*1 JANUARY TERM Appellants la v. Don Fernando de
The United States, Appellees. and Maza Arredondo others, for land at Alachua king of F. M. Arredondo and of the Spain son, according to claimants under the gafe valid title to these Florida, 1819, of the States and the of between United the Spain stipulations treaty States, and of of the United nations, laws of Spain. of the of relative of lands 1819, Construction with Spain adjust- and of congress, of the several acts for the Florida; of territory passed claims to ment of land within private territory. of THIS an from the court the eastern superior was appeal district of Florida.
On 11th of Fernando la Maza day November de son, others, Arredondo filed their peti- grantees, Florida, district of tion the eastern superior of the sixth sec- States, against provision 23, 1828, tion an act entitled passed May congress act to the several acts for the supplementary settle- providing ment and confirmation of land claims in Florida.” private
The' title stated, that the claimed petitioners petition an. land, two hundred containing undivided eighty- parcel acres, six hundred and situated in forty-five thousand nine Alachua, eastern county Florida, district about Johns, thirty-six miles west of the river St and about fifty-two miles extends west of St land city Augustine; in a four rectilinear the east compass leagues point thereof, Alachua, called centre place figure, taking Indians, a tribe Seminole but subse- inhabited by formerly said land was tract of abandoned them: quently with formalities all the granted government, cases, solemnities petitioners, such used by 22d said day December grant.having Cuba, Don Alexander Havana, at island executed Ramirez, intendant of the army, superintendent general, Cuba, island -the exchequer royal subdelegate and appro- the advice two &c. Floridas, &c. Floridas, two bation surveyor.general traiis- A- fiscal, attorney minister general. of Spain’s king SUPREME COURT. v. Arredondo and other lation of annexed to proceedings as'follows: petition
,Don Ramirez, Alexander intendant of army, sub- *2 of the superintendent domain delegate royal of the general island of Cuba and two the the Floridas,.president of tribunal of tithes, of accounts and of the board of the superintendent crusades, of of the department particular vessels judge putting weather, of in of by stress lot- port protector royal the tery, chief and of the of inspector superior royal factory &c. segars,
Whereas Don Fernando de la Maza Son, Arredondo and of merchants to presented memorial this in- city, this 12th of of the November tendancy general’and subdelegate, last, in obtain, as a which they, pretend gratuitous grant, lot-of land in East where Florida, established, they their, still remains and.where the of family, and a greater part of deal to form property, offering establishment. great in known under name of Alachua, the territory the of the cattle and culture of adapted growing provisions; said establishment be. of two composed hundred families, are to at their they costs, which own convey other proposing result, not which will favour of the advantages other established, and of residents St already inhabitants the of сity but also in favour of the Creek Seminole In- Augustine, on of the borders dians living country, provided ob- they in absolute the said property tain limited to four leagues of the every compass, of land t© the point fixing central the tract of Alachua. indicated And thereof the point said of decree the my instant, 12th passed by memorial having of Don Vincente infantry, captain Sebastian'Pintado, sur- Floridas, for information, his two veyor general the 15th of same month, with all the he gave necessary solid de .onstrate reasons information make the convenience utility providing known in- said without province, population expense to crease offers of and of treasury, rpyal accepting interested on account of the importance undertaking, parties, considerable -which disbursements will they have to thereof, make to the same into In carry effect. consequence by a decree the same day, was communicated subject TERM
JANUARY v. Arredondo and others.] his who, in domain, representa- royal fiscal auditor con- disposition 17th, sovereign founded on tions in those possessions his increase population cerning Arredondo Maza the pretensions majesty, supported solicit land which they Son, his order consent in gave Wherefore, the terms propose. to them in granted act which follows: provided the day yesterday, Of 3d-of order royal September, Seen. In virtue me .of tlie which, superintendent appointing year, me, in express terms, commands Floridas, his majesty two in those provinces by for the increase population provide dictate, and zeal with may which my prudence means every fiscal, lordship report his concurrence and. tract the said called province, surveyor general Florida, Alachua, in declared East belong royal (cid:127) whereof, In attention of domain. the no- consequence to the known and other torious and fidelity, capital integrity *3 and Fernando la Maza Arredondo of Don de qualities good solicit which they I to said Son, the part them grant the. domain, in to the royal tract to-the conformity belonging matter, with on this and the precise sovereign dispositions condition to to establish which themselves thereon they obligate to be with two all the families, Spanish, which ought hundred for, and others which are which will be requisites provided in this of the said superintendency, provided by royal virtue order; the said to to be establishment carried into effect begin in farthest, the term at without which this of three years, also understood void; will null to be be and said and a third party, especially without prejudice Indians, land, returned, who may or may natives of to make there their this Let return, plantations. pretend mentioned, in expedient above surveyor general pass order he make the that may corresponding plot, conformity information, his and of four thev extent leagues granted wind' a rectilineal with all every perspicuity, possible figure, done, and let avoid future doubts which litigations; being .executed, be with same annexed title in form plot with thereto, of which remain in the will expedient, a copy said three to commence that the allowed provision ye&rs are the establishment of families to run and be counted from SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo others.^ date; and that, on the first families' prepared being disposed, it, will with a grantees notice give together list of the individuals, and made of the mention which places are natives, of their in order that the orders occupation, and instructions which the and the government superinten- dency the royal domain in East Florida see fit to may give, issued, and in order that an whole given .account in proper time to his majesty. formed figurative plan afore surveyor general said presented, which, being continua- explanation tionj he gave demarcation, survey it results that the tract of land is iri East Florida, miles, more fifty-two situated less, distant west St from the and about city Augustine, miles west the western of the river St thirty-six of. margin John’s; lands, bounded on side place vacant every known the name centre, of Alachua towards being which place inhabited Seminole formerly by a-tribe nation, it; abandoned to the dimensions and form which were the tract in said and the plot, given that, annexed to it is report it, as the used in specified leagues miles, three province equal each English containing one thousand seven hundred and sixty yards chains eighty Gunter, two contains hundred and space eighty- granted acres, six thousand hundred and forty-five English nine acre, five-sevenths of an to three hundred equal forty-two thousand two hundred and fifty arpents, one-seventh Florida, measure used West for an arpent, counting acre one hundred and and sixteen English sixty perches feet, half to a measure, London lineal as used in the perch time of the British since our tolerated dominion, gov Wherefore, ernment. of the faculties the exercise *4 lord, been conferred our have whom me king may I do God preserve, royal-name, his grant, gratuitously, said Don de Son, Férnando la Maza Arredondo and stated, of of number acres as land the limits, above courses, distances, out pointed figurative plot, of will title, annexed this order that copy may own possess same as their it as enjoy property, the exclusive owners terms thereof, my in the exposed decree in it inserted
JANUARY TERM 1832. v. Arredondo and whereof, I ordered execution testimony In seal and sealed with the me, royal before used in title, signed of war, Don office, commissary countersigned my of this Garambot,his secretary intendancy majesty’s Redro in the Given general. of the superintendency subdelegate Havana, on 22d December Alexándro Ramirez.
[l. s.] Carambot. Peter has title been taken and
An account preceding regis- in the book tered in the for purpose secretary’s- prepared Havana, office under date my above. charge.
Carambot. aby
This been authorised royal alleged other of -he proceedings, order of Spain,.and king to the was annexed petition. translation the following Arrocha, de honorary Don Juan Nepomuceno comptroller secretary intendancy of the army, public Rico. and that of Puerto island, finance оf this that, in with compliance I do hereby certify, decree Don month, of Francisco of this the superintendent 7th Ambari, Fernando made at Don de la Javier petition instant, 4th and filed Arredondo, of the secreta- Maza order royal exists fol- under my charge, ry’s-office tenor. lowing the letters of your majesty, understanding
His lordship 14th and 21st of and 18th October, August, 18, 28, 107, of the resolution last No. concluded past, year island,-to of that with regulate the captain ap- general finance, and to of the- royal attend branch pertains the two Floridas; and advancement protection hav- with advice himself given by supreme conformed ing in their held 11th Indies, deliberations on the council has his last, pleased approve, majesty August has been- done all which respect present, regula- branch, also administered supplies tions of said for the of Lou- the regiment board financé payment of royal for the fortifica- isiana, indispensable expenditures other and Pensacola, the cities St defence of tions and Augustine in case of necessity, your lordship, sup- authorising aictor *5 SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo and others.] [United likewise, His determined, them. has majesty, ply of the two Floridas in superintendency present, favour superintendent and, island of Cuba: lordship, your his has been to command inform lastly, majesty pleased as I do, now facilitate increase lordship, you your of those all means which population provinces, your dictate, and zeal can as soon prudence informing, possible, the motives for the Juan de absence Don Losadas Miguel Almirez,' Don Manuel Gonzalez their offices. order, All I communicate your lordship royal to. and for God your pre- thereof. intelligence compliance your serve lordship many years.
Garay. Madrid, 3d 1S17. September
To Intendant of Havana. Havana, 10th 1823. October Nepomuceno Juan be Arrocha. tern., Señor Fuertes, From Don Jose intendant pro advising command to his delivered the Señor Don Alex’o Ra- having mirez, chosen by his majesty.
Habano,- 3d July master, our to confer on having king, pleased Ramirez, commission of the Don Alexander royal Señor last of October intendant year past, 5th pests superintendent royal the army, general subdelegate order, I domain, which have exercised provisionally by royal them, taken I has this possession he advise day your information, of it for effects to and due your excellenóy of his God service May preserve excellency your majésty. many years. Fuertes. Jose be pf excellency His domain. the royal subdelegate Florida.
St Augustine, to state: that as an inducement to proceeded The petition said to F. make M. Spanish government Son, Arredondo and had' offered stipulated estab- families, in lish on the same two event said hundred and absolute land in full dominion being pro- granted to.them which offer perty; accepted government, Spanish. the families requiring should
JANUARY TERM 1832. States V. Arredondo was made absolute condition properly, subject *6 the should that establishment three grantees begin the of the year?from date That the grant. settlemеnt though the of lands was the months of Novem- begun September 1820, ber F. M. Arredondo, who was at Havana, yet ignorant fact, of the that to that time the settle- knowing previous ment had been Florida, the of East prevented state disturbed obtained'from Don time Ramirez .a of the of prolongation for settlement one a decree dated 2d December 1820. year, The petition avers the the of conditions of performance grant, ánd that certain families and were settled on Spanish subjects and after the lands before the of the time for the prolongation same, and of the time allowed article of the treaty eighth the States, the United of the 22d between Spain February 1819, continue, and that the settlements there on the being of number families and a- citizens Spanish lands the United of States, the samé. cultivating improving
The avers that the of that of petition part situation situated, Florida in which the lands are from the of beginning 1818 until were entitled that of July they the part of article of the the treaty, which provision eighth secures owners lands territories extension ' time for the During considerable' performance grants. after the war between the of time grant, United period the full the Indians prevented accomplishment for settlement of the purposes the.land; petitioners Indians, from the would attend set- danger Alachua, at land continued until tlement government means States took efficient protect the United country, the same. petitioners claimed, that troops posting causes, and from these were they state things, exempt condition as to from the grant, full performance the land. the settlement of to state, that the cession of East proceeds petition States has rendered impracti-
Florida the United wholly settle to introduce and two hundred cable for the grantees land, of the same emigration being families And insist: Spain. petitioners laws prohibited perform- been prevented have thus the original grantees that that original grantees conditions of grantj ing N VI. —4 Vol. COURT. SUPREME Arredondo States v. of all obligation discharged are thereby assigns
and their and that the lands included grant: families on settle bound failed to ratify States have United of which the in consequence Spain, with under the treaty to do to settle and improve safely not proceed could grantees land. of the petitioners claims
The petition alleges board of commiss to the examination been submitted entitled 3d March ioners, act of congress the act for ascertain an act and supplementary amending' Florida, in the territory claims and titles to lands ing public lands disposal provide survey the board .of Florida:” commissioners and the proceedings same, the lands on the annexed claimed petition —that ceded to the by the of Florida petition are within the territory 1819; Stales 22d February Spain, claims these not been decided and settled fihally *7 'the of 23d provisions.of .act congress May 1828] e< entitled an act acts several supplementary providing for the settlement and confirmation land claims in- .private Florida;” that the respective claims of contain petitioners of land than greater the commissioners quantity by acts of authorised confirm; to and that the said congress claims of the . for the petitioners lands, said not been reported by the commissioners appointed under the aforesaid any acts, other, or by the receiver, and register acting such, under the several acts of the congress the United in that case made and provided, as antedated forged. The petition that the title of the prays petitioners to land claimed them by may inquired into court, by according provisions act of the &c. congress, To this petition answer and supplemental answer were filed attorney the United States for the district Florida, East at term May 1829, and subsequently. The answer requires that the petitioners shall make due that proof tract of land claimed petitioners' was granted by the Spanish to government Fdrnando de la Maza Arredondo and Son, with formalities and solemnities all ufcedin such cases; and that-the petitioners held by regular legal conveyances under the said grant;
JANUARY TERM 1832. States v. Arredondo and others.] would said require due petitioners proof, to law and the of courts of usages equity, and exe- making cution of the said deecfs and grant, conveyances, matters and therein things contained, the said bill thereof and set forth. alleged The answer avers if executed, was grant alleged in the petition, that then Don Ramirez the Alexander intend- ant, &c. exceeded the powers conferred on him. the crown
of Spain; that no had been .power conferred upon iqtendant to make land in Florida-of the magni-' tude and description the one and described in the claimed such, petition; and if was made the intendant, it was made to, and in contrary of, violation laws, ordinances, royal regulations government Spain,. providing for the land in its granting-of provinces, and was never ap- proved without king Spain; whose it was approval null and wholly void. And that if it was so made Fernando, Spanish the said government de la Maza Arre- dondo Son, at the time and manner and form as the was petitioners alleged, precise obliga- tion, and condition of their express themselves to binding there, wit, establish land, the said tract of two hundred which were families, requisites pointed them, and the others which were out pointed out to them, onwit, their superintendency,-&c. beginning establishment on the said tract land within three years, most, from the daté of said at said without which condition be considered null void: la Son accepted, said Maza Arredondo Fernando de de la That the Fernando Maza perform. said engaged *8 not said did commence their establishment and Son Arredondo and three years; they tract land within said on the said families, two Spanish land hundred have not established failed so to wholly their but have engagement, have farther, obligation and not do: that the said condition and said Fernando .the either fulfilled, by and been with complied or other person Son, any or by lade Arredondo and Maza far so .behalf, the said petitioners; their nor. persons Son, and it, la. Maza Arredondo that said "the de Fernando been to hаve after the time is supposed when the grant, said COURT. SUPREME and others ] v. States Arredondo manner complied in any and without aforesaid, having from the family thereof, removed the condition with Cuba, then and still the island Florida to of East province wit, after the crown Spain; one dependencies said United of the said transfer province the cession and of land. tract the said States, totally and did abandon then and And if the said was made as alleged, grant condition of the said mentioned, the condition performance trust and confidence matter of reposed special de la'Maza in the said Fernando said government Son, and Arredondo been delegated could them to other and that the sale any person persons; land, thereof, to of said tract of or of parts conveyance la Arredondo said the said Fernando de Maza petitioners, without Son, manner and form as is bill in said alleged; condition, first the sái'd was a having performed violation trust confidence so in them afore- special reposed said, the said such was any and rendered ever grant made), (if null Florida, then force in East entirely laws void.
