Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1894-08-02
LAND COURT APPEALS.
An Important Statement Respecting
Appeals-Vital Questions in the
Balance-The U. S. AttOr-
ney Speaks.


Santa Fe, July BIN your note of this
date you ask me what is the rumor that
the attorney general of the United States
has concluded that an appeal from the
court of private land claims to the su-
preme court will not lie, and that the
judgment of the court is therefore con-
clusiveY
I have no knowledge as to what the |
conclusions of the attorney general may |
be upon the bject. l am aware of the
fact, through the solicitor general, that
the matter has been under consideration |
by the department, but what the conclu-
sion has been, do not know.
l had examined into the question as to
whether or not an appeal would lie to the
supreme court, if SO provided by con-
gress, and have been decidedly of the
opinion that such an appeal would lie;
but the question now seems to be, as to
whether congress has not provided, that
the supreme court shall assume original,
instead of appellate jurisdiction over
these cases. s.F.
So that you may more fully understand
the matter, will state, that it was at first
commended that the court of private land
claims, not being constitutional court,
no appeal would lie to the supreme court,
even if properly SO provided by congress.
II is true, the tribunal is not consti-
tutional one, but falls within that class
designated as Legislative courts"
The questions to be adjudicated fall
within the judicial powers of the Uni ed
States, as defined by the constitution, and
also further fall within said powers by
reason of the United States being party.
1t makes no difference whether the
court or tribunal called upon to decide
the cases is constitutional or legislative;
it is the questions they are called upon
to decide that determine the jurisdic-
ton. 1t was so held in the case of Martin
VS.. Hunter, l. Wheaton, wherein the court
said
at is the case, not the court that gov
ems the jurisdiction"
could lawfully and properly provide fo:
an appeal from a judgment of this COT =
to the supreme court of the Unite
States. But the question now arises, ha,
it done sor And this seems to be tia
point upon which the whole question :
likely to turn. The language of the acS
is as follows:
Son any such appeal the supreme court
shall retry the cause, as we'll the issues of
fact as of law, and may cause testimony
to be taken in addition to that given in
the court below, and may amend the
record of the proceedings below az truth
and justice mey require; and on such re-
trial and hearing every question shall be
open, and the decision of the supreme
court thereon shall be final and conclus-
ive."
1t is strongly contended that the e1er-
else of jurisdiction by the supreme court
under such provision, being a trial de
appellate jurisdiction. Such was the
holding of the supreme court upon ap-
peals from the board of land commits
sioners to the district courts in California,
and there seems to be no good reason
why it will in this instance vary from
that holding.
The constitution defines the cases over
which the Judicial power of the
United States shall extend, and in the
section defining the various cases, it says
| 'Tn all cases affecting ambassador
other public ministers and consuls, ar !.
those in which state shall be party
the supreme court shall have originel
jurisdiction. In all other cases before
mentioned the supreme court shall have
appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and
fact, with such exceptions and under such
regulations as congress shall make"
1t is thus clear that the supreme court
can not exercise original jurisdiction
over cases from this court, and if the
language of section 8 of the act creating
the court of private land claims is to be
construed as requiring the supreme couri
to assume original jurisdiction, by re-
trying the case, taking additional testi
mony, etc, then the act in that respect ii
unconstitutional, and the judgments Of
) the court of private land claims are ina
and conclusive. This, however, can bt
remedied by congress providing that thu
supreme court shall consider the cases
appealed, as it does equity cases appealed
from the circuit courts of the United
States.
Congress in providing for appeal hal
> gone so far as to give the supreme court
original instead of appellate jurisdic
q ton.
The question will be determined some
time in October or November in the Zia
Santa Ana, and Jemez and Canon de Sar
. Diego cases advanced for hearing at thu
, October term of the supreme court
Yours very truly, MATT. g. REYNOLDS,
u. s.. Attorney