issued for 4 square leagues and the map unlawfully attached thereto called for 47,226.61 acres.

"This having been done under the direction of Irvine on August 13, 1868, he caused a one-half interest in the Mexican national's alleged grant to be transferred to him.

"Flint and Irvine are now cotenants in the Mexican national's alleged grant of 4 square leagues.

"But it is now interesting to know about the patent, so called. It is issued for 4 square leagues under an alleged survey of 47,226.61 acres, but 4 square leagues is 17,754.72 acres-but the alleged patent is issued to the Mexican national and his heirs.

"But in the meanwhile Flint had gone into politics, Irvine had gone into making big money; Flint wanted to sell the other half of the alleged grant; Irvine was anxious to buy yet not willing to take chances, so the United States v. Flint et al. was filed, wherein the Circuit Court for the District of California-why, the least said about it the better, but the opinion was filed September 4, 1876, and Flint sold to Irvine the other one-half interest in the alleged grant September 27, 1876.

"Why was not the Mexican national and his heirs made parties defendant or made parties by interpleading. The Mexican national was dead, but how could his heirs be foreclosed of their right to their day in court without being made parties and without notice."

Under date December 12, the Attorney General wrote me and said, "I still say I will hear you and consider what you have to say." The text of his letter is here given :

WILLIAMSON S. SUMMERS, Esq.,

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 12, 1925.

Los Angeles, Calif.

SIR: Your letter of December 4, with attached papers, is received and read. When you were here I told you that upon the advice of the lawyers in this department having the matter in charge, conclusion had been reached that no suits should be instituted in the matter you write about, but that I would consider the matter further and would hear you, and I did hear you as long as I could devote the time to it, and when you left I told you I would hear you further. I found that you left town without seeing me further. I then wrote you that I would hear you further, and now, notwithstanding the tone of your letter, I still say I will hear you and consider what you have to say. Yours truly,

JNO. G. SARGENT,
Attorney General.

I have always had an idea that a doctor is consulted for one purpose and an undertaker is employed for another. I could not understand why the Attorney General would hear me and would consider what I had to say after he had made his finding, advised that no suit should be brought and directed the Secretary of the Interior to notify all interested parties of his final disposition of their interests and rights.

With the view in mind of finding out if the cases, for any reason, had been referred back to the Attorney General, that is to say, if a hearing, should it be held, would avail any purpose, I wrote him, as here set out, under date December 26:

Hon. JOHN G. SARGENT,

Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice,

Washington, D. O.

SIR: Your letter of December 12 was delivered to me in this morning's mail. Its condition, when received, was ample to justify the use of the express to convey my recent communication to you. Its importance is such as to demand an immediate answer.

You state "when you were here I told you that upon the advice of the lawyers in this department having the matter in charge, conclusion had been reached that no suits should be instituted in the matter you write about, but that it would consider the matter further and would hear you."

Now, this statement from you makes an examination of the record both interesting and necessary.

In June, 1924, it was agreed with the then Solicitor General that the proceedings in re the alleged Lomas de Santiago grant should be suggested by the Land Department.

Acting under this suggestion, the petition of the petitioners was filed before the Secretary of the Interior August 20, 1924.

On December 4, 1924, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior placed before the Attorney General findings, conclusions, and a map, showing the difference between the alleged grant and the alleged survey.

The case was referred to Assistant Attorney General Wells, who was placed in charge of the proceedings and was clothed with full power and authority in the premises.

At the request of interests adverse to the petitioners, a hearing was granted by and was held before Wells on February 21, 1925.

Findings of fact were made and conclusions of law were reached by Wells and were by you approved May 20, 1925, on which day you called for a survey of the alleged grant, the Lomas de Santiago, and on the day following you discussed with me the method of procedure as soon as the survey was concluded. The only question before you after the order for the survey was one of procedure until on September 23, 1925, when you stated you intended to garner the facts in your office, go over them and the law in person, and would then hear me in behalf of the petitioners.

