Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

[74]

v.

the government of the United States having | SANTIAGO AINSA, Administrator with devested itself of the title to said property by Will Annexed of Frank Ely, Deceased, the said act of confirmation, and the said pat- Appt., ent issued in pursuance thereof, this cause cannot be maintained in this court for the NEW MEXICO & ARIZONA RAILROAD confirmation of the claim of petitioners, alleged in said amended petition." Where upon petitioners appealed to this court.

Mr. H. L. Warren submitted the cause for appellants.

Mr. Matthew G. Reynolds argued the cause and, with Solicitor General John K. Richards, filed a brief for appellees.

*Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

As it appears in this case that these landwere within the limits of the Ortiz Mine [75] grant-which had been confirmed by Congress, and a patent therefor issued to the principal defendant-it follows, without adverting to other defenses, that under the opinion in United States v. Conway, just decided (175 U. S. 60, ante, p. 72, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13), the claim was properly rejected. Nor can the petition be sustained for an indemnity under section 14 of the pri vate land claim act, as no such claim is made by the petition. We are also of opinion that section 14 (printed in full in margint), which

COMPANY.

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 76–91.) Jurisdiction of suit to quiet title under perfeet Mexican grant.

A grant of land in New Mexico, which was com plete and perfect before the cession of New Mexico to the United States, may be asserted. as against any adverse private claimant, in the ordinary local courts of justice, without having been confirmed or rejected by Congress. when no proceedings for its confirmation are pending before Congress or before the surveyor general; and it is not necessary for the owner to present it to the court of private land claims for confirmation under the act of Congress of 1891, although that act gives him the right to do so.

[No. 1.] Submitted January 10, 1896. Submission set aside March 30, 1896. Submitted March 16, 1898. Decided October 30, 1899.

PPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme

provides for a personal judgment against the A Court of the Territory of Arizona af

United States in cases where the land decreed to any claimant, under the provisions of the act, shall have been sold or granted by the United States, applies only to cases where such lands have been sold or granted as public lands, for a consideration which equitably belongs to the owner of the land, and not to cases where the government has merely released its interest to one apparently holding a good title under a Spanish or Mexican grant, which subsequently turns out to be invalid by reason of an older or better title. In the one case there is a moral obligation on the part of the government to protect the real owner. In the other, there is a mere quitclaim of its rights to one who apparently has a better title thereto. There is no warranty, direct or indirect, that the title is a valid one, and no reason why the government should be called upon to protect it. [76] This was the ruling of the court of private land claims in a prior case, and we think it is correct.

The decree of the court below is therefore affirmed.

firming a judgment of the District Court of
Pima County refusing to take jurisdiction
of a suit to quiet title under a Mexican grant.
Reversed.

See same case below, 36 Pac. 213.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
On the submission made January 10, 1896,
and afterwards set aside

Mr. Rochester Ford for appellant.
Mr. William Herring for appellee.
On final submission-

Mr. Rochester Ford, for appellant: Under the Gadsden treaty, complete or perfect titles needed no legislative confirmation; and owners of such titles may assert them in the ordinary forms of law, upon the documents under which they claim.

United States v. Pillerin, 13 How. 9, 14 L. ed. 28; United States v. McCullagh, 13 How. 216, 14 L. ed. 118; United States v. Roselius, 15 How. 36. 14 L. ed. 590; Fremont v. United States, 17 How. 542, 553, 15 L. ed. 241, 244; Maguire v. Tyler, 8 Wall. 650, 19 L. ed. 320; Trenier v. Stewart, 101 U. S. 797, 25 L. ed. 1021; United States v. D'Auterieve, 15 How. 14, 14 L. ed. 589; Dent v. Emmeger, 14 Wall.

Mr. Justice Shiras and Mr. Justice 308, 20 L. ed. 838; Strother v. Lucas, 12 Pet. White dissented.

