Contra Costa County CA Archives History - Books .....Mexican Grants, Part 1 1882 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/ca/cafiles.htm ************************************************ File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Joy Fisher sdgenweb@gmail.com November 22, 2005, 5:43 pm Book Title: History Of Contra Costa County, California MEXICAN GRANTS. Rancho Monte del Diablo—Rancho Laguna de Palos Colorados—Rancho San Pablo—Rancho Arroyo de las Nueces y Bolbones—Rancho Medanos—El Sobrante—Rancho Los Meganos—Rancho Acalanes—Canada de los Vaqueros—Las Juntas—Rancho San Ramon-Canada del Hambre—Las Bolsas del Hambre—Pinole—Boca de Canada del Pinole. THE subject of the tenure of land in California is one which is so little understood, that it has been deemed best to quote at length the following report on the subject of land titles in California, made in pursuance of instructions from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Interior, by William Carey Jones, published in Washington in the year 1850—a more exhaustive document it would be difficult to find. On July 12, 1849, Mr. Jones had been appointed a "confidential agent of the Government, to proceed to Mexico and California, for the purpose of procuring information as to the condition of land titles in California." Pursuant to these instructions he embarked from New York on the 17th July; arriving at Chagres on the 29th, he at once proceeded to Panama, but got no opportunity, until that day month, of proceeding on his journey to this State. At length, on September 19th, he arrived at Monterey, the then capital of California. After visiting San Jose and San Francisco, he returned to Monterey, and there made arrangements for going by land to Los Angeles and San Diego, but finding this scheme impracticable on account of the rainy season, he made the voyage by steamer. On December 7th he left San Diego for Acapulco in Mexico, where he arrived on the 24th; on the 11th he left that city, and on the 18th embarked from Vera Cruz for Mobile. We now commence his report, believing that so able a document will prove of interest to the reader: I. TO THE MODE OF CREATING TITLES TO LAND, FROM THE FIRST INCEPTION TO THE PERFECT TITLE, AS PRACTICED BY MEXICO WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF CALIFORNIA. All the grants of land made in California (except pueblo or village lots, and except, perhaps, some grants north of the Bay of San Francisco, as will be hereafter noticed), subsequent to the independence of Mexico, and after the establishment of that government in California, were made by the different political governors. The great majority of them were made subsequent to January, 1832, and consequently under the Mexican Colonization Law of August 18, 1824, and the government regulations, adopted in pursuance of the law dated November 21, 1828. In January, 1832, General Jose Figueroa became Governor of the then territory of California, under a commission from the government at Mexico, replacing Victoria, who, after having the year before displaced Echandrea, was himself driven out by a revolution. The installation of Figueroa restored quiet, after ten years of civil commotion, and was at a time when Mexico was making vigorous efforts to reduce and populate her distant territories, and consequently granting lands on a liberal scale. In the act of 1824, a league square (being 4,428 402/1000, acres) is the smallest measurement of rural property spoken of; and of these leagues square, eleven (or nearly fifty thousand acres) might be conceded in a grant to one individual. By this law the States composing the federation were authorized to make special provision for colonization within their respective limits, and the colonization of the territories, "conformably to the principles of law" charged upon the Central Government. California was of the latter description, being designated a Territory in the Ada Constitutiva of the Mexican Federation, adopted January 31, 1824, and by the Constitution adopted 4th October of the same year.* * The political condition of California was changed by the Constitution of 29th December, and act for the division of the Republic into Departments of December 30, 1836. The two Californias then became a Department, the confederation being broken up and the States reduced to Departments. The same colonization system, however, seems to have continued in California. The colonization of California and granting lands therein, was, therefore, subsequent to the law of August 18, 1824, under the direction and control of the Central Government. That government, as already stated, gave regulations for the same November 21, 1828. The directions were very simple. They gave the governors of the territories the exclusive faculty of making grants within the terms of the law —that is, to the extent of eleven leagues, or sitios, to individuals; and colonization grants (more properly contracts)—that is, grants of larger tracts to empresarios, or persons who should undertake, for a consideration in land, to bring families to the country for the purpose of colonization. Grants of the first description, that is, to families or single persons, and not exceeding eleven sitios, were "not to be held definitely valid," until sanctioned by the Territorial Deputation. Those of the second class, that is, empresario or colonization grants (or contracts) required a like sanction by the Supreme Government. In case the concurrence of the Deputation was refused to a grant of the first mentioned class, the Governor should appeal, in favor of the grantee, from the Assembly to the Supreme Government. The "first inception" of the claim, pursuant to the regulations, and as practiced in California, was a petition to the Governor, praying for the grant, specifying usually the quantity of land asked, and designating its position, with some descriptive object or boundary, and also stating the age, country and vocation of the petitioner. Sometimes, also, (generally at the commencement of this system) a rude map or plan of the required grant, showing its shape and position, with reference to other tracts, or to natural objects, was presented with the petition. This practice, however, was gradually disused, and few of the grants made in late years have any other than a verbal description. The next step was usually a reference of the petition, made on the margin by the Governor, to the prefect of the district, or other near local officer where the land petitioned for was situated, to know if it was vacant, and could be granted without injury to third persons or the public, and sometimes to know if the petitioner's account of himself was true. The reply (informe) of the prefect, or other officer, was written upon or attached to the petition, and the whole returned to the Governor. The reply being satisfactory, the Governor then issued the grant in form. On its receipt, or before, (often before the petition, even,) the party went into possession. It was not unfrequent, of late years, to omit the formality of sending the petition to the local authorities, and it was never requisite, if the Governor already possessed, the necessary information concerning the land and the parties. In that case the grant followed immediately on the petition. Again, it sometimes happened that the reply of the local authority was not explicit, or that third persons intervened, and the grant was thus for some time delayed. With these qualifications, and covering the great maiority of cases, the practice may be said to have been: 1. The petition; 2. The reference to the prefect or alcalde; 3. His report, or informe; 4. the grant from the Governor. "When filed, and how, and by whom recorded." The originals of the petition and informe, and any other preliminary papers in the case, were filed, by the secretary, in the government archives, and with them a copy (the original being delivered to the grantee) of the grant; the whole attached together so as to form one document, entitled, collectively, an expediente. During the governorship of Figueroa, and some of his successors, that is, from May 22, 1833, to May 9, 1836, the grants were likewise recorded in a book kept for that purpose (as prescribed in the "regulations" above referred to) in the archives. Subsequent to that time there was no record, but a brief memorandum of the grant; the expediente, however, being still filed. Grants were also sometimes registered in the office of the prefect of the district where the lands lay; but the practice was not constant, nor the record generally in permanent form. The next, and final step in the title was the approval of the grant by the Territorial Deputation (that is, the local legislature, afterward, when the territory was created into a Department, called the "Departmental Assembly.") For this purpose, it was the Governor's office to communicate the fact of the grant, and all information