Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-04-10

SETTLEMENT OF LAND GRANTS AGAIN,
1t may have been unwise on the part
OF the Spanish and Mexican governments
to have hired people to come and dwell
in northern New Mexico, Arizona and
Colorado years ago and contend for pos
session OF the country with hostile saw
ages; it may have been unwise for those
governments to. pay for this service, and
it was life of peril and hardship for cen
turtles in the cheap lands of which they
had plenty. On the other hand the U.
5. government may have lacked shrewd-
ness in dealing witt the Mexirsn govern
ment at the signing of the treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo, whereby it bound
itself to protect the people of the country
in their private rights OF property.
But these things have all been done
and the question now arises, what does
congress propose to do about it?
vigorous effort, after forty years of
vain endeavor, is just now being made to
have congress provide some method
whereby a settlement can he had between
the people of New Mexico and the U. S
government. That is, We want to know,
according to fair Interpretation of the
treaty of Hidalgo, which is private prop
etty and which is property over which
the American government ever had any
control. This must be the chief principle
of any scheme suggested for untangliDg
the skein.
Several measures are now before the
congressional committee suggesting land
court to have exclusive jurisdiction of the
matter; among others is measure pro-
posed by Congressman Wickham, which
contains very many excellent provisions
along with several that appear decidedly
out of place, considering the peculiar
origin and history OF these private land
claims. For instance, Mr.. Wickham's bill
is most defective in its reference to small
holdings of land. 1t provides that where
man has occupied piece OF land
10y actual residence thereon for period
If twenty years, such land shall be pat,
ented to him by the U. S. government,
though il shall not exceed 100 atres, ana
shall consist OF but single piece. Were
this plan carried out it would serve a.
practical contiscation of much private
property, in no instance, probably, more
than forty acres, yet the property of poor
people who have right to expect bette,
treatment at the hands of nation which,
they respect and revere. Innumerable
instances can be cited wherein such
clause in the land court bill would work
Il hardship. The twenty-year limit is
quite satisfactory, perhaps, as is also the
Limitation as regards acreage, but that
all the land shall lie in lone piece" il
objectionable.
The bill is also rigid in its design to pre-
vent the confirmation OF large grants for
more than eleven leagues and declares
that when grant is describable by nat
ural jects, and there is uncertainty as
10 the exact location OF the boundaries
the claim shall be void except as to that
part "in such grant III the actual posses
sion OF the grantee or his assigns or leea
representatives at the dates of the treat
les OF cession." These two clauses may
also excite some opposition.
However, the ground work of the meas
ure seems, with the exception noted, in
the main correct, and it is highly crafty
ing to know that the feeling in congress
at this time is such as to make it more
than probable that very good measure
will pass at the present session.