USA > California > Mendocino County > History of Mendocino County, California : comprising its geography, geology, topography, climatography, springs and timber > Part 20
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76
The colonization of California and granting lands therein, was, there- fore, subsequent to the law of August 18, 1824, under the direction and control of the Central Government. That government, as already stated, gave regulations for the same November 21, 1828.
The directions were very simple. They gave the governors of the terri- tories the exclusive faculty of making grants within the terms of the law- that is, to the extent of eleven leagues, or sitios, to individuals; and coloniza- tion grants (more properly contracts)-that is, grants of larger tracts to empresarios, or persons who should undertake, for a consideration in land, to bring families to the country for the purpose of colonization. Grants of the first description, that is, to families or single persons, and not exceeding eleven sitios, were "not to be held definitely valid," until sanctioned by the. Terri- torial Deputation. Those of the second class, that is, empresario or coloniza- tion grants (or contracts) required a like sanction by the Supreme Govern- ment. In case the concurrence of the Deputation was refused to a grant of the first mentioned class, the Governor should appeal, in favor of the grantee, from the Assembly to the Supreme Government.
The "first inception" of the claim, pursuant to the regulations, and as practiced in California, was a petition to the Governor, praying for the grant, specifying usually the quantity of land asked, and designating its position, with some descriptive object or boundary, and also stating the age, country and vocation of the petitioner. Sometimes, also, (generally at the commence- ment of this system) a rude map or plan of the required grant, showing its
*The political condition of California was changed by the Constitution of 29th December, and act for the division of the Republic into Departments of December 30, 1836. The two Califor. nias then became a Department, the confederation being broken up and the States reduced to Departments. The same colonization system, however, seems to have continued in California.
176
HISTORY OF MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
shape and position, with reference to other tracts, or to natural objects, was presented with the petition. This practice, however, was gradually disused, and few of the grants made in late years have any other than a verbal description.
The next step was usually a reference of the petition, made on the margin by the governor, to the prefect of the district, or other near local officer where the land petitioned for was situated, to know if it was vacant, and could be granted without injury to third persons or the public, and sometimes to know if the petitioner's account of himself was true. The reply (informe) of the prefect, or other officer, was written upon or attached to the petition, and the whole returned to the governor. The reply being satisfactory, the governor then issued the grant in form. On its receipt, or before, (often before the petition, even.) the party went into possession. It was not unfrequent, of late years, to omit the formality of sending the petition to the local authorities, and it was never requisite, if the governor already possessed the necessary infor- mation concerning the land and the parties. In that case the grant followed immediately on the petition. Again. it sometimes happened that the reply of the local authority was not explicit, or that third persons intervened, and the grant was thus for some time delayed. With these qualifications, and cover- ing the great majority of cases, the practice may be said to have been: 1. The petition; 2. The reference to the prefect or alcalde; 3. His report, or informe; 4. The grant from the governor.
" When filed, and how, and by whom recorded."
The originals of the petition and informe, and any other preliminary papers in the case, were filed. by the secretary, in the government archives, and with them a copy (the original being delivered to the grantee) of the grant; the whole attached together so as to form one document, entitled, col- lectively, an expediente. During the governorship of Figueroa, and some of his successors, that is, from May 22, 1833, to May 9, 1836, the grants were likewise recorded in a book kept for that.purpose (as prescribed in the "regu- lations" above referred to) in the archives. Subsequent to that time, there was no record, but a brief memorandum of the grant; the expediente, how- ever, being still filed. Grants were also sometimes registered in the office of the prefect of the district where the lands lay; but the practice was not constant, nor the record generally in permanent form.