#Sec 14. That if in any case it shall appear that the lands or any part thereof decreed to any claimant under the provisions of this act shall have been sold or granted by the United States to any other person, such title from the United States to such other person shall remain valld notwithstanding such decree, and upon proof being made to the satisfaction of sald court of such sale or grant and the value of the lands so sold or granted, such court shall render judgment in favor of such claimant against the United States for the reasonable value of said lands so sold or granted, exclusive of better

410, 9 L. ed. 1137; United States v. Arredonments, not exceeding one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre for such lands; and such judgment, when found, shall be a charge on the Treasury of the United States. Either party deeming himself aggrieved by such judgment may appeal in the same manner as provided herein in cases of contirmation of a Spanish or Mexican grant. For the purpose of ascertaining the value and amount of such lands surveys may be ordered by the court, and proof taken before the court, or by a commissioner appointed for that purpose by the court.

[16]

tha

do, 6 Pet. 691, 8 L. ed. 547; Murdock v. Gur-| purport, and that the plaintiff was
ley, 5 Rob. (La.) 457; Prevost v. Greneaux, vendee and assignee of all the right, titie.
19 How. 1, 15 L. ed. 572; Jewell v. Porche, and interest of Herreros.
2 La. An 148; Hancock v. McKinney, 7
Tex. 384.

The grant under which plaintiff claims title is such a complete and perfect title, and vested the fee in the grantee.

United States v. Turner, 11 How. 663, 13 L. ed. 857; United States v. Watkins, 97 U. S. 219, 24 L. ed. 952; Carpentier v. Montgomery, 13 Wall. 480, 493, 494, 20 L. ed. 698, 700, 701; United States v. Moorehead, 1 Black, 227, 17 L. ed. 76; Phelan v. Poyoreno, 74 Cal. 448, 13 Pac. 681, 16 Pac. 241; United States v. Pico, 5 Wall. 538, 18 L. ed. 696; United States v. Pacheco, 22 How. 225, 16 L. ed. 336; Cameron v. United States, 148 U. S. 301, 37 L. ed. 459, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595; Malarin v. United States, 1 Wall. 282, 17 L. ed. 594.

Solicitor General Richards and Mr. Matthew G. Reynolds submitted the cause for the United States, by special leave.

*Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court:

This was a complaint, filed June 1, 1892, in a district court of the territory of Arizona and county of Pima, by Santiago Ainsa, administrator with the will annexed of Frank Ely, against the New Mexico & Arizona Railroad Company, to quiet the plaintiff's title in a tract of land in that county, known as the rancho San José de Sonoita, under a grant made by the Mexican government to (77 Leon Herreros on May 15, 1825, which was alleged to have vested a complete and perfect title in fee in the grantee.

The defendant denied the plaintiff's title, and asserted a right of way over the land, under condemnation proceedings against persons who had entered thereon as pre-emp tion or homestead settlers, claiming that it was public land of the United States.

It was also agreed that a petition for the confirmation by Congress, under the acts of July 22, 1854, chap. 103, § 8 (10 Stat. at L. 309), and July 15, 1870, chap. 292, § 1 (16 Stat. at L. 304), of the Mexican grant, was filed on December 29, 1879, in the office of the United States surveyor general for the territory of Arizona, but was never acted on by Congress; and that, at the time of the commencement of this suit, no proceedings for the confirmation of the grant were pending before Congress, or before any surveyor general of the United States, or before the court of private land claims created by the [78] act of March 3, 1891, chap. 539. 26 Stat. at L. 854.

It was also agreed that, before the commencement of this suit, certain persons named had entered upon the several tracts of the granted land, as pre-emption or homestead settlers, claiming them to be public lands of the United States; and that thereafter, and before the commencement of this suit, the defendant, by condemnation proceedings against, and mesne conveyances from, those persons, acquired and now claimed a right of way through those tracts and within the limits of the grant.

The parties further stipulated that "this statement of facts is for the purpose of this suit only, and nothing herein agreed upon shall be taken as admitted for or against either of the parties hereto in any other proceeding whatever."

The district court held that it had no jurisdiction, because the plaintiff claimed title under a Mexican grant which had not been confirmed by Congress, and therefore dismissed the suit; and its judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the ter ritory. 36 Pac. 213. The plaintiff appealed to this court.

