USA > New Mexico > History of New Mexico : its resources and people, Volume I > Part 30
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
198
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
jurisdiction these lands were located, tending to show that the idea of exclusive ownership had not then arisen. It is clear to my mind from the record that the government of Mexico, in making this grant, desired and intended to populate her public lands; that she in- tended to give in fee to each settler on the Las Vegas Grant all the land he could cultivate, which after actual cultivation for a period of years would become his to do with as he should choose; that tracts of land were by the constituted authorities to be from time to time distributed to other settlers as they might make application, and that each subsequent distributee held under the original grant and under his possession and allotment. It is not proven that the petitioners were men of large capital intending at their own expense to colonize families and settle and maintain them on the grant. They were evidently poor persons and of but moderate means, seeking homes for themselves and families as a means of subsistence, and desiring the settlement of other persons near them, as a means of building up the town of Las Vegas for a protection against the hostile Indians. Each new settler constituted one more arm of strength for protection, an addi- tional aid for the upbuilding of the settlement and new town, and naturally was welcomed for the aid he gave to the common cause. In my opinion the thought of exclusive ownership of the whole grant by the petitioners was never entertained during the jurisdiction of the Mexican government, but to the contrary, the decree of the Provincial Deputation, the distribu- tion under official authority of different tracts to separate individuals for ten years after the date of the grant. the acts and qualified possession of the settlers, all show the land unoccupied to be held for the benefit of all who might come, destitute of land, to make settlement.
It is evident that the Surveyor-General of New Mexico, the Senate Committee on Private Land Claims and the Congress of the United States, all have taken the same view of the subject.
Here follow frequent quotations from documents of Mexican sources proving that the title to the grant was meant to reside in the "Town of Las Vegas." Continuing, it is shown that Congress, acting on the recom- mendation of its committee in the Baca claim, granted to Baca the right to enter an equivalent quantity of land elsewhere in the Territory. This extinguished that claim. Congress recognized the right of the other claimant, the Town of Las Vegas, and enacted a law confirming the Las Vegas Grant. It is worth noting that this committee, appointed by Con- gress to give particular attention to title and to advise that body by its re- port, refers to the claim pending for confirmation, to use the words of the report, as "Second-The Town of Las Vegas," and reports to Congress : "This town claims under a grant made on the 25th of March, A. D. 1835, to Juan de Dios Maese and others."
Here is a distinct communication to Congress by its committee that the claim to be acted upon by that body is made by the "Town of Las Vegas," and it is the same grant under which the claimants in this case also claim. So Congress had brought directly to its attention the name of the claimant who was asking the confirmation of its claim. The report informed Congress also, that several hundred families were located on the grant. It also informed that body that the only obstacle to the confirma- tion of the claim of the town of Las Vegas was the prior title of the Baca
199
LAND GRANTS
heirs. Congress met the emergency by extinguishing the title of the Baca heirs, and thus left the claim of the town of Las Vegas in full force. *
The plain object of Congress in giving the Baca heirs a right to lo- cate elsewhere was to clear up the title of the other claimant, "The Town of Las Vegas." That body heeded the voice of its committee to legislate in such a liberal spirit as not to "plunge an entire settlement of families" into litigation.
I have no doubt Congress acted upon a broad view of the question and intended to remove the claim of the Baca heirs for the benefit of all the settlers upon the Las Vegas Grant, and did not intend to limit that benefit to the few original petitioners. It was the "entire settlement," oc- cupying the grant and not a part of it, for whose aid and benefit Congress extinguished the Baca claim. *
It may be said that neither at the date of confirmation, nor at the commencement of this action, was there in existence any such legal entity, corporation or person, as the town of Las Vegas, capable of taking or hold- ing title to real estate either in fee, or in trust for distribution to settlers destitute of land, who might make actual settlement on the grant.
