The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-06-13
BIG LAND GRAB.
Commissioner Sparks Ex-
plains the Scheme.
AREA OF 1900 SQUARE NILES.
Suit to be Instituted for the Setting
Aside Of the Patents ISSUED
Under the Grant.
Immense Land Transaction.

Amm ense Land Transaction.
WARRINGTON, June 2.-Commissioner |
Sparks, of the land Office, this after
noon, submitted to Secretary Lamar his
report upon the famous Maxwell Land
grant, of New Mexico, for which nearly
100000 acres of public land grants
were claimed and patented in 1879. The
official proceeding leading up to the
patent are recited in detail by the Com
missioner, who then says. in brief, that
pending these proceedings, large num-
Der of letters, complaints, petitions,
protests and charges were transmitted
to this Office and department from
citizens of New Mexico, alleging
fraud in the location and boundaries.
They claim its extension far beyond
any original claim or possession by the
grantees, invasion, settlement and min
ing rights, and of the rights of the ma
tive inhabitants and Indian occupants.
Nothing more than mere formal no
tice of these various complaints and al
legations appears to have been taken or
done by this Office. No investigation
was had, but the claim for this enor-
nous region of country appears to have
been carried through by official readi
ness. without regard to the interests of
| the government, or of the rights of Citi-
zens of the Territory in actual occu-
pancy of the land Evidences of fraud
we're manifest in the bold fact of the
presentation of claim for nearly 2,OO0,-
600 acres, based upon grant of less than
1OO, 900 acres. The grant OF the Mexican
authorities were governed by the laws
of the National Colonization grants,
and were limited in quantity to eleven
square leagues, or about 48,O0O acres TO
one person. Our boundaries for locall-
| ties mentioned in the application for
| these grants areusually of the most gen.
| eral character, In the present case,
those boundaries might have been found
or alleged to be found at almost diverse
points. The alleged making of the
| boundaries under the purport of judicial
possession was of an unstable character,
easily removed land liable 10 early de-
struction from natural causes. Nothing
| was easier than to lind such alleged
monuments, wherever they were de.
cided, but in the so-called adjudication
of this case the boundaries claimed and
the monuments asserted by the inter-
ested parties were accepted as the ac-
tual boundaries and monuments of the
grant. which was thus swollen from
little over four townships almost, to
more than seventy-6ve townships of
public lands. The proceedings in this
Office in carrying this extravaganza claim
throughout the patent appears to me to
have been of an extraordinary charae-
ter. The decision of the Secretary In
1869, that a claim under confirmation OF
l. A fin.ffo6 ffN funnfu-
two leagues, had become final under the
rules governing the practice of this de-
partment in its administration of the
laws. The refusal of Mr.. Secretary Delano
to review it restored that decision as
to the case res judicGtG, so far as
the execution was concerned. Ii the
Secretary of the Interior could have re-
opened the case, certainly the Commits
sioner could not, under such rules. The
Commissioner did reopen it, as an as
sumed result of correspondence be-
tween himself and the Secretary hereto
fore cited, as an examina ton of this
co -correspondence shows that it fur
nished a basis for the Commissioner
action in the reopened and decided
case. The Commissioner letters asked
or instructions as to future cases only
not to cases previously decided. The
Secretary replied to this speclhc re-
quest, and instructs the Commissioners
what shall be done hereafter in similar
cases. /" not that anything shall be done
in the cases already settled. He Is not
instructed to reopen the case that has
Z been decided. The Commissioner
asked for no instructions in respect to
the Maxwell grant, and received none
This grant was not before him for re
view of the decision of the Secretary Of
= 1859. He had no duty to perform II
4; regard to it, but he proceeded upon III:
own motion. apparently to order new
survey. He directed it to be made 'lr
strict accordance with the judicial pos
session" not according to part, which
must have been determined by law
not according to confirmation, which
made no mention of the ALLEGED
=, mounds" by which 200 square mile
I. of territory were claimed to have beer
! marked out as boundaries of the colon
. ization part. limited under the Mexican
2 laws to $50 square miles, but precisely
according to these exaggerated bound
aries. and IN accepting the al
legged boundaries OF the lu
dicial possession as determinatiVe 0
: the boundaries under the grant ant
confirmation. No notice appears tC
4 1 nave Occu GdhGI Va VIZ AoOeS 100000
bv the records and advertised lin tn
report of the Commissioner and decision
of the Secretary in 1869, that ',sketcl
map" purporting to define such bound
. aries, and in substantial accordance
: with which the approved survey wa
: executed, did not accompany the Sur
2 yeyor-General's report, upon which tn
I confirmation was made, and was, there
!. fore. no part of such confirmation, bu
was produced with but slight or nj
evidence of its authority. Eleven year
q after such report was made, nine year
2 after the confirmation of the grant anC
2 twent six years subsequently to the
r date of the document, the possession o
q which it was claimed to be part
n and claim to. the possession of the ez
q tent so described, was contradicted b.
\ the grant claimants themselves befor
!. the departmental assembly in 1874
q when they stated that the grant did no
: exceed fifteen or eighteen leagues AM
y exhibited to the assembly judicla
=. .-+;6cata conf rrnino euch statements