Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1906-06-02
CHAIRMAN LACEY
DOES NOT AGREE
With Secretary Of Interior
Hitchcock to Repeal
Ferguson Act.
IS NOW UP TO the GOVERNOR

n win be remembered that a few
day. ago the secretary of the intc-
rior addressed letters Go the chair
men of the committees on territories
80 the senate and the house Ol ropfc.
nentaiives concerning certain sales Of
public lands made by the territorial
land commission 90 yarlous CORPORA
tons ana citizens Of New Mexico iur.
ing tho past Eve years, wherein the
secretary recommended that loglsla.
flon ho had 90 yacaio che grants %
land made 10 this territory and 90 its
educational. charitable and penal I'M
Gfiiutirns hv what Oh known ua thu
Ferguson act in 1898. This matter
has attracted a great deal 1f ntten-
ton, and there wac a great and pro-
ionrod howl 81 Gland frauds set up.
Thla finally resolved itself simply
into the fact that the territorial land
commission. in several Instances, had
miainterprctod the law On question,
and had sold tracts of timber land IN
quantities. larger than 100 acres. 20
corpoutions. Among these cases ~ AZ
one In which the pennHylyania Dovei'
upmont company. OF which Delegate
w. IA. Andrews was q diroctOr, had
NNNNNN."N HHWW wv" " NNNAHNHH"H
al So per acre. Among other par
chaacs was one by Bonham a Holt,
of las Cruces, for public land a few
miles south OF Demlng. IN Lama c0un.
~. which. however was not timber
land. The following letter from
Chairman John y. Lacey. uf the house
committee on public lands, will throw
iight upnn the subject, and hence Dr.
a. a.. H.H.HaHHNn Of tho tor
rtCry
Committee on the Public Lands.
House Of Representatives.
Washlnrton. ID. g.. May NJ, 1906
Hon. III A. Hitchcock Secretary uI
fntor'Or. Washington. y. G.
Dear sir Your communication OF
NAV a 10 the speaker of the house of
Representatives has been referred Go
the committee on the public lands.
aud I take the liberty III making some
suggestions IN reply thereto.
Under the act of congress granting
public lands 20 the territory OF New
Mexico there was a limitation quot
ed In Commissioner Richards letter
"that not more than Onc-Quaricr sec
dion OF land shall be- sold TO any one
person, corporation, or association OF
persons" 80 Statutes, asa.
From this quotation O. Is very eyi.
dent that Il would be a violation Of
the law 10 sell tracts Of moro Than
IGO acres TO any one person. corpora
tion. or association under the clrcum'
slrnces eotailed Ia the report Of Mr.
E d. HOlcombe. which Is set out pa
House Document No. $50, fiity'hln'h
congress, first session.
Kwmn land rom mi non on
,s New Mexico. On his communication
OF March 20. 1905. has held that the
trnnsacilon Is an illegal one. and re-
fusea fn become party 10 o. Toe
Governor Of New Mexico thus Tar mas
not signed the convoyances.
For She purpose OF this communicn-
lion will assume that the tfanaac
zion Is a violation OF law. and that
Weesra. Bonham q Holt seek TO OBJ
lain title TO land On excess Of what
thcv may lawfully DO under the act
of Iuno IN. lSgS In your communica-
zion 40 CONGRESS YOU assume also thla
statement 90 be- true. and that the
frsnsarflon. when consumm TED,
would ho a violation OF law.
The communication Addressed by
WON TO the speaker oi toe house,
fhsrofore suggests further Legislation
~ preveut the violation of the act OF
igas reference Is made in che com
municntlon 90 the case Oi lmmigrh
tion company va County of Adams
700 n 81. 6t. IN that Csc the swamp
land grant had been made 10 the atale
.of Iowa and the Iowa state legiala'
ture had conveyed a portion OF " ~
Adams county,
The claim was made that Adams
county was dispuslng Ol u M viola
dion 10 the terms OF Che grant Tao
suprcme court held that the courts
oould nrt interfere but suggested
thai congress might "hy revocation OF
fbe grant or otherwise enforce the
orirlnni terms al the grant. THIS SUE
aesiIou D. in the nature OF q plitei
dIotum ana congress took NO action
Tho land fgd gone TO the state ana
congress permitted the state % OK
ecuto the trust In its own way. The
siiuailou thore was a different one
N scented nothing short of cOngres
rionai action could Boz intorpoBed, and
a. Ia very doubtful whether such &C
dlon would have been adequate oI
competent
But in the preacnt case the Gitua
tion b. quito different Owing 70 inc
far that New Mexico had been KEEP
rqit of tho Union for nifty years, con
eress anticipated the rights OF me
future state by making the land gran
Operative 90 the territory no doun
40 this case lhe law could De- repeal
I'D and the land all restored 20 th'
national government but ls such ac
tlon necessary
Thn law forbIds In terms tho salt
of thig land in tracts OF more thar
100 acres Tho land commissioner
Sir Keen. expressly refused 90 vio
Tate "a law. and declined % participate
Foo tha execution of the deeds iron
.be territory ao these intending pur
thasera The governor has not aisn
ed the deeds. drd from Che oommunl
cation snut by sou, ] would aasum'
that Do viii De- no moro willing to vio
llfo the law than Mr.. Keen.
therefore take the liberty 20 sue
gew that alI these papers be- reieuo.
10 Jhe Hon. H j. HAgerinan, govern0
OF New Mexico. with the suggestion
chat ihe Same rs referred TO him u
order that the territorial land may b
protected end violation ~ the lny
prevented Under mo facts stated
certainly the governor would not aiE
.fse conveyance
The recent decisions of the court
as 10 C1iiu8iye sales under the time
aud stone act would form "a very goo
precedent for tho governor io decln
action DO The way of execution %
fhe deeds
Takng this Wow OF fho matter