Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1906-05-25
CHAIRMAN LACEY
DOES NOT AGREE
With Secretary of
Interior to Repeal
Ferguson Act.
'UP TO The GOVERNOR
That Official Need Not Exc.
cute Deeds for Land Sold
Contrary to Law.

J 1t Will be remembered that few
days ago, the Secretary OF the Interior
. addressed letters to the chairmen OF
: the committees on territories of the
Senate and of the House of Repre-.
!, sentatives concerning certain sales OF
public lands made by the territorial
land commission to various corpora
: tions and citizens of New Mexico dur
ing the past five years wherein the
secretary recommended that legisla-
ton be had to vacate the grants of
land made to this Territory and to
its educational, charitable and penal
institutions by what is known as the
Ferguson act in 1898. This matter
has attracted a good deal Of attention
and there was a great and prolonged
howl of "land frauds" set up. This
finally resolved itself simply into the
fact that the territorial land commits
sion, in several instances, had misin.
Iterpreted, the law In question and had
sold tracts of timber land in quaint.
ties larger than 100 acres to corpora.
tions. Among these cases was one in
which the Pennsylvania Development
Company, of which Delegate w. II.
Andrews was director, had purchased
$500 acres of timber land at SO per
acre. Among other purchases was one
by Bonham and Holt of Las Cruces
for public land few miles south of
Deming in Luna County, which, how.
ever, was not timber land. The fol.
lowing letter from Chairman John F.
Lacey of the House committee on pub.
lie lands will throw light upon the sub,
ject and hence Is of interest to the
people of the Territory:
Committee on the Public Lands, House
of Representatives,
Washington, May II, 1906.
Hon. E. A. Hitchcock, Secretary of the
Interior, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:-Your communication of
May 4th to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives has been referred
to the Committee on the Public Lands,
and l take the liberty Of making some
suggestions in reply thereto.
Under the Act of Congress granting
public lands to the Territory of New
Mexico, there was limitation quoted
in Commissioner Richards letter,
that not more than one-quarter sec.
ton of land shall be sold to any one
person, corporation, or association of
persons 80 Statutes, 4S4.
From this quotation It is very evi.
dent that it would be violation of
the law to sell tracts of more than 100
acres to any one person, corporation
or association under the circumstances
detailed in the report of Mr.. E. B.
Holcombe, which is set out in House
Document No. 7SO, 59th Congress, 1st
session.
Hon. A. A. Keen, Land Commission.
er of New Mexico, In his communica-
ton of March 20, 1905, has held that
the transaction is an illegal one and
refuses to become party to 1t. The
Governor Of New Mexico thus far has
not signed the conveyances.
For the purpose Of this communica.
ton | will assume that the transac.
tion is violation OF law and that
Messrs. Bonham and Holt seek to OBJ.
tain title to land in excess of what
they may lawfully do under the Act
Of June 81, 1898. In your communica-
tion to Congress you assume also this
statement to be true and that the tran.
saction, when consummated, would be
a violation of law.
The communication addressed by
you ito the Speaker of the House there
fore suggests further legislation to
prevent the violation of the Act Of
1898. Reference Is made In the COM
munication to the case of immigration
Company VS.. County Of Adams, 100 u
g., 81. In that case the swamp land
grant had been made to the State of
Iowa and the Iowa State Legislature
had conveyed portion Of 1t to Adams
County
The claim was made that Adams
County was disposing of 1t in violation
to the terms of the grant. The Su-
preme Court held that the courts could
not interfere, but suggested that Con.
gress might 'by revocation Of the
grant, or otherwise" enforce the orig.
inal terms of the grant. This sug-
gestion is in the nature of bitter die
tum and Congress took no action.
J The land had gone to the State and
Congress permitted the State to exc
cute the trust in its own way The
situation there was q different one
1t seemed nothing short of Congress
sional action could be interposed and
it Is very doubtful whether such action
would have been adequate, or compe,
tent.
But in the present case the situa
ton is quite different. Owing to the
fact that New Mexico had been kept
out Of the Union for fifty years. Con
gress anticipated the rights Of the
future state by making the land grant
operative to the territory. No doubt
in this case the law could be repealed
and the land all restored to the ma
tional government, but Is such action
: necessary?
The law forbids In terms the sale Of
: this land in tracts Of more than 100
acres. The Land Commissioner, Mr..
Keen, expressly refused to violate a