The case was originally submitted to this court upon a brief for the appellant only, without any opposing brief. But it was afterwards submitted anew upon the appellant's brief, as well as a brief which the court allowed to be filed in behalf of the United States, because of their interest in the question involved, and of their being a party to a suit involving the validity of the same Mexican grant, brought by the United States against this appellant in the court of private land claims, and since decided by this court and reported. Ely v. United States (1898) 171 U. S. 220, 43 L. ed. 142, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep.

The parties waived a trial by jury, and submitted the case to the judgment of the court upon an agreed statement of facts, which set forth what was admitted to be a correct translation of the "title deeds of a grant of one sitio, and three fourths of another sitio, surveyed on behalf of Don Leon Herreros, resident of Tubac, situated in a place called San José de Sonoita,"-consisting of the petition of Herreros to the intendente of the province of Sonora and Sinaloa; an order of the intendente for an official survey and valuation of the land; its survey and location by metes and bounds; the delivery of juridical possession to Herreros; a valuation of the land; a reference of the expediente to the promoter fiscal for examinaThe question of jurisdiction presented by tion, and his report recommending a sale by the record depends upon the effect of the auction; a sale by auction to Herreros, after treaty between the United States and Mexi due publication of notice; the intendente's co of December 30, 1853 (known as the Gadsapproval of the proceedings; payment by Herreros of the amount of the valuation, with fees and costs; a grant to him by the commissary general in the usual form; and a record of the grant in the Mexican archives. It was agreed that these papers were executed and delivered according to their

840.

den treaty), and of the acts of Congress above cited, and may be conveniently approached by first referring to the decisions of this court under various treaties by which the United States have acquired territory from France, Spain, and Mexico.

*Private rights of property in land lying [79]

within a territory ceded by one independent | Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of nation to another by a treaty between them all the rights, advantages, and immunities are not affected by the change of sovereignty of citizens of the United States; and in the and jurisdiction, and are entitled to protec- meantime they shall be maintained and protion, whether they are complete and absolute tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, titles, or merely equitable interests needing property, and the religion which they proscme further act of the government to per- fess." 8 Stat. at L. 202. By the act of fect the legal title. The duty of securing March 2, 1805, chap. 26, § 1, it was provided such rights, and of fulfilling the obligations that persons who before October 1, 1800, beimposed upon the United States by the ing of full age and actually inhabiting and treaty, belongs to the political department; cultivating lands within the territories and Congress may either itself discharge ceded by that treaty, had obtained a "duly that duty, or delegate its performance to a registered warrant or order of survey" from strictly judicial tribunal or to a board of the Spanish or French government while in commissioners. United States v. Percheman possession of those territories, should "be (1833) 7 Pet. 51, 86, 87, 8 L. ed. 604, 617; confirmed in their claims to such lands in the Delassus v. United States (1835) 9 Pet. 117. same manner as if their titles had been com133, 9 L. ed. 71, 77; Strother v. Lucas pleted." Section 4 provided that before (1838) 12 Pet. 410, 438, 9 L. ed. 1137, 1148; March 1, 1806, persons claiming lands by Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land & Min. Co. virtue of a completed grant might file it, and (1893) 148 U. S. 80-82, 37 L. ed. 376, 377, persons claiming under an incomplete title 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 457, and cases there cited; should file all papers relating to it, with Stoneroad v. Stoneroad (1895) 158 U. S. the register of the local land office. And by 240, 248, 39 L. ed. 966, 968, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. § 8 commissioners were to be appointed by 822; Rio Arriba Land & Cattle Co. v. United the President, with power to hear evidence States (1897) 167 U. S. 298, 309, 42 L. ed. and to decide in a summary way upon the va175, 178, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 875. As was said lidity of the claims, and to report to Conby this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Trimble, in a leading case: all claims confirmed or rejected, and gress "It may be ad- with the latter the evidence adduced in their mitted that the United States were bound, support. 2 Stat. at L. 324-327. The act in good faith, by the terms of the treaty of of March 26, 1824, chap. 173, enacted that cession by which they acquired the Floridas, it should "be lawful for any person" claimto confirm such concessions as had been made ing lands in the state of Missouri "by virtue by warrants of survey; yet it would not fol- of any French or Spanish grant, concession, low that the legal title would be perfected warrant, or order of survey, legally made, until confirmation. The government of the granted, or issued by the proper authorities” United States has throughout acted upon a before March 10, 1804, "and which was prodifferent principle in relation to these in- tected or secured by the treaty" aforesaid, choate rights, in all its acquisitions of terri- "and which might have been perfected into tory, whether from Spain or France. While a complete title, under and in conformity to the government has admitted its obligation the laws, usages, and customs *of the govern- [81] to confirm such inchoate rights or conces- ment under which the same originated, had sions as had been fairly made, it has main- not the sovereignty of the country been tained that the legal title remained in the transferred to the United States," to present United States until, by some act of confirma- a petition, within two years from the pastion, it was passed or relinquished to the sage of the act, to the district court of the claimants. It has maintained its right to United States for the district of Missouri, prescribe the forms and manner of proceeding for the confirmation of such claim; that in order to obtain a confirmation, and its court was given authority to hear evidence right to establish tribunals to investigate and pass upon the claim; and from its deand pronounce upon their fairness and valid cision an appeal might be taken within a ity." De la Croix v. Chamberlain (1827) year to this court. 4 Stat. at L. 52. The 12 Wheat. 599, 601, 6 L. ed. 741, 742. Even provisions of that act were extended to the grants which were complete and perfect at states of Louisiana and Arkansas, and to the time of the cession may be required by parts of Mississippi and Alabama, by the act Congress to have their genuineness and their of June 17, 1844, chap. 95, § 1. 5 Stat. at extent established by proceedings in a L. 676. Under those statutes it was uni[80] particular manner before they can be held formly held by this court that the jurisdicto be valid. But where no such proceedings tion of the district court of the United are expressly required by Congress, the States was limited to suits by persons who recognition of grants of this class in the had only an inchoate and equitable title, to treaty itself is sufficient to give them full obtain an absolute and legal one, and did effect. not extend to a title which was complete and perfect when the treaty took effect; and the reason of those decisions, as declared by Chief Justice Taney speaking for the whole court, was that such a title "is protected by the treaty, and is independent of any legislation by Congress, and requires no pro ceeding in a court of the United States to give it validity." United States v. Pillerin

