USA > California > Santa Barbara County > History of Santa Barbara county, California, with illustrations and biographical sketches of its prominent men and pioneers > Part 48
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 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111
199
MEXICAN GRANTS.
PARSONS LETTER.
"HON. IRA HARRIS-Dear Sir: I beg to call your special attention to Senate Bill, No. 198 and the accompanying document. I was in the county of Santa Barbara last September, and visited the rancho in question as a matter of curiosity, to see a large grapevine growing on it, said to be the second largest in the world. I measured it myself and found it covering a superficial area of over eight thousand feet. This single vine is about the sole product of the entire rancho, the lands being very billy and semi-mountainous in their character. I found the mother of the petitioner and the entire family, grand- children and great grand-children, most of them liv- ing under this celebrated vine, the sale of the grapes from it being about their only support; last year the product of this single vine being about six tons of grapes, as they told me. The old lady died last fall upon the property, at the age of one hundred and nine years, she and her husband having lived undis- turbed upon this property for upwards of sixty years. The vine was planted by the old lady some fifty years ago. I found the family very poor and enjoying the respect of all the parties in the county. I visited the vine and family in company with Mr. Sparks, an American, who had lived in the county since 1832. He verified the correctness of all the statements of the family, and from what I saw myself, and from what was told me by very respectable citizens of the county, I have no doubt of the truthfulness of all the statements of Josè Dominguez in his petition. In my judgment, there cannot be presented a case calling more for the equitable interposition of the govern- ment to protect the grant of the former government to his family, than this, and I earnestly ask you that you will examine the papers and make an effort in their behalf. LEVI PARSONS."
Considering that Levi Parsons was the man who undertook to get the whole water front of San Fran- cisco, and who had, in various other ways, shown wonderfully avaricious traits, his sympathy for poor men is very refreshing. He writes as though he was only casually acquainted with the matter, when the fact was he had resided in Santa Barbara for a year, and knew that the act was not for the benefit of Dominguez, who had parted years before with his title to the Najalayegua, and by the very act would be driven from the big grapevine.
DOMINGUEZ' STATEMENT.
In the memorial to Congress respecting the matter, Dominguez was made to say that he was born upon said land and has always lived thereon with his fam- ily; that his father and mother resided here for more than sixty years, up to the time of their death, leav- ing children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, who still reside there and have no other home; that he did not submit his grant to the Land Commission of the United States, appointed by an act of Congress in the year 1831, for the reason that he was not aware of the existence of that commission, he being an obscure and humble individual and wholly ignorant of the English lauguage; and if he had known of its existence he was too poor to pay the high fees which were at that time charged by attorneys in California.
He confidently relied upon the title given him by the Mexican Government as good and valid, and was told that it would be upheld by the treaty of Guada- lupe Hidalgo, made between the United States and Mexico; but he is informed that his title ought to be submitted to the authorities of the United States for recognition; whereupon your petitioner prays that he may be allowed to prove up his title before the proper courts of the United States authorities as may be necessary and just in the premises.
CONFIRMATION.
The grant was confirmed by act of Congress, approved June 12, 1866. The big contest then came as to the survey or boundaries of the grant. Pringle claimed that it was bounded on the south by the pueblo lands of Santa Barbara. In the strife which ensued, the boundaries of Santa Barbara became a subject of controversy. The town was entitled to four leagues, bounded on the east by the Carpen- teria Creek, on the west by the Dos Pueblos (two townx). It was found impracticable to extend the pueblo lands to Dos Pueblos on account of prior loca- tion of individuals, so the tract was necessarily made wider so as to include the four leagues. To this Pringle objected that it would encroach on the lands granted to the Najalayegua. The following corres- pondence ensued:
TOWN TITLES.
"July 23, 1870-Pueblo Lands.
". DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
" General Land Office, June 30, 1870. 3
"HON. A. A. SARGENT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES- Sir: Pursuant to your personal request yesterday, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the decision of this office, dated 21st inst., in the case of 'Pueblo Lands of Santa Barbara' in California.
"Very respectfully your obedient servant,
"Jos. S. WILSON, Commissioner."
". DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, "General Land Office, June 21, 1870. 5
"SHERMAN DAY, ESQ., SURVEYOR-GENERAL, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL .- Sir: Upon examination of the papers accompanying the returns of the survey of the l'ueblo lands of Santa Barbara in connection with your report thereon, dated April 13, 1870, I find that the claim of the Mayor and Common Council of said city to said Pueblo lands was rejected under date of August 1, 1854, by the Board of Land Commissioners appointed under the Act of March 3, 1851, and upon appeal being taken to the District Court for the Southern District of California, said appeal was dis- missed for want of prosecution, and it was ordered that the decree of the Board should stand as a final decree, the certificate of the Clerk of the Court show- ing that this decree of said Court was filed in his office, August 8, 1860. But subsequently it appears that the District Court rendered another decree in the case, certified by the clerk to have been filed in his office March 6, 1861, wherewith, confirming the Pueblo title, and the United States appealing to the U. S. Supreme Court from this decree of the District Court, in its December term, 1863, rendered a decree wherein it was ordered that the cause be dismissed,
200
HISTORY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY.
The decree of the District Court, confirming the Pueblo title, rendered final by the dismissal of appeal by the Supreme Court, specifies the lands of which confirmation was thereby made as follows, viz .: 'Bounded on the east by the Arroyo de Carpenteria, on the south by the sea-shore, on the west by the rancho of Dos Pueblos, on the north by the Sierras, containing four leagues, and no more, within the boundaries aforesaid.'
" Pursuant to the said final confirmation of the claim, and the Act of July 1, 1864, entitled ' An Act to expedite the settlement of titles to lands in Cali- fornia,' a survey was made by G. H. Thompson, U. S. Deputy Surveyor, in May, 1867, under instruction from the Surveyor-General, said survey containing 17,826 17 100
acres, or 81.45 Too more than four square leagues, being now before this office for approval.
" The area of this survey conforms sufficiently to the terms of the decree of confirmation, and the boundaries are also found in conformity therewith, excepting the western boundary, which, according to the said decree, should be the rancho Dos Pueb- los, but in the survey is the rancho Goleta, lying on the east of the former rancho; but the latter having been finally surveyed under the Act of June 14, 1860, and patented March 10, 1865, extending from the ocean to the mountains, it was found impracticable to locate the Pueblo lands in exact conformity with the decree in this particular, the nearest practicable conformity having been observed by the Deputy Surveyor, both as regards boundaries and quantity.
" Upon advertisement of this survey in accordance with the provisions of the Act of July 1, 1864, an objection thereto was filed in the office of the Sur- veyor General by E. J. Pringle. as owner of the rancho, Los Prietos y Najalayegua, claiming that said sur- vey conflicted with the proper location of said rancho, and that the cause of said conflict was the failure to establish the boundaries of said Pueblo lands in accordance with the final decree of confirm- ation, and that if the survey of the said Pueblo lands were extended westward to the Rancho Dos Pueblos, there need not be any encroaching on the north line of said survey upon the southern limits of Los Prietos, as claimed by him, in order to include the land confirmed to the city of Santa Barbara within the confirmed boundaries.
"As the survey in question (that of the Pueblo lands) is found to be in the nearest practicable con- formity with the final decree of confirmation, consist- ent with the action of the judiciary approving the location and survey of the rancho La Goleta, which latter rancho also covered part of the land within the boundaries specified in said final decree, but which has been finally surveyed under the Act of June 14, 1860, and as the only opponent of the sur- vey has not presented any evidence in support of his allegation of error in the same, your decision that said survey should be approved is hereby con- firmed.
" You will therefore notify all the parties in interest of this decision, and should no appeal therefrom be taken within thirty days of serving this notice, you will inform this office of the fact; but should such appeal be taken within that time, upon its expiration you will forward all the papers which. may have been filed with you bearing upon such appeal, in order that the same may be submitted for the decision of the Department. Very respectfully,
" Your obedient servant,
" Jos. S. WILSON, Commissioner."
PACKARD'S PROTEST.
A reply to this letter was filed by A. Packard, as attorney for the city of Santa Barbara, showing the impracticability of extending the survey to Dos Pueblos, and that the nearest possible approximation to the terms of the decree had been observed in locating the boundaries of the Pueblo lands; and further claiming that contestant is not of right enti- tled to object to this survey, because unable to show that his claim of Los Prietos y Najalayegua, if prop- erly located, would approach the surveyed limits of the Pueblo lands of Santa Barbara.
