Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1899-08-30
THE SOCORRO GRANT
Decided Adversely to Private Claim
ants by the Court Of Private
Land Claims.
NO EVIDENCE OF A GRANT.
An Old Document Apparently Made by
Governor Armijo Not Genuine-Pro-
ceedings in Other Grant Gases Be-
fore the Court Today.

The court of private land claims yes
terday afternoon o~verruled the motion
for a new hearing in cases 1870 and 1872,
relating to the San Jose y Santo Toribio
de JemeZ grant, situated in Rio Arriba
and Bernalillo counties. The court con-
tirmed the grant some time ago., but the
claimants claimed foul square leagues,
while the court only confirmed one
square league. The claimants We're
F%lorencio Sandoval ct al. and Jose AL
bino Baca ct al. Judge N. B. Iaughlln
represented the claimants.
Case No. 1877, involving the possession
of the important town of Socorro grant,
was rejected. The area claimed was
S43, 259.5 8 acres in Socorro county, upon
which a number of flourishing settle
ments are located. The grant was al
legged to have been made November IL.
1917, and was claimed by Eutimio Mon
toya. The opinion was by Judge Henry
C. Sluss, and is as follows:
For the confirmation of the SocorrC
grant, the only original Spanish docu-
ment introduced in evidence consists OF
the petition proffered by the settlers OF
Socorro to the Spanish governor of this
province, setting out that they had beer
placed in possession, but that no title
had been extended, and asked that title
| be extended; on that the governor made
49, -lln, l,-1n+.l tD u utn1ny,n Jln 40
the alcalde of that jurisdiction, direct.
ing him to carry out that order tina
was made by the governor, his prede'
cessor, when the abandoned pueblo O.
Socorro was resettled. There is no evi
dence whatever on which we can bas'
a finding that that order was ever exc
cuted or carried out. Subsequently IN
other petition was proffered to a sue.
stantially the same thing, setting eur
that no title had been extended, anC
that they had no documents showing
their right to their property. On thi:
recting them to apply to the alcalde O.
Belen. There is no evidence whateveI
| that the alcalde of Belen or any othel
| alcalde ever acted upon that order
| These are the only documents; ant
these are the only evidences before III
to establish the making of the origina
grant by the government of Spain
| There is some evidence of tradition t.
L tha nffaot that q ,6npI1mpnt had hear
issued giving these people title, which
had been on file in the archives of thu
alcalde of that jurisdiction, but Which
had been destroyed by fire. This evi
dence, however, is purely a matter o
hearsay and tradition. No witnesses
We're found who ever saw that docu
ment or knew anything about it's con
tents. There is another document intro
duced in evidence purporting to be a re
valuation, or, rather, an extension o
title based upon the old Spanish gran
made by Governor Armijo in the yea,
1S45. 1t recites in the petition made tt
Armijo by Trujillo, who made The petit
ton, that there were not and never hat
been any Spanish documents in exist
ence, or if there We're, they were lost
We find as a fact in the cas- that thii
document, purporting to have been is
sued by Armijo, is not a genuine docu
ment, and was never executed by Armi
jo, and for that reason cannot be takel
as a basis for confirmation of this claim
We are of the opinion also, as a matte
| of law, hat this document, if genuine
would not be sufficient to authorize con
firmation. In our opinion the governo
of the territory Of New Mexico, unde
the colonization law, had no authorit!
to revalidate or confirm the grant mad,
by the Spanish authorities. His author
ity was derived wholly from the pro
visions of the executive order under tn,
colonization law, and was limited tt
making an original grant, or, rather
acceding to a petition for a grant on Z
petition made directly to him by set.
tiers of the territory, and conferred nj
authority whatever beyond that. W.
are, therefore, of the opinion that the
evidence wholly fails to warrant confir.
nation, and the petition will therefore
be rejected. There is no evidence tina
any allotments ever were made, no ev.
idence that they had any legal title
whatever, either to the tract as a whole
or any allotments; if any such evidence
ever existed, it was not produced"
The trial Of case No. 1853 was resumed
the case was argued and submitted
Hon. T. B.. Catron appearing for the
claimants. The trial involves the Santa
Teresa grant in Dona Ana county.
In case No. "a, Frank w. Clancy, at.
torney for the claimants, argued the
motion for a rehearing, and the motion
was submitted. The case involves the
possession of the Canon de Carnue
grant in Bernalillo county.
This morning the San Pablo Y Naci.
miento grant case, one of the most i'm
p~ortant cases on the docket, came ur
for a hearing. A large number of wit
nesses, including several Indians, ap-
peared to testify.