Romeros; the same order requiring him to put them (the Romeros) in possession; that he summoned the neighbors twice; they did not appear; Romero was dissatisfied and complained to the Governor, whereupon the Governor ordered him to carry out the former order, by putting the Romero's in possession of the land, which he did.

That they cultivated the land extensively.

Elam Brown testifies, that he knew the Romero Ranch in 1847; that the house and corral were two or three years old then, that it was partly cultivated, and the Romeros were making sales of the land—(the highest evidence of ownership.)

Jose J. P. Mesa knew it 1845. The improvements had been made some time previous. Romero had three hundred head of cattle, horses, &c., on the ranch, at that time.

Jose Maria Amador knew the ranch in 1844, and says, "they obtained a concession, subject to the establishing of the boundaries of the adjoining ranches," naming them. They built a house on the ranch, and he put on one hundred head of cattle for them and fifteen or twenty horses in 1844.

Ysidro Sibrian testifies, that he knew of Romero being in possession from 1842 or 1843. Innocencio Romero told me that he had the title papers to his ranch. This was in 1844, while he was sick at San Jose, on his way from Monterey, where he had been four or five times to get his grant. "He then told me, I have my title papers in my pocket, all right." I have lived near the Romero Ranch since 1838. Am one of the heirs of the Sibrian ranch, adjoining this. Romero lived upon the ranch until he sold out. I always supposed him to have title; it was known by everybody as, and called the "Romero Ranch," which name it bears to the present moment.

Ramon Briones, one of the heirs to the Moraga ranch, testifies : "I have lived in the neighborhood of the Romero Ranch since the year 1838. I know he had a title from Governor Micheltorena, because I saw it in 1845. All the neighbors understood, and conceded, that the Romeros had a title for the ranch." After mentioning the names of a dozen of the colindantes, he says: "It was always understood among these parties, that the Sobrante of

the two leagues belonging to Castro and Pacheco, was conceded to the Romeros; that the title was in them."

Charles Brown, of this city, a brother-in-law to Innocencio Romero, also testifies to the same facts.

George B. Tingley, a practicing lawyer of this city, formerly a candidate for Congress from this State, a high-minded, honorable gentleman, was Attorney for Romero and Garcia in the suit by Domingo Peralta, above mentioned. He testifies, that on that trial he had the Romero Grant which was conceded in Court to be as good a title as Peralta's, but not as old in date. After the case was submitted to the jury, he never knew what became of the papers. He also examined the title papers when investigating the title for Mr. Attoyo, who bought an interest in said ranch on his advice. He recites the contents of the grant, the same as all the other witnesses.

Judge Hoffman rejected the case, on the ground, that Mr. Tingley must be mistaken in regard to seeing the grant-admitting that if his testimony were true, the claim must be confirmed; (his being the only testimony we had taken in regard to the existence of the grant, on the first trial.) But on the second examination, after Judge Hoffman's opinion, Mr. Tingley says that he was not and could not be mistaken; that the examination of Mexican titles was his principal business at that time, and that he was perfectly conversant with them, and recollected perfectly the contents of the grant. On cross examination, he says, the grant was in substance, as follows: "That inasmuch as the petitioners have prayed for a grant of land, as described in their petition, I have thought proper to concede the same to them, for the benefit of themselves and their families."

"In addition to this, there was a restriction that the grant should not infringe on the property of the adjoining owners, likewise that they should perform certain regulations required of them in regard to improving and occupying the land."

Judge Redmond, for many years County Judge at San Jose, now deceased, testifies, that he was an Associate of Judge Tingley in the trial of said law suit, and also upon the examination. of the title for Attoyo; that there was a full and absolute title in the Romeros-corroborating Mr. Tingley in every particular.

Mr. Kottinger testifies, that he was clerk for Mr. Sanford, Peralta's lawyer, upon said trial; that it was conceded on the trial that the title of Romero's was as good as Peralta's, but of a later date. He was interpreter on the trial.

Attoyo-testifies to the same state of facts.

Charles B. Strode, now deceased, (of the firm of Jones, Thompson & Strode, who were Attorneys in three-fourths of the claims présented to the Land Commission,) says that Sanford, the Attorney for Domingo Peralta on that trial, was a friend of his; that he went home to Georgia in 1852 or 1853, and died. That he told witness that he had taken the Romero Grant, after the trial was through at San Jose, because Romero owed him $800 for fees, previously incurred. That the claimants did not know where it was; that as he (Strode) was practicing before the Land Commission, he might get a fee of $4,000 out of the claimants for procuring the title papers for them, and wished him to undertake it and divide the fee. Strode examined the papers carefully, found a complete title to the Romero Ranch, but declined the offer, as he considered it dishonorable to obtain a fee under such circumstances. All these witnesses recite fully the contents of the grant.

