Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Definition and List of Community
Land Grants in New Mexico (10-SEP-01, GAO-01-951).
From the end of the seventeenth century to the mid-nineteenth
century, Spain made land grants to individuals, towns, and groups
to promote development in the frontier lands that now constitute
the American Southwest. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,
which ended the Mexican-American War, the United States agreed to
recognize ownership of property of every kind in the ceded areas.
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 grants. Land grant documents
contain 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, including hunting,
pasture, 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 154 community land grants out of the total of 295 land
grants in New Mexico. Seventy-eight were grants in which the
shared lands formed part of the grant according to the original
grant documentation; 53 were grants that scholars, grantee heirs,
or others believed to contain common lands; and 23 were grants
extended to the indigenous pueblo cultures in New Mexico.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-951
ACCNO: A01621
TITLE: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Definition and List of
Community Land Grants in New Mexico
DATE: 09/10/2001
SUBJECT: Grants
Land management
Land transfers
International agreements
International relations
Treaties
Mexico
New Mexico
Spain
******************************************************************
** 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-01-951
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
September 2001 TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO
Definition and List of Community Land Grants in New Mexico
GAO- 01- 951
Page i GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants Letter 1
Results in Brief 3 Background 3 The Concept of Common Lands Defines
Community Land Grants 6 Approximately 52 Percent of All New Mexico Land
Grants May Be
Classified as Community Land Grants 7 Public Comments 19
Appendix I Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico 22
Appendix II Alternate Grant Identifiers 30
Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37
Appendix IV Public Comments 41
Appendix V Bibliography 52
Appendix VI Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 59
Tables
Table 1: 78 Community Land Grants Identified Through Original Grant
Documentation 9 Table 2: 53 Community Land Grants Identified by Grant Heirs
and
Others 13 Table 3: 23 Community Land Grants Issued to Indian Pueblos 17
Table 4: New Mexico Attorney General?s Task Force Major
Comments and GAO?s Responses 49 Contents
Page ii GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants Figures
Figure 1: Territory Ceded by Mexico under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo In
1848 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. 4 Figure 2: Community Land Grants
Listed in Table 1, by County 12 Figure 3: Community Land Grants Listed in
Table 2, by County 16 Figure 4: Community Land Grants Listed in Table 3, by
County 19
Page 1 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
September 10, 2001 The Honorable Jeff Bingaman The Honorable Pete Domenici
United States Senate
The Honorable Tom Udall House of Representatives
From the end of the seventeenth century to the mid- nineteenth century,
Spain (and later M�xico) 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 1 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 M�xico during this period. Appendix I contains a list of these grants
and Appendix II contains a list of alternate grant identifiers.
The Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement of 1848, generally
known as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, formally ended the MexicanAmerican
War, and 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 of every kind 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
1 In New Mexico, the term ?land grant? is often referred to using the
Spanish word merced.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
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 of two reports, 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 Mexico
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 III contains a complete
description of our methodology.
This report was prepared after receiving comments and information on the
Exposure Draft issued in January 2001 in English and Spanish. 2 The Exposure
Draft sought public comment on our definition of community land grants, the
three categories of community land grants we identified, and the list of
grants in each category. This report incorporates some of the comments
received during the comment period January 24 to May 2,
2 GAO- 01- 330 (English) and GAO- 01- 331 (Spanish)
Page 3 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
2001. Comments were included when they were directly related to the
discussion in the report.
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 (le�a), 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 154 community land grants (or approximately 52 percent) out of
the total of 295 land grants in New Mexico. We divided these community land
grants into three distinct types: 78 of these were grants in which the
shared lands formed part of the grant according to the original grant
documentation; 53 were grants that scholars, grantee heirs, or others
believed to contain common lands; and 23 were grants extended to the
indigenous pueblo cultures in New Mexico.
From the end of the seventeenth century to the middle of the nineteenth
century, Spain and M�xico 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 awarded 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. These grants usually contained sufficient land and water
resources to facilitate settlement and the establishment of communities.
Both land and water were essential ingredients for sustaining agricultural
communities in New Mexico. Such grants were in keeping with Spanish laws,
including the 1680 Recopilaci�n de las Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias,
which was a compendium of laws governing settlements in the New World.
However, local laws, practices, and customs often dictated how grants were
made and confirmed. Results in Brief
Background
Page 4 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
After achieving independence from Spain in 1821, M�xico 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, M�xico 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
M�xico under the treaty.
Figure 1: Territory Ceded by Mexico under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo In
1848 and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853.
a In 1845 when Texas became a state, both Texas and M�xico claimed the area
shaded in light gray. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo resolved this dispute.
Texas still claimed ownership of this land. In 1850, Texas transferred part
of this land to the federal government, which became the eastern portion of
the territory of New Mexico.
Page 5 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
While the treaty generally 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. The Senate Resolution of advice and consent to ratification
contained several amendments to the treaty, including one that struck out
Article X. Subsequently, in 1848, the United States and M�xico signed the
Protocol of Quer�taro, which explained certain aspects of the treaty. In
Article 2 of the Protocol, the United States indicated in its interpretation
that the exclusion of Article X in no way meant that it planned to annul the
land grants. The Protocol specified the United States? position that land
grant titles would be protected under the treaty and that grantees could
have their ownership of land acknowledged before American tribunals. In the
1853 Gadsden Purchase, 3 the United States purchased additional land from
M�xico for $15 million, including the southwest corner of the present State
of New Mexico. The Gadsden Purchase incorporated by reference the property
protection 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 Surveyor General
was charged with examining documents and verifying the ownership of land
grants. The U. S. 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 was to
recommend to the Secretary of the Interior whether a grant should be
rejected or confirmed. If the Secretary of the Interior agreed with a
recommendation to confirm, he, in turn, would recommend that Congress
approve the grant. Upon congressional approval of the grant, the U. S.
government usually issued a patent, 4 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.
3 The Gadsden Purchase was part of a larger treaty called the Treaty of
Boundary, Cession of Territory, Transit of Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which was
signed on Dec. 30, 1853. 4 The patent did not convey full title to the owner
of the grant. Rather it was a ?quit claim or relinquishment on the part of
the United States? of any interest in the land patented. The patent further
provided that ?it shall not affect the adverse right of any other person or
persons whatsoever.? Thus, third parties could challenge a patentee?s right
to the land based upon a claim of superior title. In fact, this is what
happened in some cases. Patents were frequently issued many years after
congressional approval.
Page 6 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
In 1891, the Congress established the Court of Private Land Claims to
adjudicate the outstanding claims that the surveyors general had reviewed
but the Congress had not yet approved , 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
M�xico, not the local community, held title to all common lands in community
land grants issued before 1848. Consequently, under the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo, M�xico 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. 5 Appendix I lists all the land
grants that we identified, the years of grant confirmation and patent
issuance, 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 remain 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.
Land grant documents contain no direct reference to ?community land grants?
nor do Spanish and Mexican laws define or use this term. Scholars, land
grant literature, and popular terminology 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 for the purposes
of this report.
5 In some cases, no patent was issued. Individuals then had to rely on the
legislation or the Court of Private Land Claim?s decision confirming the
grant as conveying the interest in the property the United States possessed.
(See previous footnote.) The Concept of
Common Lands Defines Community Land Grants
Page 7 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
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 (le�a), 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 Ant�n Chico grant, issued by M�xico 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 Ant�n Chico grant in 1860 and the grant was patented
in 1883.
Using our definition, we identified three types of community land grants,
totaling 154 grants, or approximately 52 percent of the 295 land grants in
New Mexico. In 78 of the community land grants, the common lands formed part
of the grant according to the grant documentation. Scholars, grant heirs,
and others have found an additional 53 grants that they believe contain
communal lands; and we located 23 grants of communal lands to the indigenous
pueblo cultures in New Mexico.
The first type of community land grant we identified is a grant in which
common lands formed part of the original grant. From our review of grant
documents, Spanish and Mexican law, New Mexican law, and grant literature,
as well as interviews with grant heirs, scholars, legal experts, and others,
common lands were part of the original grant in the following three
instances: Approximately 52
Percent of All New Mexico Land Grants May Be Classified as Community Land
Grants
Common Lands Formed Part of the Grant According to Grant Documentation
Page 8 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
The grant document itself declares that 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. 6
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 M�xico 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 Jos� grant to six individuals for the purpose of establishing a
town. Similarly, M�xico issued the Do�a 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 towns,
communities, colonies, pueblos, or individuals for the purpose of
establishing a town to be community land grants. 7
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 Mexican Angostura
del Pecos grant to 54 settlers. We identified 36 grants of this type.
Table 1 lists 78 grants in which common lands were part of the original
grant.
6 New Mexico law provides for the management of the common lands of Spanish
and Mexican community land grants by a board of trustees or a community land
grant corporation. N. M. Stat. Ann. 49- 1- 3 and 49- 2- 1 (2000).
