There were several hundred land claims in California under Mexican grants, which were submitted to the Board of Land Commissioners created by the 1851 Act for confirmation. They covered several million hectares of land, and in large numbers, probably in the majority of cases where the claim was confirmed, the surveying of the claim by the state surveyor general, after being reviewed and approved or rejected by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, came under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior as head of the United States Department of Lands and was modified in some way. States. If the arbitrator`s position that the commissioner`s measure of consideration of these claims was final could be maintained, any patent granted on the basis of an investigation into a claim that has been modified or modified in connection with the instruction of the Minister of the Interior would be vulnerable to attacks, the terrible unambiguous clarification of titles in the state and the infinite disruption of the peace of his people. The congressional legislature that freed up U.S. interests in the city was also fiduciary for the named beneficiaries, 14 Stat. 4, so that the City of San Francisco had no interest in the land in the confirmed treaty, except as trustee, unless it was parcels It was accepted that the land in question is included in the outer limits of the patent; However, the patent was challenged as unable to present the title in the City of San Francisco to the beneficiaries of the inventory for the following reasons: it is not necessary for the BIA to reach a specific conclusion on each factor, and the regulation does not specify how the agency must balance the factors in a particular case or what weight must be attached to each factor. The BIA`s decision should be appropriate in light of its overall analysis of the factors listed in Article 25 C.F.R. § 151.10. If it is apparent from the minutes that the BIA considered all factors, although its final decision was prejudicial to the appellant, the Commission may conclude that the decision is appropriate. City of Charlestown, Rhode Island v. Eastern Area Director, 18 IBIA 67, 72 (1989).

To demonstrate that the plaintiffs were never entitled to a security because of their alleged actions by the Tideland Commissioners, the defendant granted the U.S. patent, which was granted to the City of San Francisco on September 20. June 1884, as evidence; the U.S. patent is proof of title to the City of San Francisco under Mexican Pueblo Land Act and is conclusive not only for the United States and all parties claiming title acquired later under it, but also for all parties except those who have full and complete title acquired by Mexico, who is entitled to the one confirmed by the confirmation decree. AIMA has always maintained that it does not have the power to declare a federal law unconstitutional and therefore does not have the power to deal with this argument. State of Iowa and Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors, Iowa v. Great Plains Regional Director, 38 IBIA 42, 45 (2002), Mille Lacs County, Minnesota v. Midwest Regional Director, 37 IBIA 169 (2002); State of Kansas v. Acting Regional Director, Southern Plains, 36 IBIA 152 (2001); Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Acting Regional Director, North-West, 36 IBIA 1 (2001); City of Charlestown, Governor of Rhode Island, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations v.

Eastern Area Director, 35 IBIA 93 (2000); City of Lincoln City, Oregon v. Portland Area Director, 33 IBIA 102 (1999). Nor is the board of directors allowed to ignore or invalidate a duly promulgated ordinance. Oklahoma Petroleum Marketers Association and Muskogee County, Oklahoma Commissioners v. Muskogee Area Director, 35 IBIA 285 (2000). It is a well-established rule of law that the power to conduct and correct surveys of public lands rests exclusively with the political department of the government and that the actions of this ministry within the framework of its powers before the courts are indisputable, except in direct proceedings. Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691, 128 U.S. 699, and cited cases.

According to this rule, it should be noted that the action of the Ministry of Land to determine that the Von Leicht survey correctly delimited: “In private property and sovereign right, the United States followed the Mexican government and, in both aspects, California, to the extent that it acquired a right in both, followed the United States and was initiated in respect of all land within its borders, if this can be held under private or sovereign law. In this regard, no distinction can be made between the countries it has acquired through federal subsidies and those it has acquired under its sovereignty. “In calls to the border, there is no ambiguity, no dubious phraseology,” said the territory, which is bordered to the north and east by San Francisco Bay and to the west by the Pacific Ocean. The area borders the bay and the ocean, not the estuaries, streams and streams that run through these areas, although they are navigable and technically called the “inlets of the sea”. The boundary, he added, was not the stream, but the bay; Therefore, the ordinary high seas leash must be the mark of the high waters of the shore, which refers to the sea, and not the high seas leash of the shore, which refers to a river or stream, so that although Mission Creek was both a tidal influx and an outlet for inland waters, however, it fell into the banks instead of resting on the banks, and should be considered inland waters for all intents and purposes. He added that it was clear that the deep-sea leash extended to the shore of the bay, omitting any reference to the inland channels of the streams that crossed the conceded peninsula. Accordingly, he ordered that the decision of his predecessor be upheld on the merits and referred back the request for reconsideration. The Secretary of the Interior had full authority to cancel the Stratton Survey of San Francisco`s Pueblo Land, although approved by the California Surveyor General and confirmed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, without appeal, and to order a new survey, and his action in this regard is unassailable in a secondary matter. within the city limits. At trial, the plaintiff claimed the benefit of a deed of ownership on the land of the tideland commissioners of the state, who, in exchange for $352.80, claimed to give the beneficiary the right to release the title and interest of the State of California in the premises described therein. The city relied on the government`s patent, based on U.S. Circuit Court confirmation for the District of California.

As can be seen in the list of specific authorities below, almost all of them have slightly different conditions, restrictions and conditions. In addition, it is important to distinguish between discretion and mandatory acquisition authority, as the acquisition process is slightly different depending on whether the acquisition is based on mandatory or discretionary power. See 25 C.F.R. § 151.10. If you are unable to determine whether the authority to be used for a particular purchase is mandatory or discretionary, please contact the Office of the Field Counsel in this regard. The protest and objections from the city and county concerned the wetlands near and south of Mission Creek. They affirmed that these countries were not flooded by tidal waters, with the exception of spring tides; that the ordinary flood marking line on them on the side of the bay was clearly defined by a growth of samphir, a sea reed plant that grows to such a line and no further.