text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1659

 1608 Amount fro m con - ti ngent fund. Committee on Re- vision of the Laws. Completing District of Columbia Code. Preparation, etc ., of the laws . Ante, p. 1008. Contingent expenses. Special and Select Committees. Inaugural cer e- monies. Congressional ex- pe nses. Post, p. 2393. Joint Committee to Investigate Northern Pacific land grants. Pay of secretary, etc., to March 4, 1929. Ante, p. 886. Architect of the Capi- tol. Senate Office Build- ing. Maintenance. louse Office Build- ing. Acquiring site, etc. Ante, p. 1071 . Library of Congress. Purchase of books, etc. SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 706. 1929 . to the appropriation for printing and binding for Congress), not to exceed $2,500, to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House on the usual vouchers approved as now provided by law . Committee on Revision of the Laws : For expenses, including per- sonal services, Of completion of the Code of Laws relating to the District of Columbia, $5,848, to remain available during the fiscal year 1930 . For preparation and editing of the laws as authorized by section 10 of the Act approved May 29, 1928 (45 Stat., p. 1008), $6,500, to remain available during the fiscal year 1930 . Contingent expenses : For stenographic reports of hearings of committees other than special and select committees, fiscal year 1929, $15,000 . For expenses of special and select committees authorized by the House, fiscal year 1929, $15,000 . JOINT COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES OF 1929 To enable the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to pay the necessary expenses of the inaugural ceremonies of the President of the United States, March 4, 1929, in accordance with such program as may be adopted by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives, appointed under a concurrent resolution of the two Houses, including the pay for extra police, fiscal ye ar 1929, $4 5, 00 0 . JOINT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE NORTHERN PACIFIC LAND GRANTS Not to ex ceed $ 300 of the u nexpen ded ba lance of the approp riatio n made for expenses of the committee shall be available to compensate the secretary and special disbursing officer from July 1, 1928, to March 4, 1929, inclusive, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act. ARCHL LCT OF Tti CAPITOL Senate Office Building : For maintenance, miscellaneous items and supplies, including furniture, furnishings, and equipment, and for labor and material incident thereto and repairs thereof; and for pe rsonal and o ther s ervice s for the ca re and operat ion of the S enate Office Building, under the direction and supervision of the Senate Committee on Rules, fiscal year 1929, $8,400. House Office Building : Toward carrying out the provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the acquisition of a site and the construction thereon of a fire-proof office building or buildings for the House of Representatives," approved January 10, 1929, including not to exceed $900,000 for acquisition of a site, expenses of removal of buildings and other structures located upon the site acquired, p rinti ng an d bi nding, and misc ella neous expe nses, $2, 100,0 00, to remain available until expended. LIBRAR Y OF CO NGRESS Increase of the Library : For purchase of books for the Library, including payment in advance for subscription books and society publications, and for freight, commissions, and traveling expenses, and all other expenses incidental to the acquisition of books by pur- chase, gift, bequest, or exchange, fiscal year 1924, $33 .23.

�


text: United States v. Teschmaker

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: United States v. Teschmaker


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1660

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. C$. 706 . 1929 . BOTANIC G ARDEN Improvements : For replacing nursery stock lost on account of high water and repairing damages to overflowed land, including ditching and tiling and all expenses connected therewith, fiscal year 1929, $ 15,000 . UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BUILDING COMMISSION To enable the United States Supreme Court Building Commission to carry out the provisions of section 2 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the submission to the Congress of preliminary plans and estimates of costs for the construction of a building for the Supreme Court of the United States," approved December 21, 1928, inc luding the pr ocurement of models, $25,00 0, to remain available during the fiscal year 1930. PORTO RICAN HURRICANE RELIEF COMMISSION For the purpose of making loans to any individual coffee planter, coconut planter, fruit grower, or other agriculturist in the island of Porto Rico, $5,000,000, of which $3,000,000 shall become immediately available and $2,000,000 shall become available on January 1, 1930 ; for rebuilding and repair of schoolhouses damaged or destroyed by the hurricane in small towns and rural districts of Porto Rico, and for the employment of labor and the purchase of materials for re- pairing insular and rural municipal roads, $2,000,000 ; for purchase and distribution of seeds and seedlings, $100,000 ; and for adminis- trative expenses of the commission, $30,000 ; in all, $7,130,000, fiscal year 1929, to remain available until expended, as authorized by Public Resolution Numbered 74, approved December 21, 1928. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFF ICE OF EX PERIMENT STATIONS Salar ies and gener al expenses, O ffice of Experiment Stations (insular experiment stations) : For an additional amount to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and maintain agricultural expe rime nt s tati ons for the purp ose of r epai ring or rest orin g pr op- erty damaged or destroyed at the Porto Rico and Virgin Islands experiment stations by the hurricane of September 13, 1928, including the same objects specified under this head in the Agricultur al Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1929, $12,500. CE NTER M ARKET, DISTRIC T OF C OLUMBIA To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to continue operation of the Center Market, Washington, District of Columbia, including the same objects and purposes specified under this head in the Agri- cultural Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1929, $60,000. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE Customs statistics : For an additional amount covering the same objects and purposes specified under this head in the Act making appropriations for the Department of Commerce for the fiscal year 1929, to remain available until June 30, 1930, $10,000, of which amount not to exceed $8,000 may be expended for personal services in the District of Columbia. 1609 Botanic garden. Improvements. Supreme Co urt Building Commission. Procuring plans, etc. , for construction of building. Ante, p. 1067. Porto Rican Hurri- cane Relief C omm is- sion . M aking loans to. Repairs of schools, roads, etc. Seeds and seedlings, etc. Ante, p.1068. Department of Agri- culture. Experiment Stations Office. Repairing, etc. . bui ld- ings in Porto Rico and Virgin Islands. Center Market, D. C. Operation, etc. Ante, p. 663. Department of Com- merce. Foreign and Domes- tic Commerce Bureau. Customs statistics. Expenses of collect- ing, etc.

�


text: Talk:United States v. Teschmaker

title: Talk:United States v. Teschmaker


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1661

 1610 SEV ENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEsS. II. CH. 706. 1929. Interior Department. Solicitor's office. Per sonal serv ices. For an additional amount for personal services, fiscal year 1929, $1,720 . ro an. Indian ffairs Bu- BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS General support, etc. Support of Indians and administration of Indian property : For an additional amount for general support of Indians, including Sioux Indians, and for administration of Indian property, including pay of employees, fiscal year 1929, $30,000. Haskell Institute, For re pairin g dike s, ope ning d itches, repai ring b ridges , repa iring Kansas. riRepairing flood dam- and rebui lding fences, and so for th, at Haskel l Inst itute, Lawre nce, ages. Kansas, damaged by flood, $7,400 ; and for replacement of hay, grain, and feed destroyed by flood, $1,600 ; total, $9,000. Department of Jus- tice. Contingent expenses. C ONT ING ENT EXP ENS ES, DE PART MEN T OF JUSTICE Miscellaneous ex- pense s. For miscellaneous expenditures, including the same objects speci- fied under this head in the Act making appropriations for the Depart- ment of Justice, for the fiscal year 1924, $7 .17. For traveling and other miscellaneous and emergency expenses authorized and approved by the Attorney General, to be expended at his discretion for the fiscal years that follow For 1927, $108 .07 ; For 1928, $1,031 .88. Traveling expenses, etc. Judges. Circuit, district, and reti red. Territorial courts. Hawaii. United States courts. Commissioners, etc. Fees. R. S., sec. 1014, p. 189. U.S. Code, p.500. Bailiffs, etc. Jurors. Transfer from wi t- ness fees. Vol. 44, p. 1195 . Penal, etc ., inst itu- tions. Support of prisoners. INTERIOR D EPA RTM ENT SOLICITORS OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SALARIES OF JUDGES For salaries of circuit, district, and retired judges, including the same objects specified under this head in the Act making appropria- tions for the Department of Justice for the fiscal year 1927, $57 .92. TER RIT ORI AL COURTS Hawaii : For salaries of the chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, and judges of the circuit court of said Territory, for the fiscal years that follow For 1928, $1,583 .36 ; For 192 9, $19 ,000. EXPENSES OF UNITED STATES COURTS For fee s of U nited States commi ssione rs and justic es of the pe ace, acting under section 1014, Revised Statutes (U . S . C ., p . 506, sec. 591), fiscal year 1922, $3,400 .20. For pay of bailiffs and criers, including the same objects specified under this head in the Act making appropriations for the Depart- ment of Justice for the fiscal year 1926, $798 .07. Not to exceed $44,000 of the appropriation fees of witnesses, United States courts, 1928, may be transferred to the appropriation sees o f jurors, United S tates cou rts, 1928. PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS For support of United States prisoners, including the same objects specified under this head in the Act making appropriations for the Department of Justice for the fiscal years that follow For 1924, $208 .48 ; For 1928, $172,000.

�


text:
United States v. Teschmaker/Opinion of the Court

THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The state of the title and a brief summary of the evidence are given in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by the Attorney General and Mr. Stanton for the United States, and by Mr. Gillet for the appellees.

The counsel for the United States stated the case, both as to the nature of the title and the evidence to support it, and then summed up the whole as follows:

Claimant derives title through Salvador and Juan Antonio Vallejo.