7 N. M. Stat. Ann. 49- 1- 2 (2000).
Page 9 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Table 1: 78 Community Land Grants Identified Through Original Grant
Documentation
Grant Year
granted Location by county a
Abiqui� (Town of) 1754 R�o Arriba
�lamitos 1840 Santa F� Albuquerque (Town of) 1706 Bernalillo Alexander Valle
1815 San Miguel Angostura del Pecos 1842 Guadalupe Ant�n Chico (Town of)
1822 Guadalupe Arroyo Hondo 1815 Taos Atrisco (Town of) 1692 Bernalillo
Badito 1835 Santa F� Barranca 1735 R�o Arriba Bartolom� Trujillo 1734 R�o
Arriba Bel�n (Town of) 1740 Socorro Bernab� Manuel Monta�o 1753 Sandoval
Bracito 1823 Do�a Ana Cadillal 1846 Santa F� Caja del R�o 1742 Santa F�
Ca�ada de los �lamos (1) 1785 Santa F� Ca�ada de los Mesta�os 1828 Taos
Ca�ada de San Francisco 1840 Santa F� Ca��n de Carnue 1819 Bernalillo Ca��n
de Chama 1806 R�o Arriba Ca��n de San Diego 1798 Sandoval Casa Colorado
(Town of) 1823 Socorro Cebolla 1846 Taos Cebolleta (Town of) 1800 Cibola
Chaperito (Town of) 1846 San Miguel Chilil� (Town of) 1841 Bernalillo
Cieneguilla (Town of) 1795 Taos Cubero (Town of) 1833 Cibola Domingo
Fern�ndez 1827 Santa F� Don Fernando de Taos 1796 Taos Do�a Ana Bend Colony
1840 Do�a Ana Galisteo (Town of) 1814 Santa F� Gervacio Nolan 1845 Mora John
Scolly 1846 San Miguel Juan Bautista Valdez 1807 R�o Arriba Juan de Gabald�n
1752 Santa F�
Page 10 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Las Trampas 1751 Taos Las Vegas (Town of) 1835 San Miguel Los Conejos 1842
R�o Arriba` Los Manuelitas 1845 San Miguel Los Serrillos 1692 Santa F� Los
Trigos 1815 San Miguel Manzano (Town of) 1829 Torrance Mesilla Civil Colony
1853 b Do�a Ana Mesita Blanca 1843 Santa F� Mora (Town of) 1835 Mora Nicol�s
Dur�n de Ch�ves 1739 Valencia Nuestra Se�ora del Rosario, San Fernando, y
Santiago 1754 R�o Arriba Ojo Caliente 1793 R�o Arriba Ojo de San Jos� 1768
Sandoval Petaca 1836 R�o Arriba Pueblo of Quemado 1721 Santa F� Ranchito
1700 Sandoval Rancho de Ysleta 1828 Otero Rancho del R�o Grande 1795 Taos
Refugio Civil Colony 1852 Do�a Ana R�o del Picur�s 1832 Taos San Antonio de
las Huertas 1767 Sandoval San Antonio del R�o Colorado 1842 Taos San
Anto�ito 1840 Bernalillo San Joaqu�n del Nacimiento 1769 Sandoval San Miguel
del Vado 1794 San Miguel San Pedro 1844 Sandoval Santa B�rbara 1796 Taos
Santa Cruz 1695 Santa F� Santa F� 1715 c Santa F� Santo Tom�s de Yturbide
1853 Do�a Ana Santo Toribio d Sandoval Sevilleta 1819 Socorro Socorro (Town
of) 1817 Socorro Tajique (Town of) 1834 Torrance Tej�n (Town of) 1840
Sandoval Tierra Amarilla 1832 R�o Arriba Tom� (Town of) 1739 Valencia
Page 11 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Torre�n (Town of) 1841 Torrance Vallecito de Lovato (Town of) 1824 R�o
Arriba Vallecito (de San Antonio) 1807 R�o Arriba a By principal county.
b M�xico issued this grant from lands subsequently included in the Gadsden
Purchase. c The only grant actually given to Santa F� residents was for some
common pastureland and water (1715). d Prior to 1800.
Page 12 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Figure 2: Community Land Grants Listed in Table 1, by County
Page 13 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
The second type of community land grant we identified is a grant that a
person or persons stated included common lands. Our review of the papers
filed with each grant claim to the surveyors general and the Court of
Private Land Claims, and those of a legal scholar, 1 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 M�xico 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 53 grants
identified by grantee heirs, scholars, or others as having common lands but
lacking grant documentation.
Table 2: 53 Community Land Grants Identified by Grant Heirs and Others Grant
Year
Granted Location by county a
Alameda (Town of) 1710 Bernalillo Antonio Baca 1762 Sandoval Antonio de
Salazar 1714 R�o Arriba Arkansas 1826 Colfax Arquito b Sandoval Bartolom�
S�nchez 1707 R�o Arriba Bernalillo (Town of) 1708 Sandoval Black Mesa 1743
R�o Arriba Bosque Grande 1767 Sandoval
1 J. J. Bowden, Private Land Claims in the Southwest (1969) (unpublished
LLM. thesis [6 Vols.}, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas). Grant
Heirs or Others
State Grant Contained Common Lands
Page 14 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Year Granted Location
by county a
Candelarios (Town of) 1600 c Bernalillo Chaca Mesa 1768 Sandoval Chamita
(Town of) 1724 R�o Arriba Crist�bal de la Serna 1710 Taos Cuyamungu� 1731
Santa F� El Rito (Town of) 1780 R�o Arriba Embudo 1725 R�o Arriba Francisco
de Anaya Almaz�n 1693 Santa F� Francisco Montes Vigil 1754 R�o Arriba Gijosa
1715 Taos Gotera 1830 Santa F� Guadalupita 1837 Mora Hacienda del �lamo d
Santa F� Heath 1828 Do�a Ana Jos� Ignacio Alar� 1768 R�o Arriba Jos�
Trujillo 1700 Santa F� Juan de Ulibarr� 1710 R�o Arriba La Majada 1695 Santa
F� Las Lagunitas b Bernalillo Maragua 1826 Santa F� Mesita de Juana L�pez
1782 Santa F� Montoya 1740 e Ojito de Galisteo 1799 Santa F� Pajarito f
Bernalillo Pedro Armendaris #33 1819 Socorro Pedro Armendaris #34 1820
Socorro Plaza Colorado 1739 R�o Arriba Polvadera 1766 R�o Arriba Rancho de
Nuestra Se�ora de la Luz 1807 Santa F� Real de Dolores del Oro (Town of)
1830 Santa F� R�o del Oso 1840 R�o Arriba R�o Tesuque 1747 Santa F� San
Clemente 1716 Valencia San Crist�bal 1835 Taos San Isidro (Town of) 1786
Sandoval San Marcos Pueblo 1754 Santa F� Sangre de Cristo 1844 Taos
Sanguijuela 1843 San Miguel Santa Rita del Cobre 1801 Grant Santa Rosa de
Cubero 1761 Sandoval Santo Domingo de Cundiy� 1743 Santa F� Sebasti�n Mart�n
1705 R�o Arriba Tacubaya 1843 Santa F�
Page 15 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Year Granted Location
by county a
Tecolote (Town of) 1824 San Miguel
a By principal county b No date specified. c Approximate date. d Prior to
1714. e No county specified. f Prior to 1746.
Page 16 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Figure 3: Community Land Grants Listed in Table 2, by County
Page 17 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
The third type of community land grants we identified encompasses grants
extended by Spain to the indigenous pueblo cultures in New Mexico to protect
communal lands that they had used and held for centuries before the Spanish
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. M�xico continued to recognize
pueblo ownership of land and considered pueblo residents to be Mexican
citizens.
With the establishment of the Office of Surveyor General in 1854, the
Congress required the Surveyor General to investigate and report on pueblo
claims. The Congress subsequently confirmed 22 Spanish grants to pueblos on
the recommendation of the Surveyor General. The Court of Private Land Claims
confirmed one pueblo grant. Table 3 lists the pueblo grants.
Table 3: 23 Community Land Grants Issued to Indian Pueblos Original Spanish
Grants Year
Granted Location
by county a
Pueblo of Acoma 1689 b Cibola Pueblo of Cochit� 1689 b Sandoval Pueblo of
Isleta c Valencia Pueblo of J�mez 1689 b Sandoval Pueblo of Laguna 1689 b
Cibola Pueblo of Namb� c Santa F� Pueblo of Pecos e 1689 b San Miguel Pueblo
of Picur�s 1689 b Taos Pueblo of Pojoaque 1699 d Santa F� Pueblo of San
Crist�bal 1689 b Santa F� Pueblo of San Felipe 1689 b Sandoval Pueblo of San
Ildefonso 1704 Santa F� Pueblo of San Juan 1689 b R�o Arriba Pueblo of
Sand�a 1748 Sandoval Pueblo of Santa Ana c Sandoval Pueblo of Santa Clara
Ca�ada de Santa Clara 1699 d
1763 R�o Arriba
R�o Arriba Pueblo of Santo Domingo 1689 b Sandoval Pueblo of Taos c Taos
Common Lands of Indigenous Pueblo Cultures Antedated Arrival of Spanish
Explorers
Page 18 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Original Spanish Grants Year Granted
Location by county a
Pueblo of Tesuque c Santa F� Pueblo of Z�a 1689 b Sandoval Pueblo of Zu��
1689 b McKinley Pueblos of Z�a, J�mez, & Santa Ana (Ojo del Esp�ritu Santo)
1766 Sandoval a By principal county.
b The authenticity of the 1689 grants has been questioned. c No date
specified. d Approximate date. e Abandoned in the late 19 th century
Page 19 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Figure 4: Community Land Grants Listed in Table 3, by County
We issued an Exposure Draft in January 2001 to seek public comments on our
definition and identification of community land grants and to gather
information about community land grants not readily available to us in
public documents. In New Mexico, we distributed the English and Spanish
versions of the Exposure Draft widely to community groups, scholars, Public
Comments
Page 20 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
land grant heirs, and Indian pueblos and made copies available through local
governmental offices and libraries in 18 counties, as well as U. S. Forest
Service ranger stations located throughout the state. We sent announcements
to English and Spanish newspapers and radio and television stations in the
state. Copies of the Exposure Draft were also available through the offices
of the Senators Bingaman and Domenici and Congressman Udall of New Mexico.
In addition, the public could access and comment on the report on the GAO
web page. We also received comments and documentation by fax, regular mail
and e- mail. In March 2001, we held open forums at five New Mexico
locations, including Santa F� and Albuquerque, to gather comments.
We received over 200 oral and written comments to the Exposure Draft during
the comment period, some of which included information not readily available
from the research sources we used. The comment period, which was originally
scheduled to end on April 2, was extended until May 2. Most of the comments
did not address our definition of community land grants and the three types
of community land grants that we identified. A significant number of the
comments concerned the history of particular community land grants. This
information will be reviewed in preparation of our next report.
Most of the comments concerning our definition and lists of community land
grants were in agreement with our analysis. A few commentators disagreed
with the classification of particular land grants. Based on information
received, the Elena Gallegos grant, which was identified as a community land
grant in table 1, was redesignated as an individual grant under the name
Diego Montoya. During our New Mexico visit in March, heirs identified two
other grants, the Francisco Montes Vigil and the Crist�bal de la Serna
grants, as being community land grants. We added these two grants to table
2, which contains a list of grants that heirs and others have identified as
containing common lands. We also added the Ca�ada de Santa Clara to the list
of Indian Pueblo grants in table 3, based upon documentation provided during
the comment period. See Appendix IV for a more extensive discussion on the
comments received.
We placed maps after each table that graphically depict the number of grants
principally in each county and added the classification as to type of grant
to Appendix I to help identify grants. Some grants have more than
Page 21 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
one name. To facilitate the identification of grants with multiple
identifiers, we added Appendix II, which alphabetizes these alternative
identifiers and links each to the appropriate grant in Appendix I.