The answer denies that Fernando de la Maza Arredondo Son were from a with and compliance perform- prevented such ance by any supposed condition said causes, as in the bill of complaint, by petitioners, áre ex- forth, at time set or that such difficulties any alleged isted relation to as is the settlement charged making have, that it avers would petition; perfectly exertion, to due proceed- with reasonable practicable, two., - ed with the establishment and location hundred on the said after land, families tract of at time any period that no made; cir- when have been alleged existed, have at any cumstances time sinee period and Son, haVe entitled could Fernando de la Maza Arredondo the benefit of article of petitioners, eighth mentioned; that, the bill of if complaint any par- entitled, were thus all Ofthem wholly ties ever each and failed said condition comply during extension that, time if and', farther, said such treaty; given intendant, of further time was &c. the said given Fernando Son, de la Maza Arredondo and performance
JANUARY TERM States v. and [United others.] Arredondo of the said as is mentioned in the said such obligation, petition, null and was rendered void latter clause of the said grant article of aforementioned and that if treaty: it had not eighth null and void, been thus rendered the said Fernando de la Maza Son, and Arredondo and all persons interest in claiming any them, the said failed land to avail through entirely themselves intended benefit been conferred have thereby. are, answer that said denies petitioners circum- stated, stances thereunto and forth, them set or alleged, whatever, other circumstances absolved from any the per- formance and fulfilment of the said condition and obligation; them, or either of are entitled to they, hold the said land, thereof, traet of said any part discharged from said, avers, condition or that, farther if the obligation: Fernando made de la Maza Arredondo and Son manner and form as is stated the petition (which made, it was understood admitted), expressly be, without to a third person, without prejudice especially of that soil, the" Indians who prejudice native then might returned, have return, or who wish to to establish them- might and, time selves there that after the when the again; aforesaid, been made as such of the native alleged absent, or them, Indians of as were then some of that soil did of.thom, return, and, with others who were together already there, wished did to and establish themselves the said tract of land.
And the answer avers that the and title to the right said was, tract of to, land and at when previous time the grarit made, to have been petitioners alleged the. vested in Indians, who, tribes of had, Florida previously then did thereto, claim title the same in their custom occupy manner, ary as their circumstances that the required; native Indians formed a the Florida and, part tribes: far , ther, that the title, claim, occupancy aforesaid Indians, constituted the real obstacle (if existed) hundred location settlement two fami lies on 1lie tract of said land; claim, title, occupancy of the Indians matter vva3a public notoriety, and could not have been to Fernando de la Maza unknown Arredondo and Son, at the grant-is time when alleged SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo and aforesaid. And answer farther says, *10 said and title of the said
that the claim Indians to the said tract of land was not until 18th of extinguished day September in the of our Lord 1833. year laws, ordinances, submits
The answer that by royal and of the of which in force government Spain, regulations óf East Florida the time when the in the at said province grant t to made, been i was that provided the distri alleged of lands be and without bution should made with ..equity, any. Indians;' or to the of preference persons, distinction injury that was therein and and thereby especially provided and commanded, lands to that the which might granted Spanish- Indians, to the be without that should subjects prejudice and to of the Indians should restored those granted injury to their owners. rightful la avers, answer further that Fernando de Maza Arre- were,
dondo and. son at the when time grant alleged aforesaid, are, been and still and made as Spaniards, ana of the that the Spain, grant subjects government land made, such was is in said any tract ever as (if petition la de Maza son Fernando Arredondo and stated) was of the tribes of thé and Florida Indians. injury prejudice United States claim title state The answer proceeds article said land tract of virtue second “of limits, settlement and the United treaty amity, between made, catholic was concluded States his which majesty, at the city between plenipotentiaries, Washing- signed, ton, our February, year twenty-second day nineteen, and which was one Lord thousand eight.hundred the same ratified and confirmed president by. accepted, consent States, and with the advice and in the February thereof, oh .twenty-second day senate and twenty-one, hundred one of our thousand Lord eight year States, said Unitеd his catholic majesty ceded then the territories and sovereignty, in full property of the Mississippi, eastward him, situated to (cid:127)belonged Florida, in which and West the name East known also, and, virtue situate; Florida said tract of land East rati- accepted, was mentioned, which first above with aforesaid, by fied and confirmed president Í832. TERM JANUARY v. Arredondo . aforesaid, on the second and consent the senate day
advice one thousand of our Lord hun- January, year eight and twenty-four. dred if such answer supplemental grant avers Ramirez, Don Alexander
further time Was intend- given by Maza ant, aforesaid, Fernando de la Arredondo &c., as the conditions of said son, supposed to perform to new further time equivalent to, and was made lands, the said and that it viola- contrary laws, of, tion ordinances royal regulations, on the of the said Don without any power authority part &c., aforesaid, Ramirez, intendant, Alexander to make Ramirez, it; that, if the intendant, said Don Alexander aforesaid, .had invested the said &c., Spanish gov- make ernment competent authority power *11 in Florida and of the of land of the description magnitude aforesaid, and one claimed described the by petitioners said of the of far- or bill said petition complaint, grant time ther aforesaid was made since 24th of January day 1818, as of appears by themselves, the-petitioners showing and was and is rendered null and void wholly by provisions latter clause article the treaty. And, eighth if the said as that,- any such lands was made aforesaid, grant Fernando the said de la Maza Arredondo and' son wrongfully to the said as represented Ramirez, intendant, &c., Alexander aforesaid, in order it, to obtain that said lands had been abandoned the said Indians and were And that it vacant.
inwas false, fraudulent and consequence the said wrongful representations said Fernando de la Maza Arredondo son, he, and that said Don Ramirez, intendant, Alexander as&c., aforesaid,' declared said lands to crown lands, and them granted de la Maza said Fernando Arredondo son; ivhereas, truth, fact, and and in said were lands vacant, nor Indians, abandoned the said but'that on the the said contrary, been, were, had constantly and still Indians of the said possessed lands, at said the date supposed and that they had same, and continually occupied had never left the lands, said were aby unless driven off they and superior force, lawless and, then temporarily: therefore, if the said made, was as is in the said grant alleged pe- SUPREME COURT. v. Arredondo and ethers.] bill tition the said Don Alexander complaint, Rami invested, intendant, &e., aforesaid,
rez, as had been was aforesaid, Spanish government competent power same, make the was authority sur fraudulently obtained, the said Don by imposing Alexander reptitiously &c., aforesaid, a false Ramirez, intend.ant, representation and, as it have been cancelled facts; might king so it now be cancelled on that ground, might Spain of the United States: that court authority sovereign cannot, with the consistently principles equity govern wjiich tribunal, lend its aid effect to obtаined to-give that grant And the answer misrepresentation. prays fraud show and bemay required prove, hearing petitioners which had been cause, the power specific authority such had any conferred)by,the Span been power conferred (if Ramirez, the said in ish Don Alexander government, aforesaid, at the &c., time when the said,,supposed tendant, aforesaid, made as make grants alleged grant Florida, and, particularly, may in East of land which to show and prove power specific required lands, to act in said making supposed he claimed further for the said time performance also evpr indeed, conditions; such if, the aforesaid admitted. him, is not answer answer To the supplemental and the put States, replication: petitioners general in to a proceeded hearing. was case regularly 1830 decree favour 1st of November given On the the United States decree ap- petitioners; this court. pealed *12 below,. on the adduced the court of part The evidence of the consisted testimony proceedings petitioners, .States, of the commissioners the United before given for their consideration according pro- claim presented and of act of additional of the documentary visions congress; was also Testimony given part oral evidence. in the answer, to sustain allegations United contained.' matters therein The to the several applicable in- exhibited in are not so evidence the matters particulars court, a3 of the' the opinion serted the report; TERM 1832. JANUARY v. States Arredondo and Mr Justice state Thompson, fully opinion dissenting case, of the which were as established by considered facts evidence. Wirt,
The case was Call and Mr with whom by Mr argued also was Mr for United States: Taney, attorney-general, Berrien, Mr and Mr also Mr by White with whom was Webster, for the appellees.
The counsel contended, United decree the. .States of the the eastern district of Florida should be superior reversed, dismissed, and-the on the petition following grounds:
1. shown, has not what he was petitioner bound show of Alexander Ramirez to affirmatively, authority make the decree the court ha3 which confirmed. grant '2. of the The intendant Cuba was riot Island authorized to make the it was question; grant violation ordinances and laws and royal regulations govern- ment of Spain. was,
3. at the The land in time of the controversy grant, within the Indian established boundary government Great Floridas, Britain during occupancy and subse- quently acknowledged by and was government Spain; therefore not disposed offi- subject subordinate cers the crown. sake
4. for the of argument, that the Conceding, intendant make the had the grant, power sovereign powe.r alone with the conditions it; could annexed to and no dispense such has been power delegated judiciary. failed grantees perform condition of the them commence the required establishment of
the two hundred families on the three land, within from the date of years the grant.
6. The grantees have complied conditions the. which required them to settle two hundred Spanish families on the land.
7. The for the time of the con- prolongation performance ditions the,said intendant given after ratification of the ceded treaty,, by king Spain', Florida to the States; and is for the void consequently (cid:127) want of authority.
