Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Definition and List of Community Land Grants
in New Mexico (Exposure Draft) (Letter Report, 01/24/2001,
GAO/GAO-01-330).

With the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which formally ended the
Mexican- American War, the United States assumed control over vast new
territories, including much of what is now the state of New Mexico.
Under the treaty, the United States agreed to recognize ownership of
property, including the ownership of land grants, in the ceded areas.
Whether the United States carried out the provisions of the treaty,
especially with regard to community land grants, has been a
controversial issue for generations. Land grant documents contained no
direct reference to "community land grants" nor do Spanish and Mexican
laws define or use this term. GAO did find, however, that some grants
refer to lands set aside for general communal use or for specific
purposes, such as hunting, maintaining pastures, wood gathering, or
watering. Scholars, the land grant literature, and popular terminology
commonly use the phrase "community land grants" to denote land grants
that set aside common lands for the use of the entire community. GAO
adopted this broad definition in determining which Spanish and Mexican
land grants can be identified as community land grants. GAO identified
152 community land grants out of 295 land grants in New Mexico. GAO
divided these community land grants into three distinct types: 79 of
these were grants in which the shared lands formed part of the grant
according to the original grant documentation; 51 were grants that
scholars, grantee heirs, or others believed to contain common lands; and
22 were grants extended to the indigenous pueblo cultures in New Mexico.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-330
     TITLE:  Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Definition and List of
	     Community Land Grants in New Mexico (Exposure Draft)
      DATE:  01/24/2001
   SUBJECT:  Treaties
	     Land transfers
	     Land management
	     Property rights
IDENTIFIER:  New Mexico
	     Spain
	     Mexico

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-330
A

January 2001 TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO

Definition and List of Community Land Grants in New Mexico

Exposure Draft

GAO- 01- 330

NOTICE An electronic version of this Exposure Draft is available in English
and Spanish from GAO's World Wide Web server at the following address:

http:// www. gao. gov/ Additional hard copies of this draft can also be
obtained from Room 1100 at 700 4th St. NW, Washington, D. C., by request to
U. S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D. C. 20548, or by calling
(202) 512- 6000, or TDD (202) 512- 2537. Copies of this draft will be
available in New Mexico in both languages. We are issuing this report as an
Exposure Draft to identify and to gather information about community land
grants that is not readily available to us in published research and public
documents and to obtain

comments about our definition and our identification of community land
grants. We will use such information and comments to prepare a final report.
If you have any information or supporting documentation about the matters
included in this Exposure Draft, we would appreciate receiving them during
the comment period. All comments will be reviewed in preparation of a final
GAO report. Comments in English or Spanish should be sent by April 2, 2001,

electronically through GAO's web page (listed above), or by e- mail to
landgrants@ gao. gov, fax to 202- 512- 7703, or mail to the following:

Office of General Counsel U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street, NW
Washington, D. C. 20548

Attention: Alan R. Kasdan All comments should contain your name, address,
phone number, fax, email address, interest in land grants (e. g., heir,
scholar, government official, or interested organization), and supporting
documentation. For comments sent via the web page or e- mail, supporting
data should be subsequently

sent to Mr. Kasdan by fax or at the address above. We will consider all
comments and supporting documentation provided to us in preparation of a
final report. Changes will be based on documentation. Original documentation
should not be provided to GAO; we cannot return any material submitted to
GAO. Any questions

concerning this notice should be addressed to Mr. Kasdan or to Ms. Susan A.
Poling at (202) 512- 7648.

Letter 5 Appendixes Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican

Land Grants in New Mexico 22 Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
33 Appendix III: Bibliography 37 Appendix IV: Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments 44

Tables Table 1: 79 Community Land Grants Identified Through Original Grant
Documentation 14

Table 2: 51 Community Land Grants Identified by Grant Heirs and Others 17
Table 3: 22 Community Land Grants Issued to Indian Pueblos 20

Figures Figure 1: Territory Ceded by Mï¿½xico Under the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. 8 Figure 2: Types of
Community Land Grants in New Mexico, by

County 12

January 24, 2001 Lett er

The Honorable Pete Domenici The Honorable Jeff Bingaman United States Senate

From the end of the seventeenth century to the mid- nineteenth century,
Spain (and later Mï¿½xico) made land grants to individuals, towns, and groups
to promote development in the frontier lands that now constitute the
American Southwest. In New Mexico, these land grants fulfilled several
purposes: to encourage settlement, reward patrons of the Spanish government,
and create a buffer zone to separate hostile Native American tribes from the
more populated regions of New Spain. Spain also extended land grants to
several indigenous pueblo cultures, which had occupied the areas granted
long before Spanish settlers arrived in the Southwest. Under Spanish and
Mexican law, common land was set aside as part of the original grant for the
use of the entire community. Literature on land grants in New Mexico and
popular terminology generally distinguish between two kinds

of land grants: “community land grants” and “individual
land grants.” Our research identified a total of 295 grants made by
Spain and Mï¿½xico during this period. Appendix I contains a list of these
grants.

With the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which formally ended the
Mexican- American War, the United States assumed control over vast new
territories, including much of what is now the state of New Mexico. Under

the treaty, the United States agreed to recognize ownership of property,
including the ownership of land grants, in the ceded areas. Over the next
half century, the United States developed procedures to validate land grants
in the territory of New Mexico in order to implement the treaty provisions.
Whether the United States carried out the provisions of the treaty,
especially with regard to community land grants, has been a controversial
issue for generations. Many persons, including grantee heirs, scholars, and
legal experts, still claim that the United States did not protect the
property of Mexican- Americans and their descendants, particularly the

common lands of community land grants. They charge that the common lands
were lost in many ways and that this loss threatened the economic stability
of small Mexican- American farms and the farmers' rural lifestyle.

Concerned that the Congress and the courts have validated only about 25
percent of the total land grant claims in New Mexico and that most of the
lost lands stemmed from community land grants, you asked us to answer
several questions concerning community land grants and procedures under

the treaty. In this report, the first in a series, we agreed to (1) define
the concept of community land grants and (2) identify the types of community
land grants in New Mexico that meet the definition. Subsequently, we will

describe the procedures established to implement the treaty, identify
concerns about how the treaty was implemented, and what alternatives, if any
are needed, may be available to address these concerns.

To define community land grants, we reviewed land grant documents filed with
the U. S. government; Spanish colonial, Mexican, and current New Mexican
laws; federal, state, and territorial court cases; and the land grant
literature. To identify land grants meeting the definition of community land
grants, we reviewed U. S. records on Spanish and Mexican land grant

claims; literature on land grants, including materials on specific grants;
and federal court cases. We also spoke with scholars, legal experts, and
grant heirs familiar with the issues. For the most part, we relied on
English translations of Spanish documents in U. S. government files and
other sources. Our identification of a land grant as a community land grant
in this report, however, does not constitute our opinion as to the validity
of any

land grant claim. Many of these land grants have already been subject to
congressional review or court adjudication. Appendix II contains a complete
description of our methodology. We are issuing this report as an Exposure
Draft in English and Spanish to gather and to identify information on
community land grants that was not

readily available to us in published research and public documents. We would
also like to obtain comments about our definition and our identification of
community land grants. We will use such information and comments when
preparing our final report. The NOTICE located on the inside cover of this
report provides information about how additional

copies of the Exposure Draft can be obtained and when and to whom comments
should be sent. Results in Brief Land grant documents contain no direct
reference to “community land grants” nor do Spanish and Mexican
laws define or use this term. We did

find, however, that some grants refer to lands set aside for general
communal use ( ejidos) or for specific purposes, including hunting ( caza),
pasture (pastos), wood gathering ( leï¿½a), or watering ( abrevederos).
Scholars, the land grant literature, and popular terminology commonly use

the phrase “community land grants” to denote land grants that
set aside common lands for the use of the entire community. We adopted this
broad

definition in determining which Spanish and Mexican land grants can be
identified as community land grants.

We identified 152 community land grants (or 52 percent) out of the total of
295 land grants in New Mexico. We divided these community land grants into
three distinct types: 79 of these were grants in which the shared lands
formed part of the grant according to the original grant documentation; 51
were grants that scholars, grantee heirs, or others believed to contain
common lands; and 22 were grants extended to the indigenous pueblo cultures
in New Mexico.

Background From the end of the seventeenth century to the middle of the
nineteenth century, Spain and Mï¿½xico issued grants of land to individuals,
groups, towns, pueblos, and other settlements in order to populate present-
day New Mexico. Academic treatises and popular literature typically divide
these grants into two types: “individual grants” and
“community land grants.” Grants to towns and other settlements
were modeled on similar communities created in Spain, where the king granted
lands adjacent to

small towns for common use by all town residents. Under Spanish and Mexican
law in the territory of New Mexico, officials made grants to towns and other
communities. Such grants were in keeping with Spanish laws,

including the 1680 Recopilaciï¿½n de las Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias.
However, local laws, practices, and customs often dictated how grants were
made and confirmed.

After achieving independence from Spain in 1821, Mï¿½xico continued to adhere
to Spanish law by extending additional land grants to individuals to
encourage settlements in unoccupied areas and to stave off U. S.
encroachment on Mexican territory. The Mexican- American War began in 1846
and formally ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in
1848. Under the treaty, Mï¿½xico ceded most of what is presently

the American Southwest, including the present day states of New Mexico and
California, to the United States for $15 million. Figure 1 shows the
territory ceded by Mï¿½xico under the treaty.

Figure 1: Territory Ceded by Mï¿½xico Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in
1848 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853.

Idaho Minn.

S. Dak. Wyo.

Iowa Nev.

Nebr. Utah Colo. Calif. Kans.

Mo. Ariz. Okla.

Ark. N. Mex.

La. Texas

Republic of Texas, 1836- 1845; annexed by U. S. 1845 Disputed area: Claimed
by Texas 1836- 1845; claimed by U. S. 1845- 1848 a Mexican Cession, 1848
Gadsden Purchase, 1853

a When Texas was officially recognized as a state in 1845, it included the
light- gray area, which was also claimed by Mï¿½xico. The Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo resolved this dispute, with Texas claiming the disputed land. In
1850, Texas transferred part of this land to the federal government, which
became the eastern portion of the territory of New Mexico.

While the treaty provided protection for property in the ceded area, Article
X expressly addressed land grant protection. However, U. S. President James
Polk objected to the provision, fearing that a revival of land grant claims
had the potential to jeopardize the grants already settled in Texas. As a
result, the Congress struck Article X before ratifying the treaty.

Subsequently, in 1848, the United States and Mï¿½xico signed the Protocol of
Querï¿½taro, which clarified certain aspects of the treaty, including Article
2, in which the United States stated that the exclusion of Article X in no
way meant that it planned to annul the land grants. The Protocol
specifically provided that land grant titles would be protected under the
treaty and that

grantees could have their ownership of land acknowledged before American
tribunals. With the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, the United States purchased
additional land from Mï¿½xico for $15 million, including the southwest corner
of the present state of New Mexico. The treaty, which confirmed the terms of
the Gadsden Purchase, incorporated by reference the property provisions of
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. To implement the treaties, the Congress
enacted legislation in 1854 to establish the Office of Surveyor General of
New Mexico. The surveyors general were charged with examining documents and
verifying the ownership of land grants. The United States government
required individuals or towns and other communities to prove ownership or
property interests in grant lands. After reviewing the land grant
documentation, the surveyor general recommended to the Congress which grants
should be rejected or confirmed. If the Congress approved the grant, the U.
S. government issued a patent, which conveyed the property's title to the
owner. The Congress reviewed and confirmed 64 of the surveyor generals'
recommendations, but in the late 1870s, the congressional review of
recommendations ceased.

In 1891, the Congress established the Court of Private Land Claims to
adjudicate the outstanding claims reviewed by the surveyors general, though
not yet approved by the Congress, and other claims presented to the court.
In United States v. Sandoval et al., 167 U. S. 278 (1897), a case on appeal
from the Court of Private Land Claims, the Supreme Court held that Mï¿½xico,
not the local community, had title to all common lands in community land
grants issued before 1848. Consequently, under the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, Mï¿½xico had transferred ownership of these communal lands to the
United States. Although the Sandoval decision did not overturn previous
court confirmations of land grants, it did affect all subsequent claims
adjudicated by the Court of Private Land Claims. In 1904, the court finished
its work, approving claims and land surveys that represented approximately 6
percent of the acreage claimed. The Congress and the Court of Private Land
Claims confirmed 155 grants of the total of 295 grants we identified, and
patents were issued for 142 of these grants.

Appendix I lists all the land grants we identified, the grants patented, and
the acreage patented.

The completion of the Court of Private Land Claims' work did not quell the
controversy surrounding the loss of the common lands. Many persons,
including grantee heirs, scholars, and legal experts, still claim that the
United States failed to uphold the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe

Hidalgo to protect the property of Mexican- Americans and their descendants.
They are critical of the federal courts' treatment of the common lands and
the failure to approve more of the acreage claimed. They also assert that
common lands were lost by other means, and that this loss deprived many
small Mexican- American farmers of their livelihoods.

The Concept of Land grant documents contain no direct reference to
“community land Common Lands

grants” nor do Spanish and Mexican laws define or use this term.
Scholars, land grant literature, and popular terminology use the phrase
“community

Defines Community land grants” to denote land grants that set aside
common lands for the use Land Grants

of the entire community. We adopted this broad definition for the purposes
of this report. To determine the meaning of the term “community land
grants,” we first reviewed land grant documents, and found that grant
documents do not describe grants as community land grants. We also did not
find applicable Spanish and Mexican laws that defined or used the term.
However, as a

result of our review of land grant literature, court decisions, and
interviews with scholars, legal experts, and grantee heirs, we found that
the term is frequently used to refer to grants that set aside some land for
general communal use ( ejidos) or for specific purposes, including hunting (
caza), pasture ( pastos), wood gathering ( leï¿½a), or watering (
abrevederos). Our definition coincides with the way in which scholars, the
land grant literature, and grant heirs use the term.

Under Spanish and Mexican law, common lands set aside as part of an original
grant could not be sold. Typically, in addition to use of common lands,
settlers on a community land grant would receive individual parcels of land
designated for dwelling ( solar de casa) and growing food ( suerte).

Unlike the common lands, these individual parcels could be sold or otherwise
disposed of by a settler who fulfilled the requirements of the grant, such
as occupying the individual parcel for a continuous period. For example, the
documentation for the Antï¿½n Chico grant, issued by Mï¿½xico in 1822, contains
evidence that common lands were part of the original grant.

The granting document provided for individual private allotments and common
lands. Congress confirmed the Antï¿½n Chico grant in 1860 and the grant was
patented in 1883.

Approximately Fiftytwo Using the definition, we identified three types of
community land grants, Percent of All New totaling 152 grants, or
approximately 52 percent of the 295 land grants in New Mexico. In 79 of the
community land grants, the common lands

Mexico Land Grants formed part of the grant according to the grant
documentation. Scholars,

May Be Classified as grant heirs, and others have found an additional 51
grants that they believe

Community Land to contain communal lands; and we located 22 grants of
communal lands to the indigenous pueblo cultures in New Mexico. Figure 2
shows the Grants

location, by county, of the three types of community land grants.

Figure 2: Types of Community Land Grants in New Mexico, by County

San Juan R.

Rio Arriba Taos

Colfax 11

12 2

11 3

2 1 Rio Chama

Grande Rio Mora

2 1

McKinley Sandoval

Santa Fe

1 8

8 8

San Miguel

Rio 15 15

5

Pecos 7 2

1

Puerco

Santa Fe

R. Rio San Jose

6 3 1 Albuquerque

2 2

Bernalillo Guadalupe

Cibola 2

3 1

Torrance Valencia 3

Pecos R.

Socorro 3

1

Grande Rio Sierra

Gila R.

1 Grant

1 Otero

Dona Ana 1

5 1

Pecos R. Community grants identified through documentation Community grants
identified by land grant heirs and others Community grants to Indian pueblos

Note: The numbers inside each symbol represent the number of each type of
grant in each county. One document referenced a grant for which the primary
county could not be identified. County boundaries have changed markedly
since 1850.

Common Lands Formed The first type of community land grant we identified is
a grant in which Part of the Grant According

common lands formed part of the original grant. From our review of grant to
Grant Documentation documents, Spanish and Mexican law, New Mexican law, and
grant literature, as well as interviews with grantee heirs, scholars, legal
experts, and others, common lands were part of the original grant in the
following

three instances:

? The grant document itself declares part of the land be made available for
communal use, using such terms as “common lands” or
“pasturage and water in common.” We identified 29 grants that
contain this or similar language. For example, the 1815 Spanish Los Trigos
grant, which was

issued to three individuals, made pasture available to the settlers of the
grant. Also, an 1846 Mexican land grant provided land to John Scolly and
several associates, to set aside wood and common pasture for the use of all
the settlers. Current New Mexico law treats grants that make specific
reference to common lands as community land grants. 1

? The grant was made for the purpose of establishing a town or other new
settlement. Spanish laws and customs concerning territories in the New World
provided that new settlements, cities, and towns would include common lands.
Although Mï¿½xico obtained its independence in 1821,

Mexican land grants continued to follow Spanish laws and customs. We
identified 13 grants as Spanish and Mexican grants to towns. For example, in
1768, Spain issued the Ojo de San Josï¿½ grant to six individuals for the
purpose of establishing a town. Similarly, Mï¿½xico issued the Doï¿½a Ana Bend
Colony grant in 1840 to 116 petitioners to

establish a town, which would then set aside an area for the town commons.
New Mexico law currently considers grants to a town, community, colony,
pueblo, or individual for the purpose of establishing a town to be community
land grants. 2

? The grant was issued to 10 or more settlers. Spanish law governing
settlement in the New World stated that 10 or more married persons could
obtain a land grant, if they agreed to form a settlement indicating that a
grant would contain common lands. For example, the 1807 Spanish Juan
Bautista Valdez grant was made to 10 settlers and the 1842

1 New Mexico law provides for the management of the common lands of Spanish
and Mexican community land grants through a board of trustees or a community
land grant corporation. N. M. Stat. Ann. 49- 1- 3 and 49- 2- 1 (2000).

2 N. M. Stat Ann. 49- 1- 2 (2000).

Mexican Angostura del Pecos grant to 54 settlers. We identified 37 grants of
this type. Table 1 lists 79 grants in which common lands were part of the
original grant.

