United States v. Ritchie. 17 H. governor, and approved by the departmental assembly, was inoperative and void; and, 2. That, if it should be held that Solano was competent to take and hold real property, still, the grant is void, on the ground that the tract known by the name of " Suisun" belonged to the mission lands in California, which the public authorities of that department had no power to grant. 1. In answer to the first objection, we are referred to the plan of Iguala, adopted by the revolutionary government of Mexico, 24th February, 1821, a short time previous to the subversion of the Spanish power in that country, in which it is declared, that "all the inhabitants of New Spain, without distinction, whether Europeans, Africans, or Indians, are citizens of this monarchy, with a right to be employed in any post according to their merit and virtues;" and that "the person and property of every citizen will be respected and protected by the government." We are also referred to the treaty of Cordova, 24th August, 1821, between the Spanish viceroy and the revolutionary party, by which the independence of the country was for the time established; and to the declaration of independence issued 28th September, 1821, all reaffirming the principles of the plan of Iguala. Two decrees of the first Mexican congress are also referred to; one adopted 24th February, 1822, and the other 9th April, 1823. The first: "The sovereign congress declares the equality of civil rights to all the free inhabitants of the empire, whatever may be their origin in the four quarters of the earth." The other reaffirms the three guarantees of the plan of Iguala: 1. Independence. 2. The Catholic religion; and 3. Union of all Mexicans of whatever race. There is, also, another act of the Mexican congress of the 17th September, 1822, carrying into practical effect this fundamental principle of the new government, as follows: "The sovereign Mexican constituent congress, with a view to give due effect to the [* 539] 12th article of the plan of Iguala, as being one of those which form the social basis of the edifice of our independ ence, has determined to decree and does decree. “Art. 1. That in every register and public or private document, on entering the name of citizens of this empire, classification of them with regard to their origin shall be omitted. "Art. 2. That although by virtue of the preceding article, there shall be no distinction of class on the parochial books, that which is at present observed will be continued in the regulations for the grad uation of the civil and ecclesiastical taxes, until these shall be arranged in some other method more just and proper." In consistency with this fundamental principle of the Mexican United States v. Ritchie. 17 H. government, as declared in the several acts above referred to, namely, the citizenship of all the inhabitants, without distinction of blood or race, is the 9th article of the decree of 18th August, 1824, on colonization, which provides, that "in the distribution of the lands, Mexican citizens are to be preferred, and between them no distinction shall be made, except such only as is due to special merit and services rendered to the country, or in equality of circumstances, residence in the place to which the lands to be distributed are pertinent; and the 16th article provides, that "the government, conformably to the principles established in this law, shall proceed to the colonization of the territories of the republic." Upper California, in which the lands in question are situate, was one of those territories. And the first regulation made for colonizing the territories, which was 21st November, 1828, provided "that the governors of the territories are authorized, in compliance with the laws of the general congress of 18th August, 1824, and under the conditions hereafter specified, to grant the vacant lands in their respective territories to such contractors, (empresarios,) families or single persons, whether Mexicans or foreigners, who may ask for them for the purpose of cultivating or inhabiting them." The Indian race having participated largely in the struggle resulting in the overthrow of the Spanish power, and in the erection of an independent government, it was natural that in laying the foundations of the new government, the previous political and social distinctions in favor of the European or Spanish blood should be abolished, and equality of rights and privileges established. Hence the article to this effect in the plan of Iguala, and the decree of the first congress declaring the equality of civil rights, whatever may be their race or country. These solemn declarations of the political power of the government had the effect, necessarily, to invest the Indians with the privileges of citizenship as effectually as had the declaration *of independence of the United States, of 1776, to [* 540 ] invest all those persons with these privileges residing in the country at the time, and who adhered to the interests of the colonies. 3 Pet. 99, 121. The improvement of the Indians, under the influence of the missionary establishments in New Spain, which had been specially encouraged and protected by the mother country, had, doubtless, qualified them in a measure for the enjoyment of the benefits of the new institutions. In some parts of the country very considerable advancement had been made in civilizing and christianizing the race. From their degraded condition, however, and ignorance generally, the privileges extended to them in the administration of the government United States v. Ritchie. 17 H. must have been limited; and they still, doubtless, required its fostering care and protection. But as a race, we think it impossible to deny, that, under the constitution and laws of the country, no distinction was made as to the rights of citizenship, and the privileges belonging to it, between this and the European or Spanish blood. Equality between them, as we have seen, has been repeatedly affirmed in the most solemn acts of the government. Solano, the grantee in this case, was a civilized Indian, was a principal chief of his race on the frontiers of California, held a captain's commission in the Mexican army, and is spoken of by the witnesses as a brave and meritorious officer. Our conclusion is, that he was one of the citizens of the Mexican government at the time of the grant to him, and that, as such, he was competent to take, hold, and convey real property, the same as any other citizen of the republic. 