OCR Text |
Show ry: -- i Pa C COE EEO ON OT rer Lt inl) eee iad ied fe Re eee td kd Pee Pee ee ol ed et Ee Oe Pad a Oe ee et ee Oe et ae i)te en Pere = het 2 eo Lg ee eet Peet {Pg tat a - a2 ae kot ot 5 *fees te he aeOOS: leh Pee. Ah ea ie em be al Piel (ods ee ee LhCer © ms xo ed 29-0, G or a ae as €-#~ lk 4-8. e Oe Oe Pee er Sal tee PALE a eal tel hl oP te es a Oe Sell OE Oe ie dell es af “; ie : in PoP wee *3 # eo hPa # oe## et ee4 PeOo. Oe8.0 ad Pat et ee et *.#? pd Oe oh Pa bre+ # fad Oo “ Ld ee fe Peete nth tn dh od had tod el Fe ot me Cee * * was instituted and contested through the directly involved in the controversy was an that of cs P aie ese suit upon the United States through its officer st Fae tei : determination was against the truthotherof the has ll States, like any the United eged, ofandjustice, is bound by the final judgcg when it elects t to Fitieais ourts of competen jurisdiction, courts. th mation ae. combs e@ any question of fact in the court of the United States affirmed 1n Datinct of d in proeurin tpn that there was no fraud committe or those : ot tent to be issued by the patentees, and 1s ea ve them; that the patent was legal the a the lands embraced in i of the legal ownership of all dir 6 covered by it. “Tt fraud, and having ok, y affirmed the non-existence of € So In a proper case, the courts of the country eth east ov permit the plaintiff in any other suit, to contro- but another and different one to a great. It but it seems of argument much affected in cases like this, trial than a to me an appeal far more befitting a jury court. grave discussion before n thisof the popular clamor for which “It ig but a repetitio these Mexican grants have proved a fruitful subject, ever given since the advancing civilization of the country has making them some value. Mexico has been denounced for to characterize them, and no epithet 1s found too severe p. They are those who venture to claim their ownershirobbers. Even said to be monopolists, land pirates, and decision the tribunals, which seek by the force of judicial by. sustaining plighted faith of the nation keep the of some them when valid, are not secure from imputation ; improper motive. “Tt ig well enough, in this connection, to remember that s change with condition and people and times change, to ages ae o 2 Ps mete vert this judicially established fact, where the issue is between the same parties or their privies. “The United States having exhausted its powers in a fruitless effort to cancel this patent, it becomes the duty of the courts and the people to abide the final judgment of the highest tribunal to which a controversy can be appealed, and to seek redress for meritorious grievances, if any exist, at the hands of a just and generous government.”’ In the argument of counsel, Frank Springer, Esq., of New Mexico, before the supreme court of the United States, in the case first brought in the circuit court of the United States for the District of Colorado, on the part of the Maxwell Company, accurately and learnedly discussed the motives which actuated the Mexican government in the making of these large grants of land. In the entire history of jurisprudence in the West no abler presentation of law and facts in any case was ever subinitted by any member of the bar of the supreme court In his oral argument, extended of the United States. from the notes of the stenographer, Mr. Springer, among other things, in conclusion, said: ‘During the course of this discussion, there has been frequent mention by counsel for the government of the large size of this grant, and their argument has abounded in allusions to ‘principalities’ and ‘empires,’ as if it were that supposed that the principles of law are so flexible and they may be varied according to the subject matter, a small property, to e applicabl rule one be may there that 1s a species RETR “% a i i ps {ee ~ ce ae tet ied ee er ee ee ip ees * + ee ret t~t~# 7 =¢ dead Pt et ee ee OL adel *# Oe eeee o. 2 ~ F— 2-8 Pet el ¢ ele Feber ed ‘“The courts to a final decision in the court of last resort solely, or mainly at least, upon the ground that such fraud had been committed by the original grantees and those claiming under them in locating the lands and extending the true boundaries thereof in such manner as to deceive the officers of the United States, and thereby caused them to issue the patent; that a court of equity would annul the patent. The court found that there was no fraud proven In the case, and that the patent was legal and valid, and Fran from taint of : ak oe hei "i et ot at THE SPANISH ARCHIVES OF NEW MEXICO = 53 OF NEW MEXICO plaintiff were deceived into issuing and delivering the patent. Fraud in various ways was charged against the grantees under the patent, and the patent as an entirety was involved in this issue raised, heard and finally determined in the circuit and supreme courts of the United States. “It is quite clear that had the United States sueceeded in that suit, the decree would have affected the title to the lands embraced in the patent lying in New Mexico. Personal service was had upon the Maxwell Land Grant Company in that suit, and an appearance entered, and the suit after long delays, finally decided, declaring the patent valid for the lands covered by it wherever situated. The final judgment in this suit “was intended to be, and we think was, conclusive upon the United States and all persons claiming through or under it, whether the lands covered by the patent were located in Colorado or New Mexico. Yr pane THESPANISH ARCHIVES Shea Singer 52 |