USA > New Mexico > History of New Mexico : its resources and people, Volume I > Part 31
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
do.
3,253.00 22,000.00
4,340.23
Maria L. Lucero et al
Antonio de Abeita or Bal-
8,000.00
721.42
Maria M. Baca et al. Lucero Spring Valencia County .
70,000.00
Mariano S. Otero .. Nuestra Señora de la Luz
de Las Lagunitas ..
Bernalillo County.
43,653.00
39,184.446
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Rosario Corkins et al.
Arroyo de los Chamisos. . . Santa Fé County. .
Tomas C. Gutierrez et al .. . Pajarito Tract . Bernalillo County ..
2,000.59
Pablo Crespin et al. ..
Cañon de Carnue
do
Roman A. Baca.
San Mateo Spring. do
J. W. Akers et al (see No. 38).
Justo R. Armijo ..
. Montaño
do
151,056.00
Los Cerrillos
Santa Fe County. .
2,284.00 572.4
1,478.81 572.4
City of Santa Fe.
The City of Santa Fe. do
17,361.00
Juan Nieto et al.
El Pino
do
2,000.00
Beatriz P. de Armijo
Sitio de Juana Lopez
do
1,366.00
1,085.53
Nasario Gonzales et al.
Gotera
do
1,800.00
Lehman Spiegelberg
Cieneguilla
Taos County
43,961.00
Abraham Gold et al.
Salvador Gonzales
Santa Fé County. .
25,000.00
Thomas B. Catron.
Juan de Gabaldon
do
11,619.00
Luis M. Ortiz et al.
Sierra Mosca
do
33,250.00
Jesus Maria Olguin .. Ojo Caliente
Rio Arriba County
40,000.00
2,244.98
Benigno Ortiz et al.
La Majada
Santa Fé and Ber- nalillo counties .
54,404.10 130,000.00
54,404.10 4,763.85
Jose H. Gurule. San Antonio de las Huertas ... do .
Thomas B. Catron.
Juan Salas or Alamitos .... Santa Fé and Ber-
nalillo counties ..
2,500.00
297.55
Mariano S. Otero. Jose Garcia
Lorenzo Lobato
Salvador Lobato
Taos County .
2,600.00
Antonio Joseph (see No. 88) .. Jose Albino Baca et al ...
Ojo del Borrego
Bernalillo County.
75,000.00
16,079.80 30,638.28
Nepomuceno Martinez et al.
Santa Barbara
Taos County
30,638.28 25,000.00
Nasario Gonzales
Cañada de San Francisco .. . Santa Fé County. .
1,590.00
Antonio Serafin Paña et al.
La Petaca .
Rio Arriba County
186,977.00
1,392.10
Amado Chaves et al. May Hays
. Canyon de San Diego. Bernalillo County . San Miguel County
47,743.00
T. A. Romero et al.
Antonio Armijo
Santa Fé County. .
900.00
Jose M. Lobato ...
Juan Cayetano Lobato.
do
1,000.00
Juan de Archuleta.
Archuleta and Gonzales do
1,000.00
Albino Dominguez et al ..
Antonio Dominguez do
800.00
T. C. Gutierrez (see Case No. 51)
The Rio Arriba Land and Cat- tle Company
Canyon de Chama.
Rio Arriba County 472,737.00
1,422.62
Clarence P. Elder et al.
Juan Carlos Santistevan. ... Taos County
17,159.00
Crescencio Valdez
Conejos
. State of Colorado. 2,500.000.00 Arizona and New Mexico .12,467,456.00
Guadalupe Montoya
Town of Real de Dolores. . Santa Fe County. . Cuyamungué do .
5,000.00
604.27
Ponciano Lucero et al.
Chupaderos de la Lagunita. San Miguel County
4,340.00
Margarita Baca et al.
San Jose del Encinal. . Valencia County .
30,000.00
Manuel Archuleta et al.
Arroyo Seco Santa Fe County. . do
6,000.00
Jacob Gold et al ...
