Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-12-19

town, they proceeded to distribute the
vacant lands to inhabitants of the town
who were destitute OF lands, and that in
30 doing they acted in good faith and were
carrying out the letter and spirit OF the
grant. The answer admits that COM
plainants have legal interest in said
grant, but deny that they have been
authorized to act in the premises in behalf
of any considerable rumber of the own
ers of said grant.
On the bill and answer, and after argu-
ment, on March IA, 1874, the opinion of
the court was filed, which is as follows:
This cause coming on to be heard
upon the bill of complaint filed herein,
and upon the answer and amended an
swer of the defendants, upon reading said
bill, answer and amended answer, and
after hearing Mr.. Catron, of counsel
for the complainants, and Mr..
Houghton, for the defendants, and
due deliberation being thereupon had,
the court finds and determines
that the said defendants, May Hays,
Juan Romero and Miguel Garcia Cha
yes, had no legal right or authority to
concede or donate, to any persons what
soever, or to any incorporation, any of
the unoccupied lands comprised within
the limits of the Las Vegas grant, de-
scribed and set forth in the pleadings
and that their assumption of such right
and authority in the manner stated in
the pleadings, tends to the prejudice and
injury of the rights and interests of the
compliments in said grant"
Whereupon it was decreed that the
said parties be perpetually enioined from
proceeding further to partition and con-
cede said lands or any part thereof
1t is obvious from the foregoing state
ment, which think fair one of the
contents of the record, that the judgment
of the court was correct in holding that
the alleged commissioners had no proper
right or authority to divide and distribute
the lands as they were doing, and, mas
much as it was conceded in the answer
that complainants had "a legal interest in
the lands of said grant," the court might,
with propriety, hold that the illegal as.
sumption of authority "tends" to the
prejudice of compliments, and prohibit
further action in that respect But the
court does not decide, or pretend to de-
eide what are the rights, or the title, of
the complainants in, and to, the lands
within the Las Vegas grant.
But even if the decision went to the
extent claimed by Mr.. Millhiser, it would
not affect the judgment have formed in
the premises, inasmuch as it is the rea-
soning by which Chit Justice Long ar
rives at his conclusions, which is persua-
sive to my mind; whilst in the record OF
the earlier case, referred to by Mr.. Mill
hiser, there is only the bill, answer and
order of the court granting the injunction,
as above given.
am therefore of the opinion that the
matters, hereinbefore set forth, are
sufficient to justify the rejection of the
Mlllhisen claim for patent.
Having arrived at the conclusion that
the grant as made to Maese AMI his as
sociates was not an absolute grant of the
land within the described limits, | can
not see how the confirmation of the same
grant to the town of Las Vegas, in the
absence of some positive expression TO
that effect, can be construed to give to
that town any larger estate than was
granted. This grant is totally
unlike those in Tameling vs., U. s. Free
hold Co., 1913 U. S., CAD, and the Max
well grant case in III U. S. 1925 Jur-
dical possession had been delivered to
the grantees in both of those cases by the
Mexican authorities, and the surveyor
general recommended their confirmation
as absolute grants, and as such they Were
Here there has been no
juridcal possession OF the entire tract to
any one, only OF small portions to certain
parties. The surveyor general has not
found the grant to be an absolute one to
the town, and did not recommend its
as such. And it would
seem that in the absence of some clear
legislation to that effect it would be a
dangerous construction of language to
hold that all the lands within the de.
5cribed limits of the grant were confirmed
absolutely to the town Of Las Vegas.
If the confirmation was in fee simple to
The town of all the land within the
bounds, it would necessarily include
,hoEe lands occupied by Mexican and
other settlers, who hold no evidence of
'itiC uAbCi briC bOALi lbCd u dHb, as we'll
as those lands which being unoccupied,
belonged to the United States.
1t is not believed that congress proposed
% enact such injustice. Indeed the re-
port of the senate committee, Up. 4, supra,
disclaims such purpose, for,
after stating that the land is occupied by
some several hundred families, it says
hat it is the duty eli congress Ito legislale
n such manner as to pre-, ent, if posi-
Die, so disastrous result as the plunging
If an entire settlement into litigation at
he eminent hazard of being turned out of
heir homes" etc.
Nor should We transfer by doubtful
implication so large body of public land
o supposed confirmee. The rule is
veil settled that in case of doubtful con
truction it must be solved in favor of the
government.
In this case do not feel myself justi-
led by anything can find IN the act OF
Congress- or the papers, in acquiescing in
he claim of the town of Las Vegas, which
sserts that congress confirmed to that
own the absolute fee simple title to all
he lands within said grant.
The papers in the case show that the