Vol. VI.—4 C *13 COURT. SUPREME others.] v. Arredondo and decree, as the referred laws
8.‘ treaty it. do not justify grant, confirmation of grounds were insisted upon: points For the following appellees, n his catho- of the treaty, 1. terms By authorities, valid. are to remain his lawful lic majesty, court, are: consideration of for the The only questions The lawfulness of the 2d. grant. The' 1st. genuineness which was issued. authority founded, is a decree, which this 2. The on grant judicial tribunals of act, which be drawn into question cannot the United States. ca- of his authority issued lawful 3. A grant genuine of fraud can on ground
tholic be impeached majesty, .the it. obtaining 4. This was within scope expressly powers (cid:127) n given by the laws of the it, officer making Indies. order
5. It was of the royal authorized by specifically 3d 1817. Sept. There lands,
6. no Indian was title to these at the existing which date rendered invalid. could The condition annexed to the has been performed. 7. It it. has been the act of the (cid:127)8. party discharged imposing Mr Justice delivered of the Court. opinion Baldwin is an from the decree of of the supe- This appeal judge of Florida. the eastern district territory rior for States, After the the United Florida by acquisition virtue the 22d of February Spain, acts of for various were congress pri- passed adjustment claims to land within tribunals vate ceded territory. them, to settle decide on were ndt any' authorised appointed those square; exceeding quan- league exceeded their tity, opinion were directed they especially report the future The lands embraced action congress. returned; claims, surveys defined by plats larger until, sale, vveréreserved from and remained unsettled some resolution should be for a final adopted adjudication law was validity, done passage JANUARY TERM 1832. v. Arredondo and
[Ünited Stales the sixth section it the 23d May By pamph. *14 land within the of “that claims to territory provided, Florida, shall not be embraced the which finally treaty, by under, decided and of the same settled the previous provisions law, commis a of land than the containing quantity greater con the amount decide, sioners were authorised to and above as ante act, firmed -not been the which by reported or the dated be received and shall adjudicated by forged, judge of lies, the which the land court of the district within superior rules, the claimant, forms, of the petition according and limitations conditions, regulations, prescribed restrictions to Missouri, the of district the act by claimants judge, the by 26th a all claims annulled 1824.” proviso, May By commissioners, the to the and all not presented claims treaty, excluded, &c. acts-of congress, (a) section lines in the sixth (a) a to and fourteenth reference the thirteenth By “ according 62, reads, edition, of'this page in the law, pamphlet as.printed judge and in the claimants stаte the the distiict forms, to &c. rules, prescribed by congress,” of To- have taken this Missouri, &c. act &c. expression lite- by court of to the rules would have confined the prescribed superior rally, Florida acts con- Missouri, court judge claimants; district by by judge to no and it gress rules, 1824. That act authorised the was prescribe themselves should them. it meant the claimants prescribe absurd suppose to meaning of the consider the evident law could but therefore, The not. court, “ so stated in tire and wa3 the law opinion, &c. rules,” itself, prescribed by and there no than had been was delivered one sooner expected, which was day an error in the I examined revision'. Satisfied that there was time for printing, original roll in the and found the mistake; the" state, department yesterday, as it to, had been ori- word inserted in the instead printed by law, “ so the district ginal judge roll: that the law rules, &c. prescribed reads, bearing of this congress.” claimants the act The word important by decision, has made insertion of the court and the rules of of this power at a distance from the note useful in courts seat of. necessary, may government following law, correct of this section of the to have a copy paper March 1832. Per Mr Baldwin. directed'to be 20th Justice appended; I act following of an true the sixth section con- that the copy certify “ gress, entitled an act seve- 1828, the 23d of supplementary approved May land -claims ral acts and confirmation of providing for the settlement private viz. Florida;” within 6. land Sec. And be it further that all claims to enacted, territory United States, Florida, embraced between Spain settled under 22d shall not be decided and February finally 1819, which land ot than containing greater foregoing of this act, quantity provisions the amount and-above decide, commissioners were authorised confirmed forged, said com. this been as antedated which have not act, and reported adjudi- ami acting be received register missioners, shall such, receiver aqd COURT. SUPREME States v. Arredondo others.} section seventh the claim- provided an appeal by ants, ninth, and the the United States to court: adjudication superior judge having conies us States, rendered case against before them. appeal by to, law thus forms referred of that-of this court part furnishes rules to hear must be guided assuming exercising jurisdiction This law was determine claim passed controversy. to enable of Missouri and claimants lands the limits within Arkansas, to institute of their try validity proceedings claims tó land consummation of the cession prior the Louisiana territory acquired by treaty; United States by and enacted, that or their any person, legal representative, lands virtue of claiming French or con- Spanish grant, *15 cession, warrant, made, or order of survey, granted legally issued, before the dale of the the 10th March by proper authorities, to resident in at dale any the the persons province thereof, which was and secured the and protected treaty, by which have been title, into a might perfected complete and In to lаws, the conformity and customs of the usages gov- ernment under which the same had not the sove- originated, States, may transferred to the United reignty his present the petition to district court, forth the nature of his setting claim, the date of the and and boundary, by quantity issued, whom and whether the claim been submitted to had and tribunal, them) how; on and reported any by praying judge cated the by lies, court the land the district within which of superior the regulations, petition con- according claimant, forms, to the rules, ditions, and restrictions, claimants limitations to district and the judge prescribed in the state of Missouri, act congress, of entitled .approved May'2.0th, ‘ enabling the an act claimants to the state of land the limits of Missouri within of of proceedings the Arkansas, institute territory validity try nothing claims:’ Provided, in this shall be construed authorise section judges cognizance said to take or the of annulled the said claim, any ratifying decree the' same claim not king of nor Spain; presented any register commissioners or several atts receiver, fn conformity congress providing for the in Florida.” land claims settlement private with compared roil’in this office. Faithfully Washington, this hand, my Witness at the department state, in city March 1832. 20th day C. C. (Signed) Brent, Daniel TERM
JANUARY Slates v. Arredondo and others.] be claim into inquired may their title validity is authorised The court required the court. decided petition presented to hold every exerci,se.jurisdiction and-de- aforesaid, and to hear with the conformity provisions filed on in case no answer termine same the petition,' the answer of notice; per- or. any after due petition established, son interested in claim being preventing and according conformity principles justice, under which the laws and ordinances government 1959, 1960, S. sec. claim U. 1.) Laws originated. Story’s (3 reference A presented claimants petition mat base, of all the shows that it contains full statement a law, Missouri ters the first except section required by residence, not required by condition ing It claim for land Record, of 1828. to 22. presents act settled; con Florida, not finally embraced by treaty, ante land, not reported.on requisite quantity taining to and1 treaty, presented not annulled dated forged, to law. according superior' acted commissioners had hear of Florida then petition jurisdiction same, principles justice and determine -the case is now of Spain; the laws and ordinances decree. from their an us on appeal regularly before a cause is determine jurisdiction; to hear and The power s case whenever presented brings coram judice,” i states if such action; into case in petitioner this power would render the court that on a demurrer judg his petition favour, case undoubted in his jurisdiction, ment issue alle putting on an answer denying whether *16 case, -makes his out is the of the petitioner petition, gations conferred of a petition exercise filing jurisdiction of and -in the manner all the requisites prescribed containing law. accord- conducted on the
The proceedings petition on of that the answеr behalf equity, except the rules ing on verified oath. —Sec. States need not be the United rules are meant these This often decided court has of the and established usages principles well settled and decisions, in as adópted court chancery, recognized here, on provisions acted under have been which SUPREME COURT. States v. [United- Arredondo and others.] constitution and the acts of In with the conformity congress. and the principles then, rules the court justice equity, directed to decide all cause, in the a questions arising decree, final to settle determine question validity title, to the law nations, stipulations same, any under the the several treaty proceedings thereto, acts in relation and the ordi- congress laws and nances it is de- government which to be alleged rived, which other arise- questions may properly between United?States, the claimants and the which decree shall, eases, refer to law treaty, or under ordinance .all which it is confirmed or decreed As these are against. decision, of our and this is the first final basis adjudication laws, those wé think declare the sense necessary which we think as their intended well by congress, to the rules of construction plain import, legal agreeably court, or' those which form adopted by principle law. It common to define what was meant necessary the Lw nations. by referring this, The numerous cases which adjudged courts, in the circuit make it to refer wholly unnecessary it has the sources been -extracted. By from-.which stipu lations of are to be understood its treaty appa language instrument, intention rent manifested in the a reference matter, oh contracting parties, subject persons tois The laws which we now operate. whom under adju instructions, in the dication the embraced and its treaty, rights and direct to do it authorise us judicially, give judicial as a on the meaning principles contract interpretation and the rules of justice When-the construction of this equity. under the consideration of the court case v. Nelson, and Elam 254, 99; Foster it was under Pet. very . different circumstances. The claimed title plaintiff controversy prior treaty, land article; he was confirmed he alleged eighth his without act congress stood author simply right, suit, on the ising conferring any extraordinary first was decisive of the question powers. plain tiff’s was whether the contest were with lands pretensions 1803, within Louisiana, boundaries ceded in *17 TERM 711 JANUARY 1832. v. Arredondo others.]
[United between the boundary in 1819. Florida, two as ceded for years subject had many controversy been territories the American Spanish govern between and negotiation Louisiana, eastward of extended ments, the one claiming did Perdido; the other that it not extend' Mississippi of Orleans, the island of the river on that side beyond .alleged To the Iberville. from West Florida by do be separated would have adopting decided favour plaintiff Louisiana treaty construction of the opposition course which pretensions government, exercised govern had possession powers taken between the- and the Per- ment territory Mississippi over dido. settlement, boundaries a deem the This court did not judi lead, it was not'its cial but political question duty, —that of the other action but to departments gov follow ernment; that when individual on depended rights national “ boundaries, is not that department gov judiciary its interests ernment to which the assertion against foreign confided, and its is to decide duty commonly powers .individual to those rights principles politi “If cal established.” nation have departments one, courts been a its would course of nation has plain then, think, how it erroneous.” We pronounce hesitate to St construe the Ilde ever individual might treaty judges fonso, is the of the court to conform decisions province to the will of the’ if has been ex clearly that will legislature, Peters, 2 pressed.” 307.
As other question stipulations depending article, the court declared: And the must eighth legislature the contract cari become the court. execute rule before Peters, this case But assumes a different very aspect. whether the claimants only question depending By
United States are the owners of the land in question.
sued,
to be
the decision
consenting
judicial
submitting
action,
as a
have considered it
purely
question,-
judicial
man,
now bound to decide
man
we are
as between
matter
same
rules which
subject
congress
prescribed, which
stipulations
themselves
of four
same,
and the
form one
proceedings under the
SUPREME COURT.
States v. Arredondo and
*18
distinct ones. We must therefore be distinctly understood as
but
the least
impairing,
affirming
principle
Fos
ter
law
v. Nelson. As the
jurisdiction to hear
giving
and de
termine
case not
authorises but
this
us to
requires
decide
of nations and
to the law
stipulations
according
“ that it
consider,
has been
shall
treaty, we
very truly urged
in error,
of the defendant
counsel
it is the usage
nations of the world,
all the civilized
when
is
territory
ceded, to
for
stipulate
property
.inhabitants.
[its
An
article to secure this
sacred,
so
held
deservedly
in the
object,
view of
as of
and
as well
is
policy,
justice
humanity,
always
Poindexter,
and
never refused.” Henderson v.
required
When such an
Wheat. 535.
article
contained
a treaty
of cession,
consideration,
and its
submitted to our
we
meaning
shall
and
follow
effectuate
intention
up
congress,
be,
matter to
deeming
whether the land in
subject
contro
versy
the claimants
property
before the
treaty,
so,
if
is as much
protection
its.
laws of
guarantied
ordinances of a
republic
In
monarchy.
so
we
doing,
Jthe
and act
adopt
another
principle, contained
opinion
of this court
the same case, in
to the
alluding
treaty
fin
boun
between
the United States
dary
Spain, concluded on the
“
October,
27th
Had
1795.
considered
herself
Spain
ceding
could. not
territory, she
neglected
stipulation
every sentiment
and national honour would
justice
could,
demanded,,
and which
United States
not have re
fused.”
Poindexter,
Henderson
other matters heard proper decree, final determined, and settle and determine nations,” law of 2d same sec. act of 1824. down as the first have laid this rule our decision Congress national honour which spirit pervades justice it as law; the court will neither the last or least of consider their, it in such' decree, if embody its duties to final in their before it calls the case its application. judgment of decision is—and Our next under the rule proceedings understood the acts and these to be proceed- treaty. By or others under subse- authority, ings government, ceded treaty, territory, possession quent taking within the its acts au- the local government, organizing made, law, the promises pledges thority organic *19 either or Also the by general government. local given officers and other or tribunals of proceedings commissioners claims so decide, on these to and report áppointed by congress rules and any principles and settled far as they adopted their guides judgment. decision within their powers, “ same,” under the our are the These, in proceedings opinion, law, we intended which to, and by, referred for us. rule, a decide, and are a precedent made may in relation congress “the acts is, several The next guide clause immediately preced- thereto,” clearly referring proceedings stipulation ing: “the in relation “the several By congress same.” acts laws on the to all the sub- thereto,” must be taken as referring lands, either, necessarily embracing property matter of ject so stipulations proceedings rights depending course points Thus legislature and had. made it be the same path. must judiciary, com- have, reports by confirming Where congress tribunals, and princi- the rules sanctioned or other missioners a affirmance founded, 'it.is they legislative on which ples confer- on the laws tribunals these put by construction it should rules by the authority prescribing ring is to intents.and exercised; purposes or which act of an It is ratification effect law. same legislative recogni- and this subsequent without.previous done authority, Vol..VI.— 4P SUPREME COURT. v. States Arredondo Others.] is of the same as if force done adoption
tion pre-existing back to the and relates act done. power is, laid rule down our direction The next laws' it is ordinances government alleged derived.” The an absolute are monarchy laws not its will and are the of'the pleasure monarch legislative acts— in various is law; ways expressed any, expressed —if is no other law law there power-call making, reрealing name—a order—an de whatever ordinance—a cédula—a royal of council—or an of an cree act authorised officer—if or his consent or it becomes king, promulgated authority, as to persons it-relates, matter which a law subject It is inso and all Spain its do kingdom. emphatically Such, minions. law of a too, con Spanish province The instructions of quered to his England. king are the law of the governors supreme conquered colony; charta, still less law, the common magna not extend does Picton, principles v. St. Tr. 8vo ed. King 866. A it— order, from the royal law, emanating king, supreme super seding all other inconsistent with repealing preceding ones it. Indies, The laws their such force vested in any legislative council; au authority thority express implied expression royal must will pleasure; they order, necessarily yield pre rule, a new scribing new or. conferring powers abrogating ones. modifying previous
(cid:127)The the acts of a principle king subordination(cid:127) to the laws of the country, applies where there is any *20 will; law than his the rule higher obligation for contended of British, in a not in a may prevail certainly province. source of law in all There another cus governments, usage, tom, which is always presumed with adopted consent of who be affected it. and may those In England, this constitution, states of union which no have written it is the law; had its supreme always deemed origin of a an act state of it legislature make competent power and or 'which, valid of act binding, parliament; represent all the inhabitants acts with the consent ing kingdom, all, exercises the of all, and its acts become power binding g 116. authority all; Wills, Co. Inst. So 58 — 715 TEEM
JANUARY v. Arredondo Peters, 400; 2 3 Dall. court; this states considered 656, 657. of a law law, and forms the custom is a A general general its with matter; at variance contract on though subject act as an its
terms, it stipulations enters into controls 1225; Black. 2 Mod. W. 238; state or parliament legislature; 7, 8; 2 Binney, H. Bl. 207; 264; 2 D. and E. 1 Doug. 263 — 592; 591, 17; 487; 287; 5 2 S. and R. 8 Wh. Binney, 4 Mass. there cited from 584, 591; and the cases 9 Wh. Johns.
252; 346; Caines, 43; 9 3 1 18 155; Mass. Day, 511; 5 Cr. 33. 230; 320; 492; Cr. E. D. and Day, re notice The court not bound to but are only may, land, as the law customs and spect general usage when law, and, clearly proved, the written equally from its follows law; this necessarily will control the general áct. a act legislative parliament presumed origin, —an the act of be our under the second section duty Such would named not and customs were expressly though usages section The first Spain. as a of the laws ordinances part act, to claimants of land titles under giving right from to institute this for Spain, pur derived proceeding the court validity of ascertaining jurisdiction pose to land which were all claims protected hear determine have been and which per and secured might treaty, laws, and in title under into conformity fected legal oí customs makes a claim founded them Spain; usages, We eannot the cases for. impute expressly provided one court, but not authorize intention to to congress case, to hear 'such a it to take require jurisdiction claim prinсiples justice; determine such a according'to ex of it as would be such a evinced mockery solemn customs, which our consideration usages cluding than no other reason government, law every section, in the second laws and ordinances referring or of laws and the kinds not enumerated all had congress the claim would dinances we decide whether should be valid the dominion if remained province had because order We well exclude Spain. royal might the same principle, should act We law. called and ac- words explicit, if the less the second section were *21 SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo to in Henderson Poindexter. the rule established v. cording 530, 540. See 12 Wh. to decide icall other finally
We are also required questions and the United between claimants States.” properly arising has in this one which arisen case which does There is but nations, laws not refer to the proceedings is, the laws of or it, Spain, under the acts congress, —that of fraud in which is the foundation question making title; which, others, must, as well as all we the plaintiff’s !l law, with the the terms decide conformity princi no, We know of surer justice.” guides prin ples than law, the rules of common adminis ciples justice, law, directs, tered under second) special (section u which shall be every petition presented act, of this shall be conducted provisions rules a court of and it this does not become equity,” tribunal the decisions other are any acknowledge,that be evidence deemed better of those rules or the principles justice. Nicoll, Conard In versus and lamented thus great judge
defined The first is, inquiry fraud: what fraud? From of all that has been said by a view learned judges jurists it down, be laid safely that to subject, may constitute fraud between more actual two-or persons prejudice third, contrivance and such third design injure person by him of some it, otherwise depriving must right, impairing shown.” be laid rules,
He down three which were incontrovertible:— “ 1. That actual fraud is to be but not presumed, ought it. proved by who party alleges “2. If the motive and of án act be traced to may design honest and source as to a one, legitimate equally corrupt former to be This corollary is but a ought preferred. preceding principle. “ 3. If the whom fraud is person should be against alleged, proved have been it in number guilty instances^ still if the act to be particular avoided be shown to sought fraud, tainted with frauds, cannot be affected these other unless in some or other be way connected form a part of them.”