The treaty of April 30, 1803, between the United States and the French Republic, by which the province of Louisiana was ceded to the United States, provided, in article 3, as follows: "The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the

(1851) 13 How. 9, 14 L. ed. 28; United | ed. 617. And it was accordingly held that a States v. McCullagh (1851) 13 How. 216, Spanish grant which was complete before 14 L. ed. 118. So, in United States v. D'Au- the date mentioned in the treaty was conterieve (1853) 15 How. 14, 14 L. ed. 580, firmed by the treaty itself, needed no confir Mr. Justice Nelson, delivering the opinion mation by Congress, and was not impaired of the majority of the court, said that the by its rejection by the commissioners aptitle of the petitioners, "if still a subsisting pointed by the President under authority one in them, is a complete and perfect one, of Congress to examine claims to lands in and consequently not within the first section Florida. See also United States v. Arreof that act [of 1844] which confers the ju- dondo (1832) 6 Pet. 691,8 L. ed. 547 ; *United [83] risdiction upon this court. The place to lit-States v. Wiggins (1840) 14 Pet. 334, 349, igate it is in the local jurisdiction of the 10 L. ed. 481, 488.

at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction." 9 Stat. at L. 929, 930.

By the act of March 3, 1851, chap. 41, entitled "An Act to Ascertain and Settle the Private Land Claims in the State of Cali