Talaya Hill
1,003.00
319.20
Juan B. Lucero et al. Lucero do
700.00
Jacob Gold et al ... Bernal Spring San Miguel County
20,000.00
Vicente Velarde et al.
Catarino Maese Santa Fé County. . do
2,000.00
T. A. Romero et al. De Vera do
300.00
Higinio Lujan et al.
Peñasco Largo or Santiago
do
6,165.00
272.168
Manuel Romero y Dominguez .. Rio Tesuque or Juan Bena-
7,300.00
Tuan A. Romero et al.
Juan Jose Archuleta. do
500.00
Esquipula Flores et al. Juan Antonio Flores. do
1,500.00
1,500.00 45,000.00 90,000.00 4,340.276
4,340.276
Beatriz P. de Armijo . do .
Sitio de los Cerrillos
do
Bernalillo County.
76,000.00
Anastacio C. de Baca et al. . Barranca
Rio Arriba County
9,752.00
Ojo del Apache ..
James A. Peraltareavis
Peralta
17,361.00
M. de la P. V. de Conway
300.00
Jose Anto. Rodriguez et al. Tuan Rodriguez
Ramirez .
bides do
24,800.00 95,000.00
37,099.29
Juan Fernandez et al. Rio del Pueblo.
Roman A. Baca. Felipe Tafoya
tazar Cisneros Rio Arriba County.
28,724.22
J. Chaves y Gallegos et al. .. .. . Nicolas Duran de Chaves. . Valencia County ..
50,000.00
108,000.00
200.82 10,690.05
206
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
Claimants. Name of grant.
Location.
Acres. Acres.
David Trujillo et al (see case No. 61)
Eutimio Montoya
Town of Socorro.
. Socorro County .. 843,259.00 . .
Thomas J. Allen et al. (see case No. 44).
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Florencio Sandoval et al. ..
Ojo de San Jose or San Jose y Santo Toribio de Jemez
Bernalillo County.
30,000.00
4,336.91
Maria A. Gallegos et al. ... .... Guadalupita
counties
47,743.00
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Pueblo of Laguna ..
Pueblo of Laguna .. Valencia County .
101,510.00
17,328.91
Pueblo of Santo Domingo et al. Santo Domingo and San
Felipe
Bernalillo County.
40,000.00
1,070.688
George W. Thompson et al. (see case No. 44).
Anastacia P. de Castillo El Rito
Bernalillo and
Rafaela C. Barela et al ..
Santo Tomas de Yturbide. .. Doña Ana County
10,000.00
9,622.34
Corporation of Jose Manuel
Sauches Baca
Jose Manuel Sanches Baca. do
3,601.00
3,530.60
Josiah F. Crosby.
Miranda
do
4,751.00
205,615.72
Merejildo Martinez et al.
. Vallecito de Lobato do
114,000.00
Lewis Lutz et al.
Jose Sutton . San Miguel County
69,445.00
Ramon Garcia et al.
San Pablo y Nacimiento. . Bernalillo County. do
2,000.00
Pedro Perea do
Luis Garcia
do
11,674.00
Mariano S. Otero.
Nuestra Señora de los Dolores mine
Santa Fé County . .
42.00
Benito Borrego et al. (see case No. 122).
Juan Santistevan et al.
Fernando de Taos. Taos County
1,889.00
1,817.24
The grant of the Colony of
Refugio et al.
The grant of the Colony of Refugio
Doña Ana County do
21,628.52
21,628.52
Joel Parker Whitney et al ..... Estancia
Valencia County ..
415,036.00
L. Z. & M. Z. Farwell (see case No. 99).
Las Animas Land Grant Com- pany (see case No. 44).
Pinito Pino et al ...
Hacienda del Alamo. Santa Fe County ..
Florencio Sandoval et al.
Las Lamitas . Bernalillo County.
Pueblo of Santa Ana et al
Pueblo of Santa Ana or El Ranchito do
87,360.00
4,946.24
Antonio Baca et al.
Mesita Blanca
Santa Fé County. .
