Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

TO THE PUBLIC.

The "Contra Costa Gazette," of May 5th, 1860, contained a grossly libellous attack upon me, on account of an ejectment suit commenced by me against the "Settlers" on the "Romero Ranch," in that county. The article alluded to, contained a letter from one Edmund Randolph, to which I wrote a reply and requested its publication in the same paper. They refused to publish it unless for a consideration, which I declined to give. And as those columns which contained this remarkable attack are hermetically sealed to me, in order to prevent a reply, I here state that in due time I shall hold the publishers responsible for the libel, and offer this as my only apology for appearing before the public with a pamphlet.

As there are more than forty thriving farmers in San Ramon Valley and vicinity, whose only tenure of title is the Romero Grant, they now occupying two-thirds of that claim, I deem it but an act of justice to them, as well as to all parties interested, to make the following impartial statement of the case, in order that they may judge for themselves whether the opinion of this would be censor of my actions, is the calm and matured opinion of a high minded lawyer, or the unprofessional personal attack of a repudiated politician, thrown out as a bid for Settler votes, and a fat retainer.

Although I am strongly tempted to hurl back the libellous billingsgate of this ex-candidate for Attorney General, yet I have too much regard for my own standing as a gentleman, too exalted an opinion of the profession of which I am but an humble member, to notice the unprofessional, uncalled for personal attacks of any one who will travel outside of the record, and thus degrade the lawyer to the level of the pettifogger.

But for fear that my object in writing this may be misunder

stood by Mr. Randolph's clients, I will here premise, that I have not offered, neither do I offer for sale, one foot of land to any settler whom I have sued. If the land is mine, I will have it. If not, then they are welcome to it. Mr. Hall, mentioned by Mr. Randolph, is the only person to whom I have sold. He was not a client of Mr. Randolph's, but of Judge Pratt, of this city. If he is dissatisfied, or thinks he has "thrown his money away," he can have it back again upon restoring the cause to the Calendar.

The petition to the Land Commission, dated February 28, 1853, for a confirmation of the Romero claim, sets forth "a Grant in full property," to three brothers Romero, of the Sobrante of the Ranches of Moraga, Pacheco and Welch-" copies of some of said papers being herewith filed."

The genuineness of all the papers on file were fully proved by witnesses, and conceded by the District Attorney on the argument of the case; the only objection taken by him to the claim, was: 1st. That the papers on file did not of themselves constitute a title; and

2d. That no grant was ever in fact issued to the Romeros, and therefore they were not entitled to a confirmation.

The documentary evidence is as follows:

[Stamped Paper. |

"The citizens Inocencio. Jose and Mariano Romero, natives of this Department, before the righteous equity of Yr. Ex., with and acccording to law, state: That last year we forwarded to Yr. Ex. a petition soliciting a tract, which is unoccupied in the neighborhood of the Ranches of Don J. Moraga, Lorenzo Pacheco and Wm. Welch, and as said petition has been mislaid, we present ourselves anew, &c.

[Dated] January 18, 1844.

[ocr errors]

Marginal Decree.

January 18, 1844. Let the Hon. Secretary of State report, having first taken such steps as he may deem necessary.

Jimeno's Order.

MICHELTORENA."

"His Ex. the Governor decrees, that the first Alcalde of the town of San Jose report upon the contents of the foregoing petition, summoning the Senors Moraga, Pacheco and Welch, so

that he may allege whatever cause they may deem proper, and all being concluded, let the papers be returned to this office. Monterey, January; 1844.

MANUEL JIMENO."

The Alcalde's Report.

[Stamp. ]

"The petitioners in this case and the owners of the lands bounded by the tract which is claimed, having been confronted, the latter said that the Senors Romeros did not prejudice them in any way; but on the contrary, that they desired them to be their neighbors, both for company and for the additional security of their families in that region. It has also come to the knowledge of this tribunal, that one Francisco Soto claimed the tract in question, some six or seven years ago; but in this time he has neither used nor cultivated it in any way to gain any rights thereto. Wherefore, the petitioners appear to me to be entitled to the favor they ask.

San Jose, Februry 1, 1844.

