Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-12-19

ffrmed the grant to that town, which
unquestionably would not have been
done, if it had been thought that the fee
simple title had been passed under the
grant to the petitioners.
In addition to these matters, there has
been judgment passed upon the claim Of
Millhiser which, though not conclusive in
the premises, is highly. persuasive as far
as it goes.
On August 20, 1887, Millhiser ct al,
trading as the Las Vegas Land & Cattle
company, filed bill in the district court
of San Miguel county, New Mexico, against
original petitioners for the grant, now set
up before this department, was made the
basis for asking the district court to per-
petually enjoln the defendants from main
tanning an Enclosure upon, or otherwise
interfering with, the compliments full
enjoyment of the lands within the Las
Vegas grant, in which they claimed the
undivided ownership by virtue of mesne
conveyances from some of the alleged
original grantees or their legal represent
atves. 1t is not necessary to 60 into
further details regarding that case, as they
are fully shown in the pamphlet copies
thereof, and the proceedings therein
found in this record. 1t is sufficient to
say here that the question of the Mlllhser
title was passed upon by the court, adj
versely to his claims, as will be seen by
the following extract from the opinion Of
the court, as delivered by Chief-J Justice
Long:
at is clear to my mind from the record
that the government of Mexico, in max
ing 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 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
others settlers as they might make appl-
cation, and that each subsequent dstri-
butee held under the original grant and
under his possession and allotment. tits
of large capital intending at their own ex.
pense to colonize families and settle and
maintain them on the grant. They were
evidently poor persons and of but moder-
ate means, seeking homes for themselves
and families as means of subsistence,
and desiring the settlement of other per-
sons near them, as means of building
up the town of Las Vegas for protection
against the hostile Indians. Each new
settler constituted one more arm of
strength for protection, an additional aid
for the building of the settlement and
new town, and naturally was elcomed
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 govern
ment, but, to the contrary, the decree of
the provincial deputation, the distribution
under official authority of different tracts
to separate individuals for ten years after
the date of the grant, the acts and quail
fed 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
Entertaining these views, the court
made decree that the complainants be
forever barred and prohibited from dis
turbing the defendants in the quiet enjoy.
ment of the lands in controversy, or
from instituting any suit against them in
that behalf. 1t does not appear that any
appeal was taken from said decree which
stated by the judge to have been accepted
by the complainants as condition on
which they were permitted to have this
bill dismissed.
In a brief here on October Is, 1890,
Mr.. Millhiser INDUCES in criticism more
per- onal, in its animadversions upon the
judge who delivered the opinion in said
case, than logical in its arguments against
the correctness of his Judgment. 1t is
stated, however, in said brief that there
was an earlier case decided in the same
court, wherein the validity of the title
which Millhiser represents was upheld,
and copy of the record in the case re-
ferred TO, is filed.
An examination of that record shows
that, on March Is, 1873, a bill was filed in
the district court of San Miguel county,
N. NJ, by Miguel Romero y Baca and
others, who claimed to be heirs, or legal
representatives of the original grantees
and owners of the Las Vegas grant. The
bill sets forth, in substance, that at pub
lie meeting held in the court house of the
town of Las Vegas, May Hayes and two
associates were appointed commissioners
to partition and divide up the said grant
among themselves and others, not being
of the number of the original grantees,
their heirs or assigns; and that the said
proceeded to, and did par
tition and divide out to persons, desiring
the same, parcels of the vacant and I'M
cultivated portions of said grant, and have
declared their intention to continue max
ing such divisions and allotments; which
action, it is alleged, will be to the irrepar-
able injury of compliments; and an in
junction is prayed restraining said parties
from proceeding further to divide said
lands or taking possession of those 80
divided.
An answer was filed by Hayes and his
associates wherein, briefly stated, they
admit that they were acting as commits.
sioners as stated, that the grant was con.
irmed to the town of Las Vegas, and in
pursuance of the provisions of the same,
and by authority of the people of the