I held that a pueblo of some kind existed at the site of the present city of San Francisco upon the cession of the country; that as such it was entitled to the possession of certain lands to the extent of four square leagues; and that the present city had succeeded to such rights, following, in these particulars, the decision which had previously been made in the case of Hart vs.  Burnett, by the Supreme Court of the State, in which I had participated.  I accordingly decided that the city was entitled to have her claim confirmed to four square leagues of land, subject to certain reservations.  But I also added that the lands to which she was entitled had not been given to her by the laws of the former government in absolute property with full right of disposition and alienation, but to be held in trust for the benefit of the whole community, with such powers of use, disposition, and alienation as had been or might thenceforth be conferred upon her or her officers for the execution of the trust.  The trust character of the city’s title was expressed in the decree of confirmation.  The decision was rendered on the 30th of October, 1864, as stated, and a decree was soon afterwards entered; but as a motion was made for a re-hearing, the control over it was retained by the Circuit Court until May of the following year.  Upon the suggestion of counsel, it was then modified in some slight particulars so as to limit the confirmation to land above ordinary high water mark, as it existed at the date of the acquisition of the country, namely, the 7th of July, 1846.  On the 18th of May, 1865, the decree was finally settled and entered.  Appeals from it were prosecuted to the Supreme Court both by the United States and by the city; by the United States from the whole decree, and by the city from so much of it as included certain reservations in the estimate of the quantity of land confirmed.

In October following I proceeded as usual to Washington to attend the then approaching term of the Supreme Court, and thought no more of the case until my attention was called to it by a most extraordinary circumstance.  Just before leaving San Francisco Mr. Rulofson, a photographer of note, requested me to sit for a photograph, expressing a desire to add it to his gallery.  I consented, and a photograph of a large size was taken.  As I was leaving his rooms he observed that he intended to make some pictures of a small size from it, and would send me a few copies.  On the morning of the 13th of January following (1866), at Washington, Mr. Delos Lake, a lawyer of distinction in California, at one time a District Judge of the State, and then District Attorney of the United States, joined me, remarking, as he did so, that the arrival of the California steamer at New York had been telegraphed, and he hoped that I had received some letters for him, as he had directed his letters to be forwarded to my care.  I replied that when I left my room my messenger had not brought my mail; but if he would accompany me there we would probably find it.  Accordingly, we proceeded to my room, where on the centre-table lay my mail from California, consisting of a large number of letters and papers.  Among them I noticed a small package about an inch and a half thick, three inches in breadth, and three and a half in length.  It was addressed as follows, the words being printed: