Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1898-03-25
ARIZONA LAND GRANTS.
Gases Before the United States Supreme
Court on Appeal Attorney Reynolds
in Unique Position As Defender
Of Santa Ana.

special correspondents new MeAicah'
Washington, March Fl, ls9S.--The
Supreme court of the United States gave
it's entire attention last week to the fol-
lowing cases, coming up from the court
of private claims. and all located in
Arizona:
The United States VS.. E. B. Coe, the
Algodones grant, of about 10000 acres,
made in 1888, by Jose Justo Milo, a
state officer of the general treasury, and
| covers a tract of land at the junction of
the Gila and Colorado rivers, where the
town of Yuma is located. Before filing
the suit the claimants released the
townsite. The claimants won in the
court below and the United States took
an appeal, and contended that the state
officer did not have the power to make
the grant; that the grant was anti-dat-
ed; that claimant had failed to take
possession; that there was nc record;
that at the time the officer attempted to
make the grant he was in rebellion
against the general government.
Santiago Ainsa VS.. United States fol
the Sonoita grant of $4,000 acres, made
by an intendente in 1921 and completed
in 1925, in Pima county. This grant
was rejected in the court below and was
appealed by the claimant. The United
States commended that the officer did not
have the power to make the grant; also
that in 1858, Santa Ana, who was ruling
Mexico at that time, declared this and
other similar grants void.
United States VS.. Maish & Driscoll.
This suit is for the Canoa grant OF about
60, 900 acres. The United States con
tention was that the state had no power
to make the grant; that it was not To-
Gated in accordance with the Gadsden
treaty of 1853; and that it was one that
fell under the condemnation Of Santa
Ana. The claimant won in the lower
court and the United States took an APP
peal.
- Canon VS.. United States. This
case is for the San Rafael del Vale
grant, of 10000 acres. The United
States contends that the state had nc
power to make the grant, that it was
not located according to the Gadsden
treaty of 1853; and fell under the con
domination of Santa Ana. 1t was re-
iected in the lower court and an appeal
taken by the claimant.
John Perrin VS.. United States. This
suit Is for the Babocomari grant, fol
1870, 900 acres, but the plaintiff only asks
d for 10000 acres. The contention by the
UNITED States is the same as in the last
case above. This cause was rejected In
the lower court and an appeal taken by
the claimant.
William Fapon vs.. United States
This case is for the Tumacocari, Hue
babi and Calabasas grant Of 81 1000 acres
This grant was made to the old mission
of Tumacocari. This suit was won by
the United States in the lower court anC
appealed by the claimant.
In all of these cases M. q. Reynolds
Esq, attorney for the United States will
the court of private land claims, ap
b pearcd for the United States.
In presenting the governments con
@tention in this litigation, Mr.. Reynolds
was in the unique position Of a defender
of Santa Ana; claiming that however
much his course might be subject to con
domination from a moral standpoint
nevertheless, considering the effect O
his DEGREES, they were valid because hi
was in power; in control of the nation
and was dictator; and the proper atti
tude of the United States in considering
their legal effects was one which forbade
them any consideration of the matter a.
between Santa Ana and his Mexican
subjects. The United States was com
PEELED to cohcede the validity and bind
ing force of all of Santa Ana's law, be
cause it dealt with him in the treaty, re
ceived the land from Mexico with hin
as its political head and paid to him thu
consideration of $40, 900, 900. Thus tacit
ly recognizing his authority as chic
/ executive of the Mexican nation ant
could not nov question his authority.