HO KM Gr45 E! CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE Cornell University Library r| HD181.G45 1881 .S67 Decision of the Commissioner of the Gene DECISIO olin 3 1924 030 043 693 COMMISSIONER GENERAL LAND OFFICE, IN THE MATTER Or THE SURVEY OF THE RANCHO EL SOBRANTE, Juan Jose and Victor Castro, Confirmees, SITUATED IN THE COUNTIES OF CONTRA COSTA AND ALAMEDA, IN CALIFORNIA. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1881. ♦ The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030043693 DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONBK GENERAL LAND OFFICE, IN THE MATTER OF THE SURVEY OF THE RANCHO EL SOBRANTE, Juan Jose and Victor Castro, Confirmees, SITUATED IN THE COUNTIES OF CONTRA COSTA AND ALAMEDA, IN CALIFORNIA. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1881. Sk 7 DECISION THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE, IN THE MATTER OF THE SURVEY OF THE RANCHO EL' SOBRANTE—JUAN JOSE AND VICTOR CASTRO, CONFIRMEES— SITUATED IN THE COUNTIES OF CONTRA COSTA AND ALAMEDA, IN CALIFORNIA. Department of the Interior, General Land Office, Washington, D. ft, February 26, 1881. Sir : I have examined your report of August 21, 1879, and the papers, testimony, and arguments of counsel accompanying the same, in the matter of the survey of the rancho El Sobrante, Juan Jose' Castro and Victor Castro, confirmees, claimed as the Sobrante (surplus) of theranchos San Antonio, San Pablo El Pinole, Valencia (Acalanes) and Moraga (Laguna de los Palos Colorados). The history of the case, and matters connected therewith necessary to be considered, as shown by the records of this office are as follows : The tract of country 4o which this examination relates is situated across the bay east from the city of San Francisco, and bounded on the southwest by the Bay of San Francisco, on the northwest by the Bay of San Pablo ; on the north by the straits of Carquines, connecting San Pablo and Suisun Bays ; on the east, commencing at the southwest cor- ner of the rancho San Eamon of Amador, thence following the western boundary of said last-named rancho to the northwest boundary thereof, thence along the ridge called the Cuchilla de las Trampas, following the same to its northern termination ; thence to the headwaters of the Arroyo del Hambre, and down said Arroyo northerly to its mouth in the straits of Carquines; and on the south, commencing at the south- west on the Bay of San Francisco at the mouth of the San Leandro Creek, thence up said creek easterly, and by a line from the same con- necting with the Cuchilla de las Trampas the eastern boundary. Its ex- tent is approximately north and south twenty -two miles, with a breadth east and west varying from ten to fifteen miles. The southwest and western portion of this tract is occupied by the rancho San Antonio ; in the northwest part is situated the rancho of San Pablo ; in the northeast is the rancho El Pinole ; on the east side is the rancho of Valencia ; and in the southeast quarter is that of Moraga. These are the five ranchos referred to in the grant of El Sobrante, and mentioned in the decree of confirmation. The San Antonio rancho was granted by the Spanish Government originally, before the colonization laws, to certain boundaries, to wit, be- tween the Bay of San Francisco and the San Leandro Creek and the Cerrito Creek, which formed a parallelogram and a fair natural boundary; and though juridical possession was given thereof under the Spanish regime, yet it was not confirmed and patented to the extent of the boundaries mentioned in the grant or juridical possession; but a strip of land lying between the summit of the Sierra and the San Leandro Creek was not included in the final survey and patent. The others were grants for quantity within specified exterior boundaries, which, however, were never definitely located by juridical possession. These grants have been confirmed by the United States for the quantity men- tioned in each, and severally located by survey, and patented within the boundaries designated, an excess of quantity in each case being ex- cluded. Besides the five grants above mentioned, three others of later date than that of El Sobrante (or claimed to be so), the rancho Canada del Hambre, the part thereof in question in this case being situated in the north part and within the exterior boundaries of El Pinole; the Boca de la Canada del Pinole, situated between El Pinole and the Valencia, within portions of the exterior limits of each ; and the San Lorenzo, lying south of the Moraga, necessarily came under consideration in this inquiry. These were grants for quantity, and have been confirmed and patented by the United States. For a full understanding of the location of the several ranchos referred to, their specific exterior boundaries, and finally determined limits, ref- erence is made to the Boardman map annexed to the objections of Edson Adams in the case. Though inaccurate in some particulars, it will serve to conveniently illustrate the position of the several tracts which come under consideration in this examination. The following are the proceedings in the matter of the Sobrante grant under the former and present governments. On the 22d of April, 1841, Juan Jos6 Castro and Victor Castro pre- sented their petition to Governor Alvarado, representing that they were desirous of being finally settled upon land of thek own, for the purpose of devoting themselves to the labors of agriculture and the raising 01 cattle, and therefore preferred the following request: We beseech your excellency that you will deign to grant unto us a piece of vacant land (un terreno haldio, in the original) which is situated on the immediate limits of (en las inmediaciones de) San Antonio, San Pablo, Pinole, the farm (rancho) of Valencia and the farm of Moraga, which land is the overplus (la sobrante) of the ranchos aforesaid. On the day following, April 23, 1841, Governor Alvarado made the following provisional grant in favor of the petitioners : As the parties petition for in this representation, so the land of which they make mention is granted unto them, they remaining under obligation to present themselves anew accompanied by a map of the land, so soon as the boundaries of the neighbor- ing land-owners shall be regulated. No further proceedings in reference to said grant were had under the Mexican government. On the 26th of May, 1852, the brothers Castro, above named,- presented their petition to the board of land commis- sioners for California, asking confirmation of their claim to the land aforesaid, in which they set forth, that on the 22d of April, 1841, they presented their petition to Governor Alvarado "for a grant of all the vacant (sobrante) land lying between the ranches San Antonio, San Pablo, .Pinole* Valencia, and Moraga-, being the surplus or overplus left, between the said ranches after the boundaries to the ranches shall be ascertained and settled ;" and that on the 23d of April, 1841, the governor "granted the laud as prayed for," &c. TJiey also allege.