The advocate., 1891-09-23
THE SUPREME COURT.
We Charge the Supreme Court With High
Crime in the Maxwell Grant Case.
From the Colorado Workman.

en86 "b16 congress SNAIL nave bnO pOWoE w
dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory, or other
property belonging TO the United States. "
At che time that Congress passed urOn the
grant to Beaubien and Miranda whatever
interest there was in the land claimed which
was not legally or eQuitsbly their property
was the property of the United States; and
Congress having the power to dispose Of
that property, and having, as We understand
it, confirmed this grant, and thereby made
such disposition of it, it is not easily to DO
perceived how the courts of the United
States can set aside this action of Congress.
Maxwell Grant Case, 121 U. s. 3S2.
There is no such "action of Congress"
as the supreme court here speaks Of to
set aside. Congress requires its act of
June 81, 1850, to be treated as quit
claim: ian admission that the rightful
ownership had never been in the United
States, but had passed at the time of the
session to the claimant or TO those under
whom he claimed" adam vs. Norris,
1O3 U. s. $685. The supreme court, how
ever, refuses to treat the confirmation as
a quit claim, but treats it, on the other
hand, as a grant de nOvO: new grant
by the United States, that effectuallY
passes the title Of the United States.
An admission by Congress in It's quit
claim act that 1t does not own Mexican
grant, that it never did own 1t, that IL
passed at the time Of the cession to the
claimant, is no conveyance of title from
the United States to single foot of land.
An admission that the grant claimants
have title from Mexico is an admission
that they do not and can not have title
from the United States. When, therefore,
the supreme court attempts to treat the
confirmation Of the Maxwell grant by Con-
gress as a quit claim 1t is guilty Of the
high crime of treating the Congress of
the United States with contempt, spurn-
ing its authority, violating its law, in the
interest of wholesale public land stealing
under the guise Of Mexican grants.
A fact worthy of note in this connec
tlon is that Justice Miller who rendered
the opinion in the Maxwell grant case, is
the same justice who rendered the opinion
in the case of Adam vs.. Norris that the
confirmation by Congress Of Mexican
grant was necessarily quit claim, a
mere admission Of title from Mexico;
that the United States not pretending to
own q Mexico grant, Congress did not
foolishly pretend to pass It's title to what
it did not pretend to own. But when
later on came the Maxwell grant case
Justice Miller drops the quit claim; 1t
might do for Adam vs.. Norris, but 1t
wouldn't pay to treat the Maxwell grant
claim as quit claimed grant. A more
deliberate, studied, willful, Aagrant, out
rageous crime could not be committed.
We notice, too, that Justice Miller was
an Iowa man; 30 was Commissioner
Williamson, who was bribed by Hon. s.
B. Elkins to unlawfully survey 100000
acres Of public land as the Maxwell grant,
an Iowa man; so was the leading attor
ney for the Maxwell grant company
Frank R. Springer-an Iowa man. We
further notice that when first class
crime Is to be committed by the supreme
justices, as was the case in John G.
m---.l.-.. ~ Innnhnld 20 M mall M IN,