In this case forgeries were com

Peralta grant of 12,500,000 acres. mitted and introduced into the archives at Madrid and Sevilla in Spain, at Guadalajara, Mexico, in the church records of San Bernardino, Cal., and in notarial records at San Francisco in the same State.

In one case only did claimants secure the confirmation of a forged grant in the Court of Private Land Claims. However, an appeal was taken by the Government, and the Supreme Court of the United States, without a dissenting vote, reversed the case on the matters of fact and ordered the trial court to enter a judgment of rejection.

For lack of legal merit grants were rejected that were precisely of the same character as others that had years before been confirmed by Congress while that body was largely dependent for guidance on the recommendations of the surveyor-general.

So far as the cases in which possession for a term of years, accompanied by cultivation and other use, are concerned, I have little personal knowledge, and am not familiar with the details of their settlement through the medium of the offices of the surveyor-general and registers. Because of the small area of each they attracted little public attention, but were nevertheless important in that they were the holdings of the small farmers of the country-the most numerous class in New Mexico directly attached to the soil. The number of these claims is so great that they are not yet all settled, but I have never heard that the system adopted was unsatisfactory.

1So far as the adoption of a system of public surveys for the Philippene Islands is concerned, I know of no system so satisfactory in its gne ral features as that of the United States.

It has the advantages of simplicity and of being understood by a large number of that class of persons who, when the opportunity offers, will furnish immigrants to these Islands.

Modifications in it may perhaps be made necessary by local conditions that will be discovered upon attempting to carry it into effect. The proper method for the adjudication of existing property rights is a matter which, to my mind, presents much greater difficulties.

The extension of the lines of public surveys over regions assumed to be Government land may result here, as it did in the southwestern part of the United States, in invading private property, and causing deplorable friction between the Government and those who believe themselves to be the owners of such property, as well as conflicts between the latter and persons initiating titles under the public-land laws. There is no way to avoid this and kindred difficulties, to my knowledge, except to first decide what lands are of private ownership. To do this is to postpone indefinitely the surveying and opening to settlement of the public domain. The choice to be made appears to be between two evils.

If it be believed that the rights to private property will ultimately adjust themselves by litigation between parties in courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and should it be decided in view thereof not to establish any tribunal or other method of deciding the character of property rights as they existed at the date of the acquisition of these islands by the United States, it should be borne in mind that such action will not be free from certain practical difficulties, among which are these:

First. Courts will decide simply that one litigant has a better right than the other, while neither may have any right that the United States is bound to recognize.

Second. The land department has no connection with the courts, and no means of knowing what property they may have decided to be private property, consequently no means of connecting the public surveys with the boundaries thereof.

Third. Lands may be held by individuals to whose occupancy there may be no opposition from private parties, and the Government is in the possession of no knowledge of the extent of such lands, even granting that the holder is legally or equitably entitled to them.

Knowledge of the extent of private property is necessary in order to accurately delineate on maps the lands belonging to the Government and subject to entry.

So far as I have been able to learn from persons supposed to be familiar with the condition of land titles in these Islands, it appears that there are few titles, if any, that can be directly traced to an original concession by the Spanish Government, and that a very large number of landholders have absolutely no documentary evidence of title, while others can show instruments of sale from some former owner or occupant. But it appears to be almost certain that in a vast majority of cases no other evidence of title can be produced than the mere facts of occupancy and cultivation.

My own knowledge of the existing conditions is so slight that I do not feel justified in attempting to make suggestions as to the proper manner of settling the status of these claims.

I do think, however, that it might be desirable to carefully investigate the methods in use under the Spanish Government, particularly during the last twenty years of its control of the Philippines. But such investigation has not been possible up to the present time and can not be made until we have facilities for handling the large number of documents in the department of archives and forestry bureau. Of course we can examine the Spanish laws in regard to the alienation of the public domain, but until a study can be made of the titles perfected or attempted to be perfected under those laws, we can not know what were the merits and defects of the former system and what difficulties arose in actually putting it into practice. Such knowledge might be useful in determining a method for their final settlement.