- settlement, occupation, and cultivation upon the land granted; that Vic-, tor Castro had built a house and resided thereon, and for the last fourteen years had and held * * * exclusive and continued pos-, session thereof. On the 3d of July, 1855, the board rendered its decision, holding the claim valid and describing the land confirmed, as follows : The land of which confirmation is hereby made is situated in the counties of Contra Costa and Alameda, and is the surplus (sobrante) which, on the 23d day of April, A- D. 1841, the date of the decree of concession to the present claimant, existed, lyino- be- tween the tracts known as the ranches of San Antonio, San Pablo, Pinole, Moraga, and Valencia, reference being had to the original expedicnte and grant' on' file in th'is'case. By an order of the United States district court, appeal from the decree of the board of land commissioners was duly dismissed,, and the decree became final on the 6th day of April, 1857. On the 27th of March, 1863, upon stipulation to that effect between W. H. Sharp, " United States attorney," and EL W. Carpenter, "attor- ney for claimant," an order was made by the United States district court to amend the decree of the board of land commissioners, by insert- ing therein, after the word " between," the words " or within the exte- rior boundaries of," so as to make the. description read, " the land of which confirmation is hereby made * * * is the surplus (sobrante) which, on the 23d of April, A. D. 1841, * * * existed, lying between or within the exterior boundaries of the tracts known," &c. By the further order of said district court, made on the 26th of July, 1866, on motion of the United States district attorney, the claimants appearing by their attorney, the aforesaid order of March 27, 1863, was vacated and set aside, and the stipulation upon which the same was founded stricken from the files, " the court being- satisfied " (as stated in said order) that it had no power or jurisdiction to enter said order of March 27, 1863, and that the same was improvidently entered ; the court reserving any opinion as to the construction of the decree. The survey of El Sobrante, under consideration, was made by United States Deputy Surveyor William Minto, in August, 1878, and published under the act of July 1, 1864, the first publication in San Francisco having been September 6, 1878. It includes a large part of the rancho Boca Pinole as patented, a parcel from the northwest corner of the patented Moraga; is bounded east by the remainder of Boca Pinole and the Valencia ; on the south by Valencia and Moraga ; on the north by El Pinole ; on the northwest by the exterior boundary of San Pablo ; and on the southwest by the boundary of San Antonio. Numerous objections to the survey, protests against the claims of the owners of El Sobrante, and interventions in the case, were filed within the time prescribed by the act, and others after its expiration, and a large amount of testimony was taken on the hearing". On the 29th of November, 1878, the claimants of El Sobrante filed in your office a report and petition, ostensibly in compliance with the con- dition contained in the grant of Governor Alvarado, which required the grantees to present themselves anew, so soon as the boundaries of the neighboring land owners should be regulated. This document bears the signature of Victor Castro, one of the original grantees, and of H. W. Carpenter, as attorney for claimants. It sets forth the claim of the owners of El Sobrante to all the land contained within the limits of the large tract before described, not included in the five ranchos named in the grant as finally located, and is accompanied by the Boardman map before referred to, as showing the final location of those ranchos and the lands left out from the same, and asks that a final survey of the land granted and confirmed to the claimants be made, and a patent issued therefor. It was objected to the Minto survey of El Sobrante before you by the claimants under the grant, or some of them, that it was improvidently and illegally made before the boundaries of the Moraga rancho had been finally determined ; that the claimants made no application for the survey, and that it was made without their knowledge and without no- tice to them. It is also objected before this office on the part of the owners of the rancho Boca Pinole that said survey was not made in conformity with the. statute governing surveys of private land claims in California, the claimants having made no application or request therefor. It does not appear that the Minto survey was made before the bound- aries of the Moraga were settled. On the contrary, the record shows that the survey of that rancho, which was finally carried into patent, was made in 1875; was approved in your office December 20, 1877; by the decision of this office April 13, 1878, and by the honorable Secretary of the Interior affirming that of this office August 9, 1878,. and that the survey of El Sobrante was reported to your office August 26, 1878. This objection, therefore, even if it would have been entitled to consid- eration under the state of facts alleged, is without force. There is no legal requirement upon the surveyor-general to give notice of his purpose to survey a private land claim. After the survey he is required to publish notice when all parties interested have opportunity to be heard. I have already communicated to you, under date of February 25 last, my opinion that in accordance with the decision of the department of August 28, 1879, in the case of the survey of the rancho Entre Napa, the survey in the present case was made under the act of 1864 under which it was published, and subject to its provisions, and must be re- garded as the official survey in this case. An examination of the record confirms the view then taken that in all the material circumstances re- lating to the surveys the two cases are identical. The survey under consideration is therefore held to be legally valid. It is unnecessary to state in detail the numerous objections, protests, &c, which have relation to the survey as to its correctness. They all fall, in substance and effect, within one or the other of the three theories following : 1st. That the land applied for by Juan Jos6 and Victor Castro and provisionally granted by Governor Alvarado, and finally confirmed to them by the board of land commissioners, was a piece of vacant land contiguous to the five ranchos named in their petition outside of and lying between their exterior boundaries. 2d. That the five ranchos named were, as to their exterior boundaries, coterminous, and the land granted and confirmed to the Castros was that parcel which should be found to lie contiguous to and between them when the quantity granted to each should be finally located and its boundaries determined, being so much of the sobrante or surplus of said ranchos as should be excluded on their final location, lying contigu- ous to and between them. 3d. That the ranchos named were coterminous, and the land granted and confirmed as El Sobrante was all the sobrante or surplus which should result from them respectively on the final location and determin- ation of their boundaries, whether lying between them, or some of them, or entirely outside of their respective finally ascertained limits, and within the exterior boundaries. Some additional and collateral questions are presented, relating to the cases of the ranchos Canada del Hambre, Boca de la Canada del Pinole, and San Lorenzo, to several small tracts mentioned as tide marsh lands, and other parcels claimed to belong to the grant, which will be consid- ered in their order. Upon the main question as to what land was asked for by Juan Jose" and Victor Castro, and granted and confirmed to them, as upon most of the minor points, the testimony produced is conflicting; consisting 8 largely of opinion, inference, and argument, hence affording but lim- ited aid in the solution of the matters in controversy. What did the Oastros claim ? Was there vacant land 1 Juan B. Alvarado, who, as governor, made the grant, testified in substance that upon the application of the Castros to him, he proceeded to procure from them the necessary information in reference to the so- brante asked for — what it was, and where it was ; that Victor Oastro said that there were some lomitas, several little hills, rocky, situated about six miles east of the houses of San Pablo ; that Juan Jose" Castro said to him that the land petitioned for contained about a league and a half, situated about six miles east of the settlement of the San Pablo, where there was a place called la Jolla ; that he (the witness) knew these adjoining ranchos had natural boundaries, and that some time or other their boundaries would be established in case of juridical posses- sion provided for in