Judge Swan, of Benicia, "was present in Sanford's office, and heard a conversation between Strode and Sanford, in regard to the title papers of some ranch in Contra Costa county, the particular purport of which deponent cannot recollect."

Three or four witnesses were examined by the Government, to prove that Romero had only a Provisional Grant, and not a perfect title.

The above is a brief epitome of the important testimony in the case, which is very voluminous, excepting that in reference to the unsuccessful search for the lost grant, which was left by Sandford among his papers at Benicia, when he returned to Georgia. It is true, Judge Hoffman once rejected the claim, but upon what ground? Solely upon the ground that Mr. Tingley, (who was the only witness we had examined at that time, in regard to the existence of the grant,) was mistaken. We made a motion for re-hearing, founded on the affidavits of Judge Redmond, C. B. Strode and others, whereupon Judge Hoffman granted the

motion; alledging that he thought Mr. Tingley might be mistaken, but that all of the witnesses being men of high character and lawyers, and understanding the nature of Spanish grants, could not be mistaken.

The case was subsequently rejected by his Honor, Judge McAllister, not upon the merits, but upon what I am free to confess I consider the only weak point in the case, the ground that we had not laid sufficient foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence. His Honor decided, that in addition to the testimony we had already taken, to prove the loss of the grant in the hands of Sanford, we should have taken the testimony of his Executor or Administrator in Georgia, for possibly he might have the Grant, among Sanford's papers there. The Attorneys for claimants thought it not necessary to go beyond the reach of the process of the Court to find them, and hence the appeal.

The law of this case is not difficult, viewed in the light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Even laying aside the whole testimony in regard to the existence of the grant, does not the following language of the Supreme Court in a recent case, sound prophetic of its decision in the Romero

case:

"The testimony consists of a petition to the Governor, in 1838, for a grant of the land, and permission to occupy it while the proceedings for the perfection of his title were pending. This petition was granted, and the Administrator of the ExMission was directed to make a report upon the subject.

"In 1840, the Administrator reported that the land was unoccupied, and was not recognized as the property of the Mission or of any particular person.

"The testimony shows that his occupation commenced in 1840, and has continued fourteen years; that he has improved and cultivated the land, and that his family have resided on it.

"The claimant appears to have been a citizen of the Department, and no objection was made or is suggested, why he should not have been a colonist of that portion of the public domain he has solicited. No imputation has been made against the integrity of his documentary evidence, and no suspicion exists unfav

2

แ

orable to the bona fides of his petition, or the continuity of his possession and claim. He has been recognized as the proprietor of this land since 1840."-U. S. vs. Alviso.

There was no grant in this case, and yet it was confirmed by the Supreme Court this winter.

But the testimony to prove the existence of the grant and its contents, is perfectly overwhelming. Although the government, in its opposition to the Romero claim, was assisted both by the settlers" and the adjoining ranch owners, who appeared in the case by counsel, yet they have not produced one sylable of testimony to impeach, contradict, or in any manner impair the testimony of claimants on this point. Why this ominous silence? If this testimony is not true, how easy to prove it false.

This, it is true, is secondary evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that they will receive evidence outside of the archives, and in one case recently decided (United States, vs. Ellen E. White, Administratrix,) in opposition to the archives, to show the existence of the grant. In secondary evidence, there are no degrees, and often "trifles light as air," blending in, corroborating and harmonizing with the main testimony, carry a conviction of truth to the mind which makes them "strong as proofs from Holy writ."

Thus upon either horn of the dilemma, whether there was an absolute grant, as we contend, or only a provisional grant, as the government contends, in either case we are entitled to a confirmation.

But Mr. Randolph tells us, "Judge Hoffman's opinion cannot be shaken, and I can imagine no reason why the claim is still pressed, unless it be to extort money from timid persons."

Judge Hoffman announced from the bench, when he granted a rehearing of the case, not only that his opinion was shaken, but that it was changed in regard to the merits of the claim, and that upon the equities alone, he thought we were entitled to a confirmation.

66

The claim is pressed," not for the purpose of extorting money, for no one has been asked for any money, but because the claimants are confident of a confirmation, and upon the advice of Messrs Crockett and Crittenden, their attorneys-attorneys who