October 11, 1838.-Salvador Vallejo and Juan Antonio Vallejo petition their brother, M. G. Vallejo, who is styled by them 'commandante general and director of colonization of this frontier,' to grant eight leagues to each of them.

March 15, 1839.-Permission to occupy they lands they petitioned for, given by M. G. Vallejo.

September 5, 1844.-Grant by Micheltorena of sixteen leagues, more or less-'La Laguna de Lup-Yomi.' Micheltorena's name is signed to the grant. No attestation by secretary, but at the foot is this:

'Note has been made of this decree in the proper book, on folio 4. In the absence of the commandante,

'FRANC'O C. ARCE.'

Salvador Vallejo testifies that he brother got leave to occupy the land from another brother. Immediately after this permission was obtained, they stocked land with horses, cattle, and hogs. Afterwards, applied to the Governor for a title; it was sent him (S. Vallejo) by a courier. Swears that a map produced is true, but don't know if it was presented to the Governor when title was asked for. Does not say that he credited the Government with $2,500, or any other sum, out of his pay.

Juan Castenada knows the ranch was granted to the two Vallejos about 1844 or 1845, and they proceeded to occupy the land immediately after the grant, namely, in 1844 or 1845; yet he admits he knows nothing about the execution of the paper, and never was on the place in his life! This swift witness testifies, without hesitation, to the handwriting of all the Vallejos, of Micheltorena, and of Arce, being all the names on all the papers.

William D. M. Howard testifies to handwriting, of Vallejo, Micheltorena, and Arce.

Salvador Vallejo (called again) testifies that he stocked the farm and built houses, &c., on land in 1842 or 1843, and solicited title from the Governor in 1843 or 1844; applied to Alcalde Jos e de la Rosa for judicial possession. Rosa was afraid of Indians. When asked what the houses cost, he answered, 'A great deal of meat and spunk.'

Jos e de la Rosa was appointed alcalde June 22, 1845; June 25, was called on by Salvador Vallejo to give judicial possession of Lup-Yomi; did not do so, merely because 'there was a large revolution among the Indians,' which continued until the middle of August; nobody killed.

Jos e Ramon Carillo testifies that the boundaries of the ranch were natural, mountain and lake; occupied by stock in 1842 or 1843.

This constitutes the whole of the evidence. It will be seen that the grant, if made at all, was made without any previous petition, investigation, reference, or report; no map; no order of concession; no registry. Arce's certificate, (or the certificate with his name to it,) that note had been taken of this title in the proper book, is false. The proper book is here, and it contains no such thing. There is not a vestige or trace of this title, or anything like it, to be found among all the records of the Department.

This title was never produced, nor its existence publicly asserted, in any way whatever, before the 25th August, 1852, when the deed from Salvador Vallejo to the claimants was acknowledged before a notary. The deed from Juan to Salvador Vallejo is dated the 30th of December, 1849, but it was not acknowledged or recorded; nor does it appear ever to have been seen by anybody but the parties.

Salvador Vallejo and Carillo, their brother-in-law, swear that there was a sort of possession in 1842 or 1843, with some improvements, which, the former witness says, cost a great deal of meat and spunk. But they do not say, and there is no reason to believe, that the title now set up was exhibited, or the land claimed under it. Juan Castenada says the possession was not taken until after the grant in 1844 or 1845.

1. The grant is illegal, for want of a petition, map, inquiry, &c.

2. It is not proved, because a grant produced from the private custody of the claimant, without any record of it among the archives, is no grant at all.

3. It is false, forged, fabricated.

If it had been really made by the Governor at the time it bears date, why was it not recorded? Why was the false note of Arce placed at the foot of it?

The bad character of the Vallejos, as well as of their principal witnesses, renders it extremely probable that all the papers, including the petition for license to occupy, the license itself, and the pretended grant from the Governor, are sheer fabrications, fraudulently got up long after the change of Government.

The chief of the Vallejos (General Mariano) was a professional witness, until his credit ran down so low that he was no longer worth calling. In the case of Luco v. the United States, it was proved that he had forged a grant; and the claim under it was rejected, on that ground alone.

Juan Castenada is a well-known professional witness. So is Francisco Arce, who falsely certifies that this grant was recorded in the proper book.

The grant is dated in September, 1844. That was the very time at which the Vallejos were banding themselves and their followers against Micheltorena, to drive him from the country, and he knew it. It is not probable that he was making grants of valuable land to them at such a time.

Mr. Gillet, for the appellees, considered the following positions to be established by the evidence in the case:

I. A grant was made by Governor Micheltorena to Salvador and Juan A. Vallejo, on the 5th of September, 1844, for the premises in question.

II. The grantees settled upon and occupied the land granted.

III. Judicial possession was not given, because the magistrate applied to was afraid of the Indians.

IV. The United States offered no evidence in this case on any point, by way of contradiction or explanation, or otherwise, but left that of the claimants wholly unquestioned.

Under such circumstances, where the claimants made distinct proof of a fact, if they swore but a single witness to prove it, they had a clear right to consider such fact sufficiently proved, and this court must so consider it.

V. No objection was raised before the board, except that the conditions subsequent had not been performed, and that the localities and boundaries were not given with sufficient definiteness, and these were removed by testimony taken in the District Court.

Each of these positions was sustained by reference to the evidence, after which Mr. Gillet proceeded to divide his argument into several points, of which only two will be reported, as being those upon which the decision of the court turned:

VI. By the laws, usages, and customs of Mexico, a grant is valid, whether the usual preliminary formalities were observed or not.

The act of 1851, (9 U.S. L., 633, sec. 1,) under which these proceedings were had, provides that the board and courts shall be 'governed by the treaty of Guadalupe IIidalgo, the law of nations, the laws, usages, and customs of the Government, from which the claim is derived, the principles of equity, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, as far as they are applicable.'

The grantees' rights are the same under the treaty and the laws of nations. Whatever rights they had, whether perfect or imperfect, full and complete or otherwise, are protected under both.

In equity, all rights, whether legal and perfect, or equitable and imperfect, are protected, and can be enforced. Congress declared that those having rights of any kind should have all the advantages that a court of equity could decree them. The rules applied in equity cases should apply in these. It is a well-settled rule that a court of equity cannot apply its powers to confirm or enforce a forfeiture, while there is another which requires it to exert them, whenever practicable, to prevent forfeitures, and to set them aside, and to relieve against them in all proper cases.

In these land cases, except where the title is a strictly legal one, the whole case is an equitable one, and the court deals exclusively in equitable principles, and enforces them. Every right which is not strictly legal is equitable, and its extent is immaterial.

The claimant shows that he has received some sort of title from the Government, and calls upon the courts, under the law of 1851, to confirm it. Here he is met by a claim of forfeiture, and, in the exercise of equity powers, the court is requested to enforce it. The law is too well settled that this cannot be done, to require the citation of authorities.

In the present case, the grant cannot be questioned. But it is objected that there were formalities usually observed which were omitted. If these were required by positive law to confer a legal title, they are not required to create an equitable one. If these had been observed, the Assembly having confirmed, the title would have been a legal title, and beyond the control of the Government, except where a third party had secured rights by denouncement for non-performance of conditions. In this case, the proof shows that everything has been done that was required by the strictest practice, if we except the presentation of a petition, &c. But there is no law declaring even the legal title void, if there was no petition; much less can it be void in equity. Something was done, and a title was given. This clearly creates an equitable right. The party received and acted upon it. He took possession and occupied under it. Is there anything to defeat this equitable right? No subsequent act is set up by the Government or a third party for that purpose. All that can be said against it is this: that it was not acquired with the formalities which are supposed to be necessary to create a complete legal right.

But no one will contend that an equitable right is invalid because it was not acquired in the same manner that is required to vest legal rights, because, if that were so, an equitable right could not be acquired at all, for all rights would then be legal rights. The very object of a court of equity is to relieve in those cases which are defective, under the strict rules of law.

Maxico did not sell her lands. She gave them away to have them used, and they were principally used for raising horses and cattle. This very grant was applied to that purpose as soon as it was safe to put cattle and horses there, and as early as Fremont took possession of the Alvarado grant. The Government got all it expected from this or any other grantee. If Mexico had not ceded to the United States, there can be no pretence that, under her usages and customs, this grant would have been held a nullity by her judicial or other authorities. No one claimed it by denouncement. If, in September, 1844, the grantee had any interest, either equitable or legal, nothing has been done by Mexico, or her grantee, the United States, to defeat or annul it. The latter could not do so. Could Governor Micheltorena, the day after making this grant, have declared it null and void, and have taken the land from the grantee, and made it a part of the public domain? Clearly not. In Reading's case, (18 How., 1, 7,) this court said: 'In other words, from our reading of these decrees, the Governor could not either directly recall a grant made by him, or indirectly nullify it, when it had been conformably with them, the laws and regulations.' If he could not, then the grant must be held to convey an interest which has not been and now cannot be taken from the grantee. When Mexico ceded to us, the power to take away a grant by denouncement ceased. There is no law by which the United States can take away lands which have been granted, or authorize any one to do so. Their rights, and those of the grantees, now stand just as they did on the day the treaty was made. If these grantees then had any right in equity, they have it now. That they then had some right, and were in the occupation of the lands under it, cannot be denied, and consequently they now have the same, and the court must confirm it.