The answer to such an inquiry is plain. There is nothing in the evi- dence or record in this case from which the court can find there was not such a person or corporation ; besides it may fairly be inferred from the re- port of the surveyor-general, the report of the Congressional committee and the act of confirmation in the absence of any evidence to show the con- trary, that it was in the legislative mind at the time of the passage of the act confirming the Las Vegas Grant, that a person with such power was in existence. From these reports and the act, in the absence of anything in the record or evidence showing otherwise, the court in this case may pre- sume there was such a legal body, clothed with the necessary power to make effective the evident intent of Congress. What the result would be, or what legal rules should be applied in some other and different case, where the record or evidence established that there was no such body, person or corporation in existence at the date of the confirmation as the town of Las Vegas, capable of holding title in fee or in trust, it is neither proper nor necessary in this case to consider or to decide. * *
In my opinion it would be an unsound rule to presume, in the face of the act of Congress expressly referring to the Town of Las Vegas, and against the recitals and evidence in this record, the absence or non-ex- istence of such a body. It seems to me clear that it was the intention of the Government of Mexico, as evidenced by the various acts to which refer- ence has heretoforc been made, that the lands within the boundaries of the Las Vegas Grant, not occupied or set apart to some actual settler, should be open to settlement and actual occupancy for agricultural purposes by any citizen destitute of land.
To my mind it is clear, deciding upon the facts in this case only, that Pablo Ulibarri and his associates did not take jointly either the legal or equitable right to the exclusive possession of all the land within the bound- aries of the Las Vegas Grant. There is nothing in the evidence to estab- lish that the Mexican government ever held or intended that Ulibarri and his associates should have the exclusive right to appropriate to themselves the whole of the said land to the exclusion of actual settlers, coming later
200
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
than Ulibarri, destitute of land, seeking to make actual settlement of small tracts for actual cultivation as homes for themselves and families; nor is there, in my opinion, under the evidence in this case, anything in the re- port of the Surveyor-General or the confirmatory act of Congress, to create in such Ulibarri and his associates any such exclusive right. These com- plainants have no greater right than their grantor held, and as he and his twenty-five associates could not have received before conveyance of title by him, the aid of a court of equity to prevent others from settling upon and occupying lands, neither can those do so, who, by mesne conveyances, suc- ceed only to his rights.
It follows that the complainants are not entitled to the aid of a court of equity to prevent the defendant from making settlement, occupying the pastures, mowing the grass, and cultivating lands. The general conclusion reached by the Master, that there is no equity in the bill and that the same should be dismissed, is approved, and the bill accordingly dismissed.
ELISHA V. LONG, Chief Justice.
For the present status of this grant, see sketch of Judge E. V. Long.
The subject of the titles of land located upon private grants, or alleged grants, in New Mexico, for many years had proved the cause of so great trouble to the courts of New Mexico on account of the apparently endless litigation arising from claims and counter-claims and the obvious oppor- tunities for fraud on a gigantic scale that Congress, by act of March 3, 1891, created a special court known as the United States Court of Private Land Claims, for the purpose of judiciously determining and adjusting claims for lands within the limits of the territories derived by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, and embraced within the territories of New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and the states of Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming, by virtue of Spanish or Mexican grants, as the United States was bound to recognize and confirm according to the stipulations of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the treaty of 1853, known as the Gadsden Purchase. The state of California was not included in the jurisdiction of the new court for the reason that soon after the admission of California into the Union a tribunal was provided by act of Congress to settle the grant titles in that state alone. But New Mexico and the balance of the ceded territory was left with no means of relief for more than forty years after the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico.
During this period many private acts were passed by Congress to confirm some of these grants. But this method was found to be very unsatisfactory, and in many cases most unjust acts were passed and some frands were perpetrated upon the government either through lack of care in the preparation of cases by the government's attorneys or indifference as to what became of what were considered lands of little or no value. The worst feature of this plan of congressional action was that no claim- ant could secure legislative confirmation unless he had money to go to Washington, organize a lobby, and exercise sufficient influence to secure the passage of a bill favorable to his claims.
