Under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1891, c. 539, the Court of
Private Land Claims has no jurisdiction to confirm or reject or to
pass upon the merits of a claim to any land the right to which has
been lawfully acted upon and decided by Congress.
This was a petition to the Court of Private Land Claims by
Margarito Baca for the confirmation to him, and to all other
persons land in Valencia County, in New Mexico, known as the San
Jose del Encinal
Page 184 U. S. 654
tract, alleged to have been granted to Baltazar Baca and his two
sons in 1768 by the Spanish Governor and Captain General of New
Mexico.
The petition prayed the court to take and exercise jurisdiction
of the petition to hear and determine all questions relative to the
tract, its extent, proper location, and boundaries, and whether,
when properly located, it would in any manner conflict with any
neighboring property to which there was superior title, to take
cognizance of all other matters connected therewith fit and proper
to be heard and determined, and by final decree to settle and
determine the questions of the proper location of the tract, the
validity of the title, and the boundaries thereof to finally
determine and forever set at rest all other questions properly
arising between the petitioner and his co-owners and the United
States, to confirm the title of the petitioner and his co-owners to
them in fee simple, and for further relief.
The United States, by an amended answer filed by leave of court,
alleged, among other things, that the tract demanded lay wholly
within the lands granted and confirmed by Congress to the Town of
Cebolleta, reported as number 30, and to the pueblo of Laguna,
reported as number 46, by the Acts of June 21, 1860, c. 167, 12
Stat. 71, and March 3, 1869, c. 152, 15 Stat. 454, respectively,
and that, the right to this tract having been thus lawfully acted
upon and decided by Congress, the Court of Private Land Claims had
no jurisdiction to allow the claim of the petitioner.
The Court of Private Land Claims, upon hearing and
consideration, suspended proceedings until after the decision of
this Court in
United States v. Conway, 175 U. S.
60, and then entered the following decree:
"This cause having heretofore come on to be heard upon the
pleadings and exhibits on file, and upon full and legal proofs
introduced and taken in the cause, both written and oral, and upon
the original and other documents regarding said claim from file
number 104 in the office of the surveyor general of the Territory
of New Mexico and from other sources in said office, and the court
having considered the same, and having
Page 184 U. S. 655
heard counsel for all of the parties to the cause, and being
fully advised in the premises, and on due consideration thereof,
doth make the following findings of fact and law, that is to
say:"
"1. That, in the year 1768, a valid and perfect title in fee
simple to all of the land of the
sitio de San Jose do
Encinal, situated in what is now Valencia County, New Mexico, was
by the proper officers of the Spanish government, the then
sovereign power of what is now the Territory of New Mexico, granted
in equal shares unto Baltazar Baca and his two sons, and which said
tract of land, situated in said county as aforesaid, was and is
described as follows, that is to say, it is bounded on the east by
a table land; thence it extends westward 5,000 Castilian varas to a
sharp-pointed black hill; on the north it is bounded by the
Cebolleta Mountain; on the south, it is bounded by some white
bluffs at whose base runs the Zuni road, all as the same is known
and designated upon the maps, plats, and surveys in file number 104
in the office of the surveyor general of the Territory of New
Mexico."
"2. That such title so remained in said grantees and their
successors from thence hitherto, and up to and including the time
of the cession of the land now comprised in the Territory of New
Mexico to the United States, and has so continued from thence to
the present time."
"3. That the said grantees and their successors have from the
time of the making of said grant complied with all conditions
necessary to the validity of the same."
"4. That such title in such grantees and their successors to
said tract of land was and is complete, valid, and perfect, and so
was at the date of the cession of the land now comprised in the
Territory of New Mexico to the United States by the treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the same was and is such a title as the
United States is bound to recognize and confirm by virtue of said
treaty and otherwise."
"5. That the claimant, Margarito Baca, is a lineal descendant of
the said Baltazar Baca, one of the original grantees."
"6. But the court further finds, as a matter of fact, that the
land comprised within the tract aforesaid is included within the
outboundaries of the Town of Cebolleta grant, reported number
Page 184 U. S. 656
46, and the Paguate purchase tract, reported number 30; the said
Cebolleta grant having been confirmed to the claimants thereof by
an act of Congress approved March 3, 1869, and thereupon duly
patented to said claimants by the proper authorities of the United
States, and the said Paguate purchase tract having been confirmed
to the Indians of the pueblo of Laguna by an act of Congress
approved June 21, 1860, and thereupon patented to said pueblo by
the proper authorities of the United States."
"7. Wherefore it is considered and adjudged by the court that a
complete, valid, and perfect title in and to the tract of land
above described was and is vested in the said Baltazar Baca and his
two sons and their successors in interest; but that,
notwithstanding such fact, this Court is without jurisdiction,
because of the patents for the said land so as aforesaid issued by
the United States, to decree and confirm the same unto them or to
order a survey thereof for such purpose, and for such reason no
other or different relief than the pronouncing upon the character
of the claimant's title as aforesaid is or will be granted by this
Court, and it is so ordered."
The United States appealed to this Court.
MR. JUSTICE Gray, after stating the case as above, delivered the
opinion of the Court.
The duty of securing private rights in lands within the
territory ceded by Mexico to the United States by the treaties of
1848 and 1853 (whether complete and absolute titles or merely
equitable interests needing some further act of the government to
perfect the legal title), and of fulfilling the obligations imposed
upon the United States by the treaties, belonged to the political
department of the government, and might either be discharged by
Congress itself or be delegated by Congress to a strictly judicial
tribunal or to a board of commissioners.
Page 184 U. S. 657
Ainsa v. New Mexico & Arizona Railroad,
175 U. S. 76,
175 U. S. 79,
and cases there cited.
