From Reparticiòn to Partition_ A History of the Mora Land Grant.pdf

New Mexico Historical Review
New Mexico Historical Review
Volume 70 Number 3 Article 3
7-1-1995
From Reparticiòn to Partition: A History of the Mora Land Grant,
From Reparticiòn to Partition: A History of the Mora Land Grant,
1835–1916
1835–1916
Robert D. Shadow
Marìa Rodrìguez-Shadow
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr
Recommended Citation
Recommended Citation
Shadow, Robert D. and Marìa Rodrìguez-Shadow. "From Reparticiòn to Partition: A History of the Mora
Land Grant, 1835–1916." New Mexico Historical Review 70, 3 (1995). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/
nmhr/vol70/iss3/3
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for
inclusion in New Mexico Historical Review by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information,
please contact disc@unm.edu.

From Reparticion To Partition:
A History of the Mora Land Grant,
1835-1916
ROBERT D. SHADOW AND MARiA RODRiGUEZ-SHADOW
The year was 1835, and the vivid hues of autumn were yielding to the
more somber tones of winter when the Alcalde of San Jose de las
Trampas, Manuel Antonio Sanchez, traveled over the Jicarita Mountains
to the pine- and pinon-clad valley known as Lo de Mora. Sanchez un-
dertook this journey as the representative of Alvino Perez, the jefe
politico of Nuevo Mexico. Located on the eastern slope of the Sangre
de Cristo range, several days ride from the provincial capital of Santa
Fe, the Mora valley formed a natural gateway to the buffalo lands .ofthe
southern plains. For generations Indian hunters, French trappers, and
Spanish-Mexican ciboleros (buffalo hunters) and comancheros (plains
traders) had exploited its resources and camped alongside its shimmer-
ing streams. By the early 1800s, a handful ofpaisanos (settlers), seek-
ing a better livelihood along the banks ofthe Rio Agua Negra (now the
Mora River), moved their families and livestock out of the increasingly
crowded mountain placitas and established a permanent agriculturally-
based settlement in the valley. Apparently, no government authority
directed the initial occupation of a land fraught with all the dangers of
frontier life. Raids and attacks from Comanches and Apaches-who
viewed this invasion of their hunting territory with hostility-ranked
among the most severe of these dangers. Just prior to Mexican inde-
pendence, possibly in 1818, seventy-six vecinos from Lo de Mora peti-
tioned the authorities for the establishment of a church in the valley,
Robert D. Shadow is professor of anthropology at the Universidad de las
Americas-Puebla and Maria Rodriguez-Shadow is researcher in the Department of Eth-
nology and Social Anthropology at the National Institute of Anthropology and History,
Mexico.
257

258 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW JULY 1995
. the valley, stating that because of the distance and difficulties of travel
to the mission at Picuris they did without the sacraments.· By the 1830s,
these agricultural colonists were unequivocally the newstewards ofthe
land. With their acequias (irrigation ditches), terraces, and suertes (long
lots that contained about 120 varas on average), they imprinted pro-
found changes on the social ecology of the valley that endure to the
present.2 Their enterprise and occupation of the land, however, still
lacked legal sanction and recognition from the appropriate authorities.
The purpose of Alcalde Sanchez's trip to Lo de Mora that autumn, there-
fore, was to rectify this situation through the laying out of plaza sites
and distributing agricultural and grazing lands to the seventy-six set-
tlers who had occupied the more favorable bottom lands alongside the
Agua Negra.3
In his first official act, conducted on 20 October 1835, Alcalde
Sanchez established the plaza of the Valle de Abajo, or the Valle de Santa
Gertrudis, on the south or right bank of the Agua Negra River. Situated
in the largest valley of the upper Agua Negra drainage at an elevation of
approximately 7,200 feet, the plaza of Santa Gertrudis measured 200
varas north-south and ISO varas on the east-west axis, with an external
perimeter of thirty varas designated as the "chorreros y pisos de todos."
A nearby vega (meadow) and the roads leading to it were likewise re-
served as public spaces ("y la vega para veneficio comim con sus
entradas y salidas libres").4 The Plaza of San Antonio, located some
three miles upstream from the lower valley, was laid out with identical
dimensions identical to those of Santa Gertrudis. Like Santa Gertrudis,
Sanchez also set aside the nearby cienega for the benefit of all the set-
tlers.
Once Alcalde Sanchez and his assistants defined the twin plazas,
they proceeded to measure and divide the irrigable agricultural land. At
Santa Gertrudis, Sanchez distributed 5,900 varas along both sides of
the Agua Negra among forty agraciados (grantees) in suertes.S He re-
peated the process at San Antonio where the amount of agricultural land
was more restricted than in the lower valley. Here, twenty-nine settlers
received approximately 3,610 varas. Most suertes measured 100 varas
although Miguel Olguin, one of the leading pobladores (settlers), re-
ceived 250 varas facing the plaza on the southeast.
Upon concluding the partition of the arable land and the layout of
the plaza sites, Alcalde Sanchez identified the general boundaries of the
ejidos(commons). Like the vegas and cienegas, they were specifically
designated for the common benefit of the grantees ("veneficio de los
agraciados y partes comunes deellos"). Roughly rectangular in shape,
the merced was bounded on the north by the Rio Ocate, on the south by
the confluence of the Rio Sapello and the Agua Negra, on the east by
the Aguaje de la Llegua (Yegua), and on the west by the Estillero.6
In

ROBERT D. SHADOW AND MARiA RODRIGUEZ-SHADOW 259
order to complete the formal act of possession, the agraciados performed
"en demostracion de a/egria arrancaron yerba, tiraron piedras,
exparcieron pUiladas de tierra, e hicieron otros actos posesorios dando
vivas aDios y a /a Nacion" ("in demonstration of joy they pulled up
grass, threw stones, scattered handfuls of earth, and made other acts of
possession shouting long live God and the Nation").
These actions thus established the Mora community grant, later
determined to encompass more than 827,000 acres. 7
As approved by
Governor Perez, the grant possessed an underlying ecological and eco-
nomic rationale and encompassed the entire watershed ofthe upper Agua
Negra fiver and its tributaries, as well as a wide range of altitudinal and
resource zones. The latter extended from the timber-rich Sangre de
Cristo inthe west, passed through the intermontane-cultivable valleys
at 7,000 to 8,000.feet, and ended at the grassy expanses of the high
plains at about 6,000 feet elevation at the longitude of present-day
Wagon Mound (see map 1). In accordance with custom and law, the
grant conveyed to the individual rights to house lots, irrigable bottom
lands along the Agua Negra, and communal rights that enabled the set-
tlers to exploit surrounding natural resources.
In 1846, when the United States Army of the West, under the com-
mand of Stephen W. Kearny, invaded New Mexico, the population of
the twin settlements of Santa Gertrudis-San Antonio had grown to some
940 rancheros.8
It appears that they strongly opposed the "gringo" in-
vasion and quickly joined their relatives and allies from west of the
Sangre de Cristo in the popular rebellion of 1847 that resulted in the
deaths of the American-imposed governor and other officials at Taos.9
At Mora, the Mexican defenders disarmed and fatally shot a num-
ber of Santa Fe traders in town where the revolt began. American troops
arrived to quell the uprising and, after initial failures and retreat, they
eventually defeated the insurgents who abandoned the town and fled
into the mountains. The Army destroyed much of the town with artil-
lery fire in order to punish the Morefios and to forcibly communicate
no tolerance for future opposition. 10 This American action firmly estab-
lished the futility of armed resistance. II Upon completion of the mili-
tary conquest, the Nuevomexicanos-with the exception of the
elites-found themselves reduced from a position of ethnic superiority
to one of cultural subordination. Because the Americans at that time
exhibited little interest in souls, the next phase of the conquest cen-
tered on power and profits.
In 1851, the U. S. Army founded Fort Union on the plains some
twenty miles east of Santa Gertrudis in order to "watch over" the Mexi-
can population, protect travelers along the Santa Fe trail, and serve as a
supply depot for Army operations throughout the region. 12
The impact
of the fort on local society, however, went far beyond the military ques-

Map: Mora County and the Mora Grant. D. Alvarez, C. Ai'lorve, and A. Flores
helped create the map.
glMORA
Colfax
(I Ft. Union
H III G
P L
D, AlvQN!'z C. ArJorve'
IV
0-
o
~
:E
~
><
r.;
o
:r:
en
d
~
(J
~
Gl
<
til
:E
~
"<
.-
0
0
1.1.