Table 1: 79 Community Land Grants Identified Through Original Grant
Documentation

Year Location (by Grant granted county)

Alamitos (Juan Salas) 1840 Santa Fï¿½ Alexander Valle (Caï¿½ï¿½n de Pecos; Juan
1815 San Miguel de Dios Peï¿½a) Angostura del Pecos 1842 Guadalupe

Antï¿½n Chico (Town of) 1822 Guadalupe Arroyo Hondo (Gaspar Ortï¿½z; La Talaya;

1815 Taos Manuel Fernï¿½ndez; Josï¿½ Ignacio Martï¿½nez; Felipe Medina; Miguel
Chï¿½vez)

Badito (El) 1835 Santa Fï¿½ Barranca (Geronimo Martï¿½n) 1735 Rï¿½o Arriba
Bartolomï¿½ Trujillo (San Josï¿½ de Garcï¿½a) 1734 Rï¿½o Arriba Belï¿½n (Town of) 1740
Socorro Bernabï¿½ Manuel Montaï¿½o 1753 Sandoval Bracito (El; Hugh Stephenson)
1823 Doï¿½a Ana Cadillal 1846 Santa Fï¿½ Caja del Rï¿½o 1742 Santa Fï¿½ Caï¿½ada de
los Alamos (1) (Lorenzo 1785 Santa Fï¿½ Marquez) Caï¿½ada de los Mestaï¿½os 1828
Taos

Caï¿½ada de San Francisco (Nazario 1840 Santa Fï¿½ Gonzales; Josï¿½ Francisco Baca
y Terrus) Caï¿½ï¿½n de Carnue (San Miguel de Laredo) 1819 Bernalillo

Caï¿½ï¿½n de Chama (San Joaquï¿½n Rï¿½o de 1806 Rï¿½o Arriba Chama; Chama River Caï¿½ï¿½n)
Caï¿½ï¿½n de San Diego (San Diego de

1798 Sandoval Jï¿½mez) Casa Colorado (Town of) 1823 Socorro

Cebolla (Juan Carlos Santistevan) 1846 Taos Domingo Fernï¿½ndez (Ethan W.
Eaton; 1827 Santa Fï¿½ Pueblo de San Cristï¿½bal)

(Continued From Previous Page)

Year Location (by Grant granted county)

Don Fernando de Taos (Merced de 1796 Taos Fernandes (San Fernande) de Taos)
Doï¿½a Ana Bend Colony (P. M. Thompson 1840 Doï¿½a Ana

(Gregorio Dabolas)) Elena Gallegos (Ranchos de 1724 Bernalillo Albuquerque;
Los Ranchos) Galisteo (Town of; Juan Ortï¿½z; Francisco 1814 Santa Fï¿½ Almazan)
Gervacio Nolan 1845 Mora John Scolly (La Junta de los Rï¿½os Mora y 1846 San
Miguel Sanello) Juan Bautista Valdez (Caï¿½ï¿½n de Pedernal;

1807 Rï¿½o Arriba Encinas) Juan de Gabaldï¿½n (William T Russell) 1752 Santa Fï¿½

Los Conejos 1842 Taos Los Manuelitas (Apolonio Vigil) 1845 San Miguel Los
Serrillos (Cerrillos) 1692 Santa Fï¿½ Los Trigos 1815 San Miguel Mesilla Civil
Colony (Meregildo Guerra) 1853 a Doï¿½a Ana Mesita Blanca 1843 Santa Fï¿½
Nicolï¿½s Durï¿½n de Chï¿½ves 1739 Valencia Nuestra Seï¿½ora del Rosario, San 1754
Rï¿½o Arriba Fernando, y Santiago (Isabel Jaramillo de Romero (Rancho las
Truchas))

Ojo Caliente (Antonio Joseph) 1793 Rï¿½o Arriba Ojo de San Josï¿½ (Santo Toribo;
Pueblo of

1768 Sandoval San Josï¿½) Petaca (Josï¿½ Antonio Garcï¿½a) 1836 Rï¿½o Arriba

Pueblo of Quemado (Rito Quemado) 1721 Santa Fï¿½ Ranchito (El Ranchito) 1700
Sandoval Rancho de Ysleta (Pueblo de San Antonio

1828 Otero de Isleta) Rancho del Rï¿½o Grande 1795 Taos

Refugio Civil Colony 1852 Doï¿½a Ana Rï¿½o del Picurï¿½s (Josï¿½ Dolores Fernï¿½ndez;

1832 Taos Rï¿½o del Pueblo) San Antonio de las Huertas 1767 Sandoval

San Antonio del Rï¿½o Colorado (Town of 1842 Taos Rï¿½o) San Antonito (Cristï¿½bal
Jaramillo) 1840 Bernalillo

(Continued From Previous Page)

Year Location (by Grant granted county)

San Joaquï¿½n del Nacimiento (San Pablo y 1769 Sandoval Nacimiento; Nacimiento
del Rï¿½o Puerco) San Miguel del Vado (Bado) 1794 San Miguel

San Pedro 1844 Santa Fï¿½ Santa Bï¿½rbara (Plaza of the) 1796 Taos Santa Cruz
(de la Caï¿½ada; Juan Salas) 1695 Santa Fï¿½ Santa Fï¿½ 1715 b Santa Fï¿½ Santo
Tomï¿½s de Yturbide 1853 Doï¿½a Ana Santo Toribio (de Jï¿½mez) c Sandoval
Sevilleta (La Joya) 1819 Socorro Socorro (Town of) 1817 Socorro Tierra
Amarilla 1832 Rï¿½o Arriba Town of Abiquiï¿½ 1754 Rï¿½o Arriba Town of Albuquerque
1706 Bernalillo Town of Atrisco 1692 Bernalillo Town of Cebolleta 1800
Sandoval Town of Chaperito 1846 San Miguel Town of Chililï¿½ 1841 Bernalillo
Town of Cieneguilla 1795 Taos Town of Cubero 1833 Valencia Town of Las
Trampas (Santo Tomï¿½s

1751 Taos (Apostal) del Rï¿½o de las Trampas) Town of Las Vegas 1835 San
Miguel

Town of Manzano 1829 Torrance Town of Mora 1835 Mora Town of Tajique 1834
Torrance Town o f Tej ï¿½n (Tungue) 1840 Sandoval Town o f Tomï¿½ 1739 Valencia
Town o f Tor r eï¿½n 1841 Torrance Town of Vallecito de Lovato (S Endicott

1824 Rï¿½o Arriba Peabody; Josï¿½ Salazar y Ortï¿½z; Josï¿½ R. Zamora)

Vallecito (de San Antonio) 1807 Rï¿½o Arriba a Mï¿½xico issued this grant from
lands subsequently included in the Gadsden Purchase.

b The only grant actually given to Santa Fï¿½ residents was for some common
pasture land and water (1715). c Prior to 1800.

Grant Heirs or Others State The second type of community land grant we
identified is a grant that a Grant Contained Common

person or persons stated included common lands. Our review of the papers
Lands

filed with each grant claim to the surveyors general and the Court of
Private Land Claims, and those of a legal scholar, 3 disclosed that, in some
instances, the only mention of common lands was found in a claimant's
petition or other documents. In these cases, the files did not contain any
grant documents showing that the common lands were part of the original
grant. We also identified grants in this category as community land grants
after

interviewing grantee heirs, scholars, and others knowledgeable about a
grant's history, and reviewing other information provided to us. Again, no
existing grant document supported the claim, although some claimants stated
that such documentation had been lost or destroyed. Furthermore, some
scholars raised the issue that, in some individual grants, common lands had
been set aside by the grantees, their heirs, or other grant settlers to
encourage additional settlement after the original grant was made. In these
instances, there would not be any supporting official documentation

because the grant predated the setting aside of common lands. For example,
one scholar believed that the Sangre de Cristo grant, which Mï¿½xico
originally issued as an individual grant in 1843, later evolved into a
community land grant when an heir of the original grantee provided land to
new settlers and set aside additional land for communal use. Table 2 lists
the 51 grants identified by grantee heirs, scholars, or others as having
common lands but lacking grant documentation.

Table 2: 51 Community Land Grants Identified by Grant Heirs and Others Year

Location Grant granted (by county)

Antonio Baca (Nuestra Seï¿½ora de la Luz de 1762 Sandoval las Lagunitas)
Antonio de Salazar 1714 Rï¿½o Arriba

Arkansas (Beales Colony) 1826 Colfax Arquito (Rumaldo Archiveque) a Sandoval

3 J. J. Bowden, Private Land Claims in the Southwest (1969) (unpublished
LLM. thesis [6 Vols.], Southern Methodist University.)

(Continued From Previous Page)

Year Location Grant granted (by county)

Bartolomï¿½ Sï¿½nchez 1707 Rï¿½o Arriba Black Mesa 1743 Rï¿½o Arriba Bosque Grande
(Miguel y Santiago Montoya) 1767 Sandoval Chaca Mesa (Ignacio Chï¿½vez) 1768
Sandoval Cuyamunguï¿½ 1731 Santa Fï¿½ Embudo (of Picures) 1725 Rï¿½o Arriba
Francisco de Anaya Almazï¿½n

1693 Santa Fï¿½ (Cieneguilla; Ciï¿½nega; Andres Montoya; Feliciano Montoyo)

Gijosa (Francisco Antonia de) 1715 Taos Gotera 1830 Santa Fï¿½ Guadalupita
1837 Mora Hacienda del Alamo b Santa Fï¿½ (John) Heath (Juan Gid) 1823 Doï¿½a
Ana Josï¿½ Ignacio Alari (Juan Antonio Quintana) 1768 Rï¿½o Arriba Josï¿½ Trujillo
(Mesilla (of San Ildefonso) Tract;

1700 Santa Fï¿½ Arroyo Seco) Juan de Ulibarri 1710 Rï¿½o Arriba

La Majada 1695 Santa Fï¿½ Las Lagunitas (Antonio Sandoval) a Bernalillo
Maragua (Santo Domingo de; Josï¿½ Francisco

1826 Santa Fï¿½ Baca y Pino) Mesita de Juana Lï¿½pez 1782 Santa Fï¿½

Montoya 1740 c Ojito de Galisteo 1799 Santa Fï¿½ Pajarito (Sitio de) d
Bernalillo Pedro Armendariz #33 (Valverde & Fray 1819 Socorro Cristï¿½bal)
Pedro Armendariz #34 1820 Socorro

Plaza Colorado 1739 Rï¿½o Arriba Polvadera (Polvareda; Juan Pablo Martï¿½n) 1766
Rï¿½o Arriba Rancho de Nuestra Seï¿½ora de la Luz (Bishop 1807 Santa Fï¿½ John
Lamy) Rï¿½o del Oso (Josï¿½ Antonio Valdez) 1840 Rï¿½o Arriba

Rï¿½o Tesuque (Town of; Bishop's Ranch) 1747 Santa Fï¿½ San Clemente 1716
Valencia San Cristï¿½bal (Father Josï¿½ Antonio Martï¿½nez) 1835 Taos San Marcos
Pueblo (San Marcos Springs) 1754 Santa Fï¿½

(Continued From Previous Page)

Year Location Grant granted (by county)

Sangre de Cristo 1844 Taos Sanguijuela 1843 San Miguel Santa Rita del Cobre
(Santa Rita Mine) 1801 Grant Santa Rosa de Cubero 1761 Sandoval Santo
Domingo de Cundiyo (Josï¿½ Antonio

1743 Santa Fï¿½ Vigil) Sebastiï¿½n Martï¿½n 1705 Rï¿½o Arriba

Tacubaya 1843 Santa Fï¿½ Town of Alameda (Francisco Montes Vigil) 1710
Bernalillo Town of Bernalillo (Felipe Gutiï¿½rrez; Felipe 1708 Sandoval
Gonzales) Town of Caï¿½delarios 1600 e Bernalillo

Town of Chamita 1724 Rï¿½o Arriba Town of El Rito (Joaquï¿½n Garcï¿½a) 1780 Rï¿½o
Arriba Town of Real de Dolores del Oro 1830 Santa Fï¿½ Town of San Isidro 1786
Sandoval Town of Tecolote (Salvador Montoya et al.) 1824 San Miguel a No
date specified.

b Prior to 1714. c No county specified. d Prior to 1746. e Approximate date.