This court max- unanimously these adopted principles
JANUARY TERM *22 v. Arredondo States [United others.] 295, law; 297, 296, 310; Peters, ims of the common will in their be this ita. on the them case by opinion ques governed tion of fraud. is, the
The next for our consideration evidence on subject we to third section of the which are decide. The act fol- lows: “That which has received been evidence by constituted and different been tribunals have appointed .evidence, to the same by law to such receive report or to the commissioners of the secretary treasury, gen- office, them, eral land all claims presented respective- admitted in ly, shall received and evidence or against States, act, United when trials tes- all p'erson is dead or of the court’s to- the reach tifying beyond process, with as it be in the gether may such other testimony power interested petitioner, defence person persons claim, or the States’ United attor- establishing any against ney produce; and ivhich shall be admissible according the rules evidence and law.” the principles These 1824 are provisions ease; act of to this applicable not been they have 1828, altered by act by eighth section are extended to the Florida claims. expressly They worthy which has adopted government liberal — made them the rules which to claim by private testtherights ants to the land embraced in the portions ceded territory.
From a careful examination of the whole legislation congress on the treaties, Louisiana and Florida we cannot subject entertain a doubt that it has from their beén inten beginning ded the titles to lands claimed should settled by same rules of law and construction, evidence, all their newly That acquired territory. they have as the basis of all adopted acts, their that the law of the in which principle province land efficacy the law which situated.is gives tested, and which it is to be it was whether at the by property time the took effect. treaties
The States seem United never to have claimed part what could be shown by and local law to evidence legal severed domain before royal attach right ed. In the district Missouri giving jurisdiction decideon these claims, the only case.expressly excepted 12, 3 Jacques section L. U. S. Glamorgan Story 1964); (in law, as to Florida; annulled corresponding those SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo and time, those not acts treaty, presented pamphlet congress (section 62). three territory, cessions acquired within there have to land under been many private-claims The first in was titles. of time point compact in 1802, which it terms of stipulated Georgia, —“ That who, on the October persons 27th ac- ceded, tual within settlers shall territory thus be confirmed all their executed to that day, fully prior grants, legally Florida, British West former government Laws, government Spain.” (1 489.) of the treaties which Louis- stipulátions they acquired Florida, iana and contained of a similar nature provisions *23 claims to land under before the cession. Spain 1828,
The whole in re- 1803 to legislation Congress, lation to the three of cases, Spanish classes so far respected titles, is of an uniform character of a on cases corresponding of title description. rules to kind set vary according up; distinctions been in all the laws between perfect or complete or executed, inchoate grants,' fully incomplete ones, a where been in its had under or inception, right < colour of or but local law authority, some act required to be it. done to Both classes have government complete been submitted to to to settle, tribunals special appointed report them, or finally have, specially upon claimants circumstances, certain been assert their permitted to rights court various'laws, similar in their character, but general to in detail meet the cases for. varying provided They are too to be numerous noticed in detail —some will be referred to but it is hereafter; sufficient for the to present observe, that from the whole on laws scope spirit subject titles, the intention of is most congress ¡the manifested, clearly that tribunals to examine authorised on their decide validity, or should whether special judicial, in, be the same rules of law and their governed evidence on claims of the same adjudication character. The given second third sections of act of Missouri the first, sixth, and of the Florida act of eighth 1828, can of no admit other construction. It was within the discretion of the legis- tribunal; lature select cases to be submitted to either TERM 1832.
JANUARY States v. Arredondo that no claims should decided on directed a they a than one which for tribunal quantity greater league special had reserved themselves of those they disposition square; on amount, have devolved court finally for larger decision. These reasons final good jurisdic the selection this tribunal for conferred —but tion being claims,- on the affords final and conclusive large adjudication pr of the intention furnishes neither an indication congress, reason; of that exercise wé us any jurisdiction, “ rules of consider principles justice,” should nations,” “the of treaties “of law con equity, “ “ of evidence, or of the rules or the Spain,” princi gress,” law,” can be at all affected ples magnitude laws which’ confer the au under consideration. claim exercise, for its make no such point guides thority “ discrimination, and forbids it. every principle justice” we must however, laws of By congress subject, .this as not those which have understood comprehending distinctly of cases, or classes cases over passed special decide, no tribunal but had power delegated of which they circumstances were disposed according im to be the is another exclusive There duty chose judge. the second of the act of on the court section
posed decree; shall, cases, a final which decree in all after making law, ordihanee, under which it is con treaty, refer so make a decree decreed that we final may firmed against;” of the title to settle determine validity of nations, law, law “the or. any treaty, either the stipulations *24 if, either the one or more rules of to; ordinance” referred shall of decision thus we be that the title prescribed, opinion as into of claimants was such perfected might laws of title if under and complete conformity Spain; not been of had transferred sovereignty country 1824; Missouri law of States, in of the the words were valid which under the Spanish government, nations, laws not treaty of and which were rejected to the United of and West Florida the-territory East ceding 1823, 3 States, in of of 1822 — and the words the Florida laws 1828, to and in that Story, 1870, 1907, referred adopted we can title. laws “pari decree on the These being'in finally SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondо
materia,” referred to in the one us giving jurisdiction, law, as one must be taken “reddendo singula singulis.” of the counsel United States have considered the merits case if mainly, not on wholly, resting eighth article but the law treaty; us to take a compels view less limited. That it much article names if only grants; alone it, we decide we must claim, decree un- against it; less we think title if it was for good though not quantity square, other league exceeding tribunal would confirm it. This would be a distinction so making that we unworthy legislature, shall not just to them impute it the intention to be the directing rule'of our action. We shall not unless it is certainly adopt clearly Imposed by of a law authority terms expressed no doubt. admitting The fourth of the Florida section act of 1822, 3 Story, enacts every person title to lands claiming under any concession, or order of patent, dated survey, previous were, 1818,. 24th January valid under the Spanish nations, or the laws of government, which were re his, shall file treaty, her, claim, or their jected &c. said proceed examine, and de “And. commissioners.shall termine on the of said validity patents, concessions grants, orders the laws and survey ordinances hereto agreeably fore existing governments making respect due claims, ively, having regard the conditions contained stipulations article eighth the treaty of 22d intention of this February” provision misunderstood; due be must be cannot had to regard this arti must be cle, it and deliberated considered,'weighed, upon connexion other matters which form the rule deci A be founded may sion. decree stipulations of.the under it—or it treaty proceedings independent may them, of nations, to the laws or Spain; congress, is of each which as the obligation high either alone found we our decree. may Though term “law of nations” is not carried the second into clause of the fourth section the act of consider we a rule yet stated, decision for the reasons before and on authority of Henderson v. Poindexter —the law manifest object those filed, claims which are directing valid
JANUARY TERM others.j v. States Arredondo and nations, is, that on shall be law of they adjudicated accordingly tribunal.-—To the authorized inten by impute congress described, recorded; to be and filed, tion of them directing, recorded, if not barred so and of the tribunal ordering forever decide on their in the same sen validity, examine from it, the same tribunal the withhold power tence doing same,law of the on which were by founded principles valid; made would be incon théy utterly which by rule of law. The sixth section of sistent the act of with every 1828, is still more claims provides comprehensive, Florida, within land, embraced territory treaty by which shall not be decided settled under finally act, of this quan containing greater provisions foregoing land, not been &c. which have tity reported ante commissioners, not annulled by dated or forged commissioners, shall be received reported dis superior and adjudicated judge former This all claims—the trict includes (see pamphlet, 62). embraced designated
laws included those only specially —this settlеd, not two decided, all not before finally date as to the other as to and forgery. exceptions quantity, —one concess claim is by patent, grant, then present Whether act other ion, survey, might or order warrant, title, laws, into a usages, been perfected complete as to hear and immaterial our Spain, power customs section act The fifth Missouri Story, determine. (3 section of act 63), the Florida 1962), (pamphlet, twelfth lands, tenements, bars and in all claims to at law finally equity within their not and hereditaments brought purview, are of course the court. They before cogniza petition them. ble of the the validity present
We now to consider proceed claimant original offered and evidence claim.—The gave himself, “in- Ramirez, Don Alexandre styling of the army, general superintendent tendant subdelegate Floridas,” two Cuba, and the island of domain royal controversy the land to convey &c. . It &c. purported the exercise Son, made in' Arredondo and Ramirez king; had been conferred'on faculties which royal land, acres number name for Q Von. VI. —4 SUPREME COURT.
[United .States v. Arredondo and others.] limits, under the and in the courses, distances out pointed figu In order the same rative that as their plot. they may possess thereof; own and it as the owners property, exclusive enjoy the terms in and in mentioned the decree therein recited— an absolute and full in it. with dominion over property to be on deliberation and in solemn made purports grant great form; aas sentence in the which were as official capacities sumed, examination virtue of order “upon royal in 3d of which his September in year, present majesty Floridas, two de me appointed having superintendent me in the terms sires to settlement of procure strongest means these zeal and provinces every my prudence “In can with the fiscal conformity attorney- suggest.” (the and the made I by'the de general) report surveyor general, clare as crown of Alachua” lands property territory (the followed, in then with question). grant my “signed arms, hand, sealed as used royal my secretary’s office, and by the war, at Don Pedro countersigned commissary Cerambat, for his in this secretary majesty intendency,” “ ’in the for book that in the purpose office under registered No secretary’s to charge.” objection appears have been evidence; the admission of this made to paper genuine not to seems have been contested.—no ness was attempt and its due antedated execution impeach forged, known local the forms was all government unquestioned. below, therefore before the court and is so here, It at least, facie evidence a the land it grant describes to the prima claimants, the and the rules evidence principles law give and so it considered. Here an this effect must important acts of congress question-arises several relating —whether do not and all others which grants give in their perfect forms complete legally fully exe more cuted,” effect conclusivе evidence of a greater authority. by proper but reasonable It- is presumption congress legislat- three on territories Spanish grants subject ing since they acquired devising for efficient means set- ascertaining finally providing asserting all claims title-under them by persons tling from public claimed had been lands they severed JANUARY TERM 1832. v. States Arredondo and others.]
domain before
cessions
States.
territory
from
a series
laws
to 1828
That when
on
and subordinate tribunals
decide
olaims
authorized special
,inferior
tó decide on
courts
extent of
square,
league
if
taken;'and
no
amount,
claims
finally,
appeal
this court to
a final
which may
decree
appeal,
pronounce
millions of acres from the common fund. They would
separate
have made what was deemed
adequate provision
guard
public
various
spurious grants,
prescribing
tribunals
to decide
“claims such rules
evi
authorized
to those
secure the
as would
interest
applicable
dence
Yet,
fraud
in their
nation from
whole
imposition.”
*27
all
on the
been
has
there
examined),
legislation
(which
subject
directs;
a
that the au
has
been found
law which
solitary
has been made under the
which a
thority
Spanish
grant
be
a
a
should
claimant —recorded
pub
government
filed
tribunal
officer,,or
to any
appointed
adjudicate
lic
submitted
has
con
been
the title
its
validity
imparted congress
—
States, should
surrendered
tent
of the United
rights
claimant,
under a
pur
confirmed
patent
grant
and sanc
all the official forms
emanated-under
to have
porting
of
This is deemed evidence
tions'of
government.
the.local
lawful,
issued
legitimate
proper,
their háving
contrary.
proof
unimpeached
authority —when
effect the
into
stipulations
for
In
carrying
providing
act of
the fifth section of the
with
Georgia,
cession
compact
landl pursúant
claiming
That
persons
provides.
1804, deliver to
regis
March
should
1st
before the
thereto
district, a notice
office,
containing
land
in the
ter of the
proper
his
and a
extent of
claim
plot
of the nature and
statement
a
recorded; every
purpose
being
for the
thereof; also,
evi
or other written
deed of conveyance,
order
survey,
so far as
whereof all his
default
right,
dence of his claim—in
cession,
the law
or
was declared void—for
depended
any
inadmissible
barred—and the
ever
grant
894, 895.)
Story,
them. (2
United States
grant
against
it should
that when
section, it was provided,
By
sixth
was
the claimant
to the commissioners
made to appear
pf a
virtue
under
cession
land
tract
a
entitled
executed, they
fully
legally
or
grant
British
Spanish
SUPREME
COURT.
v.
States Arredondo and
were directed to
him a certificate
which amounted
a
give
of the claim of
ever,
relinquishment
United States for
when recorded.' The fact
recorded' certifi
gave,
cate
the commissioners
the-effect
a
was the exist
patent,
ence of a
its
grant;
legality
fullness of
execution
was-
to be made
required
No
directed
appear.
was
inquiry
to be made as to
done;
which it was
authority by
too
States were
to exact from thе
of land-
just
grantees
under an absolute colonial
what no court
government
requires
from one who holds lands under the
the United
grant
or
a state
a
fully-executed:
if inchoate never compels
or.
claimant to
or
produce
authority
the officer who issues
executes
or
warrant
order of
it is
survey;,
always presumed
to-be done
till the
or such reasons
regularly
contrary appears,
offered,
are
authenticity,
are sufficient in law
doubting
to rebut the legal
presumption. By the first section
act
claimants
supplementary
British
by complete
record no
of their
evidence
required
claim
except
warrant
original
patent
or order of
other
survey and
were to be
plat
papers
—the
with the
deposited
the land office, in order to be
register
laid before the commissioners for their
consideration.
