and the ccurt sentenced her to the Houre of Refuge. The Court now took a reeens till 434 o'clock Theft of girl not more th charged with grand Court of Common Pleas, Hefore Hom. Judge Woodrult Fie 17.—Mutock vx. Mathew RB jon for $200. ney and o Mr Mulock bad abandoned the case of the defen in which the corte are atleged to have reer out coure, end that he refused to go on with his pro. fersional rervices. The judge. in his charge remaraed tPat the abandonment .of the case by the pisintifl without any caure or rearop may be fenoe to his fees ne counsel. yet it.canmet affect the veasto bit terviees already tendered aa attorney in the cau spd that if by the ebandonment of the plaintif® peel become cf no avail to tae de the jury might consider it im fixing the counsel's Dut net onto the attorney's fees Verdict for plainted, | $167 that fe, deducting the counsel's fee claimed by the plointilf ener. U_& brig Perry, Lieut Gov Hi. Foote, arrived at Monrovia on the 16th December. from the Svath ceatt ail The P. during her ervive on the douth ‘ Veaels, and sent them art bm te the Ua Inited States to attempt the enforce- | was ceded | _ Congress, nor | the Legislature of the Stace of California, cannot | The same evidence | Mutiny and Death tn the Paci: ‘The ‘ollowing interesting partioulare of the mutiay om board the berk William H Shailer, (of Boston) Captain W. P. Gerdiner—a condensed account of which we gave about a week back—we copy from the Boston Journal of Saturday :— The bark sbove named sailed trom Sen Francisco, where she was owned by Messrs. Everett & Co., a voyage to Manille and beck. Ci in Gardiner had sold the General Harrisow, in which he went from Boston to Ban Francisco, and, being out of earploy, agreed, at short notice, te take command of tite bark on this voyege, with the chanse of such crews as could be picked up tor such a voyage at San Francisco, the Bendwich Islends, and Manilly. They are generally foreigners, end not of the best descriptioa. On the return voyage, all his myn but three hearing leit at Manilla, and the owner, wh» went down in her to Manilla being anxious to be strong handed for w quick pasrage, the captain was obliged. whem ready for sea, to take such men as he could get, and shipped seven; among them two whom the consul waraed hia: particularly to keep @ sharp look-out upor, as fellows who would be likely to make trouble if chey sould. It wae afterwards reported that they were “a brace of Botany Bay chaps,” but that, it trae, was not kaown at the time. | Thecaptain ron found that he had | much to be trusted. The chief mate wa: ind he bad alread: crew not ‘downenst- mate, an Englishman, was of men, before the mast, ; One only was an American, and after the mutiny, | which occurred when — or ten days out, he w: | prensa to the the second mete, who was | displaced for bit otber remiseness. | @ fine watch dog. which the captat from Boston. died by potson. Of cours who did it. Ile was a powerful animal, to bis marter, and worth more than some m: fight as took place. Under these clroumst captain thought it a measure of prudence to kr selfarmed in case of need: and carried his pooket. To that fortunate ciroumstance, combined ith personal strength, resolute conduct, and prompt jon, he undoubtedly owes his life, and probably tl ty of the sbfp. The firetoccasion he bad to give an order, in per- sop to one ot the “Botany Bay chaps,” if such they were, was the immediate occasion of the outbreak. It Oecurred at about balf past nine in the morning, | while the chiet mate, who had kept the night watch, wan below The captain was sitting aft on the weather rail, watcbing the execution of an order given to the officer of the deck, (who was the second mate), to check the yarés, and make more the second mate oréered one of the men to “let go the maintop- | Mart etudding-sail balyards,”’ which were made fast | on deck, not far from where the captain was sitting. ‘The man spoken to (who proved to be one of the tvo | svepicious characters referred to by the consul) | thinking, probably, that this was @ good chance to | trythe captain, went and cast off the wreng rope, di- rectly under the captain's eyo, and turned, with anin- different sir, togo iorward. The captein called to him and eaid “You bave let go the wrong rope;” upon which the man turned back, with the same sort of air, and let go another rope, (which proved to be the malsopeslinnt stayeail hulyarde), aud then went for- ward rea’ The captaineaw what he wasatter; but. meaviag to treat him asit he were really ignorant of his duty, called out to him, ~ What rope is that you have just let go'' The fellow. who was by that tizie in a line with the starboard main swifter and about three feet from it without even turning round to seo what he bad done song out. in an insolent manner, “I don't know’ The captain then raid, * &y man, do you go aloft tothe mart head, and see where those ropes rua, and then you will know next time.’ The man then turned round. and laying bis hand on his sheath kuite, eaid. with @ look and tone of defiance, “I 'tlsee you ¢—d fret.” The captain, at that got down from the Teil, #ud descended a atep or two (the bark had a balf- pocp) on the main deck. r¢peatiog in « determined mar per the order he had betore ‘m. The man in- ttantly whipped cut his sbeath kaife end, taking an attitude of assault and deBarce, said, «If you attempt to come neat me, I'll rip your d— 4 guta out” The cepteip cailed out sharply, «Drop that keife you scoundrel, directly’ This was ine voice and manner intended to attract the attention of the part of the crew #ho were forward of the tuck. bending on studcing-eails in order that they might look out for the man. The recond mate was om the top of a house starcipg emidsbips. (where the cook and steward ele pt). epgeged sbout getting out the atudding-sails. Not one of them ctirred; and the mutineer no- srotng body to interfere. began to move towards the Captain, repeating menacing language. 1m his pocket a deep that qu but not «topping hii bis purpose, th ehead, cutting a severe but partly by the (broat. and partly b: creded ip throwing mM. gi Captein quickly recovered bis p mn ‘ol At that instant, be perceived the comrade of this pti 4 at his feet, shot through This blocdy affair, which takes #0 much time ¢o tell intelligibly. pasrenger. (cne of the owners of the bar 0 deck at the time, but uparmed. and not in « position a The chief mate, from the second mate. from among the rigging, arrived on the acene of action ovly in time to eeoure therurviving mutineer, The men forward, that is, those of them who were on deck at the time, had appe rently been willing to let the deaperadoes try their luck, and see how matters weuld Cure out. The Captain, immediately before attending to his wounds, and still holding the revolver in bis hand, with one hot left, ordered ell hands aft, and demand edof them what they wanted next, and if there were any more who hed anything to do or ray against the authority of the ship, that was the time tow it. One man, who had come from below. bably, did not euppore there was anot! pistol, bed th before him. torpeak up in ference to the was d—— d w no. and if i'd . have fished it” Thet men was ordered to be teized vp and flogged on the spot; and the order was exe- 0 to their duty; cuted The Captain then told the crew to | that es thin was the firet, #0 it ‘would be the last board thet rhip; that if they eupp would as soon be hanged at 8 as murdered at tea by a pack of re, the if he ally muti him tiny he sboui rierced great difficulty and delay proper courte in California, (t into the Union beving tefore and the new cour tien.) in consequence of which. all srved punishment. except the leadi vee in irons) took good care to rai | on order was obtained for the removal of the mam i y revenue cutter, where the steamer following * informed that « high! bipmaster of this cit the time it. Gardii be confirma the character there, of the There are wigo several « at Ban Francisco. at heard the report of y reapectadls and well now here, was at Ma- t the main facts as above giv ‘Tor Weatnen Downs East —By the Nantucket Jnaquirer, of the Mth inst., we Jeera that the baro~ meterof the astronomer of that isl Wednesday last, at 11A.M, to 31 the temperature of 50, end to the mean level of the wa, which is probably the greatest elevation ever obeerved there, At the Astronomical Ooserva- tory at Cambridge, the great barometer by Neu- man, Which is believed to be as accurate as any ever constructed, indicated at the same tempera- ture and level 31.026, and the two instroments need in our observatory ia thie city, 31 02 and 31 03, This elevation is of rare occurrence, and has not teen previously observed here since Jan Ist, 1939, t is therefore important that the true altitude ehenld be carefully ascertained, especially as we ere it eteted in another paper published in this city, 6s having been 30.68 only—an altitude whieh has been exceeded several times in the course ¢ 1 the last six monthe. Jexvy Linpenrkran —There ia a Swede i) this city by the name of Lindenbergh, waiting for the arrival of Jenny Lind, who he claims a8 his firet cousin. Her real nome he eaysis Lind eabergh, her fether aud bis father being own br? thers; but her father, owing to political troubles in Sweden, changed his name, either before © soon after Jenny was born, to Lind, droppir a the two last er lables — Cle dod (0) VIM -aler, proved bimeetf.