Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-02-27
SPE CIAL MESSAGES,

sPE CIAL MESSAGES.
The following executive communica-
tions were presented in the assembly to-
day:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
Territory of New Mexico,
Santa Fe, Feb. 27, 1887
To the 2Sth Legislative Assembly
Gentlemen: have the honor to return
herewith, to the house in which it origi-
mated, house bill No. rs, an act to limit
the time within which certain suits may
be brought, ETC., without executive ap-
proval.
The LIST section of this bill provides that
in cases where the claim is held under
color of title deducible of record from the
governments OF Spain, Mexico or the Unit
ed States, or from some officer hereunder
having authority to make grants or give
titles or possession of lands" the period
of limitation shall be six years. Under
the present law it is ten years. This re-
duction in itself would not be objectiona-
BILE, but for other provisions i'll the bill.
1t is observable that no deed proposing
to convey fee simple is required in this
or in other sections. The title being
"deducible of record" simply, though
such record may show nothing but quit
claim conveyance, q party so IN posses
sion Of q grant may acquired complete IT,
tie in six years, even in cases where the
real owners may not have conveyed.
Possession is acquired, though the deed
itself gives only constructive possession.
To illustrate: A. B. holds a grant by
quit claim from G. D. G. D. purports to
convey the whole grant, and A. BIS title
is therefore "deducible ofrecord" through
G. d. Yet c. ID. may have acquired by
descent with many others, all of whom,
under this section, would be barred in
six years.
Thus it is shown that under this sec
ton, the claimant OF grant, or portion
OF it, under mere color of title thereto,
deducibe OF record, as provided, does
not require valid grant 'title-a color
able one will sufiice-to entitle him to
the benefit OF the reduction of the period
of limitation from ten to six years.
Under section 2, entry upon the lands,
with color of title, exclusive OF any other
RIGHT, and adverse holding under deed
purporting to convey fee simple, Or I'M
der Judgment or decree, gives title in ten
years.
Why should the claim of title be under
decd purporting to convey fee simple
under this section, and not in the six
year limitation under section |? This
distinction tends to excite suspicion Of a
hidden purpose, that is not favorable to
the bill.
Section provides that the act "shall
apply to times already elapsed and to
causes of action now existing" The na-
tural effort OF this provision is to review
causes of action already barred by the
lapse OF ten years, and such law would
be unconstitutional and void.
The legislature has no power to revive
q cause OF action barred by the statute OF
limitations. Even if this were not true,
why should the period be extended from
ten to twenty years. Suppose adverse
possession has been held for nine years
and is about to ripen into perfect title.
The person who has been in possession
for that period of time will in one year
more have title perfectly valid in the
courts-under this bill, eleven more years
must elapse before his possession will be-
come valid. He is deprived of a right
which he has acquired under existing
lava law which the legislature can not
take from him without, to say the least
exceeding bad faith. He has fulfilled his
contract in law, in his effort to obtain
title to the land he occupies, and the legis-
lature steps in and says he must wait an
other ten years, subject to all the Incl
dents and accidents of delay or of newly
discovered and bogus adverse claims, be-
fore he is allowed to perfect title which
he had already earned under quasi-con-
tract he entered into with the territory,
with his entry upon the land. Such legis-
lation is not only unjust and oppressive,
if not unconstitutional, and is inimical to
the pressing need of the settlement and
security of land titles.
Section gives the settler no right to
set off the value of his Improvements on
the land unless he shall have been in
possession under grant or conveyance
purporting to convey an estate in fee
simple. This is calculated to inhict great
injustice, as, under existing laws, an oc-
cupant who has been in possession for
ten years, has acquired under these laws
what is equivalent to a perfect title, in
that such laws forbid suits to be brought
against him after that time.
After the expiration of that period,
knowing that under the law he can not
be disturbed, he has reason to feel war
ranted in improving his land and sur
rounding himself and family with COM
Portable dwellings and kindred improve
ments. These improvements may be his
all, and represent the labor of a life time,
and assuming that they are all, or nearly
all, put upon the land after he has oc-
cupied it for the ten years requisite to
give him title, and then, not having oc
cupied it for the twenty year period pro-
vided as the new limitation to be estab-
lished in this bill, he may be elected and
all his improvements appropriated by the
owner of the land, without compensation.
Under the provisions of this bill, if it
should pass into the form of law, the
claimant of grant, who had been in pos
session of very small part of an alleged
grant under color Of title deduclble as pro-
vided in the LIST section, for six years,
could at once bring suit and oust a de-
iendant who had been in possession of
another part OF the same grant for ten
years or more. Such writ could be
brought Immediately upon the passage of
this BILL and this result reached, although
the possession for six and ten years, re-
spectively, had been anterior to the pas
sage of this bill.
Section 8 is equally Objectionable in
policy and effect, and seems to fittingly
illustrate the apparent purpose of the bill.
It is as follows:
"The time by this act limited shall not
be deemed to commence running in favor
of the occupant Of any land not claiming
the same under the provisions of section
1 of this net until the issue of n limited