18,000.00
Roman Baca et al.
Ancon Colorado
Bernalillo County.
800.00
Juan M. Armijo et al.
La Peralta
do
400,000.00
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Julian Martinez et al. .
Canada de las Mestenas ... .Taos County
16,000.00
Nicolas Pino
.Ojito de Galisteo.
. Santa Fe County. .
25,000.00
Eduardo Otero et al.
.Guadalupe Mine
Valencia County .
16,000.00
Clarence P. Elder. .
.Canon del Rio Colorado ... . Taos County
43,939.00
Mariano S. Otero.
Ojo e la Cabra.
Bernalillo County .
4,340.00
M. R. Pendell et al.
Santa Teresa
Doña Ana County
9,861.00
8,478.51
Smith H. Simpson et al.
. Oreja del Llano de los
Aguages. .
Taos County
150,000.00
Alex. Grezlachowski et al. Sanguijuela
San Miguel County
20,000.00
Abran de Herrera et al.
Pueblo Quemado
Santa Fé County. .
900.00
Pueblo de Cochiti ..
Juana Baca . Bernalillo County .
20,000.00
Antonio Griego et al.
. El Embudo Rio Arriba County
25,000.00
Juan N. Martinez.
Jose Ignacio Martinez.
. Taos County ..
500.00
Juan Anto. Valdez.
Felipe Medina do
300.00
Manuel Espinosa
Manuel Fernandez
Jose Luis Valdez. ..
Rio del Oso.
do . Rio Arriba County
300.00 5,000.00
Felipe Delgado et al.
Lo de Basquez.
. Santa Fe County. . . Rio Arriba County
Magdalena L. De Ortiz et al .. . Roque Lobato
Santa Fe County ..
1,620.00
Tomas C. de Baca et al. .... . Santa Cruz . Bernalillo County .
Jose Albino Baca (see case No. 130).
Hate Sullivan (see case No. 91).
Pueblo de Santo Domingo (see case No. 134).
Pueblo of San Felipe (see case No. 134).
76,000.00
Jose L. Valdez et al.
Juan Bautista Valdez
60,000.00
1,468.57
60,000.00
50,000.00 120,000.00
Felicita Crespin
San Acacio
. Socorro County
18,000.00
11,524.30
The Corporation of Mesilla .... The Mesilla Colony.
131,000.00
Arquito
Rio Arriba County do
205,615.72
Vallecito de San Antonio.
38,000.00
J. I. Martinez et al. do
Juan Jose Lobato.
Valencia counties
511,000.00
Colfax and Mora
Area confirmed and approved
Area claimed.
26,000.00
LAND GRANTS
207
Area confirmed Area elaimed. and approved.
Claimants.
Name of grant.
Location.
Acres.
Acres.
William Frazer Miguel Chavez
. Taos County
15,000.00
Refugio Aguilar
Felipe Tafoya
Santa Fe County. .
500.00
Francisco Lujan et al. ..
Manuel Tenorio
do
600.00
Juan de Dios Tapia et al.
Tomas Tapia
do
500.00
Jose A. Rivera ...
Diego Arias de Quiros. do
2,000.00
Refugio Aguilar et al.
Alfonzo Rael de Aguilar. do
500.00
Luis Riberia et al .. . Felipe Pacheco
do
500.00
Jesus Ochoe et al. (see case No. 150).
Frank Becker et al ... .. Santa Cruz
do
48,000.00
4,567.60
Amado C. de Baea et al. (see case No. 95).
Ambrocio Pino et al. (see case No. 136).
Antonio J. Ortiz et al. . El Badito do
1,350.00
Juan Marquez et al. (see ease No. 25).
Jose M. Nieto et al. Santa Fe Canon.
do
6,000.00
Luis Chaves et al.
The Alamo
do
2,000.00
(Transferred to Arizona distriet)
William T. Russell (see case No. 86).
R. H. Longwill et al. (see case
No. 144).
S. Endicott Peabody (see ease No. 142).
Joel P. Whitney et al ..
