UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. lissioner of the General Land WASHINGTON, D.O. In the Matter, of Adjustment of the Congressional Land Grant of 150,000 Acres to the State of California. CORRESPONDENCE. SACRAMENTO: p STATE OFFICE, : : : : J. D. YOUNG, SUPT. STATE PRINTING. & 1888. 1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. of the General Land WASHINGTON, D. C. In the Matter of Adjustment of the Congressional Land Grant of 150,000 Acres to the State of California. CORRESPONDENCE. SACRAMENTO: STATE OFFICE, : : : : J. D. YOUNG, SUPT. STATE PRINTING. 1888. OOERESPOISTDEN CE. First Relating to the return and cancellation of the deed exe- cuted by the Governor under date of November 26, 1883, on the part of the Board of Regents, reconveying to the United States certain lands heretofore listed. Second Relating to the reconveyance of selections erroneously listed by the Land Department at Washington to the grant of 150,000 acres. RELATING TO THE Deed executed by the Governor of the State of California, under date of November 26, 1883, requesting the return and cancel- lation of the same. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, October 13, 1887. To the honorable the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Washington, D. C. : SIR: The undersigned, the Governor of the State of California, and the Secretary of the Board of Regents of the University of California, have been instructed by said Board to transmit to you the annexed documents, relating to University lands, and to re- quest the return and cancellation of a deed of the Governor of the State, bearing date November 26, 1883, conveying to the United States certain lands enumerated in the annexed docu- ments. A law of the State of California, enacted March 13, 1883 (see Statutes of California, 1883, page 287), a copy of which is hereto attached, authorized the Governor to make the reconveyance referred to, upon request of the Board of Regents; said Board of Regents afterwards requested the Governor to execute a deed reconveying certain lands to the United States, and the Governor, by deed dated November 26, 1883, in pursuance of law and the order of the Board, did so reconvey. The above deed is condi- tional, and for its completeness requires the passage of an Act of Congress, to authorize the Commissioner of the General Land Office to cancel the selections named in the deed, and to author- ize the Board of Regents to make selections of other lands instead of those mentioned. Having failed to obtain the passage of the said enabling Act, the said deed is inoperative. In the mean time, the Board of Regents, under changed conditions, has found an opportunity to sell a portion of the lands so reconveyed by the Governor, but cannot do so until said deed is canceled. The Board of Regents therefore respectfully request you to return said conveyance to J. H. C. Bonte, Secretary of the Board of Regents, for cancellation. Very respectfully, R. W. WATERMAN, Governor of the State of California. J. H. C. BONTE, Secretary of the Board of Regents. The following action was had by the Board of Regents at their meeting of September 6, 1887: WHEREAS, In pursuance of a recommendation of the Board of Regents of the University of California, the Legislature of this State passed an Act which was approved March 13, 1883, author- izing the Governor to grant and reconvey to the United States such lands as might thereafter be reported to him, of which Act the following is a copy: CHAPTER XLV. An Act to authorize the Governor of the State of California to reconvey to the United States a part of the lands heretofore granted the State of California by Act of Con- gress of July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and listed to the State of Cal- 'ifornia, under the Agricultural College grant of one hundred and fifty thousand acres. [Approved March 13, 1883. Stats, of Cal. 1883, p. 287.] ARTICLE 152. WHEREAS, Under and by virtue of an Act donating public lands to the sev- eral States and Territories of the United States for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts, approved July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and amendments thereto, the Regents of the University of California, acting under and in conformity with an Act of the Legislature of the State of Cali- fornia entitled "An Act to create and organize the University of California," approved March twenty-third, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, did select as a part of said grant, certain lands which were duly listed to the State by the United States and it now appearing that it is to the interest of the University of California to secure the cancellation of said selections, it is therefore neces- sary to reconvey to the United States said lands, and thereby secure the right to select other lands instead thereof. Therefore, The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Regents of the University of California are authorized and required to report to the Governor of the State of California a description of such of the lands granted to the State of California by authority of the Act of Congress of July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and amendments thereto, and listed to the State of California, that should be reconveyed to the United States. ARTICLE 153. SEC. 2. Whenever the report provided for in the first section of this Act shall have been received by the Governor, he may and is authorized in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of California to grant and reconvey to the United States such lands as may be embraced and described in said report. SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. WHEREAS, A report was thereafter made to the Governor of such lands, and the Governor thereafter, on the twenty-sixth day of November, 1883, did sign a conveyance of the lands tnerein described, as follows: - 7 - Town- ship. Range. Description. Sec- tion. Area. 28 S.. 268. . 