the grants ; that they (the Oastros) made their pe- tition under the belief that there must be a sobrante or surplus in that locality — that was the supposition (Testimony, vol. 2, pp. 346, 348, 349, 350) ; that he (the witness) gave them a provisional decree in order to protect a petition that they had made for a certain portion of land that was considered vacant aud unoccupied between those ranchos; that Juan Jose" Gastro said the land they asked for would have to be, according to his way of understanding, a sobrante of the boundaries of the ranchos that came to center there in that place. (lb., pp. 378-381.) Question. Suppose that after having made this concession it had heen ascertained that there was no vacant land between these ranchos, would the concession have amounted to anything ? Answer. Nothing that would not he in that place or locality. Question. Suppose that there existed in 1841 a league and a half between those ranchos and that afterwards these ranchos were surveyed and cut down to less than, their boundaries at that time, would that grant to the Castros convey anything more than the league and a half? Answer. Nothing that would not be in the same locality. Whore there could he more or less land. A little more, not much. {lb., pp. 381, 382.) This testimony was objected to by the claimants, who introduced on their part a deposition of Governor Alvarado, taken before the land commission in the El Sobrante case, in which he deposed, in substance, that the land granted by him to Juan Jose" and Victor Castro, in 1841, was the sobrante of the ranchos San Pablo, San Antonio, Pinole, Valen- cia, and Moraga. That the Castros applied to the government in the usual manner for a grant of laud called El Sobrante, or the overplus of the adjoining ranchos named, which overplus was supposed would result over and above the lands granted to the individual grantees of said ranchos That the grant was made in consideration of important military ser! vices rendered by Victor Oastro, &c. That it was expected that, the Government of Mexico would, in course of time, send commissioners and surveyors to separate and measure the lands granted to individuals, 9 and would mark and establish boundaries of each grant, in accordance' with those title papers ; and that after the establishment of the bound- aries of the above-mentioned ranchos, there would result an overplus in the ranchos, which several portions so remaining as overplus would con- stitute the tract of land which was granted to the petitioners Castro by his decree. (Exhibit 95, Adams.) The testimony of Alvarado could not vary the just legal construction of the grant made by him in 1841, and the testimony given by him before the land commission was entirely at variance from that given by him before you, as will be seen by the quotations which I have made. So the testimony of other witnesses before you, tending to contradict the grant, was immaterial and ought not to have been received, and cannot be considered by me in arriving at the true construction of the* grant itself and of the decree of confirmation. As to whether there was vacant land lying' between the original boundaries of the five main ranchos, the testimony is conflicting, but to my mind the weight of evi- dence establishes the fact that the main ranchos were' coterminous, and that the whole territory herein first described was covered by the out- boundaries of said five ranchos, and that there was no vacant land lying between them. As to the meaning and application of the original terms employed to characterize the land, the testimony of witnesses examined in reference thereto shows that "un terreno baldio" means vacant land; strictly, in the general understanding of it, government or public land ;. land that has not been granted, not necessarily unoccupied, but land that it is within the power of the government to grant — vacant in that sense. That the word sobrante means surplus, remainder, that which is left over, and, when taken in connection with the land granted, it means the excess or remainder, inside of the exterior boundaries of the grant referred to, over and above the specified quantity granted. As has been already stated, the ranchos San Pablo, Pinole, Valencia,, and Moraga were severally grants for a specific quantity within desig- nated boundaries. The grant in each case required land to be measured according to law, or according to ordinance, and reserved the surplus to the nation. The measurement required was the usual juridical proceeding by which,, in grants of that character, the boundaries named in the instrument were designated upon the ground and the location determined. This proceding, however, never took place in respect to either of the four ranchos above named. They were only defined as to their limits by the exterior boundaries. It is clear from an examination of the petition of the Castros and the grant, in which the land was described as follows : " which land is the overplus (sobrante) of the ranchos aforesaid," that they applied for and were granted, th'e sobrante or overplus of the five ranchos named. That the word "sobrante" in its relation and application to land grants has, by both law and custom, a definite and technical meaning — 10 that it was so understood by the granting authority, and the grant made in accordance with that understanding, is manifest from the require- ment in the grant that the grantees should remain under obligation to present themselves anew for the completion of the proceedings in their favor, so soon as the boundaries of the neighboring land owners should be regulated. This effectually fixes the character of the concession as a sobrante grant. The land was granted provisionally. Its extent and limits to be determined when the boundaries of the ranchos named should be estab- lished, and it legally follows that the establishment of the boundaries of the five ranchos also established the boundaries of their sobrante. The decree of confirmation recognizes the grant as a sobrante grant. The commissioners, in their opinion accompanying the decree, say the evidence in this case establishes the following facts : That the petitioners presented their expediente for a sobrante of land lying between ranchos named in said expediente. Juan B. Alvarado, governor of California, on the 23d of April, 1841, issued a grant to the petitioners and required them to report a plat of the same as soon as the adjoining ranchos could be surveyed and the extent of the sobrante ascertained, which survey has not been had of said ranchos, so as to enable the petitioners herein to define with certainty the boundaries of their said "sobrante." The decree consequently makes no allusion to "un terreno baldio" but con- firms the grant describing the land as the overplus, sobrante, &c. It is therefore evident that the board considered the vacant land asked for and granted, not as vacant independently, of the ranchos mentioned, but as vacant by reason of being sobrante of said ranchos, and confirmed it as such sobrante. Attention is called by some of the contestants of the claim of the owners of El Sobrante to the amendment of the decree of confirmation procured by the latter in the United States district court, which the court afterwards set aside as improperly made. Said amendment, after the words "lying between" adding "or within the exterior boundaries of," which, it is insisted, indicated that in the knowledge and belief of those who procured said amendment, the confirmation did not extend to laud within the exterior boundaries of the ranchos as named, and only included vacant land lying outside of and between them. Procuring the amendment alluded to, indicated doubts on the part of its movers, as to the scope of the confirmation, and a wish to make it more certain, and, possibly, more comprehensive. But in my view, the amendment, if re- tained, would not change the meaning, and cannot affect the construc- tion