The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1885-06-18
MAxwgLl LAND GRANT.
nAns laAuos N ~ MtHIoo.
Land Csmmissisasf sparks hsPofts
showing ~ the teffurt Method ~
securing Fasssssiou ~ 500,
600 a re- uf lad


ana patented in 1879. The
ofiiclal proceedings, ending up 20 the
patent, are reclted la detail by the COM
missioner, who then says In briei;
Pending these proceedings large num-
bsr OF letters, complaints, petitions
protests and charges were trans
mitted 20 this ofiice anu depart
mant from citizens OF New Mexico,
alleging fraud IN the locotion and boun'
DIARIES OF this elalmi its extension lar
beyond any original claim or posses.
ri ons by The grants the invasion Of n
settlement and mining right and OF tho
nights OF native inhabitants
and Indian occupants. Nothing
more than more formal notice
OF the various complaints and allega.
tons appears to have boon taken or done
by this office. No investigation was
had, but the claim for this enormous re-
gton of country appears 10 have been
carried through by official
readiness without regard 10 the interests
OF the government or the rights of the
cttixeEs II the Territory in actual oocu
pancy of the land. Evidence OF fraud
was manifest in the bold TACT OF the
presentation of claim for
nearly 100000 acres, based upon
Q grant OF less than 100000 acres.
The grants OF the Mexican authorities
W0E0 KONtIGtu lllt laws w tlit tli-
ton. Colonization grants were limited
IA ,quantity TO II square leagues, or
about $1,000 acres, to one person. Tho
out boundaries Of the localities mem
toned in the application for those
gcants were usually OF tho most gen
ersl character. In the present case
those boundaries Iaight have hG5n found
or alleged 10 bs found at almost diverse
points. The alleged making Of boundn-
rtes under the purported Judicial Dosscs-
sion was Of unstable character, easily
removed and liable to early destruction
from natural aud other causes. Moth.
ing was easier than 10 find such alleged
monuments wherever 1t was desired,
butin the so.called adjudication OF this
case the boundaries claimed and
monuments asserted by Interested
parties were accepted as tho aetna
boundaries and monuments OF the
grant, which wers thus swollen from Il
than rs townships OF pubic land. The
proceedings of this Office Ia
carrving this eXtraYagsnt claim
through to patent appears 10 ne
to have been NJ extraordinary charac-
ter. The decision Of tee secretary In
$50 that the claim under the coDfrma-
tory act OF Congress was limited to q
leagues, had become final under the
rules governing the practice OF the de-
partment on its administration of the
1aws.The refusal OF Mr.. Secretary Delano
20 review 1t retained that decision as to
this case, res adjudica, so tar az execu.
tive action was concerned. Ii the secre-
tary of the interior could not have re-
opened the case, certainly the commits.
sfoner could not under the
same rules. The commissioner did
reopen as an assumed result Of
the dependence between himself
and tho secretary heretofore cited; An
examinason of this correspondence
shows that it furnished no proper or suf-
ticient basis for the commissioners
action ia reOpening the decided case.
The commissioners letter asked for
Instructions as to future cases only, not
TO cases previously decided. The secre-
tary replies to this specific request and
be done hereafter In similar cases, not
that anything shall be done in
cases alresdy, settled. lie is
not instructed to- reopen any
case that had been decided. The COM
tui,siouer asked for no instructions in
resi- ect TO the Maxwell grant and re-
stm for . review of the decision of the
SECRETARY OF 1869. He has no duty
90 perform In regard to 1t, but he pro-
red upon his own motion, apparently,
rider q new survey he directed to be
l., ie IN strict accordance with the judi
lie he land grant which must have
according to the confirmation, which
5uada DO mention of the alleged mounds
"a which 300 square miles of terri
,osg were claimed to. have been
o'neizstion grant limitedI under
MGxican laws of $50 square miles,
cut precisely according to those exag-
teted boundaries, and in accepting |
alleged boundaries of judicat pos
."ssion IS determinative Of boundaries
ln4er he grant and confirmation.
notice &C appears ISs ,s to have S9so, been
~ the record and advertised
- 10 Ilgord Of the commissioner. The
q. slo1 Of the secretary in 1869, that
~ 'keteb map purporting to define
auCA bon odaries and in substantial ac-
2artapce with which the approved sur
the survey or the general report on
Az .ch tie confirmation was made, and
sgCs, Jherefore, no part of such con-
q. --zti-l n, but was produced with slight
OF no evidence of its authority. Eleven
years atter such report was made,
nine years after the confirm alton
OF the rant, and 26 years subsequent
TO the date of the document In possess
sion Of which it was claimed as part
M that the claim of possession to the
extent 90 described was contradicted,
hHt no grant Of the claimants them
ya before the depart
fP 99t sss%bly that in .b 1884, When xlsm,
iid not exceed Is or IS lesgu 60 and ex-
bibited % the assembly the judicial GER
6i6csteq confirming such statements.
Tue Surveyor General, Mr.. II. L. At
kinson, had anticipated the commission
BY nlazing q contract for sur
|
made the private survey for the
grant claimant in 1870, which unauthor-
lzed contract was not approved by the
commits sioner. The commissioner |
instruction to the surveyor general that
a dish crested deputy should be SO.
teoted to make .,I the survey, who
1ness transaction referable to the
interssts of the owners OF the grant ap-
pear, however, to have been ignored by ,
the surveyor general, and his neglect of ,
such Instructions also does not appear
TO have been. disapproved, for
he contract for survey, was given
o brother of the alleged owner Of the
Vyas the bondsmsn, and this contract,
obnoxious as 1t seems to me to public
morals and official obligations, was ap.
proved and the survey made under 1t
approved and patented. No decision |
was rendered by the commissioners upon
oundaries or otherwise in the case be-
ore the issue Of patent, but patent was
ummarily issued without formal deci- /
ion and without opportunity being af- i
Orded to advise parties or professionals
o appeal to the secretary of the inte- !
rtor OF to invoke his supervising judg- I
ment
In conclusion, Commissioner Sparks
Au hat o,raf l~ot