by residents of the ranchos of San Pablo, etc., asking to be separated from the jurisdiction of the port of San Francisco, and annexed to that of San Jose. They allege, as reasons for the proposed change, the distance, the difficulty and danger of crossing the bay, and the want of accommodations for themselves and families at the Presidio, "for a whole year, when they shall be called upon to discharge some office in the ayuntamiento," etc. This petition was, by the Territorial deputation, on the fifth of September, 1835, ordered to be referred to the "ayuntamientos of the pueblos of San Jose and San Francisco," for reports; and the governor so referred it on the twenty-eighth of September. November 4, the ayuntamiento of San Jose reports in favor of the petition, with the remark that the petitioners had previously pertained to that jurisdiction. December 20, the ayuntamiento of San Francisco" reports against the petition, denying the genuineness of the signatures to it, and the correctness of its statements. With respect to the want of accommodations at the Presidio, it says: "It is a well-known and established fact, that the military commandant of the Presidio furnished houses to the functionaries of the present Ayuntamiento as soon as it was installed." This report is dated, "Port of San Francisco," and is signed by the alcalde, Francisco de Haro, and the secretary, Francisco Sanchez. 1836, January 2, Governor Castro directs a communication to the "Illustrious Ayuntamiento of San Francisco de Asis," informing it that he had transferred the political government of the Territory to General Nicolas Gutierrez. On the same day Gutierrez directs a communication to the "Illustrious Ayuntamiento of San Francisco," informing that body that he had been placed in possession of the political government of the Territory. 1836, January 22, the alcalde, Jose Joaquin Estudillo, directs an official communication to the Sindico-Procurador, dated at the "Pueblo of San Francisco de Asis." 1836, January 19, Governor Gutierrez transmits to the "Alcalde of San Francisco de Asis," a copy of an order received from the Supreme Government of Mexico. 1836, December 13, Governor Alvarado transmits to the "Very Illustrious Ayuntamiento of San Francisco," copies of decrees of the Congress of the "Sovereign State of Alta California.' 1837, January 2, Alcalde Martinez sends to the Sindico-Procurador an order for paper for use of the "office of this Ayuntamiento." It is dated, "Pueblo of San Francisco." There are various other official papers signed by Martinez, which are dated in the same way. Francisco Sanchez, as secretary of "this Illustrious Ayuntamiento," sigus various official papers dated "Pueblo of San Francisco." In one case he dates "Presidio," and in some others "Yerba Buena." 1837, August 4, Jose Carrillo appeared as the commissioner from the departmental government, to administer the oath to "this municipality," of obedience to the constitution of 1836. The acta states that it was sworn to by the "First Alcalde of the port of San Francisco de Asis.” 1837, December 3, the primary election "in the pueblo of San Francisco de Asis," is certified to have been held in the "Plaza of said pueblo." The return is certified by Francisco de Haro, as president; Francisco Guerrero and Francisco Sanchez, as secretaries; and A. M. Peralta and J. de la C. Sanchez as inspectors. The letter transmitting these returns is dated "San Francisco, December 7, 1837," and directed to the "Constitutional Alcalde, Ignacio Martinez." At the secondary election, the returns of which were transmitted to the governor on the twenty-third, William A. Richardson was chosen alcalde; but he having applied to the governor to be excused from serving as such, for the ensuing year, Alvarado on the thirtieth, directed a letter to the "Constitutional Alcalde of San Francisco," ordering a new election, which was held January 8, 1838, and Francisco de Haro elected alcalde in place of Richardson. Domingo Sais was, at the same time, elected second rejidor, which office, it appears, was also vacant. # * * 1839, January 17, Governor Alvarado transmits to Alcalde de Haro a proclamation for putting into effect the constitutional system of 1837, and for holding elections according to the law of November 30, 1836, which he says he received from "the supreme government by the last mail!" 1839, January 18, Governor Alvarado sends another official communication, directed "to the alcalde of San Francisco," in which he states that inasmuch as many individuals had asked for solares for building houses in the lands of Yerba Buena, which had previously been prohibited from being granted, and he was desirous of advancing the commerce in that recent congregation of vecinos, he therefore had decreed (dispuesto) that grants for house-lots may be made of any part of said prohibited lands; with the understanding, however, that those asking for such concessions shall present to the government their petitions for the favor, with the necessary reports, or informes. The alcalde is directed to give notice of this to the vecinos. 1839, January 25, Governor Alvarado directs a proclamation "to the alcalde of San Francisco," and orders him to give in due publication. 