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 VI.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-
7648. Key contributors to this report are listed in Appendix VI.
Susan A. Poling Associate General Counsel Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Page 22 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Name Date confirmed
or other action a Date Patented b Acreage
patented Types of Grants c
Abiqui� (Town of) 1894 1909 16,547.20 C Agapito Ortega Failed to pursue I
Agua Negra 1860 1900 17,361.11 I Agua Salada 1893 1909 10,694.48 I Alameda
(Town of) 1892 1920 89,346.00 OI
�lamitos 1896 1914 297.55 C
�lamo Rejected I Albuquerque (Town of) 1892 None specified Not specified C
Alexander Valle 1860 1927 1,242.00 C Alfonso Rael de Aguilar (2) Failed to
pursue I Alphonso Rael de Aguilar (1) Failed to pursue I Anc�n Colorado
Failed to pursue I Angostura 1897 1906 1,579.48 I Angostura del Pecos Failed
to pursue C Antoine Leroux 1869 1911 56,428.31 I Ant�n Chico (Town of) 1860
1883 383,856.10 C Antonio Armijo Failed to pursue I Antonio Baca 1895 1902
47,196.50 OI Antonio de Abeytia 1894 1910 721.42 I Antonio de Salazar Failed
to pursue OI Antonio de Ulibarr� Failed to pursue I Antonio Dom�nguez
Rejected I Antonio Mart�nez 1893 1896 61,605.46 I Antonio Ortiz 1869 1877
163,921.68 I Archuleta & Gonz�lez Failed to pursue I Arkansas Rejected by
the circuit
court OI Arquito Failed to pursue OI Arroyo de San Lorenzo Rejected I Arroyo
Hondo 1892 1908 20,000.38 C Atrisco (Town of) 1894 1905 82,728.72 C Badito
Rejected C Baltazar Baca Rejected I Barranca Rejected C Bartolom� Baca
Rejected I Bartolom� Fern�ndez 1894 1903 25,455.24 I Bartolom� S�nchez 1897
1914 4,469.83 OI Bartolom� Trujillo Rejected C Bel�n (Town of) 1858 1871
194,663.75 C Bernab� Manuel Monta�o 1892 1908 44,070.66 C Bernal Spring
Failed to pursue I Bernalillo (Town of) 1897 1900 3,404.67 OI Black Mesa
1894 1907 19,171.35 OI Bosque Del Apache 1860 1877 60,117.39 I
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Page 23 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Name Date confirmed
or other action a Date Patented b Acreage
patented Types of Grants c
Bosque Grande 1896 1925 2,967.57 OI Bracito 1860 d d C Cadillal e e C Caja
del R�o 1893 1897 66,849.78 C Ca�ada Ancha 1897 1917 200.82 I Ca�ada de
Cochit� 1894 1901 19,112.78 I Ca�ada de Los �lamos (1) 1893 1896 12,068.39 C
Ca�ada de los �lamos (2) 1894 1911 4,106.66 I Ca�ada de Los Apaches 1892
1907 86,249.09 I Ca�ada de Los Mesta�os Rejected C Ca�ada de San Francisco
Rejected C Ca�ada de Santa Clara 1894 1909 490.62 P Candelarios (Town of ) f
f f OI Ca��n de Carnue 1894 1903 2,000.59 C Ca��n de Chama 1894 1905
1,422.62 C Ca��n de San Diego 1860 1881 116,286.89 C Ca��n del Agua 1866
1896 341.04 I Ca��n del R�o Rejected I Casa Colorado (Town of) 1858 1909
131,779.37 C Catarina Maese Failed to pursue I Cebolla 1896 g g C Cebolleta
(Town of ) 1869 1882 199,567.92 C Chaca Mesa 1895 1899 47,258.71 OI Chamisos
Arroyo Rejected I Chamita (Town of ) 1860 1929 1,636.29 OI Chaperito (Town
of ) 1890 C Chilil� (Town of) 1858 1909 41,481.00 C Chupaderos de la
Lagunita Rejected I Cieneguilla (Town of) Rejected C Corpos Cristo Failed to
pursue I Crist�bal de la Serna 1892 1903 OI Crist�val Cresp�n Failed to
pursue I Cubero (Town of) 1892 1900 16,490.94 C Cuyamungu� 1895 1909 604.27
OI Diego Arias de Quir�s Rejected I Diego de Belasco Failed to pursue I
Diego Montoya 1893 1909 35,048.78 I Domingo Fern�ndez 1860 1880 81,032.67 C
Domingo Valdez Rejected I Don Fernando de Taos 1897 1909 1,817.34 C Do�a Ana
Bend Colony 1896 1907 35,399.01 C El Pino Failed to pursue I El Rito (Town
of) Failed to pursue OI
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Page 24 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Name Date confirmed
or other action a Date Patented b Acreage
patented Types of Grants c
Embudo Rejected OI Estancia Rejected I Felipe Pacheco Failed to pursue I
Felipe Tafoya (1) Failed to pursue I Felipe Tafoya (2) 1895 1902 4,340.23 I
Francisco de Anaya Almaz�n 1897 1916 3,202.79 OI Francisco Garc�a Failed to
pursue I Francisco Montes Vigil 1892 1899 8,253.74 OI Francisco X. Romero
Failed to pursue I Galisteo (Town of) 1894 1927 260.79 C Gaspar Ortiz 1860 h
h I Gervacio Nolan Rejected C Gijosa 1893 1908 16,240.64 OI Gotera Rejected
OI Guadalupe Miranda Failed to pursue I Guadalupita Failed to pursue OI
Hacienda del �lamo Rejected OI Heath Rejected OI Jacona (Town of) 1893 1909
6,952.84 I Joaqu�n (de) Mestas Rejected I Joaqu�n Sedillo & Antonio
Guti�rrez 1897 1909 22,636.92 I John Scolly 1860 1893 25,000.00 C Jornado
del Muerto Rejected I Jos� Antonio Lucero Rejected I Jos� Antonio Torres
Failed to pursue I Jos� de Leyba Rejected I Jos� Dom�nguez Rejected by the
Surveyor
General I Jos� Garc�a Rejected I Jos� Ignacio Alar� Failed to pursue OI Jos�
Leandro Perea 1860 1877 17,712.00 I Jos� Manuel S�nchez Baca 1900 1902
3,530.60 I Jos� R�mula de Vera Failed to pursue I Jos� Sutton Rejected I
Jos� Trujillo Failed to pursue OI Juan Antonio Flores Failed to pursue I
Juan Bautista Valdez 1898 1913 1,468.57 C Juan Cayentano Lovato Rejected I
Juan de Gabald�n 1893 1902 10,690.05 C Juan de Mestas Failed to pursue I
Juan de Ulibarr� Failed to pursue OI Juan Dur�n Rejected I Juan Estevan
Garc�a de Noriega Rejected I Juan Felipe Rodr�guez Failed to pursue I
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Page 25 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Name Date confirmed
or other action a Date Patented b Acreage
patented Types of Grants c
Juan G. Pinard No action taken by the Surveyor General I Juan Jos� Archuleta
Rejected I Juan Jos� Lovato 1894 1902 205,615.72 I Juan Jos� Moreno Failed
to pursue I Juan Jos� S�nchez Rejected I Juan Manuel C�rdova No action taken
by the
Surveyor General I Juan Montes Vigil 1931 by the district court i 379.36 I
Juan Tafoya Failed to pursue I Juana Baca Rejected I La Majada 1894 1908
54,404.10 OI La Nasa Failed to pursue I Las Lagunitas Not acted on OI Las
Lomitas Failed to pursue I Las Trampas (Town of) 1860 1903 28,131.67 C Las
Vegas (Town of) 1860 1903 431,653.65 C Lo de B�squez Failed to pursue I Lo
de Padilla 1896 1908 51,940.82 I Los Conejos Rejected C Los Manuelitas
Rejected C Los Serrillos 1894 1897 1,478.81 C Los Trigos 1860 1909 7,342.00
C Luis de Armenta No claim filed with the
Court I Luis Mar�a Cabeza de Baca 1860 j 198,578.78 I Maes & Gallego k k k I
Manuel Tenorio Failed to pursue I Manuela Garc�a de las Ribas Failed to
pursue I Manzano (Town of) 1860 1907 17,360.24 C Maragua Rejected OI Maxwell
Grant 1860 1879 1,714,764. 94 I Mesilla Civil Colony 1899 1909 21,628.52 C
Mesita Blanca Failed to pursue C Mesita de Juana L�pez 1879 OI Montoya l l l
OI Mora (Town of) 1860 1876 827,621.10 C Nepumecina Mart�nez de Arag�n
Failed to pursue I Nerio Antonio Montoya Rejected I Nicol�s Dur�n de Ch�ves
1896 No indication of
issued patent C Nuestra Se�ora de Guadalupe Mine Rejected I Nuestra Se�ora
del los Dolores Mine Rejected I Nuestra Se�ora del Rosario, San Fernando y
Santiago 1892 1905 14,786.58 C
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Page 26 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Name Date confirmed
or other action a Date Patented b Acreage
patented Types of Grants c
Ocate Rejected I Ojito de Galisteo Failed to pursue OI Ojito de los M�danos
Rejected I Ojo Caliente 1894 1894 2,244.98 C Ojo de Borrego 1894 1913
16,079.80 I Ojo de la Cabra Rejected I Ojo de San Jos� 1894 1912 4,340.28 C
Ojo del Apache Rejected I Ojo del Esp�ritu Santo 1869 1916 113,141.15 I
Orejas del Llano de los Aguajes Rejected I Ortiz Mine 1861 1876 69,199.33 I
Pablo Montoya 1869 1877 655,468.07 I Pacheco 1892 1913 500.00 I Pajarito
1894 1914 28,724.22 OI Paraje del Punche Failed to pursue I Pedro Armendaris
#33 1860 1878 352,504.50 OI Pedro Armendaris #34 1860 1878 95,030.00 OI
Peralta (1) (La) Rejected I Peralta (2) Rejected I Petaca 1896 1901 1,392.10
C Piedra Lumbre 1893 1902 49,747.89 I Plaza Blanca 1894 1914 8,955.11 I
Plaza Colorado 1893 1907 7,577.92 OI Polvadera 1893 1900 35,761.14 OI
Preston Beck Jr. 1860 1883 318,699.72 I Pueblo of Acoma 1858 1877 95,791.66
P Pueblo of Cochit� 1858 1864 24,256.50 P Pueblo of Isleta 1858 1864