ROBEKf D. SHADOW AND MARiA RODIUGUEZ-SHADOW 261
tion of security. Politically, it represented the imposition ofa new state
power and thus constituted one of the earliest and most visible institu-
tions directly oriented toward redefining the nature ofthe region's rela-
tionship with the external world. MateriallY,Fort Union quickly
developed into an important economic force that affected the social
structure as well as the patterns of land use and tenure in Mora. The
buffalo plains around the fort became stock ranges, agriculture quickly
became a business, and the thirst for commercially valuable land cre-
ated spectacular possibilities for lawyers and other opportunists who,
(at least in popular thought), joined locusts, drought, and early frosts as
one of the most sinister plagues that threatened the small ranchero. The
1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo guaranteed property rights that de-
rived from Spanish and Mexican land grants, but court decisions found
that the burden of proof for establishing title fell on the claimants. In
July 1854, Congress created the office of the Surveyor General of New
Mexico in order to implement the provisions of the treaty and to inves-
tigate the validity and legality of the Spanish and Mexican land grants
presented for adjudication. 13
Five years later, in June of 1859, two prominent Mora residents,
Jose Maria Valdez and Vicente Romero, petitioned Surveyor General
William Pelham on behalf of themselves and other Mora inhabitants for
confirmation of the Mora grant. With an alacrity that became increas-
ingly atypical of the grant adjudication process, the United States Con-
gress accepted Pelham's recommendation and rejected the attorney
general's objections. This action confirmed the grant as Private Land
Claim Number 32 only one year after the initial filing. The Civil War
and growing government unease over the size and exact boundaries of
the grant, however, delayed the patent issuance for several years. Fi-
nally, in 1876 the General Land Office awarded the grant in the name of
the original seventy-six grantees, their heirs and assigns. By this time,
the lawyers and land speculators, led by Thomas B. Catron and Stephen
B. Elkins, had arrived. They had already obtained a large percentage of
the interests of these orginal grantees. One year after the patent issu-
ance, attorney Elkins and patron Vicente Romero filed suit in order to
. partition the grant among the various owners of these undivided inter-
ests. Much to the frustration of the speculators, however, the partition
of the grant proved extremely complex and the case languished in the
courts for more than a generation. Final adjudication did not occur until
early 1916 when District Court Judge David J. Leahy ordered the sale
(privatization and individualization) of unalloted common lands, thus
bringing a judicial-if not judicious-end to the history of the Mora
land grant.

262 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW JTJLY 1995
The late Clark Knowlton recently outlined the formal, legal history-
derived largely from court records-of the Mora land grant. 14 Thus far,
we might conclude that the historical significance ofthis case is merely
another illustration of Anglo land usurpation from Mexicano villagers
through American jurisdiction. 15 This is the conventional interpretation,
and that is how Catron and Elkins, or their successors obtained owner-
ship of 85 percent (600,000 acres) of Mora's common landsY
Recent research based on micro studies of individual grants sug-
gests instead that the traditional view-that much if not most of the
former commons of northern New Mexican land grants uniformly fell
into the hands of outside speculators or the United States government-.
may be overdrawn and subject to revision. G. Emlen Hall, for example,
used materials from the San Miguel del Bado grant, has argued that lo-
cal grant residents (not just Anglo outsiders) often successfully colo-
nized and established fee simple ·title to the former commons. 17 In short,
scholars argue that while the mercedes of northern New Mexico cer-
tainly share important features and fall within a particular institutional
genre, their histories manifest important variations due to differing ecolo-
gies, legal statutes, socioeconomic environments, and the ways in which
grant residents themselves responded to the assault on their patrimony.
The set of generalizations we address in this paper has to do with the
question of who actually obtained control and acquired ownership of
the former commons. Did all commons fall prey to outside speculators,
to the public domain, the railroads, Anglo homesteaders, and the na-
tional forests as conventional wisdom holds? Or, as Hall suggests, was
the process more complicated? To what extent did local people obtain
tenure over the commons, and what were the precise mechanisms by
which the commons were individualized and transformed into private
property?
Our on going analysis of the archival materials, some of which have
received little attention, suggests that the conventional genenllization
does indeed fail to adequately reflect the complexity ofland tenure evo-
lution in Mora. Perhaps the most glaring limitation is that in Mora, nei-
ther the railroads nor the public domain nor Anglo homesteaders
received any significant portion of the commons. IS The national forests,
on the other hand, arrived late in Mora and had no part in the suit that
resulted in alienating the ejidos. Ironically, their role in the history of
the Mora commons has been very different from that which is com-
monly thought. Of the five actors usually singled out as important agents
in the commons breakup. Only the outside Anglo speculators remain,
and though they certainly contributed extensively in the breakup ofthe
commons, it is our contention that previous accounts of the specula-
tors' role need revision. The other major beneficiaries were cattle ranch-
ers. While most (but not all) were Anglos, and some were definitely

ROBERTO. SHADOW AND MARlA ROORlGUEZ-SHADOW 263
"outsiders" or newcomers, others had resided on the land for decades
before the partition suit reached its conclusion in 1916. And local people,
for their part, were not totally excluded. Many grant residents success-
fully defended claims to tens of thousands of acres of former commons.
Knowlton's conclusion that the 85 percent of Mora's common lands
obtained by and transferred to speculators in fee simple tenure through
a court induced partition suitprovides a convenient point of departure
in this re-examination. We will attempt to demonstrate that the parti-
tion suit simply did not end this way. Knowlton's reconstruction relied
heavily on the court record and though he provided a splendid synthe-
sis of the formal and legal history of the grant and he admirably docu-
mented the politics involved in the grant's surveys as well as the activities
of the infamous Catron-Elkins duo, it is our thesis that he erred in treat-
ing the legal record and the ownership of interests as an entirely accu-
rate vision of the distribution of land "on the ground." We suggest, then,
that there were two levels of reality in the evolution of land tenure in
Mora (and, by extension, elsewhere). One level consists of the court
claims in which speculators, among others, demonstrated ownership of
a certain number of interests in the Mora grant through deed
conveyences. The other deals with de facto land possession, which did
not always coincide with interest ownership. Oue to the nature of the
archival sources he consulted, Knowlton failed to appreciate the impor-
__ .!ance of this distinction. He was therefore unable to perceive the varied
ways in which hundreds of thousands of acres of common lands be-
came de facto private property (that eventually received court recogni-
tion as such decades before the conclusion of the partition suit).
Second, Knowlton's account leaves the reader with the idea that
the amount of land open to common use remained stable between 1835
and 1916. We attempt to correct this perception and show that while the
speculators certainly acquired some healthy chunks of property after
the judge's gavel fell in 1916, it was by no means as much as Knowlton
claims.
Third, Knowlton's reconstruction is limited chronologically. Since
his intent was not to trace the evolution of tenure after 1916, he left the
important question of what happened to the commons after the parti-
tion suit pending. Clearly, the speculators did not cut up the commons
and pack it off for sale elsewhere. As Hall shows, determining who got
the land after ihe court battle's conclusion profoundly affects our as-
sessment of the entire drama. '9
Fourth, and most importantly, the idea that 80 percent or more of
the common lands fell to outsiders atthe turn of the century suggests
- that the dispossession of rural Mexicanos is a fait accompli, not an on-
going process. Ironically, this assumption draws attention away from
the fact that the struggle for the land and its. water is a serious con-

