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

OF ton of the land to them" al Fed. r.
2S1, 1922
=. All this is in exact harmony with WI
:, this court said in Spencer vs., Lampsley,
u How, 264, 270, 271, speaking of the color
q cation law now under consideration. "T
q contract of an empresario obliged him
introduce colonists into a specific distrit
J, The colonist having family was entitl,
v to one league of land, of a particular qua
4 ty, for which he paid small sum to Il
q government. The empresario was paid fl
leagues and five labors for every 100 famili
, introduced. Of course, the excess of Ian
within the limits of the colony, aft,
supplying the colonists and the empresari
remained to the government. The con
missioner of distribution was an officer
the government, who superintendent th
fulhllment of the contract by the empr,
sario. He ascertained the character of th
colonists, allotted to them and the empire
sario their shares of land, and for that pul
pose appointed surveyors, received return
OF survey, and executed the final titles
Usually this officer was not appointed unit
colonists were introduced, and communit,
was to be formed. The sale Of the lan(
within the limits of the colony might dis
turb the interest of the empresario or o
4 the colonists, and hence reference of tn,
contracts of sale to the commissioner fol
execution. If there were no colonists, anG
the empresario opposed no objection there
was no reason why sales should not be
made, nor was there any occasion for the
services of commissioner" See also Glenn
VS.. United States, 10 How, $50.
With respect to the avertments of the bill
That the Mexican government placed Beales
In possession of the land, and recognized, in
divers and sundry ways, that the fee of the
land passed to him and Royuela, very little
need to be said. The official act of the
Mexican government relied upon is set out
IN full, as before stated, and reference to
it shows that it does not necessarily refer to
the grant. In fact, the inference is if its
very terms do not show it, that it does not.
Its language is, that an order had been is
sued to the army of operation Ito afford
protection to the colonial establishments
of yourself and Senior Edgerton." in
view of the historical fact, noticed in Con
zales VS.. Ross, 12O U. s., COS, THAT Beales was
interested in other empresario contracts, the
above averments are, to say the least, very
vague and uncertain. And the averment
that Beales was put in possession of the
tract is inconsistent with the Mexican colo
nization law, and the empresario contract
relied upon. He could not have been put
in possession of the whole region of country
described, under the law of 1925; and he
could not have been put in possession of any
specific portion of it without first establish
ing a colony of at least 100 families. As
that was confessedly not done by him, no
rights of property were required.
With respect to the averment that, by rea-
son of the Texas revolution, the empresarios
were prevented from carrying out their con-
tract, it is sufficient to say that, ifsuch had
been the case, the contractors might have
perfected their claim under the laws of
Texas, as passed soon after the revolution.
Houston VS. Robertson, 2 Tex, 1. As there
is no averment of any attempt to 80 perfect
the claim, it is difficult to see what rights
can be asserted under it at this late day.
Moreover, as the claim had never been
Hidalgo, it was not protected by virtue of
hat treaty. 1t needs no citation of author
ties to support the general proposition of |
law that private rights of |
property in coded territory are nowise
affected by treaty cession. But this
s not the case. There could be no
private rights of property no vested inter-
st, until the conditions of which was ex-
,ressly refused to be recognized by the
reaty. Article 10 of the original draft of
he treaty, as agreed upon between the COM
nissioners representing this government
md Mexico, was as follows:
art 10. All grants of land made by the
dexican government, or by the competent
authorities, in territories previously apper-
aiming to Mexico, and remaining for the
uture within the limits of the United States;
hall be respected as valid to the same ex-
ent that the same grants would be valid if
he said territories had remained within the
~ nf p,t &c l., l
n Texas put in possession thereof, who, by
eason of tho circumstances of the country
ince the beginning of the troubles between
'exas and the Mexican government, may
ave been prevented from fulfilling all the
onditions of their grants, shall be under the
litigation to fulfill the said conditions with
l the periods limited within the same re-
such periods to be now counted
'om the date of the exchange of notifications
this treaty; in default of which the said
rants shall not not be obligatory upon the
.ate of Texas, in virtue of the stipulations
in this article. The foregoing
,ipulation in regard to grantees of land in
exas is extended to all grantees of land in
he territories aforesaid elsewhere than in
exas, put in possession under the grants
nd in default of the fulfllment Of the con-
itions of any such grant within the new
|
nth the day of the exchange of Publications
f this treaty, the same shall be null and
old" Message of the president of the
United States, transmitting papers relative
D the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Feb
uary 8, 1S49, Elk. Doc so, H. R. 30th con-
ress, second session, page IT,
That article however was stricken out by
he senate of the United States, and in the
Message of President Polk the reasons for
IS rejection are stated in the following Ian
uage, Qbed, 32) "The objection to the
9th article of the original treaty was not
hat it protected legitimate titles, which our
Avs would have equally protected without
J, but that it most unjustly attempted to
esuscitate grants which had become mere,
utilities, by allowing the grantees the same
eriod after the exchange Of the ratiications
f the treaty, to which they had been
riginally entitled after the date of
heir grants, for the purpose Of
hey had been made. In submitting the
realty to the senate, had recommended
he rejection of this article That portion
# tim regard to lands in Texas did not re-
Give single vote in the senate. This in
was communicated by the letter
# the secretary of state to the minister off
oreign affairs of Mexico, and was in pos
ession of the Mexican government during
he whole period the treaty was before the
dexican congress, and the article itself was
eprobated in that letter in the strongest
erms Besides, our commissioners to Mex
co had been instructed that neither the
resident nor the senate of the United states
an ever consent to ratify any treaty con-
aiming the 10th article of the treaty of
Hidalgo in favor of grantees Of
and in Texas or elsewhere. And again,
should the Mexican government persist in
etaining this article, then all prospects of
peace is ended; and of this you
nay give them an absolute assurance
1t is commended, however, that the case of
United States VS.. Arrendondo, 6 Pet, SOL,
governs this case in favor of the contention
# the appellant. In that case, however,
he grant to Arrondondo was Of specific