131,495.30 P Pueblo of J�mez 1858 1864 17,510.45 P Pueblo of Laguna 1897
1909 17,328.91 P Pueblo of Namb� 1858 1864 13,586.33 P Pueblo of Pecos 1858
1864 18,763.33 P Pueblo of Picur�s 1858 1864 14,953.39 P Pueblo of Pojoaque
1858 1864 13,520.38 P Pueblo of Quemado Failed to pursue C Pueblo of San
Crist�bal m m m P Pueblo of San Felipe 1858 1864 34,766.86 P Pueblo of San
Ildefonso 1858 1864 17,292.64 P Pueblo of San Juan 1858 1864 17,544.77 P
Pueblo of Sand�a 1858 1864 24,034.87 P Pueblo of Santa Ana 1869 1883
17,360.56 P Pueblo of Santa Clara 1858 1864 17,368.52 P Pueblo of Santo
Domingo 1858 1864 74,743.11 P
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Page 27 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Name Date confirmed
or other action a Date Patented b Acreage
patented Types of Grants c
Pueblo of Santo Domingo & San Felipe 1898 1905 1,070.68 I Pueblo of Taos
1859 1864 17,360.55 P Pueblo of Tesuque 1858 1864 17,471.12 P Pueblo of Z�a
1858 1864 17,514.63 P Pueblo of Zu�� n n n P Pueblos of Z�a, J�mez, & Santa
Ana Rejected P Ram�n Vigil 1860 1908 31,209.52 I Ranchito 1897 1909 4,250.63
C Rancho de Abiqui� Failed to pursue I Rancho de Coyote Failed to Pursue I
Rancho de Gigante 1860 1884 25,233.18 I Rancho de la Gallina Failed to
pursue I Rancho de la Sant�sima Trinidad Rejected ; Failed to
pursue I Rancho de los Comanches Failed to pursue I Rancho de los Corrales
Failed to pursue I Rancho de los Rincones Failed to pursue I Rancho de
Nuestra Se�ora de la Luz 1860 1874 16,546.85 OI Rancho de Paguate 1860
75,406.27 I Rancho de R�o Arriba Failed to pursue I Rancho de R�o Puerco
Failed to pursue I Rancho de San Juan 1860 1884 25,233.18 I Rancho de Santa
Ana 1860 1884 871.33 I Rancho de Ysleta Rejected C Rancho del R�o Grande
1892 1901 91,813.15 C Rancho el Rito 1860 1884 25,233.18 I Real de Dolores
del Oro (Town of) Rejected OI Refugio Civil Colony 1901 1910 11,524.30 C R�o
de Chama Failed to pursue I R�o del Oso Failed to pursue OI R�o del Picur�s
Rejected C R�o Tesuque (Town of) 1897 OI Rito de los Frijoles Rejected I
R�mulo Barela Rejected I Roque Jacinto Jaramillo Rejected I Roque Lovato
Rejected I Salvador Lovato Failed to pursue I San Acasio Failed to pursue I
San Antonio de Las Huertas 1897 1907 4,763.85 C San Antonio del R�o Colorado
Rejected C San Anto�ito Rejected C San Clemente 1896 1909 37,099.29 OI San
Crist�bal Rejected by the Surveyor
General OI
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Page 28 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Name Date confirmed
or other action a Date Patented b Acreage
patented Types of Grants c
San Isidro (Town of) 1860 1936 11,476.88 OI San Joaqu�n del Nacimiento
Rejected C San Marcos Pueblo 1892 1896 1,895.44 OI San Mateo Spring( s) 1895
1907 4,340.276 I San Miguel del Vado 1894 1910 5,207.73 C San Pedro 1860
1875 31,594.76 C Sangre de Cristo 1860 1880 998,780.46 OI Sanguijuela
Rejected OI Santa B�rbara 1894 1905 30,638.28 C Santa Cruz 1899 & 1900 1910
4,567.60 C Santa F� 1894 o o C Santa F� Ca��n Rejected I Santa Rita Del
Cobre Rejected by the
Commissioner of the General Land Office
OI Santa Rosa de Cubero 1898 OI Santa Teresa 1900 1909 8,478.51 I Santiago
Bone Failed to pursue I Santiago Ram�rez 1897 1912 272.17 I Santo Domingo de
Cundiy� 1900 1903 2,137.08 OI Santo Tom�s de Yturbide 1900 1905 9,622.34 C
Santo Toribio Rejected C Sebasti�n De Vargas 1893 1900 I Sebasti�n Mart�n
1860 1893 51,387.20 OI Sevilleta 1893 Dispersals begun in
1915 Not specified C Sierra Mosca 1896 p p I Sitio de Juana L�pez 1894 1897
1,108.61 I Sitio de Los Serrillos 1894 1897 572.04 I Socorro (Town of) 1892
1896 17,371.18 C Tacubaya Failed to pursue OI Tajique (Town of) 1860 1912
7,185.55 C Talaya Hill 1895 1917 922.52 I Tecolote (Town of) 1858 1902
48,123.38 OI Tej�n (Town of) 1860 1882 12,801.46 C The Baird?s Ranch
Rejected I Tierra Amarilla 1860 1881 594,515.55 C Tom� (Town of) 1858 1871
121,594.53 C Tom�s Tapia Rejected I Torre�n (Town of) 1860 1909 14,146.11 C
U�a Del Gato Rejected by the Secretary
of Interior I Vallecito de San Antonio Failed to pursue C Vallecito de
Lovato (Town of) Rejected C
Appendix I: Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico
Page 29 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Grant Name Date confirmed
or other action a Date Patented b Acreage
patented Types of Grants c
Vertientes de Navaj� Rejected I a Grant confirmed by the Congress or Court
of Private Land Claims.
b A patent conveys legal title to the grant. (See fn. 4, letter report.) c
?C? refers to community land grants identified through original grant
documentation as listed in Table 1. ?OI ? refers to grants identified by
grant heirs, scholars, or others as having common lands, but which lack
supporting grant documentation, as listed in Table 2. ?P? for pueblo refers
to grants made by Spain to indigenous pueblo cultures as identified in Table
3. ?I? refers to grants made to individuals. d 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 Tom�s Yturbide Grant. A patent was not issued
because claimants argued 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 Fern�ndez grant, so no action was taken on the claim. f
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. g 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. h The grant apparently lies within the
Pueblo of Namb� grant and has not been patented.
i No actual claim was presented to the Court, and therefore no actual
confirmation was made by either the Congress or the Court. When the La
Majada grant was confirmed, this was apparently sufficient for the Town of
Pe�a Blanca residents. In 1931, the New Mexico Federal District Court
confirmed acreage not previously part of the Pueblo of Cochit� lands. j 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. k The claimants probably obtained
title through the Act of March 3, 1891. This act allowed each of 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. l No specific information available.
m The purported grant document was filed with the Office of the Surveyor
General, but was later proven to be fraudulent. n 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. o
The only grant actually given to Santa F� residents was in 1715 for some
common pastureland and
water. The Congress ultimately granted to the City of Santa F� all lands not
already used by the United States or confirmed private land grants. The
confirmed amount is based on the Surveyor General?s preliminary survey of 4
square leagues. p The U. S. Supreme Court found the Court of Private Land
Claims to be in error and directed a
reversal. The grant was rejected in 1900.
Appendix II: Alternate Grant Identifiers Page 30 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico
Land Grants
Alternate Identifiers Grant Type of Grant a
Abo Nuestra Se�ora de Guadalupe Mine I Anastacio Romero Juan de Mestas I
Andr�s Montoya Francisco de Anaya Almaz�n OI Andr�s Montoya Rito de los
Frijoles I Antonio Cano Ortiz Mine I Antonio Ch�vez Arroyo De San Lorenzo I
Antonio Elias Armenta Ca��n Del R�o I Antonio Joseph Ojo Caliente C Antonio
Lucero Ca�ada de Cochit� I Antonio Mart�nez Estancia I Antonio Ortiz Lo de
B�squez I Antonio Ortiz Ojo del Esp�ritu Santo I Antonio Salas Rito de los
Frijoles I Antonio Sandoval Bosque Del Apache I Antonio Sandoval Estancia I
Antonio Sandoval Las Lagunitas OI Antonio Sedillo Ca�ada de los Apaches I
Apache Spring Ojo del Apache I Apolonio Vigil Los Manuelitas C Arroyo Seco
Jos� Trujillo OI Baca Location #1 Luis Mar�a Cabeza de Baca I Baltazar
Cisneros Antonio de Abeytia I Barrancas Joaqu�n Sedillo & Antonio
Guti�rrez I Bartolom� Fernandez de la Pedresa Bartolom� Fernandez I
Bartolom� Marques Chamisos Arroyo I Basilio Gonz�lez Juan Manuel C�rdova I
Bautista Llara Juan G. Pinard I Beales Colony Arkansas OI Beaubien & Miranda
Maxwell Grant I Bentura Truxillo Ojo del Apache I Bishop John Lamy Rancho de
Nuestra Se�ora de
la Luz OI Bishop?s Ranch R�o Tesuque OI Borrego Spring Nerio Antonio Montoya
I Borrego Spring Ojo De Borrego I Bosque de los Pinos Joaqu�n Sedillo &
Antonio
Guti�rrez I Brazito Bracito C Ca�ada de las Mestenas Ca�ada De Los Mestanos
C Ca�ada de los �lamos Vertientes de Navajo I Ca��n de Carmel Ca��n de
Carnue C Ca��n de Carnuel Ca��n de Carnue C