1839, February 28, Governor Alvarado directs to the Illustrious Ayuntamiento of San Francisco" his proclamation of the previous day (twentyseventh), dividing all California, from the frontier of the north to Cape St. Lucas, into three districts, the first district including all north of the exMission of San Luis Obispo. This district was divided into two partidos, one extending from the north of Sonoma to the Llagas, with Dolores as the cabacera, and the other from the Llagas to San Luis Obispo, with the pueblo of San Juan de Castro as the cabacera. He also informs that body of the appointment of Jose Castro as prefect of that district, and that he must be recognized and obeyed according to the laws. 1839, March 9, Governor Alvarado sends "to the Alcalde of San Francisco" a proclamation, and directing that the notice be given that all petitions for lands or other things should be transmitted to the secretary through the prefects, for their reports thereon. During the early part of this year Francisco de Haro continued to act as "alcalde," but about the middle or a little after, Francisco Guerrero assumed the duties of Juez de Paz, and continued to act in that capacity till the end of 1841, when he was succeeded by Francisco Sanchez, who held that office to the end of 1843, when the election was held for two "alcaldes of nomination," under the new organization made by Micheltorena. 1843, May 23, Francisco Sanchez, as "Juez de Paz of the jurisdiction of the port of San Francisco," issues an order to the owners of gardens “in the establishment of Dolores," respecting irrigation. He dates this order in "San Francisco." 1843, November 14, Governor Micheltorena issues a proclamation restoring, in part, the old system of ayuntamientos, and discontinuing the prefects from the beginning of the coming year. The pueblo of San Francisco was to elect, on the following December, two alcaldes, of first and second nomination, the first to act as judge of first instance and to take charge of the prefecture. At this election William Hinckley was elected alcalde of first nomination, and Francisco de Haro alcalde of second nomination. The former resided at Yerba Buena, and the latter at the old Mission. 1844, January 20, Secretary Jimeno writes to the "first alcalde of the port of San Francisco," congratulating him, in the name of the governor, on his election, and hopes he will devote himself to the public welfare, and the improvement of that town and its vicinity. 1844, March 6, Secretary Jimeno directs two official communications to the first alcalde of San Francisco." 1844, March 14, Jimeno directs an official communication to "the alcalde of first nomination of the port of San Francisco." 1844, March 30, the superior tribunal addresses an official communication to 66 William Hinckley, alcalde of first nomination of San Francisco." April 29, the tribunal addresses him as "first constitutional alcalde in San Francisco de Asis;" on June 4, as "first alcalde of San Francisco;" and on October 29, as "first Juez of San Francisco," etc. There are various official documents extant, addressed to him by the governor, the secretary, the military commandant, and other government officers, as alcalde of San Francisco, alcalde of San Francisco de Asis," "alcalde of the port of San Francisco," "alcalde of the pueblo of San Francisco,' "alcalde of the pueblo of San Francisco de Asis," 'alcalde of Yerba Buena," 39 66 66 Juez of first nomination of the pueblo of San Francisco de Asis," etc. Of the local authorities and private persons, some addressed him as "alcalde of San Francisco,' some as "alcalde of San Francisco de Asis," some as "alcalde of Yerba Buena, some as "alcalde of the pueblo of San Francisco," etc., etc. Hinckley dated his official papers, sometimes, "pueblo of San Francisco," sometimes, "court of first nomination of San Francisco de Asis,' "Yerba Buena," etc., etc. In the official correspondence between him and the second alcalde, the former residing at Yerba Buena, and the latter at the Mission, their letters are dated, indiscriminately, "San Francisco," "San Francisco de Asis," "pueblo of San Francisco," etc. At that time, at least, no distinction was made in the use of these names. On the 12th of November an order was issued by the governor, and directed to the "first alcalde of San Francisco," to hold an election of alcaldes on the first Sunday in December, for the coming year. On the fifth of December Hinckley issued a notice, dated "San Francisco de Asis," for an election to be held in “ 'Dolores," on Sunday, the eighth, for first and second alcaldes, no election having been held on the previous Sunday. At the secondary election, held December 15, Juan Padilla was chosen first alcalde, and Jose de la Sanchez second alcalde. In the returns it is described as an election "in the pueblo of San Francisco de Asis ;" and these returns are sent to Hinckley, who resided at Yerba Buena, and is addressed as "first alcalde of San Francisco de Asis." Hinckley writes an official letter, dated "pueblo of San Francisco de Asis," and sends it to De Haro, at the Mission, addressed to the "alcalde of second nomination of San Francisco de Asis." 1845. In the official correspondence of this year, Padilla and Sanchez are addressed as "first and second alcaldes ;"' sometimes "of San Francisco,' sometimes "of San Francisco de Asis," and sometimes "of the pueblo of San Francisco," etc., etc. On the twelfth of October, of this year, Sanchez issued a proclamation, dated at "Yerba Buena," in which he styles himself "constitutional alcalde of the jurisdiction of San Francisco." 