USA > New Mexico > History of New Mexico : its resources and people, Volume I > Part 29
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72
Don Jesus Gil Abreu, one of the most conspicnons of the native in- habitants of northern New Mexico, was a representative of a family dis- tinguished in the early history of the province of New Mexico. Don San- tiago Abreu, his father, brought to Santa Fé the first printing press ever used in this Territory, purchasing it in Chihuahua, Mexico. After his death his widow sold it to Fr. Martinez, of Taos, who employed it in printing the first newspaper published in the Territory. During the Indian insurrection of 1837 he was appointed an officer on the personal staff of Governor Albino Perez, and was killed about the same time the governor met his death, near the site of the present town of Thornton, close to the pueblo of Santo Domingo. At this time Don Santiago was judge of the district court at Taos-a patriotic spirit and therefore a vigilant defender of the Spanish and Mexican inhabitants and a foe to the enemies of the estab- lished government. It appears that he was as greatly feared by the insur- rectionists as was Governor Perez. Two of his brothers were killed at the same time.
Don Jesus Gil Abreu was born in Santa Fé, September 1, 1823. After the death of his father he continued to reside in Santa Fé until the early 40's, probably about 1842, when he started overland for Independence and Westport, Missouri, in company with a man who had gathered a herd of Mexican mules in Sonora and intended to market them in the east. From Missouri he went to Kentucky for a short time. Returning to Independ- ence, he became a clerk in the mercantile house of Lee & McCoy, and while in their employ was sent to eastern cities with the Perea brothers of Ber- nalillo, New Mexico, in the capacity of interpreter. He was also employed by a Mr. Bernard in Westport. When the American troops came to New Mexico in 1845 he accompanied them, and was engaged by a sutler with the army as interpreter in Chihuahua. When peace was declared the duty of taking the news from Chihuahua to Santa Fé fell to him.
That portion of the American army then in Chihuahua was ordered to proceed to New Mexico when peace was declared, and Mr. Abreu's em-
=
Jesus Se Abren
191
LAND GRANTS
ployers desired to send word ahead to Colonel Ceran St. Vrain to buy up all sutlers' goods before the army reached Santa Fé to enable it to en- joy the monopoly of the trade. He made the journey in seven days, pass- ing through a region infested with tribes of savage Indians without in- terference or delay. In Santa Fé he was employed in the store of Colonel St. Vrain and at the same time acted as interpreter for the government. In the winter of 1848-49 he carried the United States mail between Santa Fé and Leavenworth, when, owing to the deep snows and cold weather, the trip consumed forty days. This was the second mail car- ried between these points, the first having been carried by Thomas Boggs.
In 1850 or 1851 Mr. Abreu went to California, traveling over much of that state. After his return to New Mexico he entered the employ of Joseph Pley, a partner of Maxwell in the latter's commercial enterprises, first as a clerk in the store at Mora, and after 1857 in the store at Rayado. At the latter place he established a general store and supplied stores and provisions to the army post located near by. In 1862 he purchased a ranch of several thousand acres of Maxwell, located in the extreme southern part of the Maxwell grant, where he spent the remainder of his life. His death occurred there June 30, 1900.
On the 26th of November, 1859, Mr. Abreu was united in marriage to Petrita Beaubien, daughter of Charles Beaubien. She was born in Taos, June 29, 1844. They became the parents of the following children : Charles Frederick; Josefa, who married D. A. Clouthier, of Springer ; Jesus Librado; Santiago Pedro; Adaline, the wife of Emilio Valdez; Sofia; Victoriana; Narciso McCoy: and Ramon Eduardo. Mrs. Abreu still occupies the historic ranch at Rayado, surrounded by several of her children. The ranch house is one of the most picturesque and attractive in New Mexico and is the scene of a most generous hospitality. The Rayado ranch consists of over twenty thousand acres of mountain and plain, and is considered by many to be one of the most valuable properties in the southwest. Surrounding the residence are the ruins of a number of historic buildings, including the old homes of Kit Carson, L. B. Maxwell and others. On the estate is a private chapel, erected for the use of the family and their retainers. It is one of the few remain- ing baronial estates in America, and to the visitors from other sections of the country one of the most fascinating spots in the southwest.