concerning it, to the Assembly. It was here referred to a committee (sometimes called a committee on vacant lands, sometimes on agriculture), who reported at a subsequent sitting. The approval was seldom refused; but there are many instances where the Governor omitted to communicate the grant to the Assembly, and it consequently remained unacted on. The approval of the Assembly obtained, it was usual for the secretary to deliver to the grantee, on application, a certificate of the fact; but no other record or registration of it was kept than the written proceedings of the Assembly. There are no doubt instances, therefore, where the approval was in fact obtained, but a certificate not applied for, and as the journals of the Assembly, now remaining in the archives, are very imperfect, it can hardly be doubted that many grants have received the approval of the Assembly, and no record of the fact now exists. Many grants were passed upon and approved by the Assembly in the Winter and Spring of 1846, as I discovered by loose memoranda, apparently made by the clerk of the Assembly for future entry, and referring to the grants by their numbers—sometimes a dozen or more on a single small piece of paper, but of which I could find no other record. "So, also with the subsequent steps, embracing the proceedings as to survey, up to the perfecting of the title." There were not, as far as I could learn, any regular surveys made of grants in California up to the time of the cessation of the former government. There was no public or authorized surveyor in the country. The grants usually contained a direction that the grantee should receive judicial possession of the land from the proper magistrate (usually the nearest alcalde), in virtue of the grant, and that the boundaries of the tract should then be designated by that functionary with "suitable land marks." But this injunction was usually complied with, only by procuring the attendance of the magistrate, to give judicial possession according to the verbal description contained in the grant. Some of the old grants have been subsequently surveyed, as I was informed, by a surveyor under appointment of Col. Mason, acting as Governor of California. I did not see any official record of such surveys, or understand that there was any. The "perfecting of the title" I suppose to have been accomplished when the grant received the concurrence of the Assembly; all provisions of the law, and of the colonization regulations of the Supreme Government, pre-requisites to the title being "definitely valid," having been fulfilled. These, I think, must he counted complete titles. "And if there be any more books, files or archives of any kind whatsoever, showing the nature, character and extent of these grants." The following list comprises the books of record and memoranda of grants, which I found existing in the government archives at Monterey: 1. "1828. Cuaderno del registro de los sitios, fierras y senales que posean los habitantes del territorio de la Nueva California." [Book of registration of the farms, brands, and marks (for marking cattle), possessed by the inhabitants of the territory of New California.] This book contains information of the situation, boundaries and appurtenances of several of the missions, as hereafter noticed; of two pueblos, San Jose and Branciforte, and the records of about twenty grants, made by various Spanish, Mexican and local authorities, at different times, between 1784 and 1825, and two dated 1829. This book appears to have been arranged upon information obtained in an endeavor of the government to procure a registration of all the occupied lands of the territory. 2. Book marked "Titulos." This book contains records of grants, numbered from one to one hundred and eight, of various dates, from May 22, 1833, to May 9, 1836, by the successive Governors, Figueroa, Jose Castro, Nicholas Gutierrez and Mariano Chico. A part of these grants (probably all) are included in a file of expedientes of grants hereafter described, marked from number one to number five hundred and seventy-nine; but the numbers in the book do not correspond with the numbers of the same grants in the expedientes. 3. "Libro donde se asciertan los despachos de terrenes adjudicados en los anos de 1839 y 1840." (Book denoting the concessions of land adjudicated in the years 1839 and 1840.) This book contains a brief entry, by the secretary of the department of grants, including their numbers, dates, names of the grantees and of the grants, quantity granted, and situation of the land, usually entered in the book in the order they were conceded. This book contains the grants made from January 18, 1839, to December 8, 1843, inclusive. 4. A book similar to the above, and containing like entries of grants issued between January 8, 1844, and December 23, 1845. 5. File of expedientes of grants—that is, all the proceedings (except of the Assembly) relating to the respective grants, secured, those of each grant in a separate parcel, and marked and labeled with its number and name. The file is marked from No. 1 to No. 579 inclusive, and embraces the space of time between May 13, 1833, to July, 1846. The numbers, however, bear little relation to the dates. Some numbers are missing, of some there are duplicates—that is, two distinct grants with the same number. The expedientes are not all complete; in some cases the final grant appears to have been refused; in others it is wanting. The collection, however, is evidently intended to represent estates which have been granted, and it is probable that in many, or most instances, the ommission apparent in the archives is supplied by original documents in the hands of the parties, or by long permitted occupation. These embrace all the record books and files belonging to the territorial, or departmental archives, which I was able to discover. I am assured, however, by Mr. J. C. Fremont, that according to the best of his recollection, a book for the year 1846, corresponding to those noticed above, extending from 1839 to the end of 1845, existed in the archives while he was Governor of California, and was with them when he delivered them in May, 1847, to the officer appointed by General Kearny to receive them from him at Monterey. II. CHIEFLY THE LARGE GRANTS, AS THE MISSIONS, AND WHETHER THE TITLE TO THEM BE IN ASSIGNEES, OR WHETHER THEY HAVE REVERTED, AND VESTED IN THE SOVEREIGN? I took much pains both in California and Mexico, to assure myself of the situation, in a legal and proprietary point of view, of the former great establishments known as the MISSIONS of California. It had been supposed that the lands they occupied were grants, held as the property of the church, or of the mission establishments as corporations. Such, however, was not the case. All the missions in Upper California were established under the direction and mainly at the expense of the Government, and the missionaries there had never any other rights than the occupation and use of the lands for the purpose of the missions, and at the pleasure of the Government. This is shown by the history and principles of their foundation, by the laws in relation to them, by the constant practice of the Government toward them, and, in fact, by the rules of the Franciscan order, which forbids its members to possess property. The establishment of missions in remote provinces was a part of the colonial system of Spain. The Jesuits, by a license from the Viceroy of New Spain, commenced in this manner the reduction of Lower California in the year 1697. They continued in the spiritual charge, and in a considerable degree of the temporal government of that province until 1767, when the royal decree abolishing the Jesuit order throughout New Spain was there enforced, and the missions taken out of their hands. They had then founded fifteen missions, extending from Cape St. Lucas nearly to the head of the sea of Cortez, or Californian gulf. Three of the establishments had been suppressed by order of the Viceroy; the remainder were now put in charge of the Franciscan monks of the college of San Fernando, in Mexico, hence sometimes called "Fernandinos." The prefect of that college, the Rev. Father Junipero Serra, proceeded in person to his new charge, and arrived with a number of monks at Loreto, the capital of the peninsula, the following year (1768). He was there, soon after, joined by Don Jose Galvez, Inspector-General (visitador), of New Spain, who brought an order from the King, directing the founding of one or more settlements in Upper California. It was therefore agreed that Father Junipero should extend the mission establishments into Upper California, under the protection of presidios (armed posts) which the government would establish at San Diego and Monterey. Two expeditions, both accompanied by missionaries, were consequently fitted out, one to proceed by sea, the other by land, to the new territory. In June, 1769, they had arrived, and in that month founded the first mission about two leagues from the port of San Diego. A presidio was established at the same time near the port. The same year a presidio was established at Monterey, and a mission establishment begun. Subsequently the Dominican friars obtained leave from the King to take charge of a part of the missions of California, which led to an arrangement between the two societies, whereby the missions of Lower California were committed to the Dominicans, and the entire field of the upper province remained to the Franciscans. This arrangement was sanctioned by the political authority, and continues to the present time. The new establishments nourished and rapidly augmented their numbers, occupying first the space between San Diego and Monterey, and subsequently extending to the northward. A report from the Viceroy to the King, dated Mexico, December 27, 1793, gives the following account of the number, time of establishment, and locality of the missions existing in New California at that period: NO. MISSIONS SITUATION. WHEN FOUNDED. 