1846. Sanchez continued to act as alcalde during the early part of this year; and, after him, Jose Jesus Noe seems to have officiated until July. Noe is called, in the official documents, "alcalde of San Francisco,' "Juez of San Francisco," "alcalde of first nomination,' 'Juez de Paz," etc., etc. The officers appointed and elected after the military possession by the United States, in July, at first assumed the title of "magistrate," but very soon afterwards adopted the Spanish word "alcalde," which was continued until 1850. The foregoing is but a brief synopsis of a very small number of the official papers and records still existing. They are sufficient, however, to show the correctness of the reasoning of the court on this point, and to disprove the absurd theories which have been raised by interested parties, about the different names applied, in old documents, to the pueblo generally, and to particular localities. The attempt of Richardson, and other Limantour witnesses, to ignore the pueblo of San Francisco, which was organized at the end of 1834, and to erect a new "pueblo of Yerba Buena," with a little plat of land between California and Dupont streets, and the beach, is so thoroughly exploded by the official records as to deserve not the slightest consideration.-Note 5 to Opinion in Hart v. Burnett, by a Member of the California Bar. [This member of the Bar was the late General Halleck, of the U. S. Army, who, while secretary of State, under the government of General Riley, and afterward, while practicing his profession of the law in San Francisco, had given great attention to the subject of land bills in California, and particularly to the claims of pueblos existing upon the acquisition of this country to lands embracing the sites of such pueblos, or within their immediate vicinity.] UNITED STATES v. ALFRED J. ELLIS. SAME V. JOHN PARROTT. SAME V. SAMUEL J. HENSley. CIRCUIT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 1. LIABILITY ON OFFICIAL BOND of Collector of Customs.—A bond given by a collector of customs for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office, under the act of Congress of March 2, 1799 (1 United States Statutes, 705), if given after he assumes office, binds the sureties for the acts of the collector prior to its date. 2. LIABILITY ON BOND OF COLLECTOR AS FISCAL AGENT.-The act of Congress of August 6, 1846 (9 United States Statutes, 60), relating to the official bond of a collector of customs as a depositary of the public moneys and fiscal agent of the United States, contemplates security against future responsibility and not for past transactions. 3. STATUTORY BOND ONLY BINDING WHEN WITHIN STATUTE.-Where a statutory bond goes beyond the requirements of the statute, it is for the excess without obligatory force. 4. LIABILITY ON OFFICIAL BOND IN CASE OF NEW APPOINTMENT.-Where a collector of customs, appointed by the President during a recess of the senate, gave a bond for the faithful discharge of his duties as collector, and also as a depositary of public moneys and fiscal agent of the United States, and afterward he was newly appointed to the same office by and with the advice and consent of the Senate: Held, that the sureties on the bond were not liable for acts of their principal, done after he accepted his new appointment. Before Mr. Justice FIELD. These three actions were brought by the United States against the sureties on the official bond of Beverly C. Sanders, executed by him as collector of customs in the port of San Francisco. Sanders was appointed such collector by the President, on the thirteenth of November, 1852. The appointment was made to fill a vacancy occurring during a recess of the senate. On the sixteenth of January, 1853, during the ensuing session of the senate, Sanders was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, collector for four years from that date, and he accepted the appointment. On the sixth of December following his first appointment, 1866.1 Opinion of the Court - Mr. Justice Field. he executed with Argenti and the defendants Ellis, Parrott and Hensley, as sureties, the bond upon which these actions are brought-each of the sureties limiting his individual responsibility to the sum of $50,000. The pleadings were identical in each case. The questions for determination arose upon demurrer to the answers to the first and second counts of the amended complaint. The first count averred that Sanders was collector from November 13, 1852, to January 16, 1853, inclusive, and assigned as breach of the bond the unlawful detention by him, and the conversion to his own use of public moneys received by him in his official capacity during this period. The second count differed from the first in averring that Sanders was collector of the customs from the thirteenth of November, 1852, to the third of March, 1853, inclusive; and in assigning as breaches of the bond the detention and conversion of public moneys received during that period. There were several special answers to both of these counts, upon which two questions were presented for determination: First, whether the bond in suit bound the sureties for the acts of the collector prior to its date; and second, whether it bound them for his acts after his acceptance of his new appointment, January 16, 1853. J. P. Hoge, for plaintiff. J. B. Crockett and Hall McAllister, for defendant. Mr. Justice FIELD. The bond upon which these actions. are brought, appears to have been given by Sanders as his official bond for the faithful discharge of his duties as collector, pursuant to the act of March 2, 1799, and also as his bond for the performance of his duties as depositary of the public moneys and fiscal agent under the act of August 6, 1846, and it must be considered in this double aspect. The act of March 2, 1799 (1 Stat. 705), provides that every collector shall give a bond to the United States within three months after he enters upon the execution of his office and furnishes the form of the bond. The condition in the form applies as well to the past as the future acts of |