which should be given to the decree. The Castros petitioned for land that was the overplus (sobrante) of the ranchos referred to. The grant, by the condition requiring them to come again so soon as the boundaries of the ranchos should be ascer- tained, to have completed the proceedings in their favor, showed that it was made as a sobrante grant ; and the decree of the board by declaring 11 the claim valid, and in its description of the land confirmed making special reference to the expediente and grant, undoubtedly recognized the claim as including the surplus lands within the exterior limits of the ranchos mentioned. The grant to the Castros was a grant, by name, of the sobrante, pure and simple, of the five ranchos, San Antonio, San Pablo, Pinole, Valen- cia, and Moraga. As such, it had specified and certain boundaries ; for in law, that is certain which can be made certain. As a grant of the sobrante of certain prior grants of quantity within exterior boundaries, the extent and limit of El Sobrante was as definite and certain as a deed of " black acre " would be, and an attempted, par- ticular, descriptive addition, if erroneous, should be rejected, or if con- tradictory of the more certain description by name, for the name is more worthy and reliable. This is based upon the well-approved rule that a false description cannot render uncertain that which is already well and sufficiently des- cribed. In the nature of things, and on the face of the record, it was impossible to give a description of the land granted, which would be as reliable and definite as the name " sobrante " conveyed. In the mar- ginal grant or indorsement made by the governor this is admitted ; for the grantees were to present themselves anew, accompanied by a map of the land, when the boundaries of the principal ranchos should have been surveyed and regulated. As the grantees of the main ranchos had the first right of selection and location of their respective lands, the impossibility is evident of a correct description of the sobrante in advance, whereas a regulation of their boundaries would operate ipso facto as a survey of the El Sobrante. Concessions of lands in California by the Mexican Government were of three kinds : first, by exact boundaries ; second, for quantity within out-boundaries ; and third, by name. The first generally conferred a perfect title, though under the statutes of Congress, confirmation, sur- vey, and patent were still necessary. In the second and third cases, the grantee was vested by the grant of an immediate general interest, which became particular when the survey was made. (United States vs. Higueras, 5 Wallace, 834 ; Hornsby vs. United States, 10 Wallace, 232.) In this case the general interest was in the several grantees of the original five ranchos, with a particular interest in the grantees of the sobrante, when the boundaries of the first should be regulated and ascertained. The name sobrante has received a fixed and certain meaning in the uniform decisions of the Supreme Court relating to every grant of a like nature, which has gone before that court. There are several sobrante grants in evidence in this case, and the briefs filed in behalf of the claimants refer to many decisions recognizing and establishing the uniform meaning of the word. The representations which it was attempted to show before you that 12 the Oastros had made to Alvarado before receiving the grant, could not be taken under any circumstances to limit its force or its .extent. In the case of the United States vs. D'Aguirre (1 Wallace, 311), the petition on which a sobrante grant was made stated the amount of the sobrante, remnant, or surplus, to be about five leagues, and yet the court upon a direct issue sustained the grant to eleven leagues (the limit allowed to one grantee by the colonization laws), holding that the description of five leagues was not a limitation but a mistake, and that the grant of the sobrante covered the whole land within the out-boundaries of the disenos of the main tracts which was not covered by the senior grants. The five main ranches in the case now before the office were coter- minous. This fact, though denied by some of the contestants, is estab- lished by the testimony in the record, particularly by that of the sur- veyor, Boardman, and of Mr. Hopkins, keeper of the Spanish archives ; by the amended map annexed to additional objections of the claimant,. Edson Adams, and which can all be verified by other records remaining in the General Laud Office. This fact shows that the present attempt to substantially defeat the grant by assuming that it was not of the sobrante or overplus of the main ranchos, but a tract of land lying between them, has no basis of truth. There was no territory between those ranchos. There can be no rational dispute as to the meaning of the grant itself. But it is con- tended that the decree of confirmation describes different land from that granted. Let us consider this proposition. The function of the tribunal established by Congress (the land com- mission) to examine land claims in the first instance was fixed by the statute, and the extent of its powers has been examined by the Supreme Court. Its duty was to inquire into and determine the validity of grants submitted to it, and not to survey, locate, or segregate lands granted. And in this very case the board say in the opinion : "A large amount of testimony has been taken for the purpose of settling the boundaries, which is rendered inapplicable to the merits of this claim by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Fremont," thus showing that the board did not misconstrue or intend to exceed its authority, but simply to pass upon the integrity of the grant, and leave the location of the land where the statute had lodged that power ; that is to say, to the surveyor-general of California, under the supervision of this office. It is true that the language of the decree, of confirmation undertakes to identify the land in a vague way, and that the decree seems to be uncertain and ambiguous in that respect ; but a careful examination of the decree, according to principles established for the construction of such documents, will bring harmony out of its apparent inconsistency. . In the first place, the board adjudged that the claim is valid, and that the same be confirmed ; that was all that they had the power to do. But 13 as they had not in the opening described the grant with certainty, they then proceed to do so, and though apparently attempting to describe the land, which they could not do, they describe the grant in inartificial language, which simplicity is, however, cured by the conclusion of the decree, which refers "to the original expediente and grant on file in this case." Why did the commissioners refer to the original expediente and grant, except foT greater certainty ? Not to contradict. For it does not con- tradict what goes before, but because an examination of the grant will explain and reconcile an apparant uncertainty in the immediately pre- ceding context, in which " the surplus (sobrante) is stated as lying be- tween the tracts known as rancho of San Antonio, San Pablo, Pinole, Moraga, and Valencia," which is an apparent contradiction in terms, for, as we have seen, "sobrante" means an overplus of quantity before granted, within out-boundaries, and the tract lying between former grants is not a sobrante at all. So, to reconcile this seeming uncertainty and apparent contradiction, we must read the decree in the light which the board has thrown upon it. It is not open to the objections stated by the Supreme Court in the Halleck case, that the grant cannot be referred to to contradict the < clear meaning of the language of the decree, for in this case it makes clear what was obscure, and reconciles an apparent contradiction. A false description of land in a decree, as well as in a grant or con- veyance which contradicts that which was already certain and positive, as a name, shoukTbe rejected, upon familiar principles. It is obvious enough how the board came to use the language they employ. The awkwardness and uncertainty grew out of the mistaken meaning of the phrase employed in the petition for a grant "en las inmediaciones" carelessly taken to be translatable by the word "between" instead of "in the immediate limits of." The board did well to refer for greater certainty to the original grant. As the main ranchos were coterminous with the prior right of se- lection in the several grantees, they might have selected their respective pieces in conjunction, each bounding the other, so as to form but one body of land, and so the grantees of the sobrante would be compelled to take their lands entirely on the "outer limits. In point of fact, that was done to a considerable extent ; and portions of the sobrante, of all the ranchos as patented, are on the outer edge, and not in immediate proximity to any other of the five patented ranchos. Thus the theory that the sobrante lands must be taken in a common center of the main ranchos might have left no common center to which the grant of sobrante could be attached at all. It appears that a part of the surveyed and patented rancho of Moraga was included in the Minto survey. This is clearly erroneous. The Mo- raga was one of the original five ranchos, and its confirmees were of 14 course entitled to a selection of their quantity within the exterior bound- aries. The decree has also been criticized to the disadvantage of the claim- ants, because it mentions the land as the sobrante which on the 23d day of April, 1841 (the date of the decree of cession to the present claimants), existed, lying " between," &c, and it is suggested that as the ranchos were coterminous there was not, and could not be, any land to which the grant of the sobrante could attach; but that position is un- tenable. Of course it was known to the board of land commissioners from the records before them that grants had been made of territory in the sobrante subsequent to the concession to the Castros of the latter, and the board, to preserve the rights of grantees according to their prior- ities, named the date at which the sobrante grant took effect, and con- firmed to the claimants all the land which at that day was included in the sobrante. That is the fair reading of the decree, according to its true intent. The entire sobrante of the five principal ranchos having been granted to the Castros by a grant by name, that land was no longer subject to grant to others. If there be a sobrante of the five original ranchos, or of any of them, at the present date, there was, of course, in contemplation of law, and in fact, a sobrante to the same extent existing at the time of the grant in 1841. But the patentees of land subsequently granted as "Canada del Hambre" and "Boca de la Canada del Pinole" and "San Lorenzo" in- sist that their patents secured to them the titles of the lands claimed by them, respectively, as against the claimants of the sobrante by pri- ority of date of the patents, although the act of Congress of 1851 ex- pressly provides that such patents shall not be conclusive against " third parties," in which attitude stand the sobrante claimants, and the holders of "Canada del Hambre" and Boca Pinole insisted that the sobrante claimants are estopped by the fact that the latter contested the surveys of the former. How far estopped? They are only estopped to question the correct- ness of the surveys, the only question then involved. They are not estopped to question the title arising from priority of grant, for a ques- tion of title can only be settled "by the judiciary," says the Supreme Court, and in order to meet them on equal terms in court the claimants of the sobrante are entitled to a survey and patent. They have a de- cree of confirmation, and the statute gives them an unqualified right to a patent which will give them a standing in court to contest and deter- mine judicially the priority of rights. In order to base their claim of priority of right by reason of prior sur- veys and patents, the holders of the patents for lands witbin, and en- croaching upon, the sobrante territory are forced to insist that the 15 grant of the sobrante was a " floating grant," and, therefore, that their own grants first patented take so much of the float. In this they are manifestly in error. A floating grant is one for a specified quantity of land to be selected by the grantee within exterior boundaries, compris- ing a larger area, the overplus being reserved to the nation. In such a case the nation reserved the right to dispose of other limited quantities within such exterior boundaries, and it is held that the most expedi- tious of such grantees will acquire the better right (perhaps as a reward for activity). But in the present case the entire sobrante of five ranchos was granted by name to the Castros, and they took the whole. No prosecution of their claim would have enabled them to describe, regulate, survey, seg- regate, or obtain a patent for the land granted to them until the main five ranchos were regulated as to boundaries, and the survey of the main ranchos was a survey of the sobrante. The grant of the sobrante was absolute, and without limit or restriction. It was not in any sense a floating grant, but a fixed and certain one by name, and the limits of which were ascertainable in the mode pointed out in the grant itself. While these views apply forcibly to the portion of the " Canada, del Hambre," which was surveyed within the territory of El Sobrante, I am inclined to the opinion, and must hold that the survey and patent of the " Boca de la Canada del Pinole " stands upon a different footing. In the latter case, the owners of El Sobrante, after opposing the survey of " La Boca,"made and approved November 9,1860, which was ordered into court under the act of June 14, 1860, seem to have come to an agree- ment with the owners of " La Boca" as to a final survey which should go to patent, and a decree of the district court made on the 24th Decem- ber, 1868, " by consent of all the parties," was entered, setting aside the first survey and correcting and modifying the survey as in the decree is particularly specified upon which a patent was accordingly issued. This fact, of a consent arrangement of the boundaries, and the further cir- cumstance that in some of the objections to the Minto survey of El So- brante it is claimed to be erroneous because it " improperly embraces a large tract of land heretofore included in the final survey of the 'Bri- ones Bancho ' " (La Boca), seem to me to estop the claimants of El So- brante to now say that the consent decree of amendment of the survey of " La Boca" was not a permanent adjustment of boundaries between that rancho and El Sobrante. I must, therefore, consider the bounda- ries of " La Boca de la Canada del Pinole" as finally surveyed and pat- ented, as an adjustment made by the express consent of the claimants of El Sobrante, which ought not to be disturbed. What lands are claimants of the sobrante entitled to have surveyed and patented to them ? This seems to be a question easy to answer as a whole, though trouble- some in detail, from the shape of the selections made by the grantees of the main ranchos. As a general proposition, take the exterior bounda- 16 iries of the five main ranchos as delineated on the Adams maps herein- before referred to, and leaving out the five ranchos as Anally surveyed and patented (or " regulated," in the language of the original conces- sion), the overplus within its exterior boundaries is the sobrante. The patented Boca del Pinole should also be excluded, and the line in the south adjusted as hereinafter indicated. In detail, a survey thus made would include several pieces of land, some lying in the center and several on the exterior or outer edges of the original out-boundaries. But a survey in