1 San Diego de Alcala Lat. 32° 42' July 16, 1769. 2 San Carlos de Monterey " 36 33 June 3, 1770. 3 San Antonio de Padua " 36 34 July 14, 1771. 4 San Gabriel de los Temblores " 34 10 September 8, 1771. 5 San Luis Obispo " 31 38 September 1, 1772. 6 San Francisco (Dolores) " 37 56 October 9 1776. 7 San Juan Capistrano " 33 30 November 1, 1776. 8 Santa Clara " 37 00 January 18, 1777. 9 San Buenaventura " 34 36 March 31, 1782. 10 Santa Barbara " 34 28 October 4, 1786. 11 Purisima Conception " 35 32 January 8, 1787. 12 Santa Cruz " 36 58 August 28 1791. 13 La Soledad " 36 38 October 9 1791. At first the missions nominally occupied the whole territory, except the four small military posts of San Diego, Santa Barbara, Monterey and San Francisco; that is, the limits of one mission were said to cover the intervening space to the limits of the next; and there were no other occupants except the wild Indians, whose reduction and conversion were the objects of the establishments. The Indians, as fast as they were reduced, were trained to labor in the missions, and lived either within its walls or in small villages near by, under the spiritual and temporal direction of the priests, but the whole under the political control of the Governor of the province, who decided contested questions of right or policy, whether between different missions, between missions and individuals, or concerning the Indians. Soon, however, grants of land began to be made to individuals, especially to retired soldiers, who received special favor in the distant colonies of Spain, and became the settlers and the founders of the country they had reduced and protected. Some settlers were also brought from the neighboring provinces of Sonora and Sinaloa, and the towns of San Jose, at the head of the Bay of San Francisco, and of Los Angeles, eight leagues from the port of San Pedro, were early founded. The Governor exercised the privilege of making concessions of large tracts, and the captains of the presidios were authorized to grant building lots and small tracts for gardens and farms within the distance of two leagues from the presidios. By these means the mission tracts began respectively to have something like known boundaries, though the lands they thus occupied were still not viewed in any light as the property of the missionaries, but as the domain of the crown, appropriated to the use of the missions while the state of the country should require it, and at the pleasure of the political authority. It was the custom throughout New Spain (and other parts of the Spanish colonies also) to secularize or to subvert the mission establishments, at the discretion of the ruling political functionary; and this not as an act of arbitrary power, but in the exercise of an acknowledged ownership and authority. The great establishments of Sonora, I have been told, were divided between white settlements and settlements of the Indian pupils, or neophytes of the establishments. In Texas the missions were broken up, the Indians were dispersed, and the lands have been granted to white settlers. In New Mexico, I am led to suppose, the Indian pupils of the missions, or their descendants, still in great part occupy the old establishments; and other parts are occupied by white settlers in virtue of grants and sales.* The undisputed exercise of this authority over all the mission establishments, and whatever property was pertinent to them, is certain. * Since writing the above, I have learned from the Hon. Mr. Smith, Delegate from the Territory of New Mexico, that the portion of each of the former mission establishments which has been allotted to the Indians is one league square. They hold the land, as a general rule, in community, and on condition of supporting a priest and maintaining divine worship. This portion and these conditions are conformable to the principles of the Spanish laws concerning the allotments of Indian villages. Some interesting particulars of the foundation, progress and plan of the missions of New Mexico are contained in the report, or information, before quoted, of 1793, from the Viceroy to the King of Spain, and in extracts from it given in the papers accompanying this report. The liability of the missions of Upper California, however, to be thus dealt with at the pleasure of the Government, does not rest only on the argument to be drawn from this constant and uniform practice. It was inherent in their foundation—a condition of their establishment. A belief has prevailed, and it is so stated in all the works I have examined which treat historically of the missions of that country, that the first act which looked to their secularization, and especially the first act by which any authority was conferred on the local government for that purpose, or over their temporalities, was an Act of the Mexican Congress of August 17, 1833. Such, however, was not the case. Their secularization—their subversion-was looked for in their foundation; and I do not perceive that the local authority (certainly not the supreme authority) has ever been without that lawful jurisdiction over them, unless subsequent to the colonization regulations of November 21, 1828, which temporarily exempted mission lands from colonization. I quote from a letter of "Instructions to the commandant of the new establishments of San Diego and Monterey," given by Viceroy Bucareli, August 17, 1773: "ART. 15. When it shall happen that a mission is to be formed into a pueblo (or village) the commandant will proceed to reduce it to the civil and economical government, which, according to the laws, is observed by other villages of this kingdom; then giving it a name, and declaring for its patron the saint under whose memory and protection the mission was founded." (Cuando llegue el caso de que haya de formarse en el pueblo una mision, procedera el comandante £ reducirlo al gobierno civil y economico que observan, segun las leyes, los demas de este reino; ponie'ndole nombre entonces, y declarandole por su titular el santo bajo cuya memoria y venerable proteccion se fundo la mision.) The right then, to remodel these establishments at pleasure, and convert them into towns and villages, subject to the known policy and laws which governed settlements of that description,* we see was a principal of their foundation. Articles 7 and 10 of the same letter of instructions, show us also that it was a part of the plan of the missions that their condition should thus be changed; that they were regarded only as the nucleus and basis of communities to be thereafter emancipated, acquire proprietary rights, and administer their own affairs; and that it was the duty of the governor to choose their sites, and direct the construction and arrangement of their edifices, with a view to their convenient expansion into towns and cities. And not only was this general revolution of the establishments thus early contemplated and provided for, but meantime the governor had authority to reduce their possessions by grants within and without, and to change their condition by detail. The same series of instructions authorized the governor to grant lands, either in community or individually, to the Indians of the missions, in and about their settlements on the mission lands, and also to make grants to settlements of white persons. The governor was likewise authorized at an early day to make grants to soldiers who should marry Indian women trained in the missions; and the first grant (and only one I found of record) under this authorization, was of a tract near the mission edifice of Carmel, near Monterey. The authorization given to the captains of presidios to grant lands within two leagues of their posts, expressly restrains them within that distance, so as to leave the territory beyond— though all beyond was nominally attached to one or other of the missions —at the