Common Lands of The third type of community land grants we identified
encompasses grants Indigenous Pueblo Cultures extended by Spain to the
indigenous pueblo cultures in New Mexico to Antedated Arrival of protect
communal lands that had existed for centuries before the Spanish Spanish
Explorers settlers arrived. For the most part, the pueblo settlements these
colonists encountered in the sixteenth century were permanent, communally
owned villages, where inhabitants engaged in agricultural pursuits. Spain
declared itself guardian of these communities, respected their rights to
land adjacent to the pueblos, and protected pueblo lands from encroachment
by Spanish colonists. Spain made grants to these communities in recognition
of their communal ownership of village lands. Mï¿½xico continued to recognize

pueblo ownership of land and considered pueblo residents to be Mexican
citizens.

After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Congress required the Surveyor
General to investigate and report on pueblo claims. The Congress
subsequently confirmed Spanish grants to 22 pueblos on the recommendation of
the Surveyor General. Table 3 lists the pueblo grants.

Table 3: 22 Community Land Grants Issued to Indian Pueblos Location Original
Spanish Grants Year Granted (by county)

Pueblo of Acoma 1689 Valencia Pueblo of Cochitï¿½ 1689 Sandoval Pueblo of
Isleta a Val enci a Pueblo of Jï¿½mez 1689 Sandoval Pueblo of Laguna 1689
Valencia Pueblo of Nambï¿½ a Santa Fï¿½ Pueblo of Pecos 1689 San Miguel Pueblo
of Picurï¿½s 1689 Taos Pueblo of Pojoaque 1699 b Santa Fï¿½ Pueblo of San
Cristï¿½bal 1689 Santa Fï¿½ Pueblo of San Felipe 1689 Sandoval Pueblo of San
Ildefonso 1704 Santa Fï¿½ Pueblo of San Juan 1689 Rï¿½o Arriba Pueblo of Sandï¿½a
1748 Sandoval Pueblo of Santa Ana a Sandoval Pueblo of Santa Clara 1699 b
Santa Fï¿½ Pueblo of Santo Domingo 1689 Sandoval Pueblo of Taos 1816 Taos
Pueblo of Tesuque a Santa Fï¿½ Pueblo of Zï¿½a 1689 Sandoval Pueblo of Zuï¿½ï¿½ 1689
McKinley Pueblos of Zï¿½a, Jï¿½mez, & Santa Ana

1766 Sandoval (Ojo del Espï¿½ritu Santo) a No date specified.

b Approximate date. Request for Comments We are issuing this report as an
Exposure Draft to identify and to gather information about community land
grants that is not readily available to us

in published research and public documents and to obtain comments about our
definition and our identification of community land grants. We will use such
information and comments to help prepare a final report. The NOTICE on the
inside cover of this report provides information about how additional copies
of the Exposure Draft can be obtained and where and when comments should be
sent. As agreed with your offices, this report will be issued in English and
Spanish versions. We plan to send copies to the New Mexico congressional
delegation. We will distribute copies in both languages in New Mexico and
provide copies upon request. GAO contacts and key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix IV.

Susan A. Poling Associate General Counsel Natural Resources and Environment

Appendi xes Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican

Appendi x I

Land Grants in New Mexico Date confirmed Date Acreage Name or other action a
patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Agapito Ortega Dismissed by claimant Agua Negra 1860 1900 17, 361. 11 Agua
Salada 1893 1909 10, 694. 48 Alamitos 1896 1914 297.55 Juan Salas Alamo
Rejected Alexander Valle 1860 1927 1, 242.00 Caï¿½ï¿½n de Pecos; Juan de Dios
Peï¿½a

Alfonso Rael de Aguilar (2) Dismissed by claimant (Vincente Romero) Alphonso
Rael de Aguilar Dismissed by claimant (1) Ancï¿½n Colorado Dismissed by
claimant Angostura 1897 1906 1, 579.48 Juan- Josï¿½ Gallegos

Angostura del Pecos Dismissed by claimants Antoine Leroux 1869 1911 56, 428.
31 Los Luceros Antï¿½n Chico (Town of) 1860 1883 383, 856. 10 Antonio Armijo
Dismissed by claimant Antonio Baca 1895 1902 47, 196. 50 Nuestra Seï¿½ora de
la Luz de las Lagunitas

Antonio de Abeytia 1894 1910 721.42 Baltazar Cisneros Antonio de Salazar
Dismissed by claimants Antonio de Ulibarri Dismissed by claimant Pueblo
Colorado Antonio Domï¿½nguez Rejected Antonio Martï¿½nez 1893 1896 61, 605. 46
Lucero de Godoi

Antonio Ortï¿½z 1869 1877 163,921. 680 Archuleta (Juan Antonio de)

Dismissed by claimant & Gonzales (Leonardo) Arkansas Rejected by Circuit
Court Beales Colony Arquito Dismissed by claimant Rumaldo Archiveque Arroyo
de San Lorenzo Rejected Antonio Chï¿½vez Arroyo Hondo 1892 1908 20, 000. 38
Gaspar Ortï¿½z; La Talaya; Manuel Fernï¿½ndez; Josï¿½ Ignacio

Martï¿½nez; Felipe Medina; Miguel Chï¿½vez) Badito (El) Rejected Juan Ortiz
Baltazar Baca Rejected San Josï¿½ del Encinal Barranca Rejected Geronimo
Martï¿½n

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Bartolomï¿½ Baca Rejected Bartolomï¿½ Fernï¿½ndez (de 1894 1903 25, 455. 24
Guadalupe la Pedresa) Bartolomï¿½ Sï¿½nchez 1897 1914 4, 469.83

Bartolomï¿½ Trujillo Rejected San Josï¿½ de Garcï¿½a Belï¿½n (Town of) 1858 1871
194,663. 750 Bernabï¿½ Manuel Montaï¿½o 1892 1908 44, 070. 66 Bernal Spring
Dismissed by claimants Black Mesa 1894 1907 19, 171. 35

Bosque Del Apache 1860 1877 60, 117. 39 Antonio Sandoval Bosque Grande 1896
1925 2, 967.57 Miguel y Santiago Montoya Bracito (El) 1860 d d Hugh
Stephenson; Brazito Cadillal e e Caja del Rï¿½o 1893 1897 66, 849. 78 Felipe
Delgado Caï¿½ada Ancha 1897 1917 200.82 Salvador Gonzales Caï¿½ada de Cochitï¿½
1894 1901 19, 112. 78 Antonio Lucero; Manuel Hurtado Caï¿½ada de Los Alamos
(1) 1893 1896 12, 068. 39 Lorenzo Marquez Caï¿½ada de los Alamos (2) 1894 1911
4, 106.66 Miera y Pacheco & Padilla Caï¿½ada de Los Apaches 1892 1907 86, 249.
09 Antonio Sedillo Caï¿½ada de Los Mestaï¿½os Rejected Caï¿½ada de San Francisco
Rejected Nazario Gonzales; Josï¿½ Francisco Baca y Terrus

Caï¿½ada de Santa Clara 1894 1909 490.62 Caï¿½ï¿½n de Carnue 1894 1903 2, 000.59
San Miguel de Laredo; Caï¿½ï¿½n de

Carmel; Caï¿½ï¿½n de Carnuel Caï¿½ï¿½n de Chama 1894 1905 1, 422.62 San Joaquï¿½n Rï¿½o
de Chama; Chama River Caï¿½ï¿½n

Caï¿½ï¿½n de San Diego 1860 1881 116, 286. 89 San Diego de Jï¿½mez Caï¿½ï¿½n del Agua
1866 1896 341.04 Caï¿½ï¿½n del Rï¿½o (Colorado) Rejected Antonio Elias Armenta
Casa Colorado (Town of) 1858 1909 131,779. 370 Catarina Maese Dismissed by
claimant Cebolla 1896 f f Juan Carlos Santistevan

Chaca Mesa 1895 1899 47, 258. 71 Ignacio Chï¿½vez Chamisos Arroyo Rejected
Bartolomï¿½ Marques & Francisco

Padilla Chupaderos de la Lagunita Rejected San Joaquï¿½n del Nacimiento

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Corpos Cristo Dismissed by claimant Cristï¿½bal de la Serna 1892 1903 Los
Ranchos de Taos Cristï¿½val Crespin Dismissed by claimant Jesï¿½s Crespin
Cuyamunguï¿½ 1895 1909 604.27 Diego Arias de Quiros Rejected Diego de Belasco
(Velasco) Dismissed by claimant Domingo Fernï¿½ndez 1860 1880 81,032. 670
Ethan W. Eaton; Pueblo de San Cristï¿½bal

Domingo Valdez Rejected Don Fernando de Taos 1897 1909 1, 817.34 Merced de
Fernï¿½ndes (San Fernande) de Taos Doï¿½a Ana Bend Colony 1896 1907. 35,399. 017
P. M. Thompson (Gregorio

Dabolas) El Pino Dismissed by claimant Elena Gallegos 1893 1909 35, 048. 78
Ranchos de Albuquerque; Los Ranchos; Donaciano Gurule

Embudo (of Picures) Rejected Estancia Rejected Antonio Sandoval, Antonio
Martï¿½nez & Diego Lucero Godoi Felipe Pacheco Dismissed by claimant Felipe
Tafoya (1) Dismissed by claimant Felipe Tafoya (2) 1895 1902 4, 340.23

Francisco de Anaya 1897 1916 3, 202.79 Cieneguilla; Ciï¿½nega; Andres Almazan
Montoya; Feliciano Montoyo Francisco Garcï¿½a Dismissed by claimant Francisco
Montes Vigil 1892 1899 8, 253.74 Francisco X. Romero Dismissed by claimant
Santa Cruz Galisteo (Town of) 1894 1927 260.790 Juan Ortiz; Francisco
Almazan Gaspar Ortï¿½z 1860 g g Vincente Durï¿½n de Armijo Gervacio Nolan
Rejected Gijosa (Francisco Antonia

1893 1908 16, 240. 64 Gijosa Rancho de Taos de) Gotera Rejected Guadalupe
Miranda Dismissed by claimant Guadalupita Dismissed by claimants

Hacienda del Alamo Rejected (John) Heath Rejected Juan Gid Joaquï¿½n (de)
Mestas Rejected Santa Teresa de Jesï¿½s

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Joaquï¿½n Sedillo & Antonio 1897 1909 22, 636. 92 San Clemente; Barrancas;
Gutiï¿½rrez Bosque de los Pinos

John Scolly 1860 1893 25, 000. 00 La Junta de los Rï¿½os Mora y Sanello
Jornado del Muerto Rejected Juan Bautista Vigil y Alarid Josï¿½ Antonio Lucero
Rejected Josï¿½ Antonio Torres Dismissed by claimant Josï¿½ de Leyba Rejected
Josï¿½ Domï¿½nguez Rejected by Surveyor

General Josï¿½ Garcï¿½a Rejected Josï¿½ Ignacio Alari Dismissed by claimants Juan
Antonio Quintana; Josï¿½ Ignacio Alarid; Gabriel Quintana Josï¿½ Leandro Perea
1860 1877 17, 712. 00 Rancho de los Esteros Josï¿½ Manuel Sï¿½nchez Baca 1900
1902 3, 530.60 Josï¿½ Romula de Vera Dismissed by claimant Josï¿½ Sutton
Rejected Josï¿½ Trujillo Dismissed by claimants Mesilla (of San Ildefonso)
Tract; Arroyo Seco

Juan Antonio Flores Dismissed by claimant Juan Bautista Valdez 1898 1913 1,
468.57 Caï¿½ï¿½n de Pedernal; Encinas Juan Cayentano Lovato Rejected Juan de
Gabaldï¿½n 1893 1902 10, 690. 05 William T. Russell Juan de Mestas Dismissed
by claimant Anastacio Romero Juan de Ulibarri Dismissed by claimants Juan
Durï¿½n Rejected Juan Estevan Garcï¿½a de

Rejected Geronimo Martï¿½n Noriega Juan Felipe Rodriguez Dismissed by claimant
Juan G. Pinard No action taken by Bautista Llara; Carlos Salazar

Surveyor General Juan Josï¿½ Archuleta Rejected Juan Josï¿½ Lovato 1894 1902
205, 615. 72 Cristï¿½bal de Torres Juan Josï¿½ Moreno Dismissed by claimants
Juan Josï¿½ Sï¿½nchez Rejected

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Juan Manuel Cordova No action taken by Juan Martï¿½n; Basilio Gonzales;
Surveyor General Santiago Bone (Pueblo de Santiago); Josï¿½ Ta pi a; J os ï¿½
Francisco Durï¿½n J u a n M o n t e s V i g i l 1 9 31 by District Court h
379.36 Town of Peï¿½a Blanca; Jacinto Pelaes; Juan Fernï¿½ndez de la

Pesnera Juan Tafoya Dismissed by claimant Juana Baca Rejected Pueblo of
Cochitï¿½ Pasture

La Majada 1894 1908 54, 404. 10 La Nasa Dismissed by claimant Las Lagunitas
Not acted on Antonio Sandoval

Las Lomitas Dismissed by claimant Lo de Basquez Dismissed by claimants Lo de
Padilla 1896 1908 51, 940. 82 El Tajo; Los Padillas; Franz

Huning; Diego Padilla Los Conejos Rejected Los Manuelitas Rejected Apolonio
Vigil

Los Serrillos (Cerrillos) 1894 1897 1, 478.81 Los Trigos 1860 1909 7, 342.00
Luis de Armenta No claim filed with Court Luis Maria Cabeza de Baca 1860 i
198, 578. 78 Baca Location #1 Maes (Juan Miguel) &

j jj Las Cieneguitas Gallego (Pedro) Manuel Tenorio Dismissed by claimant
Manuela Garcï¿½a de las Dismissed by claimant Isabel Montoya

Ribas Maragua Rejected Santo Domingo de; Josï¿½ Francisco Baca y Pino Maxwell
Grant 1860 1879 1,714, 764. 94 Beaubien & Miranda Mesilla Civil Colony 1899
1909 21, 628. 52 Meregildo Guerra Mesita Blanca Dismissed by claimant Mesita
de Juana Lï¿½pez 1879 Sitio de Juana Lï¿½pez

Montoya k kk No specific information available Nepumecina Martï¿½nez de
Dismissed by claimant Rancho de Coyote Aragï¿½n Nerio Antonio Montoya Rejected
Ojo de Borrego (Borrego Spring)

Nicolï¿½s Durï¿½n de Chï¿½ves 1896 No indication one was issued

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Nuestra Seï¿½ora de Rejected Abo Guadalupe Mine Nuestra Seï¿½ora del los
Rejected Dolores Mine Nuestra Seï¿½ora del

1892 1905 14, 786. 58 Isabel Jaramillo de Romero Rosario, San Fernando, y
(Rancho Las Truchas) Santiago Ocate Rejected Manuel Alvarez

Ojito de Galisteo Dismissed by claimant Juan Cruz Aragï¿½n Ojito de los
Medanos Rejected Lucero Spring Ojo Caliente 1894 1894 2, 244.98 Antonio
Joseph Ojo de Borrego (Borrego 1894 1913 16, 079. 80 Domingo Romero &
Spring) Miguel/ Manuel Ortï¿½z; Nereo

(Nerio) Antonio Montoya Ojo de la Cabra Rejected Juan Otero Ojo de San Josï¿½
1894 1912 4, 340.28 Santo Toribo de Jems; Pueblo of

San Josï¿½; Ojo de San Juan Ojo del Apache (Apache

Rejected Bentura Truxillo Spring) Ojo del Espï¿½ritu Santo 1869 1916 113, 141.
15 Tomï¿½s Cabeza de Baca

Orejas del Llano de los Rejected Juan de Jesï¿½s Lucero Aguajes Ortï¿½z Mine
1861 1876 69, 199. 33 Elisha Whittlesey; Antonio Cano (Ignacio Cano &
Francisco Ortï¿½z)

Pablo Montoya 1869 1877 655, 468. 07 Pacheco (Joseph) 1892 1913 500.00
Pajarito (Sitio de) 1894 1914 28, 724. 22 Paraje del Punche Dismissed by
claimant Pedro Armendariz #33 1860 1878 352, 504. 50 Valverde & Fray
Cristï¿½bal

Pedro Armendariz #34 1860 1878 95, 030. 00 Peralta (1) (La) Rejected Peralta
(2) Rejected Reavis

Petaca 1896 1901 1, 392.10 Josï¿½ Antonio Garcï¿½a Piedra Lumbre 1893 1902 49,
747. 89 Casa de (Josï¿½) Riano; Pedro

Martï¿½n Serrano Plaza Colorado 1893 1907 7, 577.92 Plaza Colorado Valdez
Plaza Blanca 1894 1914 8, 955.11 Manuel Bustos Polvadera (Polvareda) 1893
1900 35, 761. 14 Juan Pablo Martï¿½n Preston Beck Jr. 1860 1883 318, 699. 72

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Pueblo of Acoma 1858 1877 95, 791. 66 Pueblo of Cochitï¿½ 1858 1864 24, 256.
50 Pueblo of Isleta 1858 1864 131, 495. 30 Pueblo of Jï¿½mez 1858 1864 17,
510. 45 Pueblo of Laguna 1897 1909 17, 328. 91 Pueblo of Nambï¿½ 1858 1864 13,
586. 33 Pueblo of Pecos 1858 1864 18, 763. 33 Pueblo of Picurï¿½s 1858 1864
14, 953. 39 Pueblo of Pojoaque 1858 1864 13, 520. 38 Pueblo of Quemado
Dismissed by claimant Rito Quemado Pueblo of San Cristï¿½bal l ll Pueblo of
San Felipe 1858 1864 34, 766. 86 Pueblo of San Ildefonso 1858 1864 17, 292.
64 Pueblo of San Juan 1858 1864 17, 544. 77 Pueblo of Sandï¿½a 1858 1864 24,
034. 87 Pueblo of Santa Ana 1869 1883 17, 360. 56 Pueblo of Santa Clara 1858
1864 17, 368. 52 Pueblo of Santo Domingo 1858 1864 74, 743. 11 Pueblo of
Santo Domingo &

1898 1905 1, 070.68 San Felipe Pueblo of Taos 1859 1864 17, 360. 55

Pueblo of Tesuque 1858 1864 17, 471. 12 Pueblo of Zï¿½a 1858 1864 17, 514. 63
Pueblo of Zuï¿½ï¿½ m mm Pueblos of Zï¿½a, Jï¿½mez, & Rejected Ojo del Espï¿½ritu Santo
Santa Ana Ramï¿½n Vigil 1860 1908 31, 209. 52 Pedro Sï¿½nchez

Ranchito (El) 1897 1909 4, 250.63 Rancho de (los) Dismissed by claimant
Comanches Rancho de Abiquiï¿½ Dismissed by claimant Rancho de Coyote

Rancho de Coyote Dismissed by claimant El Coyote Rancho de Gigante 1860 1884
25, 233. 18 Laguna Pueblo tracts Rancho de la Gallina Dismissed by claimant
Rancho de Coyote Rancho de la Santisima

