Albuquerque morning journal., 1922-12-11

itself? First. recognition of titles
granted by authorities under the
Spanish governments; second. titles
granted by authorities under the
Mexican government; third, peace
able possession for twenty years.
The right, of possession is found
under section S. The twenty years
possession must have been actual
open, notorious, exclusive and con-
tinuous possession. Can any fair
minded man read the Record and
say that the senate was not fully
advised of the contents Of section
Is? Does Mr.. Wilson contend for a
moment that the bill in itself would
validate any mans title unless
he could maintain the suit by suf-
ficient proof in support Of his com
Iplaint which would be covered ~
the rule provided for in the bill?
Does Mr.. Wilson contend that 2
person who has had actual, open,
notorious, exclusive and cC7tinG-
Gus possession of q parce! Of land
for more than twenty years is enti-
tied to no rights? If that were the
established doctrine in. tEls coun-
LTN lllGIb .MDulu itJ #ttIi1 u htANN
sands of homes which would !tave
been lost by exactly the doctrine
which Mr.. Wilson seems 10 iuNo-
cate. On the Armendaris grant
the courts of this state quieted title
to the lands of thousands OF per-
sons who had been living upon the
lands OF the Armendaris grant,
who had titled the soil and punt
homes on that grant under the
laws OF this state which gave title
to each of the persons WHO had
possession of those lands for more
than ten years. The citizens on
any number OF other grants in all
portions of this state have lad
their rights adjudicated and titles
uuieted under this very law. 1t is
ono of the Safeguards which the
lazy extends, to the, buijslasA.--.si
homes and the tiller of the soil
and were it not for this policy
thousands and tens of thousands
OF bona fide settlers would laVe
been evicted from their homes, and
1.-THE accommodations Of generations
be absolutely lost and cohilscated
by the tyrannical policy or the
large landholdert
I do not contehd that this bill Is
perfect or that it may not be im-
proved upon; that it may not be
amended or perhaps Q. better work
ing bill MS a whole may not be de-
yised. ] do contend that there Is
a serious controversy, and that
these settlers are entitled to have
their rights adiudicated upon the
basis Of equity and along the lines
of established policies with refer
ence to the rights which have
|rightfully accrued to them, and that
the hysterical, preiudiced criticism
which has been indulged in against
the provisions of this bin are not
based upon equity or right. 1t is
as criminal for intelligent people
to undertake to aid the Indian TO
steal something from the non-ln-
dian as it would be to aid the non
Indian to steal from the Indian,
The fact that the Indians may need
or require more land. il that be
the case, and this question may be
debatable, is no justification. Right
and justice must be decided upon
actual conditions and facts. and not
on romance or the pet ideas of
certain romantically inclined peo-
pie who live and dwell in the fasci-
nation of the tribal life of the In
dians. | contend that this bill in
no way interferes with the present
condition of the Indian. his tribal
Continued on Page Two.