several parts is not objectionable when the circum- stances render it necessary. The del Hambre, a sobrante grant, was surveyed and patented in two separate and distinct parts, and if equal reasons applied it might as well have been surveyed in twenty parts. The Moraga rancho also, under the instructions of the United States district and circuit courts, was surveyed and patented in two separate parcels. But an untenable objection is made to the inclusion in the sur- vey of Bl Sobrante of those tracts on the outer edges not surveyed and patented to any other grantee, on the ground that those pieces belonged to the United States Government as public lands, and to pre-emptors. Hitherto there could not properly be any pre-emption of such of the lands as are claimed under Mexican grants, and as pre-emptors in their own names ; such of the objectors as occupy that position have no stand- ing before the department nor any right to be heard. If they claim any inchoate rights under the United States they should appear and present their claims and objections only in the name of the United States. If they claim to have acquired rights under the State of California, which are not perfected, they should appear in the name of the State, and not in their individual names. To say that no land should be included in the survey of the sobrante but that which is surrounded by and touches all the five main ranchos is to deny the primary description by name, and to hold in the face ot presumptions and legal conclusions to the contrary that the grant was not of the sobrante at all. It is urged by some of the objectors that the Mexican Government ■could not have intended to grant a sobrante of the San Antonio rancho, because they say that the grant of San Antonio was a perfect grant to specific boundaries, and was finally surveyed and patented accordingly, and that, therefore, the San Antonio was only named as a boundary. If there were no sobrante of the San Antonio the grant to the Castros would only fail in so much as the supposed sobrante of that rancho was concerned. But it is a mistake to say that there is no sobrante of the San Antonio, that it was patented to the original boundaries, or that it was a perfect grant. The rancho of San Antonio was granted in 1820 to Louis Peralta by the Spanish governor, Sala. It extended along the bay from the deep ■creek of San Leandro to the Oerrito Creek, and these were its desig- nated boundaries. Presumably, it embraced all the land between said 17 «reeks from their sources to their mouths in the bay. But this was not a perfect grant, nor would the title, when finally issued to Peralta, necessarily cover all the lands embraced within the boundaries. As has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Car- pentier vs. Montgomery (13 Wallace, 480), it was only an equity subject to the confirmation of the government. By the decree of confirmation it was limited on the east to the crest of the mountain and there re- sulted exactly what was presupposed by the grant to the Castros of the sobrante of San Antonio, a surplus of all the land lying between the San Leandro Creek and the crest of the mountains, as shown on the diseiio in the San Antonio expediente and on the various maps in this case, and this constitutes in part the sobrante of San Antonio, which embraces tract D, colored green, and tract 11, colored red and bordered with yellow, as laid down on the Boardman map. MORAGA SOBRANTE. The Moraga rancho was granted in 1835 to Joaquin Moraga and Juan Bernal. In the grant of that date by Governor Castro, and in the resolution of approval thereof by the departmental assembly, it is granted by name as the tract of land known by the name of "Laguna de los Palos Colorados" without further description as reference to any other description. There was in the expediente a rough map or picture of the country, but with uncertain and ill-defined boundaries, so uncertain that different witnesses gave to the objects and boundaries on the map, widely differ- ent locations. But the final and formal grant made by Governor Alvarado in 1841, fixes the boundaries of the place known by the name of Laguna de los Palos Colorados, with certainty and exactness. On the north by San Pablo Brook, and a straight line to the east, so as to include a certain spring; west by the mountain range (sierra) up to its summit ridge (Hasta la Cumbre), east by the ridge of the Trampas Hills, and south by the establishment of San Jos6. As to the northern and eastern boundaries there is no controversy. On the west, the bound- ary is the mountain range. Sierra does not mean hills, nor does it mean a mountain, but a mountain range — the saw teeth of the mountain — the highest rauge. There is but one sierra, one mountain ridge there divid- ing the Moraga Valley from the Bay Valley (the sierra of the Bed Woods) and the line runs along its cumbre, or highest summit. There is no ambiguity about this, no room for construction or explana- tion. It includes all the lands lying between the northern and south- ern boundaries as far west as the summit or highest ridge of the mount- ains. The southern boundary was the establishment of San Jos6. Where was the northern line of the establishment of San Jos6? On the Peralta map, on the south side of the San Leandro Creek, there is written, " Mission of San JoseV' 2b 18 In the report of the missionaries found in the Mexican archives, the Mission of San Jose' is described as bounded north by the San Leandro Creek. This, then, is boundary, so far as the creek runs in an easterly and westerly direction. In the expediente of Amador for San Eamon, it appears that the pe- tition of Amador was referred by the governor to the authorities of the Mission of San Jos<§, who reported that a part of the land petitioned for belonged to that establishment, and they marked upon the map accom- panying the petition of Amador, a line designating such boundary, and wrote upon it apt words, showing the meaning of the line, and the boundary of the mission. This was accepted by the governor as correct, and the grant to Ama- dor was made accordingly. It appears from the maps of Bielawski and Boardman, and by the tes- timony of expert witnesses, that a straight line drawn eastwardly from the great bend Jf the San Leandro Creek and following the same gen- eral direction as that of the creek from its mouth to its great bend would nearly strike the westerly extremity of the northern line of the mission, as shown on the Amador map. The rancho San Lorenzo, by its terms, is bounded on the north by the Moraga rancho. It would therefore seem that there could be no doubt whatever that the sobrante grant should take all the land lying north of San Lorenzo, as the same has been surveyed and patented. Again, the diseno of the Moraga shows a heavy range of hills lying on the south or southeast. There is abundant evidence that a continuous and prominent range of hills extends in one unbroken line from the ridge of Las Trampas, the eastern boundary of Moraga, to the San Leandro Creek, which, upon the Boardman map, would divide the eastern tract No. 11 from tract Fo. 12. But it is objected that each of these lines extends far south of the true line, among other reasons, because in the matter of the Moraga survey it was stipulated that the Higley survey represented the out-boundary of the Moraga rancho, and that according to said survey the southern line was north of each and all of these three lines. The Higley survey embraces much more than the three leagues which were confirmed to Moraga, and the confirmees had the right of selec- tion. If in that proceeding they were willing to limit their right of selection to a smaller area than they were entitled to select from, I see no reason why the confirmees of El Sobrante shall suffer in consequence thereof. There was nothing in that stipulation binding upon them in that pro- ceeding, or that did or could estop them from demanding