Faxon v. United States

171 U.S. 244, 18 S. Ct. 849, 43 L. Ed. 151, 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1601

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: May 31, 1898
• Docket: 119
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

In order to the confirmation of any claim, the Court of Private Land Claims, under the. act creating that tribunal, (26 Stat. 854, c. 539,) must be satisfied not merely of the regularity in form of the proceedings, but that the official body or person assuming to make the grant was vested with authority, or that the exercise of power, if unwarranted, was subsequently lawfully ratified; and the same rule applies to this court on appeal. Hayes v. United States, 170 U. S. 637; Ely's Administrator v. United States, ante, 220.

The -titulo shows that Ignacio Lopez, treasurer of the department of Sonora, assumed to make the sale and grant of the lands in question, in the exercise of sole authority, ex-officio, under the decree of February 10, 1842, and article 73 of the law of April 17, 1837, as being property “pertaining to the department of temporalities,” the value whereof did not exceed five hundred dollars. He asserted the power to determine, alone, that the lands were of the temporalitiés; that their value was not-over five hundred dollars; and to sell and grant them independently of other officials than himself. •

The Court of Private Land Claims held that if the lands belonged to the class of temporalities it was clear that the treasurer of the department had no power to make a sale by his sole authority, whether the value exceeded five hundred dollars or not; and if the lands did not belong to that class, nevertheless there was the same want of power under the laws of Mexico in relation to the disposition of the public domain.

Many of the laws in this regard have been set forth in United States v. Coe, 170 U. S. 681; Hayes v. United States, supra; Ely’s Administrator v. United States, supra ; and other cases, and the statement of so much thereof as particularly bears on the matter in hand involves some repetition.

By the law of January 26, 1831, a general department of revenues was established, under whose control all branches of the treasury were placed, except the general administration of the mail and of the mint. A general director and three auditors were provided for, to be appointed by the government, and the general department, was divided into three sec tions, of each of which an auditor was the chief. 2 Dublan and Lozano Mex. Laws, 308.

May 21, 1831, a law was passed creating commissaries general apd commissariats, and on July 7, 1831, regulations were issued under the law of January 26. The .first auditor was made chief of the first section, having charge,-among other things, of “national property in which is included, under article nine of the law of August 4, 1824, that of the inquisition and temporalities, and all other country or town property belonging to the Féderatiou.” 2 Mex. Laws, 329, 341.

The tenth regulation provided that the general department should take an exact account of the number, location, value, condition and present method of administration of all the property and estates of the nation, in which were included those of the inquisition and temporalities, and all others that belong to the public exchequer, in accordance with the law of August 4, 1824; should see to the thorough collection of the proceeds, as provided in the law of January 26 and other laws; and should do whatever it considered most beneficial in regard to the sale, lease or other means of administration that might be advisable, in whole or in part, of the property in question.

Certain regulations were thereafter prescribed, and set forth. in a circular of July 20, 1831, 2 Mex. Laws, 351, whereby the commissariats general were located in ' the capitals of certain enumerated states ;.and, at designated-points in others, that of Sonora being at Arizpe; but the commissaries, if .they thought a change would be advantageous, were required to bring it to the notice of the government with their reasons.

Articles 126 and 127 of these regulations read :

“ 126. All purchases,, sales and contracts made on account of the treasury, whatever be their purpose, shall be made by the commissaries general sitting as boards of sale; but before convoking them, it shall be absolutely necessary to receive first the order therefor, either from the supreme government, communicated directly or through the treasury general, or rather from the directory of revenues, when it relates to matters subject thereto.

“ 127. Said board shall hold its sessions in the room most suitable for the purpose in the commissariats, or in the public place nearest to those offices, and the regular members shall be the commissary or sub-commissary, who shall preside, the senior officer of the treasury, or the one who acts in his stead, and the attorney general, where there is one, and each of these employés shall take the place or seat to which he is entitled in the order in which they are named.”

Besides the regular members, it was provided by Article 128 that there should be special members, depending on the character of the sale, purchase or contract being made, as for instance, when it related to the offices or revenues in the federal district subject to the directory general, the auditor in charge should attend;.and if subject to any of the other departments, the chief clerk of the bureau of accounts, etc. If it related to supplies for army service, the officer appointed by the proper inspector should be present; if to business pertaining to the artillery arsenals, etc., the chief officer thereof; if to hospital service, the first assistant of the medical corps; if to fortification works, the chief of the corps of engineers; and if, finally, to other matters, the employé of the nearest related department appointed by the commissary general. Timely notice was required to be given to-the regular and special members of the day and hour of the sale, which ordinarily should be held at ten o’clock in the morning.

