Mr. JULIAN. I will answerthat question, too. I make no such attempt. What we ask is that the law of 1863 shall be interpreTTd in the light of the intention of the Legislature, and that the AttyGen, of whose opinion I shall presently speak, shall not pervert that law from its legitimate purpose by glosses which no lawyerwill for a moment defend. Mr. Speaker, the questions of the Gentfrom California [Mr. BIDWELL] have drawn me aside from the legal considerations to which I was referring. I have no time now to pursue them further. I have referred to some rules of interpretation for the purpose of inviting the attention of the House to the unwarranted use that is soughtto be made of thoact of Congress of 1803, in furtherance of the most iniquitous purposes. But we are told, Mr. Speaker, about the equities of these claimants. I must say a word in this connection on that subject; and in approaching iIt want to read an extract from the opinion of the Supreme Court in deciding this case, showing how much equity in the beginning Wflliill the grantee under this Spanish title. The court say:' “The evidence of possessionand. cultivation is slight. Indeed. considering the magnitude of the tract granted, it is entitled to very little weight. As try taken possession of by this Government in 1846, therecould be but 2 or 3 yciirs' possessionor occupationunder them at the timeof our.taking possowion. The evidence that Vallejo occupied and cultivated the tract previous to the grants, which, of itself, is slight and unsatisfactory is still further weakenedby the fact, which is shown, that theranch had been occupied b the claimant, as a military commandant, with so diers and Government property weitnesses.who speak of the possessionas early as 1841.might very ronilily have confounded this possssion for the usesof the Governmentwith n.possessionfor Vallejo himself. e can give very little weight to 11possessionso limited as to duration and in extent. when olfered in support of a grant of 90 or 100,000 acresof land. If the irrant cannot be maintained by its own forceand clfect, this possessionwill scarcelyuphold it." So much for the possession in the early history of this grant. Now, sir, in noticing further the pretended equity of the so claims, let me refer to some additional fitets. Let mciirstmention that general Frisbie, who holds under General Vallejo, bought the whole of these 90,000 acres at rates varying from 33 to 66 cents peracre, on an average, as the records of the Land office show land that was worth, I suppose, at the least calculation, ten times the amount. General Frisbie bought it for a comparative song, and when be at possession of it, knowin, as he evidently did, that the title was invali, and not being willing to risk it. he proceeds to make sales of the ranch. These sales have no exlanation except in the fact that he felt, himse f, that the title was invalid or exceedingly doubtful. I give some facts taken from the records of the Land Office assamples: In November, 1855, one Harbin bought 290 acres, for 50 dollars, giving his note for $1, 103 75 on confirmation of the title. This was ten days before F risbie professed to have bought it. In December, 1866, John Tormey, Peter the grantswere dated 1843and 1844 and the coun Fagan and J. Lankershim bought 2600 acres for $19,800, being about 7 dollars peracre. Theselands lie in 2 township s. They claim land in 12 sections, an as will be noticed, by the way, could not be “ settlers” on all the land. I, In August, 1856, one Slieehy bought 1400 acres for $2, 842, being about 2 dollars peracre. He claims land in 2 townships and various sections. ll these lands when sold were worth from 40 to 50 dollurs peracre, as I am informed by intelligent gentlemen from California. the p' rents which they bring, as I learn, will make their value more than stated. These purchasers bought an uncertainty, and knew they were 80 buying, and paida trifling price 4 So much for the equities of thaecsceordVinagl lye.j claimants. The bought at a price probably more than ten old less than they could have purchased if the title had been good, and they new. it. They held it for years and years, building exterior lines of fences around it, lowing and cultivating it, and reaping the fruits of their toil. They had all the benefits of it without owning an acre of the land or having any legal rights on it. Sir, I think they ought to be satisfied in not being called to account for their unlawful use and occupation of the land for successive years. And yet these men, purchasing land for a trifle of a man who had no title, and receivin its unlawful fruits freely for years, come to ashington.in 1863 with their bastard equity and besiege Congress by misrepresentation and lies to enact a law for their benefit; and not content still, they procure from the AttyGen an opinion which cheats the preemptors of the U.S. for the benefit of these land jabbing adventurers. But it is argued that the right of preemtion does not apply to this Spanis grant. that it does apply, I “ prove by citingThe act of March 3. 1851.(Statutes at Largo, vol. 9, p. 6138e,)ntitled 'An act to ascertain and settlethe private land claims in the State of California the 13th section of which reads in part nafol OWs: ‘That all lands. the claimstowhich have beenfinally rejectedby the commiSsioners in manner heroin provided, or which shall be finally decidedto beinvalid by the district or SupremeCourt’ " 'shull be deemed.he d and consideredas part of the public domain of the U.S.’ “And again the act of March 3, 10, p. 1853(.Statutes, vol. 244.)entitled 'An act to extend preemption rights to certain lands therein mentioned.’readsin part as follows: ‘That any settlor who hassettledor may hereaftersettleon lands heretofore reservedon account of claims under French, Spanish, or other grants, which have been or shall be hereafter declared by the SCOTUS to be invalid shall is entitled to all the rights of redemption grantedby this act and the act of 4th cp tember.184le, niitled“An actto appropriate the proceeds of the public lands and to grant reiimption rights " after the lands shall have been released from reservation, in the same manner as if no reservation existed!" Even if Congress as contended by Montgomery Blair and others, had emmpted Span ish grants from the claim of preemption, the exemption could not apply to void grants like the present, which of course is no grant at all. Lrurvel that so obvious a consideration nevertseeins to have occurred to the learned counsel for the speculators. I respectfully refezthem to the case of Clement vs. Varner, (24 Howard, page 897.) The only lands excepted from the operation of the preemption laws, on account of occupation, are: 1. Parcels and lots of land occupied for trade and not agriculture. 2. Lands in the occupation of an Indian tribe in California. Latter clause 0 section 6, act of Congress, entitled ‘An act to provide for the survey of the public lands in alifornin, 800., passed March 8, 1853. (Les ter, page 207.) 3. Lands in actual occupation of bid breeds or mixed bloods. Section 2 of act of Congress of May 19, 1868, entitled ‘An act concerning lands belonging to said half breeds, 8w. Lester, page 293. Section ten, act of September 4, 1841. 62. w. lint it is said the right of preemption cannot attach to lands inclosed by a 3rd party, whose title rests upon occupancy. This doctrine is in direct antagonism to every land law of the Lester, pug? U.S. since the act of Congress of 1807, which is still in force, entitled “An act to prevent settlements being made on lands ceded to the U.S. until authorized by law.” I need not waste time in refutin a proposition the bare statement of which re ntes itself. If the law were as stated, any man, by inclosing the Soscol ranch, after the decision of the Supreme Court, could have excluded every man claiming the right of precinption or home‘ stead in any portion of this immense domain. The principle would make good low of the opinion of a Califdrniajudge, who decided, as I have heard, that a fence around the entire State would exclude all pestilent preem tors from all quarters. Certainly I need not well on this point. But I come now, passing over many things I desired to say, to aquestion on which I hope we shall have an intelligent vote in this House. The Land Office has decided every one of these cases, so far as it has decided at all, in favor of the rights of the preemptors on this ranch. Gentlemen from California I ofcourse do not speak of members of this House gentlemen interested largely in lands in that State who have been belaboring members here for some time past with great industry, have procured an appeal from the Interior Dept to the AttyGen of the U.S., and that officer has given an opinion which I think one of the most extraordinar legal performances of this generation. I ask the c erk to read the passages which I have marked. They are so interesting that I ask the House to listen to them.