the capital of the state of Chihuahua, and, so far as the evidence goes, found nowhere else in the archives of the state of Chihuahua, nor elsewhere in the republic of Mexico. The stipulation as to search for documents does not cover a search for evidence of a decree of confirmation, but it is a fair inference that, if complainant made search for in every proper place, and made inquiry of every person likely to know about the protocol, expediente, and testimonio of the grant, no existing evidence of a genuine decree of confirmation would have been overlooked. No proof is offered in the case tending to show that in the archives or records of the congress of Chihuahua there is any mention of the Ronquillo grant by way of memorandum, petition, letter, expediente, protocol, resolution, or decree. There is no evidence showing or tending to show that Don Jose Ygnacio Ronquillo himself ever had any knowledge or notice of any decree of confirmation. It does not appear that his widow, who survived him many years, ever heard of any such decree of confirmation. There is no proof tending to show that prior to the year 1887 the heirs of any Ronquillo, or any person or persons claiming title to the grant in question, ever made any claim, or pretense even, of a decree of confirmation. If the document recorded in Bexar county in 1851 is taken to be a genuine document, then it is clear that Ronquillo, in November, 1832, transferred the grant to Hypolito Acosta, who in turn transferred it to Juana Pedrasa. The decree of ratification was not annexed to the document so recorded.

In short, the weight of evidence in this case practically shows that a decree of confirmation was never heard of in connection with the Ronquillo grant prior to 1887, 53 years after the time in which it is now alleged that such decree was passed.

There is some evidence on the part of the complainant found in the testimony of Mr. Provencio, Mr. Siejas, and T. T. Teel to the effect that a genuine decree ratifying the grant of January 25, 1832, was on the files at Juarez some time during and after the year 1887. The evidence is offered in support of the theory of the complainant that a genuine decree was in the archives at Juarez, but in the interest of the Ben Leaton heirs it was surreptitiously removed, and a forged decree inserted in its place. The circuit judge analyzed this evidence, and reached the conclusion that what these witnesses then saw was the forged, and not any genuine, decree; and we agree with the reasoning and conclusion. That a forged decree was placed in the archives at Juarez is undoubtedly true, but it is hardly credible that any person claiming an interest under a doubtful Mexican grant, and having a genuine decree from the con gress of the state of Chihuahua confirming the grant, would remove the genuine decree, and insert a forged one. That such a genuine decree was so removed is further negatived, almost conclusively, by the fact established by the defendants, that the genuine decree, corresponding to the number and date of the alleged decree of confirmation, which was on the files in its proper order, was a decree relating to public affairs of minor importance, not at all likely to be inquired or looked for after a period of 50 years.

The finding of the Santa Barbara decree in the nick of time is

seemingly so fortuitous as to be also suspicious. It appears that about the spring of 1887, one T. T. Teel, an attorney at law of San Antonio, Tex., learned of the record of the alleged testimonio, and, soon thereafter finding Isabella Shirley, surviving heir of Ben Leaton, and securing an agreement to divide recovery, in October, 1889, brought suit for the land. Thereupon one E. N. Ronquillo appeared and set up title to the property as heir at law of Jose Ygnacio Ronquillo, to whom the land was granted. The record shows that he was the son of another Jose Ygnacio Ronquillo, who died in 1860, but in no wise connected with the Jose Ygnacio Ronquillo to whom the grant is alleged to have been made, and who died in 1834. The record also shows that Teel had E. N. Ronquillo arrested for asserting a fraudulent claim, and such it seems to be from the evidence of both complainant and defendants in this case. As said by counsel for defendants: "He must have started out to acquire the land as heir at law of Ronquillo on the principle of idem sonans." The arrest of Ronquillo appears to have amounted to nothing more than to bring about a compromise or adjustment between the contending claimants by which the interest of Teel and of E. N. Ronquillo seem to be fully protected for all they are worth, each retaining an interest in the recovery in this case. Thereafter E N. Ronquillo appears to have been employed by the complainant, who, it seems, had acquired the interests of all the claimants, to assist in finding evidence, and he testifies, as taken from the complainant's abstract of evidence:

"I have spent considerable time and money traveling to different points in Chihuahua to search archives and records, but not much for witnesses. Went as interpreter to Presidio del Norte with Mr. Owen. Went to Chihuahua and Santa Barbara to search records. Went to Santa Barbara with Mr. Foster in October, 1890. De la Garza, at Chihuahua, told us there were important records at El Valle. Foster telegraphed Owen to that effect, and received answer to go at once there. At El Valle we found nothing, but the priest and Jefe Politico there told us the most complete set of records in that neighborhood were at Santa Barbara, it being out of the way of revolutions, and its records not being burned. At Santa Barbara we applied to search records, and, after considerable discussion, permission was given by ayuntamiento for the secretary to search for us. He did so in our presence and found Con firmation No. 16, dated September 24, 1834, in duplicate. We obtained a certified copy, and also one of the duplicates, which we brought to complainant. Santa Barbara is a small mining town, about 250 miles from the city of Chihuahua. It is not the capital of any state at present, but was formerly capital of the state that is now Chihuahua."

Inez Franco, secretary of the municipality of Santa Barbara, testifies:

"That E. N. Ronquillo and Mr. Foster, from El Paso, Texas, came to Santa Barbara twice in search for a decree of confirmation of the Ronquillo grant; the first time in October, 1890, and the second time in November, 1890. The first search was made in October, 1890, at which were present Juan Pablo Baca, then president of the ayuntamiento, Jose Mesa, third regidor, E. N. Ronquillo, Foster, and myself. The second search was made in November, 1890, at which were present Leandro de Dios, who was then president of the ayuntamiento, E. N. Ronquillo, Foster, and myself. The second search was made principally by myself, but I was assisted to a greater or less extent by probably all who were present. The search was made at the instance of E. N. Ronquillo. Two copies, exactly alike, were found by me among

the regular files of the archives of the ayuntamiento of Santa Barbara, in a package containing all other archives for the year 1834, and E. N. Ronquillo took one of said duplicates away with him."

Leandro de Dios testifies:

"I am president of the ayuntamiento of Santa Barbara. From January to October, 1890, inclusive, I was a simple member of the ayuntamiento, and from November, 1890, to the present time I have been president. In the month of October, 1890, E. N. Ronquillo and Mr. Foster were here for the first time, and then came again in November, 1890, who requested me to look among our archives here for an act of the congress of Chihuahua concerning a concession or grant of land to Jose Ygnacio Ronquillo, and we made the search as requested. Inez Franco was the secretary of the ayuntamiento at the time. E. N. Ronquillo and Mr. Foster made the search. They found the concession made by the congress of Chihuahua of the land to Jose Ygnacio Ronquillo, dated September 24, 1834, in the package in which were packed for preservation the archives for the year 1834. It was the first time I had ever seen the act. Inez Franco, the secretary of the ayuntamiento, assisted in the search for the decree, with Messrs. Ronquillo and Foster, and it was Mr. Franco who found the act."

By stipulation of counsel it was agreed as follows:

"That the act or decree of confirmation referred to in the depositions of Inez Franco and Leandro de Dios was found as in said depositions related, on the first search made for the same, referred to in said depositions as made in the month of October. And that it shall be taken as if said witness had so testified, and the fact herein stipulated is to be taken and admitted as part of the evidence of this cause, as fully as if the witness Inez Franco and Leandro de Dios had so testified."

With regard to this stipulation, defendants' counsel claims that it amounts to no more than an admission that said witnesses Franco and De Dios would have testified that the document in question was found at the first search, and not by any means an admission that it was found at the first search. In this connection, however, we note that by the testimony of Franco and De Dios, Mr. Foster, who is known to be an intelligent lawyer in good standing at the bar in El Paso, assisted at both searches, and was present when the Santa Barbara decree was found, and yet he was not called as a witness to relate the circumstances attendant upon the finding of said decree. The absence of his testimony cannot be explained by the fact that he appears as one of the solicitors of record for the complainant in this case, because solicitors on neither side have been backward in testifying wherever their evidence was considered at all important. Our conclusion with regard to this point is that, while the evidence establishes that the Santa Barbara document was found at the time and place asserted by complainant, yet the circumstances attending upon the finding are not calculated to raise or strengthen any presumptions in favor of the genuineness of the document itself, but rather the reverse.

The complainant filed in the circuit court, and by assignments of error has renewed in this court, numerous motions to suppress evidence. The record is not made up in such a way that these motions to suppress can be intelligently reviewed, and reasons given. for sustaining or denying the same, without great labor. The mo tions, however, may be summarized in three classes, as follows: First. To suppress the depositions of Juan de Dios Vasquez and v.61F.no.1-2

some 10 others, because of irregularity in the commission issued by the clerk of the circuit court, who is said in the motion to have issued the commission in the name and by the authority of the state of Texas. The commissions appear to have been issued under a stipulation of counsel which, as it appears in the record, the clerk of the circuit court is not to be blamed for misunderstanding. We consider the objection to be to a great extent technical, and doubt very much whether, if good, it would render the commissions wholly void. We are precluded, however, from ruling upon this class of motions to suppress, because the parties have not seen fit to bring up in the record a single one of the commissions objected to for our examination.

Second. Motions to suppress, based on alleged illegality and irrelevancy of interrogatories propounded by counsel for defendants; and, irrelevant, incompetent, and illegal answers made by witnesses respectively. This class of objections is not pressed in the complainant's brief, nor discussed for the defendants, and may be treated as abandoned.