It was also provided that if there was a notary public in the place, he should necessarily be present at the sessions of the board, and that whatever was done therein should be certified to by him, or by two attending witnesses, if there was none; that the sales or purchases intended to be made should be published for at least eight days beforehand by placards .put up in the most public and frequented places, and also inserted in newspapers of greatest circulation, if there were any, care being taken that the notices contained the necessary information about the. matter and its most essential circumstances ; that when the sale was opened, and the customary proclamations made, all lawfully made bids should be received until the day of final sale, which should be made “ to the bidder who offers the most advantages to the treasury, as determined by an absolute^ majority of the votes of the board, which minute and everything that may have occurred at the sale shall be entered on the booh, which the commissary and sub-commissaries shall keep for the purpose, and which the members shall sign with attending witnesses or with the notary, who, besides, shall draw up all other, necessary papers. In the absence of a notary, a clerk, whom the commissary shall bring for the purpose, shall draw up the minutes and the conclusions.” The proceedings were then to be forwarded with a report thereon to the supreme government, “ without whose approval the purchase, sale or contract shall not be carried into effect; ” and it wTas also provided that “ when there is evidence that any member of the board has bought or sold at the sale, himself or through a third, person, the sale shall be void and he shall be punished with the penalties the laws impose upon those who commit like abuses.”

In 1835 the state legislatures were abolished and departmental bodies established ; and the bases for a new constitution were adopted, followed by such constitution dividing the country into departments, the interior government of which was entrusted to the governors in subordination to the general government. 3 Mex. Laws, 75, 89, 230, 258.

By a decree of April 17, 1837, the principal officer of the general treasury in each department was designated as the superior chief of the treasury, and on him and his subordinates was conferred by article 92 the powers and duties formerly exercised by the commissary general and, sub-commissaries, “in so far as they do not conflict with this decree, for in that respect all existing laws stand repealed.” 3 Mex. Laws, 363.

Articles 73-, 74, 75 and 76 were as follows:

“73. All the purchases and sales that are offered on account of the treasury and exceed five hundred dollars, shall be made necessarily b.y the board of sales, which, in the capital of each department, shall be composed of the su perior chief of the treasury, the departmental treasurer, the first alcalde, the attorney general of the treasury, and the auditor of the treasury, who shall act as secretary. Its minutes shall be spread on a book which shall be kept for the purpose, and shall be signed by all the members of the board, and a copy thereof shall be transmitted to the superior chief of the treasury, for such purposes as may be necessary and to enable him to make a report to the supreme government.

“ 74. The superior chiefs shall hold meetings of the boards of the treasury at least twice a month, and when they consider it necessary according to the difficulty and importance of the business. These boards shall be composed of said chief, the departmental .treasurer, the attorney general of the treasury, the principal collector of the revenues and the auditor of the treasury, who shall act as secretary thereof.

“75. The object of the board of the treasury shall be to procure the. prosperity and increase of the revenues of the treasury, the most easy and prompt collection thereof, to promote the economies that should be made, to expedite such grave matters of difficult solution as the superior chief may bring to its knowledge and to make a report to the latter of bad management, improper conduct, failure to comply with their duties and other omissions of which they may. have knowledge, or may have observed in the employés of the treasury of the department.

“76. The minutes of the board shall be spread on the proper book, which shall be signed by all the members thereof, and an authenticated copy transmitted to the. superior chief of the treasury to enable him to make a report to the supreme government, when the case requires it,”

By a law of December 7, 1837, it was made the duty of the governors, among other things, “ to preside over the boards of sale and of the treasury, with power to defer the resolutions of these latter until, in the first or second session thereafter, the matter under' consideration is more carefully examined into.” 3 Mex. Laws, 443.

By Article 140 of a decree of June 13, 1843, it was made the duty of the governor of each department to publish the decrees of the president and cause them to be complied with; and by subdivision 10 of Article 142, the governor was made the chief of the public treasury of the department with general supervision of the same. 4 Mex. Laws, 428. And in passing it may be remarked that there is absolutely nothing in this record to indicate that the governor participated in any way in the act of sale, while the terms of the testimonio clearly show that the departmental treasurer proceeded and assumed to proceed upon his own sole authority.

December' 16, 1841, the office of the. superior chief of the treasury created by the decree of April 17, 1837, was abolished, and it was provided that the departmental treasurers should continue for the present to perform the functions of their office as established by the law creating them,, and also to perform those of the discontinued chiefs of the treasury, except.such as were assigned to the commandants general, who were to be inspectors and visitors of the treasury offices, and to see that the public revenues were well and faithfully collected, administered and disbursed ; and to make timely reports to the supreme government of what they observed, which should be brought to its attention. 4 Mex. Laws, 75.

On February 10, 1842, the following decree was issued :

“ Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, etc.

“ Article 1. The boards of sale in the several departments will proceed to sell, at public auction, to the highest bidder, the properties (fincas) situated therein that pertain to the department of temporalities.

“ 2. No bid will be admitted that does not cover the amount considered to be the value of the property (fincas), computed from the amount of the leases, which shall be considered as the interest thereof, at the rate of five per cent.

“ 3. The bids shall be made for cash, which shall be paid when the sale is approved, less the amount of the burden imposed on each property (fincas), which the buyers shall continue to recognize with a mortgage' thereof.

“4. No action or claim, which the actual lessors of the property (fincas), in question, may intend to set up for im provements or under other pretext shall, in any manner, embarrass the proceedings of the board of sale in making the sales, but the right of parties in interest to apply to the supreme government, or to the proper authorities, shall remain intact.

