The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1890-09-05

with the right Of property, more thar
one leagues square of land suitable
for irrigation four squares leagues
in superfices of arabic land without
the facilities of irrigation, and SIX
square leagues in superfces of graz
ing land" Now it should be obvious
to all that if there be a valid grant
in the premises, it concerns two indi
viduals only, viz. Beaubien and Mir
anda, as all the documents submit
ted clearly prove, as no other parties
are mentioned there in from the
alleged donation in 1841 to the sub.
sequent act of Congress, June 81
1860. 1t is here that the Court
previously errs, when it seeks in its
elastic mind to make it appear that
the grant was not given to Beau
bien and Miranda alone (thus ignor-
ing every document) but to many
families, 80 as to accommodate
the excess of % squares, or 1924,
acres to LIZA, 764 acres, the extent
OF the patent grant, thereby making
an open contradiction, and ignoring
the very documents from which the
present company derives title as
Aforesaid. The following points in
law should have been considered by
the Supreme Court in addition to the
above:
LIST. That there are not now. nor
in any time past were there, any
impresario settlers on the Maxwell
grant.
I'd. That the first permanent
colonists settled in 1852, by the invi-
tation of Maxwell; and to-day said
Mexicans are being elected, and
ejectment suits are begun against
those that remain.
Sd. As the grant was said to be
made in 1871, how can it be said to
be an empresario grant, when the law
1.-THE entire public land system was
wiped off the statute books of Mexico
by the act referred to- authorizing
such grants, was repealed April 4,
1887. The conclusion is inevitable
that the Governor of New Mexico
had no power to make the grant to
Beaubien and Miranda. Therefore,
the Maxwell Land Grant Company
cannot legally hold this as their
source of title.
18th. For arguments sake, leaving
out the question of legality, let us
see what Beaubien's impression was
in regard to the extent of the grant
in question: On referring to his let
ter OF April Is, 1914, to the depart
ment assembly, and while rebutting
the statements of the Priest Martinez
states: "That the Citrate Martinez
and his associates do now know to
whom these lands belong, nor their ex-
tent as he states thata large number
OF leagues were granted, when the
grant does not exceed Is or 10, as
will be seen by the accompanying
judicial certificates.
5th. The act OF June 81, 1860,
only quit claimed what was valid.
Under the Mexican Law the grant
could not be a valid grant, for the
law of Mexico did not extend over
any territory east OF the Rio Grande
after the year 1886 and it was not
until Sept 9, 1850, that the land in
question came under the control of
the United States Government.
9Th. In conclusion we will say,
that if the Courts of the United
States are powerless to write these
grievous wrongs, it is time for Con-
gress, the agent OF the whole people,
to take hand and see that the per
petrators Of these great frauds are
punished and the suffering settlers
remunerated for the loss they have
sustained, through no fault of their
own. This Congress has the power
to do. ARTHUR MANLY.