HEADQUARTERS TENTH MILITARY DEPARTMENT, Monterey, California, May 8, 1848. SIR: Your custom-house accounts for the fourth quarter of 1847 and the first quarter of the present year have been examined by me.. I have endorsed upon them "Examined and approved May 8, 1848," and will forward them to the Secretary of War by the first safe opportunity. See what I have said to Lieutenant Carnes in my letter of this date about an abstract of disbursements, &c., and comply with it in future. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, Capt. F. J. LIPPETT, R. B. MASON, Col. 1st Dragoons, commanding. Commanding, Santa Barbara, California. HEADQUARTERS TENTH MILITARY DEPARTMENT, SIR: I did not receive until last night, on my return to this place, your letter of the 9th instant. My letter to Captain Folsom, of the 28th ultimo, on the subject of the modification of the tariff, (as contained in the copies you were kind enough to send me,) an official copy of which I sent to the collector at San Pedro for his guidance, will enable him to enter the Olga as you desire. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, R. B. MASON, Colonel 1st Dragoons, Governor of California. Mr. HENRY MELLUS, HEADQUARTERS TENTH MILITARY DEPARTMENT, Monterey, California, May 16, 1848. SIR: Padre Gomez, the Catholic priest at San Luis Obispo, through his friend, Don Manuel Zimena, complains that, at the instance of Vicente Feliz, you have taken from him a pair of mill-stones that have been in his possession for three years, and which he acquired by purchase, Whilst I do not doubt at all the correctness of your motive in taking these stones from the priest, yet, from the circumstances of the case, and all the information I can gain, I am of opinion they should be returned to him, which I desire you will do; and this will relieve me from any responsibility in the transaction. JOHN PRICE, I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, R B. MASON, Colonel 1st Dragoons, Governor of California. Alcalde, San Luis Obispo, California. HEADQUARTERS TENTH MILITARY DEPARTMENT, Monterey, California, May 17, 1848: SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 10th of this month-evidently a mistake, as I received it on the 10th. The grant made by General Vallejo, in 1837, of lot number 52, to Juan Castinado, is good. The United States stand pledged to protect the Californians in the possession of their property. The commissioners, as you say, had no power to look into any grant made by the Mexican authorities. Castinado held this grant before our flag was raised in California, and that is sufficient for us. Your town council, or any other authority, has no right to dispute his title or possession to it. Be pleased to lay this letter before the council for their information and guidance. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, L. W. BOGGS, R. B. MASON, Colonel 1st Dragoons, commanding. Alcalde, Sonoma, California. HEADQUARTERS TENTH MILITARY DEPARTMENT, Monterey, California, May 17, 1848. SIR: The schooner Louisa arrived here a few days since from your port. She brought two manifests, and one other paper, setting forth merchandise shipped on board. These three documents purported to show the amount of the cargo. All that was contained on those three papers should have been put on one properly-made-out manifest. I desire that in future you will suffer no vessel to leave your port with more than one manifes', and that one must show the whole amount of the entire cargo. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, D. W. ALEXANDER, R. B. MASON, Colonel 1st Dragoons, commanding. Collector, San Pedro, California. HEADQUARTERS TENTH MILITARY DEPARTMENT, Monterey, California, April 17, 1848. SIR: I received your letter of the 2d instant late in the afternoon of the 6th, together with the papers which accompanied it, concerning the quicksilver mines denounced in your office on the 17th of December and on the 5th of February last-the former by Cook, Beldon, Alrigo, Ricord, and others; the latter by Pedro Sainse van and partners. Two days previous to the reception of your letter, I received one dated on the 4th instant, signed by Messrs. Alrigo and Larkin, though written by Mr. Ricord, as he informed me, in which it is stated that the mine denounced on the 17th of December was denounced by Mr. Cook, and shortly thereafter transferred to their company, and that the one denounced on the 5th of February was denounced by Jose Sunal. Alrigo and Larkin "ask for an executive order for Sunal to desist from digging within their proper limits, and that the right of Sunal to be put in possession be deferred until the creation of certain tribunals;" and state that the denouncement of Cook on the 17th of December, and the possession obtained under it on the 2d of February, were prior to Sunal's denouncement, which was on the 5th of February. The other party, those interested in the denouncement of the 5th of February, claim to be the lawful and rightful owners of that mine, and demand