IX. The regulations specifying preliminary steps to be taken in applications for grants are merely directory, and may be dispensed with without vitiating the grant.

The regulation of November 21, 1828, is as follows:

'2. Every person soliciting lands, whether he be an impressario, head of a family, or single person, shall address to the Governor of the respective territory a petition, setting forth his name, country, profession, the number, description, religion, and other circumstances, of the families or persons with whom he wishes to colonize, describing as distinctly as possible, by means of a map, the lands asked for.'

There is no provision declaring that the grant shall be invalid if there is no petition to the Governor, in writing, specifying the various particulars thus enumerated. Every part of these directions, including the furnishing a map, stands upon the same ground. The regulation merely directs what is deemed proper to be done, but declares no consequences if there shall be omissions. Being merely directory, if not strictly pursued, it does not affect the rights of the party receiving the grant. It is not probable that, in all the cases confirmed by this court, there is one where the petition has conformed in every particular with this regulation. By the regulation, a map is just as essential as a petition. It is a highly important document. But it appears only in a part of the cases before this court. It was not shown in Ritchie's, Arguello's, or Peralta's case, Reading's, or Fossat's, or Fremont's case. On the contrary, in the latter case the petition showed there was no map, and an excuse was offered for not presenting one. This court held that the map was not essential, and confirmed the grant made without it. In 17 How., 561, the Chief Justice said: 'According to the regulations for granting lands, it was necessary that a plan or sketch of its lines and boundaries should be presented with the petition; but, in the construction of these regulations, the Governors appear to have exercised a discretionary power to dispense with it under certain circumstances. It was not required in the present instance. The reason assigned for it in the petition was, the difficulty in preparing it, the land lying in a wilderness country, on the confines of the wild Indians. This reason was deemed by the Governor sufficient, and the grant issued without it; and in deciding upon the validity of a Mexican grant, the court could not, without doing injustice to individuals, give to the Mexican laws a more narrow and strict construction than they received from the Mexican authorities who were intrusted with their execution. It is the duty of the court to protect the rights obtained under them, which would have been regarded as vested and valid by the Mexican authorities. And, as the Governor deemed himself authorized, under the circumstances, to dispense with the usual plan, and his decision in this respect was sanctioned by the other officers intrusted with the execution of the law, it must be presumed that the power he exercised was lawful, and that the want of a plan did not invalidate the grant. The fact that the coutry where the land was situated was such a wilderness, and bordered on such dangerous neighbors, that no plan could then be prepared, is proved by these documents; and that fact, officially admitted, is worthy of consideration, when we come to the inquiry whether there was any unreasonable delay in taking possession; for, dispensing with the plan or draft on that account, which was a condition precedent, it may justly be inferred that the conditions subsequent were not expected by the Governor to be performed, nor their performance intended to be exacted, until the state of the country would permit it to be done with some degree of safety.'

Now, if the Governor can dispense with one condition precedent, or requirement of the regulation, he can with another, without rendering the title invalid in equity. The omission here is no greater than in Fremont's case, and the same indulgence must be shown.

In the United States v. Sutherland, (19 How., 363, 364,) this court said:

'In construing grants of land in California, made under the Spanish or Mexican authorities, we must take into view the state of the country and the policy of the Government. The population of California, before its transfer to the United States, was very sparse, consisting chiefly of a few military posts and some inconsiderable villages. The millions of acres of land around them, with the exception of a mission or a rancho on favored spots, were uninhabited and uncultivated. It was the interest and policy of the King of Spain, and afterwards of the Mexican Government, to make liberal grants of these lands to those who would engage to colonize or settle upon them. Where land is plenty and labor is scarce, pasturage and raising cattle promised the greatest reward with the least labor. Hence, persons who established ranchos required and received grants of large tracts of country as a range for pasturage for their numerous herds. Under such circumstances, land was not estimated by acres or arpens. A square league, or 'sitio de ganado mayor,' appears to have been the only unit in estimating the superficies of land. Eleven of these leagues was the usual extent for a rancho grant.'

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The case involved a claim to sixteen square leagues of land known by the name of 'La Laguna de Lup-Yomi,' situate north of Sonoma, in the county of Napa, California. It was presented to the board of land commissioners on behalf of the appellees, who derived their title from the two brothers, Salvador and Juan Antonio Vallejo, claiming to be the original grantees of the Mexican Government. The board rejected the claim, but, on appeal to the District Court, and the production of further evidence, that court affirmed it.

The first document produced is a petition of the two brothers, S. and J. A. Vallejo, to the senior commandant general and director of the colonization of the frontiers, for a grant of eight leagues of land each, reciting that they were desirous of establishing a ranch in the Laguna de Lup-Yomi, situate twenty leagues north of this place, (Sonoma,) which tract is uncultivated, and in the power of a multitude of savage Indians, who have committed and are daily committing many depredations; and being satisfied that the tract does not belong to any corporation or individuals, they earnestly ask the grant, offering to domesticate the Indians, and convert them by gentle means, if possible, to a better system of life. Salvador Vallejo adds, that being in actual service in quality of captain of cavalry, and not having received his pay, he proposes to apply $2,500 out of his pay for his portion of the land. This petition was dated at Sonoma, October 11th, 1838.

Under date of March 15th, 1839, the senior commandant general, M. G. Vallejo, a brother of the petitioners, accedes to their petition so far as to permit them to occupy the tract, but, for the accomplishment of the object, they must hasten to ask a confirmation from the Departmental Government, which will issue the customary titles; and, at the same time, they must endeavor to reduce the wild nature of the Indians, assuring them that the Government wishes a treaty and friendship with them.

The next document is a title, in form, granted by the Governor, Micheltorena, dated Monterey, 5th September, 1844. At the foot of the grant is a memorandum, as follows:

'Note has been made of this decree in the proper book, on folio 4.

'In the absence of the commandante,

'FRANCIS.C.. ARCE.'

The signatures of M. G. Vallejo to the permit of occupation, and of Micheltorena and F. C. Arce, the Governor and acting secretary, are genuine, if three witnesses are to be believed Castenada, W. D. M. Howard, and Salvador Vallejo, one of the original grantees. The proof of possession and occupation is slight, and not entitled to much consideration, in passing upon the equity or justice of the title, or even upon its bona fides.

This proof rests mainly upon the testimony of S. Vallejo. He was examined twice on the subject-once when the case was before the board of commissioners, and again when on appeal before the district judge. In his first examination, he states, that immediately after permission was given to occupy the ranch (March, 1839) he placed on the land about one thousand head of cattle, between three and four hundred head of horses, and from eight hundred to one thousand head of hogs; that he built a house on the land the same year, and also corrals, and left an overseer and servants in charge of the place.

In his second examination, he states, that in the year 1842 or 1843 he placed cattle on the ranch, built a hous and corrals, and in the year 1843 or 1844 received a title for the land; that he then lived on it, but was frequently absent visiting his house and lot in Sonoma, and his other farms, but always left a mayor domo on the ranch; and during this time he cultivated beans, corn, pumpkins, watermelons, &c. The last house he built on the place was about the time the country was invaded by the Americans. That during the time mentioned he had on the place from 1,500 to 2,000 head of cattle, 500 to 600 head of horses, and from 1,500 to 2,000 head of hogs. He further states, that most of his stock was subsequently stolen and driven off by the Indians and emigrants. This evidence is slightly corroborated by the testimony of Castenada and Carillo.

From the numerous cases that have already been before us, as well as from our own inquiries into the customs and usages of the inhabitants of California, especially those engaged in the business of raising cattle and other stock, this mode of occupation furnishes very unsatisfactory evidence of possession and cultivation of the land in the sense of the colonization laws of Mexico. Any unappropriated portion of the public, lands was open to similar possession and occupation without objection from the public authorities. Indeed, according to the laws of the Indies, the pastures, mountains, and waters, in the provinces, were made common to all the inhabitants, with liberty to establish their corrals and herdsmen's huts thereon, and freely to enjoy the use thereof, and a penalty of five thousand ounces of gold was imposed on every person who should interrupt this common right. (2 White's Recop., 56.)

There is also a fact stated by the witness Vallejo himself, that is calculated to excite distrust as to the extent of the possession and occupation, and for the purpose stated. He says that there were constant revolutions among the Indians at the time; that it was unsafe for families to live there, and that the alcalde at Sonoma refused to deliver him judicial possession in 1845, on account of the danger.

It is quite apparent, also, from the testimony of this witness, that the huts built for the herdsmen of the cattle were of a most unsubstantial and temporary character. No possession of any kind is shown since the cattle and other stock were carried off by the Indians and emigrants. When that took place does not appear; but doubtless as early as the first disturbances in the country, in the fore part of the year 1846.

The possession and occupation, therefore, even in the loose and general way stated, was only for a comparatively short time.

We have said that the signatures of the officers to the documentary evidence of the title are genuine, if we can believe the witnesses-Castenada, Howard, and Vallejo; but, as all of these officials were living after the United States had taken possession of the country during the war, and even after the cession by Mexico, and, with the exception of the Governor, resided in California, these signatures may be genuine, and still the title invalid. It was practicable to have made the grant in form genuine, but ante-dated.

The permit to take possession of the tract, in connection with the short and unsubstantial character of the possession, is not of much importance in making out the claim. Vallejo had no power to dispose of the public lands. We do not understand that his permission to occupy, as director of colonization on the frontiers, laid the Governor or Mexican Government under any obligations to grant the title. If followed by valuable and permanent improvements, considerations might arise in favor of a claimant that should influence a Government, when called upon to grant the property to another. We think, therefore, that the claim rests chiefly, if not entirely, upon the grant of the title by the Governor of the 4th September, 1844.

This grant stands alone. None of the usual preliminary steps pescribed by the regulations of 1828, such as the petition, marginal reference for a report as to the situation and condition of the land, report of the proper officers and minute of concesion, were observed. These, with satisfactory proof of the signatures to the papers, give some character to the grant, and tend to the establishment of its genuineness. Even the permit of Vallejo is not noticed by the Governor, nor any present occupation of the premises by the grantees.

So far, therefore, as respects the title, or even any rightful claim to the tract, it depends mainly upon proof of the signatures of Micheltorena and of F. C. Arce, the acting secretary. There is no record of the title in the proper book, shown in the case, nor exists in fact, as it is understood this book of records exists for the years 1844, 1845, and no record is there found. The memorandum, therefore, at the foot of the grant, by Arce, the secretary, 'Note has been made of this decree in the proper book, on folio 4,' is untrue. Nor has there been found any approval of the grant by the Departmental Assembly, for those records are extant, as found in the Mexican archives. These archives are public documents, which the court has a right to consult, even if no made formal proof in the case. The absence of any record evidence is remarkable, if the title is genuine, as one of the grantees, Juan Antonio Vallejo, resided at the time in Monterey, where these records were kept, and where all the formalities of a regular Mexican grant might readily have been complied with. The parties, also, were men of more than ordinary intelligence, and belong to one of the most influential Mexican families of the Territory, and doubtless well understood the regulations concerning grants of the public domain.

The non-production of this record evidence of the title, under the circumstances, is calculated to excite well-grounded suspicions as to its validity, and throws upon the claimant the burden of producing the fullest proof of which the party is capable of the genuineness of the grant. We do not say that the absence of the record evidence is of itself necessarily fatal to the proof of the title; but it should be produced, or its absence accounted for to the satisfaction of the court.

We have already said, that the genuineness of the official signatures to the paper title might be established, and yet the title forged, and stated our reasons. Proof of the genuineness of these alone can never be regarded as satisfactory. It must be carried farther by the claimant. The record proof is, generally speaking, the highest. Possession and occupation of some duration, permanency, and value, are next entitled to weight.

At least, satisfactory evidence should be required, under the circumstances in which most of these Mexican grants were made, as to make the ante-dating of any given grant irreconcilable with the proof; otherwise, there can be no protection against imposition and fraud in these cases.

The decree of the court below reversed, and the case remanded for further evidence and examination.


text: Talk:United States v. Teschmaker/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1662

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 706. 1929 . 1611 NAVY DEPARTMENT Navy Department. Navy pension fund : The Navy pension fund is hereby made avail- able for the payment of the claims, amounting to $42 .40, allow ed by the General Accounting Office in accordance with the provisions of the Act of March 29, 1918 (40 Stat ., p . 499), as set forth in House Document Numbered 464, Seventieth Congress. POST OFFI CE D EPAR TMEN T Post Office Depart. ment. OUT OF THE POSTAL REVENUES From postal reve. nues. OFFICE OF THE POST MAS TER GE NER AL Postmaster General. OFFICE OF FOURTH ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF STATE Navy pension fund. Payment of claims from. Vol. 40, p. 499. Sala ries in o ffice of Second Assistant Postmaster General. Pr ope rty damages claim s. Vol.42,p.63. U.S. Code, p.50. Salaries in bureaus and offices : For an additional amount for salaries in the office of the Second Assistant Postmaster General, fis cal ye ar 1929, $3,560. Personal or property damage claims : To enable the Postmaster General to pay claims for damages to persons or property in accord- ance with the provisions of the Deficiency Appropriation Act approved June 16, 1921 (U. S. C., p. 50, sec. 392), fiscal year 1927, $3,000.' OFFICE OF r'IRST ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL First Assistant Post- master General. For temporary and auxiliary clerk hire a nd for substit ute clerk cl erk l ip eorary, etc ., hire for clerks and employees absent with pay at first and second class post offices and temporary and auxiliary clerk hire at summer and winter resort post offices, fiscal year 1923, $182 .52. Second Assistant OFFICE OF SECOND ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL Postmaster General. Contr act Air M ail Contract Air-Mail Service : For an additional amount for the Service. inland transportation of mail by aircraft, under contract, as author- ized by law, and for the incidental expenses thereof, fiscal year 1929, Proviso. $5,000,000 : Provided, That $5,900 of this appropriation shall be avail- tr ctr°ices in the Dis able for the payment for personal services in the District of Colum- bia, incidental and travel expenses. Fourth Assistant Postmaster General. Rural Delivery Service : For pay of rural carriers, substitutes for ice Ru ral . Delivery Serv. rural carriers on annual and sick leave, clerks in charge of rural stations, and tolls and ferriage, Rural Delivery Service, and for the inci dental expens es ther eof, fi scal y ear 19 25, $ 13 .73. Department of State. D IPL OMA TIC AND CO NSU LAR sularPlomatic and con- Transporting remains of D iplomatic, Co nsular, and Fo reign Ser of offi cers fr om v- Transporting a ' from abroad. ice officers : For defraying the expenses of transporting the remains of Diplomatic, Consular, and Foreign Service officers of the United States, including the same objects specified under this head in the Act makin g appr opriat ions for th e Depa rtmen t of S tate f or the fiscal years that follow For 1927, $65 .09 ; For 1928, $138. Ch argts d'af faire s ad Salaries, charges d'affaires ad interim : For salaries of Foreign interim. Service officers or vice consuls while acting as charges d'affaires ad interim or while in charge of a consulate general or consulate during the absence of the principal officer, fiscal year 1928, $1,728 . 60 . 54835°-29-PT 1-105

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1663

 1612 SEV ENTIETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 706. 1929 . INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS International Radio- International Radiotelegra phic Conventions : For additional telegraphic Conven- tions. amoun ts for the sh are of the Uni ted States fo r the calenda r years 1927, 1928, and 1929, as a party to the international radiotelegraphic conventions heretofore signed, of the expenses of the radiotele- graphic service of the International Bureau of the Telegraphic Union at Berne as follows Fiscal year 1927, $1,777 ; Fiscal year 1928, $1,777 ; Fiscal year 1929, $1,777. International Bureau Inte rnatio nal Bu reau of Wei ghts a nd Mea sures : For a dditional u rea f Weights and Meas- amounts for the contribution to the maintenance of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, in conformity with the terms of the con ventions of M ay 20, 1875, a nd October 6, 1921, the sam e to be paid, under the direction of the Secretary of State, to said bureau on its certificate of apportionment, for the fiscal years that follow For 1928, $1,342 .50 ; For 1929, $1,342 .50. International Confer- International Conference for the Safety of Life at Sea : For the ence for the Safety of Life at Sea. expenses of participation by the United States in the International Expenses of partici- Conference for the Revision of the Convention of 1914 for the Safety gating m. Ante, p .1016. of Life at Sea, as authorized by Public Resolution Numbered 70, approved December 7, 1928, including travel and subsistence or per diem in lieu of subsistence (notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act), compensation of employees, stenographic and other services by contract if deemed necessary, rent of offices, purchase of necessary books and documents, printing and binding, printing of official visiting cards, and such other expenses as may be authorized by the Secretary of State, $90,000, to remain available until June 30, 1930. bF oreign fund e rvice Foreign Service buildings fund : For the purpose of carrying into Payments author- effec t the provisi ons of the For eign Service buildings Act, 1926 'ZVol. 44,p.403. (U. S . C ., p . 1953, sec . 295), and for each and every object thereof, U.S. Code, p.1953. including the initial alterations, repair, and furnishings of buildings heretofore required under specific authorization of Congress for the use of the diplomatic and consular establishments in foreign countries, fis cal ye ar 1929, $700, 000, t o remai n avail able u ntil ex pended. Me xic an Water Water Boundary, United States and Mexico : Any unexpended Boundary Commis- sion. balance on June 30, 1929, of the appropriation " Water Boundary, Ante p.60a ilable : United States and Mexico, 1928 and 1929," contained in the Act approved February 10, 1928 (45 Stat ., p . 60), shall continue available for the same purposes during the fiscal year 1930. United States Court for China. JUDICIAL United States Court for China : For an additional amount for compensation of the judge as provided by law for the fiscal years that follow For 1928, $166 .66 ; For 1929, $2,000. PRISONS FOR AMERICAN CONVICTS Consular prisons, etc. Available for Mo. The appropriations for " Prisons for American Convicts," for the rocco and Ethiopia. fiscal years 1928 and 1929 are hereby made available for like expenses which have been or may be incurred in Morocco and Ethiopia during those fiscal years, respectively.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1664