Cañada de Cochiti.
. Bernalillo County . 104,554.00
19,112.78
Eloisa Bergere et al. (see ease No. 165).
Mariano S. Otero et al. (see case No. 38).
Manuel Gurule et al. ..
. Town of Bernalillo. do
..
47,743.00
John Gwyn, Jr. (see case No. 69).
Ambrocio Pino (see ease No. 136).
José A. Vigil et al. Santo Domingo de Cundiyo. Santa Fé County ..
2,137.08
2,137.08
Jose de G. Trujillo et al. Pueblo de Quemado ...
. Rio Arriba County
288,000.00
Smith H. Simpson (see ease No. 144).
Feliciano Montoya et al. Cieneguilla
Santa Fé County ..
45,245.00
3,202.79
John B. Salpointe ... Bisbop's Ranch
do
600.00
Louise T. Purdy et al. (see case No. 44).
Jose M. Chaves et al. . Town of Bernalillo
. Bernalillo County .
11,674.37
3,404.67
Maria M. de Berry et al. (see case No. 107).
Marcos A. Chaves et al.
Rancho de los Comanches. . Not given
95,380.00
Clotilda de Spencer et al. Rancho Rio Puerco .. Bernalillo County .
95,480.00
Luciano Chaves et al. Rancho Los Comales or Corrales
Not given
95,380.00
N. M. de Aragon ..
Rancho
do
95,480.00
Tomasa T. de Quintana.
Rancho El Rito.
do
95,480.00
Isabel J. de Romero et al.
Rancho
do
95,480.00
Agapito Ortega et al ..
do
do
95,480.00
Juan A. Quintana ..
Tose Ignacio Alari.
Rio Arriba County
1,000.00
Jose P. Jaramillo et al.
Roque Jacinto Jaramillo. do
Bernalillo County .
2,300.00
Matias Contreras
Francisco Garcia
Socorro County . .
4,000.00
Eugenio Alvarez et al.
Manuel Alvarez
Mora and Colfax counties
69,440.00
Jesus Crespin et al. Cristoval Crespin Rin Arriba and
Santa Fé eoun-
ties
3,000.00
Jose A. Garcia (see case No.
99).
Vicente Romero et al.
Alfonzo Rael de Aguilar .... Santa Fé County. .
17,361.00
Bernardo Salazar . Antonio de Salazar. . Rio Arriba County
23,351.00
Jose S. v Ortiz et al. (see case No. 142).
Atanacio Romero et al.
Tuan de Mestas.
Santa Fé County. .
3,000.00
Albino Lopez
La Nasa
Rio Arriba County
2.000.00
Agapito Sena
Tacubaya . . ! Santa Fe County ..
3,000.00
Manuel Hurtado et al. (see ease No. 205).
Antonio J. Gomez et al.
Hurraza or Paraje del Rancho
Taos County
90,000.00
Apolonio Vigil
Las Manuelitas
. San Miguel and
Mora counties .. . 200,000.00
10,000.00
Jesus M. Castillo et al. Angostura
1,579.48
Clotilda Speneer et al. Rancho de la Gallina.
do
95,480.00
208
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
Area confirmed and approved.
Claimants
Name of grant.
Location. Acres.
Acres.
Zenon Sandoval et al. (see case No. 214).
N. M. de Aragon et al.
Rancho del Rio Arriba.
do
434,000.00
. . do Rancho Los Rincones. do
434,000.00
do
Rancho Abiquiu
do
434,000.00
do El Coyote
do
434,000.00
Juan Garcia
Manuel Garcia de las Ribas. Rio Arriba County
7,577.00
Juan Torres et al.
Cristobal de Torres.
do
205,615.00
Antonio Vigil
Diego - de Belasco.
do
5,000.00
Feliciano Montoya (see case
No. 144).
Juan Ramon Duran.
Juan de Ulibarri. do
500.00
Andres Garcia et al.
Juan E. Garcia de Noriega. Santa Fe County. .