Don Santiago Abreu, a brother of Don Jesus, received his education in an eastern university. During the late '5os he was employed as a clerk in Westport, Missouri. Upon his return to New Mexico he conducted a general mercantile establishment at Nora and Penasco and became widely known throughout the Territory. For some time he served as a member of the board of county commissioners of Taos county and represented Taos county in the council in the nineteenth legislative assembly (1869), in the house in the twentieth legislative assembly (1871) and in the twenty- third assembly (1878). His death occurred in 1904.
Charles F. Abreu, son of Don Jesus Abreu, was born at Taos in 1860 and was reared on the famous ranch at Rayado. He was educated in St. Michael's College and the Christian Brothers' Academy at Santa Fé and in St. Mary's College, Kansas, completing his course in the latter in- stitution in 1880. Until March, 1906, Mr. Abreu remained on the home ranch, superintending its operations. Since March of the latter year he
192
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
has been engaged in the real estate and stock brokerage business in Santa Fé as the senior member of the firm of Abreu & Sena. In politics a stanch Democrat, he took an active interest in public affairs while a resident of Col- fax county, serving as superintendent of the county schools and as county assessor. It is a noteworthy fact that in his veins runs the blood of the first Spanish explorer of what is now New Mexico-Cabeza de Vaca-and of the ancient families of Ortiz, Alarid, Pino and Delgado.
LAS VEGAS GRANT .- The history of the Las Vegas grant, as con- tained in the decision of Chief Justice Long and the exhibits of evidence, is very instructive, not only with reference to the locality of the grant, but to land grants in general. The case involving the history came up in the district court of the fourth district, San Miguel county, in 1887, when Moses Milhiser and others, trading as partners under the name of the Las Vegas Land and Cattle Company, brought suit against Jose Leon Padilla and others to enjoin the latter from maintaining fences on the Las Vegas grant or depriving the plaintiffs, either by means of the fence or in any other manner, from "the free and uninterrupted use and pos- session" of the tract of land so enclosed, or from any other part of the Las Vegas grant. The case was finally argued in August, 1888, and the deci- sion of Chief Justice Long was rendered in October, 1889.
The early history of the grant is given in a report of Surveyor- General William Pelham, before whom, according to law, the grant had come in 1858 for consideration, and who found at the time there were two claimants to the land-one the heirs of Luis Maria Baca and the other the town of Las Vegas.
The claim of the Baca heirs was based on the following history :
On the 16th of January, 1821, Luis Maria Cabeza de Baca, in his own name and that of seventeen male children, petitioned the provincial depu- tation of the state of Durango, under whose jurisdiction, he avers, the prov- ince of New Mexico then was, for a tract of public land suitable for cul- tivation and pasture, called the Vegas Grandes, on the Gallinas river, in the jurisdiction of El Bado. In this petition he states that a like petition had been made to the authorities of the province of New Mexico, and that, by a decree of the 18th of February, 1820, the land was granted to him and eight other persons, but as these persons already possessed land elsewhere they took no interest in its cultivation, and prays that the grant be made to himself and his aforementioned children, with the following boundaries, to-wit: On the north the Sapello river, on the south the boundary of El Bado, on the west the summit of the Pecos mountain, on the east the Aguaje de la Yegua and the boundary of Don Antonio Ortiz.
On the 17th day of October, 1823. Bartolome Baca, political chief of New Mexico, directed the alcalde of El Bado to place Luis Maria Cabeza de Baca in possession of the land called for in his petition, as the eight individuals who accompanied him in his first petition had placed no im- provements on the land and the alcalde was required to certify at the foot of the order the proceedings had by him in the premises.
The claim of Las Vegas was based on the following proceedings :
On the 20th day of March, 1835, Juan de Dios Maese, Miguel Archu- leta, Manuel Duran and Jose Antonio Casaos, for themselves and in the name of twenty-five others, petitioned the corporation of El Bado for a
193
LAND GRANTS
tract of land for cultivation and pasture, situated in the county of El Bado and bounded as follows: On the north by the Sapello river, on the south by the boundary of the grant of Don Antonio Ortiz, on the east by the Aguaje de la Yegua, and on the west by the boundary of the town of El Bado.
On the same day the corporation of El Bado transmitted the petition to the territorial deputation, with the recommendation that the petition be granted.
On the 23rd of March of the same year the grant was made by the territorial deputation with the boundaries asked for, with the further provi- sion that persons who owned no lands were to be allowed the same privi- lege of settling upon the grant as those who petitioned for it.
On the 24th of the same month and year Francisco Sarracino, the act- ing governor or political chief, directed the constitutional justice of El Bado to place the parties in possession, and adding: "It is also convenient to suggest that you should select for the settlers a townsite and provide them with lots for residence, together with such other steps as you may deem proper for the security of the inhabitants, who on account of settling on the land indicated will be included in your jurisdiction."
In compliance with his instructions, the Consitutional Justice of El Bado reported as follows :
"At Nuestra Señora de los Dolores de Las Vegas, on the sixth day, of the month of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty five, jurisdiction of San Miguel del Bado, I, citizen Jose de Jesus Ulibarri y Duran, Constitutional Justice, the only one in this jurisdiction, pro- ceeded to this town for the purpose of apportioning the lands to the twen- ty-five individuals mentioned in the petition, dated March 20, 1835, and in general to those who are without lands, not only those within this juris- diction, but also any one who may present himself to me, who has no oc- cupation, and having examined the land. I took the measure from north to south, after which I made the apportionment according to that portion of the colonization law which refers to grant of public lands, each individ- ual received a gratuitous piece of land, according to his means, with the understanding that the lands given to the persons contained in the ac- companying list, none should remain uncultivated."
The surveyor-general was convinced of the legality of both these claims and recommended the confirmation of both these titles, leaving to the respective claimants the right of adjusting their conflicting claims in the courts. But the Senate committee to whom the surveyor-general's re- port was referred maintained that Congress had other duties imposed on it, and was bound to legislate in such manner as to prevent, if possible, so disastrous a result as the plunging of an entire settlement of families into litigation, at the imminent hazard of being turned out of their homes, or made to purchase a second time, from a private owner, lands for which they paid their government a full equivalent, in the labor, risk and ex- posure by which they have converted a wilderness, surrounded by hostile savages, into a civilized and thriving settlement; "and this," concluded the committee, "can be done with little loss or cost to the government.
"The claimants under the title to Baca, have expressed a willingness to waive their older title in favor of the settlers, if allowed to enter an equivalent quantity of land elsewhere within the Territory : and your Com-
Vol. I. 13
194
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
mittee cannot doubt that Congress will cheerfully accept the proposal, which, indeed, would undoubtedly have been acceeded to by Mexico if the Territory had remained hers, to whose riglits and duties the United States have succeeded."
The clause of the act of Congress confirming the grant and settling the dispute, is as follows :
"And be it further enacted, that it shall be lawful for the heirs of Luis Maria Baca, who make claim to the said tract of land as is claimed by the town of Las Vegas, to select, instead of the land claimned by them, an equal quantity of vacant land, not mineral, in the Territory of New Mexico, to be located by them in square bodies, not exceeding five in num- ber. And it shall be the duty of the Surveyor-General of New Mexico to make survey and location of the lands so selected by said heirs of Baca when thereunto required by them : Provided, however, that the right hereby granted to said heirs of Baca shall continue in force during three years from the passage of this Act, and no longer.
"Approved June 21, 1860."
This was the history of the manner in which title to the grant was vested in the town of Las Vegas by Congressional confirmation. The title was unquestioned until the case mentioned at the beginning was intro- duced. The complainants based their suit for the ownership and use of the Las Vegas lands in common not as original grantees, but through the rights and interests conveyed from original grantees, among whom one Pablo Ulibarri was the first mentioned in the evidence.
