Weekly Arizona citizen., 1880-10-02

| the laws of MeXlco, the titles to which
 were confirmed to the claimants by an
 Act ni Congress, approved February
 ,, 1875.
 Allen testifies that he attempted to
 perfect his title to said land by pur-
 chasing the rights of three of these
 claimants. He further testified that
 the other one quarter of said land not
 claimed by these Alcalde grant claim
 ants was the foothills of the Inesa,
 which were of no value for agricul-
 tuIal purposes. He further testified
 that on or about the year 1875, when
 ne had learned that these grants had
 Oceu or would likely be confirmed by
 an Act of Congiess he removed from
 the land and sold for the sum of $lI00
 hls house and improvements thereon,
 belnS about half their original cost,
 10 NIT. Page, one of the owners of
 tue Alcalde grants. This abandon
 ment' It Is alleged, exhausted his pre- e. ption right, and that his suDse- qnent filing nd settlement was it.
 legal.
 do not coIncide iu this opinion.
 The said Act of February ,, 1875, which
 was offered in evidence, recites in the l amble: Whereas, certain lands
 lenumerating the northeast one quar-
 ter of section 10, filed on by Allen
 have been occupied and possessed by persons of Mexican birth, etc. and
 whereas, said persons desire to secure patents for said land in the small and
 irregular tracts in which they were originally taken up under Mexican authority and have been held and cul- tlvated tO the present time;" therefore provision was made 10 confirm their Litie. When this law passed, Aileu
 was justified in abandoning tue iand,
 because Congress had in effect with
 drawn Ihe land from sale and pro-
 Ylded d way by which these claimants could obtain patents for their land.
 The third section of said Act says that any part of said designated lands that are not shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of the Land Of nce 10 have been so occupied and pos sessed for 20 years, shall be held as open tO settlement under the pro- visions of Ihe homestead and pre- emplOa laws of the United States. IL provides, however, that these claim ants under the Act who should have resided on the land less than 20 years should have lhe first right tO the land
 IhIs clearly shows that said north east one-quarter of section 10 was no. open 10 settlement Snd filing until alter the claimants had failed To show title under the provisions of said Act
 By the Act entitled An Act author iZIng repayment for land enormously sold by the United States" approved January l2, 1895, it is provided that were the purchaser of a tract of land from the United States, the purchase whereof is or may be void by reason uf prior salc thereof by the United States or Gy ihe confirmation or legal establishment Ofa prior British French Spanish grant thereof, or for want of ti- tie thereto in the United States from any cause whatever, he shall be entitled 10 repayment of any sum or sums of money paid for it. Under this and a similar act of 1859, IL has been de- cided that if only part of the tract purchased Is covered by interfering claim il is optional with She purchaser 10 relInquish the whole tract or only the particular part interfcred with.
 Allen prufIrred to rellnquish the whole tract and did file his relin- quishment and abandonment. Under the Act of February ,, lS15, the fol- l lowing persons presented their declar- | ation and proofs for the several lots ! laid down in said northeast quarter section 10, as pe- surveys made by the ! Surveyor General: Lot number 1, Francisco Munquia, D. S. number 19; | lOl number 2, Saml. II. Drachman, D. l $. number 1 lot number 3, estate of | Refugio PaCheCO, D. $. number 43; ! lot number i, Chas. T. Hayden, D. S ! number 23; lot number ,, Juan Bal | dez, D. 5. number 22; lot number 6, | Juan BaldcZ, D. ,. number 22; lot :, Angelita Page, D. s. number 27; lot number s, Angelita Page, D. $. num- Der 26; lot number 9, Angelits Page, D. s. number 9; lot number 10, Man | uel Y. Elias, D. s. number 2S; lot num- Der II, Angelita Page, D. $. number 24. An entry was allowed to the re- spective parties, and the papers gre now before the Commissioner of the General Land Office.
 It is alleged that in Aliens written of the land he assigned | as a reason that he was going 10 FCrt Lowell as sutler, and therefore couId not reside on ihe land. In eXplana- ton of this abandonment he offers his affidavit in the case 10 show that hiS attorney drew up the affidavit and that he signed it without reading it; that he did not know that 1t was necessary to assign any reason for the abandon ment: that at the lime he filed his abandonment he had already actually abandoned the tract for the reason Of the passage of the Act of February ,, 1875, and the prior claims of the hold CTS of Alcalde grants.
 Accompany this affidavit is an to amend his sbnndOnent by setting forth his true reason for re- inqdishing the land.
 I do pot consider it essential that his abandonment should be amended. The one reason which he assigns for abandonment does not prevent the of other valid reasons whicn Allen undoubtedly had, as the records of the office clearly show. At the time he filed his abandonment there were legal obstacles which pre- vented his getting an entry for said 1 land. and in reality the land was for sale. and by no act of his could he either hold or relinquish the land
 I hold, therefore, that Aliens aban- 1onment did not exhaust his pre- emption right and that his declarstory statement number 365 was invalid for the reasons stated. There then being DO legal impeachment in the way of his filing his pre-emptiOn declafatory statement number 39J, for the land in controversy, hold that the same was a valid filing, and that by faith ful compliance with The pre-emptIon laws by settlement and cultivation he can obtain au entry ofthe same. Proof of his residence and cultivation is moi
 -E. I..s