Appendix II: Alternate Grant Identifiers
Appendix II: Alternate Grant Identifiers Page 31 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico
Land Grants
Alternate Identifiers Grant Type of Grant a
Ca��n de Pecos Alexander Valle C Ca��n de Pedernal Juan Bautista Valdez C
Carlos Salazar Juan G. Pinard I Casa de Jos� Riano Piedra Lumbre I Casa de
Riano Piedra Lumbre I Cevilleta Sevilleta C Chama River Ca��n Ca��n de Chama
C Ci�nega Francisco de Anaya Almaz�n OI Cieneguilla Francisco de Anaya
Almaz�n OI Cition de Juana L�pez Sitio de Juana L�pez I City of Albuquerque
Albuquerque (Town of) C City of Socorro Socorro (Town of) C Crist�bal de
Torres Juan Jos� Lovato I Crist�bal Jaramillo San Anto�ito C Crist�val de la
Serna San Crist�bal OI Cubero Land Cubero (Town of ) C Diego Gallego Pueblo
of Santo Domingo &
San Felipe I Diego Lucero Godoi Estancia I Diego Padilla Lo De Padilla I
Diego Velasco Diego de Belasco I Domingo Romero Ojo De Borrego I Donaciano
Gurul� Diego Montoya I El Badito Badito C El Bracito Bracito C El Coyote
Rancho de Coyote I Elena Gallegos Diego Montoya I El Ranchito Ranchito C El
Rillito Rancho El Rito I El Rito (Colorado) Rancho El Rito I El Tajo Lo De
Padilla I Elisha Whittlesey Ortiz Mine I Embudo of Picures Embudo OI Encinas
Juan Bautista Valdez C Estanislado Sandoval Santiago Bone I Ethan W. Eaton
Domingo Fern�ndez C Father Jos� Antonio Mart�nez San Crist�bal OI Feliciano
Montoyo Francisco de Anaya Almaz�n OI Felipe Delgado Caja del R�o C Felipe
Gonzales Bernalillo (Town of) OI Felipe Guti�rrez Bernalillo (Town of) OI
Felipe Medina Arroyo Hondo C Fernando de Taos Don Fernando De Taos C
Francisco Almaz�n Galisteo (Town of) C
Appendix II: Alternate Grant Identifiers Page 32 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico
Land Grants
Alternate Identifiers Grant Type of Grant a
Francisco Antonia de Gijosa Gijosa OI Francisco Montes Vigil Alameda (Town
of) OI Francisco Ortiz Ortiz Mine I Francisco Padilla Chamisos Arroyo I
Francisco Sandoval Rancho De La Sant�sima
Trinidad I Franz Huning Lo De Padilla I Fray Crist�bal Pedro Armendaris #33
OI Gabriel Quintana Jos� Ignacio Alar� OI Gaspar Ortiz Arroyo Hondo C
Ger�nimo Martin Barranca C Ger�nimo Martin Juan Est�van Garc�a de
Noriega I Gijosa Pancho de Taos Gijosa OI Gregorio Dabolas Do�a Ana Bend
Colony C Guadalupe Bartolom� Fern�ndez I Hugh Stephenson Bracito C Ignacio
Cano Ortiz Mine I Ignacio Ch�vez Chaca Mesa OI Ignacio de Roibal Jacona
(Town of) I Ignacio S�nchez Vergara Rancho De La Sant�sima
Trinidad I Isabel Jaramillo de Romero Nuestra Se�ora del Rosario,
San Fernando, y Santiago C Isabel Montoya Manuela Garc�a de las Ribas I
Jacinto Pel�es Juan Montes Vigil I James Boney Santiago Bone I Jes�s Cresp�n
Crist�val Cresp�n I Joaqu�n Garc�a El Rito (Town of) OI John Heath Heath OI
Jos� Antonio Garc�a Petaca C Jos� Antonio Valdez R�o del Oso OI Jos� Antonio
Vigil Santo Domingo de Cundiy� OI Jos� Dolores Fern�ndez R�o Del Picur�s C
Jos� Francisco Baca y Pino Maragua OI Jos� Francisco Baca y Terrus Ca�ada de
San Francisco C Jos� Francisco Dur�n Juan Manuel C�rdova I Jos� Ignacio
Alarid Jos� Ignacio Alar� OI Jos� Ignacio Mart�nez Arroyo Hondo C Jos�
Manuel C�rdova Santiago Bone I Jos� R. Zamora Vallecito de Lovato (Town of )
C Jos� Salazar y Ortiz Vallecito de Lovato (Town of ) C Jos� Serafin Ram�rez
y Casanova Ca��n del Agua I Jose Tapia Juan Manuel C�rdova I
Appendix II: Alternate Grant Identifiers Page 33 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico
Land Grants
Alternate Identifiers Grant Type of Grant a
Joseph Pacheco Pacheco I Juan Antonio Archuleta Archuleta & Gonz�les I Juan
Antonio Quintana Jos� Ignacio Alar� OI Juan Bautista Vigil y Alarid Jornado
Del Muerto I Juan Benabides R�o Tesque (Town of) OI Juan Carlos Santistevan
Cebolla C Juan Cruz Arag�n Ojito de Galisteo OI Juan de Dios Pe�a Alexander
Valle C Juan de Jes�s Lucero Orejas del Llano de los
Aguajes I Juan Estevan Pino Preston Beck Jr. I Juan Fern�ndez de la Pesnera
Juan Montes Vigil I Juan Gid Heath OI Juan Jos� Gallegos Angostura I Juan
Luis Ortiz Sierra Mosca I Juan Manuel de Herrera R�mulo Barela I Juan Mart�n
Juan Manuel C�rdova I Juan Miguel Maes Maes & Gallego I Juan Ortiz Galisteo
(Town of) C Juan Ortiz Badito C Juan Otero Ojo De La Cabra I Juan Pablo
Mart�n Polvadera OI Juan Salas �lamitos C Juan Salas Santa Cruz C La Joya
(Town of) Sevilleta C La Junta de los R�os Mora y Sanello John Scolly C La
Peralta Peralta (1) I La Petaca Petaca C La Talaya Arroyo Hondo C Laguna
Pueblo tracts Rancho de San Juan I Laguna Pueblo tracts Rancho de Gigante I
Laguna Pueblo tracts Rancho de Paguate I Laguna Pueblo tracts Rancho de
Santa Ana I Laguna Pueblo tracts Rancho El Rito I Las Cieneguitas Maes &
Gallego I Las Lamitas Las Lomitas I Las Manuelitas Los Manuelitas C Leonardo
Gonz�les Archuleta & Gonz�les I Lorenzo Lobato Salvador Lovato I Lorenzo
Marquez Ca�ada De Los �lamos (1) C Los Cerrillos Los Serrillos C Los Luceros
Antoine Leroux I Los Padillas Lo de Padilla I Los Ranchos Diego Montoya I
Appendix II: Alternate Grant Identifiers Page 34 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico
Land Grants
Alternate Identifiers Grant Type of Grant a
Los Ranchos de Taos Crist�bal de la Serna OI Lucero de Godoi Antonio
Mart�nez I Lucero Spring Ojito De Los M�danos I Luis Jaramilo Agua Salada I
Luis Mar�a Baca Ojo del Espir�tu Santo I Manuel �lvarez Ocate I Manuel
Bustos Plaza Blanca I Manuel Fern�ndez Arroyo Hondo C Manuel Hurtado Ca�ada
de Cochit� I Manuel Ortiz Ojo de Borrego I Manuel Trujillo Talaya Hill I
Mar�a Cleof�s Bone Santiago Bone I Medina Black Mesa OI Merced de Fern�ndes
de Taos Don Fernando de Taos C Meregildo Guerra Mesilla Civil Colony C
Mesilla of San Ildefonso Tract Jos� Trujillo OI Mesilla Tract Jos� Trujillo
OI Miera y Pacheco Ca�ada de los �lamos (2) I Miguel Ch�vez Arroyo Hondo C
Miguel Montoya Bosque Grande OI Miguel Ortiz Ojo De Borrego I Miranda
Guadalupe Miranda I Nacimiento San Joaqu�n del Nacimiento C Nacimiento del
Rio Puerco San Joaqu�n del Nacimiento C Nazario Gonz�les Ca�ada de San
Francisco C Nereo (Nerio) Antonio Montoya Ojo de Borrego I Nuestra Se�ora de
la Luz de las Lagunitas Antonio Baca OI Ojo de Borrego Nerio Antonio Montoya
I Ojo del Esp�ritu Santo Pueblos of Z�a, J�mez &
Santa Ana P Ojo de San Juan Ojo de San Jos� C Padilla Ca�ada de los �lamos
(2) I Pedro Gallego Maes & Gallego I Pedro Jos� Perea Jos� Leandro Perea I
Pedro Mart�n Serrano Piedra Lumbre I Pedro S�nchez Ram�n Vigil I Pedro
Montes Vigil de Santillana Antoine Leroux I Pe�a Blanca (Town of) Juan
Montes Vigil I Pe�asco Largo Santiago Ram�rez I Plaza Colorado Valdez Plaza
Colorado OI Plaza of the Santa B�rbara Santa B�rbara C P. M. Thompson Do�a
Ana Bend Colony C Polvareda Polvadera OI
Appendix II: Alternate Grant Identifiers Page 35 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico
Land Grants
Alternate Identifiers Grant Type of Grant a
Pueblo Colorado Antonio de Ulibarr� I Pueblo de Quemado Pueblo of Quemado C
Pueblo de San Antonio de Isleta Rancho De Ysleta C Pueblo de San Crist�bal
Domingo Fern�ndez C Pueblo de Santiago Juan Manuel C�rdova I Pueblo of
Cochit� Pasture Juana Baca I Pueblo of San Jos� Ojo de San Jos� C Rafael
Armijo Vertientes de Navajo I Rancho de Coyote Rancho de Abiqui� Rancho de
Coyote Nepumecina Mart�nez de
Arag�n I Rancho de Coyote Rancho de la Gallina I Rancho de Coyote Rancho de
Los Rincones I Rancho de Coyote Rancho de R�o Arriba I Rancho de Coyote R�o
de Chama I Rancho de Galvan Rancho de la Sant�sima
Trinidad I Rancho de la Merced del San Joaqu�n del R�o Chama R�o de Chama I
Rancho de los Comales Rancho de los Corrales I Rancho de los Esteros Jos�
Leandro Perea I Rancho Las Truchas Nuestra Se�ora del Rosario,
San Fernando y Santiago C Rancho R�o Arriba Rancho de R�o Arriba I Ranchos
de Albuquerque Diego Montoya I Ranchos de Chino Tejano The Baird?s Ranch I
Reavis Peralta (2) I Refugio Colony Refugio Civil Colony C R�o de las
Gallinas Antonio Ortiz I R�o del Pueblo R�o Del Picur�s C Rito Quemado
Pueblo of Quemado C R�mulo Varela R�mulo Barela I Roque Lobato Roque Lovato
I Rumaldo Archiveque Arquito OI S. Endicott Peabody Vallecito de Lovato
(Town of ) C Salvador Gonz�les Ca�ada Ancha I Salvador Montoya et al.
