the other public records, the entries must have been made nearly contemporaneously with their dates. It is possible, however, that they were copied from some loose sheets or "borradors," such as those spoken of by Covarrubias and Botello, and the absence of any note of this grant, is not therefore entirely conclusive as to its genuineness.

On examining this book, however, it appears that with two exceptions, every grant in colonization of which the expediente is found in the archives, or which has ever been presented to the Board, made from March 1845, to December of the same year, the dates at which the entries begin and terminate, is found duly noted, as of the day on which by the memorandum on the grant the note appears to have been taken.

Of the grants not so noted, one purports to be in favor of Victor Prudon and Marcos Vaca, with an informe by José la Rosa, and a provisional licence to occupy signed by Gen. Vallejo, The expediente in this case was not found in the Archives, but was deposited by the plaintiff's counsel on the 9th February, 1852. This grant was rejected by the Board as spurious. Its date is on the 20th Dec. 1845. The last entry in the book is Dec. 23, 1845. Admitting that it is genuine, the absence of the toma de razon is no impeachment of the accuracy of the book. The only other grant omitted, is that to one Gutierres, dated Nov. 1845. But the expediente in that case shows that a preliminary grant of the land to the same person had been made in 1844, by Micheltorena. A note of this is found duly entered in that part of the book which contains the tomas de razon for 1844.

The fact that a previous grant had been made and duly noted in 1844, sufficiently accounts for the absence of a new toma de razon in 1845.

But with these exceptions, the entries are complete. On the very day (Dec. 4th,) on which the grant in this case purports to have been made, two other grants were made and duly entered, on the day previous-one, and another seven days afterwards.

Conceding then that the book now found in the archives was copied from loose sheets containing the original contemporaneous entries, how can we account for the fact that this grant alone, of all those made during the period over which the entries extend, (with the exceptions above noticed,) has been omitted? It is a circumstance pregnant with suspicion.

It is suggested that it is possible that entries in the book now produced may have been taken from the expedientes on file. And as the expediente in this case was not on file, but returned to the party, this grant was omitted. This hypothesis is ingenious but highly improbable. It is to be borne in mind that the book now produced was found among the archives. If it be a copy of that on which the original entries were made, it was made under the former government. The borradors, or loose sheets spoken of by Covarrubias and Botello, have disappeared. If then a clerk of the former government prepared this copy, he probably did so, not from the expedientes on file, but from the borradors, which according to Covarrubias, existed at least so late as the spring of 1846, when he went out of office. The fact that these borradors have disappeared, and that the book now produced alone remains, favors the hypothesis that they may have been destroyed when the copy was taken. If this be so it is as difficult to suppose that an entry of this grant was accidentally omitted, in a copy otherwise so complete and accurate, as to suppose it to have been omitted on the book in which the entries were originally made. In either case the hypothesis if not impossible is in a high degree improbable.

The certificate of the approval of the Departmental Assembly is dated Dec. 18th, 1845. The resolution of approval appears to have passed on the 11th of the same

month.

The records of the proceedings of the Assembly at the close of 1845 and beginning of 1846, are preserved. They show that on the 8th October, 1845:

"The sessions of the Assembly were suspended for the

rest of the year, in consequence of permission having been granted to the Señores Deputies, who reside out of this capitol, to retire to the places of their residence, in view of the injuries they must suffer in consequence of their salaries due them respectively, as functionaries, not being paid."

A publication of the foregoing in all the pueblos of the department was ordered to be made Oct. 11th, 1845.

The next session of the Assembly, as shown by its jour nals, was on the 2d March, 1846. The journals state that the Governor and certain deputies, who are named, had "assembled for the purpose of reopening the ordinary sessions which, by a resolution of the body, had been suspended for the balance of last year. Whereupon the proceedings of the 8th day of October, of the last year, were read and approved," &c.

It is evident that no ordinary session of the Assembly was held on the 11th December, the day on which this grant is certified to have been approved.