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Ca. 706. 1929. 1613 TREASUR Y DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE ig Refunding taxes illegally collected : For an additional amount for refunding taxes illegally or erroneously collected, as provided by law, including the payment of claims for the fiscal year 1929 and prior years, $75,000,000 : Provided, That a report shall be made to Congres s by i nterna l-reve nue di strict s, and alphab etical ly arr anged, of all disbursements hereunder in excess of $500 as required by section 3 of the Act of May 29, 1928 (45 Stat ., p . 996), including the names of all persons and corporations to whom such payments are made, together with the amount paid to each : Provided, That no part of the foregoing appropriation shall be used to pay any refund of an income or pr ofits tax pu rsuant to a c laim a llowed after the enactment of this Act in excess of $20,000 (other than payments in cases in which a suit in court or a proceeding before the Board of Tax Appeals has been or shall be instituted or payments in cases determi ned up on pre cedent s esta blishe d in de cision s of c ourts or the Board of Tax Appeals) unless a hearing has been held before a commi ttee or of fici al of the Bure au of Inte rnal Reve nue ; and the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in any such refund allowance in excess of $20,000 shall be a public record. Treasury Dep art- ment. Internal Revenue. Refunding taxes ille- gally collected. Proviso. Report to Congress of all refunds over $500. Ante, p. 996. Hearing, etc., here- after, of claim s ov er $20,000. BUREAU OF PROHIBITION Prohibition Bureau. For an additional amount for enforcement of the National Pro- hibition Act, including the same objects specified under this head in the Act making appropriations for the Treasury Department for the fiscal year 1930, fiscal years 1929 and 1930, $1,719,654, of which not exceeding $50,000 may be expended for the collection and dis- m Disemanating infor- semination of information and appeal for law observance and law enforce ment, includ ing co st of printi ng and other necess ary ex penses in conn ection there with. For the purposes of a thorough inquiry into the problem of the rnvestigationofprob- enforcement of prohibition under the provisions of the eighteenth lem of enforcement, etc. amendment of the Con stitution and laws e nacted in pursuance thereof, together with the enforcement of other laws, $250,000,` or as much thereof as may be required, to be expended under authority and by direction of the President of the United States, who shall Report to Congress report the result of such investigation to the Congress together with withrecommendations. his recommendations with respect thereto. Said sum to be available for the fiscal years of 1929 and 1930 for each and every object of expenditure connected with such purposes notwithstanding the pro- visions of any other Act. Addit ional amount for enforcing law. Federal Farm Loan FEDERAL FARM LOAN BUREAU Bureau. Salaries and expenses : For an additional amount for salaries and expenses of the Federal Farm Loan Bureau, including the same objects specified under this head in the Act making appropriations for the Treas ury De partme nt for the f iscal y ear 19 29, $7 1,500, pay- able from assessments upon Federal and joint-stock land banks and Proviso. Federal intermediate credit banks : Provided, That, at the request Expenses, destruo- of the Federa l Farm Loan Board, whene ver in its op inion the ex pense tion of paid b onds, etc. will be reduced thereby, the work in Washington incident to the verification for destruction of paid and canceled intermediate credit bank debentures, farm-loan bonds and coupons thereof, may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, be performed by the office of the Register of the Treasury, and the appropriation from salaries and expenses.

�


text:
User:Ineuw/notes1

greek

c

←

hebrew
hebrew plain text font = אדם

hebrew template he =

variations of quotation marks to be added to the character table
145	8216	0x91	U+2018

’	146	8217	0x92	U+2019	’	right single quotation mark

“	147	8220	0x93	U+201C	“	left double quotation mark

”	148	8221	0x94	U+201D	”	right double quotation mark

"	chr(0x0020)

'	chr(0x0027)

‛	chr(0x201B)

＂	chr(0xFF02)

＇	chr(0xFF07)

&    chr(0x0026)

half space

thin space

& = &#x0026

< = &#x003c

> = &#x003e

operators
$$ = + - \times \div $$

underbrace
$$\underbrace\,$$

\scriptstyle
$$\scriptstyle \sqrt 300^2 + 400^2$$, or 500 miles a second.

\tfrac
$$ M : m = \tfrac {R^3}{T^2} : \tfrac {r^3}{t^2};$$

\left ( \right)
$$ \scriptstyle {R^3} = {r^3} \left ( \tfrac {T^2}{t^2} \right ) \left ( \tfrac {M}{m} \right )$$;

$$ \left ( \tfrac {1162}{160} \right ) $$

$$ \left ( = 2 \times {10^{11}} \right ) $$

$$(a|b)^*a\underbrace{(a|b)(a|b)\cdots(a|b)}_{k-1\text{times}}. \,$$

math fractions
$$\tfrac {1}{15000}$$ to $$\tfrac {1}{2000}$$

subscript
$$C_6H_12O_6 = 2C_2H_6O + 2CO_2$$

superscript and subscript
R = Awv2/g OR v= Rg/Aw

with \superscript
$$R = \frac {A w v^2} {g}$$ or $$\scriptstyle v = \sqrt \frac {Rg} {Aw}$$

and fractions
$$\frac {Rv}{2}$$,

and \sqrt
$$T = \frac {\pi \sqrt PC} {A}$$,

superscript and subscript and frac template
23/1000000 $23/1000000$

\scriptstyle and fractions
$$\scriptstyle\frac {23}{1000000}$$

$$R = \frac {A w v^2} {g}$$ or $$\scriptstyle v = \sqrt \frac {Rg} {Aw}$$

and \sqrt
$$\scriptstyle \sqrt -1$$

frac, sfrac, over
$23/1000000$

$2/3$

$$$$ and \mathrm
Latex for math tag

$$\mathrm{(H^{+}+Cl^{-})}+\mathrm{(Na^{+}+OH^{-})}=\mathrm{(Na^{+}+Cl^{-})}+\mathrm{HOH}$$;

$$ \left ( \alpha - \Beta \right ) / \left ( \Beta - \gamma \right ) $$

 and \overset
\overset{^+}{H} + \overset{^-}{Cl}

book structure

 * Half Title
 * Frontispiece
 * Title Page
 * Copyright Page
 * Dedication
 * Acknowledgments
 * Table of Contents
 * Foreword
 * Preface or Introduction, or both
 * Body matter
 * Glossary
 * Bibliography
 * Index

title: User:Ineuw/notes1


text:
United States v. Pico (63 U.S. 406)

THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The state of Pico's title is mentioned in the opinion of the court, and need not be repeated.

The case was argued by the Attorney General and Mr. Stanton for the United States, and by Mr. Gillet for the appellee. It was very similar to the preceding case of Teschmaker.

The Attorney General's statement of the evidence and argument upon it was as follows:

This is a claim for eleven leagues of land called Moquelemos, which the claimant alleges, in his petition to the board of commissioners, was granted to him by his brother, Pio Pico, in the month of May, 1844, and confirmed to him in June, 1846. The land lies on the Moquelemos river, in what is now the county of Calaveras.

The documentary evidence of title produced by the claim is:1. A grant signed by Pio Pico, and countersigned by Jos e Matias Moreno, describing the land in question, dated at the city of Los Angeles, on the 6th day of June, 1846.

2. A paper headed 'Departmental Assembly of California,' and signed Narciso Botello, deputy secretary, addressed to Secretary Moreno, in which the fact is stated, that this grant, and others which are named, were approved by the Departmental Assembly in that day's session.

NOTE.-The date of this paper (July 15, 1846) is certainly the date which it truly bears. It is so in all the records, the original Spanish as well as the translations.

3. A paper signed by Pio Pico and Jos e Matias Moreno, dated June 15, 1846, setting forth that the most excellent Departmental Assembly, 'in session of to-day,' decreed the approval of the grant in question.

This is all the documentary evidence in the case. There is no petition, order of reference, information, decree of concession, map, or copy of the grant, found among the archives. No map or diseno of the land was exhibited to the court below, or is to be found upon the record sent here. There is no registry nor any kind of entry upon any book. The grant was produced from the private custody of the grantee himself. So, it appears, was the certificate of Pico and Moreno, that it had been approved by the Departmental Assembly. Judge Hoffman distinctly declares that the only paper found in the archives is the communication of Botello, transmitting the title deed, and asserting its approval. Who placed that paper upon the record, and how or when it came there, are questions not easily solved. That it did not get there honestly, will be very apparent to the court, long before this examination is finished.

No proof was offered of the genuineness of the paper with Botello's name to it, and found among the archives. But, to show that the other two papers, which were produced from the private custody of the claimant, were not forgeries—

Nicholas H. Den was called, who testified that he knew the handwriting of Pico and Moreno, ant that their signatures to these two papers were genuine.

On this evidence, the board rejected the claim, declaring that, in its opinion, the proofs and exhibits were insufficient to establish its validity. An appeal was taken by the claimant to the District Court, where the claimant called—

Charles M. Weber, who states that the boundaries of the land described in the grant can be identified. In the fall of 1848, he learned, for the first time, that Pico had a claim to this land, which adjoins that of the witness. He made a gift to Pico of some small improvements that he had made on the land. He knows of no stock that Pico ever had on the land.

Daniel Murphy says that, in 1848, he saw Pico on the land, with some twenty men and some horses. The witness himself afterwards had about 1,000 head of cattle upon it, and Pico allowed him to occupy it with about 1,500 more; was on the ranch, with Pico's consent, about eighteen months.