disposition of the superior guardians of the royal property. In brief, every fact, every act of government and principle of law applicable to the case, which I have met in this investigation, go to show that the missions of Upper California were never, from the first, reckoned other than government establishments, or the founding of them to work any change in the ownership of the soil, which continued in and at the disposal of the crown, or its representatives. This position was also confirmed, if had it needed any confirmation, by the opinions of high legal and official authorities in Mexico. The missions—speaking collectively of priests and pupils —had the usufruct; the priests the administration of it; the whole resumable, or otherwise disposable, at the will of the crown or its representatives. * A revolution more than equal to the modern secularization, since the latter only necessarily implies the turning over of the temporal concerns of the missions to secular administration. Their conversion into pueblos would take from the missions all semblance in organization to their originals, and include the reduction of the missionary priests from the heads of great establishments and administrators of large temporalities, to parish curates; a change quite inconsistent with the existence in the priests or the church of any proprietary interest or right over the establishment. The object of the missions was to aid in the settlement and pacification of the country, and to convert the natives to Christianity. This accomplished, settlements of white people established, and the Indians domiciliated in villages, so as to subject them to the ordinary magistrates, and the spiritual care of the ordinary clergy, the missionary labor was considered fulfilled, and the establishment subject to be dissolved or removed. This view of their purposes and destiny fully appears in the tenor of the decree of the Spanish Cortes of September 13,1813.** ** "Collection of Decrees of the Spanish Cortea, reputed in force in Mexico." Mexico, 1829. Page 106. The provisions of that Act, and the reason given for it, develop in fact the whole theory of the mission establishments. It was passed " in consequence of a complaint by the Bishop elect of Guiana of the evils that afflicted that province, on account of the Indian settlements in charge of missions not being delivered to the ecclesiastical ordinary, though thirty, forty and fifty years had passed since the reduction and conversion of the Indians." The Cortes therefore decreed:— 1. That all the new reducciones y doctrinas (that is, settlements of Indians newly converted, and not yet formed into parishes), of the provinces beyond the sea, which were in charge of missionary monks, and had been ten years subjected, should be delivered immediately to the respective ecclesiastical ordinaries (bishops), "without resort to any excuse or pretext, conformably to the laws and cedulas in that respect." 2. That as well these missions (doctrinas) as all others which should be erected into curacies, should be canonically provided by the said ordinaries (observing the laws and cedulas of the royal right of patronage) with fit ministers of the secular clergy. 3. That the missionary monks, relieved from the converted settlements, which should be delivered to the ordinary, should apply themselves to the extension of religion in benefit of the inhabitants of other wilderness parts, proceeding in the exercise of their missions conformably to the directions of paragragh 10, Article 335, of the Constitution.* This clause of itself settles the character of these establishments as a branch of the public administration. 4. That the misionary monks should discontinue immediately the government and administration of the property of the Indians, who should choose by means of their ayuntamientos, with intervention of the superior political authority, persons among themselves competent to administer it; the lands being distributed and reduced to private ownership, in accordance with the decree of January 4, 1813, on reducing vacant and other lands to private property."** *The following is the clause referred to, namely, paragraph 10, Article 335, Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy, 1812: "The provincial councils of the provinces beyond sea shall attend to the order, economy, and progress of the missions for the conversion of infidel Indians, and to the prevention of abuses in that branch of administration. The commisioners of such missions shall render their accounts to them, which accounts they shall in their turn forward to the Government." **" Collection of Decrees of the Spanish Cortes," etc., p. 56. This decree provides: 1. That "all the vacant or royal lands and town reservations (propios y arbitrios, lands reserved in and about towns and cities for the municipal revenue), both in the peninsula and islands adjacent, and in the provinces beyond sea, except such commons as may be necessary for the villages, shall be converted into private property; provided, that in regard to town reservations, some annual rents shall be reserved." 2. That "in whatever mode these lands were distributed, it should be in full and exclusive ownership, so that their owners may enclose them (without prejudice of paths, crossings, watering-places and servitudes), to enjoy them freely and exclusively, and destine them to such use or cultivation as they may be best adapted to; but without the owners ever being able to entail them or to transfer them, at any time or by any title, in mortmain." 3. "In the transfer of these lands shall be preferred the inhabitants of the villages (or settlements) in the neighborhood where they exist and who enjoyed the same in common whilst they were vacant." It has also been supposed that the Act above alluded to of the Mexican Congress (Act of August 17, 1833) was the first assertion by the Mexican Government of property in the missions, or that they by that Act first became (or came to be considered) national domain. But this is likewise an error. The Mexican Government has always asserted the right of property over all the missions of the country, and I do not think that the supposition has ever been raised in Mexico, that they were the property of the missionaries or the Church. The General Congress of Mexico, in decree of August 14, 1824, concerning the public revenue, declares the estates of the inquisition, as well as all temporalities, to be the property of the nation (that is, no doubt, in contradistinction from property of the States—making no question of their being public property). This term would include not only the mission establishments, but all rents, profits and income the monks received from them. A like Act of July 7, 1831, again embraces the estates of the inquisition and temporalities as national property, and places them with "other rural and suburban estates" under charge of a director-general. The executive regulations for colonizing the territories may raise an idea of territorial and native property in them, but it puts out of the question any proprietary rights in the missionaries. The seventeenth article of these regulations (executive regulations for colonization of the territories, adopted November 21, 1828) relates to the missions, and directs that "In those territories where there are missions, the lands which they occupy shall not at present be colonized, nor until it be determined if they ought to be considered as property of the settlements of the neophyte catechumens and Mexican settlers." The subsequent acts and measures of the general Government of Mexico, in direct reference to missions, and affecting those of California, are briefly as follows: A decree of the Mexican Congress of November 20, 1833, in part analogous to the decree before quoted of the Spanish Cortes of September, 1813, directing their general secularization, and containing these provisions: 1. The Government shall proceed to secularize the missions of Upper and Lower California. 2. In each of said missions shall be established a parish, served by a curate of the secular clergy, with a dotation of two thousand to two thousand five hundred dollars, at the discretion of the Government. 4. The mission churches, with the sacred vessels and ornaments, shall be devoted to the use of the parish. 5. For each parish the Government shall direct the construction of a cemetery outside of the village. 