Rejected ; dismissed by Rancho de Galvan; Francisco Trinidad claimants
Sandoval; Ignacio Sï¿½nchez

Ver gara

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Rancho de los Corrales Dismissed by claimant (Comales) Rancho de los Rincon(
es) Dismissed by claimant Rancho de Coyote Rancho de Nuestra Seï¿½ora

1860 1874 16, 546. 85 Bishop John Lamy de la Luz Rancho de Paguate 1860 75,
406. 27 Laguna Pueblo tracts

Rancho de San Juan 1860 1884 25, 233. 18 Laguna Pueblo tracts Rancho de Rï¿½o
Arriba Dismissed by claimant Rancho de Coyote Rancho de Rï¿½o Puerco Dismissed
by claimant Rancho de Santa Ana 1860 1884 871.33 Laguna Pueblo tracts

Rancho de Ysleta Rejected Pueblo de San Antonio de Isleta Rancho del Rï¿½o
Grande 1892 1901 91, 813. 15 Rancho el Rito 1860 1884 25, 233. 18 Laguna
Pueblo tracts; El Rito

(Colorado); El Rillito Refugio Civil Colony 1901 1910 11, 524. 30 Rï¿½o de
Chama Dismissed by claimant Rancho de la Merced del San

Joaquï¿½n del Rï¿½o Chama Rï¿½o del Oso Dismissed by claimants Josï¿½ Antonio Valdez
Rï¿½o del Picurï¿½s Rejected Josï¿½ Dolores Fernï¿½ndez; Rï¿½o del Pueblo

Rï¿½o Tesuque (Town of) 1897 Bishop's Ranch; Juan Benabides Rito de los
Frijoles Rejected Andres Montoya; Antonio Salas Rï¿½mulo Barela (Varela)
Rejected Juan Manuel de Herrera Roque Jacinto Jaramillo Rejected Roque
Lovato (Lobato) Rejected Salvador Lovato Dismissed by claimant Lorenzo
Lobato

San Acasio Dismissed by claimant San Antonio de Las 1897 1907 4, 763.85
Huertas San Antonio del Rï¿½o

Rejected Town of Rï¿½o Colorado San Antonito Rejected Cristï¿½bal Jaramillo

San Clemente 1896 1909 37, 099. 29 San Cristï¿½bal Rejected by Surveyor Father
Josï¿½ Antonio Martï¿½nez;

General Cristoval de la Serna San Joaquï¿½n del Rejected San Pablo y
Nacimiento; Nacimiento Nacimiento del Rï¿½o Puerco

San Marcos Pueblo 1892 1896 1, 895.44 San Marcos Springs

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

San Mateo Spring( s) 1895 1907 4,340. 276 Santiago Durï¿½n y Chï¿½ves San Miguel
del Vado

1894 1910 5, 207.73 (Bado) San Pedro 1860 1875 31, 594. 76

Sangre de Cristo 1860 1880 998, 780. 46 Sanguijuela Rejected Santa Bï¿½rbara
(Plaza of 1894 1905 30, 638. 28

the) Santa Cruz (de la Caï¿½ada) 1899 & 1900 1910 4, 567.60 Juan Salas Santa
Fï¿½ 1894 n n Santa Fï¿½ Caï¿½ï¿½n Rejected Santa Rita Del Cobre Rejected by Santa
Rita Mine

Commissioner of the General Land Office Santa Rosa de Cubero 1898 Santa
Teresa 1900 1909 8, 478.51

Santiago Bone Dismissed by claimants James Boney; Marï¿½a Cleofas Bone;
Estanislado Sandoval (Josï¿½ Manuel Cordova) Santiago Ramirez 1897 1912 272.17
Peï¿½asco Largo Santo Domingo de Cundiyo 1900 1903 2, 137.08 Josï¿½ Antonio
Vigil Santo Tomï¿½s de Yturbide 1900 1905 9, 622.34 Sto. Tomï¿½s de Iturbide
Colony Santo Toribio (de Jï¿½mez) Rejected Sebastiï¿½n De Vargas 1893 1900

Sebastiï¿½n Martï¿½n 1860 1893 51, 387. 20 Sevilleta 1893 Dispersals Not
specified La Joya

begun in 1915 Sierra Mosca 1896 o o Juan Luis Ortï¿½z Sitio de Juana Lï¿½pez
1894 1897 1, 108.61 Sitio de Los Serrillos

1894 1897 572.04 (Cerrillos) Socorro (Town of) 1892 1896 17, 371. 18

Tacubaya Dismissed by claimant Talaya Hill 1895 1917 922.52 Manuel Trujillo
The Baird's Ranch Rejected Ranchos de Chino Tejano Tierra Amarilla 1860 1881
594, 515. 55 Tomï¿½s Tapia Rejected Town of Abiquiï¿½ 1894 1909 16, 547. 20

Town of Alameda 1892 1920 89, 346. 00 Francisco Montes Vigil

(Continued From Previous Page)

Date confirmed Date Acreage

Name or other action a patented b patented Alternative grant identifiers c

Town of Albuquerque 1892 None specified Not specified Villa de Albuquerque
Town of Atrisco 1894 1905 82, 728. 72 Town of Bernalillo 1897 1900 3, 404.67
Felipe Gutiï¿½rrez; Felipe

Gonzales Town of Candelarios p pp Town of Cebolleta 1869 1882 199, 567. 92
Town of Chamita 1860 1929 1, 636.29 Town of Chaperito 1890 Town of Chililï¿½
1858 1909 41, 481. 00 Town of Cieneguilla Rejected Town of Cubero 1892 1900
16, 490. 94

Town of El Rito Dismissed by claimants Joaquï¿½n Garcï¿½a Town of Jacona 1893
1909 6, 952.84 Ignacio de Roibal Town of Las Trampas 1860 1903 28, 131. 67
Santo Tomï¿½s (Apostal) del Rï¿½o

de Las Trampas Town of Las Vegas 1860 1903 431, 653. 65 Town of Manzano 1860
1907 17, 360. 24 Town of Mora 1860 1876 827, 621. 10 Town of Real de Dolores
Rejected del Oro Town of San Isidro 1860 1936 11, 476. 88

Town of Tajique 1860 1912 7,185. 550 Tajaque Town of Tecolote 1858 1902
48,123. 380 Salvador Montoya et al. Town o f Tej ï¿½n (Tungue) 1860 1882 12,
801. 46 Town o f Tomï¿½ 1858 1871 121, 594. 53 Town o f Tor r eï¿½n 1860 1909
14, 146. 11 Town of Vallecito de Lovato Rejected S. Endicott Peabody; Josï¿½
Salazar y Ortï¿½z; Josï¿½ R. Zamora

Uï¿½a Del Gato Rejected by Secretary of Interior Vallecito (de San Antonio)
Dismissed by claimants

Vertientes de Navajï¿½ Rejected Rafael Armijo (Sitio del Navajï¿½); Caï¿½ada de
los Alamos a Grant confirmed by Congress or Court of Private Land Claims. b
A patent conveys legal title to the grant. c Based on documents submitted to
the Surveyor General or the Court of Private Land Claims. d There were
extensive attempts to obtain grants that were never successfully completed.
The Court of Private Land Claims recognized the grant as valid and ordered
it surveyed and partitioned. However, problems arose when attempts were made
to identify the common boundary with the Santo Tomï¿½s

Yturbide Colony Grant. A patent was not issued because claimants argue the
Confirmation Act of 1860 conveyed the title; a final survey yielded
14,808.075 acres. e The grant was located within the confirmed Domingo
Fernï¿½ndez grant, so no action was taken on the claim. f Based on a U. S.
Supreme Court decision that found, among other things, that the grant had
not been given in accordance with Mexican law.

g The grant apparently lies within the Pueblo of Nambï¿½ grant, and has not
been patented. h No actual claim was presented to the Court, and therefore
no actual confirmation was made by either the Congress or the Court. When
the Majada grant was confirmed, this was apparently sufficient for the Town
of Peï¿½a Blanca residents. In 1931, the New Mexico District Court confirmed
acreage not previously part of the Pueblo of Cochitï¿½ lands.

i The Town of Las Vegas grant was apparently in conflict with the Baca
grant. The Congress recognized the conflict and allowed the Baca heirs to
obtain equivalent acreage elsewhere in the Territory. Of five tracts
selected two were in New Mexico, known as Float # 1 (Sandoval County) and
Float # 2 (San

Miguel County), each containing 99,289.39 acres. j The claimants probably
obtained title through the Act of March 3, 1891. This act allowed those
settlers, who had lived on the land for more than 20 years before an
official survey of a township was conducted, to a patent of up to 160 acres
of land. There was no documentation of the grant, and no claim was submitted
to the Court of Private Land Claims.

k No specific information is available. l The purported grant document was
filed with the Surveyor General but was later proven to be fraudulent. m As
the result of the establishment of a reservation in 1877, as revised in
1883, 1885, and 1917, the

pueblo's claim was not presented to the Court of Private Land Claims. n The
only grant actually given to Santa Fï¿½ residents was for some common pasture
land and water

(1715). Congress ultimately granted to the City of Santa Fï¿½ all lands not
already used by the United States or confirmed as private land grants. The
confirmed amount is based on the Surveyor General's preliminary survey of 4
square leagues. o The U. S. Supreme Court found the Court of Private Land
Claims in error and directed a reversal. The

grant was rejected in 1900. p Although a petition was filed in 1872, no
further action was taken by the claimants to pursue recognition of the
claim. Therefore, there is no formal decision on the matter.

Appendi x II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Concerned about whether the United States
fulfilled its obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with regard
to community land grants made by Spain and Mï¿½xico in what is now the state
of New Mexico, Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman asked us to study
numerous issues regarding the treaty and its implementation. We plan to
answer their questions in a series of reports. This first report defines the
concept of community land grants, identifies three types of grants that meet
this definition, and lists the grants we identified in each category.

