Tombstone epitaph., 1921-06-05
Q. X HATpEN's
ELL FOR eAcA
LAND SETTLERS

able report from the committee on
public lands on his bill for the relief
Of the settlers on the Baca Float
land srant near Nogales. Arizona.
who lost their homes as the result
OF a decision of the United States
supreme court in 1914. The bill as
reported authorizes each qualified
settler 10 select anywhere on the
public domain in Arizona) twice the
area 81 the land that he lost instead
OF an equal area as originally pro
posed by the interior department. As
stated in Congressman Hayden's re-
port the principal historical facts in
connection with this long and stub
oornly coDtested land case are as fol-
lows:
n, March, 1885. tract Of land was
granted by the then Mexican govern.
,nenl 10 the town of Las Vegas. y. NJ
The heirs OF Luis Maria Cabeza de
Ba.a protested at the time that this
grant was in conflict lin a prior
grant made 10 Baca. The treaty OF
Guadalupe HidalSo. between the Uni
ted States and Mexico proclaimed July
{, 1875. preserved the legal value of
all grants Of land previously made by
Mexico in the ceded territories. Sec
tion s o: an act 10 confirm certain pri-
waite land claims in New Mexico. APP
proved June u. 1860. authorized the
,hen Baca heirs TO select five tracts or
land IN the then territory OF New Mex
leo IN lieu OF the conflicting grant
made TO the town of Las Vegas.
The total area of the land granted
10 the Town of Las Vegas was asoer-
tanned TO he i96.446 acres and the
Baca heirs selected five tracts OF land
Of approximately 100000 acres each.
two in the territory Of New Mexico,
one in the territory of Colorado. and
two in the territory of Arizona. One
OF the areas selected in Arizona. on
June l., 1863, was afterwards found
TO contain ss,2sS acres in townships.
II, % and % south, ranges ID. IA and
Is east, and included part OF the ;r-
rigabie lands in the valley OF the San
"a Cruz river.
Tn. department of the interior re-
fused TO issue patent to the Baca
heirs for this selection, alleging that
the land inquestion was nortoiously
mineral in character, was known to be
such al the date of selection. and
therefore permitted numerous con-
flicting entries TO be made by citizens
of the United States. Patents have
been issued 10 IS entrymen for 1852
acres and II unpatented entries for
5.527 acres we're pending when the
suprem. court of the United States
decided, on June %. 1914, that title
10 the entire area OF Float No 3 had
passed from the United States TO the
, heirs Of Baca on April 9, 1864. Tn
der a decision OF the United States
court for the district of Arizona, rem
dered on December 10, 1917, all OF the
settlers were ordered to be evicted.
The committee is c: the opinion
that all OF the enjoyment who settled
on the lands in question are justly en-
titled to the relief granted by this bill.
Seven reported decisions by the de-
partment of the interitr on various
aspects of Baca Float No were all
adverse to the Baca heirs. The fact
that entries were accepted. final certi-
ficates and patents issued, ano tina;
the department was opposing tie
claims of the heirs Of Baca in the
courts fully justified the settlers in
making improvement on their entries.
The supreme court having reversed
all previous decision Of the interior
DEPARTMENT in this matter and the
settlers having been evicted from their
homes. it is evident that the least that
congress should do is to authorize the
selection OF other lands in the state Of
Arizona, as provided in this bill.