OCR Text |
Show Claim Reported No. 142, the Santo Domingo and San Felipe Grant. The grant was confirmed December 22, 1858, surveyed in 1859 for a fraction over 34,766 acres, and patented in 1864; it was re-surveyed in 1907 for a fraction over 33,692 acres. Pueblo of Pecos. The Spanish document ‘TA,’’ dated 1689, is not gen- une. oe The Spanish document marked ‘‘B,’’ which is a of a committee of the Territorial Deputation of ew Mexico, see page , 18 a genuine document. The document was probably executed between 1828 and 1830. The grant was surveyed in 1859 for a little over 18,763 acres and was patented in 1864. The over grant 74,743 was acres surveyed and in 1859 for a small was re-surveyed area of a little more than 92,398 acres. in 1907 fraction for an It was patented in 1864. Pueblo of Taos. There is no granting document in this case and the testi- mony of the Taos Indians, taken before the eral, August 2, 1856, shows that they did grant for their pueblo lands. The only Spanish paper in the case is Governor Alberto Maynez to Rev. Fr. José surveyor-gennot have any NN a letter from Benito Perey- ro, the priest at Taos, dated April 15, 1815, informing the ope Pei latter that the governor had received his letter of the 11th of that month, in regard to the measurement of the “‘Taos League’’ and that he had issued a decree on April 15, CPE 1815, to the chief alcalde of that district in regard to the The grant was confirmed DeSee Archive 1357. matter. cember 22, 1858, was surveyed the followig year for a fraction more than 17,360 acres and was patented in 1864. Pueblo of Santa Clara. There is no Spanish decument in this case and the testi- mony of the Indians themselves, taken before the surveyor-general, June 16, 1856, shows that the witnesses had never seen any grant, although the old men of the pueblo said that there had been such a grant, which had been lost. It was surveyed in 1859 for a little over 17,368 acres and was patented in 1864. Pueblo of Tesuque. There is no Spanish document timony of witnesses taken June in this case. 14, 1856, .a} and has been transferred to Private Land document that are taken bodily from Z CES, is a genuine is contains several phrases the Ojeda sobre Nuevo Mejico, by Antonio Barreyro, Puebla, Mexico, 1832. This fact seems to show that the date at which this document, alleged to have been written in 1689, was actually written was not earlier than 1832. se ee RPE d RPAPSs Peres ‘ee ee OLPiePEPE PPT Pe a Pe 6-6 @ oe|pa Se Eph PO a AA WT este case, 1689, ‘‘B,’? dated ment OR r2- J oO a 5 re Ere Per rr oer ePe Peas oe A oi ss oP Pe —* ere this dated marked Pueblo of Cochatt. The Spanish document, dated in 1689, is not genuine. The property was surveyed in 1859 for a fraction over 24,256 acres and was patented in 1864. Pueblo of Santo Domingo. The Spanish documents in this case are lettered from ‘*A’’ to ‘‘H”’ inclusive. All of these are genuine, except document ‘‘G,’’ 1689, which is spurious. This docu- The tes- before the sur- Ae with ‘‘A,’’ in 1864. 479 me formerly marked The Spanish document oi a 1770, lis -* not genuine. ies ee Pueblo of San Felipe. The Spanish document patented Le P LEI eee acres and was art ah oF bs = The Spanish muniment in this case is also dated in 1689 and is not genuine. The grant was surveyed in 1859 for a fraction over 17,460 ea err A Dd ad io ee Se ee ae rN) ss 7? ed art) aed Pe 6° ee 92059 6G GG SG a ~ Or 69 98-8 98 8. 84-8 < ¥ arate aad buat td e574, Ss a me oe Ps oo Ft ae F88-9-8 P. was patented in 1864, Pueblo of Picuriés. Nol 7 te Te Py ee There are two Spanish documents, both of 1689, neither of which is genuine. Document ‘‘B”’ refers to the pueblo of Laguna ten years before it was founded. The grant was surveyed in 1859 for a fraction over 17,544 acres and CS ili ps a at that date and was not founded until ten years later. It was surveyed in 1877 for a fraction over 95,791 acres and was patented November AD, 1371. Pueblo of San Juan. auren need oe at | rir. in that year. It was surveyed in 1859 for a fraction over 17,510 acres and was patented in 1864. Pueblo of Acoma. There is one Spanish document in this case, dated 1689. It refers to the Laguna Indians having moved near to the Acomas on account of the water which the latter had for irrigating. This statement purports to have been made in the year 1689, whereas, it is a well-established historweal fact that the pueblo of Laguna was not in existence TSE erate ee THE SPANISH ARCHIVES OF NEW MEXICO Pueblo of Jémez. There are two Spanish documents in this case, dated in 1689, and both are spurious; as, in fact, are all the grants in New Mexico which purport to have been made to Indian Pueblos eer EN OES ei capa ee erste a ree et ad *-* »s + §~-# THE SPANISH ARCHIVES OF NEW MEXICO Qe oY 4/8 POE ~~ hit NeSrhsebLthe cad an tes g Crt . aia a |