ejectment. And when the grant was not a mere float, but was of land
within defined boundaries, which embraced a greater quantity than that
specified in it, with a provision that the surplus should be measured
off by the government, I held that until such measurement the grantee
could hold the whole as against intruders, and until then he was a
tenant in common with the government. As I said in one of my opinions,
speaking for the court, until such measurement no individual could
complain, much less could he be permitted to determine in advance,
that any particular locality would fall within the supposed surplus,
and thereby justify its forcible seizure and detention by himself.
"If one person could in this way appropriate a particular parcel to
himself, all persons could do so; and thus the grantee, who is the
donee of the government, would be stripped of its bounty for the
benefit of those who were not in its contemplation and were never
intended to be the recipients of its favors."[2]

These views have since met with general assent in California and have
been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States.[3] But at
that time they gave great offence to a large class, and the judges
were denounced in unmeasured terms as acting in the interests of
monopolists and land-grabbers. Even now, when the wisdom and justice
of their action are seen and generally recognized, words of censure
for it are occasionally whispered through the Press. Persons sometimes
seem to forget that to keep the plighted faith of the nation, to
preserve from reproach its fair fame, where its honor is engaged, is
one of the highest duties of all men in public life.

The action of the court as to the possession of the public lands of
the United States met with more favor. The position of the people of
California with respect to the public lands was unprecedented. The