Tecolote (Town of) OI San Antonio & Rancho del R�o Colorado San Antonio del
R�o Colorado C San Clemente Joaqu�n Sedillo & Antonio
Guti�rrez I San Diego de J�mez Ca��n de San Diego C San Fernando de Taos Don
Fernando de Taos C San Joaqu�n del Nacimiento Chupaderos de la Lagunita I
San Joaqu�n R�o de Chama Ca��n de Chama C
Appendix II: Alternate Grant Identifiers Page 36 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico
Land Grants
Alternate Identifiers Grant Type of Grant a
San Jos� de Garc�a Bartolom� Trujillo C San Jos� del Encinal Baltazar Baca I
San Jos� y Santo Toribio de J�mez Ojo de San Jose C San Marcos Springs San
Marcos Pueblo OI San Miguel de Laredo Ca��n De Carnue C San Miguel del Bado
San Miguel del Vado C San Pablo y Nacimiento San Joaqu�n del Nacimiento C
S�nchez Juan Jos� S�nchez I Santa Cruz Francisco X. Romero I Santa Cruz de
la Ca�ada Santa Cruz C Santa Rita Mine Santa Rita del Cobre OI Santa Teresa
de Jes�s Joaqu�n (de) Mestas I Santiago Bone Juan Manuel C�rdova I Santiago
Dur�n y Chaves San Mateo Spring( s) I Santiago Montoya Bosque Grande OI
Santo Domingo de Maragua Maragua OI Santo Tom�s Ap�stal del R�o de Las
Trampas Las Trampas (Town of) C Santo Tom�s de Iturbide Colony Santo Tom�s
de Yturbide C Santo Tom�s del R�o de Las Trampas Las Trampas (Town of) C
Santo Toribo Ojo de San Jos� C Santo Toribo de J�mez Santo Toribo C Sitio de
Juana L�pez Mesita de Juana L�pez OI Sitio de Parajito Pajarito OI Sitio del
Navajo Vertientes de Navajo I Siti�n de Los Cerrillos Sitio de Los Serrillos
I Tajaque Tajique (Town of) C Tom�s Cabeza de Baca Ojo del Esp�ritu Santo I
Town of R�o San Antonio del Rio Colorado C Town of R�o Tesque R�o Tesuque OI
Tres �lamo �lamo I Tungue Tej�n (Town of) C
�rsula Chaves Agua Negra I Vallecito de Lobato Vallecito de Lovato (Town of
) C Valverde Crist�bal Pedro Armendaris #33 OI Villa de Albuquerque Town of
Albuquerque C Vincente Dur�n de Armijo Gaspar Ortiz I Vincente Romero
Alfonso Rael de Aguilar (2) I William T. Russell Juan de Gabald�n C a ?C?
refers to community land grants identified through original grant
documentation as listed in Table 1. ?OI ? refers to grants identified by
grantee heirs, scholars, or others as having common lands, but which lack
supporting grant documentation, as listed in Table 2. ?P? for pueblo, refers
to grants made by Spain to indigenous pueblo cultures as identified in Table
3. ?I? refers to grants made to individuals.
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 37 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
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 M�xico in what is now the State of New Mexico, Senators Jeff
Bingaman and Pete Domenici asked us to study numerous issues regarding the
treaty and its implementation. Subsequently, New Mexico Congressman Tom
Udall joined in the request. We plan to answer their questions in two
reports. This first report defines the concept of community land grants,
identifies three types of grants that meet this definition, and lists the
grants that we identified in each category. The second report will review
the United States legal obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to
protect community land grants and the procedures established to implement
these obligations.
In accordance with the request, we limited our review to community land
grants made by Spain or M�xico between the end of the 17 th century and 1846
that were wholly or partially situated within the present State of New
Mexico and subject to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. We also included
grants in what is now New Mexico that were made until the 1853 Gadsden
Purchase, since they too were made 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 M�xico that address the issues in this report. A list of materials that
we consulted can be found in Appendix V.
During the course of our review, we interviewed dozens of land grant heirs
in New Mexico and contacted the Governors of Indian pueblos; historians,
researchers, and other academicians studying land grant issues, including
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 38 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
scholars in M�xico; 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. We received over 200 oral and written comments and documentary
evidence related to Spanish and Mexican land grants during the comment
period from January 24 to May 2, 2001. The scope and nature of these
comments and our responses can be found in Appendix IV, ?Public Comments.?
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 (LLM.) 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, made in what is today the State of New Mexico, 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
Office of 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 the
archived files of the Office of the Surveyor
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 39 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
General or Court of Private Land Claims. Our research identified 295 Spanish
and Mexican land grants made by Spain and Mexico in the area, which now
comprises the State of New Mexico.
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 R�o), the ?pastures and woodlands in common?
(Barranca), ?the public square is also common among all? (Ca��n de Carnue),
and ?set aside for the commons of the town? (Do�a 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 and Mexican 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 Recopilaci�n 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 and did not have a concept of private
ownership of real property. 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 United
States 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
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 40 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
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 J. J. Bowden?s thesis. 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
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 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 many
grants varied considerably. For example, the Do�a Ana Bend Colony files
contain extensive documents pertaining to the establishment of the colony
and the location of tracts, while the Hacienda del �lamo 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. Documents from the Office of the Surveyor General
included the name of the individual who was responsible for translating the
submitted documents. However, we did not independently assess any
translation. We also note that the names of some grants in Bowden?s thesis,
the documents of the Office of Surveyor General, and the Court of Private
Land Claims? files are not always consistent. We have identified the other
names of grants in Appendix II.
We conducted our review from April 2000 through August 2001, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 41 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
We received over 200 oral and written comments concerning the Exposure Draft
during the comment period. The period was originally scheduled to end on
April 2, but was extended until May 2. This allowed more time for presenting
information and documentation. We received comments electronically via the
GAO Web page, e- mail, fax, regular mail, and meetings in New Mexico held
from March 23 through March 28, 2001. Some of the comments received asked
for information about our study and particular land grants and how to find
out whether the persons commenting were heirs to particular grants.
We received documentation submitted in support of suggested changes to the
Exposure Draft by fax and regular mail and in our meetings. Most of the
comments did not address the definition and list of community land grants.
We obtained information about many grants, including the detailed histories
of some, which will be reviewed in our future work. The comments on the
definition and lists generally agreed with both. We made some changes in the
background and categorization of four land grants in response to specific
comments, and the changes are discussed below. Many suggested changes did
not include supporting documentation. Generally, we made only those changes
for which there was documentary support. Our analysis of the public comments
to a large extent follows the order of the report:
1. Background. We received comments concerning the legal background for
community land grants. Some individuals stated that the report did not
contain enough detail about Spanish and Mexican laws applicable to community
settlements. One letter cited the influence of Roman law on the development
of Spanish towns and settlements both in Spain and New Mexico. It also
discussed the different kind of lands that belonged to a community that the
author of the letter believed the Supreme Court did not recognize in United
States v. Sandoval, 167 U. S. 278 (1897). The
Sandoval case concluded that the common lands of community land grants
belonged to the sovereign and in this case to the American government as the
successor sovereign to Mexico under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Because
this initial report deals with the definition of community land grant and
the kinds of community land grants, we decided not to include a detailed
description of Spanish and Mexican law affecting community land grants and
the types of lands that were part of a community settlement in this report.
We defer consideration of this information in connection with our next
report. We made several technical changes at the suggestion of the
Department of State. Appendix IV: Public Comments
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 42 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
2. Concept of Community Land Grants Defines Community Land Grants. Some
commentators said that it was important that we include additional
terminology to help define community land grants . They also emphasized the
importance of water as a community resource and the importance of custom and
tradition in community grants. Our definition of ?community
land grant? is very broad and identifies all grants that have land for
communal use. The Exposure Draft already makes reference to the significant
role of local laws, custom, and practices in the making and confirmation of
grants. We have added a statement on the important linkage between land and
water in communities.
3. Common Lands Formed Part of the Original Grant According to Grant
Documentation (Table 1). We made one change to Table 1, which is a list of
community land grants identified through original grant documentation. As a
result of a review of documentation obtained subsequent to the January 24
issuance of the Exposure Draft, it appears that the Elena Gallegos grant
does not fit any of the three criteria that we developed to identify the
first category of community land grants. The three criteria are: (1) the
original grant document declares part of the lands be made available for
communal use; (2) the grant was made for the purpose of establishing a new
town or settlement; and (3) the grant was made to 10 or more settlers.
Consequently, we removed the Elena Gallegos grant from the community grants
listed in Table I and identified it as an individual grant in Appendix I
under the name ?Diego Montoya.? The Court of Private Land Claims decision
confirming the petition of several hundred individuals to parts of the Elena
Gallegos grant set out the history of the grant. 1 The grant had been
originally made in the latter part of the 17 th century and then reissued in
1716 to Diego Montoya as a private grant. Subsequently, the grant was
conveyed to Elena Gallegos. Later, a large number of individuals settled on
the grant and small communities (ranchos) developed. Because the grant was
originally made to Diego Montoya, an alternate identifier for this grant in
the Exposure Draft,
?Diego Montoya,? will now become the name of the grant in Appendix I and
?Elena Gallegos? will become an alternate identifier in Appendix II.
1 See Report to the Attorney General by Mathew Reynolds, United States
Attorney and Joseph R. Reid, Chief Justice, Court of Private Land Claims,
concerning Tomas C. Gutierrez v. United States, Los Ranchos Tract No. 106
and Donaciano Gurule v. United States, Elena Gallegos or Ranchos de
Albuquerque.
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 43 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
We also received a comment that the Tierra Amarilla grant did not belong in
Table 1 as a community land grant since it is a private grant. The
commentator cited several federal and New Mexico cases that have held that
the Congress confirmed the Tierra Amarilla grant as a private grant rather
than as a community one. 2 We recognize that Congress confirmed the Tierra
Amarilla grant in 1860 by statute as a private grant and that its
determination is legally conclusive of this question under present American
law. However, the purpose of our report is to define the types of
?community land grants? associated with both Spain and Mexico and also to
identify the grants that are included in each type. This identification is
not a legal determination as to whether a particular land grant is a private
or community one. Rather, it provides a framework for our ongoing work. We
are presently examining the United States implementation of its obligations
under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo concerning community land grants. We
have identified grants in which common lands formed part of the original
grant. Such grants must meet one of three criteria to be so included. One of
these criteria is that the original grant document
?declares part of the land be made available for communal use.? The document
creating the Tierra Amarilla grant contains such language. The grant
document provided that ?pastures, watering places and roads remain free
according to the customs generally prevailing in all settlements.? 3
4. Grants Identified by Grant Heirs and Others (Table 2). This category
includes grants that heirs, scholars, and other persons knowledgeable about
a grant?s history have stated contained common lands. Also, it includes some
individual grants where, according to such persons, grantees, their heirs,
or other grant settlers, certain lands were set aside for common use as an
inducement to attract new settlers to the grant. In other cases, we were
told that settlements arose on individual land grants that contained some of
the features of community land grants, e. g., a common area for grazing
livestock. These grants are also reflected in Table 2.
