Arizona weekly citizen., 1881-03-06

lions under this direction Was q eel to an Indian named Romr,{tIaI' ta'' The Alcalde placed him iu possessi.- and he and his assigns continpnr.JI,nl remained in possession. JuIv 5 1S 1S46, Gov. Pico made grant of ~, W same land 10 the same Indian 0ae ,a' Wilson, successor iu interes, ole sented a claim under the pico ,-.. e, which was made after The dsto os s .,' lu' treaty of Guadalupe Hi6aIgo @ 'ns therefore the Board of Land Co,,, alu sioners rejected il; but as ibera-s- .s- eV idence that the original grantee sns n a hIs assigns had long, continro,aIullu uu and usefully occupied the nrsD,;styy' Uisly' he United States District JndSs se'' n's'
 irmed the claim and the UDiied S,".4 Supreme Court affirmed the conSs-s lion. In doing SO the Court sar- U q
 " He (the AlcaldeJ gave Ina no... sion to the Indian accordinoiy
 record was kept of the distribT,;I these lands Tn book in his oflca VI we'll as the orders from the Govsr1,.a' a' out this book was lost, win sii HI' ,ri archives of his office, in ls4S s,n tue
 In the present ips,sDo~ .. the possession and cultivation vs-Dss considerable duration; and acco.5;- .-f VI 70 the testimony of the Alcal5a ,I distribution and assignmept Inf ,t 'uS Governor was intended 10 be ns,na .u7 aent, as home to the oceuusn, TS. claim appears to be an homes, o.. lnaccompanied with suspicion snS
 under the circumstances. We ,LiDI was properly confirmed"
 Another somewhat analogou, cs
 s that of the United States V. Es
 daro's Heirs, found in g How,rd ps..29S-S. The Board of Land Com
 nissioners rejected .he claim. bn, tb.
 U. :. District Court confirmed it srJ ln the ecision this language occurs.
 It appears that an undisturbed possession ofthe property claimed hs, been ID the possession of Francisco da daro and hIs heIrs sixteen years and II does not appear tLat any one bss claimed or ever exercised possession or right of possession over tbs premises"
 On appeal to the U. s. supr.m. Court, the judgment of he IowsT court was affirmed, and the opinion concludes thus:
 " Upon the whole, We can m, Cou0t, rom the title papers. md especially from the sixteen years Dos- session which has been epioyed hv Dc Haro and his heirs-using m. property as their own, claiming il under the grant-thst the title should be confirmed; and it is hereby con drmed.
 ACTION OF CONGRESS- IN SUCH CAsEs.
 Congress does not hesitate to do justice in cases of this kind. March 5, 1871, a sub committee of the Private Land Claims Committee of the House of Representatives, reported 10 tho House in the case of Thomas Dow ling's claim to Yerba Buena Island, From that report, quote;
 It Is q we'll settled principle in jurisprudence that contracts for the alienation of land, although not valid as law, may be enforced in equity when substantial justice re- quires it. The Court will always have an eye to the substantial justice Oi the case. But fl may be said that Government can not, like an individual, be compelled tu sub. init to the equitable powers of the Court; and this is true, but il is the highest attribute of Government 10 do this 1t may do when this right is perceived, through the action of Congress. (Part III, D. 1435, Senate and House Repor:s by their Private Land Claims COmmiuees.)
 Although the Presidisl records Of Tubac have been destroyed. and the titles to the tracts under consideration are not shown to be strictly and tech nically dersigned to the present claim ants, yet 1 have no doubt of tb' $, legal right to every vsra of iaB' ,taa en claim and ask to be eOD' tne1 them, in this case, l -iLt tneI ., ', title genuine, and eV, 'egaru .nen title papers, thelr gu "l'HoI' i Anl rndi,inrbed ac- long, useful ard ,ha,, Tn9 ,a ' ee, .cupation would enlitl, LirmatiOn. Congress hal a. anomy y recognized the right of mer; ooS ants of lands in the Santa Cru -iey in front of Tucson, 10 hay, confirmation therefor. Such occu. pants were not required to have titl, papers; they were only required tc prove 10 the satisfaction of the regis Ter and receiver of the proper |. S. Land Office that they and their ances. tors or grantors had been ID the actual bona- tde occupancy or possession of such land |" for twenty years next preceding the date of the passage of this act"-which was Feb. ,, 1875. 1 Stats. at Large, vol. IS, Par. 3, p. SO5.)
 There IS even stronger reasons why Congress should confirm the lands un der consideration to Otero, ct. sl., than Tn any case contemplated by the Act just cited. The Oteros have genuine title papers and have had useful Occu- patton by themseIves and ancestors of the grant Of l7S9 for nearly one hun dred years, and of the one of 1883 for more than twice twenty years.
 The boundaries can be easily ascsr- tained and the quantity is limited by the terms of the title papers.
 RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE.
 In view of the foregoing facts, l recommend the confirmation of all tho lands petitioned for in this case, to Sabiuo Otero, TeOflo Otero, GsbrielA Otero, Elena Castro and Anna NJ. Cunnen. JOHN WAssoS,
 U. 5. Suryeyor-Geueral.
 TCcsoS, Arizona, March l, 1881.