JOHN C. FREMONT. 233 



career of Fremont in the Senate \vas limited in 

 duration, in consequence of his having drawn the 



from that decision by Colonel Fremont to the Supreme Court of the 

 United States. The case was argued on the part of Colonel Fremont 

 by "Wm. Carey Jones, Mr. Bibb, and Mr. Crittenden ; on the part of 

 the Government by Caleb Gushing, Attorney-General. The grounds 

 taken against the title - by the Government were as follows : 



" ' 1. That Fremont's claim is on a gratuitous colonization-grant by 

 the Mexican governor of California to one Alvarado, of which there 

 had been no surveys, no plan, no occupation, no site even, no confirma- 

 tion by the proper public authority, no performance of any of the 

 conditions precedent or subsequent annexed to the grant. 



" '2. That the concession to Alvarado was null for uncertainty of 

 description and incapability of definite location. 



" ' 3. That the concession was not confirmed by the Departmental 

 Assembly, and was not therefore entitled to confirmation by the United 

 States courts. 



" '4. That the grant was void because the conditions annexed had 

 never been performed. 



" ' 5. That until the governor-general confirmed the concession the 

 title remained in the crown. 



" ' 6. That none of the excuses for non-performance alleged in 

 Alvarado's behalf possessed legal force. 



" ' 7. That the grant to Alvarado was a gratuitous one, except in 

 so far as the performance of the conditions would relate back to con- 

 stitute a consideration. 



"'8. That the original petition, the provisional grant, and the 

 decree of the commissioners, each assumed a floating claim not as a 

 grant of an identical trust of land by metes and bounds.' 



" The Supreme Court took a different view of the case from Mr. 



Gushing, reversed the decision of the District Court of California, 



20* 



