The morning call., 1894-03-31
AN INTERESTING REVIEW.
The Vast Area Involved in the
Actions.
MEXICAN PATENTS ANNULLED.
Reasons Why Claimants to Thou
sands of Acres in Arizona
Are Defeated.

Tucson. Ariz.. March 30-The United
States Court of Private Land Claims,
which has been in session here for some
days, adjourned this afternoon after hand
ing down decision in the SOnita, San
Rafael del Vale, Babacomari and Nogales
de Elias grant cases fayOring the settlers.
The principal decision in the San Rafael
del Vale and Babacomari grants is that
the State of Sonora had no power to make
grants. This opinion was based on de-
cree of Santa Anna, Dictator of Mexico
from 1858 TO 1856. who, in 1854. declared all
grants whatsoever made by the States and
provinces of Mexico void. All grants in
Arizona, it is claimed, with the exception
of the Sonita grant, were taken from the
State of Sonora. The grants in question
were as follows: Sonita, made in 1921,
area 5000 acres; Babacomar, made in 1892
area SO. 600 acres; San Rafael del Vale,
made in 1888, area $4,000; Nogsles de Elias.
made in 1914. area 10000. The Nogales
grant was rejected unanimously. This was
a sumner TO the counsel for tie grant in
question. they having filed petition for Il
reheariDg of the case on the ground that
the only consideration was seven and a
half leagues. thus getting enough land in
the grant to reach into Arizona and in
clude the town of Nogales. With the
grant knocked out the application will
hardly prevail.
In the Sonita grant case, the most I'M
portant of all the cases tried al this term,
the court held the grant void on the fol-
lowing terms: The proceedings were
initiated on the 29th day of May, 1921
Various steps were taken under the al
legged customs prevailing at that time
down TO the 18th day of November, 1921,
when Ii was claimed the purchase money
was paid, but no grant title was issued
thereon until the 18TH day of MAY, 1925 by
Juan Miguel Riesgo, cgmmiS>ary-gene
of the treasury of public credit and war
OF the republic of Mexico for the State of
the West. Justice SlusS in his opinion
held, first, that on March l, 1921, the plan
Of lguaa was adopted. which was the
declarat on Of independency. That declar-
alton was carried TO a successful termina-
tion. and under the revolution of Sc. tenn
Der %, 1921, the City of Mexico was
evacuated and the provisional government
established. composed o regency of five
and legislative body"
The court held that no equities were
vested in the purchaser until the pur-
chase money was paid, which was subse-
quent to the date OF the independence as
well as subsequent to the establishment of
the Government Independent of Spain,
and that the officials could only exercise
official functions for the purpose of pre-
serving peace and good order and the
rights of property as they existed; that DO
subsequent legislation was enacted author
izing any one to complete titles or to re-
form initiated titles, and that the acts of
all Spanish officers with reference to
the pubic domain subsequent to the plan
of Iguala, March /. 1921, and the estsb-
lishment of the Provisional Government.
September. 1921, were void. The
substance of this branch of the
case is that no act of the Span
sh officials with reference to the
public domain subsequent March l. 1921,
could bind the Mexican Government, and
therefore did not bind this Government.
Upon the proposition that Resgo was
Mexican official who is alleged TO have is
sued the title, and therefore his authority
must be presumed. the court holds that he
was creature uf the law, and that an ex-
animation of the act under which his office
was created defined his powers and duties
and did not authorize him to grant lands,
complete titles or confirm the same in any
way; that being a creature of the stat
utes his powers must be measured thereby,
and the principle of presumption did not
apply.
The decisions met with the approval of
nearly every one here, for this practically
settles the question of the validity of
grants in the southern portion of Arizona.
1t is the general opinion that any appeal
to tie United States Supreme Court must re-
sultin verdict in favor OF he settlers, thus
emphasizing in more marked degree the
justice of the iosition they and their cham
pions have always maintained, and setting
forth clearly the fraud upon which the
claims of the grantee rested