My observation of some of the Spanish laws enacted in regard to lands in what is now the republic of Mexico leads me to believe that they were not entirely bad, but on the contrary contained many good features, and should it be determined that the government of these islands shall take a hand in the settlement of the titles emanating from the former sovereignty, it might be well to consider the policy of adopting a system for the settlement of these titles that would be in its modes of procedure so far as practicable familiar to the people of the country.

If it should be determined that these titles shall not be submitted to a court or other body specially authorized to settle them, but shall be left to adjust themselves by future litigation in courts of ordinary jurisdiction, then these suggestions are out of place.

Respectfully submitted to the civil governor of the Philippine Islands. WILL M. TIPTON.

OCTOBER 3. 1901.

APPENDIX G.

MEMORANDUM AS TO THE SPANISH LAND SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES, WITH OBSERVATIONS AS TO CERTAIN ADVANTAGES OF THE LAND SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES.

[By the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands.]

Immediately after the acquisition by Spain of her extensive ultramarine possessions her monarchs set about the task of peopling those distant regions with their subjects, and in order to accomplish the objects they had in view one of the first steps taken was to make gratuitous concessions of lands not only to those who had assisted in their discoveries and conquest, but also to such persons as were willing to quit their native land and become colonists in the newly discovered world. Consequently the earliest legislation on the subject shows that in order to settle the country it was the policy of the Government to distribute lands among the settlers, requiring only that they should establish their residences thereon and utilize the land by cultivation and the raising of stock. A four-years' compliance with these conditions gave to them the right of ownership in the property, and thereafter it was absolutely at their disposal to do with as they saw fit. This provision of the law dates from the year 1513.

But it appears that at a very early period lands were occupied without what is termed in the laws of the Indies "just and true titles," and the viceroys and presidents of the audencias were authorized as early as 1578 to fix a period, whenever they saw fit, within which landholders should present their titles for examination. Those who held under good titles and instruments or by virtue of what is called "just prescription" (justa prescripcion) were to be protected in their possessions, but lands not held under those conditions were to be restored to the Crown in order that they might be disposed of according to the sovereign's will.

But that the abuses which the law just referred to intended to correct had originated long prior to its date, and that in some instances land had been disposed of by sale instead of as gratuities is evidenced by a reference to sales in a law of 1531; while a century later, during the reign of Philip IV, reference is made to lands that had been acquired during the reigns of bis predecessors by means of composition.

The word "composition" as here used is a literal translation of the Spanish word "composición," which had a technical meaning as applied to lands, and may be defined as a method by which the State enabled an individual who held her lands without legal title thereto to convert his mere possession to a perfect right of property by virtue of compliance with the requirements of law.

Composition was made in the nature of a compact or compromise between the State and an individual who was illegally holding lands in

excess of those to which he was legally entitled, and by virtue of his compliance with the law (with respect to the amount that he was under obligation to pay for the land) the State conferred on him a good title to the lands that he had formerly held under a mere claim of title.

Many instances arose in the Spanish possessions in America where with a legal title to perhaps 5 square leagues an individual held possession of immense tracts of land amounting to hundreds of leagues for many years without opposition from anyone. It was to this excess over the legal title that composition applied, the claimant being permitted to buy, at a price agreed upon between him and the State, the land that he had been illegally holding. This feature of the old Spanish land laws was deeply rooted in new Spain, and with changes of an unimportant character as to methods of procedure it still forms a part of the land system of the Mexican Republic.

In 1735 a royal cedula was promulgated requiring that grants of land should be submitted to the King for confirmation, but as a similar provision appears in the Laws of the Indies and at a date long prior to the cedula in question, it would appear that there must have been a time when either confirmation by the Crown was not required or else the requirement had been disregarded at a period subsequent to the earlier legislation and prior to the year 1735.