The next, and final step in the title was the approval of the grant by the Territorial Deputation (that is, the local legislature, afterward, when the terri- tory was created into a Department, called the "Departmental Assembly.") For this purpose, it was the governor's office to communicate the fact of the grant, and all information concerning it, to the assembly. It was here referred to a committee (sometimes called a committee on vacant lands, sometimes on
177
THE MEXICAN GRANTS.
agriculture), who reported at a subsequent sitting. The approval was seldom refused; but there are many instances where the governor omitted to commu- nicate the grant to the assembly, and it consequently remained unacted on. The approval of the assembly obtained, it was usual for the secretary to deliver to the grantee, on application, a certificate of the fact; but no other record or registration of it was kept than the written proceedings of the assem- bly. There are no doubt instances, therefore, where the approval was in fact ob. ned, but a certificate not applied for, and as the journals of the assembly, now remaining in the archives, are very imperfect, it can hardly be doubted that many grants have received the approval of the assembly, and no record of the fact now exists. Many grants were passed upon and approved by the assembly in the Winter and Spring of 1846, as I discovered by loose memo- randa, apparently made by the clerk of the assembly for future entry, and referring to the grants by their numbers-sometimes a dozen or more on a single small piece of paper, but of which I could find no other record.
" So, also with the subsequent steps, embracing the proceedings as to sur- vey, up to the perfecting of the title."
There were not, as far as I could learn, any regular surveys made of grants in California, up to the time of the cessation of the former government. There was no public or authorized surveyor in the country. The grants usually contained a direction that the grantee should receive judicial posses- sion of the land from the proper magistrate (usually the nearest alcalde), in virtue of the grant, and that the boundaries of the tract should then be desig- nated by that functionary with "suitable land marks." But this injunction was usually complied with, only by procuring the attendance of the magis- trate, to give judicial possession according to the verbal description contained in the grant. Some of the old grants have been subsequently surveyed, as 1 was informed, by a surveyor under appointment of Col. Mason, acting as Governor of California. I did not see any official record of such surveys, or understand that there was any. The "perfecting of the title " I suppose to have been accomplished when the grant received the concurrence of the assembly; all provisions of the law, and of the colonization regulations of the supreme government, pre-requisites to the title being "definitely valid," hav- ing been then fulfilled. These, I think, must be counted complete titles.
" And if there be any more books, files or archives of any kind whatso- ever, showing the nature, character and extent of these grants."
The following list comprises the books of record and memoranda of grants, which I found existing in the government archives at Monterey:
1. " 1828. Cuaderno del registro de los sitios, fierras y señales que posean los habitantes del territorio de la Nueva California." [Book of registration 12
178
HISTORY OF MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
of the farms, brands, and marks (for marking cattle), possessed by the inhabi- tants of the territory of New California.]
This book contains information of the situation, boundaries and appurte- nances of several of the missions, as hereafter noticed; of two pueblos, San José and Branciforte, and the records of about twenty grants, made by various Span- ish, Mexican and local authorities, at different times, between 1784 and 1825, and two dated 1829. This book appears to have been arranged upon infor- mation obtained in an endeavor of the government to procure a registration of all the occupied lands of the territory.
2. Book marked " Titulos."
This book contains records of grants, numbered from one to one hundred and eight, of various dates, from May 22, 1833 to May 9, 1836, by the suc- cessive governors, Figueroa, José Castro, Nicholas Gutierrez and Mariano Chico. A part of these grants, (probably all) are included in a file of expe- dientes of grants, hereafter described, marked from number one to number five hundred and seventy-nine; but the numbers in the book do not corres- pond with the numbers of the same grants in the expedientes.
3. " Libro donde se asciertan los despachos de terrenos adjudicados en los años de 1839 and 1840."-(Book denoting the concessions of land adjudicated in the years 1839 and 1840.)
This book contains a brief entry, by the secretary of the department of grants, including their numbers, dates, names of the grantees and of the grants, quantity granted, and situation of the land, usually entered in the book in the order they were conceded. This book contains the grants made from January 18, 1839, to December 8, 1843, inclusive.
4. A book similar to the above, and containing like entries of grants issued between January 8, 1844 and December 23, 1845.