Having theretofore concurred in the findings of fact and conclusions of law presented by the lawyer charged with the duty and clothed with authority and thereupon ordered the survey, this announcement from you came as a great surprise to all except the knowing ones. As well it flatly contradicts your statement that you followed the advice of the lawyers in the department having the case in charge. Frankly, it was a short circuit to the confidence in you of those represented by me. But I gave them my pledge of faith in you, insisted you had a type of conscience that would not tolerate the betrayal of a public trust, or fall short in the discharge of a public duty, or withhold rights under the law in the interest of ill-gotten gains that enjoys a reputation below reproach. Now, suppose a change of cases"-what ideas would you entertain were I in your position and were you in mine?

66

You say, conclusions had been reached that no suits should be instituted, and that you so told me. This is important if true. But unfortunately it is not important.

66

On the morning of November 14 you notified me that you had to get some records from Mr. Horace H. Smith and go over them with him, and for this reason could not hear me until the latter part of the week following."

You recall the message sent by me to you which set forth the immediate necessity of my return to California, and your request shortly thereafter for me to see you in your office. It was in the afternoon of that day you heard me in behalf of the petitioners. But this was several days after their rights had been secretly betrayed.

You say the lawyers in the department who had charge of the case reached a conclusion and upon their advice you acted. It would be interesting to know the individuals in the department, entitled to an epithet indicating legal knowledge, who would lend their names to such advice. Yet the important fact is you did not do what you said on September 23 that you would do. And without doing it, you signed a document that is a reflection on integrity and an insult to intelligence.

But there remains the fact that the lawyers in the department who had charge of the case, who granted and conducted the hearing, reached a conclusion and on May 20, 1925, submitted that conclusion to you and received your approval. Your request for the survey of the alleged grant on that day is a monument to this fact.

The record as it now stands calls to mind the man of Eden who, hiding behind the abbreviated apparel of the first lady in Paradise, accounted for his conduct by a confession of his weakness.

Let us set down the facts that can not be controverted. They are, that you heard me November 14; that you continued the hearing over to November 16; that at the close of hearing on the 16th, you asked me to see one of your assistants; that he told me you closed the case November 11 and sent the files by special messenger out of the department; that he refused to show me your reasons for so doing or disclose to me what they were; that I went back to your office immediately thereafter and you had gone; that I tried to see you the day following and you were not in your office. You could not be seen. From my viewpoint, the record in my office is as follows:

On November 11 the case was closed out of your department by you. It was closed in the Department of the Interior before the petitioners knew it

117673-32- -32

had been disposed of by you. Two days thereafter the rehearing was denied in an opinion promulgated by that department. The speed with which the Secretary of the Interior closed the case and the glaring injustice that stands out in the opinion filed by the Assistant Secretary will not be here discussed. On November 19 you wrote me that on my return to the city you would arrange for the hearing desired. On December 4 I asked you if the order of the Assistant Secretary had been vacated, if the action of the Secretary had been abrogated, if jurisdiction had been restored to you. On December 12 you write and say on my return to Washington you will grant me a hearing.

But you do not answer my questions. You ignore them. Again, therefore, I ask you: Has the action of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior been set aside? Has the case been reopened by the Secretary of the Interior? Has the Land Department referred the case back to you? Have you authority to hear an argument and to pass upon facts and law? In short, is your offer to hear me on my return to Washington based upon the rock of jurisdiction? These questions are plain, pointed, and pertinent. What answer do you make? Respectfully,

WILLIAMSON S. SUMMERS, for the petitioners.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., December 26, 1925.