2 See Martinez v. Rivera, 196 F. 2d 192, 194 (10 th Cir. 1952), cert.
denied, 344 U. S. 828 (1952); Flores v. Bruesselbach, 149 F. 2d 616 (10 th
Cir. 1945); and Rio Arriba, New Mexico Bd. of County Comm. v. Acting
Southwest Reg. Dir., Bureau of Indian Affairs, 36 IBIA 14 (2001).
3 Report of the Secretary of the Interior, H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 1, 34 th
Cong., 3 rd Sess., 1856- 1857, pp. 489- 90.
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 44 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
We received a comment that we remove both Pedro Armendaris grants, Numbers
33 and 34, from table 2 because they were private land grants. We received
materials supporting this request, which included copies of Surveyor General
documents and two United States patents for private grants issued by
President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878. These materials recite the history of
the grants as presented to the Surveyor General and that formed the basis of
congressional confirmation of these grants as private grants in 1860. 4
These documents establish that the Spanish officials made grants to Pedro
Armendaris in 1819 (No. 33) and 1820 (No. 34).
However, our purpose in this report is to be as comprehensive as possible in
identifying the universe of community land grants. We wanted to identify
grants that fit certain evidentiary criteria, as well as grants that heirs
and others identified as containing common lands. This selfidentification is
important because adequate grant documentation is often lacking. In the case
of these two grants, the documentary evidence shows that the grants were
made to Pedro Armendaris. However, some persons have identified the grants
as having common lands set aside for the use of settlers. This
characterization does not affect their legal status as individual grants. As
stated above, this report makes no legal determinations. The grants are
included in Table 2 because someone has identified the grants as containing
common lands. We make no determination of whether the assertion is true.
We also added two grants to Table 2: Francisco Montes Vigil and Crist�bal de
la Serna. During our March interviews in New Mexico, heirs to these grants
stated that they were community land grants, but provided no evidence that
common lands formed part of the original grant. However, since
identification by grant heirs was sufficient for a grant to be included in
the second category of community land grants, these grants are listed in
Table 2. We are aware that in several instances courts in the New Mexico
Eighth Judicial District have concluded that the Crist�bal de la Serna grant
was an individual land grant, based on a detailed examination of its
4 The Congress also approved grants to communities. For example, Congress
confirmed a grant to the Town of Las Vegas in 1860, ch. 167, 12 Stat. 71
(1860), H. R EXEC. DOC. NO. 14, 36 TH CONG. 1 ST SESS. 45 (1860).
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 45 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
history. 5 As stated previously, our inclusion of this grant in Table 2 does
not affect this conclusion.
We received two different comments that the Tecolote land grant did not
belong in Table 2. One comment would place the grant in Table 1 as a
community land grant for which allegedly there is documentary support. The
other comment suggested that the grant be listed in Appendix I as an
individual grant. Originally, we had included it in Table 2 because an
individual had identified it as a community land grant. These different
views reflect the positions taken in current litigation in New Mexico State
court. 6 The issue in the litigation is whether the heirs of the original
grantee have a superior right to part of the grant than the Town of
Tecolote. According to the parties to the litigation, a Mexican court in
1838 divided the grant between the heirs of the original grantee, Salvador
Montoya, and the settlement of Tecolote. The Town of Tecolote received a
patent (title) from the United States in 1902 covering the acreage of the
original grant. The patent provides that it should only be construed as the
relinquishment by the United States of any claim to the land in question.
The patent further provides that it does not adversely affect the rights of
any other person to the land. In the litigation, heirs of the original
grantee are claiming that they have a superior right than the Town of
Tecolote to about one- half of the grant. To be included in the first
category of community land grants, original grant documentation is necessary
and in this instance none was provided to us. However, to be included in the
second category, someone only has to identify a grant as having common
lands. We take no position on the litigation.
We also received comments that the Alameda, Embudo, La Majada, San Marcos
Pueblo, 7 Sebast�an Mart�n, and Gijosa grants did not belong in Table 2.
However, we had previously received information that others had identified
these as community land grants. This information was sufficient to include
these grants in Table 2.
5 See Kristen Selph a/ k/ a Christine Padilla v. Alger, No. 79- 223- CV (8
th D. C. N. M. 1984);
Selph v. Armijo, No. 7928 (8 th D. C. N. M. 1968), Kiraly v. Trujillo, No.
96- 331- CV (8 th D. C. N. M. 2000); and Adams v. Abeyta, No. 96- 285- CV (8
th D. C. N. M. 2000). 6 Montoya v. Tecolote Land Grant and Bd., No. 99- 322-
CV (4 th D. C. N. M. 1999).
7 One scholar prepared a history of the grant to show that the grant
belonged in Appendix I as a individual grant, but it did not include
original documentation. Consequently, the grant is in Table 2 because
someone had previously identified it as a community land grant. We are not
making any determination about which of the two assertions is true.
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 46 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
5. Common Lands of Indigenous Pueblo Cultures (Table 3). An official from
the Santa Clara Pueblo wrote that we had omitted from Table 3 the Ca�ada de
Santa Clara grant, which is contained only in Appendix I. He provided an
English translation and a copy of the original 1763 Spanish grant. The grant
provides that the whole of the Valley of Santa Clara ?shall
be for cultivable and common lands of the said Pueblo for their flocks and
horses with all its pastures and waters.? We have added this grant to table
3 because of this documentary evidence. Table 3 consists of grants made
directly to the Indian pueblos. It does not include the subsequent purchase
or acquisition by an Indian pueblo of a grant from the grantee or any other
person who has the right to dispose of it.
We also received a request from representatives of the Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo, which is located in Texas, to be included in our review of community
land grants. According to the request, following the Pueblo Revolt in 1680,
the Spaniards moved the ancestors of the present tribe from Isleta Pueblo,
near modern day Albuquerque, to the El Paso, Texas area, where they remain
today. The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo received a grant from the Spanish Governor
of New Mexico in 1751. At the time of the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848, the area the Pueblo occupied was located in New Mexico.
However, it became part of Texas two years later, as a part of the
Compromise of 1850. 8 Neither the Surveyor General of New Mexico nor the
Court of Private Land Claims approved the Spanish grant because the Pueblo
was located in Texas. The Pueblo believes it should be included in the GAO
study because it has a common basis for complaint with the individuals and
tribes that comprise it.
Our requestors have asked that we examine the United States obligations
under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its implementation with reference
to community land grants in New Mexico. In the Exposure Draft, which defines
?community land grant? and identifies such grants in New Mexico, we included
the Indian Pueblos that fit our definition and criteria for community land
grants. Because the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is located in Texas, however, it
does not fall within the ambit of our study.
We received a letter from Taos Pueblo expressing concern about the lack of
attention given to Pueblo grants in our study. The letter noted that
8 The Compromise of 1850 refers to legislation that among other things,
admitted California as a state and added part of Texas to the New Mexico
territory at a price of $15 million.
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 47 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
dozens of land grant heirs and governmental officials were interviewed, but
only a few individuals involved with the problems of one Pueblo were
interviewed. We provided copies of the Exposure Draft to the Governors of
each of the New Mexico Pueblos and held open forums in 5 locations in the
state. The Taos Pueblo also stated that without a comprehensive study
concerning Indian Pueblo lands, the Pueblo would be unable to accept the
findings of the GAO study. We are aware that problems over land ownership
have frequently arisen between settlers and the Pueblos. As Taos Pueblo
recognizes, our congressional requestors specifically asked GAO to assess
the United States legal obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
and their implementation with respect to community land grants. In the event
that we identify potential options for resolving any U. S. failure, the
congressional requestors want GAO to discuss the potential effects of these
options on tribal land claims. The treatment of the pueblo grants in the
second report will depend on the factors mentioned in the response to
comment (b) in Table 4 below.
The Taos Pueblo letter did not contain any comments about Table 3 of the
Exposure Draft, which lists all the Pueblo grants and the dates they were
made. The Exposure Draft showed that the Taos Pueblo had received its grant
in 1815, which was much later than the dates for the other Pueblos. We
reviewed our work papers and concluded that the date was not accurate. We
spoke with an employee of Taos Pueblo familiar with its history. The
employee indicated that little information could be found that established a
date certain for the original Spanish grant. Accordingly, we have left the
space for the grant?s date blank and added a footnote indicating that the
date of the grant is uncertain.
6. Detailed Data on the 295 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants (Appendix I). On
the basis of comments received, we realized that some grants listed in
Appendix I overlap or are included in other grants. For example, we received
information that the Juan Montes Vigil grant listed in Appendix I was part
of the La Majada grant. Neither Congress nor the Court of Private Land
Claims confirmed the Vigil grant, although it was presented to the Surveyor
General for his approval. However, the Court of Private Land Claims
confirmed the La Majada grant in 1894 with a patent issued in 1908. Also, we
received information that the Jos� Dom�nguez grant and the Sebast�an Mart�n
grant covered the same area. In fact, Sebast�an Mart�n purchased the grant
from Jos� Dom�nguez?s daughter and son- in- law.
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 48 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Congress confirmed the Sebast�an Mart�n grant in 1860 and a patent issued in
1893. The Surveyor General rejected the Dom�nguez grant. 9
We also made changes to Appendix I to make it easier to use. First, it
proved difficult to identify grants that had other names, which we had
included as alternate identifiers in Appendix I. We removed the column in
Appendix I designated as ?Alternative grant identifiers? and replaced it
with a new Appendix II that alphabetizes all the alternate identifiers and
links each identifier to a particular grant in Appendix I. Second, we added
a column to Appendix I, which identifies what kind of a grant it is for the
purposes of this report: (1) ?C? for community grants with original
documentation listed in Table 1; (2) ?OI? for community land grants
identified by grant heirs and others listed in Table 2; (3) ?P? for Indian
Pueblo grants listed in Table 3; and (4) ?I? for ?individual grants.? Third,
instead of one New Mexico map showing the grants identified in Tables 1
through 3 by county, we created three separate New Mexico county maps in the
report showing the location of grants in each table. Lastly, in Table 1, as
well as in Table 2 and Appendixes I and II we have removed the words ?Town
of? from the name of certain grants and placed these words in parentheses
after the name of the grant. We then realphabetized each list. We made these
changes to make it easier to locate the name usually associated with these
grants.