Jimeno's Report to the Governor.

A. M. PICO."

"Yr. Ex. According to the Report of the Alcalde of San Jose, after summons to the owners of the ranchoes that bound the tract in question, and as to the good character of the claiming parties, it would seem there is no obstacle to making the grant they claim, if Yr. Ex. approve of it. Monterey, February 4, 1844.

Order of the Governor.

MANUEL JIMENO."

"Let the Judge of the proper District take measurement of the unoccupied land that is claimed, in presence of the neighbors, and certify the result, so that it may be granted to the petitioners. MICHELTORENA."

Subsequent to this, March 21st, 1844, they present another petition to the Governor, stating that they had appeared before the Judge of the proper district, to obtain a survey of the land; that he was unable to execute it because the owners of the adjoining ranches were absent; and, in as much as it might be some time before they would meet, they petition that he will grant them the land either provisionally or in such manner as he may see fit, "so that while it is yet time they may commence their planting and other works."

[blocks in formation]

"Yr. Ex.:-I think that Yr. Ex.'s order should be carried into effect, in regard to the measuring of the land that is claimed, and as soon as this is accomplished, with the least practicable delay, Senor Romero can present himself, joined with Senor Soto, who says that he has a right to the same tract.

Yr. Ex.'s superior discernment will determine what is best. M. JIMENO.

Monterey, March 23, 1844."

"Let everything be done agreeably to the foregoing report. MICHELTORENA."

Francisco Arce, head clerk in the Secretary of State's office, testifies that after this last order of the Governor, in May or June, 1844, Soto and Romero went before the Governor. Soto obtained the "Soto Grant," near San Leandro, and relinquished his claim to the land of the Romeros, whereupon the Governor issued a title in due form, stating it, for the Sobraute to the Romeros, which when drawn up he, Arce, handed to Romero himself.

Jose A. Chavis testifies that at that time he was Secretary of the Ayuntamiento of Monterey, the capital of California; that he was acquainted with Romero who wished him, as a man of influence, to intercede with the Governor in his behalf in obtaining his grant; that he did so, and the Governor issued the grant; that Romero brought it to him to thank him for his assistance, when he took the grant and read it, finding it a grant in full property and in due form.

Innocencio Romero testifies that he obtained the grant after the interview between himself, Soto and the Governor, at the hands of Arce, which he retained until the trial of a law suit about the ranch in 1847 or 1848, before the Judge of First Instance, at San Jose, wherein Domingo Peralta was Plaintiff, and Innocencio Romero and Francisco Garcia were Defendants; that he was sick at the time and sent the grant to his lawyer, Judge Tingley, (now of this city,) to be used on the trial, and that he has never seen it since.

Jose Romero testifies that he sold out before the war, to Gar

cia; that Innocencio, his brother, had charge of all the papers pertaining to the ranch; that "said ranch has been known as the 'Romero Ranch' since the same was petitioned for in 1843, and that their title to the same was never disputed except by squatters."

Afterwards this same witness was examined by the District Attorney for the government, when he attempted to prove that they never had anything but a provisional grant, but on crossexamination he reiterated his first deposition, and admitted he knew nothing about the matter, as his brother Innocencio had charge of the whole business pertaining to the Ranch.

Mariano Romero testifies that his brother Innocencio had charge of all the papers, and that he knew there was a grant, because Arce told him so in 1844.

Supreme Court of the State of California.

DOMINGO PERALTA,

VS.

INNOCENCIO ROMERO and

FRANCISCO GARCIA.

Opinion of Judge Bennett.

"This action was brought to recover possession of a tract of land in the valley of San Jose. It was instituted in the Court of First Instance for the District of San Jose, previous to the adoption of the Common Law (1850). The proof shows that the Defendants had been in the undisturbed possession of the land in dispute for more than a year and a day previous to the institution of the suit, and the Spanish and Mexican authorities are explicit that a possessory action cannot be maintained in such a case."

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

A. M. Pico, then Alcalde at San Jose, testifies, that he had orders from Micheltorena. the Governor, to survey Pacheco's and Moraga's Ranchos, so as to separate their lands from that of the

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »