The border vidette., 1921-06-11
HAYDEN HELPS EVlCTEO 6ACA
 FLOAT VICTIMS

able report from the Com mittee on Public Lands on his bill for the relief of the settlers on the Baca Float land grant near No gales, Arizona, who lost their homes as the result of a decision of the United Stated Supreme Court in 1914. The bill as report ed authorizes each qualified set tier to select (anywhere on the public domain in ArizOOa) twice the area of the land that he lost intead of an equal area as origin ally proposed by the Interior Department. As stated in Con gressman Hayden's report the principal historical facts in con- nection with this long and stub bornly contested land case are as follows:
 In March 1885, a tract of land was granted by the then Mexi can Government to the town of Las Vegas, N. Mex. The heirs of Luis Maria Cabeza de Baca protested at the time that this grant was in conflict with prior grant made to Baca. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, between the United States and Mexico, proclaimed July 4, 1848, preserv- ed the legal value of aiI grants Of land previously made by Mexico in the ceded territories. Section 6 of n act to confirm certain private land claims in New Mexico, approved June 21, 1860 authorized the Baca heirs to select five tracts of land h the then Territory of New Mexico in lieu of conflicting grant made to the town of Las Vegas.
 The total area of the land granted to the town of Las Vegas was ascertained to be 496.4l acres and the Baca heirs selected five tracts of land of ap proximately 100000 acres each, two fa-the Territory of, New Mexico, one in the Territory of Colorado, and two in the Terri tory of Arizona. One of the areas selected in Arizona, Ou June 17, 1913, was afterwards found to contain 99, ,289 acres in townships 21, 22 and 23 south, ranges IS, 14, and 15 east, and included a part of the irrigable lands in the valley of the Santa Cruz River
 The Department of the Interior refused to issue a patent to the Baca heirs for this selection, alleging that the land in question was notoriously mineral in character, was known to be such at the date of selection, and therefore permitted numerous conflicting entries to be made by citizens of the United Sta tes. Patents have been issued to 1 1 entrymen for ?, 352 acres and fl unpatented entries for 5,527 acres were pending when the Supreme Court of the United that title to the entire area of Float No. 3 had passed from the | United States to the heirs of Baca on April 9, 1861. Under a decision of the United States Court for the District of A rizona, rendered on December IS, 1917, all of the settlers were ordered to be evicted.
 The committee is of the opinion that all of the entrymen who settled on the lands in question are justly entitled to the relief granted by this bill. Seven re ported decisions by the Depart ment of Interior on various as poets of Baca Float No. 3 were all adverse to the Baca heirs. The fact that entries were accepted, final certificates and patents issued, and that the department was opposing the claims of the heirs of Baca in in the courts fully justified the settlers in making Improvements ts on their entries. The Supreme Court having reversed all previ ouS decisions of the Interior l 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.