entitled to their pay, and it is a great hardship upon them to be compelled to wait a year or longer for the money which they have earned. I therefore recommend that Congress be requested to make provision for the payment of said claims.

In order to bring up the work now in arrears, an addition to the present appropriation of $10,000 per annum will be necessary for two years, and I respectfully recommend that Congress be requested to make such provision at the earliest practicablə moment, as there is much work now pending in this office which needs to be done at once, but which cannot be done unless such provision is made. One of the items of this work is the swamp-land segregation under section 2483 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. This one item will occupy two draughtsmen and one clerk for the period of one year. It is very desirable to the United States, the State of California, and individuals in interest, that this matter should be disposed of at as early a date as practicable; and there are other items of work equally necessary and laborious which ought to be disposed of, but which it is entirely impossible to attend to with the present means provided.

The reason why so much help is asked for by this office is the multifarious character of its duties, the same being not wholly of a mathematical character, but many of them being semi-judicial in their nature. For instance, in making partition of swamp and dry lands between the United States and the State of California, the law requires the surveyor general to determine from evidence, to be taken according to prescribed forms, what was swamp land upon a certain day (September 28, 1850), and what was dry land. This not only involves examinations and the taking of testimony in writing, but also the giving of proper notices, correspondence, preparation of papers, publication, issuing citations, &c., and throws a large amount of work upon the office.

The settlement of boundaries of private land claims involves similar proceedings and a large amount of similar work, for which no provision is made by Congress beyond the regular office force, which at present, with the provision now made, is insufficient even to carry on the office work legitimately appertaining to the survey of the public lands, without reference to the other duties imposed upon this office.

As will be seen from the tables of recapitulation of the work done by this office during the past fiscal year, 1,168 maps and plats, originals and copies, under their several classifications, have been prepared by the draughting division, and a set of field notes, to accompany each map, copied by the clerks. This does not include the maps and copies of field notes furnished to deputies as a basis for their surveys, nor the correspondence and other routine office work.

Errors are frequently discovered by this office, and field notes returned to the deputy with explanations and instructions, and errors are frequently discovered by the General Land Office which were overlooked in this office, and changes and amendments must be made in former surveys by the subsequent discovery of errors. Many questions, involving the decision of difficult points, arise, where authorities must be examined, precedents looked up, &c.

The large amount of the current business of this office is constantly augmented by the fact that as the surveys projected from different points close upon each other, errors are discovered, and the work must be made to properly connect. If the settlement of land titles and boundaries and the development of the agricultural and mineral and other resources of this State are of any consequence whatever, a reasonable and sufficient amount of money should be appropriated for conducting the business of this office.

I have endeavored, as best I could, to conduct the business of this office with the totally inadequate means provided by Congress, and to this end I have made the following reductions in the salaries of employés paid from the appropriation, viz:

I have also increased the office or working hours. In justice to the employés of this office, I would state that frequently they have cheerfully worked from ten to twelve hours a day, and have faithfully seconded me in my efforts to do as much of the work as possible. I deem it but justice to say that the compensation paid the employés is very low, considering the conditions existing here, such as rents and prices of necessaries, &c., not to forget that they are paid quarterly. Especially is this the case with the draughtsmen, and I would recommend that a sufficient appropriation be made to enable me to pay the chief draughtsman at least his former salary of $2,300.

The complicated nature of the surveys in this State requires often deliberate investigation and study, and the construction of maps and plats forms but a small portion of

the labor in each case.

The office work increases constantly, and now needs at least

four experienced draughtsmen, to be paid from appropriation.

The question of abolishing several surveying districts and consolidating them all into one district, with headquarters at Washington, was agitated during the last session of Congress, and I may be pardoned for referring to it. The question as to the system of surveys, whether pursued under the contract or salary system, not being considered; as the location of claims and the defining of boundaries of every description would require the same attention to detail under the proposed system as at present, and the same work as is now done in this office would then have to be done elsewhere, and there would be nothing saved but the salaries of the respective surveyors general, and, as some one would have to supervise and direct surveys within the districts, even that is questionable.

When the extent and area of the State of California is remembered, it will readily be seen that, even with San Francisco as a base for directing operations, the districts to be surveyed are, in many instances, remote, and communication with the parties in the field a matter of considerable time. Deputy surveyors are often obliged to come to the office from a distance to consult records or to explain matters not capable of any other solution than by personal communication with those in the office having in charge the details of surveys. Not a day passes that parties from different portions of the State do not call upon this office for examination of records affecting their interests in one way or another. Members of the bar of California, many of them engaged in land cases, have frequently immediate necessity for consulting the Spanish archives and surveying records of this office.