5. File of expedientes of grants-that is, all the proceedings (except of the Assembly) relating to the respective grants, secured, those of each grant in a separate parcel, and marked and labeled with its number and name. This file is marked from No. 1 to No. 579 inclusive, and embraces the space of time between May 13. 1833, to July 1846. The numbers, however, bear little relation to the dates. Some numbers are missing, of some there are duplicates-that is, two distinct grants with the same number. The expedi- entes are not all complete; in some cases the final grant appears to have been refused; in others it was wanting. The collection, however, is evidently intended to represent estates which have been granted, and it is probable that in many, or most instances, the omission apparent in the archives is supplied by original documents in the hands of the parties, or by long permitted occu- pation. These embrace all the record books and files belonging to the territo- rial. or departmental archives, which I was able to discover.
I am assured, however, by Mr. J. C. Fremont, that according to the best of
JACKSON FARLEY.
179
THE MEXICAN GRANTS.
his recollection, a book for the year 1846, corresponding to those noticed above, extending from 1839, to the end of 1845, existed in the archives while he was Governor of California, and was with them when he delivered them in May, 1847, to the officer appointed by General Kearny to receive them from him at Monterey.
IL "CHIEFLY THE LARGE GRANTS, AS THE MISSIONS, AND WHETHER THE TITLE TO THEM BE IN ASSIGNEES, OR WHETHER THEY HAVE REVERTED, AND VESTED IN THE SOVEREIGN?"
I took much pains both in California and Mexico, to assure myself of the situation, in a legal and proprietary point of view, of the former great establishments known as the MISSIONS of California. It had been supposed that the lands they occupied were grants, held as the property of the church, or of the mission establishments as corporations. Such, however, was not the case. All the missions in Upper California were established under the direc- tion and mainly at the expense of the Government, and the missionaries there had never any other rights than the occupation and use of the lands for the purpose of the missions, and at the pleasure of the Government. This is shown by the history and principles of their foundation, by the laws in rela- tion to them, by the constant practice of the Government toward them, and, in fact, by the rules of the Franciscan order, which forbids its members to possess property.
The establishment of missions in remote provinces was a part of the colo- nial system of Spain. The Jesuits, by a license from the Viceroy of New Spain, commenced in this manner the reduction of Lower California in the year 1697. They continued in the spiritual charge, and in a considerable degree of the temporal governinent of that province until 1767, when the royal decrec abolishing the Jesuit order throughout New Spain was there enforced, and the missions taken out of their hands. They had then founded fifteen missions, extending from Cape St. Lucas nearly to the head of the sca of Cortez, or Californian gulf. Three of the establishments had been suppressed by order of the Viceroy; the remainder were now put in charge of the Fran- ciscan monks of the college of San Fernando, in Mexico, hence sometimes called " Fernandinos." The prefect of that college, the Rev. Father Junipero Serra, proceeded in person to his new charge, and arrived with a number of monks at Loreto, the capital of the peninsula, the following year (1768). He was there, soon after, joined by Don Jose Galvez, inspector general (visitador) of New Spain, who brought an order from the King, directing the founding of one or more settlements in Upper California. It was therefore agreed that Father Junipero should extend the mission establishments into Upper Cali- fornia, under the protection of presidios (armed posts) which the government would establish at San Diego and Monterey. Two expeditions, both accom- panicd by missionaries, were consequently fitted out, one to proceed by sca,
180
HISTORY OF MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
the other by land, to the new territory. In June, 1769, they had arrived, and in that month founded the first mission about two leagues from the port of San Diego. A presidio was established at the same time near the port. The same year a presidio was established at Monterey, and a mission estab- lishment begun. Subsequently, the Dominican friars obtained leave from the King to take charge of a part of the missions of California, which led to an arrangement between the two societies, whereby the missions of Lower Cali- fornia were committed to the Dominicans, and the entire field of the upper province remained to the Franciscans. This arrangement was sanctioned by the political authority, and continues to the present time. The new estab- lishments flourished and rapidly augmented their numbers, occupying first the space between San Diego and Monterey, and subsequently extending to the northward. A report from the Viceroy to the King, dated Mexico, December 27, 1793, gives the following account of the number, time of estab- lishment, and locality of the missions existing in New California at that period:
NO.