PUBLIC FEELING.
When it was learned that the survey for the own- ers of the Najalayegua contemplated including the lands adjoining the town site, a general feeling of alarm prevailed. If the title to the grant was good it antedated the rights of the town, and was likely to override everything. Albert Packard, the City Attorney, set forth the following as the boundary of the town :--
" In the year 1780 the Pueblo of Santa Barbara organized, and its boundaries established as follows: On the north by the summit of the Coast Range of mountains, on the east by the Carpenteria Creek, on the south by the Pacific Ocean, and on the west by the rancheria or Indian town known as Dos Pueblos; and thereafter the Legislature of the State of Cali- fornia duly incorporated said town; and under the pro- visions of an act of Congress, passed March 3, 1851, entitled ' An Act to ascertain and settle private land claims in California,' the claim of said town was pre- sented and finally confirmed to said boundaries."
The Press denounced this as utterly false; that the description sounds very much like an original. Per- haps, as in many other cases, the town was to select lands within these limits.
THE SURVEY.
The Najalayegua grant having been confirmed, the location of it occupied the attention of the au- thorities and the parties interested. Surveyor-Gen- eral Hardenberg, previous to Stratton's appoint- ment, had been instructed by the General Land Office to locate it north of the Santa Ynez Mount- ains, and accordingly had employed Wm. H. Norway to make the survey. James T. Stratton, the new Surveyor-General, thought the rancho was properly on the south side of the Santa Ynez Mountains, adjoining the town of Santa Barbara, but did not presume to act counter to the instructions of the Department. The following facts seemed to have governed him :-
First-That there is no question as to the location of Los Prietos, or of the Carpenteria Creek, and that the only disputed point is the location of the Naja- layegna.
Second-In 1843 José Dominguez bought a house and land from José Lugo, which, in the certificate of sale of the Alcalde Carrillo, is described as being in
201
MEXICAN GRANTS.
the Najalayegua. That house is well known to b in the northern edge of Montecito.
Third-Dominguez says that he immediately moved into the Lugo House after purchasing it, and was occupying it at the date of the grant of the Los Prietos y Najalayegua, which was made to him in 1845.
Fourth-In his petition for the grant in 1845, Dominguez states that he had lived on the land for three years prior thereto.
Fifth-That, after a careful examination, no evi- dence could be found in the Santa Ynez that José Dominguez ever had a house there.
Sixth-A few years ago Dominguez swore that he had never lived over in the Santa Ynez Valley. He now states that he sometimes lived there, but that his permanent residence was in the Lugo House, known to be in Montecito, and .described in his cer- tificate of sale to be in Najalayegua.
Seventh-The Carpenteria Creek is marked on the diseño as the eastern boundary of the Los Prietos y Najalayegua.
Eighth-The Lugo House is but a few miles from Carpenteria Creek.
Ninth-The Carpenteria Creek is entirely on the south side of the Santa Ynez Mountains.
These conflicting and indefinite claims might have, and probably ought to have, had the effect to reject the whole claim as not worthy of attention, but for the fact of the act of Congress, " The Surveyor-Geu- eral is directed to proceed and survey said lands in accordance with the original title papers on file in his office, and when the said survey shall have been approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, a patent shall be issued for the lands.
The location of the rancho on the north side of the mountains would detract from the value of the claim, while locating it on the south side would make it .
include an immense number of improved places.
G. HOWARD THOMPSON'S LETTER.
Laurens Upson, the Surveyor-General, had directed his Deputy, G. H. Thompson, to make a survey according to the act of Congress, furnishing him with the diseño for data from which to make it. The letter itself will be the best history of the re- sult :-
"SAN FRANCISCO, Cal., July 2, 1870.
" WILBUR CURTISS-Dear Sir: Yours of the 28th of June is at hand. In reply to the questions you ask me I would state that on the 25th day of April, 1867, I received instructions from L. Upson, at that time U. S. Surveyor-General, directing me to make a survey of the Mexican land grant called Los Prie- tos y Najalayegua, in Santa Barbara County, in accordance with the act of Congress confirming the claim. All the data furnished me by the Surveyor- General, by which I was to be guided in making the survey, was a copy of the original diseño, which is now on file in the archives in the office of the U. S. Surveyor-General.
