Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-01-31
THURSDAY. JANUARY 81.
THE MAXWELL LAND GRANT.

:
terday delivered its decision in the case OF
the United States vs.. The Maxwell Land
G ant Company. This is the New Mexico
branch of this now celebrated case, and
the decision is another complete affirm
ance of the validity Oh the Maxwell grant
and patent to its fullest extent. A brief
history of the litigation will be interesting
in this connection:
In August, 1882, the Unitde States
filed bill in chanfery in the United
States circuit court for Colorado to cancel
the patent which had been issued in 1879
for the Maxwell land grant, situated
partly in Colorado and partly in New Mex
leo, and embracing l,7l4,0O0 acres. The
case was litigated with great vigor through
a period of five years and was decided IN
favor of the Maxwell Land Grant COM
pany by the circuit court, and afterward
by the supreme court OF the United States,
where it had been thken by the govern
ment on appeal. That court in two
elaborate opinions, the second one on
rehearing, sustainedsthe title OF the Max
well company on all points, and decided
that the original grant was valid to its full
extent, that it had b cen properly located
and surveyed, so as 70 embrace the l,7l4,-
900 acres included bin the patent, and
that the entire proceedings in relation to
the grant, survey an : patent, both under
the Mexican and Al Perican government,
were entirely free fr n fraud OF any kind,
either in the claimants or United States
officials. That decision was COM
plete refutation of the sensational charges
of fraud and corruption in relation to this
claim with which the press of the country
had been filled fory bars.
The department pf justice, instead OF
accepting the decision of the supreme
court, brought new suit in New Mexico
to cancel the patent on substantially the
same grounds on which the Colorado
suit was brought, claiming, now
ever, that the lands in New Mex
leo, which formed the greater part of the
grant, were not affected by the former
suit.
The Maxwell Company set up the
decision OF the Uhited States supreme
court as completd defense to this new
suit and brought the question OH to a
hearing before Jude Reeves, OF the LIST
judicial district, last May. He sustained
the plea of res adjudicata and dismissed
the bill of the United States. The U. S.
attorney, by direction of the attorney gen.
eral, took an appeal, and the case was
argued last week before the supreme court
by the U. S. attorney for the United States
and Hon. Frank Springer on behalf of the
Maxwell company. The decision OF the
court aftirms the judgment of judge
Reeves in every point. The opinion was
delivered by Judge Henderson and is con-
cured in by the entire court; and it GER
tainly ought to put an end to all further
efforts by the representatives of the gov
ernment to disturb their title. We are
informed by those conversant with the
history OF this grant that the Maxwell
company has gained every suit it has ever
had in which the validity or extent OF
the grant was inv lved, in every court,
whether federal, stAte or territorial. We
give the following extract from the opin-
ion just delivered:
The United States brought suit in the
circuit court for thP United States for the
district OF Colorado, to set aside, vacatt
and cancel the patdht assailed here. The
bill in that case is grounded upon allega
tons Of fraud committed by the paten
tees and others holding through or under
them, by means OF which the officers OF
the plaintiff were deceived into issuins.
and delivering the patent. Fraud in va
rious ways was charged against the
grantees under the patent, and the patent
as an entirety was involved in this issue
raised, heard and finally determined in
the circuit and supreme courts of the
United States.
1t is quite clear that had the United
States succeeded in that suit, the decree
would have affected the title to the lands |
embraced in the patent lying in New
Mexico. Personal service was had upon |
the Maxwell Land Grant company in that |
suit, and an appearance entered, and the |
suit after long delays finally decided, de- |
claring the patent valid for the lands coy
cred by it wherever situated. The final |
Judgment in that suit was intended to be- |
and we think was, conclusive upon the
United States and all persons claiming
through or under It, whether the lands
covered by the patent were located in
Colorado or New Mexico.
The suit was instituted and contested
through the courts to a final decision in
the court of last resort solely, or mainly
at least, upon the ground that such frauds
had been committed by the original
grantees and thoseIclaiming under them
in locating the lands and extending the
true boundaries thereof in such manner
as to deceive the officers of the United
States, and thereby caused them to issue
the patent; that court Of equity would
annul the patent. The court found that
there was no fraud proven in the case,
and that the patent was legal and valid,
and free from the faint OF fraud.
Tne issue directly involved in the con
troyersy Was that Of fraud practiced upon
the Unijel States through it's officers.
The observation-disclosures against the truth
OF the facts alleged and the United States,
like any other suit6r in a court of justice,
is bound by the fihal judgment of courts
of competent jurisdiction, when it elects
to itigate any question OF facts in the
courts.
The supreme court OF the United States
affirmed in distinct terms that there was