7. Of the buildings belonging to each mission, the most fitting shall be selected for the dwelling of the curate, with a lot of ground not exceeding two hundred varas square, and the others appropriated for a municipal house and schools. On December 2, 1833, a decree was published to the following effect: "The Government is authorized to take all measures that may assure the colonization and make effective the secularization of the missions of Upper and Lower California, being empowered to this effect to use, in the manner most expedient, the de fincas de obras pias (property of the piety fund) of those territories, to aid the transportation of the commission and families who are now in this capital destined thither." The commission and emigrants, spoken of in this circular, were a colony under the charge of Don Jose Maria Hijar, who was sent out the following Spring (of 1834) as director of colonization, with instructions to the following effect: That he should "make beginning by occupying all the property pertinent to the missions of both Californias," that in the settlements he formed, special care should be taken to include the indigenous (Indian) population, mixing them with the other inhabitants, and not permitting any settlement of Indians alone; that topographical plans should be made of the squares which were to compose the villages, and in each square building lots to be distributed to the colonist families; that outside of the villages there should be distributed to each family of colonists, in full dominion and ownership, four caballerias* of irrigable land, or eight, if dependent on the seasons, or sixteen, if adapted to stock raising, and also live stock and agricultural implements; that this distribution made, (out of the movable property of the mission) one-half the remainder of said property should be sold, and the other half reserved on account of government, and applied to the expenses of worship, maintenance of the missionaries, support of schools, and the purchase of agricultural implements for gratuitous distribution to the colonists. * A caballeria, of land is a rectangular parallelogram of 552 varas by 1,104 varas. On April 16, 1834, the Mexican Congress passed an Act to the following effect: 1. That all the missions in the Republic shall be secularized. 2. That the missions shall be converted into curacies, whose limits shall be demarked by the governors of the States where said missions exist. 3. This decree shall take effect within four months from the day of its publication. November 7, 1835, an Act of, the Mexican Congress directed that "the curates mentioned in the second article of the law of August 17, 1833, (above quoted), should take possession, the government should suspend the execution of the other articles, and maintain things in the condition they were before said law." I have, so far, referred to these various legislative and governmental acts in relation to the missions, only to show, beyond equivocation or doubt, the relation in which the government stood toward them, and the rights of ownership which it exercised over them. My attention was next directed to the changes that had taken place in the condition of those establishments, under the various provisions for their secularization and conversion into private property. Under the act of the Spanish Cortes of September, 1813, all the missions in New Spain were liable to be secularized; that is, their temporalities delivered to lay administration; their character as missions taken away by their conversion into parishes under charge of the secular clergy; and the lands pertinent to them to be disposed of as other public domain. The question of putting this law in operation with regard to the missions in California was at various times agitated in that province, and in 1830 the then Governor, Echandrea, published a project for the purpose, but which was defeated by the arrival of a new Governor, Victoria, almost at the instant the plan was made public. Victoria revoked the decree of his predecessor, and restored the missionaries to the charge of the establishments, and in their authority over the Indians. Subsequent to that time, and previous to the act of secularization of August, 1833, nothing further to that end appears to have been done in California. Under that act, the first step taken by the Central Government was the expedition of Hijar, above noticed. But the instructions delivered to him were not fulfilled. Hijar had been appointed Governor of California, as well as Director of Colonization, with directions to relieve Governor Figueroa. After Hijar's departure from Mexico, however, a revolution in the Supreme Government induced Hijar's appointment as political Governor to be revoked; and an express was sent to California to announce this change, and with directions to Figueroa to continue in charge of the governorship. The courier arrived in advance of Hijar, who found himself on landing (in September, 1834,) deprived of the principal authority he had expected to exercise. Before consenting to cooperate with Hijar in the latter's instructions concerning the missions, Figueroa consulted the Territorial Deputation. That body protested against the delivery of the vast property included in the mission estates—and to a settlement in which the Indian pupils had undoubtedly an equitable claim—into Hijar's possession, and contested that his authority in the matter of the missions depended on his commission as Governor, which had been revoked, and not on his appointment (unknown to the law) as Director of Colonization. As a conclusion to the contestation which followed, the Governor and Assembly suspended Hijar from the last-mentioned appointment, and returned him to Mexico.* * Manifesto a la Republica Mejicana, que hace el General Jose Figueroa, comandante general y gefe politico de la Alta California. Monterey, 1835. Figueroa, however, had already adopted (in August, 1834,) a project of secularization, which he denominates a "Provisional Regulation." It provided that the missions should be converted partially into pueblos, or villages, with a distribution of lands and movable property as follows: To each individual head of a family, over twenty-five years of age, a lot of ground, not exceeding four hundred nor less than one hundred varas square, in the common lands of the mission, with a sufficient quantity in common for pasturage of the cattle of the village, and also commons and lands for municipal uses; likewise, among the same individuals, one-half of the live stock, grain, and agricultural implements of the mission; that the remainder of the lands, immovable property, stock, and other effects, should be in charge of mayor domos, or other persons appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the general government; that from this common mass should be provided the maintenance of the priest, and expenses of religious service, and the temporal expenses of the mission; that the minister should choose a place in the mission for his dwelling; that the emancipated Indians should unite in common labors for the cultivation of the vineyards, gardens and field lands, which should remain undivided until the determination of the Supreme Government; that the donees, under the regulation, should not sell, burthen, or transfer their grants, either of land or cattle, under any pretext; and any contracts to this effect should be null, the property reverting to the nation, the purchaser losing his money; that lands, the donee of which might die without leaving heirs, should revert to the nation; that raucherias (hamlets of Indians) situated at a distance from the missions, and which exceeded twenty-five families, might form separate pueblos, under the same rules as the principal one. This regulation was to begin with ten of the missions (without specifying them) and successively to be applied to the remaining ones. The Deputation, in session of the 3d of November of the same year (1834), made provision for dividing the missions and other settlements into parishes or curacies, according to the law of August, 1833, authorized the missionary priests to exercise the functions of curates, until curates of the secular clergy should arrive, and provided for their salaries and expenses of worship. No change was made in this act, in the regulations established by Governor Figueroa, for the distribution and management of the property. Accordingly, for most or all of the missions, administrators were appointed by the Governor; and in some, but not all, partial distributions of the lands and movable property were made, according to the tenor of the regulation. From this time, however, all tracts of lands pertinent to the missions, but not directly attached to the mission buildings, were granted as any other lands of the territory, to the Mexican inhabitants, and to colonists, for stock farms and tillage. The act of the Mexican Congress of 1835, directing the execution of the decree of 1833 to be suspended until the arrival of curates, did not, as far as I could ascertain, induce any change in the policy already adopted by the territorial authorities. On January 17,1839, Governor Alvarado issued regulations for the government of the administrators of the missions. These regulations prohibited the administrators from contracting debts on account of the missions; from slaughtering cattle of the missions, except for consumption, and from trading the