264 NEW MEXICO HISTOIUCAL REVIEW JlJLY 1995
temporary issue, and in some grants, Mora included, the most dramatic
shift in land use and in the ethnicity of land tenure occurred not sev-
enty or eighty years ago but within the last generation.
And finally, the Mora materials call attention to another facet ofthe
struggle for land and the privatization of the ejidos: the role of the local
elite. The common view rightly calls attention to the sharp, often un-
ethical and at times illegal, activities of outside agents. The speculators,
railroads, national forests, homesteaders, Surveyor General's office,
Court of Private Land Claims, General Land Office, and the New Mexico
courts are key actors. With the exception of studies such as Robert
Rosenbaum's nuanced analysis of the role of class, ethnicity, and fac-
tionalism in the struggle for land and cultural survival in nineteenth-
century New Mexico, local society is often portrayed as a monolithic
block.20
Without denying the presence and power exercised by outside
agents in the struggle for the commons, we would like to return local
peoples to a more central, active, and transformative role in their own
history, as well as pay closer attention to the relationship of internal
social differentiation and class stratification in the breakup of the com-
mons. Local society responded to capitalist expansion, commodity pro-
duction, and the privatization of resources not only through resistance
but also with opportunism. In the discussion to follow, we will meet
many individuals-mostly elite members of Mora society-who litigated
and fought not so much to defend the commons as to get a piece of it.
Unlike the hundred or so prior mercedes, Mora came to life on the
eve of a new historic age; an age in which commercial capitalism, indi-
vidualism, and commoditization began to thoroughly redefine the
centuries-old regime of corporate social structures, communal owner-
ship of land, and subsistence-oriented economies. In fact, it appears
that the new forces affected the nature of the Mora grant even before
the agraciados cheerfully shouted their "vivas aDios y a La NaciOn" on
that October day in 1835. While the wording and structure of the Mora
grant conformed with long-standing usages-private arable land, pub-
lic meadows, common pastures and forests-the very size of the Mora
grant suggests that the Mexican government's land policy east of the
Sangre de Cristo was motivated as much by geopolitical considerations
(and possibly by officials' greed) as by the desire to legalize the set-
tlers' occupation of public land. 21
By the 1830s, in response to the real-
ity of American expansionism, traditional institutions such as the
community or settler merced (customarily granted to satisfy the subsis-
tence requirements of a local population in new areas of settlement)
redefined themselves and evolved new functions and meanings that in-
cluded ways to create a bulwark against American encroachment as well
as encourage the ideology of quick wealth through speculation.22
Mora
was but one of a number of huge grants made during the Mexican pe-

ROBEIIT D. SHADOW AND MARIARODIUGUFZ-SHADOW 265 "
riod to the north and east of the old core of Spanish settlement and the
approximately 827,000 acres that fell within Mora's boundaries far ex-
ceeded the immediate needs ofthe seventy-six grantees and their fami-
lies who clustered in two small placitas in the grant's southwest corner.
H is not surprising then that the grant, encompassing a huge amount of
"unoccupied" land and born under the dawning light of speculation in
which both the Mexican and Anglo elite operated as the principal archi-
tects, would find itself subjected to incredible transformative pressures
as a result of class differentiation, economic growth, and population in-
crease.
Be that as it may, the image we have of land tenure in 1835 Mora is
one in which individual families controlled some 1,450 acres at Santa
Gertrudis and a smaller amount at San Antonio. Clearly the economic
and social conditions o~the region at that time impeded the use of such
a huge amount of land by the original colonists. In fact, it appears that
throughout the 1830s and 1840s settlers did not consider the valley of
Mora, despite its fertile soils, abundance ofland and water, magnificent
scenery, and proximity to the Santa Fe Trail an attractive locale in which
to settle down and raise a family. Both Indians and Texans claimed the
lands east of the mountains and both expressed their control through
force of arms. Though the data is more suggestive than conclusive, it
appears that raids, or at least the threat of raids, from either the ancient
inhabitants or the aggressive Texans compelled many of the early
pobladores in Mora to abandon their suertes and move back to the west-
ern, more "civilized" side of the Sangre de Cristo. Of the original
seventy-six grantees, less than half (thirty or so) remained alive and/or
resided on the grant at the time of the last Mexican census in 1845. For
those who stayed, the insecurity of the area was such that not only did
they construct their houses in the traditional defensive plaza style, but
they also erected a wood block house and a two-story adobe fort on the
northwest and southeast corners of the plaza.23
The land and water re-
sources in the villages on the western side of the Sangre de Cristo, how-
ever, proved inadequate to meet the residents' demands and, as
population grew, many families moved over the mountains to the Mora
drainage. Since land was abundant and the new settlers contributed to
the area's security, the locals usually welcomed them and they easily
obtained permission to settle. In general, there were two traditional strat-
egies utilized in the early decades of the grant's history to obtain recog-
nized land rights. Both mechanisms contributed substantially to the·
fragmentation of the original common lands.
The first mechanism consisted of a subdivision of the original
merced. Used only during the Mexican period, it involved the issuance
of an independent grant for lands within the original merced. These sec-
ondary grants, or grants-within-grants, had to receive the governor's

266 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW JULy 1995
approval as well as that of the settlers on the original grant. They appear
to be unique to the Mora-Las Vegas area.24
In the case of Mora, five
secondary mercedes appear in the historical record; three were com-
munity or settler grants (Guadalupita, Manuelitas, and the John Scolly
or La Junta grant), and two were claimed by individuals: the Ocate grant
by Manuel Alvarez and the Santiago Bone grant. Although the United
States government eventually confirmed only one (the Scolly grant),
the fact that so many overlapping/rival claims existed speaks of an in-
creasingly intense struggle for land that developed along the eastern flank
of the Sangre de Cristo in the years immediately preceding the Ameri-
can invasion. 2s An extremely complex and multi-faceted phenomenon,
the competition involved groups and lone individuals that expressed
differing class interests, social organizations, and ethnic identities in their
interactions with each other and with the physical environment. The
results could be subtle and brutal. Consequently, even though both com-
munity settler and individual grants were, legally speaking, simply sub-
types of mercedes, they in fact represented very different social and
economic realities.
Small farmers and ranchers, for example, favored the more tradi-
tional community grants to obtain access to the strategic resources nec-
essary for social reproduction that operated under conditions of petty
commodity production which, in turn, was based upon crop- and
livestock-raising. Three of the community grants in the Mora area (the
original Mora grant and the Guadalupita and Manuelitas secondary
grants) centered on settlements located in intermontane valleys. They
consisted of a core, privatized area of tillable bottom lands and an out-
lying, communal area that included forests and pastures as well as the
headwaters and courses of the streams and acequias used for irrigation.
These grants, therefore, fostered a sense of place and community de-
fined in terms of a set of common social interests focused on but not
limited to the land and its resources. In contrast, the Scolly grant di-
verged from this pattern. Located further out on the plains at the strate-
gic junction of the Mora and Sapello rivers, it was originally issued as a
settler grant complete with commons. Apparently, though, the grantees
and their successors (mostly Anglo) treated the grant as private prop-
erty and quickly divided the arable and pasture lands into individual
ranches.
In this division, the Scolly grant represented sociologically, if not
legally, the individual grants that responded to a different set of class
interests, economic agendas, and social actors than what the commu-
nity grants did. Here the goal was not simply "subsistence" but rather
profits-either through the sale of the land (speculation) or commercial
ranching. Located on the eastern grasslands beyond the intermontane
valleys in drier and ecologically less diverse areas lacking both the for-