MISSIONS.
SITUATION.
WHEN FOUNDED.
1 .. San Diego de Alcala
Lat. 32° 42' July 16, 1769.
2 .. San Carlos de Monterey
36° 33' June 3, 1770.
3 .. San Antonio de Padua .
36° 34' July 14, 1771.
4 .. San Gabriel de los Temblores
34° 10' September 8, 1771. 31° 38' September 1, 1772.
5. . San Luis Obispo.
6 .. San Francisco (Dolores)
37° 56' October 9, 1776.
7 .. San Juan Capistrano
33° 30' November 1, 1776.
8 .. Santa Clara 37° 00' January 18, 1777.
9. . San Buenaventura 34° 36' March 31, 1782.
10 ..
Santa Barbara. 34° 28' October 4, 1786.
11 .. Puri-ima Conception . 35° 32' January 8, 1787.
12 .. Santa Cruz.
36° 58' August 28, 1791.
13. . La Soledad
36° 38' October 9, 1791.
At first the missions nominally occupied the whole territory, except the four sinall military posts of San Diego, Santa Barbara, Monterey, and San Fran- cisco; that is, the limits of one mission were said to cover the intervening space to the limits of the next; and there were no other occupants except the wild Indians, whose reduction and conversion were the objects of the establishments. The Indians, as fast as they were redneed, were trained to labor in the mis- sions, and lived either within its walls, or in small villages near by, under the spiritual and temporal direction of the priests, but the whole under the politi- cal control of the Governor of the province, who decided contested questions of right or policy, whether between different missions, between missions and
181
THE MEXICAN GRANTS.
individuals, or concerning the Indians. Soon, however, grants of land began to be made to individuals, especially to retired soldiers, who received special favor in the distant colonies of Spain, and became the settlers and the founders of the country they had reduced and protected. Some settlers were also brought from the neighboring provinces of Sonora and Sinaloa, and the towns of San José, at the head of the Bay of San Francisco, and of Los Angeles, eight leagues from the port of San Pedro, were early founded. The governor exercised the privilege of making concessions of large tracts, and the captains of the presidios were authorized to grant building lots, and small tracts for gardens and farms, within the distance of two leagues from the presidios. By these means, the mission tracts began respectively to have something like known boundaries; though the lands they thus occupied were still not viewed in any light as the property of the missionaries, but as the domain of the crown, appropriated to the use of the missions while the state of the country should require it, and at the pleasure of the political authority.
It was the custom throughout New Spain (and other parts of the Spanish colonies, also,) to secularize, or to subvert the mission establishments, at the diseretion of the ruling political functionary; and this not as an act of arbi- trary power, but in the exercise of an acknowledged ownership and author- ity. The great establishments of Sonora, I have been told. were divided between white settlements and settlements of the Indian pupils, or neophytes, of the establishments. In Texas, the missions were broken up, the Indians were dispersed, and the lands have been granted to white settlers. In New Mexico, I am led to suppose the Indian pupils of the missions, or their descendants, still, in great part, occupy the old establishments; and other parts are occupied by white settlers, in virtue of grants and sales .* The undisputed exercise of this authority over all the mission establishments, and whatever property was pertinent to them, is certain.
The liability of the missions of Upper California, however, to be thus dealt with at the pleasure of the government, does not rest only on the argument to be drawn from this constant and uniform practice. It was inherent in their foundation-a condition of their establishment. A belief has prevailed, and it is so stated in all the works I have examined which treat historically of the missions of that country, that the first act which looked to their secu- larization, and especially the first act by which any authority was conferred
* Since writing the above, I have learned from the Hon. Mr. Smith, Delegate from the Ter- ritory of New Mexico, that the portion of each of the former mission establishments which has been allotted to the Indians is one league square. They hold the land, as a general rule, in community, and on condition of supporting a priest and maintaining divine worship. This portion and these conditions are conformable to the principles of the Spanish laws concerning the allotments of Indian villages. Some interesting particulars of the foundation, progress, and plan of the missions of New Mexico are contained in the report, or information, before quoted, of 1793, from the Viceroy to the King of Spain, and in extracts from it given in the papers accompanying this report.
