It is also worthy of observation that Narciso Botello does not pretend to recollect that an extraordinary session was in fact held at the time at which it appears to have been convened-still less that at any such meeting this grant was approved. He left Los Angeles on the 25th December. The resolution of approval was passed, if at all, on the 11th. The grant was large, and in payment of public dues. Had he been present at any session at which it was discussed and approved, it would seem probable that he would have recollected it. His failure to do so, however, is by no means a strong circumstance against the genuineness of the certificate. It deserves, however, to be noted and considered amongst the other circumstances of the case.

But the United States have produced direct testimony to prove the time and place at which these papers were rubricated. Rafael Guirado testifies that in the month of August, 1853, about 9 o'clock, A. M., Jose de la Rosa, in company with the Messrs. Luco and Salvador Vallejo, came to the house of Gen. Vallejo and inquired for the latter. After about two hours he came in, when they all entered his office, where they seated themselves at a table. The witness overheard their conversation, which related to "settling" the rancho of Ulpinas. Gen. Vallejo offering to put 300 mares upon it, &c. The next day a similar interview took place, and after the rest were gone, Gen. Vallejo said to the witness, "I am transacting some important business," and asked if he had overheard it. To which the witness replied that he had. The General, after some expressions of his confidence in the witness, proceeded to inform him of the "plan" they had arranged. "The title," he said, "we have made in the name of Rosa. It supposes a certain amount to be due him as printer at Monterey; that his brother Salvador had gone to Los Angeles and succeeded in obtaing the signature of Pio Pico to the title." The witness then said to Vallejo that the title was false, to which the General replied, "I know it. It is in this way we have planned; how can it be false, it has the signature of Pio Pico ?" After some further conversation de

tailed by the witness, Gen. Vallejo said in reply to an observation by the witness, that the title was void, and it would in time be discovered. "In that case it would be diamond cut diamond," and he explained this expression to mean that if there were six or seven persons that the title is null (nulo) he would bring ten or twelve to swear to its genuiness. If this story be true, the character of this claim is placed beyond a doubt.

to swear

Girado has, however, been impeached by various witnesses on the part of the claimants, and sustained by perhaps an equal number on the part of the United States. It would be useless, perhaps impracticable, to attempt to decide upon a comparison of this testimony whether or not his character is such as to justify a belief in his statements. Whatever it was, whether infamous or respectable, one fact is clear, that Gen. Vallejo, so late as March, 1855, corresponded with him on terms of friendship and intimacy. The relations which Gen. Vallejo's letter of March 4th, 1855, show to have existed between them, must either relieve Girado from the imputations cast upon his character, or that of Vallejo himself must in some degree be compromised.

If Girado's testimony stood alone, and if in other respects this claim seemed fair and genuine, I should hesitate long before rejecting it on the faith of such a statement. I have alluded to it as an item of evidence entitled to consideration.

It is urged that according to this story, the signatures are the genuine signatures of Pio Pico, though the document may be antedated, and it disproves the theory of the United States that they are forged.

To this it may be replied, that Gen. Vallejo may not have known or may have been unwilling to disclose the name of the person who forged the signatures. The risk of punishment to him would be far greater than to those who merely expressed an opinion as to their genuineness, or Pio Pico may in fact have signed the document but have forgotten to adopt the mode of signature used by him at its date.

Since the case was re-opened testimony has been tataken with regard to the seals. It appears by the evidence of Wm. B. McMurtrie, that the impression or seal on the grant in this case is different, and evidently made by a stamp different from that used on the petition and the certificate of approval.

The impressions on these latter are identical with those used on various expedientes and grants exhibited to the witness. Four of these were produced in Court dated at various times from April 21, 1843 to May 2d, 1846.

