Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-11-16
u. s. LAND COURT.
Elaborate Argument Touching the
Two Sides of Important
Legal Questions.
..
The Famous Nolan Grant Case Finally
Submitted to the Court This
Afternoon.

NEW MExIcANs report closed on Tuesday
the United States quickly put in its
evidence, which was chiefly documentary,
and then in reply, the counsel for Pin
kerton offered in evidence the opinion of
Attornew General Garland to the effect
that this grant was wholly unaffected by
the one in Colorado, and that the secre-
tary of the interior was without authority
to open the Nolan grant for settlement.
He also put in evidence an opinion of the
commissioner of the general land office,
Mr.. Mcfarland, to the same purport.
Stipulations we're then filed between
the counsel for the petitioners and those
for the settlers to the effect that the
patents and receipts were admitted to
have been issued as alleged. This was
done to avoid umbering the record in
case of an appeal to the supreme court
Of the United States, and has no effect
whatever upon the legal statue Of the
rights of the parties.
Mr.. Earle then opened his argument
for the petitioners, the heirs of Nolan.
He laid down two important general
propositions which he said he would
maintain: First; that this grant to
Garvacio Nolan is not in conflict with the
C colonization laws of Mexico; and second;
that if it were, 1t is expressly sustained by
Mexican laws in relation to which the
colonization laws are suspended.
He argued that this grant was made as
q reward for military services as express
ly shown in the expediente; that it was
the policy of the Mexican government
not only to reward its soldiers but to
make Gordon of large grants between
the northern boundary of its settlements
and the United States to prevent intru-
sions and American fillibustering; that it
was peculiarly advantageous in carrying
out this policy to make these grants to
men who had proven their patriotism
and who had military experience CO, and
that Nolan had done the one and
possessed the other. He argued
that the colonization laws of 1924 related
solely to the Mexican states, and were in
no wise operative within the territories
that the supreme general government Of
Mexico preserved to itself the right tc
make all grants in the territories through
its governors, but through the act OF
1924 simply authorizing governors of the
states to make them within their own
states respectively. In the law of 1924
| is the limitation of eleven leagues to any
one settler, but this in nowise bound the
supreme government of Mexico. The
governors of the territory we're controlled
by the regulations of 1928 alone, and
| these contained no such limitation or
provision.
Mr.. Earle then argued that this was a
perfect grant, and that the title vested
in Nolan as soon as it was executed; that
this had been the continuous and un-
broken construction of the supreme court
of the United States upon Mexican law
and was established by large number of
authorities which were read in full to the
court from his brief, for which he apollo
gised on the ground that the government
was so economical as not to furnish the
court with proper library, and not
even set of the supreme court decisions.
Mr.. Earle continued his argument
by bringing to the notice of the court the
Mexican law of 9Th of April, 1880, in rela-
tion to settlements by American colonists
on the frontier, and not only prohibiting
| it but annuling empressario contracts al
ready made. In 1888 this provision was re-
pealed, but in 1887 a law was made author
izing the sale of public lands, but with
special reservations to meet the allow
ances of native tribes, and the promises
| to the soldiers who have achieved indie.
pendence, and aided in the restoration Of
Texas. He commended that it was under
| this and not under the colonization laws
that the Nolan, Maxwell, Pablo Montoya
and other grants next to the boundaries
of the United States were made, and that
they we're all made in carrying on the pub
lie policy indicated by these laws. He then
reviewed and summarized the argument
to show that this is perfect grant, abso
lutely valid under Mexican laws as they
are constructed and interpreted by the
supreme court of the United States, anG
brought to the attention of the court that
the protocol expressly bound the United
States to cause grants of this kind te
be recognized by their tribunals.
Mr.. Earle then reviewed the provisions
of the statute under which the court il
organized excepting settlements undel
land laws of the United States from the
operations of DEGREES of confirmation o.
this court, and he strongly pressed
upon the court that it is its duty
TO declare this provision Of the statute
unconstitutional and null.
THE U. 9. SIDE OF THE CASE.
On behalf of the government Mr.. Rey
nolds made full argument, portions O.
which are quoted as follows:
| The United States contends in this cas-,
that the grant to Nolan, Aragon ant
Lucero made in November 1s45 for GOO,
OOO acres of land ia without authority O
law, that is, that the provincial authori
ties had no power to dispose of the public
domain except upon the terms and condi
, tions prescribed by law for that purpose
Therefore,, this grant owing to the posi-
ton Of tie United States, is valid gram
for the 100000 acres, or it is void.
If the court should hold the grant tt
fall within the colonization law of 1921
and the regulations of 1928 then the gran
is void in toto, for the reason that tn,
consideration upon which it is alleged te
have been made, as shown by the papers
was not authorized, and therefore it mus
fail in toto; that the government ii
sustained in this position by the Vigil
case, Is Wall, the Vallejo case, the Work
man case, first Wall. These cases have
never been overruled. In the Vigil case
the identical consideration upon which
this grant is alleged to have been made
was declared to be void by the supreme
court, and this was New Mexico case
and New Mexico grant of about 1000 OOC
acres known as Tornado del Muerto grant
| The grant at issue was made in 1S45 by
the governor upon petition by Nolan
and his associates. The grant was made to
Nolan really as the grant itself will show,
and the names of Lucero and Aragon do
not appear any further in the case than
as having signed the original petition.
The government contends that at most
the grant was an equitable one; and that
the legal title remained in Mexico, and
was transferred to the United States by
the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the
equitable title remained in Nolan and