« ficet rate: |, Brooklyn City Intelligence. ‘Tre Late Exrcosion ov 4 Bream Bornn.—At the mvt ing of the Common Comact! on Monday night, 8 resola- lution was adopted setting forth that this explosion was believed te’ be caused By the use of improper ma- terials ; that ot Ber explosions of # similar asture alleged to have taken placw om the cams pronsies ghtvorhood had by: hort period, and the nv! and dir tly alarmed. the Chief of Po and jury of the’zounty w TO THE Poner.—A combtunicstion bi Al. Sy Metts "dap. to the Comma Cou uf tion passed by the Board in cach ware (the Sixth a) trict. New Avvowzaeyt to tHe Boano OF Woecarion — Mr. Willem &. White. having declined to serve ae a member of this Board, Mr. A. 2 Low has beowappoint- ed in bis etesd. City Counr.—Fed. 17.—George Higgenson. indlotow for burglary inthe third degree. in bering? brokem into the stoze of Mr. Crooker, in Atlantic stroet, and tity of locks and other articles of” bad: was convicted, Bentence deterred, -Offcers Bnei perped and Mcedeil Tenth) foraibg thwe dis- New York, and the latter om board a sicop peo Cal i market, The prisoners were remanded for ex- amination. Frequency or Bor otacter,—Aldermean Muchmore pro- posed a resolution Monday night, at the Board of Com- mon Counoil, that a reward of $25 be paid to the police on the arrest and conviction of @ burglar, belie’ he did.that it weuld cause)ile detection of many. Al man Tayler opposed ‘the prt te of briving officers who were already paid for the discharge of their duty, and suggested: that those in the wards where such oc- currences were most irequent should be discharged, The reaciution was lost, SHIDPING. pennnoceegaasinenihevrdiniae ¢ ‘4M NAVIGATION COMPANY.—FOR BRE- men, via Southampton.—The U. mail steamship Washington, G. W. Floyd, commander, will sail Cor Brom vis Southampton, urday, Feb. 3, from plore No. eth Ri tock, M. Brice of the ire 2; $120; price of pasiags in the seoond cabin, $6), Aa perienced surgeon is attached to tbs ship. All lottecs jedolivered in Havse ly to ‘gente, 0) Broadway. PANY.—FOR ta VAN. ‘—Throvgh Tickets to a must go through the Puss Offies. Btreduced rates. For MULLER, BAN: MAIL STEAMSHIP © jew Orienus sad C Franciaco at reduced rates. a to tho aplendnl stesmebip Fi —On Wide Ms, the 9 louble ongine o1 burtlion, Jan Findtay Schenck, ively ab So'clvck, Fr. M,from bor mails, direct for. Hi and Chagres. Preigh® taken to New Oricans at usual rates. Bpecie roly taken om t to Havana. Shippers of packages containing jo! le ail artic! nown ae will not be fe ery) toe rer fvolght, apply enn ace oF fPoight, . 177 Weat street, ereer Warren os. MACtRIO MATT. hap ~inged gpuran co CALl- forni® —The publi mod that the ta of this company, steamers, inspected Ponams will toueb at Acapuleo, San Sau touch av henpa ise, bat ah ne other Mesioan porte, "Ths 0 it i ing Uni Btotes mai stoumpechete ‘are now ia the cific, one of which will be alwayeimport avesoh end of rN GREGON, 1.099 tone, 9 TENN PAaNAMa.1 NOBT! CALAPORNIA.1000on6, COLUM: Pe tbe UNICORN, 0 Myr oy former port the arrival Bams, dnd returning wi en for the following ates rom Sen line of propellerewill be keps up-for the freight sad transient passengers betwee malatalned by the suamanipe BMPIRA CIES ‘coving How ores ao York on the igth, and CatkoKEs, wing Ne ofeach month, for ¢ hagres, ‘a thisd bons wil aise - : el ‘Orleans and zlog, Calif Passage from New Orleans can be sosured from Armstrong, Lawrason & Co.,agen's. zee ead i ace w York, from ay, Fobrusry 27th, tu- er, srolane OF passage, AN FRANCISCO —SHIP- icularly requested to send BE. R., without de- ths wih ES Riategns en sn mse BN & IKONSIDE, 2 Broadway remedy, and can chow any one there are be cured without it, ae have cases dail: from the 1 fou cured me, by local. at Ja Selichuzy. | Treatment Oy, igten % 0 2 P.M. to |. DR. LARMONS, 42 Rrade street, two doors trom Broad way. ™ D° JURSEIT~FOR TWRNTY-PLVE CENTS — the Pocket Msoulapina, or hyery One Mie Owe hirtioth edition, with aravings, and form, versity cf Fennsyivania, bfully deeoriby all the reaipos gi ‘Ta Belf-sbuse is C reet, Philacel also f: hy Stringer & Townrend, 224 Broadway, New Tork.” BW MEDICAL work on the natu; ano all Hlustrated by 9 er ae lange as life; by Homer AEM ON DI ALARy tice $!. For = END, 222 Broadway, Nineteen” TR oe Vecetver. j M4 DUANK STREI ve contned hie { this disesoe, and’ mil? ane S divense, am A perfect cure or need arenes seoret days. AV THOR OF THE be a od v bed m anty fore Office BY svenew in go arrai bw’. the dostor him . Ants iting to prictor challenges a single der the Forfeitm f t five hb direotiona, ty ays yard erect, Boston ; Wrial tx SSMAN'S SPECIFIC iscovered, this dion ye} ier 'WARD. — ORO! Lt ay” f re is