The daily union., 1852-08-04


claims like the plaintiffs had standing in court oil
justice until confirmed by Congress its authority"
But, in coming down 10 the recent decisions o. thai
high tribunal, where enlightened has clearly
and concusvey expounded our obligations and du-
ties respecting foreign and incomplete titles, we find
that IN the case OF Menards heirs Massey Janu
ay term 1890, the court treats OF state OF things anal
ogous and almost identical with that now under con
sderation II is assumed by The court and truly, that
by the third article OF the treaty by which Louisiana
was acquired" Qhe in with the ninth article
OF the treaty OF Guadalupe HidaIgo "and by the laws OF
naiions the inhabitants of the ceded territory were enti-
Tied 10 be msntaned and protected in the free enjoyment
OF their property" But 10 what propery9 TO such an
interest in IT, If land. they had when the country
changed owners and that interest being OF character
requiring royal sanction before the Spanish government
would recognise divesng the public lille, gov
eminent, as the successor of Spain TO the public lands
gave the same construction and eject TO add
orders OF survey holding that the title OF the kings do
main passed by treaty TO The Uaed States,
ing the existence OF such concessions Yet to the full
extent OF any equity in the claimants, the government
adopted means to satisfy the claims and the sovereign
power could not be sued legal owner boards OF
mssioners created with liberal powers 10 nvesi-
gate every description OF claims. and report them 10
Congress- Tor the sanction o sovereign authority and by
added and incpent completed into perfect and
conclusive titles against the government. Them again,
Congress provided that special courts should be organized
which the government might be sued in prescribei
FORM and DEGREES be made for or against camans but no
suit could be maintained n ordinary of eecment
or Tor title OF any Kind concession and order OF sur
IL.
ants were moi regard ed OF land until the real title
was delivered competed"-nth the language of the Span
sh regulation No. Is. Had the of justice been al
lowed hold otherwise, and to interfere in the matter
and to decree titles 10 claimants in equity enforce
their claims at law, and the United States indirectly
by SUING persons found the land, little occasion
judge respecting the validity OF claims; the ordinary
tribunals could have settled all controversies under State
laws declaring such claims cognizabe in the State
Il was therefore manifest that claims resting the in
pfstan m tdanan fhor and
tiOn upon the sovereign power and 10 this claim
ants had just cause 10 object, their condition
the same under the Spanish government That no
standings therefore, IN an ordinary judicial tribunal has
ever been allowed TO these claims until Congress has
confirmed them and vested the legal title in the claim
ant Such, undoubtedly is the doctrine assumed by our
legislation To go no further. the act OF May 49, 1924.
allowing claimants right to present their claims in a
court OF justice, prononnces their true character.
Then in the case of the United States us Reynas. jan
uary term, 1850, we have clear exposition to The
class OF titles which Congress authorized the
adjudcate under the acts OF 26h May, 1924, and l7h
June, ls44, conferng power on the courts In several
States OF the Union to aad confirm titles de-
rived from the governments that preceded the United
States in sovereignty ln that il insisted that
the petitioner holding the evidences OF perfect title
from the Spanish authorities, permitted TO show that
he fell within the class of persons whose rights pro-
teced both by the treaty OF 1S00 at ST. deonso cedng
province to France and by the treaty Of soo cedng it
to the United States, and who specially referred to
the act of Goth May, 1924 deegalng power TO the judi
cal tribunals to confirm claims.
To this the Supreme Court responds, that sin
to this Preension Of right under the OF 1924
II might perhaps be sufficient observe that if this
right be asserted 10 virtue OF perfect Spanish title,
Il would seem TO be comprised neither within the mis-
chief nor the remedy contemplated by the statute
The mischief intended 10 be provided for by the ACT
OF 1924 was the inchoate incomplete condition of
titles having fair, just. and legal inception under
either the French Spanish governments of Louisiana
but which, by OF the abdicaon or supsrsedng
OF those governments, and by that only, hal
not been completed; The remedy was the permission TO
bring such titles before the courts OF the United States,
and there render them complete, and TO establish them
by proof OF the legality and justice OF their origin and
character Such then being the mischief declared, and
such the remedy provided by the statute, it is difficult
perceive the authority for bringing before the
courts, merely for supervision, titles alleged TO be already
perfected under the and competent auiho
y of either Spain or France With regard TO titles so de
rived and consummaed there is no provision made
by the statute None could be requisites and there
could, with reference 10 such titles be nothing for The
courts to act upon-nothng which it was competent for
them to consider" And IN the oil the United States
Powers heirs, Qlth Howards Reports, page $50,
December term ls5oJ il is held by the Supreme Cour,
in reference 10 the CLAIM to SNIP ISLAND that il II chad
found this 10 be legal and perfect ttle then the rule
laid down in the OF Reynas at the last term, would
apply and compel II TO dismiss the petition Tor want OF
jurisdiction, because the Of 1924 did confer power
on the district courts 10 decide perfect grants
We have here full judicial exposition OF the scope
and intent of the act OF Congress Of the Goth OF May,
1924 for the adjustment by The courts OF claims TO lands
founded foreign titles in Missouri and Akanas
tended 10 Florida BY The act OF May %, 1928 having
been revived for Missouri and Arkansas by the act oil
June IT, 1874, and extended 10 embrace similar titles in
the States OF Louisiana, JMsiopp and 1fabana These
aod other decisions OF The tribunal establish the
fact beyond controversy that the laws Of Congress for the
investig gsiion and confirmation OF titles from France,
SPAIN and Great Britain do no, confer iursdcilon
the courts TO take cognizance Of upon, any per-
fsd Ie because such titles already dusied being
perfectly protected by the treaty itselfthat their ]urs
dction is only extended TO inchoate titles incomplete
concessions and that The Congress OF the United States
the OF the authorities OF The forner govern
Just and proper either by confirming them III whole or III
part according to the extent Of their equity and carry
ing that equity into complete legal ttle where they
destitute ot merit rejecting them altogether, and DIS
posing OF the land covered by them portions OF the
public domain
Tbese the principles which have been laid down.
recognised and prom by the highest judicial III
buna known 10 our constitution and laws. and be
fore Congress, and the people OF California and the
act OF March 3, 1851 10 ascertain and settle the private
la nd claims in California" That ia one OF series OF
measures which | advocated with whatever zeal and
ability could command, with the great object in view OF
ascenaIning and separating by survey every honest
Spanish or Mexican claim in California from The public
domain, so that we might deal with the former accord
the principles OF equity and good conscience, and
with The latter by granting donations to meet the wants
OF our people. Now. what are the rules prescribed by
that act for the guidance of the commissioners and the
courts in their decisions
1t orders them by its eleventh section 10 be governed
by the "ueaty of Guadalupe Hdago by The law OF ma
TONS the laws usages and customs OF the government
from which the clam is derived the principles of equity,
and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
S,ates 40 lar as they applicable" Let inquire
what the operations under thus law must necessarily be
upon all and .any lot. fam-ol, pasture lot held