Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-05-23
VIEWS OF THE LAND COURT

|
ceeding of the alcalde was wholly void. 1t
is contended that the alcalde was Judge
having jurisdiction similar to that exer.
cised by courts of chancery and had
authority to entertain proceeding to re-
store these muniments of title. We are
unable to find any provision of the law
of Spain upon which such a contention
can be based. Such proceeding, in the
very nature of the case, was against the
crown, and the effect of it would be to
create evidence to deprive the crown of
title to its land. Alcaldes had NO juris-
diction of any proceeding against the
crown and could not by any act of theirs,
without express authority in the particu-
lar case, affect the title to crown land.
Therefore, the certificate of the alcalde is
not to be taken as an evidence of what
the grant document originally recited as
to the west boundary. Not being evidence
against the crown of SPAN, it is not evil
dence against the United States now.
x To have any effect as evidence
this proceeding of the alcalde must be
considered in the light of an adjudication
against the crown, or as an admission
binding upon the crown. We have stated
our opinion that an alcalde could not
adjudicate upon right Of the crown to
its land. We think it equally clear that
an alcalde could not perform an act
which could be regarded as an admission
against the interest Of the crown" The
court added that alcaldes were not
authorized to act as agents of the crown
in such cases, that they had ''no power to
in the least extent dispose of the public
lands of the crown" that "they could
neither grant nor adjudicate nor admit
away the title of the crown to any por-
tion of its public land" and that Eve can
not consider these proceedings as evil
dence in the case"
ASTONISHING BIT OF INFORMATION.
Not satisfied with having achieved the
enduring glory incident to the original
representation that an alcalde was the
"highest judicial officer in New Spain,"
Mr.. Wynkoop next seeks to enlighten the
reading public of Denver with the aston
ishing bit of misinformation that the
United States supreme court bas, since
the decree above mentioned, decided that
litigation before the Spanish alcaldes is
good evidence of boundaries" that of
course the supreme court will not reverse
itself In the pending appeal, and that I'VE
who are interested expect the supreme
court to overrule the land court in these
particulars and give US the land claimed"
Presuming that Mr.. Wynkoop meant to
say Adjudication" instead of the mani
testify absurd word Mitigation" in the
quotation just given, the New MEXICAN
begs leave to inform him that the United
States supreme court has made no Gsci-
sion that could be tortured into sustain
ing or justifying his clumsy assertion.
All that the government and the miners in
terested in the affirming of the land courts
decree have ever asked was the earliest
possible opportunity to present that very
question to the supreme court, and these
persons, not the claimants of the expanded
grant, are the ones who are now bitterly
deploring the denial of the motion to ad-
vance the Canada de Coohiti grant appeal
on the supreme court docket 80 it would
be finally disposed of in October. They
have no fears that the decree of the land
court will not be sustained.
SHOULD APPROXIMATE THE TRUTH.
Just what possessed Mr.. Wynkoop to
undertake this ex parto argument OF tne
case in the newspapers the NEW Mexican
is unprepared to say; but, whether his
purpose was to bolster up and renew
some loans he and his associates have ef-
fected on the strength of their pretended
ownership Of the Cochiti mines, or to eff
feet an original loan thereon, or to in
timidate and dishearten the Cochiti min
ers, he is respectfully recommended to-
exercise more caution in his future deliv
erances. The New MEXICAN has hitherto
avoided anything of the nature of per-
sonal discussion of the subject, but it
warns all comers thatits lockers are we'll
supplied with hot shot and that patience
sometimes ceases to be virtue.
So far as the hardy and deserving CO.
chii miners are concerned, this paper
has always stood by them and does not
mean to weaken now. 1t has not the
slightest doubt that their cause is just
and that it will be sustained by the
United States supreme court. and, sup
ported by the decree of the ablest and
most com patent jury that probably ever
passed upon question of fact, it hopes
and believes that every mine owner in the
district will hold fast to his possessions.