Until the new court began its work the claimants and possessors of lands under these ancient and usually very vaguely defined grants were
201
LAND GRANTS
constantly harassed by the refusal of "squatters" to recognize their claims. Immigrants from the east believed that the lands of New Mexico belonged to the Federal government and were therefore subject to entry under the homestead and other general land laws. To complicate matters the local land offices encouraged these abuses-not through ignorance, but from disregard for grant rights and for the sake of obtaining fees. They al- lowed entries to be made upon grant lands the same as upon the public domain. Subsequently Congress, with the disregard of legally vested in- dividual rights for which it has sometimes been notorious, in confirming these grants provided that all such squatter entries, although absolutely illegal when made, should be exempted from the confirmation and the grantees should be allowed to select a like area on some part of the public domain. This land might be in widely separated tracts. Or the ousted grantee or his heirs was offered the alternative of accepting from the United States pay for the land of which he had been deprived, at the valuation of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, though the lands, at the time of adjudication, not infrequently had a market value of from twenty-five to fifty dollars per acre. These outrageous legislative provisions were gen- erally the fruit of the labors of members of Congress from eastern states, who knew nothing regarding these lands and apparently cared less.
Fortunately for New Mexico, which had been the chief sufferer on account of unstable land titles, the new court was invested with full powers, occupying the same place as United States circuit and district courts. It was made to consist of five judges-a chief justice and four associate justices-appointed by the president ; an attorney to act for the United States ; a clerk, an interpreter of the Spanish language and an ample corps of assistants. The chief justice, Joseph R. Reed of Iowa, had served many years on the bench, including the supreme court of his state, and had served a term in Congress. Associate Justice Thomas C. Fuller, of North Carolina, was one of the greatest lawyers in the South Atlantic seaboard states. Associate Justice William W. Murray, of Tennessee, had achieved distinction at the bar and for many years had served as United States dis- trict attorney. Associate Justice Henry C. Sluss, of Kansas, had occupied the bench in that state and was regarded as a most able lawyer. Associate Justice Wilber F. Stone, of Colorado, had served as one of the first judges of the supreme court of Colorado, and was chairman of the judiciary com- mittee of the convention which framed the constitution of that state. Matt G. Reynolds, of St. Louis, Mo., the United States attorney for the court, was a lawyer of splendid ability. As special assistant he had won dis- tinction in Washington, and he compiled a volume comprising the Span- ish and Mexican laws relative to land grants. This tribunal, it will in- stantly be seen, was unique among the courts of America.
In many of the cases coming before this court the documentary evi- dence was of necessity supplemented by the oral testimony of witnesses, relating to occupation, abandonment on account of Indian hostilities, and heredity and family pedigree of claimants. Another unique feature of the court was that it was not perpetual. It was created for the accomplishment of a specific undertaking. Its life was originally limited to five years, but through necessity, was extended from time to time until thirteen years to a day were consumed in its work-from July 1, 1891, to June 30, 1904. Upon the organization of the court in Denver, James H. Reeder, of Kan-
202
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
sas, was appointed clerk. He was afterward succeeded by Irenio L. Chaves, of Santa Fe county. In New Mexico the sessions of the court were held in Santa Fé.
