When a claim to land in California is asserted as derived
through the Mexican Land System, the absence from the archives of
the country of evidence supporting the alleged grant creates a
presumption against the validity of such a grant so strong that it
can be overcome, if at all, only by the clearest proof of its
genuineness, accompanied by open and continued possession of the
premises.
Appeal by Andres Pico from the decree of the District Court of
the United States for the Northern District of California, the case
being as follows:
Pico claimed a tract of land in California to the extent of
eleven square leagues under a grant alleged to have been issued to
him on the 6th of June, 1846, by Pio Pico, then Mexican Governor of
the department. In 1852 he presented a petition for the
confirmation of his claim to the Board of Commissioners to
ascertain and settle land titles on California,
Page 69 U. S. 280
created under the Act of March 3d, 1851. The board rejected the
claim, but on appeal to the district court the decree of rejection
was reversed and the claim was adjudged to be valid and was
confirmed. The United States appealed from this decree of
confirmation to the Supreme Court, and by that court the decree was
reversed and the cause remanded for further evidence.
* Further evidence
having been taken, the case was again brought before the district
court for hearing, and by that court a decree was entered, on the
4th of June, 1862, adjudging the claim to be invalid, and rejecting
it. From this decree the present appeal to the Supreme Court is
taken.
In support of his claim before the district court, the claimant
produced three documents -- the first purporting to be a grant from
the Mexican Governor, Pio Pico, dated June 6, 1846, for the land,
the second purporting to be a certificate of the approval of the
grant by the Departmental Assembly, on the 15th of June, 1846, and
the third purporting to be a communication from the deputy
secretary of the assembly to the secretary of state informing him
that the grant, together with two other grants, had been approved
by the assembly on the 15th of July, 1846.
Of the first two documents there was no trace in the archives,
except what is furnished by the third document. There was no
evidence that any of the proceedings required by the Mexican
Colonization Regulations, preliminary to the issue of a grant, were
taken, either by the claimant or the governor. The journals of the
departmental assembly showed that no proceedings were had on the
15th of June, 1846, relating to the grant in question and that
there was no session of that body on the 15th of July, 1846. The
third document was found among the archives, but was on a separate
sheet, unconnected with any other papers. There was no evidence in
the case that the grantee ever took possession of the land under
the alleged grant or that such
Page 69 U. S. 281
grant was known, or its existence suspected, until long after
the United States had occupied the country.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.
The regulations of 1828, which were adopted to carry into effect
the colonization law of 1824, prescribed with great particularity
the manner in which portions of the public domain of Mexico might
be granted to private parties for the purposes of residence and
cultivation. It is unnecessary to state the several proceedings
designated, as they have been the subjects of frequent
consideration in previous opinions of this Court. All of them, from
the petition of the colonist or settler to the concession of the
governor, were required to be in writing, and when the concession
was made, to be forwarded to the departmental assembly for its
consideration. The action of that body was entered with other
proceedings upon its journals, and these records, together with the
documents transmitted to it, were preserved among the archives of
the government in the custody of the secretary of state of the
department. The approval of the assembly was essential to the
definitive validity of the concession, and when obtained, a formal
grant was issued by the governor to the petitioner. The regulations
contemplated an approval to precede the issue of the formal grant;
so when the grantee received this document the concession should be
considered final. For a long time after the adoption of the
regulations this course of proceeding was followed; but afterwards,
and for some years previous to the conquest, a different practice
prevailed, and the formal title papers were issued without waiting
for the action of the assembly, a clause being inserted to the
effect that the grant was subject to the approval of that body. Of
the petitions presented and grants issued, whether before or after
the approval of the assembly, a record was required to be kept in
suitable books provided for that purpose.
Page 69 U. S. 282
As will be perceived from this statement, it was an essential
part of the system of Mexico to preserve full record evidence of
all grants of the public domain and of the various proceedings by
which they were obtained. When, therefore, a claim to land in
California is asserted under an alleged grant from the Mexican
government, reference must in the first instance be had to the
archives of the country embracing the period when the grant
purports to have been made. If they furnish no information on the
subject, a strong presumption naturally arises against the validity
of the instrument produced, which can only be overcome, if at all,
by the clearest proof of its genuineness, accompanied by open and
continued possession of the premises.
Tested by this rule, the grant under which the appellant claims
was properly rejected as invalid. The archives contain no trace of
its existence, with the exception of a communication from the
deputy secretary of the assembly, addressed to the secretary of
state, informing the latter that the grant had been approved on the
15th of July, 1846. The certificate of approval produced by the
claimant declares the approval to have been made on the 15th of
June preceding. The journals of the assembly destroy all confidence
in the statements of both certificate and communication. They show
that no session was held on the 15th of July and that no
proceedings with reference to the grant in question were had on the
15th of June. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the
communication was introduced among the archives subsequently to the
acquisition of the country.
Nor was there any evidence produced either before the board of
commissioners or the district court that the grantee ever entered
into possession of the premises alleged to have been granted, or
that the existence of the grant was known or suspected until long
after the conquest.
The decree of the district court rejecting the claim must
therefore be affirmed, and it is
So ordered.
* See United States v. Pico, 22 How. 406.