This was absolutely all the evidence in the case. No proof of the documents was made by the testimony of the persons whose names were signed to them. Neither the Governor himself nor the countersigning secretary was called. Nobody swore even to their handwriting, except Nicholas H. Den. There was no evidence that the claimant ever had any possession; and his nearest neighbor, the owner and occupant of the adjoining tract, not only knew of no possession, but never even heard of the claim until after the discovery of the gold mines, and the commencement of the city of Stockton in the neighborhood. With this illegal and insufficient evidence of the documents, which the claimant had kept in his pocket without any evidence of possession or even claim, and without producing from the record a single entry to corroborate the allegation of the grant, he had boldness enough to demand a decree confirming his title and allowing his claim. The judge manifestly did not believe that the grant was a genuine one. He felt that the whole thing was a fabrication, but, in his opinion, he was bound to treat it as genuine, because Nicholas H. Den was unimpeached and uncontradicted, and he had declared it to be his opinion that the signatures of Pico and Moreno were written by themselves. But he adds, that any one acquainted with the facility and unscrupulousness with which, in this class of cases, frauds have been committed, and sustained by testimony apparently conclusive, a grant, unsupported either by evidence from the archives or by proof of occupation of the land, must appear suspicious. He then adds what seems to have finally determined him in favor of allowing the claim. He says, in the case at bar, a document is found in the archives, which affords the best, if not the only, moral evidence of the genuineness of the grant.

The objections which the Government now makes to the affirmance of this decree are those which follow:

1. The grant is made by the Governor to his own brother, and is therefore void.

2. It is void, because Pio Pico, at the time of making it, had no authority, jurisdiction, or power, to make any grant in this case, for want of a petition, investigation, and map, such as the laws of 1824 and 1828 require in all such cases.

3. There is no record evidence of the grant, nor any explanation furnished of its absence, and therefore it is, to all intents and purposes, the same as if no evidence at all of it had been given.

4. It is a forgery. The proof of this is powerful and overwhelming. It is not possible to furnish any reason why the grant was not entered upon the record, if it was really made at the time it bears date. In addition to that, the journals of the Departmental Assembly furnish very strong circumstantial evidence against the genuineness of this title.

It will be observed that the letter of Botello to Moreno is dated on the 15th of July, and it accompanies the title deeds of this and two other claims. The letter, as well as the deeds, professes to be sent for the information of his Excellency the Governor; and if there is any truth in that letter, the Governor could have had no information of it at any earlier period than its date. Yet we find the Governor's certificate, which purports to be extracted from the minutes of the Departmental Assembly, is dated on the 15th of June, just a month earlier than Botello says it was approved. These certificates, if actually signed by the parties whose names are attached to them, were made long after their date, and at a time when the parties who concocted the fraud supposed that the journals of the Assembly had been irrecoverably lost. But these journals have been found, are in the archives, have been fully authenticated, and they show that no such grant as this to Andres Pico was before the Assembly, either on the 15th of June, or on the 15th of July, or on any other day. The journal contains a very full account of everything that was done by the Assembly, especially with reference to land grants. The whole proceedings of the body on the 15th of June are given, and not a word is said about the approval of this or any other land title. On the 15th of July, no session was held. There was an adjournment from the 8th of July to the 24th of the same month, which was the last day that the Departmental Assembly ever met. The journal affords the strongest reason to believe that Pio Pico was not at Los Angeles, where both the grant and his certificate of approval are dated, at the times when they respectively bear date. Pio Pico met the Assembly, and was in his seat, as President, on the 3d of June. The journal says that, upon that day, a communication was received from the Commandante General, in which Fremont's invasion was mentioned, and the General requested the presence of his Excellency the Governor. At the next meeting of the body, Francisco Figueroa presided, Pio Pico being absent. On the 15th of June, Figueroa presided again. On the 1st of July, an official communication from his Excellency the Governor was read, dated at Santa Barbara on the 23d of June, transmitting copies of certain documents from the districts of the north, and expressing his Excellency's desire to have this honorable body near him, in order to consult with it upon the management and means of saving the country. Another document was also read from his Excellency, dated June 29, with an invitation to the Assembly to repair without delay to Santa Barbara, to enact the necessary measures to save the Department and chastise the invaders, making it [the Assembly] responsible before God and the nation, if it should neglect to go to that point. At all the subsequent meetings of the Legislature, Figueroa continued to be President, down to the session of July 8, 1846; and at an extra session on the 24th of July, being the last day of the Assembly's existence, Pio Pico was present. Inasmuch as he was, upon the 3d of June, requested to go to Santa Barbara, where the Commandante General was stationed, and as we see no more of his name upon the journals from that time until the 8th of July, it may reasonably be supposed that he left on the 3d of June, or immediately afterwards, in pursuance of the summons sent to him by the General. This very safe presumption will contradict the allegation that he issued a grant to his brother on the 6th of June; and it is very certain from the journals, that he was not at Los Angeles on the 15th of June, the date of his pretended certificate of approval. On the 15th of July, there was no session at all, and that makes it certain that Botello's certificate is false, from beginning to end.

The argument of Mr. Gillet in the preceding case was applicable to this, and, in addition to the points therein reported, the following is now added, because it contains references to the former decisions of this court.

6. It is to be presumed that Governor Pico performed his duty in relation to the necessary preliminaries of this grant, until the impeaching party proves to the contrary.

In all official transactions, it is a universal rule, that the officer is presumed to have conformed to his official duty. Whoever disputes it, must make his proof, or be silent. In this case, we insist that this rule must be applied, If the law required the Governor to grant only on receiving petitions, making references and receiving reports, then it is to be presumed that all this was done. But references and reports are optional matters with him, and are not required unless he chooses. The legal presumption is, that he received a petition, if that was necessary, before the grant; and there is no evidence that he did not receive one, nor was this questioned below. All that can be said is, that the claimant did not produce and prove it on the trial below. If such evidence were necessary to make the grant a legal one, still it was not required to establish the equitable right, which can be proved without proving a full legal right.

This presumption is really sustained by strong, if not conclusive proof. The Governor says, in the grant, that the grantee, 'a Mexican by birth, has solicited, for his personal benefit and that of his family, the land known, &c., * * * having first made the necessary inquiries and investigations according to the requisitions of the laws and regulations,' &c. Those who deny that there was an application, cannot sustain their position without charging the Governor with asserting a falsehood, as well as omission of duty.

It is insisted on the other side that this statement of the Governor in the grant is no evidence of the fact alleged. This is an error. Even in case of private individuals, their statements, in notes, bonds, contracts, and deeds, are taken as true among themselves, and can in but few cases be disputed. But where an officer of Government makes a recital, stating that he has performed certain things required by law in the premises, such recitals are, unless otherwise provided by statute, taken and deemed to be true. The recitals by a sheriff in a deed, when he sells and conveys on execution, are always deemed to be true. The recitals by a magistrate in a writ, that an affidavit was made on which he issued the writ, are taken to be true. When the President recites, in a proclamation or order, that certain things have occurred, they are always taken as true. In cases of an insurrection, or compliance or non-compliance with a treaty, this court has so held.

The production of a commission signed by the President, reciting that the Senate had consented to the appointment, is conclusive of the fact recited, and is also evidence that the President had made the nomination. His signature to a land patent is conclusive upon the Government, of the recitals it contains. It is evidence of the survey, and that (except in pre-emption cases) the land had been offered at public sale, without which it could not be granted. The recital that money had been paid under the act of 1820, or that the grantee or his assignor was entitled to bounty land, cannot be questioned by the Government. It is the same in the recitals in patents to half-breed Indians. The recitals in a land claim confirmed by this court cannot be disputed by the grantor or grantee, or those claiming under either, by subsequent conveyance. Those who dispute these recitals, where not estopped, must prove their allegations.

It is a rule of nearly universal application, that the recitals by official personages, in papers made and issued in the line of their duty, are deemed and taken to be true. Public business could not be carried on without allowing such presumptions to prevail. The rule is as applicable to a California Governor in making a land grant, as to any other official person. His recital that there was an application, &c., is just as much to be relied upon as that in which he states that the grantee was a Mexican, or naturalized citizen, or of the secretary that the grant had been recorded or confirmed by the Assembly.

In Fremont's case, the recitals in the grant were treated as true and highly important. The Chief Justice said: 'But the grant, after reciting that Alvarado was worthy, for his patriotic services, to be preferred in his pretensions for his personal benefit and that of his family, for the tract of land known by the name of Maroposas, to the extent of ten square leagues, within certain limits mentioned in the grant, and that the necessary requirements, according to the provisions of the laws and regulations, had been previously complied with, proceeds, in the name of the Mexican nation, to grant him the aforesaid tract, declaring the same by that instrument to be his property in fee, subject to the approbation of the Departmental Assembly, and the conditions annexed to the grant.'

17 Howard, 558.

'And the grant was not made merely to carry out the colonization policy of the Government, but in consideration of the previous public and patriotic services of the grantee. This inducement is carefully put forth in the title papers.' Id.

He further said: 'It (consideration of personal merit) is an acknowledgment of a just and equitable claim.'

Here the argument of the Chief Justice rested on this point wholly upon what the Governor recited in the grant or title papers. The Chief Justice also, at page 562, speaks of the fact of the inability to furnish a map being 'officially admitted' by the Governor.