The Attorney General never answered and indicated the Secretary of the Interior or anyone in the Land Department had any knowledge of his proposed hearing; never said the cases had been referred back to him; never suggested the prior disposition of the cases had been or would be vacated; never intimated the proposed hearing was for that purpose; never gave an impression that jurisdiction had been restored to him; in fact, it seems the "Please advise me when you return to the city so that the hearing you desire can be arranged," in the letter of November 19, and the "I still say I will hear you and consider what you have to say," in the letter of December 12, were only idle words. They appear to be the expressions of a man who was trying to live with himself after a signal failure to do what under the law and the facts he knew it was his duty to do. I say he knew it was his duty, because on November 11, Armistice Day, he knew, the Mexican Government had never made the Lomas de Santiago grant. He knew the Mexican Government had declared not only that no Lomas de Santiago grant had been made, but that under the law no such grant could have been made. He knew, if the Mexican Government had not made the grant, that no power in this country could make it. He knew the legislative, the executive, the judicial branches of this Government, all combined could not make the Lomas de Santiago grant. He knew, if Mexico did not make it, there was no such grant. He knew, if Mexico did not make the grant, the lands described in the alleged grant were immediately before the cession by Mexico to the United States, public lands of Mexico; that immediately after the cession by Mexico to the United States, they were public lands of the United States. He knew that the lands were acquired territory by reason of a treaty engagement; that they were purchased and paid for with moneys taken out of the Treasury of the United States; that they were held by the United States as trustee for the people of the United States; that the title was in the United States as trustee for the people; that as long as the title was in the United States the Secretary of the Interior had jurisdiction; that the title could not be moved in any manner except by an act of Congress; that Congress had never made any provision for the Commissioner of the General Land Office to give 47,226.61 acres of public lands of the United States to a Mexican national eight years after he was dead.

Be advised that some time during the early part of the year 1925 Mr. Joseph Burke retired from the United States attorney's office in the southern district of California. Mr. Samuel W. McNabb was appointed. Mr. McNabb has been at all times since then and is now the United States attorney for that district. Let it be here said I have never been a party to moot court cases. When I filed the application for the exercise of supervisory action in the case of Ben McLendon and others it was believed by me that there was a Lomas de Santiago grant. When I contended before Judge Wells, then Assistant Attorney General of the United States, for a survey of the grant it was for the purpose of showing all lands outside of the grant and inside of the fabricated survey were public lands.

And here permit this added statement. When it was made known to me that no Lomas de Santiago grant had ever been made and the supreme officers of the Mexican Government had so declared, I caused certificates to that effect to be made by the proper officers of that Republic, to be delivered into my possession. These certificates show conclusively that Mexico not only did not make a Lomas de Santiago grant, but as well that under the law could not make it.

Having these certificates, I arranged for a meeting with Hon. John H. Pratt, Assistant Attorney General of the United States; Hon. Charles W. Fricke, then chief deputy in the district attorney's office, now judge of the superior court; Mr. Samuel W. McNabb, then and now the United States attorney for the southern district of California; and Mr. Lucian C. Wheeler, the then chief of the bureau of inspection for the United States, on the Pacific coast. These men met with me and I placed the certificates in their hands for inspection. As well, I placed before them and left in the possession of the United States attorney all facts, information, and assurances McLendon and others had at the time when they made their applications to homestead certain of the so-called Lomas de Santiago lands.

The agents of the Government made investigations searching and exhaustive. Their activities extended over a period of more than two years. At last on its own motion the Government dismissed the cases and exonerated the bonds. The reason in the language of the Commissioner of the General Land Office was that to try the cases would involve the title to the lands. No one knew this better than the commissioner. Well did he know to try the cases would show the lands were public lands, just as he told McLendon they were back in August, 1922.

WILLIAMSON S. SUMMERS. Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this 1st day of February, A. D., 1930.

[SEAL.]

My commission expires March 18, 1932.

EDNA W. SCHALLER,
Notary Public.

