The sole authority to the General Land Office to issue the
patent for the land in dispute in this case was the Act of March 3,
1869, 15 Stat. 342; the patent was issued under that authority, and
it does not admit of controversy that it must issue to the
confirmee of Congress,
viz.: the Town of Las Vegas.
This Court cannot assume that Congress approved the report of
the Surveyor General unadvisedly, used the name of the Town of Las
Vegas unadvisedly, or intended primarily some other confirmee.
The town and its inhabitants having been recognized by Congress
as having rights, and such rights having been ordered to be
authenticated by a patent of the United States, it is the duty of
the Land Office to issue that patent, to give the town and its
inhabitants the benefit of that authentication, and to remit all
controversies about it to other tribunals.
Page 183 U. S. 573
This is a bill in equity brought in the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia praying for an injunction against respondents
from issuing a patent to the Town of Las Vegas, New Mexico, of the
lands in the Las Vegas private land grant, or, if a patent has
issued, to declare it to be void, or, if a patent has not issued,
to direct one to issue
"to all of said lands, to the heirs, legal representatives, and
assigns of the said Juan de Dios Maese, Manuel Duran, Miguel
Arculeta, Jose Antonio Cassaos, and those who were associated with
them as the original grantees and as representatives of said
original grantees, and that their title in and to said lands may be
quieted, and said plaintiffs pray for such other and further and
general relief as they may show themselves entitled to under the
law and the facts."
There was a demurrer to the bill, which was sustained, and, the
complainants declining to amend their bill, it was dismissed.
An appeal was taken to the court of appeals, and the action of
the supreme court of the District was affirmed. 17 App.D.C. 52.
The suit was brought by the complainants as heirs of the
original grantees, for themselves and others, who, it is alleged,
are too numerous to be made parties. The defendants are sued in
their official character. The facts as they appear from the bill
are that, on the 20th of March, 1835, Juan de Dios Maese, Miguel
Archuleta, Manuel Duran, and Jose Antonio Cassaos, for themselves
and on behalf of twenty-five men, presented a petition to the
corporation of El Bado, in the Territory of New Mexico, Mexico, for
the grant and possession of the tract of land "commonly known as
Las Vegas, on the Galenas River, which was desired for the
cultivation of moderate crops and for pasture and watering places."
The land was under the jurisdiction of El Bado, and was bounded as
follows:
"On the north by the Sappello River, on the south by the
boundary of the grant of Don Antonio Ortiz, on the east by the
Aguage de la Zegua, and on the west the boundary of the grant to
San Miguel del Bado."
The tract contains 496,446.96 acres of land, and was afterwards
surveyed in 1860, which survey was approved by the surveyor general
of New Mexico.
Page 183 U. S. 574
The petition was presented to the territorial deputation,
approved by that body on the 23d of March, 1835, and the grant made
as asked for, with the provision
"that persons who owned no land were to be allowed the same
privilege of settling upon the grant as those who petitioned for
it, and that 'the pasture and watering places are free to
all.'"
On the 24th of March, 1835, the acting governor and political
chief of the territory approved the action of the territorial
deputation, and directed the constitutional justice of El Bado to
place the parties in possession of the lands prayed for. This was
done on the 6th of April, 1835.
The heirship or legal succession of the parties to the original
grantees is alleged, and that the complainants "are now the true
and real owners of undivided interests in said land, the separate
interest therein of each being of the full value of not less than
$10,000." The total value of the land is $2,000,000.
The treaty and protocol of Guadalupe Hidalgo are invoked, and it
is alleged that the surveyor general of New Mexico, under the
provisions of the Act of Congress of July 22, 1854, 10 Stat. 309,
c. 103, and acting under the instructions of the Secretary of the
Interior and Commissioner of the General Land Office, gave notice
to parties claiming grants from Mexico to present their claims, and
thereupon Francisco Lopez, Henry Connelly, and Hilario Gonzalez, on
behalf of themselves and a large number of citizens of the United
States, residents of San Miguel County, presented their petition
claiming the Las Vegas grant. The surveyor general investigated the
claim, found, and reported its validity. His report was approved by
Congress and the grant confirmed,
"thereby confirming in and to the original grantees named and
designated in said Las Vegas grant, their heirs and assigns, their
absolute right and title to all of the lands embraced within the
aforesaid boundaries and limits, free of all right, title, claim,
or control upon the part of the United States."