In Reading's case, Mr. Justice Wayne disposed of certain points made by the Attorney General by referring to and adopting as true certain facts recited in the grant. He said:

'But the fact of Reading's Mexican naturalization is not an open question in this case. The record admits the regularity and genuiness of his documentary title for the land. The admission is good for all the necessary recitals in them, as it is for the main purpose for which they were inserted in those documents. That was a grant of the land. The recitals are those 'requisite conditions' stated in the second and third paragraphs of the decree of November 21, 1828, concerning which the Governor is enjoined to seek information, which, when affirmatively ascertained, make the foundation of the Governor's exercise of his power to grant vacant lands.'

'In his petition for a grant, Reading says he is a native of the United States, and had resided in the country since the year 1842. The Governor states him to be a Mexican by naturalization in the grant, and 'that as the proper proceedings and investigations had been previously complied with according to the provisions and laws and regulations concerning the matter,' he, in virtue of the authority vested in him, grants the petitioner the land known as Buena Ventura. * * * Now, this is not merely the language of clerical formality, though it might be the same from usage in like cases, but it is a declaration of the Governor's official and judicial conscience, that his power to make the grant has been used in a fit case for the approval of the Departmental Assembly, or for the decision of the Supreme Executive Government, in case the action of the Assembly should make it necessary for him to carry it there for its decision. We consider it conclusive of the fact of the petitioner's Mexican naturalization, precluding all other inquiries about it, in our consideration of this case, by the record.'

18 Howard, 8, 9.

When Spanish and Mexican agents state that they hold certain offices, and are authorized to make grants, their averments thus made are taken to be true, and so this court has held. In Peralta's case, this court, by Justice Grier, said:

'We have frequently decided that the public acts of public officers, purporting to be exercised in their official capacity, and by public authority, shall not be presumed to be usurped, but that a legitimate authority had been previously given, or subsequently ratified. To adopt a contrary rule would lead to infinite confusion and uncertainty of titles. The presumption arising from the grant itself makes it prima facie evidence of the power of the officer making it, and throws the burden of proof on the party denying it. The general powers of the Governors and other Spanish officers to grant lands within the colonies in full property, and without restriction as to quantity, and in reward for important services, were fully considered in this court in the case of the United States v. Clarke, 8 Peters, 436.'

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Pico (63 U.S. 406)


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1665

 1614 SEVENTI ETH C ONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 706. 1929 . Treas urer' s Off ice. H. Theodore Tate. Payment to The Secretary of the Treasu ry is authoriz ed and direct ed to pay under recess appoint- to H. Theodore Tate salary as Treasurer of the United States at the ment. rate of $8,000 per annum from June 1, 1928, to January 17, 1929, both date s inclusive, f rom appropria tions heretof ore provided f or salaries of the Office of the Treasurer of the United States, fiscal years 1928 and 1929, the provisions of section 1761 of the Revised Statutes to the contrary notwithstanding. R.S.,sec.1761,p.313. U.S.Code,p.31. Bureau of the Mint. Lincoln Ellsworth. Gold medal to. Post, p. 2026. Thomas A. Edison. Gold medal to. Ante, p. 1012. Superv ising Arch i- tect 's Office. Public buildings. Contractors. Payment of claims, for work under war conditions. Vol. 41, pp. 281, 507. Rent of temporary quarters, D. C. G ove rnme nt build- ings D. C. l odelofproposed,in the triangle. Ante, p.1045. Supreme Court Building. Acquisition of site . Vol. 44, pp. 631,1254. War Department. Volunteer Soldiers' Home. Santa Monica, CaSf. Building construc- tion. which salaries of employees in the office of the Register of the Treasury are paid may be reimbursed from this appropriation for the actual expense of such work. OF FICE O F TREAS URER OF THE U NITED S TATES BUREAU OF THE MINT For carrying out the provisions of the Act entitled "An Act awarding a gold medal to Lincoln Ellsworth," approved May 29, 1928 (45 Stat ., pt . 2, p . 326), fiscal year 1929, $2,380. For carrying out the provisions of the public resolution entitled, "Joint resolution to provide for the striking of a medal commemora- tive of the achievements of Thomas A . Edison, in illuminating the path of progress through the development and application of inven- tions that h ave revolutio nized civiliz ation in the l ast century," approved May 29, 1928 (45 Stat ., p. 1012), fiscal year 1929, $1,000 . OIr1CE OF THE SUPERVISING ARCHITECT PUBLI C BUILD INGS Relief of contractors : For an additional amount for the payment of the balance due on an approved claim of a contractor arising under the Act entitled "An Act for the relief of contractors and subcontracto rs for the po st offices an d other buildi ngs, and work under the supervision of the Treasury Department, and for other purposes," approved August 25, 1919, as amended (41 Stat . pp . 281, 507), fiscal year 1928, $606 .46. Rent of temporary quarters : For an additional amount for rent of temporary quarters for the accommodation of Government officials and moving expenses incident thereto, and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to enter into leases for this purpose for periods not exceeding three years, fiscal year 1 929, $225 ,000 . Model showing proposed Government buildings : For payment for model of proposed buildings in the triangle, District of Columbia, including subsequent changes, together with stand and protective covering, fiscal year 1929, $15,000. Supreme Court Building : For acquisition of a site for a building for the Supreme Court, in addition to the appropriation heretofore made, $268,741. WAR DEPARTMENT-NONMILITARY ACTIVITIES NATIO NAL ROME FOR DISA BLED VOL UNTEER SOLDIERS Pacific Branch : For the construction and installation of four 3-story barrack buildings, and utilities and appurtenances thereto, including two mess halls with dormitories, kitchen, heating facili- ties, furnitur e, equipment, and accessori es, and inclu ding not to exceed $55,000 for repairs to existing buildings, $1,050,000, and in addition thereto the Board of Managers is authorized to enter into a contract or contracts for such purposes for not to exceed $305,000.

�


text: Talk:United States v. Pico (63 U.S. 406)


text:
United States v. Pico (63 U.S. 406)/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The appellee presented to the board of commissioners a claim for eleven square leagues of land, known by the name Moquelamos, situate in the county of Calaveras, California. The board rejected the claim; but, on appeal to the District Court, and the production of some further proof, that court affirmed it.

The preliminary proceedings required by the regulations of 1828, before a grant of the public lands, were not produced, if any existed. The only evidence of the title is a grant of the tract by a formal title to the claimant, dated Los Angeles, 6th June, 1846, signed by the Governor, Pio Pico, and J. M. Moreno, the Secretary of State, and two other papers, relied on as furnishing proof that the grant was approved by the Departmental Assembly. One of them is a certificate to that effect of the Governor and Secretary, bearing date 15th June, 1846; the other purports to be a communication from N. Botello, deputy secretary of the Departmental Assembly, of the approval, to Moreno, Secretary of State, for the information of the Governor. This approval, according to the deputy secretary of the Assembly, was in a session held on the 15th July, 1846. The paper was found among the Mexican archives.

The other documents-the grant and certificate of approval came from the hands of the claimant. No record of them was found among the Mexican archives or in any book, nor is there any evidence of possession or occupation deserving notice or consideration.

The case falls within the principles and is governed by the views of the court in the case of the United States v. Teschmaker and others, decided at this term. Besides the suspicious character of the grant, it appears to be wholly destitute of merit.

The decree below reversed, and the case remanded for further evidence.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1666

 SEVEN TIETH CONG RES S. SEss. II. CH. 706. 1929 . 1615 JUDGMENTS, UNITED STATES COURTS Judg ments, 'U ni ted States courts . For payment of the final judgments and decrees, including costs voiz4 P. 505 ; vol. of suits, which have been rendered under the provisions of the Act 36, p.1137. of March 3, 1887, entitled "An Act to provide for the bringing of 89s 938. Code, pp. 867, suits aga inst the Gover nment of the United States ," as amended by the Judicial Code, approved March 3, 1911 (U. S. C., p. 867, par. 20 ; p . 898, sec . 258 ; p . 938, sets. 761-765), certified to the Seventieth Congress, in House Document Numbered 463, under the following Classification. departments and establishments, namely : United States Veterans Bureau, $6,042 .33 ; Department of the Interior, $4,747.55 ; Depart- ment of Labor, $6,652 .56 ; Navy Department , $10,707 .7 5 ; War Department, $9,457 .14 ; in all, $37,607.33, together with such addi- tional sum as may be necessary to pay interest on the respective Interest. judgments at the rate o f 4 per centu m from the da te thereof unt il the time this appropriation is made. For the payment of judgments, including costs of suits, rendered etc ollisi°" damages, against the Government of the United States by United States Vol . 43, p. 1112. district courts under the provisions of an Act entitled "An Act authorizing suits against the United States in admiralty for damage caused by and salvage services rendered to public vessels belonging to the United States, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1925 (U. S. C., p. 1529, sets. 781- 789), c erti fied to the Seve ntie th C on- U.SS code, p.152s. gress in House Document Numbered 46 2, under the following departments, namely : Department of Commerce, $26,217 .2 3 ; Navy Department, $8,704.08 ; Treasury Department, $5,428 . 24 ; in all, $40,349 .55, together with such additional sum as may be necessary to pay interest as and where specified in such judgments . For pa yment of the judg ments render ed aga inst the Go vernme nt California northern C b~y the U nited States D istrict Court for the Nort hern District of sealing Losses . California under the provisions of the Act approved June 7, 1924 (U . S. C ., p . 870, sec. 52), and certified to the Seventieth Congress in Senate Document Numbered 192, and House Document Numbered 473, as follows : Under the Treasury Department, $377,566 .23. For payment of the judgment rendered against the Government tr° ginia eastern dis- by the United States district court for the Eastern District of Housing Corporation. Virginia under the provisions of the Act approved March 3, 1927 Vol. 44, p. 1846. (44 Stat., pt . 3, p . 1846), and certified to the Seventieth Congress in House Document Numbered 4 60, unde r the Navy Departmen t, $6,363 .98. For payment of the judgments, including costs of suits, rendered v ate the G overnment by United States district cour ts under the provisions of certain special Acts and certified to the Seventieth Congress in Senate Document Numbered 193, under the following departments, namely : Navy Department, $47,870.51 ; War Depart- ment, $1,886 .20 ; in a11, $49,756 .71. None of the judgments contained under this caption shall be paid Right of appeal. until the right of appeal shall have expired except such as have become final and conclusive against the United States by failure of the parties to appeal or otherwise. Payment of interest wherever provided for judgments contained Interest. in this Act shall not in any case continue for more than thirty days after the date of approval of the Act. JUDGMENTS, COURT OF CLAIMS Claim court of For payment of the judgments rendered by the Court of Claims Pa yment of. and reported to the Seventieth Congress in Senate Document Num- bered 194, and House Document Numbered 465, under the following departments, namely : Department of the Interior, $100,000 ; Navy classification.