5,000,00
Jose Torres et al ..
. Jose Antonio Torres .. .... . Rio Arriba County
5,000.00
Refugio Valverde et al.
Santo Toribio de Jemez. .
. Bernalillo County .
100,000.00
Bartolome Trujillo et al.
. San Jose de Garcia.
Rio Arriba County
2,000.00
Pedro Perea (see case No. 217).
Pedro Perea
. San Jose Spring
. Bernalillo County .
do
35,000.00
Francisco A. Romero.
Francisco Xavier Romero .. Rio Arriba County
300.00
Francisco Serna et al. (see case No. 257).
Bartolome Sanchez et al ..
. Bartolome Sanchez
do
10,000.00
4,469.828
Juan A. Martin et al. (see case
No. 97).
Francisco Tafoya
Juan Tafoya grant. do
86,000.00
Valentin C. de Baca et al ..... Santa Rosa de Cubero.
Bernalillo County .
5,000.00
1,945.496
Manuel Archuleta et al .... . Mesilla tract.
Santa Fé County ..
6,000.00
Antonio Jose Gallegos et al.
(see case No. 90).
Mariano S. Otero et al.
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Guadalupe Montoya et al.
. Bosque Grande or M. & S. Montoya
do
4,340.00
2,967.574
Pueblo de Isleta.
Lo de Padilla
Valencia County
51,940.82
51,940.82
J. Franco Chaves.
Antonio Gutierrez
Valencia County
22,636.92
22,636.92
... do .
Joaquin Sedillo
do
Peregrina Campbell et al .. Maragua
Santa Fé County. .
1,042.00
(Transferred to Arizona district)
Mariano F. Sena.
Jose de Leyba. do
18,000.00
J. Maria Mestas. .
Joaquin de Mestas. Bernalillo County
3,632.00
Blaza Alvarez se Sanchez
Sanchez land grant . Doña Ana County
4,428.00
Romulo E. Varela et al.
Barela land grant.
do
4,428.00
Manuel M. Martin et al.
Galban or Ignacio Sanchez
Vergara
. Bernalillo County . 30,000.00
Total.
34.653,340.616 1,934,986.39
Beside the above claims in three cases money judgments were allowed against the United States for lands patented by the United States within grants confirmed by the Land Court. They were as follows :
Claimants.
Name of grant.
Acreage.
Amount.
Louise J. Purdy et al.
Sebastian de Vargas.
701.01
$ 786.26
Jose Chaves y Gallegos et al. .. . Nicolas Duran de Chaves.
410.90
513.62
Jose Isabel Martinez et al. Juan Jose Lobato.
1,856.73
2,320.91
182,130.00
Crescencio Moreno et al.
Juan Jose Moreno
Taos and Rio
Arriba counties .
1,000.00
Antonio de Uribarri. . Pueblo Colorado
Area claimed.
434,000.00
La Gallina Not given
. do
Virtientes de Navajo Bernalillo County .
11,480.00
It had been generally believed for inany years that the Mexican land grants were wholly illegal and fraudulent, and that many of those which under ordinary circumstances might obtain some sort of status in the courts were forged. But even forged grants were found upon investigation to be very rare. The most notorious exception was the Peralta Reavis grant, a detailed account of which will be found in this chapter. Many of these grants were issued by officials who had not been invested with proper legal authority to confer them, although they undoubtedly were made in good faith, the officials responsible for them believing, in their ignorance, that the authority lay in them. This ignorance arose chiefly from the
209
LAND GRANTS
frequent changes in the Constitution of Mexico and the acts of the Mexican Congress, in the cases of the later grants, and the great distance of the seat of local government from the Mexican capital. Under these circumstances a local governor, acting under an old law, sometimes would continue to exercise his executive functions for a year or more before becoming cogni- zant of any change in the laws. This condition was especially embarrassing before the days of the Republic, when the royal decrees, made in Spain, could not be made known to the viceroys of New Spain until the lapse of several months; and sometimes several months more passed before the far provincial governors could be notified of the intent of these decrees.
