Las Vegas free press. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1891-1???, 1892-01-18

| the surveyor BenefalS report. but
what if it does? lie did the same
thing in claims No. %, 20 and 80.
But no one ever dreamed that such
use of these terms was evidence of
claim or title 70 r, / property.
I'd. The second rror grew out Of
the first and is ike it in the use of
the expression "the name of the con.
gressional confrmee-the town of
Las Vegas. No such name appears
in section She confrmatory section
Of the act of June 2lst, 1860. (Brief
Of p Millhisoy, Oct. 9th, 1890, p. 2l.)
Sd. The decision errs in stating
that the surveyor general did not
recommend The confirmation of the
title Of the original grantees to the
entire tract within the boundaries set
forth in the petition for the grant.
On the contrary, the surveyor gen
eral says that the grant to Maese and
others was for "the land with the
boundaries asked for" (theso bound
aries having been stated just above
in the report); that it was ga good
and valid grant and the Gland en-
braced in it was lawfully separated
from the public domain and entirely
beyond the disposal of the general
government"
Decisions Of the secretary Of inter
Tor, p. GAS.
4th. The decision is contrary to
law, in that it order The issue Of
patent 10 other than the original
grantees.
Hogan vs.. Page, , Wal. G0j.
Townsend vs. GroaIyy, > Wal. 3o5.
9Th. In that il rejects the bomda-
ries of the grant as made BY Mexico
and confirmed by congress.
Tameling's case, 0} L. 5. GG2.
Maxwell grant, III U. S. 800.
9th. In that it seeks to determine
the rights Of conflicting claimants to
the land, and hereby goes outside of
the report Of the surveyor general
and the confrmatory act OF congress.
90 U. S. G62 l2l U. 5. 3C5.
18th. Error in holding that the
subsequent allotments to other set
tiers is consistent with a title in fee
in the original grantees. (Mr. Mill.
hiser's brief, Oct. 9, 1890, p. II, citing
the case Of Grant No. 80 and the re-
port therein Of the surveyor general.)
Sth. The decision errs in holding
that ''the confirmation of congress
was Of the grant rs made by Mexico
TO Maeso and his associates, no more
and no less" and then deciding to
issue Il patent to other than the said
grantees.
Wa. COS.
9th. It orrs in holding that con
gress by the act Of June u, 1860,
to diycst, and transfer TO
the town Of ia, Vegas, the title to
the land acquired by Maese and his
under iho grant from Mex
Ico
10th. 1t ermin holding that it was
competent for congress to divesl and
such title, or in other words
10 dispose Of private property with
)ut compensation or the process of
aw.
18th. 1t is clearly error to hold, as
N this decision, that congress did in
fact, by the act Of confirmation di-
vest and transfer the title of Macse
md his associates to any portion of
lie land to a party not in existence
1t the date of the grant or shown to
De in priyity with the original gran
.ees.
18Th. Congress having confirmed
grant No. 90, by section 3, and pub
Ished in section 4 a quit.claim and
Of any claim of title
N the part of The United States, it
< error to hold, as in the decision,
hat it did roco1p some sort Of title
o at least a portion Of the land in
controversy, and bestowed it upon a
,arty who up to that day end hour
lad never filed with any officer of
he government or with congress a
lain to title under the grant, or to
he property covered by it.
18th. Congress, by section 4, hav-