7. New Mexico Attorney General?s Task Force. We received oral and written
comments from New Mexico Attorney General?s Task Force set up to assist GAO
in its study of community land grants. Table 4 summarizes their major
comments, some of which we have grouped together, and our responses.
9 We received several comments that we had failed to list certain grants.
These grants were actually alternate identifiers for another grant.
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 49 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Table 4: New Mexico Attorney General?s Task Force Major Comments and GAO?s
Responses
Comments Responses
(a) The definition of ?community land grant? should reflect the communal
uses of property set out in the original Spanish and Mexican laws, the
important role of water, and local custom, culture and tradition.
We define ?community land grant? as a grant that had common lands, which
reflects their communal use. We have added to the background section
sentences that point out the importance of land and water, the essential
ingredients for developing sustainable agricultural settlements and
communities in New Mexico. The report already refers to the important role
of practices and customs in the granting and confirmation of grants. (b)
Individual and Pueblo land grants encountered many of the same problems that
faced community land grants and their problems should be addressed in the
GAO study.
In keeping with the congressional request, our study focuses on community
land grants that were used to establish new settlements and communities in
New Mexico. The problems encountered by individual grants as a result of the
United States? implementation of the Treaty are outside the scope of our
study. The Pueblo grants have differed from the other community grants in
New Mexico since their inception. During the 20th century, the resolution of
pueblo land claims differed from the other community land grants in New
Mexico because of their unique Indian status. Treatment of the pueblo grants
in the second report will depend on (1) the problems encountered by the
pueblos as a result of the United States? implementation of the Treaty and
(2) the extent to which those problems or their resolution differ from the
other community land grants. (c) The use of English translations of Spanish
and Mexican documents is unreliable and the Spanish translation of the
Exposure Draft was done by someone unfamiliar with the Spanish spoken in New
Mexico.
We relied on the English translations of Spanish and Mexican documents that
were used by the surveyors general, the Court of Private Land Claims,
scholars, legal experts, and historians. We do not have the resources and
expertise to read the original Spanish documents, even if they were
available. For the purposes of the Exposure Draft this was not essential
because our definition of ?community land grant? and the three categories of
such grants were very broad. In addition, our listing of a grant is not a
determination as to the grant?s legal status. We used Department of State
translators since State is the agency responsible for
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 50 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Comments Responses
translating official United States government documents. (d) Future GAO
reports should discuss the issues that affected Hispanic ownership of land
grants, including conflicts of interest, crooked lawyers, adverse possession
laws, state taxation, fraud, misinterpretation of Spanish and Mexican land
laws, lack of fluency in English, and racism.
GAO?s next report will concern the United States implementation of its
obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It will discuss these
obligations and how they were carried out. The report may also describe what
persons have said these obligations included.
(e) GAO staff should continue to consult with scholars, legal experts, and
historians. GAO plans to continue to consult with
scholars, legal experts, and historians, as the next report is prepared.
8. Taos County Community Centers. We received several comments and materials
from Taos County Community Centers Association, Inc. One of these comments
claimed that the 295 grants listed in Appendix I of the Exposure Draft
covered only one third of the grants made in New Mexico and that there were
719 grants that had not been accounted for. The comment was based on a
statement in a book by a New Mexico historian that the Surveyor General in
his 1856 report to Congress indicated that he had received ?a collection of
1,014 grants and documents relating to land titles of which (197) were
private grants? (emphasis added). 10 The Association sponsored a New Mexico
House Joint Memorial, stating that there were 719 grants unaccounted for in
the GAO Exposure Draft. 11 The 1856 Surveyor General?s report showed, as the
quoted passage from the history book stated, that indeed there were 1,014
grants and documents given to the Surveyor General. This number refers to
other documents too, not just grants, including conveyances and wills. The
1856 Surveyor General?s report lists fewer grants than the 295 that we
found.
9. Identification of Source Materials. We were asked why the Exposure Draft
does not, as scholarly articles do, cite the specific support or source for
statements or information in the report. GAO reports are not scholarly
studies, but are prepared for the use of the Congress and they should be
written in a clear and concise manner. Consequently, it is not our usual
practice to footnote each statement in our reports. Both Appendixes III
10 See letter, dated January 19, 2001, from the Executive Director, Taos
County Community Centers Association, Inc. to the U. S. General Accounting
Office, quoting from Leading Facts of New Mexican History, Spanish and
Mexican Land Grants, Ralph Emerson Twitchell, Cedar Rapids, IA: Torch Press,
1911- 1912, p. 459- 60. 11 H. J. Memorial 45, 45th Leg., 1st Sess. (N. M.
2001).
Appendix IV: Public Comments Page 51 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
and V list the materials used in the preparation of this report. These
Appendixes contain more detailed information that we usually provide in
reports so that scholars and others could see what information we used to
develop the definition and lists of community land grants.
To assure report accuracy, GAO staff, which have not been involved in a
study, independently review the sources for each statement and the
information in the report. Our process of quality control requires that each
statement be supported by appropriate and valid documentation and that the
person performing the quality control checks must independently assess the
adequacy of the support. When a study is completed, the documentary sources
for the report, as well as any data bases developed, will usually be
available to the public upon request.
10. Spanish Version of Exposure Draft.- A few commentators noted that the
translation of the English version of the Exposure Draft into Spanish did
not reflect the Spanish used in New Mexico. Specifically, it used technical
terms that are not familiar to New Mexican Spanish speakers. For example,
the Exposure Draft uses the word ?concesi�n? for a ?grant?
made by Spain and Mexico while the word for a Spanish grant in New Mexico is
?merced.? We added a footnote regarding ?merced.?
Appendix V: Bibliography Page 52 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
?Algunos Documentos Sobre el Tratado de Guadalupe y la Situaci�n de M�xico
Durante la Invasi�n Americana.? Archivo Historico Diplomatico
M�xicano 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.
Blackmar, Frank W. Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. Glorieta, NM: The
Rio Grande Press, 1976.
Bloom, John Porter, ed. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848: Papers of the
Sesquicentennial Symposium. Las Cruces, NM: Do�a Ana County Historical
Society and Yucca Tree Press, 1999.
Bowden, J. J. Private Land Claims in the Southwest (1969) (unpublished LL.
M. 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 Review, 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. Appendix V: Bibliography
Appendix V: Bibliography Page 53 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
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 F�, 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 John
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 F�, New Mexico; at the National Archives and
Records Administration in Denver, Colorado; and at the National Archives and
Records Administration in Washington, D. C.
Appendix V: Bibliography Page 54 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
_____. ?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 F�, 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.
Forrest, Suzanne Sims. ?A Trail of Tangled Titles: Mining, Land Speculation,
and the Dismemberment of the San Antonio de las Huertas Grant.? New Mexico
Historical Review, Vol. 71 (Oct. 1996), pp. 361- 393.
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- 80.
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.
. ? San Miguel del Bado and the Loss of the Common Lands of New Mexico
Community Land Grants.? New Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 66 (Oct. 1991),
pp. 413- 432.
_____. ?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 F�, 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.
Appendix V: Bibliography Page 55 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
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 F�, 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 America, 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,
Appendix V: Bibliography Page 56 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
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.
Meyer, Michael C. and Michael M. Brescia. ?The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
as a Living Document: Water and Land Use Issues in Northern New Mexico.? New
Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 73 (Oct. 1998), pp. 321345.
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- Quien junto al agua tiene su tierra,
primero riega, Vol. 7, Nivel 2, No. 6 (undated).
Poldervaart, Arie W. Black- Robed Justice. Santa F�, 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).
Appendix V: Bibliography Page 57 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
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, NM: 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 F�, 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 F�, 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. ?? El Bornes?: La Tierra Amarilla and T. D. Burns.? New
Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 56, No. 2 (1981), pp. 161- 75.
. ?From Empire to Statehood: A History of New Mexico?s Spanish and Mexican
Archives.? Colonial Latin American Historical Review
(Spring 1996), pp. 333- 53. _____. ?New Mexico?s Spanish and Mexican Land
Grants.? New Mexico Genealogist (Dec. 1997), pp. 143 et seq.
_____. ?Sale Burro y Entre Burro.? A Historical Perspective on the Tierra
Amarilla Grant (1989) (unpublished paper).
Appendix V: Bibliography Page 58 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
. The Enduring Legacy of Spanish Land and Water Policy in New Mexico
(undated) (unpublished paper, New Mexico State Records Center and Archives).
. ?The San Juan Gold Rush of 1860 and Its Effect on the Development of
Northern New Mexico.? New Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 63 (July 1988), pp.
257- 72.
. ?The Tierra Amarilla Land Grant.? Southwest Heritage, Vol. 13, Nos. 3 and
4 (Fall 1983 and Winter 1984), pp. 2- 4, 16.
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.
_____. and Christine M. Van Ness, eds. Spanish & Mexican Land Grants in New
Mexico and Colorado. Santa Fe, NM: The Center for Land Grant Studies, 1980.
Westphall, Victor. ?Fraud and Implications of Fraud in the Land Grants of
New Mexico." New Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 49, No. 3 (1974), pp. 189-
218.
_____. 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 F�, NM: State Planing Office, 1971
(reprinted 1981).
Appendix VI: Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 59 GAO- 01- 951 New Mexico Land Grants
Susan A. Poling and Alan R. Kasdan, (202) 512- 7648 In addition to those
named above, Robert C. Arsenoff, John C. Furutani, Robert E. S�nchez, Jos�
Alfredo G�mez, 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, Randy Byle, Heather Taylor, Bridget Beverly, Tonya Ford, Wanda
Okoro, Susan Conlon, Oliver H. Easterwood, Robert G. Crystal, Margie Armen,
James M. Rebbe, Jessica A. Botsford, Amy Webbink, Moza Al- Suylaiti, 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, Eunhwa Kim, Bonita L. Mueller, Audrey L. Ruge, Kimberly R.
Walton; and technicians, Patricia A. Givens, William R. Haynos, Geraldine B.
Howard, Edna Legrant, Alice E. Paris, and Ester L. Saunders. Appendix VI:
Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments
(976052)
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 also accepted.
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 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
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 email
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
Contact one:
Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***