�


text: Talk:United States v. Pico (63 U.S. 406)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1667

 1616 Interest. None final until ex- pirat ion of time for writ of certiorari. Vol.43,p.939. U.S. Code, p. 900. Audited Claims. Payment of, certified by General Accounting Office. Vol. 18, p. 110. U. S. Code, p.1022. Vol. 23, p. 254. U.S. Code, p.43. Senate. Independent offices. District of Columbia. Department of Agri. culture. SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 706. 1929 . Department, $340,383 .61 ; Treasury Department, $8,343 .89 ; War Department, $1,369,608 .36 ; in all, $1,818,335 .86, together with such additional sum as may be necessary to pay interest on certain of the judgments at the legal rate per annum as and where specified in said judgments. None of the judgments contained under this caption which have not been affirmed by the Supreme Court or otherwise become final and conclusive against the United States shall be paid until the expiration of the time within which application may be made for a writ of certiorari under subdivision (b) section 3, of the Act entitled "An Act to amend the Judicial Code, and to further define the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of appeals and of the Supreme Co urt, and for o ther purpo ses, " app roved Feb ruary 13, 1925 (U . S . C., p. 900, sec. 288). AUDITED CLAIMS SEC. 2. That for the payment of the following claims, certified to be due by the General Accounting Office under appropriations the balances of which have been carried to the surplus fund under the provisions of section 5 of the Act of June 20, 1874 (U. S. C., p. 1022, sec. 713), and under appropriations heretofore treated as permanent, being for the service of the fiscal year 1926 and prior years, unless otherwise stated, and which have been certified to Congress under section 2 of the Act of July 7, 1884 (U. S. C., p. 43, sec. 266), as fully set forth in House Document Numbered 468, Seventieth Congress, there is appropriated as follows LEG ISLATI VE For co ntinge nt exp enses, Senat e, mis cellane ous it ems, $ 725 .8 7. INDEPENDENT OFFICES For s alari es an d ex pense s, of fice of A lien Prope rty Custo dian, $61 .81 . For salaries and expenses, Board of Tax Appeals, $4. For contingent expenses, Civil Service Commission, $30 .25. For expenses, Commission of Fine Arts, $1 .93. For housing for war needs, $2,939 .03. For Interstate Commerce Commission, $7 .26. For Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, $1 .18. For United States Tariff Commission, $34 .16. For increase of compensation, Veterans' Bureau, $410. For medical and hospital services, Veterans' Bureau, $5,229 .96. For salaries and expenses, Veterans' Bureau, $84.45. For vocational rehabilitation, Veterans' Bureau, $3,773 .86. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA For fees of witnesses, Supreme Court, District of Columbia, $18. The preceding audited claims shall be paid wholly out of the reve- nues of the District of Columbia. DE PAR TME NT OF AGRI CUL TUR E For general expenses, States Relations Service, $42 .38. For general expenses, office of experiment stations, $4 .35. For general expenses, Weather Bureau, $38 .74. For general expenses, Bureau of Animal Industry, $11 .76.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1668

 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 706. 1929. 1617 For salaries and expenses, Bureau of Plant Industry, $24.25. For botanical investigations and experiments, $125. For general expenses, Forest Service, $1,503 .37. For general expenses, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, $948 .27 . For general expenses, Federal Horticultural Board, $17 .30 . DEP ARTME NT OF COMM ERCE For expenses of the Fourteenth Census, $24.20. For commercial attaches, Department of Commerce, $1,417.07. For promoting commerce, Department of Commerce, $2,504 .74. For promoting commerce in the Far East, $7 .16. For contingent expenses, Steamboat Inspection Service, $2.15. For general expenses, Bureau of Mines, $9 .49. For general expenses, Bureau of Standards, $9 .28. For party expe nses, Coast a nd Geodetic S urvey, $ 44 .4 9. For gene ral expe nses, Li ghth ouse Ser vice , $18 .92. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR For contingent expenses, Department of the Interior, $2.38 . For Geological Survey, $5 4 .16. For education of natives of Alaska, $35 .75. For medical relief in Alaska, $22.94. For Saint Elizabeths Hospital, $17.50. For Army pensions, $205 .33. For general expenses, Indian Service, $2 .76. For purchase and transportation of Indian supplies, $509.12. For equalizing allotments, Chickasaw freedmen, Five Civilized Tribes, $8 .40. For w ater s upply, Nava jo and Hopi Indian s, Ar izona, $48 . For irrigation project, Gila River Reservation, Arizona (reim- bursable), $30. For Indian schools, support, $809 .40. For Indian boarding schools, $69 .63. For relieving distress and prevention, and so forth, of diseases among Indians, $253 .41. For support and civilization of Indians, $66 .50. For support of Indians in California, $5.10. For support of Indians in New Mexico, $ 7. 20 . For support of Northern Cheyennes and Arapahoes, Montana, $166 .50. D EPART MENT OF JU STICE Depa rtmen t of Com- merce. Inte rior Depar tment. For contingent expenses, Department of Justice, miscellaneous t; Department of items, $21.57. For printi ng and bind ing, D epartm ent of Just ice an d cour ts, $194.50. For detection and prosecution of crimes, $10 .85 . For salaries, fees, and expenses of marshals, United States courts, $3,294 .11 . For pay of special assistant attorneys, United States courts, $3,500. For salaries and expenses of clerks, United States courts, 43 cents. For fees of commissioners, United States courts, $39 .80 . For fees of jurors, United States courts, $10. For f ees of witnes ses, Un ited St ates c ourts, $74.50. For mis cellaneous ex penses, United States court s, $126.87. For supplies for United States courts, $142.50. For support of prisoners, United States courts, $149.55.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1669

 1618 SEVENTI ETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 706. 1929 . DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DepartmentofLabor. For miscellaneous expenses, Bureau of Labor Statistics, $4 .14. For expenses of regulating immigration, $89 .51. NAVY DEPARTMENT Navy Depa rtment. Department of State. Treasury Depart- ment. For pay, mis cell aneo us, $28,299 .71. For transportati on, Bureau of Navigation $2,140.82 . For organizing the Naval Reserve Force, 1,260.23. For engineering, Bureau of En gineering, $1,301 .07 . For construction and repair, Bureau of Cons truction and Repair, $110 .32 . For ordnance and ordnance stores, Bureau of Ordnance, $22,417 .20. For pay of the Navy, $8,509 .81. For provisions, Navy, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, $88 .40. For maintenance, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, $905 .60. For freight, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, $280 .22 . For Medical Department, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, $12,907 .25 . For contingent, Bureau of M edicine and Su rgery, $833 .50 . For bringing home remains of officers, and so forth, Navy Depart- ment, $48 .40. For aviation, Navy, $37,951 .69. For Geological Survey (Interior transfer to Navy, Act May 21, 1920), $147. For pay, Marine Corps, $409 .69. For general expenses, Marine Corps, $25 .03. For maintenance, Quartermaster's Department, Marine Corps, $288 .30 . DEPARTMENT OF STATE For contingent expenses, foreign missions, $4,109 .99 . For contingent expenses, United States consulates, $1 ,0 89 .97. For relief and protection of American seamen, $84. For salaries, Consular Service, $8 .03. For transportation of diplomatic and consular officers, $25 . T REAS URY DEP ART MENT For contingent expenses, Treasury Department : Freight, tele- grams, and so forth, $4.98. For Public Debt Service, $36.58. For collecting the revenue from customs, $1,408 .26. For salaries and expenses of collectors, and so forth, of internal reve nue, $73. For collecting the internal revenue, $4,628 .67. For refunding internal revenue collections, $2,425. For refunding taxes illegally collected, $75 .74. For enforcement of National Prohibition Act, internal revenue, $25 .60. For enforcement of Narcotic and National Prohibition Acts,, inter- nal revenue, $10,599.62. For Coast Guard, $4,009 .34. For repairs to Coast Guard vessels, $11 .20. For materials and miscellaneous expenses, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, $369.90. For pa of person nel and maint enance of hosp itals, Public Health Service, $4,570 .41.

