The Tucson citizen., 1902-03-31
The Del vdlle Grant Held
Valid bu the United States
Supreme Court.
An hRIz0NA CAsE
Ii Had a Lon0 Career In the Courts
and Mas Twice Under Consider
alton OF Highest Tribunal.

WASHINGTON, u. C., March 81
The Supreme Court OF \ the United
States'has rendered an opinion affirm
ing the decision OF the Court OF Priv
ate Land Claims In what Ii known al
I'll" ian Rafael del yai.e Grant case.
TINS ase, Wsasch Is nf much impa.t-
An in 4. aona mas r,..-. taI be.
fl'r The Supreme Court first bv tho
claimant Juan Pedro Camou. when
the supreme Court reversed the de-
cision of the Court of Private Land
Claims. which latter court mad de-
cided against the validity ofthe grant,
and second by the United States from
the decree of the Court of Private
Land Claims, establishing the location
and boundaries OF the grant.
The decisions rendered by the court
will remain lading authority upon
the subject OF attempting to litigate
by a second writ Of error questions
when were submitted. or whica
should have been submitted, uader the
first writ OF error.
In Its decision the Supreme Court
says:
In December, 1891, Juan Pedro Ca
mou filed petition In the Court OF
Private Land Claims, praying to have
confirmed to him certain tract of
lard sitrat2d In the County OF Co
chIsc. Territory OF Arizona. known
as the san .xafeal del vaIle -.aat
'salseauent I.s-ssedings resulted ID d
rial and deere In favor OF the gov
ernment. adjudging petitioners claim
and title invalid, ant diamlssiag tise
petition. The ease was then bfegRaI
by appeal TO flfs court, where the ee~
cree Of the court of private Land
claims was reversed suG the eay4 ~
niAi,dcd for further proceeding
Subsequently flirffer proceedings
were had In the court vi private land
claims In pursuance OF the mandate of
this court. resulting In decree con-
iirming the petitioners title to IL
474.Ss acres From this decree OF CON
tirmation an appeal was allowed TO
this court.
Justice Shiras speaking for the
saart said:
When this case was before us. the
validity of the claim was, upon full
consideration, upheld. 1t was, how
ever. held that the recovery should
be restricted to the land claimed In
the petition and paid for, and as 1t
Vas shown that the survey was In ex-
cess of the land granted and paid for,
the cause was remanded to the court
of private land claims for further pro-
oeedings which resulted. In a final de-
wee OF confirmation. establishing the
boundaries of the grant and finding 1t
70 contain four sitos, or II, 474.93 acres.
1Lc contention made on behalf OF
The government, in this appea,. Is
that this grant of four sitos was
mere float Within exterior boundaries
containing larger tract: that there
was no mtans afforded of identifying
where, within those exterior boun-
daries. such four stiles were located;
that accordingly. as matter OF law.
prescribed In the sith section OF the
t'aGsden treaty, the tract cannot be
Tajd to have been located. and hence
ta. grant must be held to be invalid.
When the case was originally tried
in the court of private land claims,
and subsequently was heard on appeal
in this court. the principal conten-
ion on the part of the government
was mat tho State OF Sonora had no
NJ YER to make grant Of public. lands
ana hercc that tie grant In question.
n hOugh made in the name and ey
TIE proper officers of that States was
Ty0lid. The subject was fully ecnsld-
cic3 by this ;t4urt. and 1t was held that
jre several g; ,es of the Republic OF
"A Nico. Of which Sonora was one.
L- ~. ~ hn fran
IL question .ook place, authority 10
H9E@ sales of vacant public ianas
"'.bin t'tcir limits.
The gorr. II uent further contenoea
that this and similar grants by the
aerorate Stagcs had ben annuiied bY
ce-fain Grrrt es OF Santa Ann. when
ting as ri,,atcr of Mexico and that.
p tho Eo;esnIncnt Of the uhltea
2;e'c, had recognized Santa Anna N
par.hGsirC the territory covered by
~ Gadsden treaty. the courts or the
lrltcd SIai+" must recognize, wneh
@l,ng with personal rights exisung
in the ceded territory. his deeiara-
tions or DEGREES in respect to titles, as
authoritative But this view OF ,he
legal effect of the DEGREES OF SANTA
Anna upon the private rights OF resi-
dents within the ceded territory war
not accepted by this court, and. 1t was M
heM that. as the grant made py Tue
State OF Sonora was valid when maue,
It was not destroyed by the arbitrary
decree of a temporary dictator.
AS, however. 1t appeared that .ne
airvey of the land claimed In the
petition was In excess of the lou,
sitos granted and paid for. the coui' :
applied the rule, that where tnefe y
q tac~A. L.~uk 4ho fs0urf Of PrtVRit