The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-10

the Supreme Court referred TO the territory ceded 10 the
United States by the treaty OF iSO3 and stated that
Congress- well of the state OF the country and
villages, wisely and justly went 10 the extent perhaps of
their powers, IN providing for the security of private
rights, by directing all claimants to he their claims before
board specially appointed TO adjust and settle all con
hcting claims to lands They had in view another i'm
portan obecto ascertain what belonged TO the United
States, that sales could be safely made the country
tied in peace and dormant titles not be permitted either
to disturb ancient possession 10 give to their holders the
valuable improvements made by purchasers or the sites
OF cities which had been built up by their enterprise.
tvlde 10 Peters, 473) Accordingly, we find that BY
nous acts The time OF filing such claims is limed after
which they afe declared void, far they depend
any act OF Congress- and shall not be received in ev
enee ~ any cout against any person claiming 6y agant
from the United States There laws analogous to
acts o limitation Tor recording deeds, giving effect to
The awards OF commissioners Tor settling claims 10 land
under the laws of the States the time and manner Of
ths soand discretion OF the Legislature accordnx 10 The
OF the titles, the situation OF the country, and the
emergency which calls for their enactment Reasons Of
sound policy have led to the general adoption of laws OF
both descriptions and their VALIDITY CANNOT BE CUES
TONED"
In the case of Cho,eau Us. Eckhardt, January term,
1884, (2d Howard page 1851 the Supreme Court of the
United States refers to certain decisions oil the Supreme
Court OF Missouri and states as follows; "These cases
in substance that such nchoate claims that OF
Choteau in 1912, when the community of ST Charles
took its title, previously also inchoate) not changed
in their character by the treaty BY which Louisiana
acqured that the treaty imposed on this government
only political obligation 10 perfect them; that this obi
CATION, sacred as II may be, IN any instance cannot be
enforced by action OF the judicial tribunals and that
the eeslalion OF Congress- from 1904 TO the present
time, has proceeded upon the construction of the treaty
manifested by the modes adopted investigate the
claims through boards OF commissioners, and then acting
on them by legislation" The Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States held likewise in the United States Us Virgins,
(l4th Peters, page 350)
Sd Howard, page 1856, the Chief Justice, in delivering
the opinion OF the court, held follows: "But would
be pushing the comfy usually extended to the tribunals
amt officers OF foreign government beyond the bounds
OF justice and the usages OF nations to claim for them
total exemption from inquiry, when their acts affect the
rights of another its citizens Certainly, the
political department OF this government has never ac
knowledged this immunity from inquiry now claimed Tor
the Spanish tribunals and officers; and in every law es
tablishng American tribunals to examine into the valid
ity of titles TO land in Louisiana and Florida, derived
from the government of Spaln they are expressly en-
joined inquire whether the documents produced in sup
port of the claim anedated or fraudulent; and we
have doubt that it is the right OF this court to hear and
determine whether the certificate OF .Trudeau, although
recognised and sanctioned by the colonial authorities OF
Spain is antedaed and made out either with or without
their prvy and consent IN order to defraud the United
States and TO deprive them of lands which rghtfuly be-
long them under the treaty and that is our duty to
deal with il the evidence may require"
The further holds that regarding the case in
this point OF view, the right OF the defendant IN error
must stand altogether upon the instruments executed IN
1895 and 1897 by the Baron de Carondeet and has not
the aid of any authentic survey to ascertain and fix the
limits OF the land and to determine its location. The
instruments themselves contain lines or boundaries
whereby any definite and specific parcel OF land was sew
cred from the public domain; and has been settled by
the instrument contained clear words OF grant. that if the
description was vague and indefinite, as IN the case be-
fore and there official survey to give it GER
tain location, Il could create no right OF private properly
any particular parcel of land which could be main.
tanned in court OF justice II was so held In the cases
reported in IS Peters 1884, 2l5 275 als and IN 10 Pc
ters, l59, 100. After such repeated decisions upon
the subject all affirming the same doctrine, the
question cannot be considered as an open one in
this Putting aside, therefore, and rejecting the
certificate of Trudeau, for the before stated.
the instruments in question, even If they could be con-
srued grants, conveyed no title TO the Marquis de
Maison Rouge Tor the land 10 question, and consequently
the defendants in error derive none from him The
land claimed was not severed from the public domain by
the Spanish authorities, and set apart as private properly
and consequently passed TO the United States by the
treaty which ceded 10 them all the public and unappropn-
aied lands unnecessary therefore, for the decson
of the TO say anything in relation to the consuuc-
ton and effect OF these two instruments, or the purposes
for which they were intended.
AS relates to the claim of equitable title arising
from the number of immigrants alleged TO have been in
oduced under these instruments would no, avail the
defendant in IN this action even II the proofs showed
performance equal TO that coniended Tor on his part
For if these instruments were regarded as grants
il appeared that the Marquis de Malson Rouge had
originally selected this very district AS the place where
the grant was intended TO be located-and the Im.
migrants introduced by him had been settled upon It
in performance of the conditions Of his contract and u
should be held that he had thereby acquired an equase
right to have the quantity OF land mentioned 10 he
OF 1897 laid off TO him al this place, still would De no
defence against the United States for in the case OF Cno
eau Us Eckhard ed Howard, 375O this court decided
that Imperfect tite uef'eu sPa" o 70"
sion would be supported against party claiming un-
der grant from the United States, unless 1t had been
confined by act OF Congress. The same point was
az ain fully considered and decided at the present term
in the OF Hickey and others Stewart and others
These decisions stand upon the ground that such titles
are confirmed by the treaty itself so a. to bring them
within judicial cognzancs and authority and that IT rests
with the political department OF the government 10 de-
ermne how and by what tribunals justice should be done
10 persons claiming such rights H. therefore, this con.
oversy was in court OF equity, and no suspicion Q,
fraud rested upon the claim, yet could not be suPpo'ed
grantee OF the United SateS because Congress
has not confirmed IT, authorized any oher Hiouhs W
determine upon its validity
In upwards of fifty OF general legislauon respect
ing private land claims within the limits OF the Amencan
Union Congress has sanctioned the employment Oh
boards of commissioners to coiect evidence
such i,es-in some cases conerring power upon them
10 confirm to limited extent, in others requiring the
evidence 10 be reported to Congress for consideration and
confirmation by further legislation, when deemed proper
In other cases Congress have authorized the institution
of suits against the United States and accordingly. on the
goth OF May. 1924. act was passed, entitled IAN act
enabling The claimants to lands within the limits OF the
State OF Missouri and Territory Of Arkansas to institute
pr seeding to try the validity Of their claims"
On looking into the journals of Congress, Is found
that the bill which matured into this act OF 1924 was
reported the 1ath OF May 1884, the Senate n having
passed the House, read twice by unanimous CONSENT
and referred to the Committee the Judiciary thai
day. on motion, referred to the Commee on W.
lie Lands that on the 18th OF May, 1924 Mr. BARRON o
the latter committee reported II TO the oenA'S WI
amendments that the 25tb OF May 1924, tne SenA'9
consde red il in committee OF the whole ana tne
Integencer containing the proceedings o. "a ny s
the bill between Messrs. Barton. Lanman, Lowne'
CHANDLER D,ckerson King OF Alabama, and j. 5. john