grants were in the form of town lots. The govobably had power to grant ranchos after 1786, but no re made until after 1800. A few farms were occupied enses before the latter date, and about twelve more en up between 1800 and 1822. "From the advent nor Figueroa in 1833," says Bancroft, "under the colonization law of 1824 and the reglamento of d grants numbered on an average fifty-three each 346, when the total number was nearly eight hun

Mexican regulations any citizen, whether native lized, might take up unoccupied land and apply vernor for a grant. Usually such an application npanied by a rude map and was submitted by the to the prefect, alcalde, or some other local official igation. If the local officer found the land unand no objections were raised by citizens, he recordingly to the governor. The latter then ape grant, and the secretary of state made out a copy which was kept on file in the toma de razon book. The grant was not valid, however, until by the assembly, or if they refused, by the governMexico. After approval the grantee presented his e alcalde, who put him in formal possession. Not ■ eleven square leagues could be granted to one e family unless an agreement was made to estab

, History of California, VI, 529-30. These figures were taken ›r from Hoffman's Reports of 1862, which, he says, are only

lish a colony.1 Most of the grants made were from one to five leagues.

But lands were cheap and plentiful, and the people and officials indolent and careless, so that in few if any cases were all of these formalities observed. The important point with petitioners was to get a titulo and settle on the rancho. Such quarrels and litigations as came up were usually over boundaries and were generally settled by arbitration. Sometimes there was no diseno or map, no informe or report of local officials, no approval by the assembly. Few cases were submitted to the national government. Frequently

1 Grants made to establish foreign colonies were to be at least ten leagues from the coast and twenty leagues from the frontier. No grants were made for this purpose, however, except the McNamara grant of 1846. Bancroft, History of California, VI, 531, note.

An official account of Mexican procedure in issuing land grants is given in Jones (William Carey), Report on the Subject of Land Titles in California, Washington, 1850, pp. 4-5. He was sent out by the department at Washington in the summer of 1849 as "confidential agent of the government, to proceed to Mexico and California for the purpose of procuring information as to the condition of land titles in California." (Ibid., 3.) He sailed from New York on July 17th, and reached Monterey September 19th following. From that date until December 7th, he remained in California. His report is dated March 9, 1850, and includes, in addition to his information on land titles, the following in the order named: "Articles VIII and IX from the treaty of February 2, 1848; Mexican colonization laws and rules taken from an 'Act of the Mexican government, 4th January, 1823'; 'Decree of the Mexican Congress, of 18th August, 1824, on colonization'; 'Government regulations for the colonization of territories, pursuant to the preceding law, adopted 21st November, 1828'; 'Decree of November 4th, 1833'; 'Decree of Spanish Cortes of January 4th, 1813'; 'Acts governing the early settlement of California'; 'Extract from the Regulation and Instruction for Presidios of the peninsula of California, etc. 1779 and 1781';" together with a few other documents on California missions. etc.

; no survey of the claim at all; never an accurate è grant was for so many leagues, usually at a place by name; "or a certain area more or less between atural boundaries; or a fixed extent to be located rtain larger bounds, the surplus being reserved." the Spanish provisions for land grants were exceltlined on paper, but they also had the equally Spanish characteristic of being poorly executed › Spanish régime. Although the irregularities were y deplored in the official communications of the en to the extent of declaring the titles technically seems clear that under Mexican law and usage e practically held as valid; that is, that under conexican rule the governor's written concessions duly in the archives, not invalidated by regrant after nent or by direct act of the supreme government, ways have been respected as perfect titles of owner

The Alvarado Grant

the best known of these early grants was made to Governor Alvarado in 1841. This grant of eleven the Sacramento valley was to include Sutter's ment at New Helvetia." The southern boundary essly stated as latitude 38 degrees, 41 minutes, s.2 This would place the southern boundary some , History of California, VI, 533.

article by Royce in the Overland Monthly for September, 1885,

miles north of Sacramento, crossing the river of that name not far above its junction with the Feather river, and obviously could not include Sutter's establishment at New Helvetia, which was south of Sacramento city. The northern boundary as indicated by the line of latitude was similarly impossible when compared with the natural land marksSutter's Buttes or the Tres Picos, mentioned in the grant.1 Sutter supposed himself to be entitled to more land by virtue of promises made to him by Governor Micheltorena in 1845, although no valid grant whatever was made by that official.2

When the gold-seekers began to come in 1848, "Sutter began to lose his wits. He was later accused of signing any paper that was brought to him. At all events, he behaved in as unbusinesslike a fashion as could well be expected, and the result was that when his affairs came in later years to more complete settlement, it was found that he had deeded away, not merely more land than he actually owned, but, if I mistake not, more land than even he himself had supposed himself to own." 3

Whether these charges made against Sutter were true or not, the confusion of boundaries stated in his grant afforded sufficient grounds for certain classes of idlers and frontiersmen to build up cases against him. Some of the radicals claimed that Mexican grants were invalidated by the conquest. The country had just been conquered from Mexico

1 Royce in Overland Monthly for September, 1885, 232 and 233. 2 Ibid., 227.

3 Ibid.

s therefore public property. They accordingly beput their theories into practical operation by "squatpon land held by the speculators. They even comnto a "Settlers' Association," employed a surveyor, ied to their members "squatter-titles." 2 Such action ead to but one of two things: either the speculators have to recognize the squatter claims, or resist them. cramento squatter riot of 1850 was the result.3

Legislative Enactment

came, however, after the first state Legislature had ed. On the last day of the session, April 22nd, that assed an "act concerning forcible entries and unlawainers." It required that entries into lands, teneor other possessions should be made by law only. e entries were to be inquired into by justices of the nd, if necessary, restitution was to be insisted upon. trial might be demanded by either party, but if no emand were made the dispute was to be settled by tice of the peace. The complainant on trial "shall

required to show, in addition to forcible entry or r complained of, that he was peaceably in actual on at the time of a forcible entry, or was entitled e in Overland Monthly for September, 1885, 234.

234-35.

225-46. This is probably the best account of the squatter riot ento. A somewhat briefer treatment is given by the same author lifornia, Ch. VI, also in Bancroft, History of California, VI, 329,