Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during a part of December term, 1849, at Austin and a part of Galveston Term, 1851. Volume 5. Page: 42
vii, 332 p. ; 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
83-84 SUPREME COURT.
M3cMullen v. Iodge.
cise. Ill snuc case it could( not for a moment be contended that the right of property
was granted in fee to the particular stu(lelts who mighl-t, at the time of
the grant, belong to the institution or to their heirs; but it is manifest that it
wonld only grant the right of way to such of them as fronl time to time should
belong to the institution ; and should the institution from any cause become
extinct, no right would survive to the descendants of the pupils.
The evidence of Mr. Seguin is entitled to great consideration on this subject,
because he is a very old man, and was born and always lived in tile immediate
neighborhood of the mission. From his evidence it is clear that as long' as
these Indians were in a state of pupilage they did not enjoy tlhe rights of citizenship,
but after their pupilage liad expired they were considered as naturalized;
were permitted to leave the mission, and blad grants made to them in
their own names of a suerte, (a small lot of ground,) which they had a right to
sell, or to sell the profits, as anly other citizen. It is worthy of notice that the
president of the mission, in his opposition to Castillo's application, alleges
that these Indians stood in need of the lands for the use of pasturing their
flocks thereon, and does not use any term from which it can be inferred that
he claimed it for them in full property.
I will next proceed to notice the action of the Government in relation to
the missions and the property appertaining to them. It appears from the
archives of the land office (vol. 50, p. 14-24, title MISSION) that the missions in
the valley of San Antonio were established by the royal order 22d October, 1729;
that there was an order for the secularization of these missions, and the distribution
of all property appertaiinug to them for secular purposes, dated 10th of
April, 1794. Unlder this order of secularization it seems that certain proceedings
were had at the town of Bexar. by which the lots and all the personal property
pertaining to the missions were inventoried and a part of the stock distributed.
This [S4] appears by reference to the archives in tle General Land Office,
and is also shown by the evidence embodied in the statement of facts. Missions,
so far as related to the faculty of holding property by any tenure, were
from that time considered as extinguished. They existed, however, as a corporation
until dissolved by the decree of the Cortes in 1813. They were extinguished
also by the Mexican Government in 18-. By decree No. 177 of
the Congress of Coahuila anld Texas, of date 29th April, 1831, in relation to
the lands belonging to the extinguished missions, we find the following action
of the Government:
"Art. I. The Executive is hereby authorized to alienate the lands that pertaillned
to tlhe extinguished missions, conforming, in so doing, to the colonization
law of 24th March, 1824.
"Art. If. The town property or securities that pertained to said missions
shall be sold at public auction according to law.1"
This decree makes a distinction between the lands that pertained to and the
town property and securities of the missions. The first was to be alienated in
conformity to the colonization law. By this we' can understand nothing to
the contrary, but that it would have been granted to any colonist had .application
been made for it, or it would have been sold to a Mexican under the
XXIVth article of the colonization law above mentioned. Mr. Navarro says
tlat six leagues of tile land that liad appertained to the mission of Refigio
were granted to Vermendi; and that he, as commissioner or agent for the
Government, had delivered the title. It is very satisfactorily shown that as
far as the Congress of Coahlluila and Texas hlad authority, such lands, aIfer tile
cxtinSguishment of the missions, were acted upon and treated as a portion of
the public domainn, and tils too before the plaintiff in tills suit pretends to
have acquired any title to the land from the supposed surviving descendants
of tle Indians of the mission of San Jose.
There is another reason why I believe the grant in this caso [83] was in
42
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during a part of December term, 1849, at Austin and a part of Galveston Term, 1851. Volume 5., book, 1883; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28569/m1/50/: accessed May 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .