"If these Indians had any claims founded on the action of the Mexican government they abandoned them by not presenting them to the commission for consideration."

The cases cited in the Borax case to support the statement as to public lands are cases that have nothing to do with tidelands or coastal waters but depend upon whether the lands in question were subject to disposal as property of the United States, ie, public lands.

The United States Supreme Court has characterized as "well settled" the definition of public lands as lands " `subject to sale or other disposal under general laws.'"

—is not predicated on the specific reference to Indian claims found in § 16 of the California Private Land Claims Act.

—a claim of a right to permanent occupancy of land is one of far reaching effect, and it could not well be said that lands which were burdened with a right of permanent occupancy were a part of the public domain and subject to the full disposal of the United States.'8 This Court confirmed title contrary to the Indian claim.

—describing how lands “given” by the Mexican government to Indians in California were not honored by the US government

—upheld fee titles based on patents against challenges by Mission Indians who had not presented their claims to the 1851 Commission.

In short, most issues raised by treatiesincluding questions of how to give effect to their obligations domestically and whether to abrogate their provisions-rest upon "the political department of the Government

The Cupa Indians appealed this adverse decision to the United States Supreme Court, which in 1901 decided in favor of the grantees

We do not think that the amendment indicates more than an intention to be sure the new treaty did not add to the complexities of the Mexican Cession title situation.