mission horses or mules for clothing for the Indians; and likewise provided for the appointment of an inspector of the missions, to supervise the accounts of the administrators, and their fulfillment of their trusts. Article 11 prohibited the settlement of white persons in the establishments, "whilst the Indians should remain in community." The establishments of San Carlos, San Juan Bautista and Sonoma were excepted from these regulations, and to be governed by special rules. On March 1, 1840, the same Governor Alvarado suppressed the office of administrators, and replaced them by mayor domos, with new and more stringent rules for the management of the establishments; but not making any change in the rules of Governor Figueroa regarding the lands or other property. By a proclamation of March 29, 1843, Governor Micheltorena, "in pursuance (as he states) of an arrangement between the Governor and the prelate of the missions," directed the following named missions to be restored to the priests "as tutors to the Indians, and in the same manner as they formerly held them," namely, the missions of San Diego, San Luis Key, San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel, San Fernando, San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Ynes, La Purisima, San Antonio, Santa Clara and San Jose. The same act set forth that "as policy made irrevocable what was already done," the missions should not reclaim any lands thitherto granted, but should collect the cattle and movable property which had been lent out either by the priests or administrators, and settle in a friendly way with the creditors; and likewise regather the dispersed Indians, except such as had been legally emancipated, or were at private service. That the priests might provide out of the products of the missions for the necessary expenses of converting, subsisting and clothing the Indians, for a moderate allowance to themselves, economical salaries to the mayor domos, and the maintenance of divine worship, under the condition that the priests should bind themselves in honor and conscience to deliver to the public treasury one-eighth part of all the annual products of the establishments. That the Departmental government would exert all its power for the protection of the missions, and the same in respect to individuals and to private property, securing to the owners the possession and preservation of the lands they now hold, but promising not to make any new grants without consultation with the priests, unless where the lands were notoriously unoccupied, or lacked cultivation, or in case of necessity. Micheltorena's governorship was shortly after concluded. There had been sent into the Department with him a considerable body of persons called presidarios, that is, criminals condemned to service—usually, as in this case, military service on the frontier—and their presence and conduct gave such offense to the inhabitants that they revolted, and expelled him and the presidarios from the country. He was succeeded by Don Pio Pico, in virtue of his being the "first vocal" of the Departmental Assembly,* and. also by choice of the inhabitants, afterward confirmed by the Central Government, which at the same time gave additional privileges to the Department in respect to the management of its domestic affairs. * According to act of the Mexican Congress of May 6, 1822, to provide for supplying the place of provincial governors, in default of an incumbent. The next public act which I find in relation to the missions is an act of the Departmental Assembly, published in a proclamation of Governor Pico, June 5, 1845. This act provides: 1. "That the Governor should call together the neophytes of the following-named missions: San Rafael, Dolores, Soledad, San Miguel and La Purisima; and in case those missions were abandoned by their neophytes, that he should give them one month's notice, by proclamation, to return and cultivate said missions, which if they did not do, the missions should be declared abandoned, and the Assembly and Governor dispose of them for the good of the Department. 2. That the missions of Carmel, San Juan Bautista, San Juan Capistrano and San Francisco Solano, should be considered as pueblos, or villages, which was their present condition; and that the property which remained to them, the Governor, after separating sufficient for the curate's house, for churches and their pertinencies, and for a municipal house, should sell at public auction, the product to be applied first to paying the debts of the establishments, and the remainder, if any, to the benefit of divine worship. 3. That the remainder of the missions to San Diego, inclusive, should be rented, at the discretion of the Governor, with the proviso, that the neophytes should be at liberty to employ themselves at their option on their own grounds, which the Governor should designate for them, in the service of the rentee, or of any other person. 4. That the principal edifice of the mission of Santa Barbara should be excepted from the proposed renting, and in it the Governor should designate the parts most suitable for the residence of the bishop and his attendants, and of the missionary priests then living there; moreover, that the rents arising from the remainder of the property of said mission should be disbursed, one-half for the benefit of the church and its ministry, the other for that of its Indians. 5. That the rents arising from the other missions should be divided, one-third to the maintenance of the minister, one-third to the Indians, one-third to the government." On the 28th October, of the same year (1845), Governor Pico gave public notice for the sale to the highest bidder of five missions, to wit: San Rafael, Dolores, Soledad, San Miguel and La Purisima; likewise for the sale of the remaining buildings in the pueblos (formerly missions) of San Luis Obispo, Carmel, San Juan Bautista, and San Juan Capistrano, after separating the churches and their appurtenances, and a curate's municipal and school houses. The auctions were appointed to take place, those of San Luis Obispo, Purisima and San Juan Capistrano, the first four days of December following (1845); those of San Rafael, Dolores, San Juan Bautista, Carmel, Soledad and San Miguel, the 23d and 24th of January, 1846; meanwhile, the government would receive and take into consideration proposals in relation to said missions. In the same proclamation Pico proposed to rent to the best bidder, for a period of nine years, and under conditions for the return of the property in good order and without waste, the missions of San Fernando, San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara and Santa Ynes; the rentings to include all the lands, stock, agricultural tools, vineyards, gardens, offices and whatever in virtue of the inventories should be appurtenant to said missions, with "the exception only of those small pieces, of ground which have always been occupied by some Indians of the missions;" likewise to include the buildings, saving the churches and their appurtenances, and the curate's, municipal and school-houses, and except in the mission of Santa Barbara, where the whole of the principal edifice should be reserved for the bishop and the priests residing there. The renting of the missions of San Diego, San Luis Rey, San Gabriel, San Antonio, Santa Clara and San Jose', it was further announced should take place as soon as some arrangement was made concerning their debts. It was also provided that the neophytes should be free from their pupilage, and might establish themselves on convenient parts of the missions, with liberty to serve the rentee, or any other person; that the Indians who possessed pieces of land, in which they had made their houses and gardens, should apply to the government for titles, in order that their lands might be adjudicated them in ownership, " it being understood that they would not have power to sell their lands, but that they should descend by inheritance." On March 30, 1846, the Assembly passed an Act— 1. Authorizing the Governor, in order to make effective the object of the decree of 28th May previous, to operate, as he should believe most expedient, to prevent the total ruin of the missions of San Gabriel, San Luis Rey, San Diego and others found in like circumstances. 2. That as the remains of said establishments had large debts against them, if the existing property was not sufficient to cover the same, they might be put into bankruptcy. 3. That if, from this authorization, the Governor, in order to avoid the destruction to which the said missions were approaching, should determine to sell them to private persons, the sale should be by public auction. 4. That when sold, if, after the debts were satisfied, there should be any remainder, it should be distributed to the Indians of the respective establishments. 5. That in view of the expenses necessary in the maintenance of the priest, and of Divine worship, the Governor might determine a portion of the whole property, whether of cultivable lands, houses, or any other description, according to his discretion, and by consultation with the respective priests. 6. The property thus determined should be delivered as by sale, but subject to a perpetual interest of four per cent, for the uses above indicated. 7. That the present Act should not affect anything already done, or contracts made in pursuance of the decree of 28th May last, nor prevent anything being done conformable to that decree. 8. That the Governor should provide against all impediments that might not be foreseen by the Act, and in six months, at farthest, give an account to the Assembly of the results of its fulfilment. Previous to several of the last-mentioned acts, that is on August 24, 1844, the Departmental Assembly, in anticipation of a war breaking out, passed a law authorizing the Governor, on the happening of that contingency, either "to sell, hypothecate, or rent, the houses, landed property and field lands of the missions, comprehended in the whole extent of the country from San Diego to Sonoma," except that of Santa Barbara, "reserved for the residence of the bishop." These comprise all the general acts of the authorities of California which I was able to meet with on the subject of missions. Of the extent or manner in which they were carried into execution, so far as the missions proper —that is, the mission buildings and lands appurtenant—are concerned, hut little information is afforded by what I could find in the archives. A very considerable part, however, of the grants made since the secularization of 1833 (comprising the bulk of all the grants in the country) are lands previously recognized as appurtenances of the missions, and so used as grazing farms, or ,for other purposes. In some cases the petitions for such grants were referred to the principal priest at the mission to which the land petitioned for was attached, and his opinion taken whether the grant could be made without prejudice to the mission. In other cases, and generally, this formality was not observed. This remark relates to the farms and grazing grounds (ranchos) occupied by the missions, and some titles to Indians, pursuant to the regulation of Governor Figueroa, and the proclamation of Governor Pico, on record in the file of expedientes of grants before noticed. What I have been able to gather from the meager records and memoranda in the archives, and from private information and examination of the actual state of the missions, is given below. It is necessary to explain, however, still farther than I have, that in speaking of the missions now, we cannot understand the great establishments which they were. Since 1833, and even before, farms of great (many leagues) extent, and many of them, have reduced the limits they enjoyed, in all cases very greatly, and in some instances into a narrow compass; and while their borders have been thus cut off, their planting and other grounds inside are dotted to a greater or less extent by private grants. The extent to which this has been the case can only be ascertained by the same process that is necessary everywhere in California, to separate public from private lands—namely, authorized surveys of the grants according to their calls, which though not definite, will almost always furnish some distinguishable natural object to guide the surveyor.* The actual condition of the establishments, understanding them in the reduced sense above shown, was, at the time the Mexican Government ceased in California, and according to the best information I could obtain, as follows: WHERE MISSIONS. SITUATED. San Diego 32° 48' Sold to Santiago Arguello, June 8, 1846. San Luis Key 33 03 Sold to Antonio Cot and Andres Pico, May 13, 1846. San Juan Capistrano 33 26 Pueblo, and remainder sold to John Foster and James McKinley, December 6, 1845. San Gabriel 34 10 Sold to Julian Workman and Hugo Eeid, June 18, 1846. San Fernando 34 16 Rented to Andres Pico, for nine years from December, 1845, and sold to Juan Celis, June, 1846. San Buenaventura 34 36 Sold to Joseph Arnaz Santa Barbara 34 40 Rented for nine years, from June 8, 1846, to Nicholas Den . Santa Ynes 34 52 Rented to Joaquin Carrillo. La Purisima 35 00 Sold to John Temple, December (i, 1845. San Luis Obispo 35 36 Pueblo. San Miguel 35 48 Uncertain San Antonio 36 30 Vacant. Soleclad 36 38 House and garden sold to Sobranes, January 4, 1846. Carmel 36 44 Pueblo. San Juan Bautista 36 58 Pueblo. Santa Cruz 37 00 Vacant. Santa Clara 37 20 In charge of priest. San Jose 37 30 In charge of priest. Dolores 37 58 Pueblo San Rafael 38 00 Mission in charge of priest. San Francisco Solano 38 30 Mission in charge of priest. * I was told by Major J. R. Snyder, the gentleman appointed Territorial Surveyor by Colonel Mason, and who made surveys of a number of grants in the central part of the country, that he had little difficulty in following the calls and ascertaining the hounds of the grants. The information above given concerning the condition of the missions at the time of the cessation of the former Government is partly obtained from documents in the archives, and partly from private sources. What is to he traced in the archives is on loose sheets of paper, liable to be lost, and parts quite likely have been lost; there may be some papers concerning them which, in the mass of documents, escaped my examination. I have no doubt, however, of the exactness of the statement above given as far as it goes. It will be seen, then, that the missions—the principal part of their lands cut off by private grants, but still, no doubt, each embracing a considerable tract—perhaps from one to ten leagues—have, some of them, been sold or granted under the former Government, and become private property; some converted into villages, and consequently granted in the usual form in lots to individuals and heads of families; a part are in the hands of rentees, and at the disposal of the Government when these contracts expire, and the remainder at its present disposal. If it were within my province to suggest what would be an equitable disposition of such of the missions as remain the property of the Government, I should say that the churches with all the church property and ornaments, a portion of the principal building for the residence of the priest, with a piece of land equal to that designated in the original Act of the Mexican Congress for their secularization (to wit, two hundred varas square), with another piece for a cemetery, should be granted to the respective Catholic parishes for the uses specified, and the remainder of the buildings witn portions of land attached, for schools and municipal or county purposes, and for the residence of the bishop; the same allotment at the mission of Santa Barbara that was made in the last proclamation of Governor Pico. The churches, certainly ought not to be appropriated to any other use, and less than the inhabitants have always considered and enjoyed as their right. To conclude the inquiry in the last portion of your letter of instructions, namely, concerning "large grants" other than the supposed ecclesiastical grants. I did not find in the archives of California any record of large grants in the sense I suppose the term to be here used. There are a number of grants to the full extent of the privilege accorded by law to individual concessions and of the authority of the local government to make independent of the Central Government—to wit, of eleven sitios, or leagues square. There are understood in the country, however, to be large claims reputed to be founded on grants direct from the Mexican Government—one held by Captain Sutter; another by General Vallejo. The archives (as far as I could discover) only show that Captain Sutter received July 18, 1841, from Governor Alvarado, the usual grant of eleven sitios on the Sacramento river, and this is all I ascertained. The archives likewise show that General Vallejo received from Governor Micheltorena, October 22,1823, a grant of ten sitios called " Petaluma," in the district of Sonoma; and I was informed by a respectable gentleman in California, that General Vallejo had likewise a grant from the Mexican Government, given for valuable consideration, of a large tract known by the name of "Suscol," and including the site of the present town of Benicia, founded by Messrs. Vallejo and Semple, on the Straits of Carquinez. It is also reputed that the same gentleman has extensive claims in the valley of Sonoma and on Suisun bay. It appears from documents which General Vallejo caused to be published in the newspapers of California in. 1847, that he was deputed in the year 1835, by General Figueroa, to found a settlement in the valley of Sonoma, "with the object of arresting the progress of the Russian settlements of Bodega and Ross." General Vallejo was at that time (1835), military