state, by the common-law action of eject- The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of Febment, or such other action as may be pro-ruary 2, 1848, by which the United States vided for the trial of the legal titles to real acquired California, as well as much of the estate." 15 How. 23, 24, 14 L. ed. 584. And present territories of New Mexico and AriMr. Justice Curtis and three other dissent- zona, from Mexico, provides, in article 8, ing justices concurred in the judgment on that the property of Mexicans within the that ground only. 15 How. 29, 14 L. ed. territory ceded "shall be inviolably respect587. See also United States v. Roselius ed," and they and their heirs and grantees (1853) 15 How. 36, 38, 14 L. ed. 590, 591; "shall enjoy, with respect to it, guaranties Maguire v. Tyler (1869) 8 Wall. 650, 652, equally ample as if the same belonged to cit19 L. ed. 320; Dent v. Emmeger (1871) 14 izens of the United States;" and, in article Wali. 308, 312, 20 L. ed. 838, 839; Trenier 9, that "Mexicans who, in the territories v. Stewart (1879) 101 U. S. 797, 802, 25 L. aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of ed. 101. And the courts of the state of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformLouisiana habitually exercised jurisdiction ably with what is stipulated in the preced[82|to try and determine such titles. Lavergne|ing article, shall be incorporated into the v. Elkins (1841) 17 La. 220, 230; Murdock Union of the United States, and be admitted v. Gurley (1843) 5 Rob. (La.) 457, 466; Jewell v. Porche (1847) 2 La. Ann. 148; Riddle v. Ratiiff (1853) 8 La. Ann. 106. The treaty of February 22, 1819, by which the King of Spain ceded East and West Florida to the United States, provided, in article 8, as follows: "All the grants of land made before the 24th of January, 1818, by his Catholic Majesty, or by his lawful authorities, in the said territories ceded by his Majesty to the United States, shall be ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession of the lands, to the saine extent that the same grants would be valio if the terri-fornia," it was provided, in section 8, that tories had remained under the dominion of his Catholic Majesty." 8 Star. at L. 258. In United States v. Percheman (1833) 7 Pet. 51, 8 L. ed. 604, this court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, said: "A cession of territory is never understood to be a cession of the property belonging to its inhabitants. The King cedes that only which nelonged to him. Lands he had previousty granted were not his to cede. Neither party could so understand the cession. Neither party could consider itself as attempting a wrong to individuals, condemned by the practice of the whole civilized world.” “This article is apparently introduced on the part of Spain, and must be intended to stipulate expressly for that security to private property which the laws and usages of nations would, without express stipulation, have conferred. No construction which would impair that security further than its positive words require would seem to be admissible. Without it, the titles of individuals would remain as valid under the new government as they were under the old; and those titles, so far at least as they were consummate, might be asserted in the courts of the United States, independ- 631-633. This court held that this proently of this article." 7 Pet. 86, 87, 8 Lvision included perfect as well as inchoate 175 U. S. U. S., Book 44.

"each and every person claiming lands in
California by virtue of any right or title de-
rived from the Spanish or Mexican govern-
ment" should present the same to commis-
sioners, to be appointed by the President un-
der the 1st section of the act; and, by sub-
sequent sections, that the commissioners
should decide upon the validity of each
claim, and certify their decision, within
thirty days, to the district court of the
United States; that the district court, on
the petition of either the claimant or the
United States, might review the decision of
the commissioners; that an appeal might be
taken from the decision of the district court
to this court; that any final decision should
be conclusive between the claimant and the
United States only, and should not affect
third parties, unless they should intervene
in the district court, for which provision
was made; and that "all lands, the claims (84)
to which shall not have been presented to
the said commissioners within two years
after the date of this act, shall be deemed
held and considered as part of the public do-
main of the United States." 9 Stat. at L.

6

81

titles, and that consequently no suit could should make a full report, according to a be maintained in a court of the state of Cal- form to be prescribed by the Secretary of the ifornia on any Spanish title whatsoever, if Interior, "on all such claims as originated it had not been presented to the commission- before the cession of the territory to the ers in accordance with the act of Congress. United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Botiller v. Dominguez (1889) 130 U. S. 238, Hidalgo of 1848, denoting the various grades 252-254, 32 L. ed. 926, 930-931, 9 Sup. Ct. of title, with his decision as to the validity Rep. 525, and cases there cited. As was ob- or invalidity of each of the same, under the served by Chief Justice Taney, in Fremont v. laws, usages, and customs of the country be United States (1854) 17 How. 542. 553, fore its cession to the United States;" that 554, 15 L. ed. 241, 244, 245, and repeated by his report should "be laid before Congress, Mr. Justice Miller, in Botiller v. Dominguez, for such action thereon as may be deemed above cited. "The 8th section embraces, not just and proper, with a view to confirm bona only inchoate or equitable titles, but legal fide grants, and give full effect to the treaty titles also, and requires them all to undergo of 1848;" and that, "until the final action examination, and to be passed upon by the of Congress on such claims, all lands covered court." "In this respect it differs from the thereby shall be reserved from sale or other act of 1824, under which the claims in disposal by the government." 10 Stat. at Louisiana and Florida were decided. The L. 308, 309. And by the sundry civil ap. jurisdiction of the court, in these cases, was confined to inchoate equitable titles, which required some other act of the government to vest in the party the legal title or full ownership. If he claimed to have obtained from either of the former governments a full and perfect title, he was left to assert it in the ordinary forms of law, upon the documents under which he claimed."