their legal rights in this survey, the stipulation having been made in that particu- lar case and for the purpose of that survey only. Believing that the calls of the grant are controlling, after carefully considering and weighing the testimony, I can come to no other con- 19 elusion than this, as to the true probable line of the establishment of San Jose\ That its northern boundary was the San Leandro Creek, from its mouth to the great bend thereof, and from thence a direct line to the southwest corner of the rancho of San Eamon of Amador, and that all the lands lying north of said line, and within the fixed northern boundary of said rancho, and lying east of the summit of the sierra or coast range, and west of the patented lines of said San Eamon rancho and the summit of the Las Trampas Hills, not included in the two tracts surveyed and patented to the confirmees of the Moraga, constitute the sobrante or surplus of the rancho of Moraga; that that portion of said surplus lying west of the San Leandro Creek and east of the patented lines of San Antonio was also, as we have seen, a sobrante of the San Antonio as originally granted. But while tbe proofs. as to the location of the northern line of the es- tablishment of San Jos6, east of the great bend of the San Leandro Creek, all tend towards the result above indicated, they can hardly be considered conclusive of this case. The rude sketch or map in the Mo- raga expediente, so far as it can be interpreted with the aid of the tes- timony of witnesses, seems to be terminated on the southerly side by a high ridge of hills running from the highest summit of the Trampas Range in a southwesterly direction, and was where the paten-ted line of the San Lorenzo rancho was finally located. This rancho, by the terms of the grant thereof to G-uillerino Castro, was bounded on the north by the Moraga rancho, and the map in the expediente in that case, which was presented to the governor, and upon which in part his action was based, shows the Moraga rancho as bounding it on the north, and it appears from the evidence (see Stratton's evidence) that the San Lo 1 renzo was finally surveyed pretty closely up to the northern limits of the tract shown on the diseno. Undoubtedly, the Mexican Government treated these two as coterminous ranchos. It does not appear that any objection was ever made by the owners of the Moraga rancho to the grant to Castro or to his occupation up to the line claimed by him, nor to the final survey and patent issued to him. They may, therefore, I think, be fairly considered as acquiescing in the construction particularly put upon their grant by Guillermo Castro and by the government in dealing with him. To this it may be answered that there was within the exterior boundaries of the place Laguna de Los Palos Colorados a much larger area than the three leagues granted to Moraga and Bernal ; that they had made a practical selection and location on the extreme northern part of the tract ; and that they could notj therefore, have had any legitimate object in protesting against a slight encroachment upon their southern boundary, where they knew that there must result a larger surplus, to which they could not, in any event, maintain any claim of title, and that these considerations should have but slight weight against the owners of the sobrante, whose rights are derived from an entirely different title and who ought not to be 20 prejudiced by the acts or neglect of others in proceedings to which they were not and, in the nature of the case, could not be parties. However this may be, I am of the opinion that substantial justice will in this way be done to all parties, and I shall hold that the southern line of the Moraga sobrante, east of the San Leandro Creek, must be limited to the northern boundary of the rancho San Lorenzo, as the same has been finally surveyed and patented to the claimant in that case. In these matters of conflicting evidence and uncertain boundaries, it is often diffi- cult and not always possible to do exact and unerring justice, but I am satisfied that the conclusion I have reached is, under all the circum- stances, as nearly as practicable, equitable and just. THE SOBRANTE OF SAN PABLO. The rancho of San Pablo was finally granted, on the 20th of August, 1835, with the following boundaries: Bounded by the ranchos of San Antonio and El Pinole and a portion of the Bay of San Francisco, containing four leagues or a little over, which quantity was required to be measured off by the proper officer from the larger tract embraced within the boundaries mentioned in the grant; the surplus (sobrante) that might result, to remain to the nation for its convenient uses. The grantee, Joaquin Castro, then had a right to select the four leagues granted him anywhere within the boundaries called for in the grant and shown in the disenos referred to therein. Of the boundaries called for in the grant two were certainly fixed, to wit, the Bay of San Francisco and the rancho of San Antonio, as finally located and patented. A sobrante resulted on the north and east, which forms tract No. 8, as described on Boardman's map. Also, tracts 1, 2, 3, and part of 4; which last-named tracts are designated as salt marsh lands. The testimony in reference to the four last-named tracts, and also in reference to tracts 5 and 6, is conflicting as to the character of the lands therein contained. Some witnesses testify that said tracts are covered by the ordinary tides ; others testify that the lands are covered by ex- treme high tides only ; and it appears also from the evidence that the character of these lands has considerably changed by accretion within the last thirty years. Considering the difficulty of obtaining exact and definite information as to these lands, it is fortunate for all parties concerned that a reliable survey was made under the direction of the United States Government in 1850, and before the changes from mining d6bris are supposed to have occurred. It has been repeatedly determined by the Supreme Court of the United States that confirmed Mexican grants, bordering upon tide-water, extend to ordinary high-water mark, and that has been the rule in all cases where ranchos bordered upon the Bay of San Francisco, where the 21 confirmees selected such, lands. (United States vs. Pacheco, 2 Wal- lace, 590.) The government survey to which I have alluded, to wit, the coast sur- vey, fixes the lines both of ordinary high- water and of ordinary low- water mark. You are therefore instructed in making the survey hereinafter directed to be guided by said coast survey, and you will embrace therein such portions of said named tracts, to wit, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as were at the date of said coast survey above ordinary high- water mark. SOBRANTE OP THE KANCHO EL PINOLE. The rancho El Pinole was granted in 1823 to Ignatio Martinez ; but having lost his title-papers, he, in 1842, petitioned for and obtained a second grant, with the following boundaries : From the mouth of the Canada of the same name (Pinole), along the same towards the east as far as the corral of Galindo ; from this point as far as the Canada del Hambre, and along the shores of the Bay of Sam Francisco, to the mouth of the said CalLada of Pinole to the extent of four square leagues, as shown by the map in the expediente. The quantity granted to be segregated by the proper officer from the larger territory embraced within the boundaries given and the sobrante (surplus) to remain to the use of the nation. The lands patented to the confirmee by this grant are correctly de- scribed upon the Boardman map. Part of lot Ko. 4, lots Nos. 5 and 6, lot A, lot No. 7, and part of lot B, as designated on the Boardman map, constitute the sobrante lands of El Pinole. As we have seen, the San Antonio and Pinole ranchos were granted by fixed and certain natural boundaries, so was also the Moraga rancho, so far as concerns its