Whatever seeming benefits might accrue by a consolidation of all the surveying districts at Washington would be more than offset by increased delays in the transaction of the business of the people of this State; and in the present stage of the public surveys of this State any change from the former system must work injuriously, and the supposed savings and benefits cannot compensate for the inevitable confusion, delays, and disarrangements which a change of system would cause in this State.

I would also state that an increased appropriation for field work will necessarily involve a larger amount of office work; hence, should the appropriation for field work be made as herein suggested, a corresponding amount will have to be provided for office work. Even now the appropriations for office work in all classes of public sur veys under control of this office are totally disproportionate and inadequate to those made in the field.

The work done by this office is not only to supervise the execution of surveys, but a large part of the legitimate surveying work is done by the employés of this office. The deputy does only the field work and the office does the office work, which is as much a part of the necessary surveying work as that in the field.

Under the provisions of section 2223 Revised Statutes, I have appointed the following deputy surveyors, viz: James M. Anderson, Placerville, El Dorado County; John Gilcrest, Oakland, Alameda County; J. R. Glover, San Francisco; W. J. Lewis, San Francisco; William Minto, San Francisco; J. A. Benson, San Francisco; J. E. Freeman, San Francisco; Charles F. Hoffman, San Francisco; G. Howard Thompson, San Francisco; W. H. Carlton, San Francisco; I. N. Chapman, San Francisco; Charles T. Healy, San Francisco; W. F. Benson, San Francisco; G. F. Allard, San Francisco; D. D. Brown, San Francisco; James E. Woods, San Francisco; A. E. Gans, San Francisco; W. A. Richards, San José, Santa Clara County; M. G. Wheeler, San Diego, San Diego County; A. B. Blauvais, Columbia, Tuolumne County; R. R. Harris, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County; Mark Howell, Merced, Merced County; J. G. Parke, Bakersfield, Kern County; A. A. Smith, Susanville, Lassen County; Milton Santee, Susanville, Lassen County; T. H. Ward, Red Bluff, Tehama County; W. S. Lowden, Weaverville, Trinity County; Thomas Creighton, Visalia, Tulare County; W. H. Norway, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County; J. C. Fairchild, Oakland, Alameda County; Arthur L. Cox, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County; P. Y. Baker, Visalia, Tulare County; W. F. Boardman, Oakland, Alameda County; A. W. Kiddie, Quincy, Plumas County; C. J. Fox, San Diego, San Diego County; L. D. Bond, Upper Lake, Lake County; J. C. des Granges, Oakland, Alameda County; William Magee, Shasta, Shasta County; R. B. Thomas, Mariposa, Mariposa County; George J. Specht, Salinas, Monterey County; James Branham, Susanville, Lassen County; Luis Castro, Oakland, Alameda County; William P. Reynolds, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County; H. B. Shackelford, Red Bluff, Tehama County; S. A. Hanson, Independence, Inyo County; M. F. Reilly, Eureka, Humboldt County; Lucian B. Healy, Red Bluff, Tehama County; J. W. Seidlinger, Downieville, Sierra County; D. C. Hall, Quincy, Plumas County; F. A. Gibson, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County; E. T. Wright, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County; John C. Reid, Stockton, San Joaquin County; G. W. Baker, Stockton, San Joaquin County; C. F. Putnam, Oakland, Alameda County; N. L. Bredan, Chico, Butte County; R. K. Nichols, Lower Lake, Lake County; L. B. Gorham, Willets, Mendocino County; A. T. Herrmann, San José, Santa Clara County; Frank S. Ingalls, Salinas, Monterey County; St. John Cox, Salinas, Monterey County; L. D. Chillson, San Buenaventura, Ventura

County; J. L. McCoy, Mayfield, Santa Clara County; R. F. Herrick, Eureka, Hum boldt County; H. J. Stevenson, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County; H. J. Haber, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County; Seth Smith, Visalia, Tulare County; George W. Smith, Vallejo, Solano County; H. I. Willey, San Diego, San Diego County.

PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS.

Another question of great importance is the settlement at as early a date as practicable of the boundaries of the California private land claims.

Adjacent public lands are in many cases held in a state of reservation, and in some cases townships are held suspended or kept from being surveyed by reason of the undefined boundaries of some Spanish or Mexican grant, and settlers' claims thereon are consequently retarded, involving to them litigation, expense, and delay, besides uncertainty; and in this connection attention is called to the fact that although Congress has made provision for the field work for surveying these private land claims, no provision whatever has been made for office work, viz: calculations, copying, and preparing descriptive notes, decrees, &c., mapping, taking testimony, and other incidental work.

The settlement of the boundaries of private land claims in California has been a source of much labor, both to this office and the General Land Office. Eight hundred and thirteen claims were presented for confirmation before the "board of land commissioners to ascertain and settle private land claims in California." Of these 813 claims, some 170 were finally rejected by the courts of the United States; the remaining 643 having been confirmed, with the exception of one or two cases still pending before the United States district court. Of the claims finally confirmed, 570 have been surveyed, leaving 73 still to be surveyed. Of the claims surveyed, 498 have gone to patent, and the remainder are still pending before this office and the department. Thus it appears that, although nearly twenty-seven years have elapsed since the first claim under a Spanish or Mexican grant in California was presented for confirmation before the board of land commissioners, the records of this office show that there is still before it, and before the Land Department in Washington, a large balance of unfinished business in relation to the final settlement of Spanish and Mexican grants in this district. Various causes have contributed to these long and tedious delays in the settlement of these claims.

The Spanish or Mexican population of California were a strictly pastoral people; the country was isolated from the commercial portions of the earth, and but sparsely settled; therefore, prior to the Anglo-American conquest of 1846, lands were of but little value. Extensive grants of land were made by the Spanish and Mexican Governments, which were generally but vaguely bounded by mountains and streams, and imperfectly described by rude maps, on which the courses and distances, as shown, were scarcely ever even approximately correct. This incorrectness as to course and distance is easily accounted for: except in a very few instances no instruments were used by the Mexican alcalde whose duty it was to measure the rancho and give possession thereof to the grantee. The courses were guessed at, and the measurements, when made with a cord, were generally by persons on horseback, and very often the distances were not measured at all, but were merely estimated, and since the traveler, in those times, usually estimated the distance between two points by the time occupied in going from one to the other, the distance as thus calculated by him usually depended on the fleetness of the horse he was riding. Under these circumstances, it is not strange that but little reliability can be placed upon the boundary, so called, of the original title papers of Spanish land grants in California as to course and distance, and the same is true with regard to area, as estimated. It is different, however, with regard to natural land marks, when such are called for in the old title papers.

The Mexican inhabitants of California, spending as they did much of their time in the open air and on horseback looking after their stock, gave significant names to prominent landmarks, such as springs, arroyas, mountains, hills, valleys, rocks, &c., and which landmarks, although rudely described by the illiterate ranchero of the olden time, can always be identified when sufficient care and intelligence are used in seeking such information. Many of these landmarks, however, were not permanent in their nature, and liable to decay or to disappear, especially when the whole business and occupation of the inhabitants changed from one pursuit to the present diversified industries. This uncertainty of boundary, however, caused but little difficulty among the stock raising population of California, since but few controversies arose among them in relation to the boundaries of their ranchos, and such as did occur were generally in relation to some desirable locality, such as a spring at some fertile and sheltered spot, where the ranchero desired to locate his dwelling and make his stock corrals; which contentions were generally settled by arbitration or by order of the governor. The board of land commissioners, appointed under the act of the 3d of March, 1851, "to ascertain and settle the private land claims in California," not only passed upon the validity of the original titles presented before them for confirmation, but they undertook in their court room the impossible task of establishing the boundaries, and

definitely locating the tracts of land, the titles to which they had confirmed. This they attempted through the media of rude and often incorrect translations, of vague original title papers, and the badly interpreted testimony of illiterate and sometimes dishonest witnesses. It is needless to comment on the practical results of such a course of proceedings. When we consider that the description calls of the original title papers of these Spanish or Mexican grants are generally so vague that they can only be ascertained by a careful examination on the ground, it does not seem strange that the location and boundaries thereof, as established by the land commission in the manner above described, were often ambiguous, incorrect, and impossible. Under these decrees this office has been required to locate these ranchos by surveys in the field. A majority of these claims were surveyed before lands in California were considered to be of any great value; the work was often done hurriedly, and sometimes by inexperienced deputies who had no data to guide them save the calls of the decrees of confirmation and the rude diseños referred to therein; hence, in many cases the ranchos were not located in accordance with the intention of the original title papers. This has been, and will be for a long time to come, productive of many unfortunate results, giving rise to vexatious and expensive litigation, and greatly retarding the settlement and prosperity of the country. The harm already done cannot now be altogether remedied, but it may teach a lesson that will prompt a wiser course in the future under circumstances of a similar character.

