Arizona weekly citizen., 1882-02-12
Rancho de Martinez at san Xavier
 del Rar.


 '. IUCsON, ARIZONA, Feb. 1, 1882 e The grant in this case was made 1T l. pursuance Of Spanish and Mexican E customs relating to the disposal and a occupation of lands within the ju7isdic.
 ,iuns of presidios and pueblos, snd all l proceedings in such cases were had by and taken before officers within such jurisdictions and records thereof were never made jn ether state or national
 archives. In executing this grade oi
 grants, survey, valuation and sale were
 unnecessary, as they were no, made for
 the benent of the Treasury, but for pro-
 noting set,lemen, at and near the
 prcs.dios and pueblos and to enable the grantees te produce a subsistence for , themselves, and also for the soldiers and
 other non-producers. The land claimed
 !n this case, has been in useful, undis-
 puted and continuous occupation and
 cultivation for over thirty years by the
 lrgiual grantee and present petitioner
 aith members rfthe family.
 This case presents substantially the ] same features as that of the Rancho
 de Otoro and house lot,r which this 1 office reported for confirmation on
 On March |, 1881, except that in hi,
 there Is no formal grant of house lot,
 nor indeed any reference to the grant of
 one in the title papers. In view of the
 similarity of th:s and the said Otero
 Case, l quote the following parts of my report m sad case, as pertinent 10 thIs,
 viz:
 The grant of I78g 10 Trevio de Otero,
 although II does not refer thereto. was
 certainly made under the Royal decree for tLe regulation of presldIos to be ! es-abisheI on the frontier lne Of New i Spain, issued september To, I772, which l decree declares: That for the protec- i ton of settlements and of commerce in l the frontier countries and that the population thereof may be increased, 1 order the cOmmandanJs, captains. ! officials ani all other persons shall not | under any prereNt whatever, prevent the | 1 settlement of persons of good character and habits in the immediate surround ! Inss of presidios; and when this locality may not be sufficient Co contain all the ! families that may desire 10 make settle l mcnts, that the district for such settle l ment shall be enlarged on one of the 1 sides. l also order that the captains ! distribute house lots and lands 10 such l settlers, under the condition tha, they ! cultivate the same, and that they keep | horses, arms and ammunition, and be | ever ready Co use themln defense of tte ! country when required to do so, etc.
 This decree Was fOlioNed by tte order l of Maya ID I79I, authorizing captains of | pres .d!os to grant lands 10 settlers within a tract of four square leagues measured from the plaza Of the presidio as a center.
 The Otero claims are quite similar 10 one oi an Indian m California. The clam under this Indians tiJie reached the United States Supreme Court and the case Is found in [ Black D. 267. In IS42, Goy. Alvarado directed the AlCalie at San Luis ObIspo 10 distribute lands among the Indians about the Mission, and one of the distributions under this direction was a parcel 10 an Indian named RomualdO. The Alcalde placed him m possession, and he and hls assigns Continuously remained m possession. July To, IS46, Gov Pico made grant of the same land to the same Indian. One Wilson, successor in interest presented a claim under the pIco grant which was made after the date of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, an therefore the Board of Land Com mlssIuners rejected it, but as there was evidence that the original grantee and his assigns had long, continuously and u,efuliy occupied the premises, the United States Distinct Judge confirmed supreme Court affirmed the Conhrma- ton. In doing SO the Court say:
 " He the Alcaldel gave the posses sion to the Indian accordingly. 4 record was kep: of the distribution Of these lands m a book in his office, as well as the orders from the Governor, but this book was lost with all he archives of his office n IS46, etc. F In the present instance the possession and cultivation were of considerable duration. and according 10 the testimony of the AiCalde, the distribution ard assignment of the Governor was intended to be permanent as a home to the occupant The clam appears 10 be an honest one, unaccompanIed with suspi- cion; and, under the circumstances, we think was properly confirmed"
 Another somewhat analogous case IS ! oh Ffl4 N.I ] Heirs found in 2 Howard ps. 2o3-S The Board of Land Commissioners re- iecied the claim, but United States District Court confirmed II, and in the decision this language occurs:
 IL appears that an undisturbed pos session of the property claimed has been m the possession of Francisco de Haro and hfs heirs for sixteen years, and It does not appear that anyone has , claimed or ever exercised a possession or right of possession over the pre- mses.'
 On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the judgment of the { lower court was afiIrue ed. and the { opinion concludes thus:
 Upon the whole we can not doubt from the ,itic papers, and especially from the sixteen years posSe5s.On which r has been enjoyed by DeHaro and his c hcirs- using he property as their own, .tie should be confirmed; and IL IS here C by confirmed. ACTION OF CONGRESS IN SUCH CASES,
 Congress does not hesitate to do | justice in cases of this kind. March !, @ 1871, a subcommittee of the Private {; Land Claims Committee of the House of reported to the House in the case of Thomas DOwlngs claim T .o Yerba Buena Island. From that report quote: f
 "It IS a well settled principle in equitable jurisprudence that contracts for the alienation of land although not n .alid as law, may be enforced in equity C when substantial justice requires i,. S The Court will always have an eye to he substantial justice of the case P - E $ But t may be said that ioycInment can not, ke an individual, be compelled tO submit Co the equitable | < powers of the court; and this Is true. but { |; is the highest attribute of Government [ 70 do right and this it may do when a he right is perceived, through the V ,cuor of Congress Part III, D. --s5. Senate and House Reports by {. hen Private Land Claims Committees ' Even without any title papers, their :. our. useful and uudisturbed occupation :, vould entiyle them to confirmation. ~ Congress has already recognized the 2. fight ot mere occupants of lands in the - santa Cruz valley Tn front of Tucson, to nave confirmation therefor. Such occu- lants were not required to have title -a-ers: they were only reanIrel to prove L