1
It is therefore not strange that many grants made in the eighteenth century have not been disputed for a century or more in some instances. Some of these grants were held by the court to be good, in strict equity, but the land court was compelled to reject them under the limitations of the statute creating the court, which demanded proof of absolute legal au- thority in the granting powers and a rigid compliance with the law in the form and manner of its execution. The court found that many of the grants, like the notorious Beaubien and Miranda or Maxwell grant, which had heen passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States before the erection of the land court, had had most elastic boundaries, and that in inany instances their areas had been expanded to a wonderful extent through the manipulations of American and British purchasers. Where the boundaries had been described by metes and bounds, passing from one natural landmark to another, other landmarks were frequently substituted and the claim raised that these were the original marks. A glaring instance of this expansion of the boundaries in the cases coming before the land court was the Cochiti grant in what is now Sandoval county, where one . of the boundary lines was extended, in the application for confirmation, from one pueblo to another miles away, and from the east side of the Jemez mountains to the west side.
"An amusing instance of the uncertainty of Mexican land boundary description," wrote Judge Stone of the land court, "occurred in the case of the little grant of the narrow valley of the Santa Fe creek in the moun- tains above the city. The length was given as extending from, say-the old sheep corral of Jesus Maria Gonzales up the creek to Monument rock. The width extended from the bed of the stream to the 'faldas' of the mountains on either side. Now, a 'falda' in Spanish means primarily a skirt, as the skirt of a woman's dress. * * * Mr. Catron, attorney for the claimant, insisted that the faldas should be held to be up about timber line, so as to include all the valuable timber. Mr. Pope, the assist- ant United States attorney, contended that such elevation of the faldas was a highly improper interpretation, * * * but that, on the contrary, the term should be construed to bring the skirts down to the trails of the foothills. * * *" The court compromised the claim by including the irrigable lands within the grant.
The invaluable services of this court may be seen when it is stated that not only were all iand grant titles in New Mexico settled forever, but that more than thirty thousand acres of land, some heavily timbered, some containing deposits of coal and precious metals, reverted to the govern- ment of the United States.
Vol. I. 14
210
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
PERALTA-REAVIS GRANT CASE
Two of the most noteworthy cases on record in the annals of the operation of the American courts arose out of transactions affecting a con- siderable proportion of the area of the territory of New Mexico. The Peralta Grant case-or the Peralta-Reavis case, as it is more commonly known-involves a history which, in all its interesting details, would fill a volttme. The fraud attempted against the United States government by the claimant to this utterly mythical grant was the most stupendotts in the history of the world, and its author. James Addison Reavis, is un- doubtedly entitled to rank as the prince of all impostors.
Reavis was born in Henry county. Missouri, where he resided until fourteen years of age. The four succeeding years he spent in Vernon county, in the same state. At the age of eighteen he enlisted in the Con- federate army, serving throughout most of the Civil war. Subsequently he visited Brazil, where he remained about a year. Returning to Missouri he became a street car conductor, then a clerk in a retail clothing store, then a street car conductor again. next a traveling salesman for a saddlery house and a dry goods and clothing house. He finally drifted into the real estate business in St. Louis, investing all his savings in city and suburban property. One day in 1871 a man entered his office, according to Reavis's story, and introduced himself as George M. Willing, Jr., repre- senting that he claimed the title to an immense tract of land in Arizona, and suggesting that Reavis enter with him into a deal for its exploitation and sale. Willing afterward brought to Reavis a paper which he ex- plained was an instrument giving him title to the lands in question. He also introduced Reavis to W. W. Gitt, a man who had been identified with a number of questionable transactions arising from claims based upon ancient Spanish grants, or alleged grants, in St. Louis.
Reavis appears to have been greatly impressed with the tremendous possibilities in the case, for he soon agreed to assist Willing in his re- searches and the attempt to perfect his title. The instrument originally presented to him purported to be a grant bv the King of Spain to Don Miguel de Peralta de la Cordoba, made in the year 1748, and conferring title to a tract of three hundred Spanish square leagues, or a trifle more than 1,300,000 acres. The second document purported to be a deed made in 1864. by which Miguel Peralta of San Diego county, California, trans- ferred his title in the property to Willing.