northern, eastern, and western boundaries. The San Antonio and Pinole being by natural boundaries, and the San Pablo being bounded by these two ranchos and by the Bay of San Fran- cisco, it results that it too was bounded on its northern, western, and southern sides by natural and fixed boundaries, its eastern boundary being an indefinite one, except so far as the disenos and the names of San Pablo (and Cuchiyunes, by which name San Pablo was granted) tended to make it certain. The rancho of Acalanes was granted to Candelario Valencia iu 1834. The decree of concession was for the place known by the name of Aca- lanes, without any or further description. Afterwards, when the final and formal grant was issued to Valencia, the land granted to him was therein described as the place called Los Acalanes, bounded by the ranchos of San Pablo, San Antonio, and El Pinole ; and in its third clause the land granted was limited, on final segregation, to the extent of a league in length by three-quarters of a league in width, as shown by the diseno, the sobrante being reserved to the nation for its convenient uses. That sobrante thus reserved constitutes the subject-matter of the present inquiry. It conclusively appears from the grant itself that the place known by the name of Acalanes, and within which was included 22 the three-quarters of a league granted to Valencia, was bounded by and coterminous with the ranchos of San Pablo, San Antonio, and Pinofei It therefore becomes immaterial as to where was the true eastern boundary of the San Pablo, for wherever this may have been located it necessarily constitutes a common boundary between these two contiguous ranchos. It will therefore be observed that only three boundaries are given in the grant to Valencia, the fourth boundary being left open. Afterwards, in 1844, by the decree of Governor Micheltorena, the Valencia and MO' raga ranchos were adjudged to be coterminous, and a common line of boundary was established between them. It appears that shortly after Valencia obtained his grant he settled near a very desirablespring,at a considerable distance — several miles— i from the limits of San Antonio, San Pablo, and Pinole, as shown by the disenos of said ranchos, and near the tract called Laguna de los Palos Colorados, claimed by Joaquin Moraga. In 1844, Valencia and Moraga had a controversy as to the line dividing their claims, and as to the ownership of the spring. The matter was referred to Governor Michel- torena for adjustment, who, in the decree deciding the controversy, made the dividing line between the lands of Valencia and Moraga the same in effect as the northern boundary in the grant given to Moraga. Thus the boundary of the adjacent grant to Moraga became established as thefourth boundary of the Valencia grant by the decree of the governor. This fixed upon the several sides so bounded the exterior limits within which Valencia had a right to select the three-quarters of a league granted to him in 1834, to wit, the boundaries of the ranchos of San Pablo, San Antonio, Pinole, and Moraga. But this still left the Acalanes with an indefinite boundary to the eastward. But the practical location upon the ground by Valen- cia, and his long and recognized possession, the decree of Micheltorena approving of that location, and the patent from the Government of the United States must, when taken together, be considered as conclusively establishing that the true eastern boundary of the place called Acalanes was at least as far to the eastward as the eastern patented line of that rancho. This tract, thus selected by Valencia with the approval of the Mexican Government, and for which a patent was finally issued to the claimant, not only does not touch upon any of the ranchos by which it was originally declared to be bounded, but it is entirely outside of the three-quarters of a league shown upon the disenos, as the same is explained by some of the witnesses who testified iu this case. The object of the diseno was to give information to the government, not to limit or control its action, and in this, as in other cases that have come before this offi.ce, the governor, in making the grant, saw fit to disregard the diseno as to the matter of boundaries, referring to it only in fixing the limitation of quantity, and reserving the surplus to the nation. Or, if the diseno is to be treated as making any figure in the grant, the governor has given to it a certain interpretation and affixed to it a defi- 23 nite meaning by declaring in direct and explicit language that the land granted in the place called Acalanes is bounded by the ranchos of San Pablo, San Antonio, and Pinole. This it was clearly within the power and functions of the governor to do. It is the final and formal grant, with its apt and certain words of description, that must control, and not the imperfect sketch known as the disefio, which was generally a mere rude tracing made with a pencil, or sometimes with charcoal, by some illiterate herdsman, and purporting to show only a few salient features of the landscape. In some cases the lands described in the final grant cover a much larger area than the tract represented on the disefio ; sometimes the lands granted are limited to a small part or corner of the disefios,- which are not drawn to any scale. This matter was within the discretion of the governor. I therefore hold that the sobrante of the Valencia rancho is all the land within the tract bounded by the ranchos of San Antonio, San Pablo, Pinole, and Moraga, and the eastern line of the patented rancho of Valencia, which is left as a remainder after satisfying the three- quarters of a league granted and confirmed to Valencia. Lot No. 9, and part of Lot B, colored purple on the Boardman map, represent the sobrante lands of the Valencia, and are clearly within the calls of the original grant and the line fixed by Governor Micheltorena. The survey made by Deputy Surveyor Minto, as aforesaid, is therefore disapproved and set aside, and you are hereby directed to execute a new survey of the rancho El Sobrante, and in said survey to embrace all of tracts Nbs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as designated upon Boardman map, and lying above ordinary high- water mark, according to the Coast Survey map hereinbefore referred to, made under the direction of the govern- ment in 1850. Also, to embrace tracts 7, 8, 9, 10, A, B, and C, tracts 11, three times repeated, tracts 12 and D, excepting the patented lands of La Boca Pinole, and the patented lands of San Lorenzo,- east of the great bend of the San Leandro Creek, but including that portion of the San Lorenzo rancho lying north and west of the San Leandro Creek, and including, also, all other tracts and parcels of land lying within the general boundaries of the larger tract of territory herein first described that may lie outside of the patented ranchos of San Antonio, San Pablo, Pinole, Valencia, and Moraga, except as aforesaid. The point has been taken and considerable testimony adduced as to the number of leagues which would be included in a survey thus made. The grant of El Sobrante being made to two persons, they could take, under the colonization laws, eleven leagues each. From the evidence, it seems probable that the survey thus ordered would be far within the limit, but should it exceed in quantity the twenty-two leagues allowed by law, the claimants will have the right of selection to that extent, the surplus remaining to the public domain. 24 You will notify the parties in interest of this decision, and reportftoj this office any proceedings had under said notice. If no appeal be take within the time allowed by the rules, you will make the survey here directed and transmit the same to this office, with the proper retur as soon as practicable. Very respectfully, J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner. Theodore Wagner, Esq., * ■"" United States Surveyor- General, San Francisco, Gal.