Arizona weekly citizen., 1893-04-08
THE STATUS OF UNGONFIRMED
 LAND GRANTS.

Judge, they are matters or grave lhlpoT- tsnce to the people of Southern Pima. We commend the article to the careful consideration of our readers:
 The supreme court of the United States has made two very important de- cisions during the present month effect ing land grants. The last enc, where the Cameron grant was before the court, it was held that their grant was "color of titls :" that therefore the land was DO part of the public domain open to entry and settlement, and 70 was not included in the prohibition of Congress agalnst fencing. The effect of this de- cieion is to permit all grant claimants to fence their claims, and the courts are, we very much regret to say, powerless to prevent 1t.
 The other decision is still more im- portant. It involved a contention be- tween rival claimants 10 the same grant. The purpose of the suit was to get judicial determination as to which set of claimants owned the grant. Both parties were in court asse rting the val dity of the grant, and both agreed that the land claimed by each was the land included in the grant Our Terri torial courts decided they had no juris diction to determine the controversy. The supreme court of the United States has now affirmed this decision.
 The argument of the latter court is, that by the treaty between this country and Mexico, by virtue of which this country was ceded to us by Mexico, it was stipulated by the United States that the rights of property of Mexican citizens should be ''inviolably re- spected;" that these rights should be submitted to an American tribunal" and, if found Legitimate" should be confirmed.
 It will be at once seen that any tribu- nal, before it could have jurisdiction to try and determine whether the claim was legitimate or not, must be tribu- nal that not only has the power to b.rd the claimant to its judgment, but also tLe United States. This power the courts have not got, and can only get through and by means of an act of Con gress specially granting it. No such act exists. Therefore the only tribunal We have with such power is Congress self; and so the court holds that Congress has retained these cases for Its own de- termination. There being DO appeal from the dec;sion of Congress, it also holds that the determination of Con gress is final as to the merits of the claim. In a word, whenever Congress ac:s on grsnt, its acticn is final; If 1t confirms the grant, the one to whom il confirms it is the only owner of 1t, and if it refuses to confirm the grant, then the land becomes the sole property of the government, and is open to settle ment and entry.
 The application of this reasoning is far reaching. 1t means, as in the Cam eron grant, that the claimant has ''color of tltle,' and it mears, as in the $ 3nta Rita case, that this "cclor of title" is not the title to the laad, but that this is open and undetermined, and will so re- main until Congress acts upon the grant, or until some other tribunal acts upon it that is authorized by Congress to de- eide it. Until this decision IS reached no one can tell what it will be, therefor no one can tell where the title Is, Whe- ther it be in the claimant to the grant. or in the United States. And so the court holds, that until a tribunal acts that has power to decide, the courts must keep their hands of forsthe de- cision of the courts would not bind Con- gress, whereas the decision of Congress will bInd the courts. This doctrine is hard for 8 good many lawyers to under stand; but IS plain to every enc not blessed by pre-corveived notions. All questions arising under treaties are poli- cal questions, not judicial ones. By this treaty it was specially agreed be- tween the two countries that the private rights should be confirmed to their claimants only after enquiry, and that the decision should be final. Only those that were legitimate should be confirm ed. It heing political question. Con- gress, not the courts, has the power to decide 1t. Congress can delegate this | power to tribunal created by it, if it likes. Fortunately Congress has done this, and has created the Land Court. | If the question of right to property had been left by the treaty to be determined i by the courts, and thereby have been made a judicial question, then different principles would apply, and the "hgiti- | mate" right of a man to his property could not be taken from him. But when it is left as political question, then Congre has sole jurisdiction, and it may do as it pleases. and whatever it does is final.
 It follows that these grants can no longer be taxed, as the government has a claim to this land, and until thls claim is decided, the land is exempt. It also follows that all suits brought in our locsl courts involving these grants must be dismissed, the court having TO juris- diction. It further follows that any one may taKe possession of any portion of these grants not actually occupied, and no court can disposess them.
 This is a chaotic state to leave such l,,4 ic I.