" With this data for my guidance, and under the
said instructions, I went to Santa Barbara for the purpose of making the official survey of the grant. After making an examinatian of the county in which the grant is located. I returned to San Francisco without making any survey of the claim, and made a report to Mr. Upson, the Surveyor-General, setting forth my reasons for not making the survey, which were substantially as follows: The data furnished me by the Surveyor-General, I did not deem sufficient to make a correct location of the grant, as it did not name the quantity of land to be embraced in the sur- vey, nor did it give any defined boundaries within which the grant should be located. The diseño, the only thing furnished me in making the survey and location of the grant, shows the land granted to embrace a valley between two ranges of mountains, with Carpenteria Creek shown as the eastern boun dary of the grant, and the Parajo de los Prietos as the western boundary. Now the Arroyo Carpenteria and Parajo de los Prietos are both well-known land- marks, and easily found and identified upon the ground, but instead of finding a continuous valley between these two well-known objects. as is shown in the diseño on file in the United States Surveyor Gen- eral's Office, I found a continuous range of steep, brushy, and broken mountains, the Parajo de los Prie- tos being in the Santa Ynez Valley ou the north side of the mountains, and the Carpenteria Creek rising and taking its whole course on the south side of the mountains, through the plain of Carpenteria, until it reaches the sea. Not being able to recognize the topography shown in the diseño with that found on the ground, and there being no quantity anywhere expressed which should be included in the survey, I thought it advisable to report the facts to Mr Upson, the Surveyor-General, and ask for something more definite by which to be guided in making the survey and location of the grant.
" After returning from Santa Barbara, the parties in interest in the grant engaged me, in my private capacity, to make them a survey according to their wishes, and being guided in the same by the evidence which they produced, consisting of some twenty-five affidavits of different persons, which affidavits described each boundary very clearly and minutely. How this survey ever got into the United States Surveyor-General's Office, or before the Com- missioner of the General Land Office at Washington, I do not know. I myself never made a return of it to the United States Surveyor-General, nor did I ever write out the field notes in the prescribed form required by that office. I did make the calculation and a copy of the field notes (informal), and handed them as directed by the parties who made the sur- vey, to a draftsman with whom said parties had made a private contract to make for them a map from said field notes. After the field notes left my hands, I had nothing more to do with the matter; I heard nothing more of it, and knew nothing more of it. As I before stated, I do not know how this survey ever got before the Surveyor-General, and do not now think it ever was directly before him, or that he ever looked upon it, or considered it before him as an official survey. I presume that the attorney for the parties in interest must have filed the copy of field notes and map on file in his office, as an exhibit to show what they claimed under the grant and con- firmation. I never understood it to be before him, or the Commissioner in the Land Office, in any other way than as a mere exhibit. filed by the parties in interest, showing what they claimed, and I am sure Mr. Upson never considered it anything more, as he
202
HISTORY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY.
kept no record or copy of the map when he sent it on to the Commissioner at Washington, nor did he put any certificate or seal, or anything of the kind to it, all of which is customary in sending up to Washington the plats, ete., of regular and official surveys. On the contrary, he treated this as an exhibit, and not as an official survey and map.
In making a private survey, I am under no official authority, and no act which I do is official. Under such circumstances, I will make any survey or run any lines which any one wishes done, and will pay for; and such was the survey which I made of the Los Prietos y Najalayegua -- a private survey- made at the request of and paid for by the parties in interest, and under no official authority or instruction from either the U. S. Surveyor-General nor the Com- missioner of the General Land Offiee.
" Respectfully,
"G. HOWARD THOMPSON."
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE SURVEY.
The portion of the decision which is of interest is given below: --
"The Confirmatory Act of 1866 does not preseribe, by reference to prior aets or otherwise, the manner . of taking testimony for the purpose of determining the boundaries of this elaim, but when the law eom- mands a thing to be done it impliedly authorizes the performance of whatever may be necessary for exe- cuting its demands; and hence, under the provisions of the Confirmatory Act, in this case directing a survey to be made, and its approval by the Commis- sioner of the General Land Office, this office will examine all the testimony now before it, if necessary to a correct location of the grant within the bound- aries shown by the diseño, which we have seen is the only original title paper giving a description of the exterior boundaries of such grant.
" The diseño shows a tract of land which, accord- ing to the seale attached, contains one Mexican league from north to south, and about three Mexican leagues from east to west. As shown thereon. the east- ern exterior boundary is the Arroyo de Carpenteria; the western the Paraja de los Prietos; on the north and south the exterior boundaries are designated by marks evidently intended to represent hills or mount- ains. Through the center, and running east and west, is shown the 'Najalayegua Canon.' Within the objects thus marked are also marks, evidently designed to represent trees and hills or mountains, and also a place marked ' Lomas Muertos,' dead hil- locks or hills.
" We are fortunately able to determine with eer- tainty the location of ' Paraja de los Prietos.' Its loea- tion on the Thompson and Norway surveys agrees with its location on the survey of Rancho San Marcos, and that such location is correct is admitted by both claimants and contestants in this case. The location of this place as a western boundary also establishes that the cañon Najalayegua of the diseño is the cañon through which runs the river Santa Ynez. I am also convinced that the marks on the diseño designating the width of the canon Najalayegua represent the immediate valley of the Santa Ynez, as shown on both Norway's and Thompson's surveys. The true north and south boundary is more difficult to locate, though according to the diseño the bound- aries are the first continuous range of hills or mount- ains running parallel with the Santa Ynez that are found going north and south from the narrow valley
through which that river flows. On the north such a continuous range is shown on the part of Thomp- son's survey about eight miles south of the northern line of the rancho as there represented, but on the south no such range appears on said plat north of the Santa Ynez or Santa Barbara Mountains. The exact location of the northern boundary I shall not attempt to define further, for it cannot be established with certainty without more information with regard to the topography of the country than is contained in the record, though such boundary, as thus indi- eated, may easily be found on the ground by a sur- veyor; but on the south I am convinced the marks on the diseño were intended to indicate the range known as the mountains of Santa Ynez or Santa Barbara. This appears as well from the report of Mr. R. C. Hopkins, and the various surveys of that locality, as from the affidavit of Dominguez, the grantee of the Mexican Government. Henee, I adopt, as the true southern exterior boundary of this rancho, the northern foot of the said range of mountains.
" The theory of the elaimants in this case that the southern slope of this range is included within the grant of Najalayegua is, in my opinion, untenable. In the case of the Rancho Caslamayomi, decided by this office December 15, 1873, and affirmed on appeal August 13, 1874, by the acting Secretary of the Interior, it was held that where the calls for bound- ary were hills or mountains, the foot of such bills or mountains was meant, and I see no reason why the same rule should not apply where, instead of being elearly described by words, such a boundary is indi- cated solely by rough scratches of a pen. An exam- ple of this kind may be found in the case of the Rancho La Goleta, the diseño of which shows on the north a portion of the identical mountain now claimed by Najalayegua, yet the grant of La Goleta extended only to the foot of the mountains, and to that extent only was it surveyed and patented by the United States.
" With respect to the theory of elaimants, attention is called to the faet: First, that in February, 1843, while Dominguez' application for a grant was pend- ing, he bought of one Lugo a tract of land on the southern slope of this mountain and within the limits of Najalayegua, as now claimed. Second, that the Najalayegua, as now elaimed, on said southern slope, surrounds the buildings of the Mission of Santa Barbara, and bounds on the north the Pueblo of Santa Barbara, whereas in the Expediente of Najal- ayegua the tract petitioned for is described as 'alone occupied by wild animals,' and no mention whatever is made either of the buildings or lands of the said mission or of the lands of the said Pueblo. Third, that although the Rancho La Goleta was petitioned for and granted in 1846, after the date of the grant to Dominguez, and although a portion of the mount- ains now claimed as Najalayegua was made a bound- ary of La Goleta, yet no reference is found to Najalayegna in the Expediente of La Goleta, though the other traets bounding it, namely, Nicholos Den's rancho, Dos Pueblos, and the mission property, are thereon elcarly described. That the Expediente of Najalayegua would give no further description of the southern boundary of that grant than a few marks of a pen on a rudely-constructed map is highly improbable, if, in fact, that boundary was such well-known tracts of land as the mission lands of the Pueblo of Santa Barbara; nor is it probable in the Expediente of La Goleta the north boundary of that rancho would have been. designated generally
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.