The whole number of cases filed in the court for confirmation of title to grant lands was 301, these claims embracing an aggregate of 35,491,020 acres. The claims confirmed by decrees of the court, which were satis- fied by the approval of the surveys made in execution of said decrees, amounted to 2,051,526 acres, leaving the amount rejected by the court 33,- 439,493 acres. Of the 282 cases from New Mexico which went through the court, 149 of the claims, or over one-half, were rejected entirely. In but twenty-one cases was title to the entire area claimed confirmed. The land of all grants finally rejected reverted to the public domain of the United States, subject to disposal under the public land laws of the govern- ment. Many of the large grants which were not wholly rejected by the court were reduced in area, either by the restrictions of the act of Con- gress creating the court and the eleven league limitation of the coloniza- tion laws of Mexico, or by the terms of the grant itself being found to call for less than claimed by the petitioners. A conspicuous instance of the latter class was the case of the Cañon de Chama grant, which had been sold to a British cattle syndicate as containing 472,000 acres. Upon trial it was found to be a grant to a narrow strip in a canyon, aggregating 1,422 acres. Another case was the Petaca grant, which was claimed to be about thirty miles long and twenty miles wide, its area including nearly one hundred square miles of pine forest. It had been purchased by a wealthy Chicago man, one of the Farwells, who established sawmills and lumber camps in the pineries and for ten years shipped lumber by rail from Tres Piedras, reserving the best portion of the forest for future development. The court found that the original grant comprised only a strip about five miles long and a few miles wide. Among the other noted grants rejected or reduced in area were these :
The Bartalome Baca grant: Area claimed, 500,000 acres; total claim rejected.
The San Miguel del Bado grant: Area claimed, 315,300 acres; all rejected except 5,024.30 acres, comprised in irrigated lands on the river bottoms originally allotted to the Mexican settlers.
The Gervacio Nolan grant, located west of the notorious Maxwell land grant : Area claimed, 575,968 acres; total rejected.
The Cañada de los Alamos grant : Area claimed, 148,862 acres; but 4,106 acres confirmed.
The Ignacio Chaves grant: Area claimed 243,056 acres; area con- firmed, 47,258 acres.
The Cañada de Cochiti grant : Area claimed, 104,554 acres ; area con- firmed, 19,112 acres.
The notorious Peralta grant: Area claimed, 12,467,456 acres; cover- ing the best portion of Arizona and thousands of acres in New Mexico; total rejected.
The Cañada de Santa Clara grant: Area claimed, 90,000 acres; area confirmed, 490 acres.
The Pueblo of San Antonio de Isleta grant: Area claimed, 65,628 acres; total rejected.
203
LAND GRANTS
The Antonio Chaves grant: Area claimed, 130,138 acres; total re- jected.
The Ojo del Espiritu Santa grant: Area claimed, 276,000 acres; total rejected.
The Juan Jid or John Heath grant: Area claimed, 108,000 acres; total rejected.
The Lucero Spring grant : Area claimed, 70,000 acres ; total rejected. The Cañon de Carnen grant : Area claimed, 90,000 acres; area con- firmed, 2,000 acres.
The Montaño grant: Area claimed, 151,056 acres; total rejected.
The San Antonio de las Huertas grant : Area claimed, 130,000 acres ; area confirmed, 4,763 acres.
The Jose Garcia grant : Area claimed, 76,000 acres; total rejected.
The Town of Socorro grant : Area claimed, 843,259; total rejected.
The Pueblo of Laguna grant: Area claimed, 101,510 acres ; area con- firmed, 17,328 acres.
The El Rito grant : Area claimed, 511,000 acres ; total rejected.
The Vallecito de Lobato grant: Area claimed, 114,000; total re- jected.
The Jose Sutton grant: Area claimed, 69,445; total rejected.
The San Pablo y Nacimiento grant : Area claimed, 131,000 acres ; total rejected.
The Estancia grant: Area claimed, 415,036 acres; total rejected.
The Lamitas grant: Area claimed, 120,000 acres; total rejected.
The Pueblo of Santa Ana or El Ranchito grant: Area claimed, 87,- 360 acres; area confirmed, 4,945 acres.
The Peralta grant: Area claimed, 400,000; total rejected.
The Oreja del Llano de las Aguages grant: Area claimed, 150,000 acres ; total rejected.
The Lo de Basquez grant : Area claimed, 76,000 acres ; total rejected. The Juan Bautista Valdez grant: Area claimed, 60,000 acres ; area confirmed, 1,468.