The impression on the grant in this case is entirely dissimilar, and the witness not only expresses the positive opinion, but demonstrates that it could not have been made with the same seal as that used on the other documents. Photographs have been taken of these impressions, and the difference is obvious on inspection. How then is this fact to be accounted for? Covarrubias swears that he recollects of only one seal being used in the office of the Secretary. How happens it that the petition and

ertificate bear the impression of the genuine seal, while

the grant has an impression of one which, if not proven not to be genuine, is not found on any other document in the archives? It is true that this fact is not specifically sworn to by any witness, but since the testimony of McMurtrie was taken, ample opportunity has been afforded to the claimants to examine the archives. If a seal similar to that on the grant could have been found, it would doubtless have been produced.

It is argued that this testimony establishes at least the genuineness of two of the seals on these papers, even though it casts a doubt on the third. But we have already seen that at the time the grant was exhibited to Covarrubias and Pio Pico to procure the affidavits on which the action of Congress was founded, it was unaccompanied by either the petition or the certificate of approval. How these papers were separated from the grant, or how since reunited to it, does not appear. The difference, therefore, in the seals tends to corroborate our suspicions that the petition and certificate may have been prepared subsequently

to the grant, as they certainly did not appear in the cause until long after the production of the grant to Covarrubias and Pico.

It does not appear where or in whose custody the seal of the former government now is, and if any one of the documents exhibited bears a spurious seal, it throws a doubt upon the genuineness of them all, which is not dispelled by the fact that on two of them the seals appear to be genuine.

Another circumstance is also worthy of observation. Eleven expedientes have been produced from the archives with a view of exhibiting not only the signatures of Pio Pico, but his title or the discription of his office, as contained in the headings of the grants.

These expedientes are regularly numbered, and are dated at various times from Nov. 22d, 1845, to Dec. 19th, 1845. In all of them Pio Pico is described as "Vocal decano de la asamblea departamental y Gobernador provisional de las Californias."

In the grant produced in the case at bar, and in the certificate of approval, he is described as "Vocal decano de la Exma Asamblea del Departamento de las Californias y encargado del gobierno del mismo por ministerio de la ley."

It is singular that if this grant be genuine, the Governor should in this one instance have deviated from the form which he had been using almost daily, in his official acts for a considerable time, and which he adopted in three grants undoubtedly genuine, made on the very day on which this grant purports to have been issued.

It is another of those extraordinary accidents which it is difficult to suppose could all have occurred by a kind of fatality, in one unfortunate case.

From the foregoing review of the evidence in this case, it is, I think, apparent that at every point it is liable to the gravest suspicion.

We find that papers constituting a complete title for one of the most valuable ranchos in California, have been unaccountably withheld from the Board appointed to ascertain their validity until the time for presenting them

has expired, although the lands are situated in one of the most fertile and inhabited districts of the State, and although all the neighbors of the grantee, including his friend and patron, General Vallejo, duly presented their claims for confirmation.

We find that when the grant was submitted to counsel for inspection, and to Pico and Covarrubias for their affidavits, if indeed it was the same paper as that now presented, it was certainly unaccompanied by the petition, and almost certainly unaccompanied by the certificate of approval.

That these papers have since been produced attached to the grant, but when and by whom, we know not. That the petition is found, not in the archives which was the legal and usual place of custody, but in the possession of the party, though the Secretary of the government has no recollection of ever having withdrawn any expediente from the archives, nor does he remember sending any document whatever to the grantee in this case.

How, and why, and when, and by whom this petition was obtained from the archives we are wholly uninformed, except by the statement of De la Rosa that it was delivered to him by Vallejo, which the latters denies. Why and how it became separated from the grant is likewise unexplained, as is also the singular fact that having this petition in their possession, the claimants should have procured from Covarrubias the affidavit stating that he did not know where it was, and "that the practice was to return the petition with the grant."

If it was not then in the claimant's possession, where was it? in whose custody? and how and whence has it since been procured?

We find also that the pretended occupation by De la Rosa of this land has been disproved by so great a preponderance of evidence, as to suggest the most painful suspicions.

We find the archives not only failing to exhibit any trace of the existence of the grant, but unless a series of extraordinary accidents be supposed, absolutely disproving its existence.