The treaty of December 30, 1853 (known as the Gadsden treaty), by which the Mexican Republic ceded to the United States additional territory now within the territories of New Mexico and Arizona, including the land in controversy in this case, provides, in article 5, that all the provisions of the eighth and ninth articles of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo should apply to the ter ritory thus ceded, “and to all the rights of persons and property, both civil and ec clesiastical, within the same, as fully and as effectually as if the said articles were herein again recited and set forth;" and, in article 6, that "no grants of land within the territory ceded," bearing date since September 25, 1853, "will be considered valid or be recognized by the United States, or will any [85] grants made previously be respected or be considered as obligatory which have not been located and duly recorded in the archives of Mexico." 10 Stat. at L. 1035. This last clause has been held by this court to require an authentic survey and final determination of the location and boundaries of the claim. Ainsa v. United States (1896) 161 U. S. 208, 222, 40 L. ed. 673, 678, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 544. But in the case at bar the plaintiff set up a completed grant, surveyed and lo cated by definite boundaries long before September 25, 1853.

The act of Congress of July 22, 1854, chap. 103, provided for the appointment of a surveyor general for New Mexico (which then included what is now the territory of Arizona), and, by § 8, made it his duty, "under such instructions as may be given by the Secretary of the Interior, to ascertain the origin, nature, character, and extent of all claims to lands under the laws, usages, and customs of Spain and Mexico;" authorized him, for this purpose, to issue notices, summon witnesses, administer oaths, and do all other necessary acts; and directed that he

propriation act of July 15, 1870, chap. 292,
it was enacted that the surveyor general of
the territory of Arizona, as to land in that
territory, should have all the powers con
ferred and perform all the duties enjoined
upon the surveyor general of New Mexico by
the act of 1854; and that his report should
be laid before Congress, for such action there
on as should be deemed just and proper.
Stat. at L. 304.

16

*Under those provisions of the acts of 1854 [86) and 1870, it was held by this court that a claim reported by the surveyor general to Congress, and which had been confirmed by Congress, or upon which Congress had not acted, was not within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of justice. Tameling v. United States Freehold & Emigration Co. (1876) 93 U. S. 644, 23 L. ed. 998; Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land & Min. Co. 148 U. S. 80, 37 L. ed. 376, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 457, above cited.

But this court has never decided the ques tion whether a claim under a Mexican grant, which was complete and perfect before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo took effect, and no claim for which was pending either before the surveyor general or before Congress. could be asserted in the ordinary courts of justice while those provisions of the acts of 1854 and 1870 were in force. Nor is it necessary now to consider that question, be cause those provisions have been superseded and repealed by the act of March 3, 1891, chap. 539, establishing the court of private land claims. 26 Stat. at L. 854.

By § 6 of this act, "it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons or corpora tion, or their legal representatives, claiming lands within the limits of the territory de rived by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, and now embraced within the territories of New Mexico, Arizona, or Utah, or within the states of Nevada, Colorado, or Wyoming, by virtue of any such Spanish or Mexican grant, concession, warrant, or survey as the United States are bound to recog nize and confirm by virtue of the treaties of cession of said country by Mexico to the United States, which at the date of the passage of this act have not been confirmed by act of Congress, or otherwise finally decided upon by lawful authority, and which are not

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »