OCR Text |
Show 476 LEADING FACTS OF NEW MEXICAN SPANISH HISTORY stand the contention made by Reavis. The interest in the two territories was great, for upon the outcome depended the title to a tract of land with an area of nearly 20,000 square miles. Its western boundary was a line west of Phoenix, Arizona, and its eastern boundary reached Silver City, New Mexico. The government, however, was equal to the situation. Largely through the efforts of Levi A. Hughes and Will M. Tipton, who secured most of the evidence to support the government’s claim of fraud, the claim failed. Assisting the United States attorney was Severo Mallet-Prevost, of New York, afterwards secretary of the Venzuela boundary commission. Summers Burkhart, of Alburquerque, also represented the government. No sooner had the claim been filed than the government began sending agents to every point where it was believed evidence could be found. Mallet-Prevost and one of the judges went to Spain. Levi A. Hughes went to California. In Spain it was ascertained that the will of the second baron of Arizona, in the records in Madrid, was‘a forgery; that no such person as Don Miguel Nemecio Silva de Peralta had ever been a member of the orders of the Golden Fleece, Charles III, and Montesa; that while Reavis was in Spain, in 1886, he had been detected in the act of attempting to introduce into the archives in Seville forged papers relating to the grant and had fled from Spain before he could be apprehended. An examination of the archives at Guadalajara by Mr. Tipton showed that the language used in some of the decrees was not good Spanish, and that some of the statements made were not historically consistent. In a decree of 1758 a reference to the judicio de conciliacion, a proceeding unknown in Spanish court pro cedure until after the adoption of the constitution of 1812, was found. Mr. Tipton, in an account of this case and its preparation for trial on the part of the government, says: ‘The cedula of 1742, appointing the Baron of Arizona a royal inspector, was found in a manuscript book of cedulas of over 500 pages, which had been arranged and bound in 1766. The cedula in question was upon two leaves, on the second of which three words bore evidence of having been written over other words which had been erased. These words were visitador, inspector, Baron, baron, and Arizonaca, Arizona. The first leaf was in a single handwriting AND MEXICAN LAND GRANTS 477 and contained no such changes. Much study was given to this document, and the results were these: The first leaf was a forgery throughout, having been skillfully interpolated for a genuine leaf which had been as skillfully removed. The second leaf was genuine, excepting the three changed words. The problem was to decipher the words originally written under these. After a prolonged study, this was accomplished. The word virrey, viceroy, had originally been written in place of visitador, inspector ; conde, count, had been written under Baron, baron; while Fuenclara, the same in English, had occupied the space covered by Arizonaca, Arizona. The riddle was solved. The cedula claimed by Reavis to show the appointment of the Baron of Arizona as inspector of original form a cedula advising the city that the King had appointed the Count New Spain. ‘‘The study of the other three books book showing the genealogy of the first New Spain, had been in its of Guadalajara of the fact of Fuenclara as Viceroy of gave similar results. The Baron of Arizona consisted of thirty-eight leaves, the first and two last being genuine, except where an attempt had been made on the latter to change, in the notary’s certificate, the words stating the number of leaves of which the instrument was composed. Between leaves 1 and 37, thirtyfive leaves of solidly forged matter, showing the noble descent and purity of blood of Mrs. Reavis’ great-grandfather had been interpolated. In the notarial certificate on the last page a pen stroke had been drawn across several words, and the words treinta y ocho, thirty-eight (the number of leaves in the book), had been changed from their original form. When deciphered they were found to have been ciento sesenta y nueve, one hundred and sixty-nine. So this genuine certificate had originally been attached to some genuine document containing that number of leaves, and it had been altered by the forger to make it agree with the number contained in the Spurious document to which he attached it. “The book of proceedings relating to the probate of the will of the first Baron was at first sight somewhat puzzling, because much of it was genuine; but it took but a few days to separate the genuine from the forged portions. There was no mention of the Baron of Arizona, either by name or by any one of his numerous titles, in any genuine part of it. This was also true with regard to every other document in the archives purporting to relate to the grant. ‘The last book was one of parchment containing copies of various cedulas and depending for its authenticity on the signature appear- ing on the last page, of Urbano Antonio Ballesteros, a royal notary. he genuine signatures of this officer were numerous 1n the archives, and the scientific comparison of the signature in question with these, quickly demonstrated that it was a bungling forgery.”’ |