For the remainder of the history we quote the pertinent facts from the chief justice's decision :
"The evidence shows that on the 6th day of April, 1835, the Con- stitutional Justice, Jose Jesus Ulibarri, made allotments on the Las Vegas Grant to twenty-five individuals, and among them Pablo Ulibarri, pre- sumably from the identity of name, the person through whom the complain- ants claim. He was probably one of the twenty-five referred to in the petition. Did these twenty-five persons after the grant was executed and the allotments were made, to the exclusion of others, have jointly title to or equitable right to the exclusive occupation of the vast area within the boundaries of the Las Vegas Grant, numbering nearly 500,000 acres in quantity? Did the Mexican government intend to give 20,000 acres to each of the twenty-five persons? Did that government at that early day surround such a principality in quality and quantity with a wall either legal or equitable which would make all colonists who crossed it, tres- passers and intruders? How would the Mexican government at that date have treated a claim by these twenty-five men, to exclude all other col- onists from settling upon the unoccupied valleys within the boundaries now claimed as the limits of the grant? It certainly cannot be claimed that after the cession of New Mexico to the United States, the title or equity of Pablo Ulibarri was any greater than before that occurrence. With a transfer of his property to the jurisdiction of the United States and of his allegiance thereto, there remained exactly the legal and equitable rights which he held before, only they were to be protected by a different juris- diction. They were not enlarged by the change, nor were they lessened. The legal tribunals of this government are bound to uphold in favor of Ulibarri and his grantees, just the rights, the legal and equitable interests,
195
LAND GRANTS
which would have been protected by Mexico, as no fact is either averred or proven to show any enlargement of his rights by facts occurring since the annexation. ** * *
"What the government of Mexico would have done with a claim of right on the part of Pablo Ulibarri to eject from the Las Vegas Grant, either by suit in a court of law, or to restrain and enjoin in a court of equity, all other persons, save his twenty-four associates, and to control and convert to their own use to the exclusion of all newcomers, the 500,- 000 acres, its pastures, the irrigable land in the valleys, the hay upon its natural meadows, its springs, creeks and rivers, may be determined in this case by an examination and consideration of the decree of the Provincial Deputation, and the acts of the Mexican authorities who distributed lands under the grant, and the acts of the grantees themselves; also by the action of the surveyor-general and Congress of the United States. Let us then consider the various grant papers and the acts of public officials with re- spect thereto and also the acts of the petitioners.
"That the petitioners for the grant did not expect a concession which would enable them to hold so large a body of land for themselves only, to the exclusion of newcomers, seems probable from the fact that they 'solicit it for the purpose of planting a moderate crop, to have also the nec- essary land for pasture and watering places.' The encouragement of agri- culture is given as one of the reasons why the land is asked, and the Cor- poration of San Miguel del Bado give that also as a reason why the peti- tion should be granted. To withdraw from the settlement such a large body of land and to parcel out the same to twenty-five persons only, would not seem to be an act tending in any great degree to the promotion of agriculture. The Provincial Deputation acting upon the petition, placed the grant in such terms as to leave little doubt of its true meaning. Under date of March 23d, 1835, that body, at Santa Fe, expressed its purpose and intent, and specified those who are granted the right to settle upon and occupy the lands granted, in these words :
"In consultation of today his Excellency has resolved as follows: The land contained within the boundaries expressed in this petition is granted, not only to the petitioners and the residents of El Bado, but also, generally, to all who may be destitute of lands to cultivate: Provided, that the grant to these lands is made on condition that the pasturage and watering places are free to all."
There is the grant. It is broader than the petition. Its words are not ambiguous. First, the Provincial Deputation says, in legal effect, we do not make this grant to you, the petitioners alone, but as well to the residents of El Bado, and that you may not be mistaken or misunderstand, we add, also, generally, to all who may be destitute of lands to cultivate. * * Pablo Ulibarri accepted the decree and is bound by its recitals, and a pur- chaser from him is bound also by all limitations imposed in the grant on Ulibarri's possession and title. 'Suppose the defendants in this case had at that early day, at any time from 1835 to 1840, settled upon the tract they now occupy, intending to make a home thereon to support themselves and families, and Pablo Ulibarri had then applied to the tribunals of Mexico, as those who claim through him now do in this case, is there any doubt but
196
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
that Ulibarri would have been referred to the grant just quoted and that it would have been said to him, "That grant is not to you and your twenty- five associates alone, but 'generally' to all who may be destitute of lands to cultivate." If that rule would have been then applied by the Mexican government to the claim of Ulibarri, so should it now be applied in the ascertainment of rights growing out of the grant by our government, to those who succeeded only to his rights.
The instructions of Sarracino, secretary of the Provincial Deputation, on the very day after the action of that body, are full of light as to the true intent and meaning of the Las Vegas Grant. His direction to the Constitu- tional Justice of El Bado is as follows: "The grants are to be made accord- ing to the means of each one of the petitioners, in order that they may not leave any land which may be given to them without cultivation."
This instruction of the secretary is the first construction given to the grant, and it is well to observe that he treats the act of the Provincial Depu- tation, not as a single grant to several jointly, but as several grants of small tracts to each one separately within the boundaries, so far as each may be able to cultivate. He uses the word "grants" in the plural and as applied separately to each. In the April following the grant, the Constitutional Justice to whom the instructions were sent, visited the place for the purpose of performing his duties. He did not understand that the whole tract was the property only of the twenty-five referred to in the petition. He says in his report: "I proceeded to this town, for the purpose of distributing the lands to twenty-five individuals, mentioned in the petition dated March 28, 1835, and in general to those who are without lands, not only those in this jurisdiction. but also any one who may present himself to me who has no
occupation." * * * Here is a construction of the grant by those who were first called upon to act under it, which does not limit the right to lands within the grant to any particular person. Under the distribution thus made by the Constitutional Justice, April 6th, 1835, Pablo Ulibarri received 150 varas of land. At the same time a list was made containing the names of over one hundred other persons who were entitled to allot- ments under the grant with the amount to which each one was entitled.