It was probably at this relatively early stage of the proceedings that the fertile brain of Reavis was beginning to outline the magnificent scheme by which he proposed, if possible. to obtain possession of the alleged grant. The possibilities evidently waxed greater as he became better informed regarding the status of many of these ancient grants, especially those located within the borders of New Mexico and Arizona. He finally noti-
211
LAND GRANTS
fied Willing of his willingness to go to Arizona to investigate the matter and take the proper steps to secure the recognition of the grant by the United States government. In 1875 or 1876 they started. Willing pro- ceeded at once to Prescott, Arizona, where his death occurred suddenly the night after his arrival, under circumstances. that .gave rise to the sus- picion that poison had been administered to him. Reavis proceeded first to San Francisco, hoping to obtain possession of a deed in blank, executed by Willing several years before when the latter feared he might get into some kind of trouble. He did not arrive in Prescott until some time after Willing's death, and when he did reach that town he represented himself to he a special correspondent for the San Francisco Examiner. From a man who had charge of the baggage and other property left by Willing he obtained possession of a sack containing, among other articles, the grant and deed referred to. He testified at his trial that it was his inten- tion to return these articles to Willing's widow. It should be explained that in the deed made out by Willing in blank, Reavis stated that one Florin A. Masol, or some member of his household, had filled in the name of Reavis as the grantee. This he filed in the office of the United States Surveyor-General for Arizona.
In the meantime, acting, as he testified, under direction of his coun- sel, Harvey S. Brown of San Francisco, and armed with power of attor- ney from Willing's widow, in 1883 Reavis filed with surveyor-general for Arizona, a petition asking for the approval of the Peralta grant under the Act of Congress of July 22, 1854, supporting his claim by the presentation of the instrument purporting to be the original grant and mesne convey- ances showing him to be the owner by purchase from Willing. He had also procured, in the meantime, through the assistance of the authorities of the Roman Catholic church in Arizona, photographs of the ancient records in the mission of San Francisco Xavier, near Tucson. But in spite of what appeared to be an unbroken chain of evidence of the authenticity of his claim, Surveyor-General Royal A. Johnson made an unfavorable report upon the claim. in the face of strong opposition from high officials. In his report, made in 1889, Mr. Johnson condemned both the alleged grant and conveyances as forgeries. Six years had elapsed between the filing of the petition and the unfavorable report. During these years popu- lar sentiment throughout Arizona seemed to incline toward the belief that the claim was a just one and would be confirmed by the government ; and this fact induced many land-holders, individual and corporate interests, to seek Reavis for the sake of securing from him a release that would give them good title to the properties they held. Thousands of persons and they realized that if the title of Reavis was valid their title from the had initial titles under the homestead, pre-emption and mining laws, government was invalid. It was evident that if his pretensions could be sustained, the land had belonged to his predecessors from the middle of the 18th century. In large numbers these persons hastened to secure from Reavis quit-claim deeds, from which he reaped a fortune.
Beholding great possibilities in this method of securing wealth with- out labor, Reavis organized three corporations, each named the Casa Granda Land and Improvement Company, and organized respectively under the laws of New Jersey, Wyoming and Arizona. From these three corporations he realized the sum of $65,000. The Southern Pacific Com-
212
HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO
pany paid him $50,000 for its right-of-way through his mythical grant. The Silver King Mining Company paid him $25,000 for a release of his claim on its mining property. From various other sources he received sums ranging from a few hundred dollars each to items of $15,000. The total amount of money he extorted from innocent purchasers in this way probably never will be known, but it was a vast fortune. Some place the total amount at between one and two millions of dollars, but a more con- servative estimate, made by men who participated in the trials of the civil and criminal proceedings arising from his operations, places the amount at about $350,000.
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.