MEXICAN LAND GRANT ACTS

(U. S. Stat. L., vol. 9, p. 631)
Chapter XLI

AN ACT To ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of ascertaining and settling private land claims in the State of California, a commission shall be, and is hereby, constituted, which shall consist of three commissioners, to be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, which commission shall continue for three years from the date of this act, unless sooner discontinued by the President of the United States.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That a secretary, skilled in the Spanish and English languages, shall be appointed by the said commissioners, whose duty it shall be to act as interpreter, and to keep a record of the proceedings of the board in a bound book, to be filed in the office of the Secretary of the Interior on the termination of the commission.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to appoint an agent learned in the law and skilled in the Spanish and English languages, whose special duty it shall be to superintend the interests of the United States in the premises, to continue him in such agency as long as the public interest may, in the judgment of the President, require his continuance, and to allow him such compensation as the President shall deem reasonable. It shall be the duty of the said agent to attend the meetings of the board, to collect testimony in behalf of the United States, and to attend on all occasions when the claimant, in any case before the board, shall take depositions; and no deposition taken by or in behalf of any such claimant shall be read in evidence in any case, whether before the commissioners or before the district or Supreme Court of the United States, unless

notice of the time and place of taking the same shall have been given in writing to said agent, or to the district attorney of the proper district, so long before the time of taking the deposit on as to enable him to be present at the time and place of taking the same, and like notice shall be given of the time and place of taking any deposition on the part of the United States.

SEO. 5 And be it further enacted, That the said commissioners shall hold their sessions at such times and places as the President of the United States shall direct, of which they shall give due and public notice; and the marshal of the district in which the board is sitting shall appoint a deputy, whose duty it shall be to attend upon the said board, and who shall receive the same compensation as is allowed to the marshal for his attendance upon the district court.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the said commissioners, when sitting as a board, and each commissioner at his chambers, shall be, and are, and is hereby, authorized to administer oaths, and to examine witnesses in any case pending before the commissioners, that all such testimony shall be taken in writing, and shall be recorded and preserved in bound books to be provided for that purpose.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the board shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required, on the application of the law agent or district attorney of the United States, or of any claimant or his counsel, to issue writs of subpoena commanding the attendance of a witness or witnesses before the said board or any commissioner.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That each and every person claiming lands in California by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican Government, shall present the same to the said commissioners when sitting as a board, together with such documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses as the said claimant relies upon in support of such claims; and it shall be the duty of the commissioners, when the case is ready for hearing, to proceed promptly to examine the same upon such evidence, and upon the evidence produced in behalf of the United States, and to decide upon the validity of said claim, and within thirty days after such decision is rendered, to certify the same, with the reasons on which it is founded, to the district attorney of the United States in and for the district in which such decision shall be rendered.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That in all cases of the rejection or confirmation of any claim by the board of commissioners, it shall be and may be lawful for the claimant or the district attorney, in behalf of the United States, to present a petition to the district court of the district in which the land claimed is situated, praying the said court to review the decision of the commissioners, and to decide on the validity of such claim; and such petition, if presented by the claimant, shall set forth fully the nature of the claim and the names of the original and present claimants, and shall contain a deraignment of the claimant's title, together with a transcript of the report of the board of commissioners, and of the documentary evidence and testimony of the witnesses on which it was founded; and such petition, if presented by the district attorney in behalf of the United States, shall be accompanied by a transcript of the report of the board of commissioners, and of the papers and evidence on which it was founded, and shall fully and distinctly set forth the grounds on which the said claim is alleged to be invalid, a copy of which petition, if the same shall be presented by a claimant, shall be served on the district attorney of the United States, and, if presented in behalf of the United States, shall be served on the claimant of his attorney; and the party upon whom such service shall be made shall be bound to answer the same within a time to be prescribed by the judge of the district court; and the answer of the claimant to such petition shall set forth fully the nature of the claim, and the names of the original and present claimants, and shall contain a deraignment of the claimant's title; and the answer of the district attorney in behalf of the United States shall fully and distinctly set forth the grounds on which the said claim is alleged to be invalid, copies of which answers shall be served upon the adverse party thirty days before the meeting of the court, and thereupon, at the first term of the court thereafter, the said case shall stand for trial, unless, on cause shown, the same shall be continued by the court.

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That the district court shall proceed to render judgment upon the pleadings and evidence in the case, and upon such further evidence as may be taken by order of the said court, and shall, on