268. . 14 S. 18 E San Francisco District. E i 8 4 4 14 14 22 24 4 11 29 22 10 30 6 8 4 10 8 20 18 22 10 10 23 34 35 33 2 12 o 4 33 3 17 9 14 25 24 20 14 13 25 24 34 $ 85.23 40 40 40 80 40 40 40 160 80 40 40.52 40 40 40 80 40 80 120 40 40 40 80 80 40 80 80 40 79.98 80 40 80 80 40 40 160 40 160 160 160 40 160 80 80 55.48 56.54 160 320 560 240 44.65 12 E... 12 E... 7E. E.lofS.W.j E. | of N.W. J S E. Jof N.W J 14 S.. 13 N.. 278.. 298.. 9N.. 14 N.. 248. . 248. 7E. .. 13 W. . 10 E. .. 19 E N E J of N W 1 - S.E. Jof S.W. J-.-- N W 1 of S E i and 8 E i of S E J SE jof SE j 10W. . 16 W. - 16 E. .. 16 E. S.E. Jof S.W. j S E J of N W J E. * of S.E. J, N.W. J of S.E. J, and N.E. J of S.W. j.. W."i of N W. J 248. . 278.. 228. . 228.. 218. . 88. . 238. . 238. . 22 S. . 26 S. . 14 N.. 158. . 158. . 24 N.. UN.. 11 N.. UN. 11 N. 16 E. . . HE... 11 E. . S.Efjof N.E.J '.__.__ Lot 1 or N W J of N W J S.E. Jof S.E.J HE... 12 E. N.E.J of N.E.J S.W. Jof S.W. J 4 W. . 14 E. W. i of N.E. J N.W J of S W. J 14 E. . . 14 E. .. 12 E. .. 16 W. . 10 E. .. 10 E. .. 19 W. . 24 W. 24 W. . 24 W. . 24 W. W.iof S.W. J S.W". Jof S.E. j and S. i of S.W. J N.W. Jof S.E. J N.W. J of S.E. J S.E. Jof N.W. J E. i of S.E J S.f of N.W. J - All of Mt. Diablo base and meridian. S.E. Jof S.E. J W. i of S.W. J W. * of S W J N.W. J of N W i 23 N.. 15 N.. 23 N.. 15 N.. 15 N.. 21 N. 21 N._ 25 N 2 W. . IE... 3 W. . IE. .. 2 E. All of San Bernardino meridian. Marysville District. Lots 4 and 5 . . N. iof N.W. J - - S.W. Jof S.W. J S. % of S W j S E J of N E J and N E J of S E J 2E. .. 2E. .. 6 W N.E. Jof S.W.J N.W. J of S.E. J SE J 25 N.. 118. . us. . 118.. 58. . 2 N 6 W. . 20 E. .. N.E. Jof N.W. j Stockton District. S.W. J... 20 E. .. 20 E S.E. J.. N.W. 4 6 E. .. N.E. jVf N.E. J.. 7 E N W J 68. . 68.. 118. . 17 N.. 12 N.. 12 N.. 12 N.. 26 N.. 30 N.. 7E. N.i of NE j 7 E. N i of N W 4 8E. .. 15 E. . . 17 E. .. 17 E. Fractional S E J Sacramento District. Lots 4 and 5 . -. . . -- S.E. J . . E. of N.E. J W. i of N.W. J, and S.E. J 17 E... 4 W. . 3 W. . S. f and N.E. J, and E. \ of N.W. J Shasta District. N i of N E J and N W J Lot4._ Town- ship. Range. Desc.iption. Sec- tion. Area. 258. . 17 E. .. Visalia District. N.E. i of N.E. i, or Lot 1 4 41.60 28 S. - 19 E. . S. W. J . 9q 160 28 S. 19 E. 8.B.4 SO 160 14 S. 25 E. . . S.W.I of N.E. i, and S.E. i of N.W. i - 9 80 14 S. 25 E. S. W I and 8 E i of N E i 9 200 ITS. 23 E. .. Fractional N.W. J ... 6 161 16 19 S. 24 E. . Fractional N. i of N.E. i 6 5615 17 S. 23 E. S.JL 6 31940 17 S 23 E. Fractional N E i 6 16408 25 S. 26 E. . . N.W. i of N.W. i .. 34 40 238. . 16 E. . S.E. i of 8. W.l (or 8. J of Lot 5) .. 30 40 11 N 21 W All of Mt. Diablo baseband meridian Los Angeles District. W i 14 320 11 N 21 W NW \ 18 16069 11 N. 21 W. All of section 99 640 11 N 20 W. All of section 9j 640 11 N 21 W W i 6 320 IS. 3 W. S.i! 14 320 All of San Bernardino base and meridian. WHEREAS, An Act of Congress was necessary to the acceptance of said conveyance, but a bill accepting said conveyance and authorizing the selection by this Board of other lands instead of those mentioned, failed to pass, and said conveyance has not been accepted on the part of the United States; and, WHEREAS, Applications have been made to this Board to pur- chase a portion of said lands, and it is deemed for the best interest of the University that said conveyance be recalled and canceled, that said lands may be disposed of; therefore, Resolved, That a copy hereof be forwarded by the Secretary to the Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington, D. C., and that he be requested to return said conveyance to this Board for cancellation, and that said conveyance be and is hereby de- clared to be withdrawn and canceled. Resolved, That the Governor be requested to join in this request for the return of said conveyance. Resolved, further, That this Board ratines and approves the can- cellations heretofore made by the General Land Department of the United States of the listed selections of lands included in said conveyance, and that the Governor be authorized and requested to execute to the United States any conveyance or release that may be required by said Land Department in confirmation thereof. Adopted. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, \ BERKELEY, ALAMEDA Co., CAL., October 13, 1887. ) I hereby certify that the within is a true and correct copy from the minutes of the Board of Regents. Given under mv hand and seal this thirteenth day of October, 1887. (Signed:) J. H. C. BONTE, [SEAL.] Secretary of Board of Regents, University of California. [Initial " C."] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GENERAL LAND OFFICE, ) WASHINGTON, D. C., November 25, 1887. ) Hon. J. H. C. BONTE, Berkeley, California : SIR : I am in receipt of your letter of October eighteenth last, wherein, as Secretary of the Board of Regents of the University of California, you request the return to you, in order that the same may be canceled, of a deed issued by the Governor of the State, bearing date November 26, 1883, reconveying to the United States certain lands therein described, which had theretofore been certified to the State in part satisfaction of the grant of 150,000 acres for the establishment of a college for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts, by the Act of Congress, approved July 2, 1862. The records of this office show that the lands so conveyed to the United States had previously been selected for the benefit of the said college (now known as the University of California), by a duly authorized agent thereof, from the public lands of the United States; that subsequently, at divers times, the said se- lections had been approved and certified to the State of California by this Department, and had been duly charged against the said grant. Said lands were of the class, the price whereof had been en- hanced to $2 50 per acre, by the withdrawal of the alternate odd numbered sections for the benefit of certain railroad companies, the selection of which was authorized by Act of Congress, ap- proved March 3, 1871. In November, 1883, the Attorney for the University, E. O. F. Hastings, Esq., was sent to this city to lay before the Department certain facts in regard to the grant, viz.: that the University was unable to pay to the United States the sum of $1 25 per acre required by the Act of March 3, 1871, upon selections of double minimum lands, for the reason that the parties in whose interest the selections had been made had refused to pay for the land, and there was no fund available to the University from which such payments could be made. It was also shown that in pursuance of a recommendation of 10 the Board of Regents, the Legislature of the State of California passed an Act, which was approved March 13, 1883, authorizing the Governor to reconvey the lands so selected to the United States, and to ask that the selections thereof be canceled. In view of the representations of the attorney for the University above referred to, and in consideration of reconveyance of the lands by the Governor of the State, this office, under dates of December 3, 1883, and June 9, 1884, canceled certain of the selec- tions described in said deed, amounting in the aggregate to sev- eral thousand acres. It appears, however (for what reason does not appear), that a portion of the selections mentioned in the deed, amounting in the aggregate to 5,917 T 9 o\ acres, were not canceled on the above dates, nor upon any subsequent date, but are still intact upon the rec- ords; and it is in relation to these uncanceled selections that you desire the return of the deed in order that the same may be can- celed, application having been made to the University for the purchase thereof. In reply I would state that there is no probability of the remain- ing selections being canceled by this office, as it is not the present policy of the Government to cancel entries or locations upon which patent has issued; and the approval and certification of State selections is equivalent to patenting the same. Further- more, in the recent attempts at adjusting the grant for University purposes in California, the selections referred to were charged to the said grant as lands whereof the title had passed to the State. Hence, in view of the fact that the document you ask me to return to you represents, in the main, the authority of this office for its action in the premises, and in view of the further fact that your communication above referred to, wherein you prefer such request, is a virtual abrogation of the former action, reconveying said lands to the United States, I can see no good reason for the return of the deed, and must therefore decline to accede to your request. Very respectfully, S. M. STOCKSLAGER, Acting Commissioner. 11 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, | BERKELEY, May 18, 1888. ) To the honorable the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Washington, D. C.: SIR: Being requested to reply to your letter of the twenty-fifth November, 1887, addressed to Hon. J. H. C. Bonte, Berkeley, California, I beg to submit the following: It appears that at divers times prior to the thirteenth of March, 1883, there had been listed to the State of California under and against the agricultural grant of 150,000 acres, certain parcels of minimum and double minimum lands, aggregating about 9,000 acres. It being deemed best, the Governor of California under Act of the State Legislature (thirteenth of March, 1883), made and executed a deed to the United States reconveying this land as therein particularly described. Upon receipt of the deed, your Department has canceled the lists for the double minimum land, leaving the minimum land still charged against the grant. Clearly, if the deed operated to divest the State and invest the United States with the title to one parcel, it had the same effect as to the other, and the State is divested of the title to the whole. Understanding from your letter that there will be no cancellation of the lists to the minimum land (some 5,900 acres), the question is presented as to how the State is to be reinvested with the title to those parcels, the 5,900 acres; and upon this I suggest that probably the easiest and plainest way is to relist the same tracts to the State, either upon the same applications, or upon new ones if you think better. Having conveyed this land, the 5,900 acres of the minimum land, to the United States, the State cannot now sell or deal with it, and it still remaining a charge against the State. You must readily see that we must look to your Department for a settlement of the matter, and I beg that you will favor us with such suggestions or instructions as may be necessary there- for. Very respectfully, J. HAM. HARRIS, Land Agent of the University of California. COKKESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE Erroneous listing by the United States to the grant of 150,000 acres of certain lands in Township 2 north, Range 3 west, Mount Diablo Meridian, for which reconveyance is requested by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. [Initial " C."] [1887122, 301.] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, | WASHINGTON, D. C., November 30, 1887. ) J. HAM. HARRIS, Land Agent of the University of California, Berkeley, California : SIR: I am in receipt of the following communications from the United States Attorney at San Francisco, the Attorney-General, and Secretary of the Interior, copies of which are herewith in- closed : 1. Letter from John T. Carey, United States Attorney, San Francisco, September 8, 1887, advising that the " listing" to the State of California of E. \ of S.W. i of Sec. 26, Tp. 2 N., R. 3 W., M. D. M., under the agricultural college grant, be canceled, as the State has not patented the land, and stating that a reconvey- ance by you can be obtained, but expressing the opinion that no officer in the State is empowered to execute such instrument. 2. Letter from the Attorney-General, October 24, 1887, to the Secretary of the Interior, suggesting that the " certification" be canceled and a deed taken reconveying the land. 3. Letter from the Secretary of the Interior to the Commis- sioner of the General Land Office, November 9. 1887, calling attention to the suggestion of the Attorney-General, and directing that the selection be canceled upon reconveyance by deed of the title to the land by the u State" to the United States, and that correspondence be entered into with you with that end in view. On July 15, 1887, the Secretary of the Interior recommended to the Attorney-General that suit be brought to vacate the title to said tract, which passed to the State under the agricultural col- lege grant by virtue of the certification of a transcript of approved list 13, for the relief of preemptors having a superior claim to that of the State, and the correspondence referred to above resulted from said recommendation. The certification vested the title in the State, and unless the State relinquishes her title, this office would have no authority to cancel the selection. You state in a letter to the District Attor- 13 ney that it has been the practice of this office to obtain a deed of reconveyance from the "University (or State)," and cancel the selections in such instances, and it is inferred that you will exe- cute such deed should this .office so request, as the tract has not been patented by the State. Such has not been the practice of this office latterly; in every instance of such cancellations by this office for years a relinquish- ment was first obtained from the Governor, executed by the latter under special authority given him by the Legislature. It is to be regretted that power of a general nature is not vested in some officer of the State to execute reconveyances of such of her selec- tions of land as have been erroneously approved; but I do not find that such authority has been given by the Legislature. I find that the revenue from -the said grant inures to the University under the California law of March 23, 1868 (Cal. Stat., 1867-8, p. 248), and that you, as agent of the University, are empowered to select the lands and sell and patent them to purchasers under the direction of the Board of Regents of the University (Deering's Codes and Statutes of Cal., vol. 1, p. 533), but I do not find that you can reconvey the State title. It does not follow that you can reconvey the State title because you can sell the lands and thus dispose of such title as by law provided. On page 534, said volume of Codes and Statutes, is the Act of the Legislature of March 13, 1883, authorizing the Governor to reconvey to the United States certain lands embraced in selections made for the University, that had been approved, u in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of California." The preamble of the Act sets forth that it was to the interest of the University to secure the cancellation of the selections, and that it was "therefore necessary to reconvey to the United States said lands." If it was for the interest of the University that the selec- tions should be canceled, and the agent thereof had power to reconvey, why was the matter brought before the Legislature and the Governor empowered to do it ? As said legislative body can- not be supposed to have done a vain thing, it must be presumed that no officer of the State had such power. Before taking further action in the matter, I have concluded to invite your attention to the foregoing views, and request you to communicate with me at an early day on the subject, citing the authority, if you yet hold that it exists, under which you would execute such deed of reconveyance. Very respectfully, S. M. STOCKSLAGER, Acting Commissioner. 