ROBERT D. SHADOW AND MARiA RODRiGUEZ-SHADOW 267
est and agricultural resources of the west, the individual grants were
better suited for grazing rather than planting. Sparsely populated, they
lacked the centripetal forces of commons and acequias that fostered the
development of collective sensibilties in the settler grants.
The other method for the division and apportionment ofland in Mora
consisted of hijuelas (titles or deeds) issued by the juez de paz (local
authorities) to individual settlers/petitioners for specific plots or prop-
erties within a merced. The hijuelas often confirmed existing occupa-
tion, and in most cases conferred fee simple tenure for small tracts of
land that were usually, but not always, designated for agricultural suertes
and domestic solares (house plots). In contrast to the mercedes, the
newly-created juez de pruebas (probate judges) continued to grant
hijuelas throughout the first thirty years of American occupation, as-
suming many functions of the traditional juez de paz. Our discussion
here will focus on the hijuelas, since they shed much light on the his-
tory of settlement and patterns of land tenure in Mora during the early
Territorial period.
Mercedes grants, which required the approval of provincial officials,
ceased in 1846 with the end of Mexican rule over the territory. Hijuelas
grants, on the other hand, continued to to operate well into the Ameri-
can period because they were prerogatives of local officials. This was
common in Mora and Las Vegas.26 To date, we have uncovered more
than a hundred separate hijuelas drawn up for lands within the Mora
grant. The earliest was issued in 1838, the last in 1883; the majority date
from the 1850s and 1860s.
Our analyses of these hijuelas show that once colonists nominally
occupied the forested valley of Santa Gertrudis-San Antonio, they then
turned their attention eastward towards the Santa Fe trail and to the
more open valleys and riverine environment of the grassy plains. The
puestos (outposts) of Golondrinas (1838), La Junta (1842), La Cueva
de los Pescadores (1844; now known.simply as La Cueva), and Buena
Vista (1844) were among the first occupied, and all were located along
the Mora river downstream from Santa Gertrudis, adjacent narrow rib-
bons of irrigable bottom lands snaking across the open plains. Whereas
the initial settlements of Santa Gertrudis-San Antonio provided access
to water, farmland, and forest, the new settlements oriented themselves
toward water, farmland, and grass; a combination that reflects the cen-
tral importance that buffalo ·hunting and sheep herding played in this
expanding ranchero economy.27 .
Once the Americans arrived, the pace of regional reorganization of
geopolitical and ethnic relations that began with the initiation of the Santa
Fe trade intensified.· Commerce and Indian hostilities increased, Fort
Union was established in 1851; and the first wave of immigrants from
Europe and the eastern United States arrived. In just fifteen years,

1845-60, the population grew from less than one thousand to over 5,500.
Within the Mora grant, the attention of the settlers returned to the shel-
tered intermontane valleys of the west. During the early 1850s, colo-
nists formally occupied the most attractive valley lands around the Santa
Gertrudis-San Antonio core: Coyote and Santa Rita Coyote (now known
as Lucero), located along the Coyote river a few kilometers below
Guadalupita, had settlers by 1853. Guadalupita, initially settled in 1837
but later abandoned, was reoccupied, while lands at Agua Negra
(Holman), lying upstream from San Antonio, were granted by 1856, as
were lands at La Cebolla (Ledoux), located in a parallel valley south of
Santa Gertrudis.28
Thus, by the mid-1850s, settlers occupied the most
attractive bottom land sites within the upper Mora drainage. In many
cases, the suertes ran from the river or stream up to the ceja (ridge) of
the mesa or hills enclosing the valley and separating it from the adja-
cent drainage. This pattern gave each colonist direct access to water,
arable land, and limited forest resources for firewood and building ma-
terials. It also had the effect of partitioning and privatizing much of the
intermontane forest reserve within the grant. This was especially true
for the hills that separated the Rio Agua Negra-Mora from the Rio
Cebolla to the south, and from the Rio Coyote on the north.
During the next decade colonists continued to arrive and establish
new settlements further up the Mora and its tributaries toward the higher
valley lands located at the foothills of the mountains; Monte Aplanado
and Cafiada del Carro appear in public records for the first time in 1867
and 1868, respectively. At the same time, both individuals and groups
of settlers received hijuelas for lands at intervening areas such as
Chupaderos (1868) and La Jara-Laguna (1867-68), and for arable lands
in the eastern part of the grant at Ojo Feliz, Ciruela (1869) and Ocate.
The Ocate valley was among those sites allotted to a group of colo-
nists; in 1865, an unoccupied area at Ojito del Salitre was divided into
fourteen parcels: eleven of the agraciados received one-hundred varas,
another agraciados acquired fifty. The three principal pobladores, how-
ever-Dionisio, Ursulo, and Urban Lucero-claimed a total of975 varas.
The settlers apparently knew of the Ocate grant and were aware ofthe
possibility that others might file counterclaims for the lands these
pobladores possessed, since they all agreed to share legal costs for any
future litigation concerning their titles. 29
In June of 1869 a group of thirty-three settlers requested a new
repartici6n of the lands at Golondrinas that lay abandoned during the
late 1850s. Included among the petitioners were six non-Mexicans who
hoped to take advantage of their proximity to Fort Union. One month
later, the Juez de Pruebas, Vicente Romero, approved the petition.30

