The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-06-13

RANK FRAUDS IN NEW MEXICO.
Land Commissioner Sparks Reports
Showing Up the Corrupt Method OF
Securing Possession of 2OO,-
00O Acres of Land.

~~N~NNN
patent, are recited in detail by the COM
missioner, who then says In brief:
Pending these proceedings large mum.
Der Of letters, complaints, petisions
protests and charges were trans
mitted to this Office and depart.
ment from citizens of Now Mexico,
alleging fraud in the locetion and 6oun.
daries of this claim; its extension far
beyond any original claim or possess
sions by the grant; the invasion of
settlement and mining right and of the
rights of native inhabitants
and Indian occupants. Nothing
more than a mere formal notice
OF the various complaints and alega-
tons appears to have been taken or done
by this office. No investigation was
had, but the claim for this enormous re-
gion Of country appears to haye been
carried through by official
readiness without regard TO the interests
Of the government or the rights of the
citizens Of the Territory ia actual occu.
pancy of tho land. Evidence of fraud
was manifest in the bold fact of the
presentation Of q claim for
nearly 100000 acres, based upon
grant OF less than 100000 acres.
The grants Of the Mexican authorities
WNAO EONNlAlNh W tIO laws vi lIb Ih-
ton. Colonization grants were limited
in quantity to II square leagues, or
about As, 600 acres, to one person. The
ont boundaries Of the localities mon
toned in the application for those
grants were usually of tho most gem
eral character. In tho present case
thos9 boundaries might have been found
or alleged to be found at almost diyerse
points. The alleged making of bounda-
ries under the purported judicial possess
sion was Of unstable character, easily
removed and liable TO early destruction
from natural and other causes. Moth.
ing was easier than to find such alleged
monuments wherever it was desired,
but in the so-called ad judication of this
case the boundaries claimed aud
monuments asserted by Interested
parties were accepted as the actual
boundaries and monuments of the
grant, which were thus swollen from a
little over townships almost to more
than 70 townships OF public land. The
proceedings OF this Office in
carving this extravagant claim
through to patent appears TO me
to have been of extraordinary charae
ter. The decision of the secretary in
1869 that the calm under the conhrma-
tory act of Congress was limited To %
leagues, had become final under the
rules governing the practice OF the de-
partment on its administration of the
laws.The refusalof Mr.. Secretary Delano
TO review it retained that decision as TO
this case, res adjudica, so far az execu-
tive action was concerned. If the secre-
tsry of the interior could not have re-
opened the case, certainly the commits.
sioner could not under the
90 rtrlng Wha a
reopen as an assumed result II
the correspondence between himself
and the secretary heretofore cited. An
examination of this correspondence
shows that II furnished no proper or suf-
ficient basis for the commissioner
action in 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
instruots the commissioner what shall
be done hereafter in similar cases, not
that anything shall be done in
cases already settled. He Is
not instructed to reopen any
case that had been decided. The COM
missioner asked for no instructions in
respect to the Maxwell grant aud re-
ceived none. This grant vas not before
him for review OF the decision of tho
secretary Of 1869. He has no duty
TO perform In regard 10 II, but he pro.
ceeded upon his own motion, apparently,
to order new survey he directed TO be-
made In strict accordance with the Judi
cial possession, not according to
the land grant which must have
been determined by the law;
not according TO the coniirmatlon,w which
made no mention of the alleged mounds
by which 200 square miles of terri.
tory were claimed 10 have been
marked out as boundaries OF a
colonization grant limited under
Mexican laws of 100 square miles,
but precisely according 10 those exag.
gerated boundaries, and in accepting
the alleged boundariea of judicat pos
session rs doterminative OF boundaries
under the grant and confirmation.
No notice appears 10 have been
taken OF the facts disclosed
by the record and advertised
In the record of tho commissioner. The
decision Of tho secretary In 1869, that
the sketch map purporting 10 define
such boundaries and in substantial ao-
cordance with which tho approved sur.
vey was executed, did not accompany
the survey or the general report on
which the confirmation was made, and
was, therefore, no part OF such con-
firmatlon, but was produced with slight
or no evidence of,ts authority. Eleven
years after such report was made,
nine years after the confirmation
OF the grant, aud % years subsequent
10 the date of the document In possess
o on of which iG was claimed as a part
and that the claim OF possession to the
extent so described was contradicted,
but the grant OF the claimants them
selves, before the depart
ment assembly In 1864, when
they stated that the grant
did not exceed 10 or Is leagu 90 and ex.
hiblted 10 tho assembly the judicial GER
tltcates confirming such statements.
The Surveyor General, Mr.. IL. l.. AT.
kinson, had anticipated the commission
by making q contract for sur
vey by the larger claimed boun-
DIARIES with the Same surveyor who had
made the private survey for the
grant claimant in 1870, which unauthor-
lied contract was not approved by the
commissioner. The commissioners
instruction to the surveyor general that
a DISTINGUISHED deputy should be so.
leoted 70 make the survey, who
has had no connection or bus
mess transaction roicrabla 10 tho
interests of the owners OF the grant APP
pear, however, 10 have boon ignored by
the surveyor general, and his neglect OF
such instructions also does not appear
70 have been disapproved, for
the contract for survey was given
10 brother of tho alleged owner OF the
grant aud the alleged owner himself
was the bondsman, and this contract,
| obnoxious as II seems 10 me 10 public
morals and official obligations, was APP.
proved and the survey made under II
approved and patented. No decision
was rendered by the commissioner upon
boundaries or otherwise In the case be-
fore the issue OF patent, but patent was
summarily issued without formal dccl-
sion and without opportunity being az