The Santa Cruz grant: Area claimed, 60,000; total rejected.
The Pueblo de Quemnado grant : Area claimed, 288,000 acres; total rejected.
The Manuel Alvarez grant: Area claimed, 69,440 acres; total re- jected.
The Hurraza or Paraje del Rancho grant: Area claimed, 90,000; total rejected.
The Manuelitas grant: Area claimed, 200,000 acres ; total rejected. The Cristobal de Torres grant: Area claimed, 205,615 acres; total rejected.
The Santo Taribio de Jemez grant: Area claimed, 100,000 acres ; total rejected.
The San Jose Spring grant : Area claimed, 182,130 acres; total re- jected.
The Juan Tafoya grant: Area claimed, 86,000 acres; total rejected.
Beside these large alleged grants, there were a number of large areas, the claims of which were rejected in their entirety, three known simply as the Rancho grants, located unknown, and the Rancho de las Comanches, Rancho Rio Puerco, Rancho Los Comales, or Corrales, Rancho de la Gal-
204
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
lina, and Rancho El Rito, each claiming an area of 95,480 acres; and the Gallina, Rancho del Rio Arriba, Rancho Los Rincones, Rancho Abiquiu and El Coyote grants, each of 434,000 acres. A complete list of the grants passed upon by the Land Court, with the location, the area claimed and the area confirmed or approved, with the names of the claimants who appeared before the court, follows :
Area confirmed Area claimed. and approved.
Claimants.
Name of grant.
Location.
Juan Chaves et al
Town of Cubera.
. Valencia County
J. M. C. Chaves et al
. Plaza Colorada
Rio Arriba County
19,200.00
Acres. 16,490.94 7,577.92
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Francisco A. Montoya. rado
San Antonio del Rio Colo-
Julian Martinez et al.
Arroyo Hondo
do
23,000.00
20,629.38
Louise J. Purdy et al.
Scbastian de Vargas.
Santa Fé County ..
42,000.00
13,434.38
Charles W. Lewis. .
Bernabé M. Montaño.
Bernalillo County .
151,000.00
44,070.66
City of Albuquerque.
Villa de Albuquerque ..
do
13,381.00
Francisco Martinez et al.
Lucero de Godoi or Antonio Martinez
Taos County
61,605.48
61,605.48
Alejandro Sandoval et al.
Alameda
Bernalillo County .
106,274.00
89,346.00
Katie MeIrvine
Jose Duran
Santa Fé County. .
425.85
City of Socorro et al.
Town of Socorro.
Socorro County ..
17,371.18
17,371.18
Salvador Romero et al.
Francisco Montes Vigil .... Rio Arriba County
35,000.00
8,253.74
Louis Huning Antonio Sedillo or Cañada
de los Apaches ..
Bernalillo and
Feliz Romero
Gijosa
Taos County
20,000.00
16,240.64
Pueblo of Santa Clara
Cañada de Santa Clara.
. Rio Arriba County
90,000.00
490.62
Matias Dominguez
Pacheco
Santa Fe County. .
581.29
581.29
J. Franco Chaves.
Nerio Antonio Montoya. .. Valencia County .
3,546.00
22,232.57
Lehman Spiegelberg et al.
San Marcos Pueblo
Santa Fé County. .
1,895.44
1,895.44
Clinton N. Cotton
Santa Teresa de Jesus ... Bernalillo County.
3,633.00
35,399.017
Julian Sandoval et al.
San Miguel del Vado ..
San Miguel County
315,300.00
5,024.30
Leandro Sandoval et al.
Rancho de Galban.
Bernalillo County.
30,000.00 32,000.00
14,786.58
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Casas de Riaño or Piedra
Lumbre
do
49,747.89
49,747.89
Jesus Armijo y Jaramillo et al. Luis Jaramillo or Agua
Salada Bernalillo County.