possession of it under the 4th article, title 6, of the mining laws, and assert that the party claiming under the denouncement of the 17th of December have no right to possession, because neither their excavations nor measurements of possession were made in accordance with the requirements of the aforesaid fourth article of the mining laws. I availed myself of the opportunity which a visit to your part of the country last week afforded me, to personally examine and minutely inspect and measure both of those mines, denounced on the 17th December and the 5th of February last. There were three excavations at the mine pointed out to me as the one denounced on the 17th of December-all three within a few paces of each other. In one of the excavations, over which was erected a windlass, a man named Cash was at work; and near the two excavations lowest down the hill, stood a small cabin and Mr. Taylor's tent. This was on the 11th instant. The deepest of these three excavations, measuring in the most favorable manner from the upper side of the hill, did not exceed fifteen feet, though one of the interested par.. ties state that one of the excavations was of the depth required by the mining laws when possession was given, on the 2d of February, but that it since "caved in." I examined that spot which is said to have "caved in" with great care. It had the appearance of having been purposely filled up. It was dug in rock, not in earth; and, in my mind, it was as much impossible for that rock to have "caved in," as it would be for an auger hole to "cave in" that had been bored in a large solid block of sound timber. Neither myself nor those with me could discover the slightest trace of quicksilver ore in either of these excavations, though some specimens were shown to us, said to have been taken, I believe, from the hole said to have "caved in." The mine denounced on the 5th of February was, if I mistook not the points of the compass, in a direction west of north from the three excavations just spoken of, and distant, I should judge, some four hundred yards or more, and was between sixty and seventy feet in length under ground. In this hole there was a very well defined vein of quicksilver ore, about two or two and a half inches wide. Article 4, title 6, of the mining laws requires that he who discovers a mine or vein shall present himself in writing to the magistrate of the place, expressing his name and those of his partners, if he have any, the place of his birth, his residence, profession, and employment, and the most characteristic marks or indications of the place, mountain, or vein, which he wishes to have adjudicated to him. In the denouncement of the 17th of December, neither the place of birth, residence, profession, and employment, nor any of the characteristic marks or indications of the place, mountain, or vein, were made known in writing to the magistrate, or, in other words, set forth in the denouncement—all of which are positive and absolute requirements of the law; and the entire non conformity with the law, in failing to set forth these peremptory requirements, renders the denouncement illegal, and therefore null and void. The aforesaid article (4th) requires an excavation of one and a half varas in diameter at the mouth, and ten in depth, to be made in the run or veins of the spot recorded, before those who denounce can be entitled to be put into the legal possession of the number of appurtenances allowed by law; and not then, unless such excavation be made within ninety days. In this case, the parties denouncing on the 17th of December are put in possession by the alcalde at the expiration of forty-eight days, when it is not in proof that their excavation was in conformity to law, but, on the contrary, it was the alcalde's opinion, not of sufficient depth; for he says, "the excavation was going on, and that there was sufficient time to finish them (it) before the ninety days"—that is, before the expiration of the ninety days allowed by law-and that he did not measure the depth, In a statement made on the 12th instant, the alcalde who gave the possession estimates the depth at twenty or twenty-two feet, but made no measurement. Here the imperative requirements of the law are set aside, or not complied with, and therefore, on that ground, the possession given on the 2d of February was not legal. The said 4th article further requires the magistrate to examine the course and direction of the vein, its breadth, and other circumstances, taking an exact account of all this, in order to add to it the corresponding entry of record, with the certificate of possession. Not one of these indispensable and imperative requirements of the law has been complied with-the non-compliance with. each and every one of which presents so many separate grounds of illegality of the possession given on the 2d of February. The mining laws give to the denouncer of a new vein in a "known mountain"—that is, a mountain known to contain the named mineral"two appurtenances;" and to those who work in company, four new appurtenances an appurtenance being 200 Spanish varas in length, and from one hundred to two hundred varas in breadth, according to the dip or inclination of the mineral vein. This denouncement of the 17th of December, being a new vein, if any, in mountains known to contain quicksilver ore, entitled the party to but two appurtenaces; but working in company entitled them to "four new appurtenances," making six in all, (though it is said by Mr. Walkinshaw, a practical miner of great experience and intelligence, that in Mexico the law is so construed, and such the invariable practice there, that a company is only entitled to four appurtenances in all.) Now, an appurtenance being two hundred varas long, and its greatest width, under the most favorable circumstances, two hundred varas wide, it follows that six appurtenances cannot contain more than 240,000 square varas. The magistrate put the party in possession on the 2d of February of a given space of land, including the hole they had dug, measuring, if I remember rightly your reading from your record when I was at the Pueblo on the 12th, 600 varas one way by 800 varas the other, making the area to contain 480,000 square varas-just 240,000 square varas more than he was authorized by law to put them in judicial possession of, even supposing that they had fulfilled all the requirements of the law to entitle them to possession. The possession given on the 2d of February was therefore illegal, the magistrate greatly exceeding his judicial powers and authority. The judicial acts of a magistrate can only confer rights on one party, or take them from another, so long as he confines himself within the limits the law has assigned to him. As soon as he steps beyond those limits, his judicial acts are at once stripped of all binding force and effect, and have no more legal force than if performed by any other individual. The reservation made by the magistrate on the 2d of February in the certificate of possession, that the measurement was good only for what the laws designate on the subject, amounts to nothing. It was his business to have ascertained what the law did designate or allow, and his duty to have the appurtenances measured and marked according to law; and this he did not do. There are other instances where the law has not been complied with in giving this possessión, but it is useless to follow them; enough has been shown to render the possession so given illegal, and utterly null and void. But we will for a moment suppose that all the steps taken subsequent to the denouncement were legal, and that the requirements of the law were adhered to both on the part of the magistrate and the denouncer, so far as relates to the excavation made, and the possession given is concerned: still the denouncement of the 17th of December is of itself defective and illegal, because the plain and imperative requirements of the law were not adhered to or complied with. The denouncement-the foundation upon which the whole work is erected-being defective and illegal, and swept away, the whole superstructure built thereon must fall with it. The denouncement made on the 17th of December last by the parties first above named, and the pos session given under it on the 2d of February, both being so entirely illegal and at variance with the law, they cannot militate against the party claiming under the denouncement of the 5th of February; and the only question that now remains to be ascertained is, Have they denounced this mine in a proper manner, found mineral, and made their excavation according to law, and within ninety days from the 5th of February? I have not the denouncement of the 5th of February by me to refer to, and therefore only speak of it from recollection, which tells me that all the requirements of the law were fulfilled in said denouncement. I measured, on the 11th instant, the excavation made by those who made that denouncement of the 5th February, and found it more than one and a half varas in diameter at its mouth, and about sixty-five or six feet in length under ground, but not in a perpendicular direction. If, upon examination of the denouncement you have upon record of the 5th February, it is found to be in accordance with the mining laws, the party claiming under it is entitled to the judicial possession of the legal number of appurtenances. I herewith return to you the papers that were enclosed with your letter of the 2d instant. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, R. B. MASON, Colonel 1st Drag., com'g. CHARLES WHITE, Alcalde, Pueblo de San José. HEADQUARTERS TENTH MILITARY DEPARTMENT, Monterey, California, May 20, 1848. SIR: Mr. William A. Leidsdorff, a citizen of the United States, died intestate, in San Francisco, on the morning of the 18th instant, possessed, it is said, of a large, valuable property. It is all-important that his estate should at once be placed in safe and responsible hands. As you have never resigned or been deprived of your consular commission, I think it |