ROBERfD. SHADOW ANDMAIUARODRiGUEZ-SHADOW 269
We will refer to those hijuelas made to groups of petitioners as "set-
tler hijuelas" in order to distinguish them from the hijuelas issued to
individuals. Settler hijuelas were really subgrants, and unlike the indi-
vidual hijuela, conveyed to the recipients rights to more than just arable
property. In the case of the Ocate and Golondrinas hijuelas, for example,
the settlers obtained a block of land that included both arable and pas-
ture land as well as some woodland. Though the granting of sub-grants
and settler hijuelas within an original grant represented the continua-
tion of the traditional pattern, it also contributed paradoxically to the
fragmentation and progressive individualization of the grant's lands.
Rather than remaining in the hands of the grant's trustees-the com-
munity as a whole-the rights of property and usufruct ended up in the
control of the residents of the distinct settlements. In other words, the
settler hijuelas granted to the inhabitants of a particular placita both ar-
able and pasture land, and effectively prohibited other grant residents
from using those lands. Under these settler hijuelas, the agraciados and
their heirs treated the pasture lands as their exclusive domain and after
five years of occupation and use, they came to consider these lands as
private property. In this manner, important quantities of what was origi-
nally common land came to pass into the de facto and even de jure
private control of local settlers.
The cases of Golondrinas and Ocate especially illustrate this pro-
cess. The Golondrinas settlers received approximately 30,000 acres for
their exclusive use. 31
While no mention either of the number of varas or
the amount of arable land within the area each settler received exists,
the greater part of this acreage consisted largely of grazing land, and
this property was reserved for the thirty-three agraciados. The
repartici6n of the lands at Ocate also exemplifies the growing trend to-
ward exclusivity of private property rights over grazing lands. The fif-
teen recipients of the Ocate hijuela received in private property their
cultivable suertes adjacent to the Rio LeFebres as well as collective
ownership of a surrounding tract of grazing lands of unknown acreage.
No one questioned the fact that these lands were reserved for the exclu-
sive use of the agraciados since the petitioners clearly stated that they
promised to improve the land with a fence. Substantial tracts of nearby
pastures were also under private domain by this time since the eastern
border of the Ojito del Salitre settlers was the estancia (cattle ranch) of
Santiago Valdez. 32
We have highlighted the information contained in the documents
that relates to the northern and eastern parts of the Mora grant because
the major part of the original common lands were located in these ar"
eas. If it is true that huge portions of the Mora grant entered the twenti-
eth century as common lands and did not become privatized until the
conclusion of the partition suit in 1915-16, then the eastern grazing lands

would be most affected. The available documentation is frustratingly
incomplete and we cannot present a detailed history of the evolution of
land tenure in these areas at this time. If the data contained in the docu-
ments from Golondrinas, Ocate and from other localities in the eastern
half of the grant are representative, however, then it seems that even by
the 1860s large portions (but not all) of the lands suitable for grazing
were occupied and either under de facto private control or considered a
collective resource of the nearby residents, and were therefore no longer
available to any and all who resided on the grant. This seems especially
true for lands located adjacent to water sources. We know that many of
these tracts were effectively privatized simply through occupation and
that people seldom made or recorded deeds. If they were recorded, they
often appear in deed books as one of the many "confirmations" of ex-
isting rights drawn up early in the twentieth century. In fact, we suspect
that by the turn of the century, settlers who controlled nearby sources
of water or who owned capital in the form of cattle and/or sheep were
exploiting much of the eastern "commons." Most discussions overlook
this point, implying instead that "open" commons facilitated the devel-
opment of a democratic, egalitarian social organization predicated on
equal access to pasture. In the case of the open commons of the eastern
grasslands, the situation appears just the opposite, since livestock own-
ership-one of the principal forms of wealth in this agrarian society-
was highly stratified. The 1880 agricultural census, for example, shows
that only 22 percent (n=55) of a total of 248 "farm operators" in five
precincts reported sheep "on hand," and but a handful of operators held
most of the reported animals. 33
It is highly unlikely that the hundreds of
small and medium-size rancheros residing in the placitas of western Mora
(ten to twenty-five miles away) directly exploited the eastern commons.
Rather, the few wealthy individuals who owned most of the livestock
and contributed to the subsistence of the many Uobs or income through
partido contracts) held the eastern part of the grant in oligopolistic con-
trol. Olen Leonard stated the case clearly in his 1940 study of El Cerrito
in neighboring San Miguel county:
[I]n most ofthe Spanish-American villages the "common" or grazing
lands were being used by only a few families. Although many ofthe
grantees would retain a few sheep or cattle most of the livestock be-
came concentrated in a few hands. These big livestock owners were
known as the patrones of the villages upon whom the majority of the
other families depended for work.34
Through investment in and ownership of livestock, large ranchers
and patrones gradually came to control much of the grazing land and
eventually used occupancy as their principal argument in sustaining

ROBElUD. SHADOW ANDMAIUARODRiGUEZ-SHADOW .271
claims of absolute property rights to the commons during the partition
suit. Numerous examples abound that suggest that decades before the
1916 conclusion of the partition suit great tracts of the original ejidos
were no longer free and open. Instead, wealthy individuals and eventu-
ally large cattle companies became the principal controllers of these range
lands. However, our thesis-that many tens of thousands of acres even-
tually fell under the control of a few-does not imply that small ranch-
ers were totally excluded from the commons by the 1870s or 1880s. The
commons were still an important and valuable component in the liveli-
hoods of los hombre pobres at this time, and many took actions in order
to defend these lands against speculators and large ranches.3
' In 1878,
920 Mora residents petitioned Congress to reconsider the grant's con-
firmation since the wording of the patent clearly opened the door for a
speculator takeover. 36
Their request fell on deaf ears, and by 1890, the
Gonas Blancas undertook more direct action by extending their fence-
cutting.activities-a protest against timber resource losses and commons
enclosures-from neighboring San Miguel County to Mora. 37
The reduction of the Mora commons, then, was a process that lasted
many decades. Although the settler hijuelas contributed to this process,
the available evidence suggests that the bulk of the lands removed from
common tenure on the eastern ranges were privatized through simple
occupation without formal community approval and without clear legal
title. Large Anglo-owned cattle companies were the major actors in this
takeover of the commons, and became important targets for the Gonas
Blancas.
The Western Investment Company, for example, held 8,000 acres in
the east central portion of the grant and claimed that it had been in open,
"uncontested" possession of the property since 1860.38
An even larger
tract of land, c~nsisting of some 60,000 valuable acres in the same area,
had been occupied since the 1890s.39
The Wendling Cattle Company
"owned" roughly 21,472 acres in the southeast corner of the grant adja-
cent the Mora river. We have no documentation concerning "purchases"
or transactions that conveyed ownership of these lands. It appears that
the company simply moved its stock onto the range prior to 1896, ex-
ploited it as private property, and eventually claimed ownership on the
basis of occupancy.40 In similar fashion, John D. W. and Elmer E. Veeder
obtained file title to the Laguna Salada ranch, which encompassed some
17,000 acres near Fort Union.41
Many non-Mexicano ranchers claimed
that they obtained their properties in the 1860s and 1870s through pur-
chases from previous Mexicano owners who, in turn, had established
legal rights to the land through occupancy and use. William B. Brunton
was one of these who put together a very valuable ranch along the Mora
river at Cherry Valley in 1884. He stated he had obtained his ranch, which
included both irrigated bottom land and upland pasture, through pur-

chase from previous owners and residents. While Brunton and other
"second generation" owners in the area drew up deeds to formalize their
transactions, "first generation" residents presented no legal documen-
tation or citations to support their title claims.42
In his statement to the
court, Brunton took special care to emphasize that he held the land un-
der absolute ownership and not as a cotenant of the Mora grant.43
The Union Land and Grazing Company-formed in 1885 by east-
ern speculators and capitalists who eventually bought the interests of
Stephen B. Elkins in the Mora grant-waged the most aggressive and
successful campaign for the privatization of the eastern pastures.44
In
one of its more spectacular moves, the company took advantage of the
vacuum produced by the abandonment of Fort Union and the cessation
of the Army's claim to the 50,000 acres which had comprised the Fort
Union Military Reservation. When the Army ceded the premises in 1894,
title reverted to the "owners" of the grant. Union Land and Grazing,
claiming that it held interests equivalent to 90 percent of the land in that
part of the grant, immediately occupied the premises, known as the Fort
Union Range and Pasture, and within ten years fenced it with barbed
wire on three sides.4s
The company's occupation of these pastures did not go uncontested;
however. In 1913 it filed suit against a local resident, Marcos Salas,
charging him with illegally pasturing 250 sheep on the southern part of
the range held in reserve for winter grazing of cattle. What is especially
significant in this case is that in his defense, Salas did not argue that the
lands were open commons or public domain. Rather, he claimed that
the lands in question-some 2,500 acres located north of the commu-
nity of Lorna Parda-were owned by his brother Porfirio Salas who pas-
tured more than 700 sheep on the land and who had already initiated a
quiet title suit for the premises against the claims of Union Land and
Grazing.46
Salas could not provide documentation to support his occu-
pation of the pastures, and he obviously he lacked the political leverage
possessed by Union Land and Grazing. Consequently, the court decided
in favor of the latter, decreeing that Salas' property consisted of a much
smaller tract restricted to the Mora river valley and did not include the
adjacent upland pasture. In November of the same year, the company
obtained a perpetual injunction prohibiting the Salas brothers from tres-
passing on the company's property. 47 Union Land and Grazing's control
of these and other adjacent properties was formalized in 1914 when it
obtained title to a total of 73,734 contiguous acres in the Fort Union-
Turkey Mountain area. Some 1,700 acres controlled by the residents of
Lorna Parda comprised the only common lands in the area to survive
this onslaught.48