commander of the northern frontier. He afterwards (in 1836), by virtue of a revolution which occurred in that year in California, became military commandant of the department—the civil and military government being by the same act divided—to which office he was confirmed in 1838 by the Supreme Government. The following extract from Governor Figueroa's instructions to him will show the extent of General Vallejo's powers as agent for colonizing the north: "You are empowered to solicit families in all the territory and other States of the Mexican Republic, in order to colonize the northern frontiers, granting lands to all persons who may wish to establish themselves there, and those grants shall be confirmed to them by the Territorial Government, whenever the grantees shall apply therefor; the title which they obtain from you serving them in the meantime as a sufficient guarantee, as you are the only individual authorized by the superior authority to concede lands in the frontier under your charge. The Supreme Government of the territory is convinced that you are the only officer to whom so great an enterprise can be entrusted, and, in order that it may be accomplished in a certain manner, it is willing to defray the necessary expenses to that end." An official letter to General Vallejo from the Department of War and Marine, dated Mexico, August 5, 1839, expresses approbation of what had thitherto been done in establishing the colony, and the desire that the settlements should continue to increase "until they should be so strong as to be respected not only by the Indian tribes, but also by the establishments of the foreigners who should attempt to invade that valuable region." I did not find any trace of these documents or of anything concerning General Vallejo's appointment or operations, in the Government archives. But there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the papers. They do not, however, convey any title to lands beyond authority to grant during the time his appointment continued to actual colonizers. The appointment of General Vallejo seems to have been made by direction of the Supreme (National) Government. I had no means of ascertaining how long the appointment lasted, nor to what extent its powers were used; but infer from Vallejo himself taking a grant of his rancho of Petaluma, in 1843, that his own authority in that respect had then ceased. As there are other grants also of considerable extent in the same neighborhood embraced in the Government archives, I apprehend that most, if not all of the grants made by him, exclusive of what may be embraced in the town privileges of Sonoma (and which will be noticed hereafter), were confirmed or regranted to the parties by the departmental government. In this view, however, I may be mistaken. And I desire to be distinctly understood as not intending to throw any doubt or -discredit on the titles or claims of either of the gentlemen I have mentioned. I had no opportunity of inspecting any grants they may possess, beyond what I have stated, and I imagine their lands can only be separated from the domain by the process universally requisite—the registration of outstanding grants and their survey. III. GRANTS OF ISLANDS, KEYS AND PROMONTORIES, POINTS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC, ETC. The only points of special public importance which I learned were granted prior to the cessation of the former government, are the site of the old fort of San Joaquin, near the outlet of the Bay of San Francisco, and Alcatraz (or Bird) Island, commanding its entrance, the Key of the Golden Gate. The date of the first named grant is June 25, 1846; it was made to Benito Diaz, and by him transferred to Mr. T. O. Larkin of Monterey. I understand a portion of the land embraced in the grant is in occupation of the United States troops, or has property of the United States upon it, and a part in possession of Mr. Larkin. Alcatraz Island was granted in June, 1846, to Mr. Francis P. Temple, of Los Angeles. The indispensableness of this point to the Government, both for the purpose of fortification, and as a proper position for a light-house, induced Lieut-Col. Fremont, when Governor of California, to contract for the purchase of it on behalf of the United States. The Government, it is believed, has never confirmed the purchase, nor paid the consideration. This island is a solid rock, of about a half-a-mile in circumference, rising out of the sea just in front of the inner extremity of the throat or narrows which forms the entrance to the bay, and perfectly commands both front and sides. It is also in the line of the sailing directions for entering the bay,* and consequently a light-house upon it is indispensable. * Beechy's Narrative of a voyage to the Pacific; London, 1831; appendix p. 562. The local government had special authority and instructions from the general government, under date of July 12, 1838, to grant and distribute lands in "the desert islands adjacent to that department." Whether the grants "purport to be inchoate or perfect?" The grants made in that department under the Mexican law, all, I believe, purport to be perfect, except in the respect of requiring "confirmation by the departmental assembly." The difficulties of determining what grants have not received this confirmation have been above explained. IV. IF THERE BE ANY ALLEGED GRANTS OF LANDS COVERING A PORTION OF THE GOLD MINES, AND WHETHER IN ALL GRANTS IN GENERAL (UNDER THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT,) OR IN CALIFORNIA IN PARTICULAR, THERE ARE NOT CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS, AND WHETHER THERE IS NOT A RESERVATION OF MINES OF GOLD AND SILVER, AND A SIMILAR RESERVATION AS TO QUICKSILVER AND OTHER MINERALS? There is but one grant that I could learn of which covers any portion of the gold mines. Previous to the occupation of the country by the Americans, the parts now known as The Gold region, were infested with wild Indians, and no attempts made to settle there. The grant that I refer to was made by Governor Micheltorena, to Juan B. Alvarado, in February, 1844, and is called the Mariposas, being situated on the Mariposa creek, and between the Sierra Nevadas and the river Joaquin, and comprises ten sitios, or leagues square, conceded, as the grant expresses, "in consideration of the public services" of the grantee. It was purchased from the grantee (Alvarado) in February, 1847, by Thomas 0. Larkin, Esq., for Mr. J. C. Fremont, and is now owned by that gentleman. The only "conditions or limitations" contained in the grants in California which could effect the validity of the title, are, that in the grants made by some of the governors, a period of time (one year) was fixed, within which the grantees should commence improvements on the grant. In case of failure, however, the grant was not thereby void, but open to denouncement by other persons. This limitation was not contained in such of the grants made in the time of Micheltorena, as I have examined, nor is it prescribed by law. No doubt, however, the condition was fulfilled in most instances where it was inserted, unless in a few cases where the lands conceded were in parts of the country infested by the wild Indians, and its fulfilment consequently impossible. In fact, as far as I understood, it was more customary to occupy the land in anticipation of the grant. The grants were generally for actual (immediate) occupation and use. I cannot find in the Mexican laws or regulations for colonization, or the granting of lands, anything that looks to a reservation of the mines of gold or silver, quicksilver or other metal or mineral; and there is not any such thing expressed in any of the many grants that came under my inspection. I inquired and examined also, while in Mexico, to this point, and could not learn that such reservations were the practice, either in general or in California in particular. Additional Comments: Extracted from: HISTORY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING ITS GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, CLIMATOGRAPHY AND DESCRIPTION; TOGETHER WITH A RECORD OF THE MEXICAN GRANTS; THE BEAR FLAG WAR; THE MOUNT DIABLO COAL FIELDS; THE EARLY HISTORY AND SETTLEMENT, COMPILED FROM THE MOST AUTHENTIC SOURCES; THE NAMES OF ORIGINAL SPANISH AND MEXICAN PIONEERS; FULL LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE COUNTY; SEPARATE HISTORY OF EACH TOWNSHIP, SHOWING THE ADVANCE IN POPULATION AND AGRICULTURE; ALSO, Incidents of Pioneer Life; and Biographical Sketches OF EARLY AND PROMINENT SETTLERS AND REPRESENTATIVE MEN; AMD OF ITS TOWNS, VILLAGES, CHURCHES, SECRET SOCIETIES, ETC. ILLUSTRATED. SAN FRANCISCO: W. A. SLOCUM & CO., PUBLISHERS 1882. File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ca/contracosta/history/1882/historyo/mexicang24ms.txt This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/cafiles/ File size: 72.4 Kb