(Act
27, 1804,
March
As no law the exhibition of the required authority warrant, or made; order of survey recorded, formed part evidence title to be deposited, *28 commissioners, or acted on were not they authorized to call for their it before decision. making
The grant executed was evi- legally fully competent dence matters in it, set forth other and as none it was in effect necessary conclusive. But congress thought to it authorise not to confine their proper commissioners to the mere examination execution of the alleged grant. By of law third section the same it is as follows. provided “ of said Or either the. boards shall be whenever not satisfied warrant or order of did that such issue survey, grant, at it shall date, bears the said commissioners not be time bound warrant, such or order of grant, consider as survey con- title, but clusive such may evidence other require proof of of its think more may as validity; they can proper.” Nothing — TERM JANUARY and others.] Arredondo States v. that such of grant,1 congress the understanding manifest
.clearly &e, commission that the title, and of evidence was conclusive laws, require at liberty the existing not under were ers on them their than conferring claimants other any proof, unius Expressio so. words power doing by express in the construction maxim alterius,” is an universal est exclusio of statutes. for session, ascertaining passed
In the law succeeding within the land territory the titles and claims adjusting Louisiana, directed that the evi district of it was of Orleans and was this be there to land should recorded —but dence of claims “ lands are claimed the fourth That where section: proviso aforesaid, as grant French or virtue complete Spanish other to have claimant shall not be necassary recorded, his the original grant claim than evidence or order with warrant survey, patent; together to those in pre similar follow Other plot.” provisions articles agree included law claims relating ceding section ment, By fifth Story, 967, 968.) Georgia. (2 with man the commissioners directed decide in summary ner, on all filed with claims equity, justice of this recorder, conformity provisions register act, grants, Wrench the evi complete which, filed, not thus though dence record may befound of records such grants, public decision shall be before manner laid the. congress directed, hereinafter be determination thereon.” The subject commission- era not be shall bound to such consider warrant, or order* of survey title, evidence conclusive when they that at the not satisfied time it issued bears date, but that is antedated same or otherwise fraudulent, then may other' require such proof think validity they may pro must per. By validity understood of its proof genuineness it is not fraudulent; authenticity, so as to satisfy as to themselves doubts those authorized to re them quire further than of its itself, proof full legal, fair execution; of thé officer who made it authority —no law to exact gives power that. act proof This congress proves, as con the recorded considering clusive title, evidence (which cannot without power *29 COURT. SUPREME United-States Arredondo and others.] V.
L
unless it is antedated
fraudulent,
or otherwise
grantor)
of the officer
authority
making
presupposed.
1822,
act
for
claims and titles to land
ascertaining
Florida
territory
(
JANUARY and v. Arredondo States [United acts, words, evidenced, and clearly by thus
It in these that .claims considering of the intentions legislature, of the tribunals, authority officer making special lands, formed item of claim .no or other evidence i:n States made that a that the United never conferred; the title it and the claimants to them con- in between even issue point have submitted to the sidered, less They much adjudicated. of land, as to all or acts public which prevails
principle officers, of warrants, orders in survey, per- of issuing public of as inceptive to cultivate or evidence mission improve, of titles, is; which acts that officers public public nascent official be exercised in an capacity by public purporting be an but usurped, not shall authority, presumed legiti- or ratified, subsequently mate authority, previously giyen If not a it was which legal presumption equivalent. 'officers claiming
public responsible exercising domain, of did it the order right disposing public in the, and consent of whose name acts were government, of titles and don.e, uncertainty the confusion possessions this infinite, in would be even states country; especially tenures land of description whose depend every incep- in tive, equities, grade inchoate evi- vague rising to a acts, full dence, various intermediate con- legal under the seal. firmation, by patent, great contended for
To principle various apply papers are sent from or the local land offices, general direction; to officers under their or evidence instructions evidence, land, other title by requiring incomplete than the which it was done authority, by the' signature proved officer, the witnesses or paper, genuineness an would be seal, official authenticated danger- but entire our novelty tendency, ous jurisprudence, “ evidence,” or law or a rule principle equity jus- controversies, of the landed under tice.” history judicial Carolina, as North construed and the land laws of Virginia where states, and in the lands those those acted on within lie, states to the Pennsylva-, these ceded by substance, all similar in nia, land tenures are very whose inceptive' titles is very general, vague, origin rule, that the will show the adoption equity; universal SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo and others.J officers in acts public disposing lands, public colour or claim of publie authority, evidence thereof until the those who contrary appears showing oppose the .title under deny set which it is up power by professed to Without recognition there be<granted. principle, be no safety title and no would papers, security under, them. It is true property enjoymeut without is void authority Cr. governments —9 303, Wh. a11 is on whom question the law — but . throws burthen of existence, proof, non-existence. void, *31 A is unless the has the grant grantor to power make it— but it is not void because does not or grantee prove pro duce it. The law proof supplies by legal presumption, full, and from execution of the arising legal, complete offi cial under all the solemnities known or to grant, proved exist or by to the law of the required where it is country situated; land is and the of
A
the seal
patent
the United
or
a
is
state
conclusive
act
it's
proof
by
its
authority;
granting
is a
exemplification
record
absolute
Patterson
verity.
v.
Winn,
considered those of other facts than expressly of the existence inference to its necessary implication, objection found apparent law, on a trial at a equity,' in evidence or hearing admission of its of a demurrer to on the in the nature evidence ground is the matter issue. not prove conducing court, admitted, chancellor,
If must receive jury, declares, both of the facts recites and leading evidence foundation of all facts inferable other legally is then, so either what on apparent its face. Taking, as a a to be settled is taken principle, public gra'nt issued that it we by lawful authority, proceed evidence effect of a examine adjudicating legal- court; a principles validity, by justice evidence, and law, rules of the act directed equity, forms the law under part validity which their to our consideration. is submitted judicial an act done validity legality governor over the conquered depends province, jurisdiction him matter his instruction from delegated
subject and the local laws of the colony, when usages king, as the If rules its adopted government. limited, done in its acts given, exer jurisdiction valid; conferred, if there -a discretion cise legal between his *32 a matter governor government, abuse Picton, late &c.; Trinidad, v. St. Tr. 30 King governor 869-871. is
It or that, universal power where principle, jurisdic is officer tribunal over a tion to or subject any public delegated matter, discretion; or their and its is confided to his exercise matter; acts as subject so done are binding valid for collaterally not any disturbed will be and individual rights within autho exercise done in the discretion thing (cid:127) which can questions The conferred. rity power a under the acts right claiming arise an individual between are, validity, done, denying or any and the person рublic, in the All other party. officer, power fraud act done by made or the decision by the are settled questions officer; Cr. executive, 170-171)— (1 whether tribunal or 423; 412; Peters,63)—judi- Wh. 2 Peters, (4 legislative, 5 R VI —4 Vol. SUPREME COURT. v, Slates Arredondo and others.] 429; & in 2 227; Peters, 11 S. R. 167, Mass.
cial, adopted (11 or, 740; 2 J. P. Cas. 20 R. Dow. &c. special, 168), revision, for, or other some an appeal provided ap unless tribunal, is law. prescribed or supervisory pellate too not of these are to be cases important principles time does not admit their extrac- to, referred and.though we no in hesitation in our opinion, tion and embodying concurrence, our so meet with entire far as they declaring cases there are other this But case. applicable court, our so in have, opinion, been decided by in a on.the effect bearing validity ques- direct grant a tion, examination; close will be considered they deserve their order. in Wendell, lessee Polk’s various objections
In against North Caro from validity state.of lina, under the law. authority issued having ‘‘But there are cases laid down this- court principle: general Void; the state has no as when absolutely which grant no had title to the the officer authority where thing granted,- case, 5 99; to issue the same Cr. Wh. repeated grant,” (9 In a of their observe, 303). opinion, succeeding part This limits of t.he state —“ act the amount allusion law is not made, for which an but same person entry may entries, and in this act entries to make different forbidden the act which were transferable. No prohibition appears should who prevent entries, person several assignee has made one from entries, several them survey uniting laws for the saleof patent.” “The (9 Cr. publiclandspro 85). videmany guards protect secure regularity grants, the incipient individuals, and also to state rights protect imposition. Officers are superintend appointéd business,, are duty. framed their' These rules prescribing are in rules general directory, and where proceedings issued completed, by patent state, a authority compliance these rules That every pre-supposed. pre has been requisite is an performed, properly inference deduci ble, and which man has a every from the to draw right exis tence grant itself. It would therefore extremely unwarrantable for avoid a any irregula *33 rities in the conduct of those who are appointed by govern-
JANUARY TERM 1832.
731
States v. Arredondo
and others ]
ment
supervise
course
a title
progressive
from its
to its
commencement
in a
confirmation
Cr. 99.
patent;”
In
“
of their
it
down,
is laid
to what
opinion,
review
As
validity
shall
to the
given
Carolina,
from North
grants emanating
decision
it
places
Carolina;
the statutes
upon
of North
an
is
opinion
that North
although
expressed,
Carolina could
make no
cession,
hew
after the
.to
could
who
congress,
entertain' a doubt
upon
referred to
the'question?
right
here, was to perfect
but what
incipient
is
grants;
restraint
discretion,
her
imposed on
what doubt
her-
suggested of
in
It
that
will be
good'faith
executing-
power?
perceived,
that
toas
committed
irregularities
officers
govern
ment,
to the
the court does
a doubt
prior
not
express
that the
must bear the
but
and not the individual
government
from them.” Wh.
refer
They
consequences-resulting
as to
rule
laid
case,'and
down in
former
patents
add: But
shall
pre
admitting
support
s
existed, it
admits
that every
necesssarily
prerequisite
umption
existence
shall be
entry:
that warrant
evidence
means
that the
conclusive
by any
contrary,
entry
nor
the abstracts of entries in
does
appear
Washington
if the
on the
office;
contrary,
recorded
the secretary’s
county,
taker, it
conclusive
entry
issued are
.the
warrants
signed
and if he omitted
him;
were
locations
received
that the
not to
him
them,
his.neglect ought
prejudice
rights
enter
304, 305.
the warrants
issued.” 5 Wh.
favour
whose
imperfect
all
is a
applying
This
very important principle
That the.
concessions, warrants,
survey.
and orders
grants,
evidence,
which the
from
legal
of either
legal
production
acts
arises,
necessary
give
preceding
presumption
done before it issued.
have'been
validity,
legal
“ There was
in that.case:
so
established
Another equally
which,
its
ease,
of this
in the argument
one
point
attention, and which
serious
our
deserves
general importance,
court making
of the circuit
into the views
entered
may
to be
this grant
was,
admitting
It
whether
their decision.
it,
under
notice, holding
without
void,
purchasers,
innocent
it is
On
principles
nullity.
general
should be
affected
than,
pos
more
no
eonvey
incontestable,
can
that grantee
the holder
a void
Hence,
those
come
sesses.
who
*34
SUPREME COURT.
732
v. Arredondo
[United
that the courts
it
cleat
but
can acquire
grant,
nothing;
North Carolina act
Yet the
held otherwise.
Tennessee have
fraud,
abso
to be
declares,
attained
certainly
by
grants
follow, where the
must
state
the same result
void: and
lutely
or no law exists
support
has
its power
relinquished
seems that the courts of
of the
But it
the validity
grant.
Tennes
distinction, that
such casesshall
this
see have adopted
then until
state,
and not
be deemed
only
void
against
this
law
so
of law.
If
be the settled
some
adjudged
process
Tennessee,
that it
rest on
authori
we are satisfied
should
This
Wh. 309.
evidences
respect paid
ty
adjudication.”.
law,
to local
which is but
court
common
custom
are incon
opposed
principles
although
general
usage,
“
to conform to
this court has never hesitated
testable.
Hence
when
doctrines
the state on landed
they
settled
property,
it
ascertained;
are fixed and can be
nor would
satisfactorily
be led
deviate from them in
case that
bore the
ever
JANUARY States v. Arredondo and others.] this court titles in A reference to the decisions of Florida, been heretofore will how considered: It is show 3d of March true, that the act although making in favour of no British express provision grants, does seem to proceed unaccompanied possession, valid, that they recognising principle implication no that a individual change policy produces change to them modified validity;” property, yet imputes recorded, of their and the the necessity being (referring *35 Gallard, Harcourt not 12 it.) against consequence doing recorded, been so claim 528. Had that come Wheat. and circumstances similar this, a law
before court under its there no doubt what would could been opinion have case, after first then been. In the next sec reciting court “This section say: tion of the act places a warrant or' order of those who had obtained survey, persons with those whose before 27th October equal ground the residue of that After act titles were reciting completed.” 1804, they a very and the one of express strong preceding was that British before Spanish grant cognizable opinion laws, under those held the commissioners appointed though That residents commissioners country. not persons and that its such validity, in de decided favour might Henderson Poindexter, conclusive. v. cision would have claim in that 543. The case was for 12 Wheat. fifteen- the title was acres; hundred but recorded the claim laid commissioners, and it was not course embraced before the in act congress authorizing any provisions conclude this on the title. We review the acts of decide to. court, of this with the decisions repeating
congress
v. Green:
in Rutherford
“Whatever
legislative
words
be so construed as
be, its acts
never to
may
ought
power
unless its intention to do so
of property,
subvert
rights
doubt,
such terms as to admit of no
shall be
in
expressed
No
terms
show clear
to effect
design
object.
general
to which they may
fairly
for property,
applicable
intended
no
im
silent
and not
applied by
particularly
legislature,
d
to be understood
an constructive
ever
repeals
plied
ought
The course
JANUARY Arredondo and States v. in its nature a A treaty Nelson. contract be v. Elam ((two nations, a act. It does not not legislative tween of itself the to be effect object accomplished, especially generally territorial, is infra but is carried into far as its effect so object to the inst powers ument; sovereign parties when either perform act, parties engages particular itself not addresses to the treaty de political judicial must execute .the partment, legislature contract can Peters, become a rule the court.” —2 before for are, case, But the court in this authorised to consider and con nations, strue not as a contract two treaty, between of which must be executed stipulations act congress before it decision, can become a rule for our not as the basis claimants; foundation the title of the but as only a rulе to which must have a we regard, due whether deciding the claimants out a title to the lands in controversy, —a rule which wreare neither directed law or bound make more any our decree than the laws upon, of nations, of or of 1824 and act of Spain. congress, authorise us to decide on the require title on all pending the evidence and laws before us. disclaimed Congress decision as political question legislative depart decide, ment to it on us one as enjoined purely judicial. then, the as a treaty act, an item of
Taking, legislative evi or a dence, rule of decision, relied on one or both parties suit, to this we consider the second article ceding United States what of the only territories belonged Spain— that no land which had been severed from the royal domain antecedent which were grants, valid laws of Spain, and created right property thing granted passed grantees; States—such lands were not liable to subsequent appropriation by subsequent grant. act, as a legislative
Considering to it the applying belieyed rules, same to be proposition cor perfectly rect, that N. C. act of the land opened office, must be construed as for sale those offering lands which were then liable those which had appropriation, before been individually Wheat. 203. appropriated,” So — 2 *37 must the if treaty construed—and a arises question what lands were ceded, the in answer found the second article— SUPREME COURT. and v. Arredondo States which, in the not those lands,” language
«vacant been court, appropriated, had not the individually The adversary, -a hostile grant. renunciation subjects was article, both their parties, third respect- renounced: pretensions territory claims ive rights, had renounce over the rights lands neither government conveyed their citizens or title had a to which subjects do into come respectively. and renunciation as them with this cession vesting claiming dominion, in full in territory sovereign capa- the .whole to -confirm liberty previous appropriations parts city, not, but us to require their pleasure; finally it or -at decide the- as claimants them same grantees between carries the title land. Thus deci- grantor; on these articles of the between the and in parties treaty, ding rules, laws, established, before conformity principles land be of embraced opinion we should domain the date royal at no part was longer not vacant, but but treaty, private property appropriated —land deed. The valid article prior eighth evidently benefit those who for the held intended and were land Florida —to as it a con- proprietors give considered limit thus would narrow intended struction rights? fair them the benefit would deprive secured second and third articles of the construction if a worse situation than had been them in eighth leave so To one severe and would adopt omitted altogether. unjust an intent words and clearly expressed making evident require — already our divest imperative vested. judgment rights has been examined in the original treaty department n state—it is executed as an headed original” original, cannot our attention that escaped (cid:127)both languages—it ceded, the boundaries between territory those of relates the mutual renunciations, and the the two governments,, rights ceded territories. There inhabitants obvi- as in for its being English reason ous >vell —the interest, a direct far affectedhis own so dominions had king desire to States, the United laudable protect adjoining the ceded all their the inhabitants provinces rights do- in not His was concerned most deeply property. honour *38 TERM 1832. JANUARY Arredondo and States v. others.] [United of his what which should he deprive subjects act had an ing of the them; a cession a to to pow by making territory granted content what ceding nation —not renouncing erful himself, he was desirous of his inten expressing belonged'to faith, which his article should show by tion of preserving the confirmation of to leave lawful au to be not grants States. Before the the the United exe at pleasure thority in treaty, the there was inserted stipulation Spanish cution into hands the ceded should the territory which pass intention on the States with declared part ie in referred to that grants Spain, operated king in of lands as an reservation exception granted presente’ which expressed his words and by authority, his name using were rati intention, his in own grants his language, act very both and confirmed by fied governments This furnishes a to future no cession, contingency. subject this article in reason for Spanish, and obvious inserting powerful understood words intention would clearly so that mistaken whenever any in doubt a manner to denoting should be as arise; produced the treaty and whenever should or for other there shoúld cession, of the purpose, evidence of his' then the native or former language always appear intention their protect of his declared full evidence subjects, his and faith honour his pledging giants, acquired rights security. their matter, so minister was not trust important
His willing situa- present treaty only English language. of the the holders the state tion grants, country, Nelson, of this court in Foster v. and the opinion argument cause, show wisdom and this justice prompted him intention of in his own express king language of his Similar or subjects. reasons equally may good the ministers induced to have the government in its drawn and thus treaty language, considering treaty and each head, as is in both declared at its languages, origi- nal,” neither the one version controls nor to be preferred the other: each expresses meaning contracting parties, each, own in-the respectiyely, ex- opinion language, both. of. If the intention mista- pressing declaring not understood ken, and words do not and.are used after- Vol. VI.—4 S SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo and
wards parties same convey both meaning then, both and of being languages; originals equal authority, some other we must resort to mode than the inspection construction, it a under the proper give acts special us to decide on the require validity congress, article, to in the referred eighth principles and nations: rules of law justice equity, stipulations acts of and the laws treaty, Spain, congress, such be admissible the rules of testimony evi- may *39 then, dence and law. to these tests principles Applying, article, and to its ascertain when the eighth legal meaning it understand we consider it as parties differently, contracting in its effect and reservation an exception legal operation, so of the lands from the ceded to the United territory granted, States. If the title had was confirmed presently, king within the bounds of title no grant convey, right If the United States could none. no future act receive theirs confirmation, to their ratification and necessary interest, estate, much less the beneficial never passed legal treaty them. A cession is a of the deed ceded territory, is the the act is his, so far as it relates sovereign grantor, cession, deed, is his act and and all courts it, are must so consider deeds construed in equity by the of law. rules
A is never the same land presumed twice, government grant a Thus even R. 8. act of grant, 7 J. parliament, which title takes a no against king, away conveys good right other; it contains no from any though clause, saving property no other than that it public, passes fight although is land; b.; Co. 1 274, 8 Vent. 176; 2 general grant J. If land is state, 263. R. a. granted by legislative power to annul the is incompetent the land to grant grant ano void, law is ther; such Peck, Fletcher 6 87, v. Cr. &c. A a tax land, with an impose state cannot granted exemption taxation, 164; New Jersey Wilson, v. 7 Cr. nor take franchise, Dartmouth a v. corporate away College Woodward, 518. 4 Wheat. Public grants convey nothing implication; construed favour strictly Dy. 362, a; king; they 169. Cro. Car. such construction must be reasonable, Though as will such make the true intention of the as expressed king
JANUARY TERM 1832. 739 Slates v. Airedondo and effect, honour, is for in his charter take stands king’s law; 4 554; the rules G. 10 428, 12; Com. Co. Dig. kind, 65. Grants “ex gratia, strongest speciali scientia, motu,” certa et do not extend beyond mero them, strained nor, intent by any meaning expressed construction, make pass against apt proper, thing the common and usual and intendment signification words of what the but passes nothing king owned;. 35; 350, 1, 21. If it 112, b.; 10 Co. 4 Co. Dy. pl. B. it what in the B. passes
grant occupation thing fortiori in in the case of common person, occupied; case, 171; b.; 4 Hob. Hard. 225. Co. 35 queen’s Though applied reference ought yet general, Queen to a to the charter certain as in case particular, 30, 9 Co. Caroline —id certum est cerium reddipotest, quod a. refers in 47, 46 a. b. S. When the P. general king’s grant if of it as mention terms to a as contains certainty, express Co. charter; same had 10 certainty expressed 64 not de a. A not pass does any thing king to, scribed or is as fully entirely referred unless the grant scientia, &c. came and that cerid ex Dy. king, b.; 2; 65, a.; 10 Co. Com. Mod. Dig. described, else Where the passes, nothing thing granted lands;” those Hard. 225. The restrained to grantee *40 and shall no lands of it the place, out generality it; B, the to land in in the tenure of as of A. grant referring is void if it and re be both grant not place tenure ferred to. The to it necessarily, “ilia” refers pronoun bofh ended, is not satisfied till it till is sentence governs 33; 9; 2 8, full Co. S. 447; Mass. 15 J. R. 6 Cr. stop. P. 7 237; 47, Cr. 7 48. The to this last rule application “ illas,” words article, the question de will settle eighth “ whether its is to alone, lands or to grants” reference legal land. The be of a shall never words general so king’s grant construed as to him of amount revenue deprive greater than he intended to be to to his or or to be deemed “ of the commonwealth; 112, 13 prejudice 1 Co. b. Judges will invent reasons and acts to make means according which, intent of the just parties, and to avoid injury wrong Hob, rules out of the act.’.’ 277. rigid might wrought SUPREME
740 COURT. v. States Arredondo others ] are construed to the always The words of a grant manifested in the its terms intention grant by parties, necessary to be deduced the reasonable implication, from and of the situation of parties thing granted, S. use; 334, 5; 110; Taunton, 495, 1 nature and 6 & R. Mass. 375; 321, 2; 1 2 6 J. R.
500, 502; 6; Mass. B. & P. J. R. 7 57, 58, 168, 169; 5, 10; J.R. 498, 9; 15; Cro. 17, 18, Car. E. Yeates, 363; 4 7; 621; b. 360, Plo. E. 153. 170, Cowper, These rules which are fixed private grants, governing construed for the liberally against grantor strongly Yet he shall never take words grantee. general construction what had before another. grantor granted effect which the situation controlling grantor to be as evidence the inten conveyed property alleged tion of the such, in law that in the case of Moore v. grantor, “ 1774, declared, Lord Mansfield I am Magrath, clear very it deed, with the but without deed plainer might seeing isit words deed plain enough.” sweeping “ ones: his, lands, said the Michael Moore’s Together tenements and hereditaments Ireland.” Yet it did not pass his estate; the court paternal was unanimous, 11; Cowper, of this case In Shirras authority unquestionable. v. Craig, this decided, there was a when piece property in the deed, other in description answering property the deed, cluded in but not intended to be did conveyed, 7 Cr. It pass, useless to whether pursue inquiry, by the common law the aof can be grant king adjudged had pass another, what he conveyed and whose he title in tended to confirm ratify act of a very another, by from or the excepting generality thing granted, reserving new operation of a the use prior it is useless grantee. But not deemed show the doctrine of this court as and reserva exceptions tions in The insertion of this public private grants. reser vation this act law of North leads Carolina), almost (a ne cessarily that the lands opinion to Martin granted Wilson, were a related, those to which the part act and the words of show the section that their title was acquired by *41 act: no “By course can just inferred, it be from reasoning these make permissions bounds, not within appropriations 1832.'
JANUARY TERM Sietes v. Arredondo and others.] lands not to- a vested entry open generally, right lying- annulled,” within the limits to the act relates is Ruth Green, order, therefore, In v. Wheat. to as erford certain what we must first ascertain whát in granted, whatever is ex exception; cluded included-in the to,the' excluded maxim ception, down in Co. a. laid Lit. 47 Com. Fait. E. (4 Dig. 6.) dat, retinet, rem et Si ilia retinet partem quis pars quarn eo fuit; cum est et Greenleaf Birth, v. semper semper January this court the other opinion by Story,-Justicе, judges on this concurring unanimously point. became, then,
It to ascertain what important -wasgranted what Was The was the. excepted. Spain king grantor, his was deed, him, treatywas exception and effect intention, its nature on his depended expressed words, his reference and the re thing granted thing in and version served excepted grant. Spanish intention,' his was in his words and expressed though American version showed intention this government .to different, we cannot as the adopt rule which to decide what what reserved; and what granted, excepted, are too rules law clear to be mistaken and too imperative this court. We must be disregarded governed and manifest intention of the expressed cléarly grantor, fortiori in That private grantee public grants. not be we mistaken in the intention or in the mean might true words, consulted, two dictionaries one of were ing Madrid, them and two translations were made printed article, each by competent eighth judges Spanish, both other, with each and the translation of each agreeing “Quedan5* the definition dictionaries. agreeing “ translated, correctly means remain” —the Spanish, shall “ “ “ “ is in reste-,” verb French re Latin, quedan” manere” “ munere,” tense. remain” In English, present “ in tlie words be55—words English original, shall future. The difference is all important to all Spanish grants, if the words of the that all of land shall confirmed,” remain then the United States by accepting cession, could assert no claim to these lands'thus expressly excepted. could proprietors suits to them recover bring without action of congress,.and any question would arising *42 SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondoand
[United be ratified,” a one. “Shall purely judicial makes it neces- should be a there law sary them or ratifying authorizing a suit otherwise the to he question brought, would be a politi- one, court, cal this as was cognizable by decided in Foster Nelson. Elam v. consideration, But from this aside we find the words used in sense as to the Spanish made after the grants 24th of are, January the same article in English, ” “ declared and hereby and void. agreed null rati The fication is in Spanish words in the English. Spanish “ “ Spanish version are quedado” quedan” reference to the annulled remained,” are grants; English “do remain.” the rules of principles both Jaw justice too obvious not that in equity require deciding the effect and article of this legal operation treaty by the declared and manifested intention of the king, meaning annulling sh words mid be the same in as in confirming to the honour and grants of a regard justice great of a republic, alike forbid that its imputation desire legis lation so should be construed and its law so administered, that the same should refer word to the future as to confirming in the present same article of the annulling grants same treaty.
For conviction, these we reasons and in this consider that were confirmed and annulled grants respectively —simul- with the ratification and confirmation of taneously the treaty, ceded, when the was United States had territory no the lands embraced confirmed right any grants.
As this counsel on both point sides, at urged length it was due to them it that the should consider fully this express opinion case has upon clearly; argued been, deemed to its both Aidesvital merits- upon grounds not exclude them our could consideration. But upon .we which, there are other adverted to by grounds, though no] view, counsel, led to the same result. It .would, in our case, whether the to the decision wholly immaterial actual present article of construed to be eighth both confirmation and the grants governments, ratification of 1824 future; it for for the laws stipulation validity .to the title .us decide require TERM 1832. JANUARY States v. Arredondo and others.] under those according stipulation claimants grants and, if of the claim- final, Our decree is in favour treaty. Un- title of United States. ants, is against conclusive confirm der the effect stipulation ratify these laws us con- referred to as such .question, judicial assume the rules we gress; prescribed, deciding bound, laws, no but duty we authority, obey to our deliberate and settled most decreeing judg- *43 of a be to decide the validity ment. Should we called on these title not embraced by acquired any Spanish grant laws, we should to the course feel bound follow Fos- pursued ter Nelson, in relation to the in the eighth against stipulation “ article must execute of the Florida that the treaty, legislature a rule for court,” Peters, contract it can become this 2 before We are thus to avoid explicit possible misapprehension.
We are that the also construction of the opinion legal article in lead same conclusion would eighth English, arrived, at we heretofore view according taken of the The law deems man be in to Spanish. every which, seisin of land legal he possession has a perfect title; this seisin and complete co-extensive possession with his he continues till thereof right ousted is. actual This a settled adverse possession. principle law, common this court in Green adopted by recognized Litter, 8 Cranch, 229, 230; v. Barr Gratz, v. Wheat. 213, 4 Pawlett, 233; Propagation Society Peters, 504, 4 506; v.
Clarke v. Peters, 355. And is Courtney, not now to be questioned. “ This to the words of the gives possession lands” their well settled and fixed possession does meaning; not imply residence; occupation or had intended, so must we presume would they have been used. of a words By adopting known legal import, must grantors presumed used them sense, them; to have so intended depart from this rule would be established prin- overturn ciples. To adopt the literal version English reject meaning
as settled at common law and this court would make this article confine the confirmation of of land to cases grants actual occupation residence. This would be to to-the give SUPREME COURT. v. States Arredondo and more limited construction than acts of treaty congress
have done to a worse place Spanish footing Florida, under the than Louisiana treaty, our with and to exclude from consideration compact Georgia, the same classes of cases on which tribunals special many in their under the had stipulations proceedings We are and confirmed similar satisfied decided grants. version, on this so taken we literally, acting adopting the intention should violate the laws which spirit give exercise; and are the to its we cannot us jurisdiction, guides decide other according principles justice way the words to their accep- than by considering legal it. respécted by' too often tation given itself, but we do not mean the mere of land By grants estate, title, and own- possession property the right, legal land to owner. legally resulting ership; is one other second clause expression There it oúr to notice. In we deem article which duty eighth it is the owners in of such possession “but version English land,” &c.; there is no sentence in the version Spanish “ this, the word correspond means proprietaries” can ¡and.” of such not owners owners, possession but too be mista- apparent grantor intention *44 on decide judicially tribunal authorized by ken to the a contract according meaning true construction This furnishes another contracting-parties. intention construction we in favour reason given powerful intendment and by which legal effect phrase, English' .the same. are' the for the Of
This article was those part eighth benefit who were under the faith a purchasers public grant, persons to be in their rights by and secured intended protected evidently which be construed liberally a ought the stipulation on to decide validity and required authorized a tribunal according principles justice of these grants article to this a treaty. due of equity having regard rules into these it than effect by carrying better regard We cannot it as we are con- rules, such an exposition principles-and and effectuates the intention par-ties vinced meets accomplished. intended object JANUARY TERM 1832. 745 v. Arredondo and We now consider on which the the conditions made. wi to the rules and the law are According directed case, to decide there can be no doubt that are fee, is in full an inte subsequent, property grant rest on vested which could execution divested only conditions, were, breach or non-performance that the on should establish the lands two hundred grantees out, families with the together requisites pointed which shall be out by the pointed superindendency: begin , the establishment within three from date of the years No time was fixed grant. for the establish completion ment, and no new or conditions hare been requisites appear with the ord From the returned rec we imposed. evidence that the establishment was satisfied commenced abundantly within the to have been required, extend (which appears .time ,and for one limited ed year beyond in a grant), which, manner situation of that country considering ap evidence, we must consider pears performance with that of the condition. Great part allowance must be the distracted state and prevalent confu sion at province time of the but until the of its time the United States. occupation by a court Though of law must decide construction of the legal and call for a strict party condition t a performance, ye more liberal equitylaeting will princiрles soften of law, and cannot rigour though party show; legal with condition, if do it compliance he can ey pres they forfeiture; him from a protect will save Dall. 203; 2 217, 218, 220; Vern. 225; Fonb. 2 Vern. 267, and note. The condition of two hundred families on the settling- land ha.‘¡ not been fact; is, with in
has complied question with in or has such law, matter been complied presented to the court as divests the dispenses the-performance of that condition.
It is an rule of law that if made on acknowledged *45 condition its a becomes pérformance subsequent, imposs- the act of the by ible the becomes We grantor, single. to that prepared condition two hun- say not settling been,
dred families in' American Spanish territory has or is Yol. T VI. —4 COURT. SUPREME States v. Arredondo at unreasonable or was not the condition unjust
possible; its would time it was probably imposed, performance fair consideration been deemed a very adequate toHut Florida remained a province. had grant, to its its cession exact after performance indeed, and en- would the “summum be demanding jus” if forbidden by forfeiture which not a principles forcing law, its would with spirit. inconsistent utterly common it, events, If the at all we feel ourselves case required might declare, not to that the if 'compelled performance justified, (cid:127) had (cid:127)this condition become by the act impossible the transfer territory, grantors; change govern- laws, manners, habits, customs, ment, religion, and of life. The society social and political relations this case United States have not submitted to her highest these, court of such not either we are equity grounds which, or has us lasv authorised devolved required to of this case final such rules consideration guided such on the principles deciding validity governed title. doubt, the claimants’ we should even if Though sitting claim, law a court of common and bound to this adjudicate not been so its has rules, submitted. case rigid established rules our equity according proceeding decree must be principles justice, conformity which in such a decree would case as this forbid final, us but decree in forfeiture favour impel give the title conferred graqt. validity
It has been that it ex- objected the laws authorized province. ceeds quantity we taken of order dated view September royal the* which it preceding authority grant, made, to have been renders unnecessary say purports than that, in relation disposition more objection was within the domain Florida royal jurisdiction Ramirez. he had intendant That make power his discretion, extent of within terms and the. neither the which this court has power the proper exercise will, however, We we are observe right judge. satisfied the local to make well authority competent than that to of lands of greater .quantity, *46 TERM JANUARY States v..Arredondo others.]
{United contended that they counsel of the United States have on limited; have never insisted limiting United States the and the such uniform legislation pittance. .Their wjbo their of all acted under the tribunals have proceedings n their all the time which has since authority elapsed during acquisition of within which any territory Spanish grants been to con- issued show that never been disрosed they fine them so but the .This case does narrowly,' contrary.
require us to define their extent.
The of fraud been in the has question pressed argument, but we in the shows its ex- perceive evidence which nothing istence so toas it home the claimants or it exists bring at all settled. the definition rules heretofore
It is are within the In- that the lands objected question dian Of the and not to be fact boundary, subject granted.
such doubt, location there seems no as the centre of the lobe Indians the Indian title the grant town of Alachua. The to these us.; lands is made sub- not a the matter.before them, ject their to resume and their if return rights they has abandonment ascertained by proceeding intendant in the calls sentence him in pronounced his character, official and sur- report attorney veyor This to be a mode of known general. seems proceeding law in in the nature of province, force office, act, as a inquest vitally judicial affecting domain, come within royal its general superintendency, conducted, under the order of It royal ivas so September. officers;
far we can perceive, officer proper law laws crown to on. report affecting subject, fact'; as to so that surveyor re- general joint port, whether, officer superior could decree officially, the nature it Indian had occupancy, right land, law fact, actual condition reverted by the to and beeome re-annexed to the domain abandon- royal ment of the his pronounced occupancy. intendant officers, sentence on of these declared report domain, to a lands be a granted royal open part it whenever reserving right occupancy Indian should was the im- be resumed. fact of abandonment ascertained, one .to if portant voluntary, dominion SUPREME COURT. v. States Arredondo crown if by'force over was unimpaired plenitude; had had the Indians whenever power right return. inclination to we
This a matter which feel bound consider a judicial one, of an and that we look sentence cannot behind the final authorised tribunal on which to examine into the evidence a fo founded; but must take it a “res adjudícala” *47 tribunal, as such. known be and to respected reign judicially con Similar are directed acts the various proceedings by offices, the land commissioners, or of the land gress; officers as the case em be, claims, confirm or and the land may reject braced claims, So fund. reverts to rejected public 1824, it is as provided by seventh section of act or claims not being duly presented prosecuted, barred shall There decreed this court. against finally is another answer to this notice: deserves objection, of land within the grants Indian are not excepted boundary, decision; the laws them referring judicial congress what not done the law has exceptions thought proper; it, we do not feel authorised.to of this. make an exception
It lastly the in- objected, extension of time by 1820, tendant in December without sub- authority, being to the ratification sequent Spain. the'treaty king But the ratification the United was in fol- February and the did not take treaty effect till its lowing, ratification both like the of a parties operated deed to make delivery act of That both. and does relate to binding may its date between the two so far as governments, respects the it, of either under may undoubted; but as rights respects in any way it, individual affeeted rights, different very To exact the rule prevail. performance ought con- dition of two of- settlement families, hundred any commencement, in its after date of the progress great treaty the confused and uncertain state during things preced- its ratification; would be both unreasonable and ing unjust; if court, was new in this should no we hesi- question tation in that as to the land saying, subject settlements, condition of must be ratification treaty taken at its date. In But the not new one. .1792 question the. state of her the sale of va- Pennsylvania passed law for 1832. TERM
JANUARY States Arredondo and others.] v. tUnited a condition issued it contained lands; warrants under
cant
settlement,
two
within
from their
years
of improvement
force
arms
the enemies of the
date,
unless prevented
such
settlement.
States,
making
continuing
1794,
was made
but not
of Greenville
The treaty
August
decisions of
uniform
till December
ratified
the solemn decision of
Pennsylvania,
supreme
Lessee
have set
Douglass,
court Huidekoper’s
against
ratification, so far
as it bears
the date of
to be
treaty
tled
affects the
the land
way
on or in
rights
parties
did
laws of
Pennsylvania.
obligation
begin
settle
if
thereafter, and
till the
of two
commenced
expiration
years
in the'
the condition has
course
following spring,
Cranch,
65;
considered as
with.
ment of court below (a) 'Mr Justice dissenting. Thompson,
Not in the conclusion to concurring which the court has *48 case, in this come of considering the magnitude the. pro- involved, in this case not but in the perty only of application decision, principles to other govern cases, and. th,e that now to the given treaty construction is at confessedly with that which has been variance heretofore I shall adopted, reasons for briefly my from assign of dissenting opinion court. It is to enter an my purpose into examination all the of which have questions been discussed at the bar. The n;ot I case, which have taken of the view does make neces- do for me to so. sary
The under which the grant petitioners court below claim, set bears up date on the 22d December IS is for a tract land in Florida, East little short three hundred thousand It acres. was made Don by Alexander Ramirez, o£- intendant Cuba, island of and superin- tendent of -the two Floridas. It recites that the- memorial for the same was presented on the intendancy 15th of November, then last past, concess- praying gratuitous Impressions/ opinion An submit(Vd/to,_anii this correcte'dTby,Mr Jus- (a) tice printer, Baldwin before put.to press. it was SUPREME COURT.
[United States v. Arredondo and others.] land, make ion an establishment offering theOf the name of Alachua, known territory, composed The is familiеs. hundred grant thereupon gratuitously two in full made, therein expressed, propertyand the pre- there two to establish hundred families, which obligation, cise the establishment within Spanish, must beginning the term most; at without which the three years, shall be con- null and void. sidered claim, of this on the validity depends construction of between article treaty eighth date the 22d of Spain, bearing
the king February 1819. It the part appellees, that contended is .the true treaty of this questions open construction for inquiry is are, 1st, and, whether genuine, 2dly, whether That authority. lawful upon the' establishment of facto, treaty, ipso confirms these points, grant, and to alb further door date inquiry closes the grant —the to that It that, is the,treaty. antecedent admitted being treaty, interpretation a different which has in our own government; and prevailed heretofore the change an iá rested upon interpretation of construction the Spanish as used treaty,.rejecting English side language, when treaty was in signed instrumént. both lan- must be considered the and each original language, guages; a translation. cannot be said that the neither-as It English translation, of the Spanish, any erroneous more than an that the erroneous translation.of English. The English sidétjf of the' article reads thus: "all the eighth the grants the 24th of before January 1818, land' made his catholic authorities, his lawful in the said territories majesty,- his United States, majesty shall be ceded the. ratified persons possession lands, confirmed the same extent, that same would valid if the remained under the had dominion of his territories catholic But the owners of such possession lands, who majesty. of- circumstances recent Spánish nation, reason *49 in revolutions the Europe, prevented fulfilling the conditions shall all grants, them within cotaplete same, the limited'in the terms the from date of the respectively, the in default which said shall null treaty; be grants All made since the 24th of grants void. when January JANUARY TERM v. and others.] Arredondo States on the of His catholió for the
the first part proposal majesty be are declared to made, cession of the Floridas was hereby null and void.” material, in which the are English Spanish parts are, said 1st, the declares that the English where agree confirmed,” “shall ratified shall Spanish be grants and, confirmed;” where the remain ratified and 2dly, English is, “shall and confirmed to in be ratified persons possess is, “to the land,” construction persons the Spanish in and, in that of the ar possession part grants;” 3dlyj thp conditions, ticle for which extends the time fulfilling in is, owners possession English, is, “the “land,” in construction pos owners Spanish be session of It will that readily pereeiyed grants.” results, different lead different and which very readings If titles affect the are materially grant question. confirmed land at thé date of persons possession#! treaty, within the does not come saving; question Arredondo, there is no that or any pretence person claiming him, the date of was at the treaty in-possession land, or had done towards conditions thing fulfilling depend, which the made to without If null it is declared to be and void. construction contended, as now side of the treaty, to be Spanish adopted, and all before the 24th of 1818, are grants January confirmed treaty, declaration proprio vigore, they shall —the be confirmed to same extent same grants-would be valid, if the territories had under the remained dominion of his and must entirely be majesty, nugatory, catholic re no for we have to enter into the jected: right how far inquiry would be valid under the Spanish government. Such was most not the manifestly intention par contracting ties; but that should substituted in the and should Spain, into execution place carry good faith the contracts made under the for the Spanish government dis lands, position which the government was bound ex debito into execution. carry justitiee The treaty must be as made considered to an reference established sys tem relative .to the land in disposition of territories ceded—and that' examination, open would *50 SUPREME COURT. v. States Arredondo and
[United not, whether valid or to rules and the regulations according admitted, established such to that if systemi It seems be the side of the to the English treaty govern, ques grant tion would not come within article, the saving eighth unless the date of the be to considered as the time treaty ratified on 19th Before finally February 1821. contended, time it establishment was commenced to the conditions of the This will question grant. be noticed hereafter.