In accordance with the request, we limited our review to community land
grants made by Spain or Mï¿½xico between 1689 and 1846 that are now either
wholly or partially situated within the area of what is now the state of New
Mexico and that were subject to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. We also
included grants in what is now New Mexico made up to 1853 that were part of
the Gadsden Purchase, since they too are subject to the Treaty. We analyzed
land grants in New Mexico for which we could find evidence to

identify community land grants. To respond to this request, we collected and
reviewed documents from the U. S. National Archives and Records
Administration in Washington, D. C.; the National Archives and Records
Administration in Denver; the New Mexico State Records Center and Archives;
archives at the U. S. Bureau of Land Management and the U. S. Forest
Service; various libraries, including

the Center for Southwest Research at the University of New Mexico Zimmerman
Library and the Special Collections at the University of New Mexico Law
School Library; the U. S. National Park Service's Spanish Colonial Research
Center at the University of New Mexico; scholars, land

grant heirs, lawyers representing land grant interests; and other
individuals or entities associated with land grants in New Mexico. We
researched, collected, and reviewed published and unpublished material on
land grants, including books, articles, monographs and unpublished theses.
Our search for relevant materials included a search for articles published
in Mï¿½xico that address the issues in this report. A list of materials
consulted can be found in appendix III. During the course of our review, we
interviewed dozens of land grant heirs in New Mexico and a representative of
a pueblo; historians, researchers,

and other academicians studying land grant issues, including scholars in
Mï¿½xico; lawyers representing the interests of land grant heirs and an Indian
pueblo; officials at the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U. S.
Forest Service; local government officials with the state of New

Mexico, including the Office of the Attorney General, and with several
counties in which land grants exist; and various representatives of other
entities or interests associated with land grant issues in New Mexico to
gain a better understanding of community land grant issues.

To determine how community land grants are defined, we reviewed numerous
documents that addressed land grants in New Mexico, including English
translations of original grant documents; English translations of Spanish
and Mexican laws; federal, state, and territorial court decisions on land
grants; scholarly articles describing customs associated with land grants;
and various academic materials analyzing land grants. In interviews with
academicians and other experts on land grants, lawyers dealing with

land grant issues or cases, land grant heirs, and other observers of land
grants (e. g., federal employees, librarians, graduate students at the
University of New Mexico Law School Library and University of New Mexico
Library), we asked for their views on defining community land grants. We
also asked several experts to comment on our preliminary definition of
community land grants. To identify the universe of Spanish and Mexican land
grants in New Mexico, we used a variety of historical data. We started with
an

unpublished master of laws (LL. M.) thesis by J. J. Bowden at Southern
Methodist University Law School, entitled Private Land Claims in the
Southwest, to develop our initial list of Spanish and Mexican grants. This
six- volume thesis describes 280 grants in great detail and includes English
translations of parts of the granting documents. The work also identifies
many of the different names for the grants. We next examined documents on
file at various archives from the Surveyor General and Court of Private

Land Claims- the two entities responsible for carrying out the legal
processes set in place in the nineteenth century to implement the treaty.
Where possible, we reviewed English translations of the original granting
documents. We also used other sources of information, including those
provided by land grant heirs. If discrepancies were found among various
documents, we deferred to documents in the archives from the Surveyor

General or Court of Private Land Claims files. To distill community land
grants from this universe of land grants, we applied our definition,
searching for clues in the granting documents and other sources. For
example, some grants contained the following language and would be
considered community land grants: “pasturage and watering places shall
be in common” (Caja del Rï¿½o), the “pastures and woodlands in
common” (Barranca), “the public square is also common among
all”

(Caï¿½ï¿½n de Carnue), and “set aside for the commons of the town”
(Doï¿½a Ana Bend Colony). Criteria for inclusion as a community land grant
included not just language denoting common lands but language indicating
that a grant had been made to a town or settlement, since under Spanish law
and custom, grants to towns included common lands. We also included

grants made to 10 or more people, since Spanish law states in the
Recopilaciï¿½n de las Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias that a grant could be
made to 10 or more married persons to form a settlement, indicating that the
grant was a community grant.

Historical treatises and interviews with scholars and grant heirs alerted us
to the possibility of additional community grants. Although grants may have
originally been issued to individuals, sometimes land was subsequently set
aside for common use and thus these grants should be considered community
land grants. Such evolutions are not captured in grant documents. Other
grant heirs and advocates assert that certain grants are community land
grants, but we do not know the basis for the assertion.

We included grants identified by heirs and others as being community land
grants in a second list. We make no judgment as to the efficacy of these
assertions but list them for the Congress' consideration.

We also found that Spain issued land grants to indigenous pueblo cultures
already resident in the colonial territories. According to scholars, these
cultures held the lands communally. We list these grants separately because
the lands in common existed before Spanish settlement and because of the
unique relationship between Native Americans and the Spanish, Mexican and U.
S. governments. We used surveyor general documents and public laws to
ascertain the number of grants made to Native Americans. To list each land
grant by county, we compared county data in several federal, state, and
independent databases listing New Mexican land grants to determine the level
of reliability of the databases. We also recognized

that the county boundaries have changed markedly since 1850. We found
significant discrepancies among the various databases because of, in part,
conflicting interpretations of which county contained the largest area when
a grant straddled county lines. This is particularly problematic in
unsurveyed grants. In an effort to maintain consistency in listing counties

and to minimize errors, we used official federal, state, and county
government maps and the unpublished thesis of J. J. Bowden entitled Private
Land Claims in the Southwest. The maps relied on actual survey data of
certain land grants. We visually reviewed the maps to determine the primary
county for each of the land grants illustrated. However, we

recognized that the maps contained limited information. We therefore used J.
J. Bowden's thesis, one of the more thorough reports on land grants in New
Mexico, to complete the county listings. We did not verify the

accuracy of either the official maps or of J. J. Bowden's thesis. In
creating the map to represent the location of each land grant, we learned
that no map illustrating all grants existed. Officials from federal and
state agencies, as well as independent researchers, told us that current
maps only listed certain land grants, such as those grants that had been

confirmed and surveyed. It should be noted that we relied on published and
unpublished documents and archives, primarily in New Mexico, Colorado and
Washington, D. C. The quantity, quality, availability and reliability of the
evidence for the various

grants varied considerably. For example, the Doï¿½a Ana Bend Colony files
contain extensive documents pertaining to the establishment of the colony
and the location of tracts, while the Hacienda del Alamo file contains only
the claimant's petition with no original grant documents to verify the
claim. We relied on official translations of the original granting documents
wherever possible. The Surveyor General's office included an individual
responsible for translating the documents submitted. However, we did not
independently assess any translation. We also note that the names of some
grants in Private Land Claims in the Southwest, the Surveyor General

documents, and the Court of Private Land Claims files are not always
consistent. We have identified the other names of grants in appendix I. We
conducted our review from April through December 2000, according to
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendi x I II

Bibliography “Algunos Documentos Sobre el Tratado de Guadalupe y la
Situacione Mï¿½xico Durante la Invasiï¿½n Americana.” Archivo Historico
Diplomatico Mexicano, No. 31 (1930).

Arellano, Anselmo F. “The Never Ending Land Grant Struggle.”
(Austin, Texas, University of Texas, undated) www. dla. utexas. edu/ depts/
anthro/ activist/ Essay8. htm (downloaded Apr. 6,

2000). _____. Through Thick and Thin: Evolutionary Transitions of Las Vegas
Grandes and Its Pobladores (1990) (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
University of New Mexico). Beck, Warren A. New Mexico: A History of Four
Centuries. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Bloom, John Porter, ed. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848: Papers of the
Sesquicentennial Symposium. Las Cruces, NM: Doï¿½a Ana County Historical
Society and Yucca Tree Press, 1999. Bowden, J. J. Private Land Claims in the
Southwest (1969) (unpublished LLM. thesis [6 Vols.], Southern Methodist
University).

_____. Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in the Chihuahuan Acquisition. El
Paso, TX: University of Texas at El Paso, 1971.

_____. “Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in the Southwest.” Land
and Water Law Revi ew, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1973), pp. 467- 512.

Bradfute, Richard Wells. The Court of Private Land Claims: The Adjudication
of Spanish and Mexican Land Grant Titles; 1841- 1904. Albuquerque, NM: The
University of New Mexico Press, 1975.

Brayer, Herbert O. Pueblo Indian Land Grants of the “Rio Abajo.”
Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press, 1939. Briggs, Charles
L. and John R. Van Ness, eds. Land, Water, and Culture: New Perspectives on
Hispanic Land Grants. Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press,
1987. Calendar to the Microfilm Edition of the Land Records of New Mexico:
Spanish Archives of New Mexico, Series I, Surveyor General Records, and

the Records of the Court of Private Land Claims. Santa Fï¿½, NM: National
Historical Publications and Records Commission and the New Mexico State
Records Center and Archives, 1987 1 (a microfilm project).

Cameron, Christopher D. R. “Symposium: Understanding the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo on Its 150 th Anniversary: ‘Friends' or
‘Enemies? ' The Status of Mexicans and Mexican- Americans in the
United States on the Sesquicentennial of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo.” Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol.
5 (1998), pp. 5 et seq.

Carlson, Alvar W. The Spanish- American Homeland. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1990. Cheever, Federico M. “Comment: A New
Approach to Spanish and Mexican Land Grants and the Public Trust Doctrine:
Defining The Property Interest Protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe-
Hidalgo.” UCLA Law Review, Vol. 33 (1986), pp. 1364- 1409.

Codgell, Thomas. “A Brief Historical Survey of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo.” (Austin, Texas, undated) www. jump. net/- treaty/ survey
(downloaded Aug. 10, 2000).

DeBuys, William. “Fractions of Justice: A Legal and Social History of
the Las Trampas Land Grant, New Mexico.” New Mexico Historical Review,
Vol. 56, No. 1 (1981), pp. 71 et seq.

Ebright, Malcolm. Land Grant Community Associations in New Mexico (1994)
(research paper, Center for Land Grant Studies, University of New Mexico).
_____. Land Grants and Law Suits in Northern New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM:
The University of New Mexico Press, 1994.