2. As to the objection that the tract in question belonged to the mission lands, which the public authorities in California had no power to grant, there appears to be no foundation for this objection. As early as 17th August, 1833, the Mexican congress decreed that "the government will proceed to secularize the missions of Upper and Lower California;" and various regulations are prescribed for carrying this policy into effect. Again, 26th November, the same year, it is declared that "the government is empowered to adopt all measures which shall secure the colonization and render effective the secularization of the missions in Upper and Lower California, being authorized to use in the most convenient manner the property devoted to pious uses, in the said territories, for that purpose." Again, by a decree of 14th April, 1834, it is declared that "all the missions of the republic will be secularized." Under these laws, the authorities empowered to grant the [* 541 ] *public lands, have dealt with these mission establishments the same as with any other portions of the public domain; the clergy, who previously had the charge and control of them, being confined simply to the ecclesiastical and spiritual direction and government of the missions. We could refer, had we time, to a body of authority on this part of the case, in addition to that above mentioned; but we deem it unnecessary, and shall close by affirming the decree of the district court. It is conceded that the lands in question do not belong to the class called Pueblo lands, in respect to which we do not intend to express Fremont v. United States. 17 H. any opinion, either as to the power of the authorities to grant or the Indians to convey. CAMPBELL, J. I concur in the judgment of the court upon the facts disclosed in the record. I am unable to find evidence to show that the lands in dispute were attached to the mission of San Francisco Solano, for the single sentence in the deposition of Vallejo, "that in 1835, according to the rules of secularization, the grantee had acquired the rights of possession," is too vague, and include too little of a reference to facts to rest any argument that the grant to Solano was of mission lands, contrary to the laws of Mexico. I therefore am not willing to pass any judgment upon the subject of the mission lands of California. Nor do I consider that the sufficiency of the conveyance from Solano to Vallejo, a question before us. The conveyance of Solano was recognized before a public officer, and has been followed by possession. For the purposes of this case this is sufficient. This was decided in Percheman's case, 7 Pet. 51-98. The court say there, that the questions upon the validity of mesne conveyances have no interest to the United States, and they cannot be investigated or decided. 17 H. 542; 18 H. 539, 553; 6 Wal. 363. JOHN CHARLES FREMONT, Appellant, v. THE UNITED STATES. 17 H. 542. (1) The principles of the decisions of this court concerning titles in Louisiana and Florida, examined, and distinctions between those titles and titles in California, stated. A grant by the Mexican governor of California, of ten square leagues of land within a certain district of country, in consideration of meritorious services of the grantee, conferred an equitable right to that quantity of land within that district, valid as against the Mexican government and consequently as against the United States, though the particular tract had not been designated by a survey, at the time of the cession to the United States; and the particular land to which this title is to attach must be ascertained by a survey made under the authority and in the mode provided by the laws of the United States. The force and effect of the conditions subsequent, annexed to this grant, considered. APPEAL from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. The case is stated in the opinion of the court, but it may be useful to append the title papers on which the appellant relied to show the title acquired from the Mexican Gov. ernment. W. Cary Jones, Bibb and Crittenden, for the appellant. (1) Mr. Justice DANIEL did not sit in this cause. [* 543 ] Fremont v. United States. 17 H. "Record of proceedings instituted by citizen Juan Bautista Alvarado, colonel of the auxiliary militia, soliciting the tract of land called ' Las Mariposas.' "Anno 1844. (Number 352.) "To his Excellency the Governor : "I, Juan B. Alvarado, colonel of the auxiliary militia of this department, to your excellency, with due respect, do represent, that being actually the owner (by purchase which I made) of a very small tract of land, which is not sufficient to support the cattle with which it is stocked, without injury to the estates likewise there established, and being desirous of increasing it, at the same time to contribute to the spreading of the agriculture and industry of the country, I solicit your excellency, according to the colonization laws, to be pleased to grant me ten sitios de ganado mayor (ten square leagues) of land, north of the River San Joaquin, within the limits [*544] of the Snow Mountain, (Sierra Nevada,) in the same direction the River Chanchilles, in the east part of the Merced, on the west, and the before-mentioned San Joaquin, with the name of the Mariposas, offering to present to Y. E. the proper plan and draft thereof so soon as the same shall be made with exactness, not doing it at this time for the difficulty of being a wilderness country on the confines of the wild Indians, and because I desire that my claim for this cause may not be delayed. "Therefore, I hope from the good intentions of Y. E., in favor of the improvements of the country, the most favorable result, if it be in justice, by which I will receive favor. "(Signed) "Rancho del Alizal, 23d of February, 1844." JUAN B. ALVARADO. Monterey, 27th of February, 1844. "Let the secretary of state report, and he may require such other reports as he may deem expedient, should he need them. "As directed by his Excellency, the governor, let the preceding petitioner be referred to the first alcalde of San José, that he may be pleased to report thereon. " (Signed) MANUEL JIMENO "The land solicited in this petition by Don Juan B. Alvarado is entirely vacant; it does not belong to any individual, town, or corporation, and I believe that for these reasons, as well as that of the petitioner being meritorious for his patriotic services and commendable circumstances, there is no impediment for granting him the said |