Cañada de Cochiti Land Grant (Part 3 of 4)

Petition to the Court of Private Land Claims (1893-1894)

It is unclear when or if Congress acted in the case, as there is a gap in the records of the land grant case files. It is likely that because Congress created the Court of Private Land Claims (CPLC) in 1891 to resolve any new and pending cases with more stringent criteria for approving claims, the claimants were directed to start the process again under the new system. Two sets of claimants filed petitions with the CPLC in Santa Fe. Case No. 205, dated March 2, 1893, was filed on behalf of Joel Parker Whitney, José Juan Lucero (F4d2), Laureano Lucero (F1g), Juan Cristóbal Lucero (D(1)3(2)a), José de Jesús Lucero (F4d), Juan Teodoro Lucero (F1f1), José Telésforo Lucero (F1c(2)3), Bernard S. Rodey and Hannah Harris. Some of these individuals had sold part of their land to the Whitneys. Case No. 240, filed on behalf of Manuel Hurtado (E2c1) and José Antonio Gallegos (unknown) on March 3, 1893, stated that the grant had been approved by the United States Surveyor General of New Mexico and a preliminary survey had found that it comprised 104,554.24 acres. The two sets of claimants presented all the land transaction records and documentation of the grant as already described.

In an undated opinion from the US attorney representing the defendant, the United States, Matt G. Reynolds, urged the court to reject the petition. Mr. Reynolds refuted the petitioners’ right to the land, point by point on each piece of evidence. A key element of his argument was that the original 1728 and 1785 petitions had not been filed in the government archives of the city of Santa Fe until after The New Mexico Surveyor General Act of June 22, 1854—and therefore were inadmissible. In addition, the boundaries of the Cañada de Cochiti claim conflicted with other land claims, including the 1742 Ramón Vigil grant, the Rito de los Frijoles grant, the Cañon de San Diego grants of 1798 and 1788, the 1768 Ojo del Borrego grant and the Peralta grant. Furthermore, even if the grant had been made as alleged, it was never presented to the governor for examination and adjudication under provisions of a royal cédula of October 15, 1754, thereby nullifying all the claimants’ rights. Lastly, echoing the arguments that had been made by Mr. Julian, since José Antonio Lucero de Godoy had only asked for a piece of land on which to cultivate ten fanegas of wheat and two of corn and to pasture small stock and horses, it was clear that the boundaries of the claim as described could only have referred to the location of his small parcel of land and did not confer ownership of the entirety of those lands on the petitioner. Therefore, the grant was not entitled to confirmation under the laws of Spain or the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

The two sets of petitions were consolidated into a single case on September 21, 1894. The CPLC then held a series of hearings to make its determination. There were three primary legal issues that the court sought to adjudicate: 1) Was the grant that was allegedly made to José Antonio Lucero de Godoy in 1728 legitimate under the laws of Spain at the time and was the claim recognizable under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? 2) Were the petitioners legitimate claimants and heirs of the original grantee? and 3) What were the boundaries of the alleged grant and what amount of land were the petitioners entitled to? John H. Knaebel represented the plaintiffs under Case No. 205, N. B. Laughlin represented the plaintiffs under Case No. 240 and Matt G. Reynolds was the United States Attorney representing the defense.

Regarding the legitimacy of the 1728 land grant, the plaintiffs called as a witness Will M. Tipton, a special agent of the CPLC, custodian of the Spanish Archives of New Mexico, and an expert on colonial Spanish handwriting and phraseology, paper, ink, seals and signatures. He was asked to authenticate the 1728 and 1785 documents describing the land grant, as he was familiar with the signatures of the officials who had signed these documents. The defense objected to the introduction of the documents into evidence, as they had not been previously submitted under the rules of discovery established by the court and because they had come from private, non-official channels rather than from the Spanish Archives directly. The chief justice allowed them to be treated as provisional evidence, saying that they would rule on their admissibility later. Another witness, Román A. Baca, a 64-year-old farmer and stock raiser, resident of Peña Blanca, stated that the Lucero family had sent the original grant papers to the surveyor general sometime between 1860 and 1870—that he, Felipe Sandoval (F1b3(1)), Samuel Ellison and Manuel Lucero (F1f?) had brought the papers to the surveyor general’s office.

