Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-08-11


pueblos." And the words of the grant
state expressly that it is made for that
specific purpose.
These pueblos were then living upon
and cultivating each grant of land of
four leagues respectively, which had been
granted to them nearly hundred years
before, and upon which they are still
living.
Is, then, this grant anything more than
a royal concession of the right of pas
turage upon the crown lands, and in COM
mon with like right reserved by and for
the government itself?
Looking to the language employed in
the grant documents, the entire transac
ton, and the subsequent conduct of the
government respecting the same lands,
the character of the grant as a mere pas
ture right seems evident. In I'd White,
page 2S7, the law of Spain, relating to
grants of privileges of pasturage, is laid
down as fellows: "The concession of a
great extent of land for the rearing and
pasture of cattle constitutes no more
than the usufruct of it, for the time
nor never had, the remotest right to So
licit the proprietorship, for there is no
law or regulation upon which to found it;
and, consequently the land does not go
out of the class of public lands, since it
is the same rs if it were held on rent"
The area of land embraced in the
boundaries of the grant have claimed
amounts to something over 276,OO0 acres,
and may therefore be properly termed,
in the language above quoted, a "conces-
sion of great extent of land for the
rearing and pasture of CATTLE" and hence,
the law quoted seems quite applicable
thereto.
Additional weight is lent to tho
view that this is a revocable grant of the
pasturage usufruct merely, from con-
sideration of the fact shown by the rec
ord, that twelve years afterward, in 1878,
the same government, that of Spain, made
the San Diego grant, lying wholly or in
part within the limits Of the grant here
claimed and that afterward other grants
were made of portions of the same land,
notably that of the Espiritu Santo or Ho-
ly Ghost valley, to one Baca, which has
been confirmed by the congress of the
United States, and which grant lies wholly
within the boundaries of the grant in
question.
1t seems quite unreasonable to sup
pose that if this area in controversy had
been granted as an estate in fee to the
land, the same granting authority would
have deliberately granted portion of the
same land
TO A THIRD PARTY
only twelve years after the former grant;
repeat like act in 1915 and afterwards
and that, too, of land situate near the
capital, grazed upon by the royal horses
of the capital garrison, and the local
alcalde directed in every case to report
officially whether the land proposed to be
granted was unoccupied or that the
grant would be to the injury of third
parties.
This grant was prayed solely as a
| pasturage right; it seems to have been
granted for that purpose alone, and it
appears that the government afterward
treated it as such, and disposed OF the
paramount title to largo part of the land
upon the same view.
From these facts and considerations tho
court concludes that this grant was intend
ed and made as privileged right, license
or royal concession for the use and pur-
| pose of pasturage merely, revocable in
its nature, and vested no title otherwise
in the grantees, and therefore not the
subject of confirmation by this court.
One other question, only, arises re-
curing determination. What is the term
of existence of this license or usufruc.
tuary right?
Ordinary grants of privilege or license
of user, where no time is expressed limit
ing the duration, unless sooner revoked,
as rule, expire with the death of the
grantor. In this case, the grant, being
made by the crown, would not necessarily
terminate upon the physical death of the
individual granting sovereign, but when
Mexico threw off the Spanish yoke and
achieved an independent government, tho
political death of the Spanish sovereign
ity in this territory must have determined
the lifetime of the revocable grant in
this case. Even if it could be said, in the
language of certain indictments for
homicide, that it Fingered and lingering
did live" on, under Mexican rule, most
certainly it became extinct at the date Of
the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
For these reasons the decree of the
court is that the petition of the claimants
be dismissed. So ordered.
Yesterday afternoon and this forenoon
the courts time was occupied in hearing
the Gaia del Rio grant, calling for $4,000
acres in western Santa Fe county. Messrs.
Purdy and Laughlin commended for the
validity of the full claim. U. s. Attorney
Reynolds vigorously opposed them, ad-
hitting small grant covering only the
cultivated lands, but urged that the graz
ing lands and water were common to all
settlers and should not be included in
the grant. The cause was submitted to
the court and taken under advisement.
Adjourned to Monday.