umrsn sums v. MAXWELL LAND-GRANT oo. 21
that case amounting to over a millionlof acres. Each speaks of the
grant, and ailirms that it is valid, and does not say that there is ci
` valid grant within the lands described. There is no suggestion of
the boundaries of a tract of 11 or 22 square leagues within the out-
boundaries, and, indeed, no reference to any tract but the single one
described, and for which the petition was originally presented. Gone
gress, in the act of condrmation, conhrms these claims as recom·
mended. By the same act, however, two other claims reported and
recommended for confirmation by the surveyor general were con-
iirmed,—the one only to the extent of five square leagues, and the other
to two persons, to the extent of twenty-two square leagues; and in
the second section the rules for locating these two tracts of live and
tweuty·two square leagues within the out-boundaries of the claims
were prescribed. Evidently, the attention of congress was directed
to theextent and boundaries of these claims, an·d if it had intended
toconiirm a grant of only 22_square leagues within the out-boundaries
of this tract, it would, as in the other cases, have prescribed some
rule for locating such grant. No other reasonable interpretation can
be put upon the language of the surveyor general than this: that he
believed the grant was of the entire land, that it was a good and valid
grant according to the laws of Mexico, and that he recommended it
as a whole for confirmation. It would be a strained and unnatural
interpretation of such language to say that it meant simply that there
was a valid grant within these out-boundaries; and the confirmation
was of the grant, as he statedit was made. ·
In coming to this conclusion I am not insensible of the rule that
where there is a doubt as to the extent of a grant from the govern-
ment the doubt is to be resolved in favor of the government; but,
nothwithstanding this, I think the language of congressional grants,
and of all papers and instruments appe-rtaining thereto, should be
taken in its ordinary and natural meaning, and that there shouldbe
no straining of language or twisting of·terms in order to disclose
limits and exceptions therein. When a report is made that apetition
was filed for a grant of certain lands, describing them, and that such
lands were granted and havebeen occupied by the grantees, no one
would fora moment suppose that it was the intention simply to say
that within the boundariesdcscribed there was a valid grant for a
smaller and undescribed portion of land. . ; · .·
I hold, therefore, that the actof congress operated as a-grant de
novo for all the land within the boundaries as given in the report of
the surveyor general. ` ·'‘t I _ A ‘ ` · ` ‘ _ `
j_The second question is this: Assuming that the grant was good
for all the land within the out-boundaries, and-not simply for the 22
leagues,_the bill alleges that -the patent covers about 270,000 acres
of land in Colorado not within those out-boundaries, and that this
patent was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. It-{charges
that; in 1870, which was afterthe; confirmatory act, and tnhile the