It is contended, however, that extraordinary sessions were held, of which no record was kept, and the testimony of several witnesses has been taken to establish the fact.

Juan Bandini testifies that he was elected a member of the Assembly in 1846, and took his seat in the beginning of that year; that he knows that an extraordinary session was held from the 8th of October until the end of the year 1845; that the ordinary session was commenced in the month of February, 1846, and of this he was a member. The business transacted at the extraordinary sessions related to the mission of one José Maria Ijar, and the confirmation of land titles, and granting the same."

Santiago Arguello makes the same statement in almost the same language. Both repeat several times that they took their seats in the ordinary session, held in February, 1846; according to Arguello about the first of that month.

Unfortunately for these witnesses the record of the first ordinary session of 1846 is preserved, whereby it appears, as we have seen, that the Assembly resumed its ordinary sessions on the 2d March, and not on the 1st of February;

that the proceedings of the last ordinary session, to wit., that of the 8th of October, 1845, were first read and approved, and that the next business transacted was the reception of the credentials of Don Juan Bandini and Don Santiago Arguello; that the usual proceedings were on motion dispensed with; that the newly elected members were received by a committee of the body; that after making oath, as prescribed by law, they took their seats, and were congratulated by the Hon. President, who expressed his pleasure at their incorporation into the body.

It is singular that both of these witnesses should have fallen into the same error with reference to a fact of which they speak so positively. It justifies the suspicion that they may also be mistaken in their statement that extraordinary sessions were held from Oct. 8th, until the end of the year. The journals of the Assembly show that secret and extraordinary sessions were held on various days between March 4th, 1845, and October 8th, of the same year. They frequently took place on the same day with an ordinary session, and the journals of the latter mention that the Assembly went into secret session on motion, &c. These secret or extraordinary sessions appear to have been not unlike the executive sessions of the United States Senate, except that in some instances the proceedings at a secret session were read and approved at the next ordinary session.

But the extraordinary or called sessions which are supposed, by the claimants, to have taken place at the end of 1845, after the suspension of the ordinary sessions for the rest of the year, are of a different character. A document is found in the archives, however, which seems to favor the idea that such may have been held. A committee, to whom a motion that the Assembly dissolve itself, or adjourn, was referred, reports that it had no such power, as it was always in session as the council of the government; and they recommend that, after despatching some pressing business which would come up in October, the Assembly suspend its ordinary sessions for the rest of the year, and that permission be given to the deputies residing at a distance to return home.

The resolution of adjournment passed Oct. 8th, seems to have been in pursuance of this recommendation.

The cause having been reopened since its first submission, the evidence of Narciso Botello was taken in court.

This witness states that though he does not recollect the fact, he has no doubt that there were extraordinary sessions in 1845, for he has seen documents which show it. A document from the archives was shown to the witness, which he stated to be in the handwriting of Don A. Olvera, Secretary to the Governor. This document appears to be a "lettra convocatoria," or summons, to the members of the Assembly, to meet in extraordinary session. Whether or not the session took place the witness is unable to recollect, but he presumes, from the summons, that it did. If there were any such in December the witness states that he must have attended them, unless prevented by illness.

From all the evidence that can be obtained I think it not impossible that extraordinary sessions may have been held after the adjournment of the 8th October.

The cause of that adjournment, however, as declared in the resolution above cited, is somewhat inconsistent with the idea that the members immediately reassembled in extraordinary session. If they did so, the record of their proceedings has been lost by another of those unfortunate accidents which have attended this case at every step.

But in addition it is not a little remarkable that if a part of the business of this extraordinary session was the confirmation and granting of titles, no title whatever of all those granted previous to the 2d March, 1846, appears to have been approved at any extraordinary session of the Assembly, between its adjournment on the 8th October, and the reopening on the 2d March, with two exceptions— the grant in this case aud that of Victor Prudon, above noticed. Every other grant made subsequently to the 8th October, and among them one dated December 4th, the very day on which this title purports to have been issued, was reserved until the ordinary session of March, and was at that session, as appears by the record, presented and approved.