Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-01-04

u.
Again it appears from article 2, that
tho tract in question was one assigned to
Stephen Julian Wilson in grant of Ma,
p, 1926, and an examination of the terms
of that grant shows that it was substan-
TALLY the same as this. By that as bv
this, a term OF six years was given for the
performance of the contract, which term
had not expired ; and yet as stated in ar.
tlcle 2, this fact was not supposed to re-
strict the power OF the government to
make this concession. Yet, if, as claimed
these grants were deeds with conditions
subsequent, title passing subject to de-
feasance, we should scarcely expect a
second grant before actual forfeiture Of
the first. And IN the latter part of arti-
Gle 2, it is provided that if in the short
time to elapse before the expiration of the
six years, any number of the families Of
that empresario should present them
selves, then this grant with respect to the
part or parts performed shall be null and
void. In other words, this contempates
that the introduction of number of fam
lilies by the first grantee, Wilson, would
give him and them title to portions of the
grant, title not acquired until such per-
torrance view of the meaning of the
contract consistent with that claimed by
the demurrant, and opposed to that in
s sted upon by the complainant.
But these are preliminary matters; we
must look to the instrument itself, and to
the law under which the concession was
made, to determine its real meaning.
| And noticing the first article of the grant,
| the article which may be considered as
most nearly like the granting clause in an
| ordinary deed, we find that the language
| is, that the government assigns to the
| petitioners the tract of land included with
in the following limits, that they may es-
tabish thereon the proposed colony Now
the word assign" may mean convey
although it is not the ordinary word used
in respect to land transfers, or it may
mean setting apart of the land as tract
upon which the petitioners can perform
their proposed colonization. That the
latter is the true meaning is indicated by
the purpose for which the land is express
ly assigned, to wit: as a place for the pro-
posed colony. The language is not,
granted on condition that they establish
a colony" but, assigned" as place
"where they may establish a colony :"
and in what may be considered the recital
preliminary to the grant, we tiLd the
articles are declared to be the terms
on which the supreme government &C.
cepts the proposal for colonizing certain
lands with 2U0 foreign families. So the
colonization was the object of the con-
tract, and it must be assumed that no
more rights were intended to be conveyed
than those which resulted from coloniza-
ton.
Again by Art. a: 1t is provided that
all lands within those limits held by legal
titles should be respected by the colonists
who held under this contract True, land
previously conveyed would as matter OF
law be excepted from the grant, but the
article also speaks of this as contract
and implies that colonists under the petit
TONERS would acquire title to some portion
of the tract. OF course if this was grant
passing title to the grantees, this article
was unnecessary, and it is significant as
calling the instrument contract and set
ting it over against legal titles.
But article is still more significant
providing that the state retains the righ1
OF property over all surplus lands which
shall remain Of this grant after laying of
what belongs to the empresaros and theil
settlers. In other words, the state retains
title to part of the tract, thing impossible
if the instrument was a grant passing title
to all. 1t further implies that only par
OF the land-wouid belong to the empie
sarios and their settlers, and that it was
to be set apart to them in accordance witt
the laws of the state. This is exactly the
idea contended for by the demnrrant, tina
the instrument taken as a whole wa.
simply designation of d large tract witt
given out boundaries, within which the
petitioners could by colonization Obtain
title to certain amounts OF land as pre
scribed by law.
All these provisions of the instrument
make strongly against the contention o.
complainant, and while there are some
clauses in the instrument which make in
favor OF this contention, as for instance
the frequent use Of the word grant, the
specification in article that in consid
Grafton of the grant the empresarios agree
to introduce and settle 200 foreign families
and the provision that a certified COPY O
all OF the documents relating to the gran
shall be given to the empresarios to serv,
them as security and as formal title; We
If, taking the instrument as whole there
be conflicting provisions, and the rea
meaning by reason thereof be doubtful
the familiar rule applicable to all conces
siOns from government, is that the con
cession or grant is to be construed strictl,
against the grantee and in favor of tn,
government, grantor UNITED States VS.
Cattle Co., SO Fed. Rep. 323). So if in
quiry was limited to the instrument itself
it would have to be adjudged that it wa
: not grant passing title, but designation
and setting apart of tract within whicl
the petitioners might, by performing Ger
tain acts, acquire title to some land.
But We are not limited to the instru
; ment itself. 1t is made in pursuance Q
the law Of the state, and that law mus
be examined in determining the mean
ing OF the instrument. This would b
the general rule, and in addition thi
! grant in terms refers to the law as fxin
= the rights Of the petitioners. The frs
), article declares that the government &C
, cepts the proposal, as far as conformabl
. with the laws of colonization passed b
. the honorable congress of the state O.
. . the oath of March, 1925. Thus the pal
9 ticular statute which we are to examin
q is expressly referred to and by implies
ton made part of the contract. Article
3, 5, &, 8 and 8 also contain reference
t to the statute, and article II directly de
Q clares that in reference to all matters nc
! provided for or expressed in those articles
q the empresarios, or the new settlers
shall abide and be governed by the cn
e stitution and laws. The act of March q
q 1925, referred to, consists of forty-eigt
i articles. 1t may be found in Rockwell
Spanish and Mexican law, page GAL.
:, purports to be colonization law, and tn
first few articles refer simply to the &C
q mission and rights Of foreigners. Articl
d s is as follows:
!. 1.-THE projects for new settlements, i
!, which one or more persons offer to brin
= at their expense. one hundred or NOR