18,000.00
10,693.98
J. M. C. Chaves et al
Plaza Blanca
Rio Arriba County
16,000.00
8,955.11
City of Isleta
Pueblo of San Antonio de Isleta
Doña Ana County.
65.628.00
Walter P. Miller
Ignacio Chaves
Bernalillo County.
243,056.00
47,258.71
Desiderio Gomez et al ..
Jacona
Santa Fé County ..
46,241.00
6,952.844
Cassandra E. Baird et al.
Baird's Ranch
Bernalillo County.
33,696.00
Martin B. Hayes
Antonio Chaves
Socorro County ..
130,138.00
Carlos Lewis
Cañada de los Alamos.
Bernalillo and
Felipe Delgado et al.
Caja del Rio
Santa Fé and Ber- nalillo counties ..
66,848.783
66,848.788
(Transferred to Arizona district)
George N. Fletcher et al.
Rito de los Frijoles
Bernalillo County.
23,000.00
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Frank Perew et al.
Folvadera
Rio Arriba County
35,761.14
35,761.14
Town of Atrisco.
Town of Atrisco.
Bernalillo County. .
82,728.72
82,728.72
Heirs of Wm. Pinkerton.
Gervacło Nolan
Mora County .. . .
575,968.00
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Corpus Christi State of Colorado.
698,960.00
Marcos Valdez et al ..
Domingo Valdez Santa Fé County. .
500.00
Pueblo of Zia et al. .
. Ojo del Espiritu Santa ..... Bernalillo County. Elena Gallegos or Ranchos de Albuquerque do
70,000.00
35,084.78
Reyes Gonzales et al. Abiqniu
Rio Arriba County
16,708.16
16,708.16
Francisco A. Manzanares
Cañada de los Alamos.
Santa Fé County. .
13,706.00
12,068.39
Luciano Chaves et al. Galisteo
do
22,000.00
260.79
Felipe Peralta et al .. Cevilleta
261,187.90
261,187.90
Roman Martinez et al. Medina or Black Mesa.
Socarro County .. Rio Arriba County
25,000.00
19,171.35
Tomas Torres et al.
Rancho del Rio Grande ...... do
Valencia counties
152,879.00
86,249.09
(See case No. 80)*
Juan de Dios Romero.
Cristobal de la Serna.
Taos County
30,000.00
Numa Reymond
Doña Ana Bend Colony. . Doña Ana County.
35,399.017
Mannel Crespin et al.
San Antonito
do
Pedro Jose Gallegos
Nuestra Señora del Rosario
San Fernando
Rio Arriba County
20,000.00
Aniceto Martinez et al.
Valencia counties
148,862.00
4,106.66
James Corrigan.
Las Animas State of Colorado. 4,096,346.00
Benjamin Rodges et al.
276,000.00
Donaciano Gurule et al.
. Taos County
18,955.00
109,043.00
91,813.15
Acres. 47,743.00
"Where reference is made to a case number, attention is called to the official record of the United States Court of Private Land Claims.
205
LAND GRANTS
Area confirmed Area claimed. and approved.
Claimants. Name of grant. Location.
Acres.
Acres. 46,244.94
Eloisa L. Bergere et al. . . . Bartolome Baca
do
500,000.00
J. B. Cessna et al.
. Juan Jid or John Heath. ... Dona Ana County.
Levi P. Morton (see No. 25) ..
Roman A. Banca et al.
Bartolomé Fernandez Bernalillo and Valencia counties
25,424.28
25,424.28
Maria Cleofes Bone et al. Boné .Mora County
6,000.00
Frank Huning Diego de Padilla or El Tajo Bernalillo and Valencia counties
J. Franco Chaves.
San Clemente
Valencia County .
. Taos County
20,000.00
Clinton N. Cotton.
M. & S. Montoya or Bosque Grande . Bernalillo County .
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.