Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-11-16

his associates or those claiming under
them. The reason for this contention is
that the act of the governor initiating
the title conferred an invested right or
an equity, but it required the concurrent
action of the departmental assembly or
the supreme government.
The possession in this case was not
taken and remained in the manner pro-
vided by law, but under the holding in
the Fremont case, and the date in which
the grant was made, and the general con-
ditions of the country the court might
excuse it upon that ground; but assum
ing the possession was taken and the
cultivation was carried on as contem-
plated by the colonization law (which
was not done) yet it could only have
been an equity title. United States
against Reading, Is How, and the opin-
ion of Mr.. Justice Sluss in the Alameda
case. Therefore, if it be an equitable
claim it falls within section of the act
creating the court of private land claims,
March 3, 1891, and comes within the
restriction of the 7th subdivision of Sec
ton 49, which limits the power of the
court in the confirmation of an equitable
count of any one grant made to two or
more persons.
The colonization laws limit the power
of the governor to grant for colonization
to eleven leagues on account of one indi-
vidual. Therefore, if this grant falls
within the colonization laws, and those
laws being limitations upon the power of
the governor, all in excess of eleven
leagues to each grantee would be void.
United States against Hartnell, 20 How.
In other words, the general proposition
for which We contend upon these ques-
tions are fully sustained by cases:
us. vs. Castro, "a How.
Peralta VS. the U. s. 8 Wall.
Fuentes VS. U. S. % Howard.
us. VS. Cambuston, 20 Howard.
If such contention be sustain ed by the
court, then this grant can only be confirmed
for thirty-three leagues-eleven leagues
to Nolan, eleven leagues to Aragon, eleven
leagues 10 Lucero. Whatever claim Nolan
may have had under the colonization laws
upon the bounty of the government was
exhausted by the claim in Colorado, which
would leave but twenty-five leagues,
eleven each for Aragon and Lucero; but
as it can only be an equitable claim under
the colonization laws then the Limitation
| of the 7th subdivision of the act creating
the court of privatela land claims limits the
court in the continuation to eleven leagues
on account of the whole grant to all three
and as Nolan has already received the
maximum quantity he would be entitled
to, only two-third of eleven leagues could
fall TO Aragon and Lucero.
| 1t was commended by the United States
that the proviso to section 4 of the act of
July !, 1870, confirming eleven leagues to
the heirs of Nolan in Colorado was sa-
tisfaction of all claims against the United
States on account of these grants, Nolan
at the time of the presentation of the
petitions for confirmation being the
owner of both. To sustain that position
the United States cited the decision of
Mr.. Justice Brewer in the case of United
States VS.. Cleveland Cattle company, 33
Federal Reporter, United States vs.. Rose
Inns Is Howard and the case of Pinkerton
| vs.Le Doux. But the fundamental PROPOSE
ton commended for by the United States is,
that the plaintiffs admit that it does not
fall within the colonization laws, and
therefore under the Vigil case the grant is
void unless the court can find some other
law comforting upon the governor power
to grant lands in Unlimited quantities in
fee simple as rewards of merit. This has
not been done up to the present time,
therefore the United States claim that the
grant must be rejected in toto.
Mr.. Springer spoke this forenoon on
behalf of the validity of the grant and re-
presenting the Red River Land Il Cattle
company and the case was finally sub
mitted to the court this afternoon.