Arizona weekly citizen., 1886-05-15
PAPAb INDIAN RIGHTS. Their Eish.N and PriviIeges again D
PAPA(

TOTS. EAlL-G hA AuC ---N-- jug vague and in others changed it. Referring 10 titles, ''inchoste or com plete," appears ''indevote or incom- plete." In the same connection ''thOse which lie in contract; those which are execu;ory as well as tnese winch are ex- ecated,' appears these which lie ID contact; those which are e1ecated"-| tie former iDiellieible, the latter BoT. Referring 10 the Calabozas and Arlbac eases, it was stated that proceedings w-re had under Spanish law" as print ei. .'procsediBgs were not had" etc. The other orrors are of little importance
 The United States never acknowledg- ei an Indian tItle to land in Arizona or other territory acquired from Mexico. hence never went through the formsli.y of extinguIshing it.
 Unless the Papagos tor other Indiansl can show legal or equitable title 10 land as a pueblo, they are entitled to no3e as such. Unless they, as irdivid- ulls, can show a legal or equitable title to specific tracts. they cannot enforce demand fer any st all.
 As 10 pucbIos: T0macacori was pu- eb.o, but Is Was soll under the law of April r., 1S37. for lac benefit of the treasury Of sonora, on April Is. l>ii, to |. A. Aeu! S-, to whom a title was le- caily issued on the payment If SJO0. + tAers ETs other pEeSlo-, the fact can be eGsIly e. asceT;aIned, Rnd 1T still occu- piei by Igula-s. or ny them and other l people, they will be entitled 10 four ] square leagues n H square or ob!oog ! form, as found to bs most convenient | IL will be unnecessary to shoT exact com ! plisoce with the regulations for the es- | tabl.- hment and government ot pueb!os. | tO entItle the occupants 10 ian0; sub srantlal conformity tO them TIii be suiii- ! cient. Inc ssme reg ulaIoLs hPplled io all pueblOs whether composed m whole | or II part ot lndIaBs or O: no Indians, 1 San Francisco was not legally organ ] lzed pueblo, yet the court aud congress, after many years Of contest awarded IT i four square lesgurs-the area allowed 10 ali pueblos under the former govern ! ment.
 As 10 individual titles. it IS doubtful If any IudIan ever acquired legal ttle to land in ArIz1ns, and If not, their | rights. If any they have, must be ad- | judged by the established principles Of equIty and justice applicable To each case. At times during Spanish rule, ln ! some parts Of the spanish possesslou. ] small lois were ePPortlUBed tO The In
 dians. but find DO historical or other ! record showing that this was done ID ! tha case ot any of the Arizona Indians. | 1 can find Do evidence that these h. ' dIaus were treated differently from otn- l er inhabitants 90 fir Fs land UHs cop l cerred, hy either Spaln oT Mexico; but ! the general orders Of roth goyeruments | directed that Indians ID general be fav- ! ored, and srme orders required that th- y~hRyc preference, especially where c.Lii cts had arisen uT were i'm ninrn:. ! The Case the San Rstsei Italians iU California l. ne ID point. aud others ! mlgLt br cited. it ls quite probable tuet the Paps-Cs, the particular Indians ! 10 view lu tl.s c5rTcs pond C, con noi legally or eqQu2bly set up 6 claim
 based upon t1e laws or usages of Spaiu or Nr1.cC, that our ovn govern mrut would not coUcede to them. Indep, ndsBt oi any rIgnt UT claim l under the t.rmrr 2 lveruueDts. We
 have continued ile spanish aUd Mexi- can practice ID treating with the Indians
 with greater consideration than nc l corded to other cItIzeus and inhabitants
 and are doing 80 now 10 a marked degree
 2 h=y are accorded about all the rights
 and E.ore privileges than enjoyed by
 other people. whereas they Ere legal!
 entitled to no more than citizens eerer
 ally.
 It is very doubtful. however, If aBI Ian } co1ld be, even under the exception
 ally liberal treatment accorded Indians
 generally, confirmed 10 the Pspagos un
 der th- petitions presented by Mir. Hun
 ter. H. sought confirmation of tTacil indefinite Gs 10 size. or for any partIcu
 lar named Indians. Nothing wei
 claimed as organized pueblos or even a, ouasi yueblos. He evidently dld no
 have Iurblus ID vieT ID framing his pc titious, for COlti rmatiOn O; pueblo l.
 made 10 tue hoiy f tine people and no
 tn any as individuals; and be thrift!
 Hcuter would ncr have taken deeds fo
 o-ber than iniiviG Ial rights. Inciden
 tall II may be Ter aated.. that the llnclAn'
 under the M-Xicgu goverumeBt wert , citizeDs with equal rights ard privilege Q Of other cIuzen-, and am Jng those wer Q iLe right 10 acquire and convey title [, r land. Now. the question arises: Blt any Of the I1dIsn- HhO made deeds (, ! Hunter, or to some one st bis Instsuce possess any riShts. either legal or tqul
 table, to land in Arizona: Ihese d,ei
 not being placed un record, would DO
 be valid as against the unIufoTmed Iub
 lie. but would they not he Hs to the In D dians executing them: Our Unite, 1. States supreme court has declare, , they can convey tItle tO lAn1 1 Now. should these Indians se u2 claims 10 land would not tine yer b first step ID sucl Case be 10 ascertain } WLether or nJt they had deeded sEu , tbeir rights. and 1T SO. whether frau . Nas practiced upon them ID the pre
 misrs:
 The legal title to the lands they occu
 py is evI iently n the government, how ever strong the equitable one may De Under the laws of the United State.
 they are entitled to a quarter sectloi each by actual occu patton, the same a
 other ci.iZeus, aud the territorial law . will maintain them 10 possession uDti after survey; Rbar donment subjects thel ! clam 10 locstirn hy other persors Doubtless many of the Pspagos have 6c ! quivei rights 10 land by long occups uon Congress and the courts hHv
 always regarded luIg and useful occu
 patton. ss erti;lius the occupant 10 legal title In the matter of the land II front of Tu-soD jn tie Santa Cruz val 2 ley. tijie wEs confirmed to al! who couii show they and tbeIr Crsutors had beel ID actual possession for only twenty year . prior Co the passage ot the act-Feb. 1s75. Iu tbe '-se of the [. z. Y. h , Haro's heirs - How 293, the court pu
 great stress upon the fact of sixteel yesrs' occ1p4tion. Ia some case- th, lsv f prescription would doublless ap
 ply
 The chief difficulty ID tbe PGpact
 cases. would pr,bstly arise from tin, fsct shat uEpy Indians occupy a singl, quarter section or less area To whlci would the laJd belong? Not occupyiDl
 o- cal;ivstiug the land much heS Sonl Q tLeir immediate homes, leaves ile re
 u.lnder Of the country open io settle raeut. sudit VCuid be manites;ly EronC
 ,o disturb a settler upon land winch th,