The advocate., 1895-08-28


the statute or in the report upon which con-
Armation was made, no greater quantity than
eleven leagues to such claimant shall be sur
yeyed
In other words, the effect Of said decision
was to apply restriction prescribed by the law
OF the Mexican congress OF August 18, 1924, 10 q
legislative confirmation Of claim by specific
boundaries.
The supreme court Of the United States, ct
Its October term, 1876, rendered decision In
the cause entitled John G. Tsmeling vs..
The United States Freehold and Emigration
company, which in all essential particulars is
case parallel to the aforesaid Beaublen and
Miranda case, wherein, 10 will be observed, 1t
iS held congress having acted upon the claim
as Recommended for confirmation by the sur
veyor general" "the confirmation being abso-
Lutte and unconditional, without any limita.
ton as to quantity, we must regard 1t as eff
fectusl and operative to the entire tract"
ave have at the present term recognized and
enforced as the settled doctrine of this court
that such an act passes the title Of the United
States as effectually as II It contained in
terms grant de novO, and that grant may be
made by law as well as by patent pursuant
to law"
The doctrine announced in said decision Of
the supreme court being diametrically op-
posite that set forth in the aforesaid decision
Of che department, have the honor to request
that be instructed as to how shall proceed
in the adjudication Of like cases in the future
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner,
Hon. 2. Chandler, Secretary Otthe Interior.
This letter, it will he seen, was sd,
dressed to Secretary Chandler, but not
seemingly intended for his considers-
tiOn. 1t was sent in too late for that.
And am told that Secretary Chan
dler was not man to be triAed with;
that very likely he would have re-
piled: "See here, Williamson, what
does this meanP What are you in such
q hurry for? Why can't you wait till
some case comes up for consideration
and let it be settled then what rule
shall applyP You are entirely too pre-
Vious. l confess your letter has ex-
cited my suspicion. Is there scheme
up to apply this Tameling case to the
like case of Besubien and Miranda in
the presentP" If that was the "Old
Zack Chandler style," l do not marvel
that the letter was slipped in just q
little too late for his perussl and ami
msdVersion; but it looked well to have
the letter come before the new secre-
tary, for whom it was intended, as
having been intended for Hon. z. Chan.
dler. Here is the new secretsry's reply:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIoR,)
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.
WASHINGTON, D. c., March 16, 1877.
SIR:-I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your communication Of the 10th
instant, addressed to my predecessor. inclOs-
ing the decision Of Mr.. Secretary Cox dated
December 81, 1869, in relation to the survey Of
the Beaubien and Miranda claim to lands In
New Mexico and Colorado, In which the rule
was laid down for that and oil like cases
that where Mexican colonization grant is
confirmed without measurements Of bound
aries or distinct specifications Of the quantity
confirmed, either in the statute or In the re.
port upon which confirmation was made, no
greater quantity than eleven leagues to each
claimant shall be surveyed and set of to
them; that such quantity shall be surveyed In
tracts Of eleven square leagues each, the gen.
eral position of such tracts to be selected by
the grantee, and the tract to be then sur
veyed as compactly as practicable
You also transmit copy Of the decision of
the supreme court Of the United States ct its
October term, 1876, In the case Of John G.
Tameling vs.. The United States Freehold and