Arizona weekly citizen., 1894-08-25


 first instance. It goes to the supreme court, and that court decrees to the peti- tionsi all he claimed be,yw. IL i5 after wards disc 5vered that within the boun- diaries of the tract covered by the decree lande have been sold or granted by the United States to others. The degree of the supreme court, so far as these lands are concerned (and these lands may in- clude the whole tract, and therefore the confirmee would take nothing). is nuk- lity, for the section provides that the sale. grant or patent by the United States shall be valid.
 NOTWITHSTANDING SAID DEGREE"
 The decree of the supreme court may not only be nullity, but the authority to declare 1t null is conferred upon "said court" (tbe land court)-that is, the court below sets aside the decree of the superior court.
 Again, section 10 devolves upon the supreme court duty which has hereto fore belonged to the commissioner of the general land effice-an appellate jurisdiction over the "repOrs" on and approval" of the survey by the surveyor general. This IS one of the most ridiou- lous and glaring absurdities of this bungling piece of legislation.
 immediately upon receipt of any such survey, with or without objections there to, sad commissioner shall transmit the same, with all the accompanying papers, to the court in which the final decisions was made, for its examination of the sur vey and of any objections and proofs that may have been filed or shall be furnished; and sad court shall there upon determine If said survey Is in substantial accordance with the decree of confirmation. If found to be correct, the court shall direct its approval. If found to be incorrect, the court shall direct its clerk to indorse upon the face of the plat its approval. If found to be correct, the court shall return the same for correction in such particulars as it shall direct. When aay survey is finally approved by the court it shall be returned to the comm issloner of the generei land office, who shall, as soon as may be, cause a patent to issue thereon tO the confirmee."
 It is preposterous to suppose that the supreme court will ever entertain the jurisdiction conferred by the foregoing section. The commissioner of the gen. eral land office is bound to conform to the terms of the statuter he is not authorized
 TO ISSUE PATENT
 until the survey is approved" by the court that rendered final decision. So that, even if the supreme court should take jurisdiction of the appeals (not withstanding the fact that the judges are irrevocably appointed for the term mentioned in the act, and not during good behavior; notwithstanding the fact that there is no court of the United States in existence to carry into effect the mandate of the supreme court; aod notwithstanding the fact that the decree of that court is not final and may be treated as nullIty), as 1t will never review tee action of the surveyor general and finally approve the survey, the confirmee of course will never get his patent. In other words, the confirmees who have a ''fnal decision" of the supreme court cannot perfect their title without further Legislation. while there remains nothing to be done by those having a similar decision from an infe- rior court.
 As one among many of the amazing vaesrIes of this ill-advised legislation, 1t may be mentioned that the act carefully makes distinction between perfect and imperfect grants, and then, after an al- most endless display or drawn-out yer bi8ge as to the limitations and condi- tiOns under which the latter may be confirmed, it virtually limits tbe court to the confirmation of the former; for, if perfect grant is one in regard to which there remains nothing to be done by either grantor or grantee. and if con- dition annexed by the law is as much a part of the grant as if expressed in terms San Diego case, land court,) under a strict construction of the Sth paragraph of section 13 this conclusion logically follows.
 Toward the close of his communica- tion the United States attorney says that if the court does not take jurIsdic- tion of the appeals, it "csn be remedied by congress providing that the supreme court shall consider the cases appealed as 1t does the equity cases appealed from the circuit courts of the United States. "
 THIS MIGHT REMEDY THE MATTER So far as the government is concerned. but it would not be exactly fair to the claimants after holding out to them an inducement to try their cases perfume torily below though it would be entirely consistent with the dilatory and unjust policy initiated over fifty years ago and steadily pursued for more than half a century. In several of the appealed cases the claimants implicitly relied upon the provisions of section 9 of the iuris- dictional act, and in the San Diego and Zia evidence can now be adduced which is conclusive of the questions involved
 The true remedy is to provide quasi appeal to the district court, with the right on both sides to introduce addi- tional evidence, precisely as was done in the California cases. This would settle