20   rmnsnsn snronran.
After the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which we acquired this
territory, congress, in 1854, (10 St. p. 308, § 8,) cast upon the sur-
veyor general of the territory of New Mexico the duty of ascertaining
the origin, nature, character, and extent of the private land claims
therein, and required him·to make a full report, with his decision
thereon, to be laid before congress for such action as it should deem
fit. In pursuance of that duty the surveyor general, on September
15, 1857, transmitted his report as to this claim, showing a petition
for a grant of lands, describing them only by the outer boundaries,
the grant bythe governor of the territory, the giving of juridical pos-
session, a dispute as to the grant, its confirmation by the depart-
mental assembly, its occupation by the grantees, and then his opin-
ion that it was “a good and valid grant according to the laws and
customs of the government of the republic of Mexico." Some 18 of
these land claims were in separate reports thus transmitted by him
to congress and placed before that body for action, and on the twenty-
iirst of June, 1860, an act was passed confirming most of them,'in
accordance with the recommendation and decision of the surveyor
general. Among these claims N o. 15 was the one in controversy in
this suit. No. 4 was the one which came before the supreme court
· for consideration in the case just referred to. In the report of the
surveyor general of that claim, after narrating the prior proceedings,
which were similar to those in the case at bar, he makes this decis-
ion: · . - .
’ " The grant being a positive one, without any subsequent conditions at-
tached, and made by a competent authority, and having been in the posses-
sion and occupancy of the grantees and their assigns from the time the grant
A was made, it is the opinion of this oiiice that the grant is a good and valid
one, and that a legal title vests in Charles Beaubien to the land embraced
within the limits contained in the petition. The grant is therefore approved
by this otiice, and transferred to the proper department, with the recommen-
dation that it be confirmed bythe congress of the United States."
So that while in that case he declared that the grant was a good and
valid one, and that a legal title was vested in Charles Beaubien to
the land embraced within the limits contained in the petition, in this
he simply says that it is a good and valid grant according to the laws
of the government of the republic of- Mexico; hence counsel argues
that as by such laws only 11 square leagues could be granted to a
single person, what the surveyor general meant to say was simply
that it was a good and valid grant to the extent of 22 square leagues
within these outerboundariesyand that congress, confirming his re-
port, only confirmed the grantto that extent. r As heretofore stated,
‘ I do not think the difference between the cases of any significance.
All preliminary statements in the two reports, as to petition, descrip-
tion, grant, and occupation, are alike. In each the petition is for
V the land described, and not a tract within the boundaries named. ¢In
neither is any notice of the alleged limitation of 11 square leagues.
In each the land described is largely in excess of such limitation, in