Another cause contributing to delays in these matters is this: For many years the claimants of ranchos were required to advance the expenses attending the surveys of the same. In cases where they felt sure that under the decrees of confirmation they were entitled to more land than they had possession of, and were anxious to eject settlers who were located thereon, it was to their interest to have their lands surveyed as speedily as possible; but in many cases they claimed and occupied more land than they were strictly entitled to, and hoped, in view of the vagueness and ambiguity of the descriptions given in the original title papers, to be able to include within their surveys, when made, all the lands thus claimed.

As time passes the face of the country is changed, and landmarks often become obliterated, and witnesses who were familiar with landmarks that existed and events that occurred fifty years ago no longer exist. So what might easily have been ascertained a score of years since is much more difficult at present, and in a few years more may become quite impossible. Hence, in many cases, it has been to the interest of the claimants of ranchos to postpone as long as possible the survey of the lands owned by them, or the final disposition of a survey heretofore made. This difficulty now, however, no longer exists since the government furnishes the means required to make these surveys; requiring the claimants before receiving patent to reimburse the United States for the expense of survey.

Another source of embarrassment may be mentioned in this connection. Many of the large ranchos in California have been divided into small tracts and sold, some before the claims were confirmed, and others before surveys were made. In some cases separate claims for the portions sold were presented before the land commission, while no claim was presented for a confirmation of the whole rancho as an entirety, and as the descriptions given in these early deeds of conveyance of the different parcels sold were often very imperfect, and sometimes conflicting, much confusion was the result, and the same may be said with relation to ranchos that have been subdivided and sold before the boundaries thereof have been established by affirmed surveys.

Many of the owners of the small tracts sold know but little of the history of the title under which they hold, and most of such owners give but little thought to the subject, on the principle that "what is everybody's business is nobody's business." I such cases matters are likely to remain in this unsettled condition until the boundaries of the ranchos are definitely settled by the government independently of and without regard to the owners of the land.

I am making every effort in my power to dispose of the cases now before this office with all possible dispatch, many of which have been lingering for years greatly to the detriment of the best interests of the country. I shall also cause to be surveyed, as soon as practicable, all tracts where the work has not already been done.

The final adjustment of the boundaries of these Spanish grants is of paramount importance to the prosperity of the country, since until this is done there will always be some question in relation to the public lands adjoining the same.

There are many men of families and small means in this country who are seeking homes, and there are many small valleys in the neighborhood of ranchos, the boundaries of which are unsettled, where the man of humble means might make a comfortable home for his family, but which he cannot do so long as the boundaries of the neighboring ranchos remain unsettled.

For the foregoing reasons the final settlement of these matters should be pressed with all possible energy by every department of the government having jurisdiction over the same.

I desire to call attention to the original archives pertaining to the former Spanish and Mexican Governments of the country. These archives consist of nearly three hundred manuscript volumes in which is found the history of the country from the time Spaniards settled here in 1769 to the arrival of the Americans in 1846. These records, although they do not directly relate to land grants, are notwithstanding historically valuable as giving an account of the first settlement of the country, and interesting as being the record of a race that will soon be forgotten in this land of their fathers. These historic volumes are kept in substantial wooden cases in the commodious apartment provided by the government for the Spanish archives of this office, and are in a reasonably safe condition. There are besides these historic records the original records of all the grants of land made by the Spanish and Mexican Governments of the country. These old papers are not in so secure a condition as their importance and value demand. A substantial fire-proof safe should be provided for their keeping, since, if they should be destroyed by fire or otherwise, their loss could never be repaired. As it is they are entirely unprotected save by the ordinary wooden door of the office in which they are kept. I would therefore suggest that a substantial fire-proof safe be at once provided for the protection of these valuable old records. An appropriation of $1,800 is necessary for this purpose. I deem it proper to state also that there is evidence which goes to show that the commission and courts were imposed upon in some of the private land claims confirmed by spurions and forged papers. The courts, however, have decided that the matter cannot now be inquired into again without an act of Congress.

* * *

The courts, however, have decided that the matter cannot now be inquired into again without an act of Congress.

Such evidence as this office has will be furnished to you in another communication so that should you deem it advisable Congress may be asked for proper legislation. The following is a list of the private land claims in California which have been patented: