Mr. JULIAN. Mr. Speaker, it will be perceived from the reading of that act of March 8 1863, that it recognizes the equities of these Vallejo claimants to the extent that they have reduced their claims to possession. It allows them to purchase the same at the rate of $1 25 perhere under certain restrictions. That act was demanded by these claimants and was enacted by Congress‘at that time on the representation that the claimants, as shown by the report accompanying the bill, were a numerous body of small land holders settled on the ranch, who only asked the right to enter their lands at $1 25 an acre to the extent of their occupancy and possession. I speak what I remember and know, because I was a member of the ComPubLands at the time. To show that I am right I ask the Clerk to read the extracts I have marked from the report of the committee, and I am willing that the entire refit shall be printed in the Globe. o Clerk read as'follows: “The facts upon which the ComPublic bandarsebase afavorahle reportupon the above named as follows: he Soscol ranch by is settled upon and occupied an enter ri si g body of agriculturists.menwho are spent t.Glfmoansliberally in makingimprove merits.claiming their lands under the Soseolgrant Iii id.G. I'llllGJO.‘ In 1847the town of Benicia.was o ut. itg princctors and settlers relying on the t Alli Jo ti tle . It has grown to bea town ofseveral tlnotusandinhabitantsmnd is amon'rthemoreimpor Of of the interior villages of California. The town.allcyo is upon the some ranch. was laid outin and is alsoofconSiderableiuiporiance.tholsnds t grein being held under thesametitle. 9 “10 Orig ineanlt.girrearanntecehi‘nhtaospassedout of the handsof the possession of a mulli e spellof small ldern and is covered by numerous farms and orchards.each inclosed h fll substan fences.highly eultivatednind dotted 51!, overwith “l orla e can farm houses a olher blllIllfnfll. All settlers upon the ranch hold by purchaseof f Valleio. having paid for their ends in good length and in the firm belief. Supported by the best v'kilileadvice attainable. that the title of allele was Several million dollar: lures been amended in:"IiInndrosociqmmupon(heranch and 100s of thoii pl dollars are securedby "Ito which the ranch hasinboertegniifiolvui geoda. thIte returned to the proper district land of is ohvions that great confusion and distressmust“ arise in a communityof this character with proper interestsso extensive.when it is suddenly diseevered that their title wasinvalid and the wealth they had supposed their own is suddenly taken away and all the accumulationsof yearssweptfromthem. g iv"eThtocrtcheasreettm learnsuypeoirncutmhes Staonscceoslrwahnicchh tended to in the title which they purchased. M. (l. Vcaollnefijod.etnhcee granteefrom the Mexican Government belonged to one of the most influential families of California. In 1827 he was a member of the deptal legislature. llo afterward held a high offieial position under Governor Figueroa and still later. in 1339.was commissioned by thesupreme Govenment as military commandantof Altii California. Atvarious timesduring the troubles in Mexico and itsconsequent pecuniary smtroanitesy. he furnished the Government large sums of and other an piles; and lu‘OODSltlGI'BUOoDf thesefavors to the government.Micheltorena. than governor of California and invested with extraordinary powers by the home Government.granted to Vallaio the Soscol ranch in 1843 several yearsbefore the conquestof theState by the U.S. From that time Vallejo had the exclusiveand undisputed useand possession of the macho having upon it his residence several 1,000 head of horses and cattle. numerous dependents and retainers and exercised over it all acts of ownership. Thus matters stood when California becaine a part ef the Union by atreaiy guarantying. on the part of the American Govern Cmoemntp.lpyrine gtectionto the propertyof Mexican citizens. With the law of Congress requiring Mexi can citizens to provetheir ownership of grants.Vallejo presentedto the boardof land commissionershlS claim to the land he had held and owned for years before. That boardwassatisfied as to the meritorious character of this grant. for after a thorough investi gution of the documeniary evidence in the 03:10a.nd an elaborate examination of witnesses the casewas confirmedby said board Ii the 21dMay. 1855. This decision of the boardofland commissioners was subsequnentictly confirmed by the higherTTibunal of the U.S. district court for the northern district of California. I “ Afierth is granthad passed the ordcal oftwn courts of the U.S and had been indorsedby them asgenuine.tliqowner would naturally feelwarranted in selling portions of the same to 3rd parties and thoSedesiring to purchasewould not be apt to doubt thovalidity of the title against the decision of 2 courtsof the U.S. In addition to this. it should bestatedthat the Government desiring a location fora military establishmentnearBenicia. caused an investigationto bomadcinto the boar! filler of this title. under thesupervision of the AttyGen and that officerreporting that the title wasvalid. the Governmentpurchasedaportion of the land. andnow holds it under the Yallcjo title. “After thesevarious decisionsthe validity of the title wastaken for