Third. Motions to suppress depositions, wholly or in part, of defendants' alleged expert witnesses. Of this class of motions we are disposed to think that they should be partly sustained and partly overruled, but we make no ruling on the matter, not considering the same necessary. We remark, however, that the question in hand. is not a question of handwriting. There is neither signature, rubric, sign, nor mark of any ink (other than print) upon the document found in the archives of Santa Barbara, and offered in this case as a muniment of title. It is a printed paper throughout, claimed to be an archive in the records in Santa Barbara, and from that fact alone to be presumed to have been issued by the governor, or rather to be a true and genuine copy of a decree issued by the governor.

The question in the case is one of connecting the governor and other state officials with the printed document. As is well said by the counsel for the defendants: "It is a question of whether the archives of Mexico can be invoked to connect a public official with a printed document purporting to be his official act; and, if so, whether similar archives of Mexico can be invoked to repel this presumption." In suits for the establishment of Mexican grants, the supreme court holds that the Mexican archives are public documents which the court has a right to consult, even if not made formal proof in the case. See U. S. v. Teschmaker, 22 How. 392; and see Luco v. U. S., 23 How. 515; Romero v. U. S., 1 Wall. 721. In cases of this kind, if the court has the right to consult the public archives, it follows from the fact that the court cannot go to the archives, nor in many cases the archives be brought to the court, that the only way the archives can be examined by the court is through intelligent witnesses, who make such examination, and thereafter give their evidence; and, if such evidence is permissible, we can see no reason why it cannot be corroborated and illustrated and sustained by officially certified copies, and, a fortiori, by duly-proved photographic copies. And further, we add that the burning question for expert evidence in the case is as to the age of the printed paper pro

duced, and on that question experts in paper, printing, printer's ink, and type would best meet the demands of the case.

To establish the genuineness of the printed copy of decree of confirmation found at Santa Barbara, the complainant filed with such copy a certificate of one J. Melchor de la Garza to the effect that the decree was printed by him in the official printing office of the state, of which printing office he was a director, and at the time expressed therein. The depositions of J. Melchor de la Garza were afterwards obtained, first by the complainant, and then by the defendants; and the pertinent part of said depositions is as follows:

"(3) What was your occupation in the years 1834 and 1835? Ans. The management of the printing office of the state government for the printing done there for the same." "(5) How were the acts of congress in Chihuahua published and made official in 1833, 1834, and 1835? Ans. The decrees and resolutions of the congress in these years, as well as those of the previous and subsequent years, were and are sent to the government, who sent them to all the authorities of the state for compliance and observance with the same, either printed or in manuscript. (6) State whether a printed paper was shown you lately, purporting to be an act of congress of Chihuahua, made in 1834, with reference to a grant to Jose Ygnacio Ronquillo, purporting to confirm the same to him. Ans. It was shown to me by Mr. E. N. Ronquillo. (7) If you saw such a paper, where and when did you see it? Ans. I saw it at my house, and it was shown to me by Mr. Ronquillo several months ago.” “(9) İf you know, you may state where it came from,—what archives. Ans. I cannot say where it came from, but Mr. Ronquillo told me that he had obtained it in the town of Santa Barbara. (10) State who printed the paper or had it printed. Ans. I have already said that it belongs to a class of documents which were then, and are still, printed by order of the government; and the one to which we now refer, judging by its date, must have been printed by me, as manager of the printing office at that time." "(12) State what, if anything, you know of the type it was printed with and the paper used. Ans. I cannot say anything in respect to this." "(14) From your examination of the paper, when do you say it was printed? Ans. The date of that paper itself states it precisely. (15) From your examination of that paper, and any fact you may know concerning it, do you say it is an original and genuine and official act of the congress of Chihuahua, or a spurious or false or forged copy? Ans. I cannot say or affirm anything in this respect." "Cross Interrogatory 3. If you say that said printed paper came from the archives of Santa Barbara, state how you know that it came from said archives. Did you see it among the archives? If so, when did you first see it there? And when, and by whom, was it put there? Were you present when a search was made for it at Santa Barbara? And did you see it delivered to the person who afterward showed it to you? Ans. I have never said that such documents belong to the archives of Santa Barbara, a place which I do not know; and I could not very well affirm that it existed among those archives, nor when it was extracted therefrom, or for whom, nor to whom it was delivered, or with what object. Mr. E. N. Ronquillo showed it to me, stating that he had obtained it at that point, but without telling me who had given it to him. Cross Int. 4. If you say that you compared said printed paper with another printed paper, please attach to your answers the printed paper with which you compared the paper that was shown to you, so that we may see the resemblance; also please attach the paper that was shown to you, or, if you cannot attach it, state why you cannot. Ans. I have already stated in answer to interrogatory 18 that I cannot attach the original copy asked for, because I have the same forming a book with other documents of which I do not wish to deprive myself. I returned to Mr. Ronquillo the document which he showed me, and I certified at the foot thereof that the said document had been printed by me on account of my having acted as manager of the printing office at the time in which it was published and circulated by the government to the authorities of the state, and for this rea. son I cannot attach a document which is neither in my possession nor belongs