It is the duty of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to
issue patents in
"all such confirmed private land grants, to the grantees named
in the original grant, their heirs or assigns,
Page 183 U. S. 575
and in the discharge and performance of his duty therein he has
no judicial or discretionary powers, but acts ministerially alone
in the issuing of such patents."
It is further alleged in the bill that --
"December 17, 1898, upon a petition filed in the Interior
Department of the United States, praying that a patent be ordered
to be issued to the Town of Las Vegas to all the land included in
said Las Vegas grant, the Honorable Thomas Ryan, the then acting
Secretary of the Interior Department, addressed a letter to the
Commissioner of the General Land Office wherein and whereby the
said Interior Department ordered and directed the honorable
Commissioner of the General Land Office to issue a patent to said
lands to the Town of Las Vegas, which order of the Interior
Department now remains and continues in full force and effect, not
having been set aside,
vacated, or omitted."
"Said plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon their
information and belief they charge the fact to be, that at the date
of the making of said Las Vegas grant, as aforesaid, there was no
place of collection of people having any legal existence under the
laws, customs, or usages of the Republic of Mexico or the Territory
of New Mexico known or designated as the Town of Las Vegas, nor was
there any town by name of Las Vegas on said grant or elsewhere at
that time which under the laws in force at that time in the
Territory of New Mexico had any legal or corporate existence, or
which under or by virtue of any law, custom, or usage in force in
New Mexico could take or acquire title to lands."
"And said plaintiffs allege and charge further that said land
grant was not made to any town by name of Las Vegas or by any other
name; that the Town of Las Vegas nor any other town ever petitioned
the surveyor general of New Mexico to investigate the nature,
character, extent, or validity of said grant, and that the only
petition ever preferred to any surveyor general for such an
investigation touching said grant was preferred by individuals
representing the original grantees Juan Dios Maese
et al.,
their heirs and assigns, the same hereinbefore referred to. They
aver further that said surveyor general reported that said grant
was made in due form to Juan Dios Maese and
Page 183 U. S. 576
his associates, and was to them a valid grant, and plaintiffs
aver that said grant was duly and legally confirmed by Congress to
the original grantees, the said Juan Dios Maese and his associates,
and that it was not confirmed to a town by the name of Las Vegas or
to any other town. Said plaintiffs further show that they are
informed and believe, and upon their information and belief they
charge the fact to be, that there was not on December 17, 1898, any
town by name of Las Vegas anywhere in the United States, having any
legal or corporate existence or any defined boundaries, or that
could take or acquire title, either equitable or legal, to any
lands whatsoever; and, further, that there was not at the time of
the cession of the country included in the Territory of New Mexico
to the United States, by the Republic of Mexico, or at the time of
the confirmation by Congress of the United States of said Las Vegas
grant, any such town having any legal or corporate existence or
having any defined boundaries, or any place by that name capable in
the law of acquiring, having, or holding title, either legal or
equitable, to the lands included within the Las Vegas grant or any
other real estate."
It is further alleged that such patent, if issued, will be a
cloud upon the title of plaintiffs, and that they have presented
their claim to said grant, and have requested a patent to be issued
to the heirs and assigns of the original grantees, and that their
request has been ignored,
"and said Commissioner of the General Land Office is now about
to issue the patent to said grant to a nonentity called the Town of
Las Vegas, in violation of law and in violation of the rights of
plaintiffs and to their great and irreparable injury, and will do
so unless restrained from so doing by this Court."
The demurrer to the bill was general, charging want of equity,
no jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, and a defect
of parties.
The other facts stated in the opinion are taken from H. Ex.Doc.
14, 30th Cong., p. 36, quoted in the brief of counsel for
appellants.
Page 183 U. S. 577
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
The first and second grounds of demurrer are substantially the
same, or depend upon the same arguments. Of the second ground the
courts below took different views, the supreme court holding that
the Town of Las Vegas was not, and the Court of Appeals holding
that the town was, a necessary party.
As stated in the bill, the Act of July 22, 1854, in execution of
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, required the surveyor general of
New Mexico, under the instruction of the Secretary of the Interior,
to investigate and report upon the validity of grants of land from
the Mexican government. On September 11, 1855, a petition was
presented to the surveyor general for the examination of the grant
of Juan de Dios Maese
et al., which stated that it was
presented by
"Francisco Lopez and Henry Connelly and Hilario Gonzales, on
behalf of themselves and a large number of citizens of the United
States, residents of the Town of Las Vegas and its vicinity, in the
County of San Miguel, Territory of New Mexico, represent to your
honor that they and the citizens they represent are the claimants
and legal owners of a certain tract of land lying and being situate
in the County of San Miguel, in the Territory of New Mexico."
It also stated the fact of a grant, the boundaries of the grant,
and concluded as follows:
"The said claimants cannot show the quantity of land embraced in
said grant, except as the same are set forth in the boundaries of
said grant; nor can they furnish a plat of survey of said grant, as
no survey of said land has ever been executed."
"Your petitioners, the claimants, are also informed and believe
that Thomas Cabeza de Baca, for himself and others, are claimants
also for the lands embraced in said grant and now claimed by your
petitioners. Your petitioners pray that their claim and title to
said lands be examined as required by law
Page 183 U. S. 578
and that said grant be confirmed to them; and, as in duty bound
will ever pray,"
etc.
The surveyor general made report of the claim, stating --
"The grant made to Juan de Dios Maese and others is not
contested on the ground of any want of formality in the
proceedings, but, as far as the documentary evidence shows, is made
in strict conformity with the laws and usages of the country at the
time."
"Testimony is introduced to show that the heirs of Baca
protested in 1837 against the occupancy of the land by the
claimants under the latter grant, and that they went upon the land
knowing the existence of a prior grant; but as these matters are
not deemed to be pertinent to the case so far as this office is
concerned, it is not necessary to comment upon them."
"It is firmly believed that the land embraced in either of the
two grants is lawfully separated from the public domain, and
entirely beyond the disposal of the general government, and that,
in the absence of the one, the other would be good and valid grant;
but as this office has no power to decide between conflicting
parties, they are referred to the proper tribunals of the country
for the adjudication of their respective claims, and the case is
hereby respectfully referred to Congress through the proper channel
for its action in the premises."
The claims and thirty-two others which the surveyor general had
investigated were submitted to Congress, with his report thereon.
The claims were designated by numerals from one to thirty-eight,
number twenty being the "Town of Las Vegas and Thomas Baca
et
al." H. Ex.Doc. 14, pp. 42, 45.
The claims were confirmed by the Act of June 21, 1860. 12 Stat.
71-72. Section 6 of the act is as follows:
"And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the
heirs of Luis Maria Baca, who make claim to the said tract of land
as is claimed by the Town of Las Vegas, to select, instead of the
land claimed by them, an equal quantity of vacant land, not
mineral, in the Territory of New Mexico, to be located by them in
square bodies, not exceeding five in number. And it shall be the
duty of the surveyor general of New Mexico to make survey and
location of the lands so selected by said heirs
Page 183 U. S. 579
of Baca when thereunto required by them: Provided, however, That
the right hereby granted to said heirs of Baca shall continue in
force during three years from the passage of this act, and no
longer."
Approved June 21, 1860. 12 Stat. 71-72.
Notice of the confirmation was sent by the Land Office to the
surveyor general of New Mexico, and his attention was particularly
directed to the sixth section of the act of Congress as
follows:
"In this connection, I have to draw your special attention to
the sixth section of said Act of June 21, 1860. . . . This law
gives the land to the Vegas town claim, and allows the Baca heirs
to take an equal quantity of vacant land, not mineral, in New
Mexico, to be located by them in square bodies, not exceeding five
in number. To give this law timely effect, you will give priority,
in surveying private land claims, to this claim, particularly as it
is in the vicinity -- about four miles from the outside of the
public surveys. You will proceed to have the exteriors of the Las
Vegas town claim properly run and connected with the line of the
public surveys. The exact area of the Las Vegas town tract having
been thus ascertained, the right will accrue to the Baca claimant
to locate a quantity equal to the area of the town tract elsewhere
in New Mexico, as vacant and not mineral, in square bodies not
exceeding five in number."
The grant was surveyed, and a plat was made showing its area to
be 496,446.96 acres. A certificate was issued to the Baca heirs for
a like quantity of land, which entitled them to locate, and they
did afterwards locate that quantity, and the location was sustained
by this Court.
Show v. Kellogg, 170
U. S. 317.
On May 4, 1861, the surveyor general reported his action to the
General Land Office, and transmitted the survey, field notes, and
plat. The papers were received and filed in the Land Office, and
the grant was treated as confirmed for 496,446.96 acres. In the
reports of the General Land Office, subsequently made, the tract
was named "Town of Las Vegas," and the claimants the "inhabitants
of the town."