By the royal cedula of October 15, 1754, the provision requiring that titles should be sent to the King for confirmation was abrogated, and the power of confirming titles was conferred on the audiencias. Titles prior to 1700 were to be respected even if they lacked the royal confirmation, but those originating after that date were required to be confirmed by the King up to 1754 and by the audiencias after that date. The instructions as to the methods of procedure under this cedula are lengthy and show the intention of the monarch to dispose of the unoccupied lands of those regions by means of sale, and of those unjustly held under claim of title by means of composition.

The number of decrees, royal orders, etc., issued between 1754 and the date of the acquisition of the Philippines by the United States is so great that a review of them at this time is impossible, but so far as lack of time for a critical study of the subject and facilities for carrying it on have permitted, an attempt has been made to ascertain what means were at the command of the people of these islands immediately prior to the change of sovereignty by which they might have acquired title to their lands.

The expression, "might have acquired title," is not used unadvisedly, for it seems to be commonly recognized as a fact that comparatively few holders of real estate in the Philippines can trace their titles to their origin in the Spanish Government, and this remarkable fact exists in the face of the evident and persistent effort made by that Government to induce landholders to avail themselves of the opportunities afforded by law for converting their mere rights of possession into legal titles. What may have been the reason for the great indifference manifested for so long by the holders of lands as to the unstable character of their tenure is a matter of which I am ignorant, but as to the fact of such indifference there can be no doubt; and it was noticed and commented on in the public press and in official communications during the last half century.

Regulations for the composition of State lands, approved by the

royal decree of June 25, 1880, seem to have produced for a time a beneficial result and to have awakened a considerable interest in the subject of acquiring formal titles to land. This decree was modified in 1894, but as under it more was accomplished so far as awakening an interest in the people is concerned, it may be taken as the best specimen of the late legislation of the Spanish Government in regard to the matter of composition of titles.

By definition of this law compositions were of two kinds, "gratuitous" and "onerous." In the former the applicant for title had to pay only the expenses of the survey and fees in connection with the issuance of title, while in the case of onerous composition, in addition to the expenses just mentioned, he had to pay for the land covered by the title.

Gratuitous composition applied to lands that had been held without interruption for ten years, in virtue of "just title" and in good faith;to cultivated lands held without title and without interruption for twenty years, it being understood that it was necessary to show that land had been cultivated for three years prior to the presentation of the application in order to be considered cultivated; to uncultivated lands held without title, but uninterruptedly for thirty years; to lands put under cultivation whose owners might desire to legalize their possession, although they might not be Indians, in which case they had to show that they had acquired the lands by purchase or donation from the former holders.

The word Indians, appearing in this decree, is of frequent occurrence in the Spanish legislation in regard to these islands, and is evidently used to distinguish the native tribes from Spaniards and other foreigners.

The term of one year was fixed for the presentation of petitions for compositions, and this period began on September 8, 1880, and before it expired it was extended for another year with regard to cultivated lands, and subsequently again extended as to the same character of lands until April 17, 1894, but there was no extension of the time as to lands not cultivated.

Such was the impetus given to the application for titles under this law that the number of petitions presented by the end of the year 1881 exceeded 100,000, while under an old law relative to the sale of vacant public lands petitions for their purchase were more than 2,000. In the year 1894 the number of uncompleted titles that were delayed by proceedings in the different offices having cognizance of land matters was more than 200,000.

The number of titles issued can not now be ascertained, because of the destruction by fire of the records of the Forestry Office in the year 1897.

Under the system outlined in the regulations governing compositions of land, the petitioner presented an application to the directorgeneral of civil administration, setting forth the name of the town, barrio, and place where the land was situated, stating its boundaries and approximate area. This application could be presented to the provincial governors, to the director general, or to the forestry office, which latter office performed the functions of a secretary's office to the director-general.

The forestry office up to March 20, 1885, sent this application to the engineer in charge of the forestry district in which the land applied