Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1892-11-03

both awaiting confirmation, to show how
identified he is with land grants, and how
largely his interests would naturally affect
his legislation on that uhject
Facts recently brought to our attention
show his record in this respect to be far
more Objectionable than we had sup
posed. 1t now seems that there is scarce
" man in this territory SO mixed up
with grant matters as Anthony Joseph.
He owned part of the Maxwell grant
seven miles wide along the Uraca river,
and running back to an unlimited extent
"to the top of the Mountains He bought
quantity of shares in the Chama grant
to speculate on, paying almost nothing to
the poor owners and selling for large
price to nonresident English pur-
chaser. In the purchases both here and
in the Ojo Caliente grant there seems to
have been good deal of crookedness,
and we expect to give all the details be-
fore long
But by far the worst business is as to
the Cieneguilla grant, and shows the land
shark and supporter of doubtful grants
combined. 1t seems that early in 1872
Joseph commenced the buying of shares
in this grant. In order to influence the
poor and ignorant owners, one share
holder named Vigil became party to the
transaction, receiving considerable
amount, said to be S4O0, as the price OF
his pertidy. The heirs of the grantees,
over 100 in number, were then seen, and
induced by various presentations, all OF
which proved false, to sign deeds to their
interests for the miserable pi lance of 81
each. Some say they signed because they
thought the deed was only a right of way
on a road; others that they expectedto re-
ceive their proper proportion afterwards.
But none ever received a cent after that
time, and the deeds were drawn so as to
cover all the right, title and interest of
the settlers, only reserving their little
garden patches. Thus over 10000 acres
were obtained for only $ll3. a more
cruel deception could not well be imagined,
for these heirs were poor, and through
their poverty and misplaced confidence
were induced to sell. If anyone doubts
the facts, the deeds are to be seen as fol-
lows, all being made to Anthony Joseph
and company, and all carrying the entire
right and title of the grantors:
The first deed is one from Vigil, of
which we have spoken. Then comes the
following:
February 8, 1872, made by Mariana
Romero and eighteen others, considera-
ton 81 each.
February 10, 1872, j. N. Gurule and
thirteen others.
February 10, 1872, Felipe de Jesus Ro-
driguez and nine others.
February 10, 1872, Benito Romero and
thirteen others.
February Is, 1872, Jose Anto. Sandoval
and thirteen others.
March IS, 1872, Juana Maria Urtado
and six others.
March IS, 1872, Pedro Vigil and wife.
March 10, 1872, Francisco Romero and
ten others.
March %, 1872, Ignacio Sanchez and
five others.
April 8, 1872, Pedro Suass and ten
others.
June "a, 1872, Jose V. Sanchez and four
others.
Any one wishing to investigate will
find these deeds recorded in Taos county
in books A, No. 2, and A, No. 3. There
are 113 grantors in all besides Vigil, and
each received just 81! Many of them
are still living, mostly in poverty, and
all feel keenly the wrong practiced on
theru."