Again, in June, 1841, a further allotment was made to a large number of persons. In November, 1846, an order was made for a further dis- tribution of the lands of the grant by the "Señor Justice of the District of the Centre," who presumably had jurisdiction, and accordingly Juan de Dios Maese made allotments to thirteen persons by name, lands which had been allotted, and which were not cultivated by the persons to whom given, were declared forfeited and were allotted to other persons. Juan de Dios Maese, who made the allotment November 25th, 1846, to twelve additional Mexican citizens, was himself one of the original petitioners. All these facts, which throw light upon the understanding of the petitioners for the Las Vegas Grant as to the extent of the interest conveyed to them, was so near in point of time to the date of the grant, as to clearly indicate not only the construction which the Mexican authorities placed on the grant papers, but also the interpretation given thereto by the petitioners. Why were additional settlers located on the land by the Mexican authori- ties to the extent of over one hundred, in addition to the original peti- tioners, within ten years after the grant was made, if those entrusted by the Mexican government with the duty of construing the grant and
197
LAND GRANTS
administering the land laws, construed the grant as conveying exclusive right, either legal or equitable, to the original petitioners? These con- temporaneous acts constitute the highest evidence of the construction which the Mexican government and the petitioners themselves placed upon the grant. It would seem, from a careful consideration of the terms of the grant, the acts of the petitioners and of the Mexican authorities, in evi- dence, up to 1846, that assertion of exclusive title on the part of those then in possession of particular small tracts, to exclude all new comers from other places on the grant, would have been rejected by both the settlers and authorities of Mexico.
Sarracino, in his instructions accompanying the grant, says: "It is also convenient to suggest that you should select a site for a town to be built by the inhabitants, together with such other steps as you deem proper for the security of the inhabitants, who on account of settling on the land indicated will be in your jurisdiction; you will, therefore, adopt such measures as will be most conformable to the laws." This is all clear. Juris- diction for the time being was to be in El Bado, a new town was to be built on the new grant. for the security of those settlers then there and those who should come from time to time and receive allotments. * * *
Elsewhere in the documents in evidence the settlement is called: "The new settlement entitled Neustra Señora de Los Dolores de Las Vegas." Places for gardens, for roads, for watering places, for a public plaza, for a temple, are all designated by the Mexican authorities. If this was a gift to individuals for their private control and uses, why all this distribu- tion and designation? Six years after the date of the grant, June 11th, 1841, the Constitutional Justice recites, that a new ditch or acequia had been "opened for the upper town," and he proceeds to distribute to nine different persons 1,000 varas of land "on the new ditch." What right 'had this officer to parcel out land "on the new ditch" to these strangers if Pablo Ulibarri and his associates were the exclusive owners or proprie- tors of all the land? In the face of the petitioners new ditches were opened, new towns built, new distributions of land made, so far as the evidence shows, without objection, all of which is inconsistent with the as- sertion by Ulibarri and associates of the right in themselves of exclusive possession to the whole grant. What would the Constitutional Justice en- gaged in making this distribution have said to Pablo Ulibarri, had he ob- jected to distribution of land on this new ditch to the settlers as they come in? It'is clear such a claim would then have been promptly rejected. In November, 1846, the Justice making the distribution says: "In the town of Las Vegas, on the 25th day of November, 1846, at the request and by official grant of land for cultivation, made by the senior Justice to the citizens contained in the present list, I proceeded with my attending wit- nesses to distribute said lands." This evidence was introduced by the complainants and they are therefore bound by it. It is to be presumed the officer acted within his jurisdiction. This shows the senior Justice ten years after the date of the grant, made an official distribution of over 2,000 varas of land to different citizens for cultivation. Such an act is utterly inconsistent with the idea that at that time either the petitioners or the Mexican officials regarded the land as belonging exclusively to the petitioners. Much further comment might well be made on the official acts and utterances of record, by the officials of Mexico, within whose
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.