OCR Text |
Show the stipulation tbt in virtue of the fifteenth section of the said act neither the con-firmation of this claim nor this patent shall affect the intereats of third persons." It was admitted that Warner's title had passed to vhintiffa and that the taxes had all been paid by them. On the other hand, the appeal statement showed that the defendants offered copies of the expedientes of both of the grants referred to in the patent, and aalm oral testimony of occupation by the defendants and their ancestors. Some witnesses were introduced by the plaintiffs to contradict this matter of occn-pancy, but on final cansideration the court struck out all the testimony in reference to occupancy and of the Mexican grants upon which the patent was issued. Upon the evidence, therefore, that was received by the trial court there could be no doubt of the rightfolneas of the decree, and the question presented by the record to the supreme court of the State was whether there was error in striking out the testimony offered on behalf of the defense. Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the Court. Undonbtedly by the rules of international law, and in accordance with the pro-viaions of the treaty between the Mexican Government and this country, the United States were bound to respect the rights of private property in the ceded temtory. But such obligation is entirely consistent with the right of this Government to pro-vide reasonable means for determining the validity of all titles within theceded ten+- tory, to require a11 persons having claims to lands to present them for iecognition, and to decree that all claims which are not thus presented shall be considered aban-doned. "Undoubtedly private rights of property within the ceded territory were not affected by the change of sovereignty and jurisdiction and were entitled to pro-tection, whether the party had the full and absolute ownership of the land or merely an equitable interest therein which required some further act of the Government to vest in him a perfect title. But the duty of providing the mode of securing these rights and of fulfilline the ohlieations imvosed uvon theunited States bv the treaties ~ ~~ belonged to the political ilepanment of the tiorernment, and Cunyrrx* might either itrelf discharge that duty or delezate it to the inclit,ial ilt~anmcnt. iDe la Cmix 11. Chamberlain, 12 wheat., 599, 601, 602; Chobteau u. ~ckha r t2, Hbw., 344, 374; Tameling v. United States Freehold Co., 93 U. S., 647, 661; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S., 238.)" Astiazamn v. Santa Rita Land and Mining Co., 148 U. S., 80, 81. Botiller v. Dominguez (130 U. S., 238), the last ease cited in the foregoing quota-tion, deservea special notice. The supreme court of California had held in several eases that a perfect title need not be presented to the land commission; that it was recognized by the treaty of ceasion and required no further confirmation; that the act ta ascertain and settle private land claims applied only to thase titles which were imperfect and needed the action of some tribunal to ascertain and establish their validity. But in this case, which came from the supreme court of California, we held the contrary. We quote at some length from the opinion. Thus, an page 246, it was said: Two pmpaalllons ondcr this sraNte arc pn%enled br mtlosrl in support oi the derinion of the superne collrt of milfornia. The fimr of thrse is that tbc srnllltr iraeli is invalitl, ~s hrlng #!eI onfiiet wit11 the VIOV~%OOJo f tbe treaty wth N C X ~enCd ~\i <.latm~$ he 11101wt8nwn hwh wm ~ ~ T -R I I U < . ~ by It to the pmpertyof Xexiean iitrzens, owned by them at the date'of the treaty: and also in eonaiot with the rlgh180f pmpens under ,he Conlr!t!ltion end lawxui rheunired slate,, so far 89 ir may .C<L.I liIlr*l p~rfccledu nder Yesieo. The >won4 pro1 vritiotl ib rhnr ChehlarurL wnn nor intended to RDC,It\o. elaimswhah were%ut.~anerblr a r.ontzsirte~c1. lerieet tlilefr.,m the Jlcalcan Gowr n r n e ~ ~ r ~ bGt. (111 the contrary, only tdiuch ss iere iiperfect, inchoate. and equitable in their character. withont being a strict lepl title. With regard to the first of these propositions, it may be said Wt a, fsras the set of Congress is in conflict with the treaty with Mexico that is a. matter in whleh the court is bound to follow the statu tors enactments of Its o mO ouernment. If the treats was violated b.y this e.en eral stahlte. enacted fur thv pttrpme~ig *.etm~"n% the vnll<litsu f ~iaimad~rivefdm mthe Yexiran Coven~mcot~. t was B mx l l e ~ ~lnft crnati~ndlc dnrenl, wllirl. cllv t r r <Irrlrr must deccrltllnr by treaty, or by rlteia other ~ 2 0 ~ 0a.8 e satlcsorlr Smlr w culorrr upon nnouler tLc vbllrarinnr 01 a treat).. Tnlsrourl.111,? <:as |