_____. ed. Spanish and Mexican Land Grants and the Law. Manhattan, KS:
Sunflower University Press, 1991.

1 The microfilm archives were accessed at the New Mexico State Records
Center and Archives in Santa Fï¿½, New Mexico; at the National Archives and
Records Administration in Denver, Colorado; and at the National Archives and
Records Administration in Washington,

D. C.

_____. “The San Joaquin Grant: Who Owned the Common Lands? A
Historical- Legal Puzzle.” New Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 57, No.
1 (1982), pp. 5- 26.

_____. The Tierra Amarilla Grant: A History of Chicanery. Santa Fï¿½, NM: The
Center for Land Grant Studies Press, 1993.

Espinosa, Gilberto. “New Mexico Land Grants.” The State Bar of
New Mexico 1962 Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1962), pp. 3- 13. Gates, Paul W. and
Robert W. Swenson. History of Public Land Law Development. Washington, DC:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968.

Gomez, Placido. “The History and Adjudication of the Common Lands of
Spanish and Mexican Land Grants.” Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 25,
No. 1 (1985), pp. 1039- 1080. Griswold del Castillo, Richard. The Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1990.

Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty of Peace 1848 and The Gadsden Treaty with Mexico
1853. Seattle, WA: Tate Gallery Publisher, 1963. Hall, G. Emlen. Four
Leagues of Pecos: A Legal History of the Pecos Grant, 1800- 1933.
Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press, 1984. _____.
“Tularosa and the Dismantling of New Mexico Community Ditches.”
New Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (2000), pp. 77- 106. Index to
Special District Governments in New Mexico. Santa Fï¿½, NM: New Mexico
Legislative Council Service, 1983.

Jenkins, Myra Ellen. “The Baltasar Baca ‘Grant': History of an
Encroachment.” El Palacio (Spring 1961), pp. 47- 105.

Knowlton, Clark S. Land- Grant Problems Among the State's Spanish Americans
(undated) (unpublished paper, University of Texas).

_____. The Las Vegas Community Land Grant: Its Decline and Fall. Salt Lake
City, UT: Center for Land Grant Studies, University of Utah, 1980.

_____. “The Mora Land Grant: A New Mexican Tragedy.” Journal of
the West, Vol. 27, No. 3 (undated), pp. 189- 218.

_____. “The Study of Land Grants as an Academic Discipline.” The
Social Science Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1976), pp. 3- 7.

Kutsche, Paul and John R. Van Ness. Canones: Values, Crisis, and Survival in
a Northern New Mexico Village. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co., 1981.
Lamar, Howard R. The Far Southwest 1846- 1912. A Territorial History. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966.

Land Title Study Prospectus: Prospectus No. 2. Santa Fï¿½, NM: State Planning
Office, 1969.

Leonard, Olen E. The Role of the Land Grant in the Social Organization and
Social Processes of a Spanish- American Village in New Mexico. Albuquerque,
NM: Calvin Horn Publisher, Inc., 1970.

Luna, Guadalupe T. “Symposium: En El Nombre de Dios Todo- Poderoso:
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and Narrativos Legales.” Southwestern
Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol. 5 (1998) pp. 45 et seq.

Luna, Hilario. San Joaquin del Nacimiento. No city, state or publisher
indicated, 1975. Lutz, Robert E. “Symposium: The Mexican War and the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: What's Best and Worst About Us.”
Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol. 5 (1998) pp. 27-
29. Matthews- Lamb, Sandra K. The “Nineteenth” Century Cruzate
Grants: Pueblos, Peddlers, and the Great Confidence Scam? (1998)
(unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of New Mexico).

Meyer, Michael C. The Contemporary Significance of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo to Land Use Issues in Northern New Mexico. Tucson, AZ: Northern New
Mexico Stockman's Association and the Institute of Hispanic American
Culture, 1998.

_____. Water in the Hispanic Southwest: A Social and Legal History 1550-
1850. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press, 1984.

Morrow, William W. Spanish and Mexican Private Land Grants. San Francisco
and Los Angeles, CA: Bancroft- Whitney Company, 1923.

Nabokov, Peter. Tijerina and the Courthouse Raid. Albuquerque, NM: The
University of New Mexico Press, 1970.

“New Mexico Land Grant Claims.” AMIGOS- Q uien junto al agua
tiene su tierra, primero riega, Vol. 7, Nivel 2, No. 6 (undated).
Poldervaart, Arie W. Black- Robed Justice. Santa Fï¿½, NM: Historical Society
of New Mexico, 1948. Remote Claims Impact Study: Lot II- A, Study of the
Problems that Result from Spanish and Mexican Land Grant Claims.
Albuquerque, NM. Submitted to the Farmers Home Administration in Washington,
D. C. by the Natural Resources Center, University of New Mexico School of
Law, 1980.

Reynolds, Matthew G. Spanish and Mexican Land Laws. St. Louis, MO: Buxton &
Skinner Stationery Co., 1895.

Rivera, Jose A. Acequia Culture: Water, Land, & Community in the Southwest.
Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press, 1998. Rock, Michael J.
“The Change in Tenure New Mexico Supreme Court Decisions Have Effected
Upon the Common Lands of Community Land Grants in New Mexico.” The
Social Science Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1976), pp. 53- 63.

Rowley, Ralph A. Precedents and Influences Affecting the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo (1970) (unpublished M. A. thesis, University of New Mexico).

Sanchez, George I. Forgotten People: A Study of New Mexicans. Albuquerque,
NM: Calvin Horn, Publisher, 1967. Sanchez, Jane C. “Law of the Land
Grant: The Land Laws of Spain.” (Albuquerque, New Mexico: Los Sanchez,
Jan. 2000) http:// home. sprintmail. com/~ sanchezj/ 1- title. htm
(downloaded Aug. 23, 2000).

Sando, Joe S. Pueblo Nations: Eight Centuries of Pueblo Indian History.
Santa Fï¿½, NM: Clear Light Publishers, 1992.

Simmons, Marc. Spanish Government in New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: The
University of New Mexico Press, 1968. Smith, Andrew T. “The Founding
of the San Antonio de las Huertas Grant.” The Social Science Journal,
Vol. 13, No. 3 (1976), pp. 35- 43. Status Database of New Mexico Land
Grants. Santa Fï¿½, NM: Bureau of Land Management, 2000.

The Lands of New Mexico Supplement. No city indicated, NM: Museum of New
Mexico, date unreadable. The New Mexico Legal Rights Demonstration Land
Grant Project- An Analysis of the Land Title Problems in the Santo Domingo
De Cundiyo Land Grant. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Legal Rights
Demonstration Land Grant Project, Legal Aid Society of Albuquerque, Inc.,
1976.

Torrez, Robert J. “From Empire to Statehood: A History of New Mexico's
Spanish and Mexican Archives.” Colonial Latin American Historical
Review (Spring 1996), pp. 333- 353.

_____. “New Mexico's Spanish and Mexican Land Grants.” New
Mexico Genealogist (Dec. 1997), pp. 143 et seq.

Van Ness, John R. “Spanish American vs. Anglo American Land Tenure and
the Study of Economic Change in New Mexico.” The Social Science
Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1976), pp. 45- 52.

Westphall, Victor. “Fraud and Implications of Fraud in the Land Grants
of New Mexico.” New Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 49, No. 3 (1974),
pp. 189218. _____. Mercedes Reales: Hispanic Land Grants of the Upper Rio
Grande Region. Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press, 1983.

_____. The Public Domain in New Mexico 1854- 1891. Albuquerque, NM: The
University of New Mexico Press, 1965.

_____. Thomas Benton Catron and His Era. Tucson, AZ: The University of
Arizona Press, 1973.

White, Koch, Kelley and McCarthy, Attorneys at Law and The New Mexico State
Planning Office. Land Title Study. Santa Fï¿½, NM: State Planning Office, 1971
(reprinted 1981).

Appendi x V I Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Susan A.
Poling and Alan R. Kasdan (202- 512- 7648) Staff

In addition to those named above, Robert C. Arsenoff, John C. Furutani,
Acknowledgments

Robert E. Sï¿½nchez, Josï¿½ Alfredo Gï¿½mez, Barry T. Hill, Jeffrey D. Malcolm,
David A. Rogers, James R. Yeager, Jonathan S. McMurray, Carol Herrnstadt
Shulman, Alice A. Feldesman, William D. Updegraff, Stephen F. Palincsar,
Etana Finkler, Veronica C. Sandidge, Gloria Sutton, Susan Conlon, Moza
AlSuylaiti, and Heather Tierney made key contributions to this report. We
also wish to acknowledge the following staff of the GAO Library, whose
research assistance and help in locating materials and court cases greatly
facilitated our work on this report: librarians, Rennese D. Bumbray, Maureen
K. Cummings, Eunwa Kim, Bonita L. Miller, Audrey L. Ruge, and Kimberly R.
Walton; and technicians, Patricia A. Givens, William R. Haynos, Geraldine B.
Howard, Edna Legrant, Alice E. Paris, and Ester L. Saunders.

(976001) Lett er

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to:
info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

To Report Fraud,

Contact one:

Waste, or Abuse in

? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

Federal Programs

? e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov ? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering
system)

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 2 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 3 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Contents

Page 4 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 5 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft United States General
Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 5 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 6 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 7 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 8 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 9 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 10 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 11 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 12 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 13 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 14 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 15 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 16 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 17 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 18 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 19 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 20 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 21 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 22 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 23 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 24 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 25 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 26 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 27 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 28 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 29 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 30 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 31 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico

Page 32 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 33 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix II

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 34 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 35 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 36 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 37 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix III

Appendix III Bibliography

Page 38 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix III Bibliography

Page 39 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix III Bibliography

Page 40 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix III Bibliography

Page 41 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix III Bibliography

Page 42 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix III Bibliography

Page 43 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Page 44 GAO- 01- 330 Guadalupe Hidalgo Exposure Draft

Appendix IV

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***