Opinion of the Court.

ceeded as successor of the King of Spain and the government of Mexico."

"So, also,” said the court, "it may well be supposed that it was upon this aspect of the imperfect nature of right in land claimed by towns in territory formerly owned by Spain and Mexico, and the long established construction of such rights evidenced by the foregoing acts of Congress, which caused this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Field, in Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363, 373, to say: 'Even after the assignment the interest acquired by the pueblo was far from being an indefeasible estate such as is known to our laws. The purposes to be accomplished by the creation of pueblos did not require their possession of the fee. The interest amounted to little more than a restricted and qualified right to alienate portions of the land to its inhabitants for building or cultivation, and to use the remainder for commons, for pasture lands or as a source of revenue, or for other public purposes. And this limited right of disposition and use was in all particulars subject to the control of the government of the country.""

Although the particular question arising in the foregoing case was whether the Spanish law, proprio vigore, conferred upon every Spanish villa or town a grant of four square leagues of land, yet its disposition involved the same considerations. as those presented on this record, and we regard its reasoning and conclusions as decisive here.

Under the laws of the Indies, lands not actually allotted to settlers remained the property of the King, to be disposed of by him or by those on whom he might confer that power. As Mr. Hall says (chap. VII, § 122): "The fee of the lands. embraced within the limits of pueblos continued to remain in the sovereign, and never in the pueblo as a corporate body." Subsequent decrees, orders and laws did not change the principle.

Towns were established in two ways: By their formation by empresarios or contractors, the title to the lands granted vesting in the contractors and settlers, minute provisions being made in relation thereto: By individuals associating themselves

Syllabus.

together for that purpose and applying to the governor of the province, through whose action a city, villa or place was established. These municipalities appear to have been quasi corporations, corporations sub modo, and their ayuntamientos exercised political control over the pueblos and over surrounding country attached to their jurisdiction. The alcalde made allotments subject to the orders of the ayuntamiento, and they again were apparently subject to the provincial deputation or an equivalent superior body. At all events, unallotted lands were subject to the disposition of the government.

At the date of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, neither these settlers nor this town could have demanded the legal title to such lands of the former government, and the Court of Private Land Claims was not empowered to pass the title to either. It is for the political department to deal with the equitable rights involved.

The result is that the decree in Morton v. United States is affirmed, and the decree in United States v. Sandoval and others is reversed, and the cause remanded that a decree may be entered in conformity with this opinion; and it is so ordered accordingly.

RIO ARRIBA LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS.

No. 195. Argued March 9, 10, 1897. Decided May 24, 1897.

In the grant which forms the subject of controversy in this case, the Spanish governor did not intend to grant nearly 500,000 acres to the applicants, in common, and the alcalde did not so understand it, but delivered juridical possession only of the various allotments made to petitioners in severalty.

United States v. Sandoval, 167 U. S. 278 followed, that, as to all such unallotted lands within exterior boundaries, where towns or communities were sought to be formed, the title remained in the Government for such disposition as it might see proper to make.

Statement of the Case.

The fact that Congress may have confirmed similar grants cannot operate to justify the Court of Private Land Claims in adjudication of a case not coming within the terms of the law of its creation.

THIS was a petition by the Rio Arriba Land and Cattle Company filed in the Court of Private Land Claims for the confirmation of what was commonly called the Cañon de Chama Grant, situated in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, and alleged to contain 472,763.95 acres.

It appeared that in 1806 a petition was addressed to the governor of the Territory, Alencaster, as follows:

"I, Francisco Salazar, ensign in the militia of Abiquiu, together with my brothers (hermanos) and twenty-eight other poor and needy citizens, appear before your excellency (and state), that I have examined a tract of land, unappropriated and unsettled, called the Chama River Cañon, situated about four leagues distant from this place, and for which we petition to your excellency in the name of the King and without injury to any third party, as we find ourselves without any land wherefrom to support ourselves, owing to the decease of our mother at the rancho off of which she supported us, and as the latter has this day been divided among nine heirs residing in other jurisdictions we find ourselves absolutely deprived of any place to plant and to enable us to pay tithes and first fruits.

"We therefore humbly ask and pray your excellency to heed this our petition, and we trust from the charitable heart of your excellency you will consider the same favorably, and we protest our petition not to be made in dissimulation and whatever be necessary, etc."

This petition was referred, July 6, 1806, by the governor to the alcalde in these words:

"The alcalde will report fully on this petition, giving the extent of the land in question, its boundaries, the proportion of irrigable land, and when he comes to say how many settlers it will accommodate and the application being made public he will report whether any damage may result to any of the surrounding settlers, either in regard to pasturage, water or watering places, and he will make personal examination re

Statement of the Case.

specting all these matters, to the end that action may be had in accordance with his report and subsequent questions avoided."

On July 14, 1806, the alcalde made the following report: "I, Manuel Garcia de la Mora, chief alcalde, in obedience to the foregoing decree, proceeded personally to visit and examine the spot (rio) called the Chama River cañon, over all of which I passed with the greatest care and observation, as well the land itself as the places for taking out the heads of irrigating canals and the pastures and watering places, and I report that for pastures without fields and without any resulting damage there is one league from the last grant (that of the Martinezes) to the side on which the sun rises, and that thence to the western boundary, which divides the said Chama River cañon from the Gallina River, there are about two leagues, somewhat more or less, cultivable land, and the town being placed in the centre, the thirty-one families applying for it may be accommodated and land enough remain for the increase they may have in the way of children and sons in law (hijos y llernos), and the section of the country is a very desirable one, and the settlers may therefore proceed with their buildings, and for the other two boundaries there is assigned them on the north and on the south one league for pastures, for on these two sides no injury can result, as there is neither a settlement or grant now made or that might be made, and the heads of acequias along the length of the planting land there are five or six of them.

"With all the foregoing I have fulfilled your excellency's order. The same having been read faithfully and quite audibly to all the community, they replied that they had nothing to represent in regard to said petition, and that no one of them was injured, the land being uncultivated and unsettled, and the said cañon is distant from Abiquiu about five leagues." On August 1, 1806, Governor Alencaster decreed: "In pursuance of the foregoing report, that the said alcalde may proceed to the assignment of twenty-six lots of land capable of being planted with the equivalent of three cuartillas of wheat, one ditto or three almudes of corn, another three of beans, and of having erected on each of them a small house

Statement of the Case.

with a garden, and of these lots two of them adjoining one another will be assigned to the Ensign Francisco Salazar and the remaining twenty-four to the individuals who, upon report made by the said alcalde, may obtain my decree that they be assigned lands, the said assignments to be made in such manner that lands may remain unassigned equally on the four sides, or at least on two of them, so that new assignments may be made in the future, and the lines bounding with the adjoining lands to be described in order that the rights to pastures and watering places may clearly appear; to the said parcel of lots held by the twenty-five settlers will be given the name 'San Joaquin del Rio de Chama"; and the said alcalde, having received the said twenty-four titles to settlers, will proceed to deliver and distribute, give possession, and make grant, in the name of His Majesty, to the twenty-four settlers aforesaid, and the said Ensign Salazar, being appointed justice and all the foregoing provisions being verified, the granting document will be remitted to me to be legalized as required, the proper duplicates (testimonios) to be given the parties interested and then the original to be returned, to be duly deposited among the archives of this office."

On March 1, 1808, the alcalde made this report:

"I, Manuel Garcia de la Mora, chief alcalde of the town of La Canada, proceeded to the rancho of San Joaquin, and in view of and in obedience to the foregoing decree of Lieutenant Colonel Joaquin del Real Alencaster, governor of this royal province, I, said chief alcalde, proceeded to the Chama River cañon, called the San Joaquin cañon, accompanied by the twenty-five settlers; and there appearing also fourteen other citizens without land, and his excellency having given me verbal instructions to the effect that should other persons come forward to increase the settlement land should also be assigned to them with the same rights as the others enjoy, and all the settlers being assembled, I proceeded with the distribution of the land to them, as appears from the quantities of land they received, noted in the list and certified by me, and into the possession of which I placed them, taking them by the hand and leading each settler over his own piece