I do not to profess understand the and shall Spanish language, not to therefore undertake say whether the criticisms are well not. founded or But it must strike as one a little extra- any that the ordinary, should negotiators a have sanctioned such material but that con- discrepancy; should have been for ten gress years past upon legislating side different treaty, boards of commissioners English the titles constructions, under such trying and that sitting this court should fallen' into error, and the mis- same take not till discovered now. But this admitting discrepancy, as for, now contended exists English Spanish side
between treaty, ques- arises, tion which must we I know of adopt? no rule that re- a court of quires justice reject English, adopt If in their Spanish. should think congress liberality proper this, do could not be so far power ex- disputed, actual,bona tended protection settlers fide land, the power, my would be judgment, wisely discreetly' exercised. But it does not seem to me that of justice be called can upon, a matter of courtesy, this to a yield power,, construction of a no foreign treaty; rules of law applicable will, construction of contracts, in my it. It will not justify certainly judgment, pretended that rule construction royal case. That applies where is made it is to be taken most king, beneficially the. I is, for the It against- think, king grantee. not claim- too much it a consider contract between ing equals; that, would be more rule applicable in such case, requires should be construed most strongly against grantor. It is true, as a certainly rule, that all general written instru- ments to be construed by themselves, without resorting TERM
JANUARY States v. Arredondo and others.] the intention of instrument, to ascertain dehors to evidence which is there is a latent where ambiguity, except the parties, rwith cannot propriety here. But that prinсiple not the case does notarise from case; the difficulty present applied side or in the either obscurity English but from discrepancy, if considered separately; the treaty, *51 and, presents in my when judgment, together; -compared into the intention and„u’nderstanding case for inquiry proper treaties. of the who parties negotiated “ Vattel, must be as the says Every treaty,” interpreted par ties it when the act was understood proposed accepted.” The lawful of the contract to tend only interpretation ought or authors of --the .the author discovery thoughts we should obscurity, soon seek contract; as as we meet for of those who it what was in the drew thoughts up, probably This is the rule of all it interpret accordingly. general about That'all miserable subtleties interpretation. quibbles 262, rule. see words (Vattel, are overthrown this unerring 228, 230.) p. case,
Such is to be collected understanding, present itself, from written which will not evidence speak misunderstood or misrecol declarations, be cparole might evidence, doubt, written no if to such lected; we resort ap on the construction me, remain that treaty, can pears either Mr or Onis, Adams Don not the understanding, was land made the 24th before that all January grants or his lawful should' authorities, his catholic be majesty the mere force operation confirmed by treaty. does transfer
It said the treaty purport, private pro- all that such excepted the second perty; property true This cannot be in the broad extent article. proposition laid it has down. It not transfer may private to which been annuls if but it private property, every grant, property, is to considered description, private property. whatever be construction, there would a direct repugnancy For upon and the declares articles; second latter eighth between 24th of shall made since the January that all grants a mere did not null and But consider Spain void. king no whjch manner had in conditions grant, upon gratuitous fulfilled, been This indst whatever private property.
Yol. VI. —4 U SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo and others;] the, been which he ground grants Alagon, annulled Rostro,
Punon So it was Vargas. understood by Don Onis, as will be shown hereafter his And correspondence. same.power assumed over like in other grants eases, no where became private vested right possession, or taking some act towards doing condition fulfilling the grants; done, and where that has been is secured to the right per- son possession, according provisions the eighth let us look at the article. But correspondence between Mr Onis which lead Adams Don to this article. eighth The material point difference between the negotiators was, this article whether it should framing confirm absolutely 24th of prior ISIS, sub January modo, so as to enure benefit of actual bona fide settlers on the made; land at time wa article re- form in which it now stands. sulted states article cede the proposition territory 24th part Spain 1818; originated January date, assumed doubtless there must though some previous communications on the either subject, *52 our in here for Spain; minister Mr his Erving, 1818, February 10th of letter wrote to Adams, Mr had lately made Spain that the land king large grants favourites; of his to several and that he Florida had East been informed, that by the duke of sweeping grant credibly within a few days he had past given away remain- Alagon, 18. 1st State vol. Papers, der. was therefore
Our what was apprised government pro- Florida, on with bably respect must be going grants to have intended to them. On guard the-24th against presumed Adarps 1818, Don Onis sent to Mr of October proposition Floridas, with clause: following cede dona- made of lands of his or sales government majesty, tions time, until this authorities, are nevertheless to be or by legal On the 31st of Mr October Adams an- as valid.” recognized all his swered, proposal, requiring grants declining should be made by cancelled, Spain to have lately alleged time to all made back grants after carry proposed but declined, offered to annul Onis This Don 1802. year January 1818; all 24th after the saying, made grants TERM JANUARY and others.] v. Arredondo cul- with a promote population, view had been
grants them; that of alienating not with industry, tivation in consideration null and void be and that should declared essential condi- with the complied the grantees having 25, 26. State Papers, 1st tions of vol. the cession. Onis, in his 1819, Don project 9th February on the Again, same, Adams, provision, reiterates
of a Mr sent to as valid and acknowledged that all shall be confirmed grants the 24th January after been issued which had those except that the in consideration 1818,-which grantees should be null 1 S. P. 87. had not of the cessions. the conditions complied In Don Onis persisting all this we find correspondence 1818, 24th of claim, January his that all prior grants as the reason confirmed; should and assigning absolutely annulled, those to that date should why issued subsequent conditions; because with the not complied grantees had proposition we find Mr Adams continually rejecting confirmed: absolutely consider the before that period are confirmed yet it. now insisted that such article, that the treaty. The shows subsequent negotiation stands, now for the into that shape expressly put pur- construction, and with the under- pose such guarding against Neuville, who acted Onis and his Mr both of Don standing, that the land negotiation, behalf a part grants'of during 1818, as after the 24th dated before as well January annulled, settlements had been com- those except menced, which had-beefi prevented completion recent circumstances and the revolutions Europe. pf Spain It is me state more this corres- unnecessary particularly result, stated, will be found as above pondence; fully sup- in the first volume a reference correspondence ported 13, 26, 68, 74, 46, 75. There Papers, pp. State Don O’ Is be no that such was can doubt understanding Neuville; to our minis- and Mr in a letter Adams, and Mr De ter before *53 king in was treaty whilst Spain, pending the ratification, states the reasons why grants name, duke of were: and others were not excluded by Alagon 1, honour of Mr Onis to the desire save conformably of Mr and, 2, because from the despatches king; Erving kind, same it was there were other supposed grants SUPREME COURT. States v. Arredondo and under similar made To circumstances. have named them have left room for might presumptive inference favour others: determination to exclude all. them to That the Arredondo was made under cir similar cumstances, and liable to same objections those to Punon Rostro and is most Alagon, Vargas, manifest. Appli for them all cations were made within a few months of each other, latter part year 1817 and beginning 1818, and no on made settlements either at the date of the and to consider the treaty: all precluding inquiry validity into this appears me directly words very lace of and most treaty, manifestly clear those whom it against understanding was made: construction and such is the article given this court the case of Foster and v. Neilson, Peters, Elam .“ court words of say are, the article of land made before the 24th of January his grants &c. shall be ratified and catholic confirmed to the majesty, lands, 'the to the same extent possession that the persons would valid same if territories had remained grants upder of his dominion catholic Do these majesty.” words so on the as to directly grants act give validity those not valid, do the faith they pledge otherwise acts which shall confirm them? pass ratify That does not declare that all the his article grants catholic 24th before January shall be majesty valid.to if the ceded territories had extent remained same under his this is dominion; construction yet very to be sought to it in the case. It does present not that those say given are confirmed. Had hereby such been grants language, have acted and would .directly would have re subject, acts those to it.' congress But repugnan pealed is, that those shall be ratified confirmed its language in possession, &c. shall to’ the whom By persons This seems be the con confirmed? language ratified is, the ratification if and confirmation tract; and be the act must legislature. promised, act oe suen shall at passed, liberty Until . laws the existing appears Congress subject. disregard understood, this article court. understood as it is *54 1833. TERM JANUARY and Stales v. Arredondo for East been appointed commissioners of Boards lands, and on their reports Fionda, receive claims West to been confirmed acres, lands, titles to exceeding ato amount. very large U. S. 1822, of vol. Laws May the 7th act
By 8th to 5, claims and titles land within 104, 4 and concerning sec. title under Florida, any
the persons territory claiming concession, order of dated or survey, previous patent, gram, 1818, under the whieh were valid to day January the 24th nations, and which are the law of Spanish government, to the the territory, required treaty ceding not-rejected to commissioners; file claim with the such power given the to into the validity commissioners inquire justice from such exempt inquiry: No claims. patent such how confirmed the could treaty, are absolutely if they of them examination validity subject the justice runs the same And through commissioners?' principle 1828, See acts p. to these claims. in relation the laws U. S. 300. 7th vol. Laws lеtter of me,.therefore, that
It plain eighth appears clear manifest intention treaty, article uniform and the understanding congress, negotiation, court, construction, all concur that .f this grants, opinion 24th of 1818 are January required made prior and confirmed the actual persons possession ratified at the date of the lands be held treaty, valid extent would same have been binding in such to bona fide actual grantees Spain; pos- king giving settlements, session, but who had commenced having the late circumstances nation and prevented all the Europe the revolutions conditions of fulfilling time them. complete their grants^
If, true construction treaty, party claiming this article must show an benefit of actual of.the possession land at the date of becomes -to treaty, necessary inquire It what that date is. co ícluded and on the 22d signed ratified 24th on the February king Spain States on 19th of Feb- October 1821; is, and the which of these ruary periods question be taken I date think time the treaty? SUFREME COURT. v.
[United Síates Arredondo and others.] was concluded and must be taken as the date. signed, had view the state contracting parties condition of things time, at and neither could in faith such con- good change so as dition to affect other stipulations treaty. Any would construction the door to fraud open and imposition. *55 the article, Suppose the eighth 1818, instead'of 24th of January said, all of had land made the before date of the grants treaty be valid; shall would that made valid issued after and treaty was ratified States? signed, United before one, believed, No it is this; would contend for and if for any date fixed purpose the instrument would govern, in uniform, all cases. The rule be should ought not open and to be for the cases. changed purpose particular meeting The date as fixed in the is the instrument certain period: the time of ratification is may uncertain. altogether Changes take between the place two periods; materially affecting and ratification negotiation, may delayed express of acco some such purpose nplishing object.
The true rule on this is laid down Mr Justice subject in the case of Brown, 1 C. Wash. C. Washington, Hylton v. 312; the treaty, that when ratified, relates back to the time R. ratification is more than evidence signing. nothing under which the acted. A authority minister government its minister, is bound to made observe perform treaty it can be made to his he has exceeded unless that appear (cid:127) aBut he ratification is an authority. acknowledgement that and if so, make the was authorised nation is treaty; is from the time is bound and it treaty signed: notice, that in worthy acts relation to congress 22d this date of is referred to as of the February 1819, the time it was understand signed; thereby showing If our this own on .the government ing subject. then no date of taken as the that at pretence there treaty, time, when any even ratified king Spain, by. taken settlement had been made any part possession therefore, a case is, this tract. It my coming opinion, within article treaty. saying provision eighth ifBut the time of as the date of the ratifiсation assumed taken, no land treaty, had then within possession William H. Hall reasonable construction of the treaty. TERM JANUARY and v. Arredondo of Smith men, name two he,
testifies 1820, November 7th Alachua, on the Lanman, went to That hd some and erect some land to clear began buildings. taken he was where to St sick soon after went Augustine, found Alachua, he That on time. returning remained some Arredondo, there, Mitchell employed some persons him,- he abandoned who were disagreeable personally what became settlement 189); project (record abandoned also: must have does not others appear they— that he for, 176), William Simmons H. testifies (record houses; or six 1822; five at saw Alachua February of a there, had been upwards Wanton was and he understood was no other visit, person there That his first year. So that Wanton, some Mr negroes.
established there but of the treaty after the ratification one February year who, man and few States, one white negroes, of a understood, year, the witness had been there upwards is claimed be a on the land: arid only persons land, acres of thousand possession three hundred nearly *56 the case within the This view of of a solemn treaty. meaning re renders it enter inquiry me unnecessary make intendant Ramirez specting authority contained the conditions whether or question, in. dis or in any way dispensed been performed, charged. whole, I
Upon am of that the opinion judgment court be reversed. ought
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript record from the court for the district superior eastern Florida, and On counsel. consideration where argued of, this is of in so Court there no error much opinion of the said is ~ralid decree determines that claim ought be confirmed; and this Court doth affirm so much thereof, and doth decree that the title of the valid claimants the United stipulations treaty between and, States dated 22d Anno Spain, day February, 1819, the laws of the States in relation there Domini laws to, nations, this Court Spain. pro- Arid SUPREME COURT. v. Arredondo and others.] to render such as the
ceeding decree said superior ought done, to have order, doth finally decree, determine and that so much said decree directs the land embraced the grant Alexandro Ramirez, of.Don the intendant Cuba, to Don Fernando de la Maza Arredondo y dated the 22d Hijo, day December, Anno Domini to be laid off “in a square, tract, two hundred and containing thousand six eighty-nine hundred and forty-five five-sevenths acres of mea- English surement, the centre thereof the known monu- being spot, tree, ment marked at or near the house at present Wanton; Edward M dwelling said spot, monument or tree, to marked be ascertained who under surveyor, tract,” the law shall said be survey and the same is hereby and annulled. doth reversed And Court further and decree, land be laid off finally said order,-adjudge form, in a two square hundred and containing eighty-nine six hundred and acres, thousand forty-five five-sevenths measure, the centre whereof known as English place Alachua, inhabited in other In- by tribe Seminole dimes And centre said as-Alachua, dians. known place, as the centre of considered the grant.