182
HISTORY OF MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
on the local government for that purpose, or over their temporalities, was an act of the Mexican Congress of August 17, 1833. Such, however, was not the case. Their secularization-their subversion-was looked for in their foundation; and I do not perceive that the local authority (certainly not the supreme authority) has ever been without that lawful jurisdiction over them, unless subsequent to the colonization regulations of November 21, 1828, which temporarily exempted mission lands from colonization. I quote from a letter of "Instructions to the commandant of the new establishments of San Diego and Monterey," given by Viceroy Bucareli, August 17, 1773:
" ART. 15. When it shall happen that a mission is to be formed into a pueblo (or village) the commandant will proceed to reduce it to the civil and economical government, which, according to the laws, is observed by other villages of this kingdom; then giving it a name, and declaring for its patron the saint under whose memory and protection the mission was founded." (Cuando llegue el caso de que haya de formarse en el pueblo una mision, pro- cederá el commandante á reducirlo ál gobiemo civil y economico que obser- van, segun las leyes, los demas de este reyno; poniendole nombre entonces, y declarandole por su titular el santo bajo cuya memoria y venerable proteccion se fundó la mision.)
The right, then, to remodel these establishments at pleasure, and convert them into towns and villages, subject to the known policy and laws which governed settlements of that description,* we see was a principal of their foundation. Articles 7 and 10 of the same letter of instructions, show us also that it was a part of the plan of the missions that their condition should thus be changed; that they were regarded only as the nucleus and basis of communities to be thereafter emancipated, acquire proprietary rights, and administer their own affairs; and that it was the duty of the governor to choose their sites, and direct the construction and arrangement of their edifices, with a view to their convenient expansion into towns and cities. And not only was this general revolution of the establish- ments thus early contemplated and provided for, but meantime the governor had authority to reduce their possessions by grants within and without, and to change their condition by detail. The same series of instructions author- ized the governor to grant lands, either in community or individually, to the Indians of the missions, in and about their settlements on the mission lands, and also to make grants to settlements of white persons. The governor was
*A revolution more than equal to the modern secularization, since the latter only necessarily implies the turning over of the temporal concerns of the mission to secular administration. Their conversion into pueblos would take from the missions all semblance in organization to their originals, and include the reduction of the missionary priests from the heads of great establishments and administrators of large temporalities, to parish curates; a change quite inconsistent with the existence in the priests or the church of any proprietary interest or right over the establishment.
183
THE MEXICAN GRANTS.
likewise authorized at an early day to make grants to soldiers who should marry Indian women trained in the missions; and the first grant (and only one I found of record) under this authorization, was of a tract near the mis- sion edifice of Carmel, near Monterey. The authorization given to the cap- tains of presidios to grant lands within two leagues of their posts, expressly restrains them within that distance, so as to leave the territory beyond -- though all beyond was nominally attached to one or other of the missions-at the disposition of the superior guardians of the royal property. In brief, every fact. every act of government and principle of law applicable to the case, which I have met in this investigation, go to show that the missions of Upper California, were never, from the first, reckoned other than government establishments, or the founding of them to work any change in the ownership of the soil, which continued in and at the disposal of the crown, or its representatives. This position was also confirmed, if had it needed any confirmation, by the opinions of high legal and official authorities in Mexico. The missions- speaking collectively of priests and pupils-had the usufruct; the priests the administration of it; the whole resumable, or otherwise disposable, at the will of the crown or its representatives.
The object of the missions was to aid in the settlement and pacification of the country, and to convert the natives to Christianity. This accomplished, settlements of white people established, and the Indians domiciliated in villages, so as to subject them to the ordinary magistrates, and the spiritual care of the ordinary clergy, the missionary labor was considered fulfilled, and the establishment subject to be dissolved or removed. This view of their pur- poses and destiny fully appears in the tenor of the decree of the Spanish Cortes of September 13, 1813 .*
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.