On March 3, 1869, Congress passed an act which provided for the
issue of patents for private land claims in New Mexico
Page 183 U. S. 580
which had theretofore been confirmed by Congress. Section 2 of
the act is as follows:
"And be it further enacted, That the Commissioner of the General
Land Office shall, without unreasonable delay, cause the lands
embraced in said several claims to be surveyed and platted at the
proper expense of the claimants thereof, and upon the filing of
said surveys and plats in his office he shall issue patents for
said lands in said territory which have heretofore been confirmed
by acts of Congress and surveyed, and plats of such survey filed in
his office as aforesaid, but for which no patents have heretofore
been issued."
15 Stat. 342, c. 152.
It is stated by counsel for appellants that, prior to the Act of
March 3, 1869, the General Land Office was without authority to
issue a patent for the lands in controversy.
See also Shaw v.
Kellogg, 170 U. S. 342.
That act therefore is the sole authority to the General Land Office
to issue the patent, and it would seem not to admit of controversy
that the patent must issue to the confirmee of Congress. We think
that the Town of Las Vegas was that confirmee, and this conclusion
relieves us from considering some of the interesting questions
discussed by counsel.
The grant originally was as much to a community as to
individuals, and a town was contemplated. The decree of the
governor directed the selection of "a site for a town to be built
by the inhabitants," and the constitutional justice, in executing
the decree, informed those to whom he made "the distribution" of
the land
"that the water and pasture were free to all, and that the joint
labor should be done by themselves without any dispute, and that
the wall surrounding the town marked out should be made by them
all, which being done, that they notify the justice, in order that
he may mark out to each one equally the portion he is entitled
to."
A town was started, and grew and had attained substantial
proportions at the time the confirmatory act was passed.
The petition of the surveyor general of New Mexico describes the
petitioners as "residents of the Town of Las Vegas and its
vicinity;" and he manifestly regarded it a claim on behalf of the
town, stated it from that standpoint, and reported it to
Congress
Page 183 U. S. 581
as a claim by the Town of Las Vegas. The claim was confirmed by
reference to the report, and the town was especially designated the
claimant in section 6 of the confirmatory act. That it received
confirmation at all may be because it was a claim by a town. Its
legality might have been questioned. The claimants in their
petition stated that their claim was disputed by Thomas Cabeza de
Baca, and reporting on that dispute the surveyor general said that
testimony was introduced to show that the heirs of Baca protested
in 1837 against the occupancy of the land by the claimants under
the grant to Juan de Dios Maese, and that the claimants "went upon
the land, knowing the existence of a prior grant" -- the Baca
grant. The surveyor general, however, did not assume to decide the
dispute between the parties, but referred it to "the proper
tribunals of the country" and to Congress. Congress accommodated
the dispute by a magnificent donation of lands to the heirs of
Baca, and confirmed the original land to the town, and we can
easily see that Congress might have exercised its bounty to adjust
a controversy to which a town was a party, when, if the contestants
were individuals, they would have been remitted to the courts to
litigate their rights and priorities. But however this may be, we
cannot assume that Congress approved the report of the surveyor
general unadvisedly, used the name of the town unadvisedly, or
intended primarily some other confirmee.
This interpretation of the act of Congress cannot be changed
even if Las Vegas had or has "no legal or corporate existence." If
the designated confirmee cannot take, another cannot be substituted
in its stead. Nor do we think the capacity of the town to take a
patent is open to dispute in the Land Office. Of that capacity
Congress was satisfied, and it is not for the Land Department to
conceive and urge doubts about it raised upon disputable legal
propositions. The town and its inhabitants were certainly
substantial entities in fact and were recognized by Congress as
having rights, and directed such rights to be authenticated by a
patent of the United States. It is the duty of the Land Office to
issue that patent, to give the town and its inhabitants the benefit
of that authentication, and to remit all controversies about it to
other tribunals and proceedings. It
Page 183 U. S. 582
will be observed from this view that the question in the case is
narrower than appellants conceive it. It is not what rights they
had before confirmation of the grant, nor what rights they may
assert under or against the patent, but what Congress has done, and
what it has directed the Land Department to do. It is strictly this
and nothing more, and on this only we express an opinion.
Decree affirmed.