ROBERT D. SHADOW AND MARiA RODRlGUEZ-SHADOW 273
In short, by the late 1860s and continuing through the 1870s and
1880s Anglo cattle ranchers-independents as well as companies-
moved onto the open and sparsely populated ranges of the eastern part
of the grant. Through the purchase of undivided interests in the grant
from heirs of the original agraciados, or more commonly, through occu-
pation of tracts of these open ranges, they established proprietary rights
to the former commons which the courts eventually confirmed as fee
simple tenure during the course of the partition suit. The significance of
the partition suit, therefore, was not that it suddenly "sold-off' half a
million or more acres of common land to outside speculators in a single
1916 transaction. Rather, the partition suit served as the mechanism
which gave legal sanction and title to the existing occupation of hun-
dreds of thousands of acres by "segregating" these properties from the
undivided lands claimed by speculators. Western Investment, Wendling
Cattle, the Veeders, Union Land and Grazing, William Brunton, .and many
others all received title to their claims as a result of the partition suit.
The 1916 sale, which disposed of the commons that had survived until
that date, did not affect their properties.
In the central part of the grant, the trend toward the privatization of
the commons also proceeded at a brisk pace after the 1850s. Due to the
existence of riverine agricultural villages and a more populated and com-
petitive social landscape, however, the mechanisms most preferred by
astute and powerful men for taking over the commons consisted of the
combination of purchase and occupancy. While William Brunton's
Cherry Valley property mentioned above illustrates this process, one of
the best documented examples involved Mora county Probate Judge
Vicente Romero. By 1853 Romero, who' had married a daughter of one
of the original Mora grantees, had begun an aggressive program to ob-
tain the lands in and'around La Cueva, a particularly attractive and well-
watered locale nested between three streams: the Coyote and Mora rivers
and La Jara creek. During the 1850s and 1860s, Romero bought out most,
ifnot all, of the original settlers-agraciados at La Cueva, obtaining title
to the suertes of 50, 100, or 150 varas which the grantees had received
in private ownership at the time of the repartition of the La Cueva lands
in 1844. This was not simply an economic process, however, since force
and politics were involved, and not all the sales were without coercion.
Jose Manuel Cordoba, owner of an impressive 3,200 varas of land along
the Coyote River, felt so harassed by the trespass of Romero's herds of
cattle, horses, and sheep on his lands that he sued Romero in District
Court for damages. Eventually, though, he realized that the combina-
tion of court costs, the continuing predations of Romero's stock, and
Romero's political clout were overwhelming, and he finally decided to
sell out to the patron for twenty-five cents per vara. 49

274 NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW JULY 1995
Once Romero had consolidated his control over the low-lying agri-
cultural lands along the waterways, he enclosed them with a fence, and
built an impressive six-mile-long irrigation ditch that watered the cul-
tivated lands and led into two artificial reservoirs. The adjacent upland
or pasture land between the fenced-in arable land and the surrounding
hills was managed as private property, since these pastures were recog-
nized as having "belonged" to the holders of the original suertes. Dur-
ing testimony taken to establish the ownership of the Romero lands,
Rafael, Vicente's son, fielded questions as to how the pasture lands were
managed "with reference to the animals of other people." He answered:
"They were always kept off. They were not allowed in there unless it
was by consent or pay."SO Ultimately, the Romero property grew to
20,000 acres, and the La Cueva Ranch Company, which succeeded the
family-owned business in 1883, claimed that improvements on the ranch
totaled at least $lOO,OOO.sl After their purchase of the property, the
Anglo-financed company immediately put up some forty miles offence
around the property, enclosing in the process some adjacent "unoccu-
pied" grazing land which had not been included in the original sale. Their
justification for taking possession of these lands was a one seventy-
sixth interest in the grant purchased from C. T. C. White, one of the
financial backers of the La Cueva Ranch Company. S2
The same process, although on a much smaller scale, occurred to
the south, on the Sapello river. Jose Y. Lujan purchased or otherwise
obtained rights to eighteen to twenty of the original suerte allotments
and consolidated them into a single ranch of some 1,480 acres which
included agricultural bottomlands as well as open pasture. S3 Nearby,
Henry Goke had obtained a deed from Aniceto Salazar in May of 1872
for a piece of property which consisted of rolling upland mainly suited
for pasture but with some cultivable land. Goke's employee, John Tay-
lor, testified that one of his major responsibilities included making sure
that other people's stock did not invade the land. Taylor claimed (truth-
fully or not) that the residents of Sapello had recognized the land as
Goke's property since at least 1872. Other witnesses, including Juan
Jose Marea and Julian Blea corroborated Taylor's testimony, but we do
not know if all ofGoke's neighbors agreed with this. Goke himself stated
that in addition to the deed obtained in 1872, he had received two other
conveyances from the same Salazar in 1883 for about 1,600 acres, and
that he used the lands exclusively for pasture. He further claimed that
some of the lands in question had been under exclusive ownership since
the mid-1840s. S4
Another mechanism employed to transform former ejidos into pri-
vate property decades before the 1916 settlement of the partition suit
consisted in a novel use of the hijuela. Traditionally, individual or pri-
vate hijuelas were granted only for agricultural suertes and/or house

lots. By the 1860s, however, in apparent response to economic growth
and the increasing commercial value of local resources, a number of
individuals received hijuelas which granted them title to forest and pas-
ture lands-properties once considered communal resources. It is diffi-
cult to determine how widespread this practice was since we have
uncovered only three donaciones or titu/os of this type, and all were
granted in the period when Vicente Romero held the office of Mora
county probate judge. The first was issued in 1860 to Frank Weber, one
of the agraciados in the second distribution of land at Golondrinas.
Weber solicited and was granted "un pedaso de tierra en e/ /lano para
(pastura?) para sus anima/es co/indantes a sus terrenos."55 Weber al-
ready held lands north and west of this"pedaso," which bounded on
the east and south by streams. Although Weber was an Anglo, this valu'-
able property did not remain in Anglo hands since he marrried a local
woman and by the second generation the Weber lineage had become
thoroughly Mexicano in culture and identity, reflecting a common pat-
tern throughout the early twentieth century.
A second titulo was issued to Tomas Lucero in 1868 for a strip of
property (three and one-haif miles long and possibly one and one-half
miles wide) located between the communities of La Cueva and
.Manuelitas in the south central part of the grant. Although the docu-
ments do not provide details on the nature or potential use of the land,
the general area which it describes is mostly low forest, with limited
amounts of meadow and arable land.56
Probate judge Vicente Romero
made the third donaci6n in the same year for another tract of mountain
forest west of San Antonio. Originally granted to three individuals, this
"pedaso" extended from the peaks of the Jicarita Mountains to the low~r
foothills, and contained as much as 20,000 acres covered in pine and
spruce.57 Clearly, Romero made this hijuela in response to the increas-
ing demand and value of timber. The competition for timber had inten-
sified by the end of the century and a number of local entrepreneurs
had set up small commercial sawmills throughout the area. Much of the
timber for these operations came from the "common" undivided forest
reserves, which was exploited by the mill owners as if it were private
property.
By the 1880s, the pressures for individualization and privatization
had grown so intense that not only were donaciones issued for forest
and range lands, but even the "ancient" vega lands located adjacent to
the communities were eventually divided among the inhabitants. In 1887
the authorites of Santa Gertrudis de Mora convened a public meeting in
which they "enthusiastically" decided to divide the 780 acres of the ad-
jacent meadows among the 311 residents who possessed recognized
rights to the commons. In a transaction which clearly reflected the pa-
triarchal social order and gender hierarchy, the commons were divided

into parcels of two and one-half acres for each male twenty-one years
of age or over. Only widowed female heads of household could obtain
land parcels. A commission of twenty "leading" community members
presided over the survey and repartition of the lands, thus bringing to
an end the last of the common lands in the valley of Santa
Gertrudis-Mora. S8 The same process occurred at Guadalupita in 1889.
There a five-man committee supervised the division of the common
lands vacated in the Guadalupita canyon (upriver from the community?)
into eighty-five parcels (each 195 yards wide).s9
Wherever we look, whether to the forested mountain slopes of the
western part of the grant, or to the open grasslands of the center and
east, or to the community vegas themselves, we find evidence of
privatization and individualization of categories of land-pasture and
forest-which had traditionally been reserved for community use. The
importance of this material is that it demonstrates the problems with
the schematic view that the only private lands within the Mora grant
prior to the conclusion of the partition suit consisted of valley bottom
lands, that the ejidos and forests remained essentially intact as commu-
nity preserves, and that only outsiders and speculators were involved in
the process of privatization. On the basis of our data such an interpreta-
tion is no longer sustainable. By no means are we suggesting that all the
common lands were privatized prior to the partition suit. What we are
arguing is that the partition suit comprised the provocative climax to a
process that began half a century earlier and which involved not only
the courts and speculators but also cattlemen and local people-all en-
gaged in a struggle for increasingly valuable land and water-who ma-
nipulated both traditional instruments (such as hijuelas) and introduced
legal concepts and mechanisms to gain control of increasingly valuable
resources. These approaches included the idea that the grant belonged
only to those named in the patent, and that the grant could be divided
into seventy-six interests or fractions thereof.
Previous accounts of the privatization of the Mora commons have
correctly emphasized the role of outside speculators and the United
States judicial system. It is clear that poli tically powerful men like
Stephen Elkins contributed in a major way to the privatization of the
commons through their capacity to affect the patenting process in Con-
gress. These men also imposed the concept that the seventy-six grant-
ees and "their heirs and assigns"-rather than the grant residents as a
corporate body-owned the grant. This major legal coup effectively sub-
verted the original social nature of the community grant and allowed
the speculators to claim ownership of much of the grant and to institute
the partition suit which legally terminated the era of common lands.
What some of the speculators claimed they owned on the basis of the
deeds they held, and what they actually possessed were two different

things, however. To understand these events and to appreciate the role
of the partition suit in the privatization of the common lands we turn
now to the court record and to activities of the speculators.
Unlike the majority ofland grants in northern New Mexico, the Mora·
grant moved through the process of confirmation rapidly. As mentioned,
the process was initiated in the mid-1850s when Jose Maria Valdez and
Vicente Romero, two of the wealthiest men in Mora, requested, through
their attorneys, the confirmation of the grant "on behalf of themselves
and the other inhabitants settlers of the valley of Mora" (sic).60 On 9
July 1859, Surveyor General William Pelham recommended approval of
the grant, and the following year, on 21 June 1860, Congress confirmed
the grant. Before it could be patented, however, the grant first had to be
surveyed. Here problems and controversy arose as to the precision of
the origi nal survey, the location of the grant's boundaries, the actual
size of the grant, and confusipn over the status of Fort Union (eventu-
ally segregated from the grant) and the John Scolly grant located at the
Sape1l6-Mora junction.61 These problems entailed both political and
technical resolutions, which took sixteen years to work out. The patent
was eventually issued on 15 August 1876 in the name of the original
seventy-six agraciados, "their heirs and assigns," for the amount of
827,621 acres. 62
The patent's wording and issuence in the name of the seventy-six
settlers and their heirs and assigns represented a significant redefinition
of the grant's ownership. Remember that Jose Maria Valdez and Vicente
Romero had sought confirmation of the grant "on behalf of themselves
and other inhabitants, settlers of the Valley of Mora." Through this state-
ment, they acted in accordance with the long-established principle that
the unalloted lands of the grant belonged to the community as a corpo-
rate body, and that all recognized residents and members possessed
rights in the corporate resources.63 This action followed the spirit of the
"community grant" and the theory under which the probate judges in
Mora operated when they granted land through the issuance of hijuelas
and titulos de propiedad. Under United States jurisdiction, however, the
concept of the "settler grant" or "tenants in common" arose, based on
the premise that the ownership of tIle grant rested not with the residents
and members of the community but solely with the original grantees or
with those who derived title through purchase or inheritance from these
original "owners."64 The question of to whom the grant would be issued
factored into the negotiations during the long patenting process. Would
it be patented in the name of the "Town of Mora" in accordance with
the usage found in the Surveyor General's record, or would it be pat-
ented more restrictively in the name of the early settlers, their heirs and
assigns?

Its final issuance in the latter format rests largely on the work and
influence of Congressman Stephen B. Elkins. Since the late 1860s,
Elkins, in partnership with other well-known speculators including Tho-
mas B. Catron, had purchased and otherwise acquired interests in the
Mora grant from the original grantees or from their heirs. They were so
successful in obtaining deeds to these interests that Elkins alone even-
tually claimed to own over 50 percent of the grant and Catron's widow
another 30 percent.65 To substantiate their claim, however, the specula-
tors made sure that the grant was patented in the name of the first set-
. tiers, their heirs and assigns.66
With this accomplished, the next step in
the planned takeover of the grant involved the filing of a partition suit.
This suit was required since, according to United States law, the inter-
ests held by the speculators were "undivided"; that is, they conveyed
to their holders rights to a certain percentage of the unallotted lands,
but they did not specify or identify any particular property or exact acre-
age. Through a partition suit, the number of interests would be deter-
mined, and the court would make a judgment as to the nature and
feasibility of a physical division of the grant among the holders of the
various interests. If such a division was not possible or practical-it
almost never was-then the unallotted commons would be sold at pub-
lic auction, the proceeds divided among the holders of the interests,
and the land itself deeded to the purchaser. In March 1877, Elkins, to-
gether with Probate Judge Vicente Romero-who by this time also
owned a number of interests in the grant-filed suit in district court for
a partition of the grant. Their hope was that in a relatively brief period
they would either obtain the lion's share of the grant land, or at least
realize a handsome profit on their investment in the sale of those lands.
Before we trace the formal history of the partition suit and deter-
mine its impact on the actual disposition and distribution of land within
the grant, we must discuss the nature of the interests obtained by the
speculators. When the United States government patented the Mora grant
in the name of the original settlers, it implicitly divided the grant for
legal purposes into seventy-six distinct interests, one for each of the
grantees. In theory, each grantee possessed a claim to one
seventy-sixth of the total grant, or 10,889.75 acres. If the grantee had
two heirs, each inherited one-half of one seventy-sixth interest. The
two children or heirs ofone of these, in turn, would inherit one-half of
one-half of one seventy-sixth interest, etc. The reconstruction of gene-
alogies and identification of the legal heirs of the grantees, as well as
the determination of the mathematical value of each of these ramifying
interests, comprised an incredibly difficult and tedious task for the courts
and remains so for historians. According to the interpretation created
by the lawyer-speculators, only those individuals who were the heirs

