The Castillero Claim. The land was not formally taken possession of under this title until long after the occupation of California by the American forces. It was then done clandestinely, and accompanied with a written statement, by the chief partner in the concern, to the authorities at Monterey, that there was no ore there. The statement was, of course, known to be false, and the person who made it simultaneously wrote to his partner, and told him of the trick he had played. I will not weary you with any discussion upon the details of the evidence. I have probably said enough to show that the facts and the law of the case are in favor of the Government. The mine belongs to the public. We are trustees of the public, and will surrender it to no one, and least of all to men who claim it after such a fashion, and under such a title as Castillero and his confederates produce. There is another claim under Justo Larios, carried on in the name of Charles Fossat, which is also pending in the district court. The genuineness of this grant has not been denied. But its location is disputed, and we have good reason to believe that we will finally defeat the efforts of the claimants to locate it upon the quicksilver mine. The Castillero and the Fossat party are both of them keenly conscious that the success of one may be ruin to the hopes of the other. Each has therefore been willing to furnish documents, produce evidence, and make arguments against the other. They have both been permitted to do so. It would have been grossly unjust to have excluded a party interested to the amount of millions from all participation in the proceeding, on the mere technical ground that he was not named on the record. But while this privilege of being fully heard was conceded to both, and was largely used by the Castillero party, the United States has dealt with all the claimants at arm's length, and shown partiality to none. The mine (I say it again) belongs to the public, and the public right should be maintained by all proper and just means. It is urged that the price of quicksilver has risen since the injunction, and may rise still higher unless these claimants are restored to the unrestricted The Castillero Claim. privilege of working the mines. This argument has no weight. The cause is to be determined by the rules of law, and not by the principles of political economy. The condition of the quicksilver market, whether good or bad, will not make it proper to confirm a spurious claim, or to reject an honest one. It may be a misfortune that the supply of a necessary article is diminished for a short while, but we cannot for that reason let the claimants back unless they show a good title. Neither is this proceeding a departure from the liberal policy heretofore pursued by the United States towards the workers of mines in general. The miners who go upon public land, acknowledging the title of the Government, and claiming nothing but what the Government is willing to concede them, are in a condition wholly different from these parties. What I assert is simply the right and the duty of the Government to protect itself and its citizens against foreigners who come with fabricated titles from Mexico in their hands, to monopolize large quantities of the richest mineral land on the globe, excluding therefrom and driving away the honest persons who would otherwise have wrought them. In conclusion, I have only to say that this cause ought to be treated like other important causes in which the United States are a party. Let us yield everything that law and justice demand; sift doubtful claims to the bottom, and show no quarter to those which appear to be corrupt. Very respectfully, yours, &c., The PRESIDENT. J. S. BLACK. Application of Witherspoon and Saffell. APPLICATION OF WITHERSPOON & SAFFELL. Where proposals were invited for carrying the mail on a certain route, and the contract was awarded to certain parties who afterwards transferred it to others who were simply competitors at the bidding for the contract, it was held, that the Postmaster General had no authority to annul the contract under the statute providing for the dismissal of a mail contractor who shall have combined to prevent bidding for a mail contract. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have before me yours of 18th instant relating to the application of Messrs. Witherspoon & Saffell to be released from a contract for carrying the mail on route No. 9519. The facts of the case, as shown by the records of the department, and the letter of the Hon. Mr. Jewett, are these Witherspoon & Saffell had been contractors for carrying the mail on the above route. At the expiration of their contract the route was advertised to be let. They offered to take it at the rate of $2,495 per annum. J. B., D. C., and G. R. R. Dunn offered to take it at the rate of $1,000 per annum, and perform the same service. Their offer was accepted and the contract given to them. On the 6th of September, 1858, on the application of the parties, the contract was transferred from Dunn to Witherspoon & Saffell, who have since performed and are now performing the service. They now ask that the service be reduced, or that the contract be abrogated and the route advertised and re-let, and they base their claim on an alleged combination. But this alleged combination appears to have been nothing more than a determination by Duun to underbid Witherspoon & Saffell, and thus obtain the contract. The very object of the law in receiving bids, is to get the service done at the cheapest rate by awarding the contract to the lowest bidder. And the present case exhibits the wisdom of the law, for Witherspoon & Saffell knowing the Penfield's Claim. service have assumed Dunn's contract at $1,495 per annum less than their own bid. The twenty-eighth section of the act of July 2, 1836, (5 Stats. at Large, 87,) prohibits the Postmaster General from entering into any contract with persons who have combined to prevent bidding for mail contracts, and it also provides for the dismissal of any mail contractor so offending; but that section can in no way be made to apply to the case now under consideration. The facts do not show any combination to prevent bidding for the contract. I can see nothing in this case that would authorize the Postmaster General to annul the contract. Witherspoon & Saffell were the contractors at the time the contract was made at the reduced rate, and they should have known whether they could afford to take it at that rate or not. Very respectfully, Hon. J. HOLT, Postmaster General. J. S. BLACK. PENFIELD'S CLAIM. In respect to a claim that a certain patent had been infringed in the manufacture of pontoons for the use of the army of the United States, it was held, that a report of the head of the Engineer Department and also of the Commissioner of Patents that the pontoons were not covered by the patent in question, constituted sufficient evidence to show there was no infringement as alleged. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: From your communication and the accompanying papers in relation to the claim of G. H. Penfield for the infringement of Stanton's patent, it appears that certain parties furnished forty wagon floats for the use of the army under command of General Harney, in Oregon, they claiming the lawful right to furnish them, and agreeing to indemnify the Government against any patentee. G. H. Penfield's Claim. Penfield, owner of a certain patent granted to General Henry Stanton, claims that the devices used in these floats infringe Stanton's patent, and he has presented to the War Department a demand of $5,000 for the right to the forty floats used by General Harney, and offers to sell the entire right for the use of the army for the sum of twenty thousand dollars. On reference to the Engineer Department, that office has reported that the pontoons or floats used by General Harney "are not covered by the patent of General Stanton." The matter being also referred to the Patent Office, with a specification of the devices used by the Government, the Commissioner of Patents has reported that it does not appear from an examination of the records of that office "that such floats or pontoons as those specified are covered by any American patent.” I can conceive of no better evidence than is furnished by the reports above mentioned that G. H. Penfield has no just claim upon the Government for any infringement of the patent he holds. It is my opinion upon that evidence that there has been no infringement of Stanton's patent, and that the judgment of the Engineer Department and the Commissioner of Patents is evidence against Mr. Penfield's offer and against his claim, which you ought to regard as conclusive. Very respectfully, yours, &c., Hon. JOHN B. FLOYD, |