Statement of the Case.

pointed for hearing the same: And provided, further, That it shall and may be lawful for the District Judge of the United States, upon the hearing of such petition, to grant an injunction to restrain the party at whose instance the claim to the said lands has been confirmed, from suing out a patent for the same, until the title thereto shall have been finally decided, a copy of which order shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and thereupon no patent shall issue until such decision shall be made, or until sufficient time shall, in the opinion of the said Judge, have been allowed for obtaining the same; and thereafter the said injunction shall be dissolved."

"SEC. 15. That the final decrees rendered by the said commissioners, or by the District or Supreme Court of the United States, or any patent to be issued under this act, shall be conclusive between the United States and the said claimants only, and shall not affect the interests of third persons.

"SEC. 16. That it shall be the duty of the commissioners herein provided for to ascertain and report to the Secretary of the Interior the tenure by which the mission lands are held, and those held by civilized Indians, and those who are engaged in agriculture or labor of any kind, and also those which are occupied and cultivated by Pueblos or Rancheros Indians."

On the trial before the court, without a jury, the findings of fact were in substance that the plaintiffs had the ownership in fee simple of the premises described; that the defendants had no rights or interest therein, and the decree was in accordance therewith. The statement on appeal prepared by the trial court disclosed that the plaintiffs introduced in evidence the patent to John J. Warner, which patent recited the filing of a petition by Warner with the land commission praying for confirmation of his title, a title based on two Mexican grants-one June 8, 1840, to José Antonio Pico by Juan B. Alvarado, then constitutional governor of the Californias, and the second, November 28, 1844, to petitioner by Manual Micheltorena, governor general commandant and inspector general of the Californias; recited also a decree of confirmation of such title, an appeal to the District Court of the United States and an affirmance of the decision of

Opinion of the Court.

the commission, the return of the surveyor general of the State showing a survey; and conveyed the premises to Warner, "but with the stipulation that in virtue of the fifteenth section of the said act neither the confirmation of this claim nor this patent shall affect the interests of third persons." It was admitted that Warner's title had passed to plaintiffs, and that the taxes had all been paid by them. On the other hand, the appeal statement showed that the defendants offered copies of the expedientes of both of the grants referred to in the patent, and also oral testimony of occupation by the defendants and their ancestors. Some witnesses were introduced by the plaintiffs to contradict this matter of occupancy, but on final consideration the court struck out all the testimony in reference to occupancy and of the Mexican grants upon which the patent was issued. Upon the evidence, therefore, that was received by the trial court there could be no doubt of the rightfulness of the decree, and the question presented by the record to the Supreme Court of the State was whether there was error in striking out the testimony offered on behalf of the defence.

Mr. Shirley C. Ward and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hoyt for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. David L. Withington for defendants in error. Mr. Stephen M. White, Mr. Charles Monroe and Mr. Cassius Carter were on his brief.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Undoubtedly by the rules of international law, and in accordance with the provisions of the treaty between the Mexican government and this country, the United States were bound to respect the rights of private property in the ceded territory. But such obligation is entirely consistent with the right of this Government to provide reasonable means for determining the validity of all titles within the ceded territory, to require all persons having claims to lands to present them for recognition,

Opinion of the Court.

and to decree that all claims which are not thus presented shall be considered abandoned. "Undoubtedly private rights of property within the ceded territory were not affected by the change of sovereignty and jurisdiction, and were entitled to protection, whether the party had the full and absolute ownership of the land, or merely an equitable interest therein, which required. some further act of the Government to vest in him a perfect title. But the duty of providing the mode of securing these rights, and of fulfilling the obligations imposed upon the United States by the treaties, belonged to the political department of the Government; and Congress might either itself discharge that duty or delegate it to the judicial department. De la Croix v. Chamberlain, 12 Wheat. 599, 601, 602; Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2 How. 344, 374; Tameling v. United States Freehold Co., 93 U. S. 644, 661; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S. 238." Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land & Mining Co., 148 U. S. 80, 81.

Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S. 238, the last case cited in the foregoing quotation, deserves special notice. The Supreme Court of California had held in several cases that a perfect title need not be presented to the land commission; that it was recognized by the treaty of cession, and required no further confirmation; that the act to ascertain and settle private land claims applied only to those titles which were imperfect and needed the action of some tribunal to ascertain and establish their validity. But in this case, which came from the Supreme Court of California, we held the contrary. We quote at some length from the opinion. Thus, on page 246, it was said:

"Two propositions under this statute are presented by counsel in support of the decision of the Supreme Court of California. The first of these is, that the statute itself is invalid, as being in conflict with the provisions of the treaty with Mexico, and violating the protection which was guaranteed by it to the property of Mexican citizens, owned by them at the date of the treaty; and also in conflict with the rights of property under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so far as it may affect titles perfected under Mexico. The second proposition is, that the statute was not intended to apply to claims which were supported by a complete and perfect title from the Mexican

Opinion of the Court.

government, but, on the contrary, only to such as were imperfect, inchoate and equitable in their character, without being a strict legal title.

"With regard to the first of these propositions it may be said, that so far as the act of Congress is in conflict with the treaty with Mexico, that is a matter in which the court is bound to follow the statutory enactments of its own Government. If the treaty was violated by this general statute enacted for the purpose of ascertaining the validity of claims derived from the Mexican government, it was a matter of international concern, which the two States must determine by treaty, or by such other means as enables one State to enforce upon another the obligations of a treaty. This court, in a class of cases like the present, has no power to set itself up as the instrumentality for enforcing the provisions of a treaty with a foreign nation which the Government of the United States, as a sovereign power, chooses to disregard. The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616; Taylor v. Morton, 2 Curtis, 454; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 598; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 195."

In reference to the second proposition, after noticing several provisions of the statute, it was declared (p. 248):

"It is not possible, therefore, from the language of this statute, to infer that there was in the minds of its framers any distinction as to the jurisdiction they were conferring upon this board, between claims derived from the Spanish or Mexican government, which were perfect under the laws of those governments, and those which were incipient, imperfect or inchoate. It was equally important to the object which the United States had in the passage of it, that claims under perfect grants from the Mexican government should be established as that imperfect claims should be established or rejected.

"The superior force which is attached, in the argument of counsel, to a perfect grant from the Mexican government had its just influence in the board of commissioners or in the courts to which their decisions could be carried by appeal. If the title was perfect, it would there be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, holding that the claim thus presented was valid; if it was not, then it was the right and the duty of that court

Opinion of the Court.

to determine whether it was such a claim as the United States was bound to respect, even though it was not perfect as to all the forms and proceedings under which it was derived. So that the superior value of a perfected Mexican claim had the same influence in a court of justice which is now set up for it in an action where the title is contested.

"Nor can it be said that there is anything unjust or oppressive in requiring the owner of a valid claim, in that vast wilderness of lands unclaimed, and unjustly claimed, to present his demands to a tribunal possessing all the elements of judicial functions, with a guarantee of judicial proceedings, so that his title could be established if it was found to be valid, or rejected if it was invalid.

"We are unable to see any injustice, any want of constitutional power, or any violation of the treaty, in the means by which the United States undertook to separate the lands in which it held the proprietary interest from those which belonged, either equitably or by a strict legal title, to private persons. Every person owning land or other property is at all times liable to be called into a court of justice to contest his title to it. This may be done by another individual, or by the government under which he lives. It is a necessary part of a free government, in which all are equally subject to the laws, that whoever asserts rights or exercises powers over property may be called before the proper tribunals to sustain them."

The views thus expressed have been several times reaffirmed by this court, the latest case being Florida v. Furman, 180 U. S. 402, in which, after quoting the passage last above quoted, we said, in reference to statutes of the United States respecting claims in Florida (p. 438):

66

"We are of opinion that these acts applied and were intended to apply to all claims, whether perfect or imperfect, in that particular resembling the California act; that the courts were bound to accept their provisions; and that there was no want of constitutional power in prescribing reasonable limitations operating to bar claims if the course pointed out were not pursued."

See also Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming &c. Co., 180 U.S. 72, 77, in which it was said in reference to the statute before us: