OCR Text |
Show 466 LEADING FACTS OF NEW MEXICAN HISTORY SPANISH democrats was from a northern state. Four had served as officers in the war between the states, three on the federal and one on the confederate side, and the fifth member had held the office of assistant United States attorney during the war. In ability and judicial experience the members were fully qualified for the duties of this unique tribunal.*® The purpose and sole jurisdiction eration and adjudication of have been derived by grants the area ceded by Mexico to Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the Purchase, all situate within Mexico, Arizona, California, of the court were the consid- the titles to all the lands claimed to from Spain and Mexico situate within the United States under the treaty of treaty of 1853, known as the Gadsden the present states of Colorado, New Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.*” bur F. Stone, Colorado; William W. Murray, Tennessee; Henry C. Sluss, Kansas; and later to fill vacancy caused by the death of Justice Fuller, F. I. Other officers of the court were Matt G. Reynolds, Osborne of North Carolina. United States attorney, Missouri; James H. Reeder, clerk, Kansas; T. B. Baldwin, deputy, for Colorado; Ireneo Chaves, deputy for New Mexico; Eusebio nee iy interpreter; Luman F. Parker, stenographer; and Edward L. Hall, marshal. 889 Wilbur F. Stone, The Only Court of its Kind in the World, in Report of M. A. Otero, governor of New Mexico, to the secretary of the interior, 1903: ‘It was gratifying that there was created a real court, not a hybrid cross be- tween a board of arbitration and a coroner’s inquest, like the old crude ‘com- mission’ of California, but a court commensurate with the importance of its — within object and purpose, fully equipped and clothed with all the powers — of the circuit and district courts of the United _ scope of its jurisdiction tates. . . ‘“In consideration of the purpose of the court, and the importance and peculiar character of the subject matter of its jurisdiction, it was conceded by the members of the joint committee of the senate and house which agreed upon the bill for final passage by congress, that the court ought to be essen: tially non-partisan in its make-up, and should be constituted so as to preclude the least taint or suspicion of party or political imputation, in order to 11 Spire confidence in its integrity of decision when dealing with the vast prop: erty rights which had been the subject of good faith by treaty between two To this end and it was suggested in committee whether it sister republics. would not be wise to incorporate in the act a provision requiring that the per sons to be chosen as justices of the court should not all be of the same political But Senator Edmunds, the chairman of the joint committee, remarked party. that such a provision would better be omitted, as it might suggest the very thing to be avoided, and that he would himself represent the view of the This he did the next Wi committee to the President touching this point. after the passage of the bill, and the selection of the members of the cour a | by President Harrison was considered in keeping with that view.’’ _ 890 California, although included in the treaty session, was not include f within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Soon after the admission 2 that state, with its senators and congressmen, it was found easy to tee: for a tribunal to settle these grants within the limits of that state; the tr (es unal provided by acts of congress was a ‘‘commission,’’ with appeals and T AND MEXICAN LAND GRANTS 467 The establishment of this tribunal created great satisfaction in the several jurisdictions mentioned. For more than forty years the country had been practically without relief, although as we have seen, under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, special stipulations had been entered into protecting titles. Although many private acts had been passed by congress confirming land grants, the system was very unsatisfactory, not being Judicial, always ex parte and sometimes unjust, congress acting more through political influences, confirming some grants which never should have been acted upon favorably and declining to confirm others where affirmative action should have been taken. Indeed, no claimant could secure congressional confirmation of his title unless provided with funds for a long sojourn at Washington, the organization of a lobby, and the buying of the army of official and nonofficial cormorants which has always infested the capital of the nation. With the gradual disappearance of the hostile Indian from the great plains, with the constant increase in land values in Colorado and northern New Mexico, owing to the large development of the stock-raising and mining industry, the claimants and possessors of lands, the title to which had come through Spanish and Mexican grantees, and in many cases even where these titles had been confirmed by congress, were constantly being harassed and annoyed by the refusal of the immigrant to recognize their claims. The ordinary American knew nothing of ‘‘grants’’ and deemed it the inalienable right of American citizenship to ‘‘take up’’ and ‘‘hold down”’ mines, farms, ranches, and water rights whenever he found not actually covered with habitations or cultivated fields. any To him the claim that any one man or syndicate could be the rightful owner of a million acres of land was preposterous. With the coming of the railroads the situation became more serious. Demagogues and anti-land grant agitators thrived. The lives of rightful owners were threatened; judges were intimidated, and, through enter- prising newspaper correspondents, the eastern press was flooded with of the ‘‘robber United States stories nn views’ by court of between the the United the years States. 1850 and land district Titles 1865. barons court of this for of New California nature in Mexico.’’ and California the were Fifty supreme settled |