Regarding the legitimacy of the petitioners as claimants and heirs of José Antonio Lucero de Godoy, the plaintiffs’ attorneys called as a witness one of the petitioners under Case No. 240, Manuel Hurtado (E2c1), a 68-year-old farmer and resident of the Cañada de Cochiti. He had held several official positions in the New Mexico Territory, including first constable of Precinct No. 1 in Santa Ana County, justice of the peace for two terms in 1859 and 1866, sheriff of Santa Ana County from 1871-72 and first lieutenant of militia from 1861-1864 during the Civil War. He described the pedigree of the Lucero-Varela Jaramillo family, corroborating the lineage already presented in this chapter. He stated that his grandmother Francisca María Lucero (E2) had had nine children, María Ascención, Santiago, Isidro, Miguel, Dolores, Juana María, Manuel,[i] Antonio José, María and another named Dolores as well. He also named all of his siblings in descending order: Guadalupe, Vicente, Serafina, Antonio María and Francisca. The other family members who were land grant petitioners, like him, were Vicente, Francisca and the children of Serafina, who was already deceased. His sister Guadalupe Hurtado had sold her interest in the land to Mr. Whitney. As the plaintiffs’ attorney placed all of the deeds of conveyance into evidence, he questioned Mr. Hurtado regarding how the various individuals were related to the Lucero family. Given the length of the list, he provided Mr. Hurtado with a list of all the deeds of conveyance and asked him to mark the names of those who were descendants of José Antonio Lucero, which he did.[ii]

Mr. Hurtado also described the tenure of the family in the Cañada de Cochiti and their use of the land. Over the years, many family members had lost their lives defending their property from Navajo incursions. Navajo Indians had killed three of his father’s uncles as well as Cristóbal Lucero (F3), Rafael Antonio Lucero (D(1)1b), Román Lucero (E6), Loreta Lucero (unknown), José Apodaca (unknown) and a little girl, the daughter of Manuel Gonzáles (E2a2), who was killed at the family’s house. Laureano Lucero (G) had at one point given permission to the Cochiti Pueblo Indians to plant orchards at the junction of the Cañada de Cochiti and Rio Grande, the remnants of which were still visible. Another witness, José Sandoval (F1c(2)4(1)), a 62-year-old native of Santa Fe, resident of the Cañada de Cochiti and an aide of the government militia stated that Pablo Lucero (F1d1) was currently living at the house which was on the site of José Antonio Lucero’s original house. All of these facts helped the plaintiffs’ attorneys establish that the Lucero family was recognized as legitimate owners and occupants of the land.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys also offered into evidence a copy of the last will and testament of Francisca Varela Jaramillo, saying that the original was in the custody of Felipe Sandoval (F1b3(1)) of Peña Blanca.[iii] When Mr. Sandoval, a 66-year-old farmer and resident of Peña Blanca, appeared in court to testify, he said that he believed that Pablo Lucero (F1d1) was in possession of the original. Later when Pablo Lucero (F1d1), a 66-year-old farmer and resident of the Cañada de Cochiti, testified before the court, he stated that he was the custodian of the family papers with the consent of the family. He had in his possession the original last will and testament of his ancestor Francisca Jaramillo de Lucero, widow of Antonio Lucero, which he handed over to the plaintiff’s attorney. The attorney offered the document into evidence as Exhibit No. 8. This document further established the legitimacy of the Lucero family’s claim over the land grant.

Continued in Part 4. Subscribe to the blog to receive email updates.

Note: the source of the information regarding the history of the grant can be found in the New Mexico State Archives, Land Grant Case Files, Court of Private Land Claims Case No. 205 and 240 and Survey General Report No. 135.

[i] Manuel Hurtado (E2c1) stated that his father was Manuel Hurtado (E2c) who had died on January 15, 1877.

[ii] Manuel Hurtado (E2c1) marked up this original document with pencil check marks indicating which names were descendants of the Lucero-Varela Jaramillo Family. This document is part the land grant case file.

[iii] Felipe Sandoval had held several official positions, including captain of militia in 1861-1862 at the Civil War Battle of Valverde, justice of the peace in 1866-1867, senator in the territorial legislature in 1868-1869 and justice of the peace again in 1868-1869.