Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-01-07
SCATHlNG CRITICISM.
President Springer, Ref,re the Bar Asso-
citation, on Land titles in New
MeXic

| this morning. His address constitutes
one OF the most able reviews of the ques-
ton of land titles in New Mexico ever
uttered, and stands as ascathing criticism
of the unreasonable and unjust policy
which has prevailed for years among
high officials. The speaker SAID it was
now forty-one years since this territory
was coded to the United States government
by treaty. When kearney planted here
the American flag he gave out by procla-
nation that he was Instructed by the
government ito protect the persons and
property of all quiet and peaceabIe inhab-
iants within its boundaries" Two years
! later the principles OF the law OF nations
and the promises OF this victorious com
mander were formulated into solemn
guarantees by the treaty OF peace between
Mexico and the United States, known as
the treaty OF Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article
VIII OF this treaty reads:
In the said territories property OF every
| kind, now belonging to Mexlcans not
| established there, shall be inVlOlably re-
,pected. The present owners, the heirs
ol these, and all MeXlcans who may here
alter acquire said property by contract,
snail enjoy with respect to it guarantees
equally ample as ii the same belonged to
cllizens OF the United States.
Article 9.-rhe Mexrans who, in the
territories aforesaid, shall not preserve
| A. Of tIn NJ
republic, conformably with what Is stlpu-
lated i'll the preceding, article, Shall be IN
rorpOrated into the union of the United
States, II and in the meant me
shall be maintained and protected i'll the
free enjoyment OF their liberty and proper
tv II
Not only this; the treaty OF Guadalupe,
us originally framed by the commission
els of the Two nations, contained an art
icte recognizing the grants made by Mex
TO, coup ed with Il provision allowing
The claimants under uneXecuted colonZ-
my contra Is additional time III Which to
| perform. the CONDITIONS OF such contracts
and receive their grants. This was so
objectionable that the whole 10th article
VAS stricken out, with some others, by
the United States senate, and the Amer
! lean government then sent COmmlSslOners
to present the amended treaty to the
Mexican government and procure its rall-
ticatlOn. They bore With them letter
from James Buchanan, then secretary OF
state, to the Mexican minister OF foreign
affairs, explaining the objections to the
suppressed articles, and stating that "the
treaty provides ampy and specifically III
| ITO ~ IA a Or IA f,r nj
property OF every kind belonging to Mex
leans, whether held under Mexican grants
or otherwise, In the acquired territory"
| The OuImlsslOnerS were further author
lied to make explanations to the Mexican
gOvernn. ent respecting the amer dments
insisted Oh by the senate III order TO In
duce that government to accept tn II eaty.
Their mission Was rs stated by the secre-
tnry of state in his letter of instructions,
TO use every honorable effort to obtain
! from the Mexican government ratiira-
ton of the treaty in the form in which it
has been ratified by the senate, and this
with the. least practicable delay"
The suppression the 10th article OF
the treaty, rs originally negotiated, natur-
ally aroused the suspicion the Mexican
government and Notwithstanding their
desperate situation, exhausted by the war,
| with hostile nag flying over their capital,
and Notwithstanding the solemn assur-
auUes OF tile American secretary of state
hat the Sth and 9th articles contained
the most ample guarantees that govern
ment, at the last moment, before 1t would
es, hange ratlticatlOns OF the treaty, i'll
| sisted upon formal presentation on
| the subject by the American commissions
ers. The result of this was the execution,
on July rs, 1913, of a supp emental docu
ment, which to all intenls and purposes
b. came part of the treaty. 1t was called
Il ''protocOl," in which was recorded the
explanations (which their excelencies,
the commissioners (of the United States
Of America), gave in the name of their
government" in regard to the amend
ments made by the senate.
The second article of this protocol
as follows:
I'd. The American government, by sup
pressing the 10th article of the treaty Of
Guadalupe, uid not in any way intend to
annul the grants OF lands made by Mexico
the coded territories These grants notwith
standing the suppression Of the article OF
the treaty, preseiv the legal value which
they may possess, and tile grantees may
cause their legitimate titles to be acknowl-
edged before the Anne lean tribunals.
Comfortably to the law of the United
States, legitimate titles to every descr D.
ton of property, personal and real, exist
ing in the coded territories, and those
! which were legitimate titles under the
Mexican laws in California and New Mex
leo up to the 18th of May, 1916, and in
Texas up to the I'd of March, 1886.
1t was thereupon declared that these
explanations having been accepted by the
minister of foreign affairs of the Mexican
republic, he declared, in the name OF his
government, that with the understanding
convened by them the said government
would proceed to ratifv the treaty of Qua
daupe as modified by the senate and
government of the United States" Four
days later the Publications were ex-
changed
Mr. Springer said he was thus careful
to give the history of this episode, which
had not been generally accorded the inn
portance it deserves, and because it in
dicates the extreme sOlicitude of Mexico
to insure the most unanblguous guarantee
If the sancritv of titles to lands held by h r
citizens in the coded territory.
Not many years elapsed before the ST.
preme court OF the Uniled States began to
find occasion to pronounce upon tn" status
If land titles in the acquired territory, in
cases arising in California, and u long
line OF decisions emanated from that great
tribunal, still more emphati'aIly declaring
the right OF the holders of Mexican titles
TO protection and re ignition by the new
government. 1t is worth while to look at
II few of them, because they are being
rapidly forgotten.
Here the speaker cited 10 How, 1854,
U. s vs. Sutherland; Wall, page 4O4
y. s. VS. Moreno; Wall, 3jS, U S. vs.
ARguisolo and the Tameling Case, SO, S
6)l. The decisions could but lead to the