The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1853-05-11
TITLE TO MoNTROsE SETTLED.

A suit which has been pending in the United
States Court for several years, involving the
title to the section Of land upon which the tewn
of Montrose is located, was recently decided by
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Edward Brooks, Esq, one of the successful
parties in the suit has furnished us the opinion
Of the Court, delivered by Judge Catron. The
suit was brought by Reddicks' heirs upon
patent from the United States for Spanish
grant made half century ago. The opinion
states the evidence establishing the title consist.
ing ola permit from the Spanish government TO
Louis Honorie Treason in 1899 to establish him.
self at the head of the Rapids. He did SO estab-
lish himself, made valuable improvements, and
set out an orchard and remained there till 1906.
Honoric assigned to Thos. F. Reddrick, whose
heirs are the plaintiffs in this suit. Under acts
of Congress, especially the act of April 18th,
1916, this grant Of GAO acres was confirmed.
The New York company claimed title under
the reservation 10 the Half Breeds of the Sac
and Fox Indians.
The Court held, however, that it had been the
universal practice Of the Spanish government
to make such grants to individuals establishing
themselves in the Indian country, and that our
government had uniformly confirmed such
grants. And ofthis there had been no COM
plant on the part Of the Indians, nor do they or
the Half Breeds complain in this case.
The opinion concludes ave concur with
the opinion of Mr.. Attorney General Grundy,
in his report of 1889 on Reddrick's title, to the
Secretary of the Treasury, Opinions of Atty
Gen. 1880, that it must be presumed that the
Indians both had knowledge and assented to
Honorie's claim !; and we are furthermore of
opinion, that the Indian tribes, and the halt
breeds, who claim under them, must be held to
knowledge and to consent, that Honorie took and
held rightful possession, from the fact Of his open
and notorious actual occupancy, and holding for
himself, in their midst. This is the settled rule
in other cases, and no reason is seen why it
should not apply in this case. The reasons are
quite strong, and the rule quite as necessary in
its application here, a. was in the case Of Landes
against Brant 10 How. 375) where we enforced
the rule. We are therefore Of opinion that the
supposed Indian right Of occupancy did not
affect the confirmation by Congress in this case,
and that the remark of the Recorder, '.If Indian
rights extinguished,' was surplusage, and
which remark Congress properly disregarded.
That the confirmation of 1916 carried the title
with it, If the confirmation was valid has Oft
en- been decided BY this court, that it Is not open
TO discussion nor is il disputed here on behalf
of the defendants below. The confirming act
of 1916, however, ordered that patent should
issue according to . survey Afterwards to be
made, in all cases confirmed by the act This
has been done. The patent recites the necessa
~ facts to connect the confirmation with the pat
emit, and gives date TO il by relation, ~ legal
title, from the 10Th of April, 1876, according to
the boundaries set forth in the patent and as
this ruling covers all the instructions that were
given in the court below, and all such - were
refused, we ordered that the judgment be af-
frmed."