14 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ) BERKELEY, May 29, 1888. j To the honorable the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Washington, D. C. : SIR: In the matter of reconveyance to the United States by the Regents of the University of California (reference is hereby made to your letter of November 30, 1887, "Initial C"), of the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 26, Township 2 north, Range 3 west, Mount Diablo Meridian, listed to the Agricultural Grant in clear list number 13, San Francisco District, approved February 13, 1885, I respectfully submit a copy of letter from John B. Mhoon, counsel for the Board of Regents, of date April 23, 1888; said letter has been submitted to the Committee of Regents of the University on Agricultural Land Grant, and by them approved, and I am instructed by said committee to advise you that if acceptable, they will obtain a resolution of the Board of Regents authorizing the Governor of California, its President, as President of said Board of Regents, to execute a quitclaim deed reconveying to the United States the land in question. This course has been pursued in all cases when said Board has conveyed real estate to parties purchasing from the University of California, title to which has been obtained outside of the grant of 150,000 acres. In your letter of November 30, 1887, } T OU ask, " If it was for the interest of the University that the selections should be canceled, and the agent thereof had power to reconvey, why was the matter brought before the Legislature and the Governor empowered to doit?" It has not been claimed by the Regents that the Land Agent had the power to reconvey, but in the early part of the adminis- tration of Commissioner Williamson, and prior to his time, the Department accepted deeds of reconveyance signed by the Gov- ernor and countersigned by the Land Agent when anticipating the cancellation of the selections subsequently embraced in deed by the Governor to the United States, of date November 26, 1883, the question was raised by your Department that no State officer was authorized to execute a deed on the part of the State. To provide for this contingency the Regents obtained the passage of the Act of March 13, 1883. The selections sought to be canceled had been certified to the grant of 150,000 acres, and there was TIO question as to its validity in the present case the United States could not give title to the land listed in list number 13, San Fran- cisco District being an error of your Department, no title was conveyed. Any suggestion you may make in the matter will be considered and promptly carried out if possible. Respectfully, J. HAM. HARRIS, Land Agent University of California. 15 In re Reconveyance of Land to the United Sta * SAN FRANCISCO ^\ v s^~ n , J. HAM. HARRIS, Esq., Land Agent, etc.: DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the twenty-first instant in reference to the above matter. The question generally stated is, " How shall the State reconvey land to the United States which has been by mistake certified to the State under the Agri- cultural College grant?" It would seem that if the certificate were improper or illegal for any reason that no title passed, and in my opinion the case, as. stated in your letter above referred to, falls within this rule, and the title remained in the United States, now subject to be con- veyed to the true owner or purchaser. If, however, the reconvey- ance is required by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, for the purpose of keeping the record straight, or for removing a cloud, or for any purpose, the State, no doubt, must reconvey in order to relieve the grant of that charge. I think the Commissioner is correct in his construction of the legislative Act of March 13, 1883. The reconveyance requested must be authorized by some other Act. The certification referred to was to the State for the Agricultural College. These lands are subject to the untrammeled disposition of the Board of Regents (al- ways acting in good faith as Trustees, of course). (Political Code of California, 3533.) And at their request, properly certified to him, the Governor executes and delivers a State patent therefor to the party named by the Regents. (Political Code of California. See 3534 and 3520; also State Constitution, Art. V, Sec. 14.) These provisions of State law seem to me sufficient authority to authorize the Board of Regents to request, and the Governor to execute and deliver, a patent for the land inadvertently listed to the State back to the United States, or it might be better to have the State patent issue to the applicant named in the appli- cation to the Board of Regents and have him (the applicant) reconvey to the United States. I suggest that you submit these propositions to the United States Commissioner and get his views. Should he determine that neither of these plans are feasible, and does not suggest an- other, it will be necessary to apply to the next Legislature for an Act, as we are all agreed that the former one does not cover the case. Very respectfully, JOHN B. MHOOX, Counsel for the Board of Regents.