The record in this case shows that the land demanded under a
grant from the Spanish authorities in 1768 had been included in
grants confirmed by acts of Congress in 1860 and 1869, and in
patents issued accordingly by the proper authorities of the United
States, and that the Court of Private Land Claims for that reason
held that it was without jurisdiction to decree and confirm the
land to the petitioners, or to order a survey thereof for that
purpose, and yet undertook to adjudge that a complete, valid, and
perfect title in fee simple had vested by the Spanish grant in the
grantees, and remained in them and their successors to the present
time.
This action of the Court of Private Land Claims is sought to be
justified by the following provisions of the Act of Congress of
March 3, 1891, c. 539, creating that court. 26 Stat. 854.
By section 1, "said court shall have and exercise jurisdiction
in the hearing and decision of private land claims, according to
the provisions of this act."
By section 6, any person or corporation claiming lands within
the limits of the territory acquired by the United States from the
Republic of New Mexico, and since within the Territories of New
Mexico, Arizona, or Utah, or the states of Nevada, Colorado, or
Wyoming, by virtue of such a Spanish or Mexican grant as the United
States are bound by the treaties of cession to recognize and
confirm,
"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 already complete and
perfect,"
to present a petition stating his case and praying that the
validity of the title or claim may be inquired into and
decided.
"And the said court is hereby authorized and required to take
and exercise jurisdiction of all cases or claims presented by
petition in conformity with the provisions of this act, and to hear
and determine the same, as in this act provided, on the petition
and proofs in case no answer or answers be filed after due notice,
or on the petition and the answer or answers of any person or
persons interested in preventing any claim from being established,
and the answer of
Page 184 U. S. 658
the attorney for the United States where he may have filed an
answer, and such testimony and proofs as may be taken,"
and to "render a final decree according to the provisions of
this act."
By section 7,
"the said court shall have full power and authority to hear and
determine all questions arising in cases before it, relative to the
title to the land the subject of such case, the extent, location,
and boundaries thereof, and other matters connected therewith fit
and proper to be heard and determined, and by a final decree to
settle and determine the question of the validity of the title and
the boundaries of the grant or claim presented for adjudication,
according to the law of nations,"
the stipulations of the treaties of 1848 and 1853,
"and the laws and ordinances of the government from which it is
alleged to have been derived, and all other questions properly
arising between the claimants or other parties in the case and the
United States, which decree shall in all cases refer to the treaty,
law, or ordinance under which such claim is confirmed or
rejected."
By section 8,
"any person or corporation claiming lands in any of the states
or territories mentioned in this act under a title derived from the
Spanish or Mexican government, that was complete and perfect at the
date when the United States acquired sovereignty therein, shall
have the right (but shall not be bound) to apply to said court in
the manner in this act provided for other cases for a confirmation
of such title, and on such application said court shall proceed to
hear, try, and determine the validity of the same and the right of
the claimant thereto, its extent, location, and boundaries, in the
same manner and with the same powers as in other eases in this act
mentioned. If in any such case a title so claimed to be perfect
shall be established and confirmed, such confirmation shall be for
so much land only as such perfect title shall be found to cover,
always excepting any part of such land that shall have been
disposed of by the United States, and always subject to and not to
affect any conflicting private interests, rights, or claims held or
claimed adversely to any such claim or title, or adversely to the
holder of any such claim or title. And no confirmation of claims or
titles in this section mentioned shall have any effect
Page 184 U. S. 659
other or further than as a release of all claim of title by the
United States, and no private right of any person as between
himself and other claimants or persons, in respect of any such
lands, shall be in any manner affected thereby."
But all the powers so conferred upon the Court of Private Land
Claims are subject to and controlled by section 13, which enacts
that
"all the foregoing proceedings and rights shall be conducted and
decided subject to the following provisions, as well as to the
other provisions of this act, namely. . . ."
Then follow several provisions, the fourth of which is: "No
claim shall be allowed for any land, the right to which has
hitherto been lawfully acted upon and decided by Congress, or under
its authority."
The language of this provision appears to us too clear to be
misunderstood or evaded. The manifest intent of Congress appears to
have been that with any land, of the right to which Congress, in
the exercise of its lawful discretion, had itself assumed the
decision, the Court of Private Land Claims should have nothing to
do. The whole jurisdiction conferred upon that court is to confirm
or reject claims presented to it, coming within the act. All the
powers conferred upon it are incident to the exercise of that
jurisdiction. When it has no jurisdiction to confirm or reject, it
has no authority to inquire into or pass upon the case beyond the
decision of the question of jurisdiction. The peremptory
declaration of Congress that "no claim shall be allowed for any
land, the right to which has hitherto been lawfully acted upon and
decided by Congress" necessarily prohibits the court from passing
upon the merits of any such claim.
In
United States v. Conway, 175 U. S.
60, it was accordingly declared by this Court that the
Court of Private Land Claims had no authority to confirm such a
claim, and it necessarily follows that it has no authority to
express any opinion upon the merits of it when the right to all the
land claimed has already been decided by Congress.
Las Animas
Co. v. United States, 179 U. S. 201.
Confusion, rather than certainty, would result from allowing the
expression of an opinion to stand, which could not be made the
basis of any effectual judgment.
Page 184 U. S. 660
The Court of Private Land Claims having discovered that, by the
express prohibition of Congress, it was without jurisdiction to
decree and confirm the land to the petitioner, the merits of the
case cannot be decided, either by that court or by this Court on
appeal, and the decree below, which undertook to pass upon the
merits, must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded with
directions to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction,
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to assert his
title in any court of competent authority.
United
States v. Roselius, 15 How. 36,
56
U. S. 38.
Decree reversed accordingly.
