Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-04-28

tion."
The amended bill then continued as
follows: "And the plaintiff further AYERS
that the said Mexican government, IN
pursuance of said order, did at all times
maintain and protect the possession and
title of the said Royuela and Beales to the
said lands, and continued so to do until
the successful revolution of Texas Zone OF
the grantors) rendered it utterly lmpos-
sible to afford further protection. And
the plaintiff further AYERS and alleges
that, in addition to having taken actual
possession of the lands embraced in said
grant and having sectionized a large part
| thereof, the said Beales, in further per-
Torrance of the condition of said grant,
had introduced portion of the families,
as required by its terms, and would have
introduced all the families of the class
described therein and would have per-
formed all the conditions of the said
grant had he not been wholly prevented
in such performance by the said revolu-
ton of Texas, which resulted in its inde-
pendence OF Mexican authority"
Attached to the bill as exhibits, and
made part of it, are copies of the records
of the proceedings in the matter of both
of the claims in question; and in con-
sideration of the questions involved here
in it Will be necessary to refer to some OIL
them somewhat more in detail.
The proposition of counsel Tor appel
liant that the effect OF the demurrer is an
admission pro hac vice that the Inter
State Land company has the title III lee
to the lands in dispute needs only The
single reply that demurret admits facts
well pleaded, but does not admit that the
construction of written instrument set
! forth in the bill is the true one, or that
it's legal effect is contrary to that which
: it's language imports. The very object
) of demurrer in such case is to submit
: the question presented by the lnstru'
= ment as a matter of law for the deter
} minaton of the court. Story's Eq. Pl.,
/ 10Th Ed.,) Sec. ASP, note a. Dillon VS..
Barnard, q Wall, 430, 437; United States
vs.. Ames, 80, U. s., So, 45.
8 Passing now to the merits OF the con-
. troversy, the first question to be disposed
Of relates to the patented grant OF the
8 defendant. We have already stated that
Q in the Maxwell land grant case it was
: held that the grant to Beaubien and
| Miranda, which is the foundation of the
4 defendants title, was a valid grant, and
that the decision OF the court in that case
e is not directly assailed. The effect OF
the decision is that case, however,
!, is evidently misunderstood by the appel.
= liant; for one of the main points urged
O on this appeal is, that the grant was void
I, alb initio, for the reason that, being an
}, alleged empresario grant, authority for ii
i must be found in the colonization laws o.
Mexico, and those laws had been re-
o pealed by law OF the republic passed In
Q 1887, four years prior to the date OF the
y grant. 1t becomes necessary, therefore
Al to state with some degree of particular
10 ty what was actually decided in tha
n case.
70 A reference to that decision will show
that the validity of the grant was one o
h the principal questions there consid
cred. As stated in the opinion, thu
first question presented for considera
ton was: "Do the colonization
laws of Mexico, in force at the TIM
the grant was made to Beaubien ant
l. Miranda, namely, the decree of the Mex
le lean congress of August IS, 1924, and tn
,e general rules and regulations for tn
le colonization of the territories of the Re
public of Mexico of November 81, 1928
4, render this grant void, notwithstanding
its confirmation by the congress OF tn
United States ?" 121 U. S., 800. TIL
y. codrt then discussed that q ,estion YER
~ fully, and came to the conclusion that tn
t. grant certainly partook very largely of tn
ty nature of an empresario grant, and wa
It. evidently 30 considered by congress whel
a, it was confirmed. Among other things
" ~ WAS luunu uIiaU uiiuio.l po1ovsoion Ia
0, been given to the original grantees by tn
~ alcalde, one Cornelio Vigil, who accom-
,g panied the delivery of possession with
d. diseno or plat showing the boundaries G
IN the tract granted. But the decision wa
u, not rested solely upon the fact that tn
lg grant was generally understood to be al
D. empresario grant, but upon the PROPOSE
as ton that the action of congress in con
K firming 1t as made to Beaubien and Mi
u randa, and as reported for confirmation
al by the surveyor general Of New Mexico
IN without any qualification or limitation a
1T to it's extent, was conclusive upon tn
Is court. In this connection the court said
a Opp. 365-6) "But whether, as matte
d. of fact, this was grant, not limited il
d quantity, by the Mexican decree of 1924
8, or whether,it was grant which in stric
c. law would have been held by the Mexican
r government, if it had continued in thu
70 ownershipof the property, to have beer
1t subject to that limitation, it is not neces
rs sary to decide at this time. By the treat,
n Of Guadalupe Hidalgo, under which thu
10 United States acquired the right of prop
n erty in all the public lands Of that portion
70 OF New Mexico which was coded to this
d country, it became its right, it had thu
10 authority, and engaged itself by thai
}, treaty to confirm valid Mexican grants
% If, therefore, the great surplus which il
1t il claimed was conveyed by its patent tc
l. Beaubien and Miranda was the property
u OF the United States, and congress- actinl
l. in its sovereign capacity upon the cues
Q ton Of the validity of the grant, chose tc
@ treat it as valid for the boundaries given
1t to 1t by the Mexican governor, it is moi
h for the judicial department of this govern
9 ment to controvert their power to do so ~
: citing Tameling U. S. Freehold, &c. Co.,
Q SO U. S., GA.
Q Afterwards it was said: cat the time
l. that congress passed upon the grant To
: Beaubien and Miranda, whatever interest
= there was in the land claimed which was
It not legally or equitably their property was
d the property of the United States and
9 congress having the power to dispose of
q that property, and having, as we under
d stand it, confirmed this grant, and there
Q by made such disposition Of it, it is not
;, easily to be perceived how the courts of
: the United States can set aside this ac-
i ton Of congress. Certainly the power of
J the courts can 60 no further than to make
a construction of what congress intended
, to do by the act, Which we have already
considered, confirming this grant and
} Others" 121 u. S., 1882.
We conclude, therefore, that questions
affecting the validity of that grant, that
is, as to the authority of the Mexican
government to make it, are no longer
Open The action of conpyasa in cope;rno