“ Therefore I order this to be printed, published and circulated, and demand that it be complied with.” 4 Mex. Laws, 114.

Lopez certified that it was in virtue of this decree that he had sold the lands in question as belonging to the class of temporalities, and as being of a value not exceeding five hundred dollars, in which case he assumed that he was authorized to sell irrespective of the board of sales in view of Article 73 of the decree of April 17, 1837. The argument is that as that article provided that all purchases and sales exceeding, five hundred dollars should be made necessarily by the board of sales, therefore all property under that value could be sold by the departmental treasurer alone; but the difficulty is, as pointed out by the Court' of Private Land Claims, that even if that provision operated in the manner contended for, it had no application to a sale under the decree of February 10, 1842, which specifically directed that the sales should be made by the board, and contained nothing to suggest that the value of the property affected the power and duty of the board in any way.

The decree recognized the existence of the boards of sale as the only proper official organs to accomplish the results desired, and it was this decree that was relied on as justifying the proceedings. If thesé lands were not of the temporalities, then the basis of the sale utterly failed, as the decree applied only to property of that class, and if of the temporalities the sales were to be made by the board.

In relation to Article 73 of the law of 1837, some further observations may be added.

The regulations of July 20, 1831, and the law of April 17, 1837, treated of the same subject-matter, and must be read together; and prior laws, so far as not conflicting, were expressly saved from repeal by Article 92 of the latter act.

. By section 73, the board of sales was necessarily to make sales exceeding five hundred dollars, but nothing was said as to sales for less than that sum.. This would seem to have left the law of 1831 in force in respect of the making and the conduct of sales of property having a value - below that amount, and whether the board of sales consisted of the membership prescribed by section 73; or was composed in -some respects of a different membership, is not material. While these various laws are bather confusing in their number and minuteness, nothing is clearer than that the power to make sales and grants was vested in the treasury department of the nation and governed .by strict rules and regulations, none of which contemplated that any single officer could make the sales. It is enough that the departmental treasurer did not possess -the power, acting singly and on his own responsibility, to conclusively determine to what class lands belonged, and their value,- and having decided- these points, thereupon to exercise the sole power of sale.

Tumacácori, Calabazas and Huebabi are said to have been originally separate and distinct pueblos and missions, of which the two latter were abandoned as early as December, 1806, when the native Indians of Tumacácori and the governor of sqid Indians presented petitions to the governor and intendente Conde to give them title in accordance with the.royal instructions of October 15, 1754, and of Article 81 of the royal ordinances of December 4, 1786, (alleging the loss or destruction of their old title papers,) of the lands embraced in thé fundo legal and the estancia of each pueblo and mission, whereupon the grant of 1807 was made.

The titulo refers to some lands acquired by,purchase, though the record leaves that matter entirely vague and uncertain, and declares the grant to be made to the pueblo and natives of Tumacácori, that they may “ enjoy the use arid freely possess at will and for their own benefit in community and individually, and for the decent support of the church of said mission, but under the condition that in no case and in no manner shall they alienate at any time any part of said lands which are adjudicated and assigned to them, since they are all to be considered as belonging to the Republic and community of natives alone, for their proper use, as well for sowing purposes as for stockraising and the increased prosperity of the same.”

This was in accordance with the general rule that the missionaries and Indians only acquired a usufruct or occupancy at the will of the sovereign. United States v. Cervantes, 18 How. 553.

Prior to 1829, the tribunal of the inquisition had been abolished by the Cortes, and the monastic and other religious orders suppressed, and on the 10th of May of that year it was ordered, through the department of the treasury, that “the property in which consist the funds of the temporalities of the ex-jesuits, and monastics, and the rural and urban estates belonging to the inquisition ” be sold at public sale to the best and highest bidder. (2 Mex. Laws, 108.) May 31, 1829, the commissary general of Mexico published a “list of the urban and rural estates relating to the temporalities of the ex-jesuits and suppressed monastics, with a statement of their values, the burdens they carry, and annual revenue,” (Ib. 117,) which did not include the lands in question. The departmental treasurer did not claim, and manifestly did not acquire, the power to sell these lands under the order of May 10, 1829, or the.regulations of July 7, 1831, bearing on that subject.

By a decree of April 16, 1834, (2 Mex. Laws, 689,) the missions of the Republic were secularized, that is to say, converted from sacred to secular uses, and so far as these lands could have been regarded as temporalities, that is, profane property belonging to the church or its ecclesiastics, that decree changed their condition.

And, as many years before the sale in question, the lands of this pueblo and mission were abandoned, it would seem that they thus became part of the public domain of the nation, and that as such the only laws applicable to their disposal were the laws of the nation in relation to its vacant public lands, to which the proceedings in this instance do not purport to have conformed or to have been made under them.

We concur with the Court of Private Land Claims that in either view there was a fatal want of power in the departmental treasurer to make the sale, and it is not asserted in the petition, nor was any evidence introduced to show that his action was participated in or ratified by the governor, or by the national government in any manner. And this is not a case in which the sale and grant can be treated as validated by presumption.

Decree affirmed.