granted until the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. That decisionwas‘not madeupon any alleged fraud. but upon a technical questionas to the powers anddutiesof Micliellorena in making the grant and this questionwasraisedfor th“e 1st timein that court. Justice Grier. who. with Justice Wayne. dissented from the majority of lhQVSuprcmeCourt in rejecting th“e grant on technicalgrounds.said; If this treaty is to be executedin good faith by this Government. whyshould weforfcihproperty, for which a large price has been paid to the Mormon Government. on the assumptionthat the Mexican Governmentwould not haveconfirmedit. but would have.repudiated it tor want of formal authority “I Vallejo was an elbow in the army, high in the confidence of the Government. his salary as an offici i had been in iirroar. In a time of difficulty be farnishes provisions and money to the the territory. How do we know that OXlOOwould hroabvbe repudiated a sale of 80,000acresasa of its territory. when any 2 decenteolo nists.having a few horsesand cows.could have 100,000 for nothing? "‘I believethe Mexican Governmentwonld have acted honestly and honorably with their vaiwd servant and that the same obligation rests on us by for“ceof the treaty. ‘Now that the land under our Governmenthas become of value. these grants may appear enormous: but‘ the court has a duty t9 perform under the treaty. which givesusno authority to forlK ita bone fide grant because it maynot suit our notions of pru de“nceor propriety. Weare not.for that reason to beastutein searching for reasonstoconfiscateamnn’s properly because he has too much. Believin. therefore. that in the cgarasnebt before us the claimant as presented a tfffllllflo for a consideration paid. which the Mexican Government WOllltl never have disturbedfor any of the reasons now offeredfor conflscating it. I must pxpress most respectfully my dissent from the opinion Congorfetshse minority of the court. with the hopethat will not sulfer the very nnmer nu ur chascrsto forfeit the millions expendedon the aith of treaty ohligations. “The bill reported by this committee respects the occupancy of the recognising numerousholdersunder iim title. it as a precmption and authorizing a saleto themfor theminimumprice of public lands. they paying the cost of surveys and all oil.:r expenses. “It hasbeenthe uniform practice of con'ressto respectand protectthe improvements ofsetth rs. By the decision we have referred to.a considerable quan tit of land coveredwith settler‘s improvements has su denly becomethe property of the U.S. To sendout a commission to California to appraise those improvenionts would absorb all the Gmenteou ivern d realise fromthe sale of the lands. Yet. to treat the settlers as intruders upon the public domain and deprive them of the fruits of their labor and investments.would be a gross departure from the practice of the Government and a great injustice to the settlers. As the bill proposesto sell them their lands at the Government price they to be at all the expense necessaryfor surveys.‘liligiitiing conflicting interests.fire. the Governmentwill probably realize more from the landsthan it canfromany other modeof treatment while it will do justice to its citizens whose interests are so deeply involved in the premises. " he legislation proposedin the b ill i s consistent with the precedentsof congressionallegislation in land cases. By not of Congressapproved ] one Q. 1851.the right of preemption wasgranted to certain settlers on the aison Rouge grant. in Louisiana. The Congress passed the act to take effect ‘in the event of the final adjudication of the title in favor of the U.S.! (9 Statutes at Largo.[pn& 566. The final decision is reported in 11Howar. '. an the actwas passedwhile the easewaspending. " Another set. entitled an act for the settlement of certain classesof private land claims within the limits of the‘Ilaron do [Justmp rant and for allowing Erecmption to eer t.iiiaiictua settlers in the event of the trop final adjudication of the title of said do Bas in favor of the U.S. was it proved March 3. 1851. (9 Statutes at Larec. page59.) The case is found in 11 Howard. page600. "The settlers on the above named grants were comparatively few in llllmbef, ‘fl.lltlthe grants 11 times as large as the Soseol grant. whileon the latter some fhrre Ihoucmid families are Mlle/l. amt several th"owmmol thers.all holdingynderthe 7 !title. Up to the timeof the rmection of the Sosrolgrant during the present congress thesettlerswereundis tiirbed by an outside parties; but difficulties have sgirnacnet arisen rain the entranceof parties upon the on the claim that it is public land. leading to collisions. which must.inerciise.if Congress does not intervene. The parties so claiming have entered within the inelosures of settlers and scenesof violence have henceresulted. “In view of all the facts in theyase. the fact that so large a population of industrious agriculturists have settler upon and imprpved the grant: that they have bought their lands in good faith; the precedents ciled and the consistent policyof the Government toward settlers with the em files of the grant itself. the committee report back the bill. And recommend its passage." During the readin of the report.