ROBERTD. SHADOW AND MARlA RODRlGUEZ-SHADOW 279
or assigns of these interests possessed rights in the grant. The number
of interests they held limited the amount of land to which they were
entitled. This neat formula was·far out of sync with reality, though.
On the ground, the grant operated according to customary tenure
usages which provided land to residents according to need and socio-
economic position, independent of any claims derived from the original
grantees. As the history of the hijuelas and tHulos de propiedad demon-
strates, these claims, if they were known, simply were not taken into
consideration. In short, Mora was managed as a "community grant" at
least up until the 1880s, when the definition of the "settler grant," divis-
ible into seventy-six original interests, began to erode the original mean-
ing and concept of the grant.
In anticipation of this redefinition, Stephen Elkins began to acquire
interests in the Mora grant as early as 1866.67
He very quickly envisioned
an operation to gain control of as much of the land as possible and to
reap a large profit. This consisted of the formation of a partnership in
1869-70 comprised of Elkins, Catron, Samuel S. Smoot, E.J. Darling, a
government surveyor from Kansas, and Brown Murray, a New York resi-
dent who apparently served as a front man for Surveyor General T. Rush
Spencer.68
Smoot and Darling agreed to survey the grant at their own
expense and to furnish a maximum of $5,000 cash to purchase interests
from the original grantees; Elkins stated he would provide his services
as an attorney to obtain the deeded interests. Murray (for Spencer)
planned to promote the sale of the grant in the East.
Elkins and Catron quickly went about tracking down-through their
agents-the living grantees or their immediate heirs. By 1870 they re-
portedly had acquired sixteen of the one seventy-sixth interests, pay-
ing sums as low as $20 per interest.69 It must be pointed out, however,
that while Elkins and Catron typified the unethical lawyers of the day,
and were by far the most (in)famous of the speculators to deal in the
Mora grant, they were not alone.70
Initial analysis of the deeds drawn
up to record the sale of the original interests shows that by the 1880s
many other individuals had jumped on the bandwagon to get a piece of
the Mora grant. Almost all of these were, by occupation, "professional"
people; most were lawyers and landowners, and one was a priest. Many
are well-known in local history: Elmer Veeder, Casimiro Barela, P. D.
St. Vrain, Charles A. Spiess, Octavio A. Larrazolo, Frank Springer, and
Father J. B. Guerin to name but a few. 7I
By the time these people got
involved in the land grant business, the bargain basement prices of $20
which Elkins and Catron had paid in the late-1860s and early-1870s
were history. Father Guerin paid $300 in 1882 for one-half of
one-ninth of one seventy-sixth interest, and H. D. Retnken of Watrous
paid P.M. Sammons of Mora $1,000 for one-fifth of one-sixth of one

280 NEW ~1EXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW JULy 1995
seventh-sixth interest in 1900.72
Just two years earlier Sammons had
purchased the same interest from Rafael Romero (son of Vicente) for
$3001'3
While the activities of the outside speculators has attracted the at-
tention of historians, it should not be assumed that all who bought these
interests sought to speculate. To the contrary, many of the people who
obtained smaller interests were local folk who possessed farms and
ranches within the grant. Many of these local residents either retained
the interests they had received through inheritance, or they sought to
buy interests in order to have some legal basis to the lands which they
had occupied but for which they had no documentation. For example,
Mrs. Trinidad C. de Baca owned 833/10,000 of one seventy-sixth inter-
est (!) and petitioned tha.t her interest be applied to thirteen separate
pieces of valley land which she had occupied for twenty-nine years.
The court upheld her claim.74 Others hoped to apply their interest not to
lands already occupied but to obtain title to adjacent parcels. Brunton
stated that in addition to the lands he had purchased at Cherry Valley,
he had also acquired a number ofundivided interests in the grant that
equalled 1,000 acres. He requested that in the event of partition, the
court grant him ownership to lands in that amount adjacent to his exist-
ing ranch.75
Dolores Romero and his wife Maria Gertrudis Garcia re-
quested that the one-sixth of one seventy-sixth interest which GarCia
had inherited from her father, Tomas Encarnacion Garcia-one of the
original grantees-be set apart contiguous to their property at La Cueva.
Clearly, the sale of some of the interests involved fraud. 76
One of
the most glaring cases involved the interest derived from the original
grantee, Pedro Aragon. By the late 1860s, Aragon had left the grant and
could not be located. When another man with the same name moved
onto the grant years later, he was approached by Juan Antonio Baca
who convinced him to sell the Aragon interest.77 Pedro Aragon agreed
and this "sale" kept a number of clerks and lawyers busy for some time
trying to find out who was the "real" Pedro Aragon.
Second, a significant number of the heirs of the original grantees
no longer resided in Mora. Some lived in southern Colorado, while oth-
ers, including the descendants of Carmen Arce-one of the principal
pobladores of the grant in I835-'-had migrated to California. By the time
speculators or their agents contacted them, these individuals retained
few, if any, economic or social ties in the community. For them, the sale
of their interests represented a personal, unexpected windfall, and they
apparently transferred their rights in the grant with little thought or con-
cern for wider community affairs.
When the "land sharks" set out to obtain the Mora grant, they ex-
pected the matter to be resolved in a relatively short time.78 Contrary to
their plans, however, the partition suit did not proceed as expected. The

number of parties that became involved in the suit as defendants, either
because they actually occupied the land or because they possessed deeds
to specific properties or undivided interests, swelled into the hundreds.
This, together with the size of the grant itself, greatly complicated the
proceedings. It also seems quite likely that the reaction of the grant in-
habitants themselves and the social ferment of the 1880s and 1890s-
expressed by the fence-cutting Gorras Blancas and the Peoples' Party
movement-eontributed to the temporary "shelving" ofthe partition suit.
Eventually, hope and patience wore thin for the first generation ofspecu-
lators, and, unable to obtain de facto control'of the land, the
Elkins-Catron-Darling-Smoot-Spencer group disintegrated. All but
Catron eventually sold their interests to another eastern speculator, Gen-
eral Benjamin F. Buder of Massachusetts.
The first to bailout of the original group was Smoot who in 1882
sold to General Butler's son, Paul, his one-quarter (?) interest in the
grant for the sum of $10,000.79
Since most of the conveyances of the
interests had been drawn up and recorded in Elkins' name, Smoot found
his claims to the interests (that had accumulated during the partnership).
difficult to sustain. Butler, perhaps realizing that he had bought worth-
less paper, then sold the same interests to another speculator, Frederick
Pearson, for $25,000.80
Surveyor Darling pulled out next and in Decem-
ber of 1883 he and his wife sold their undivided interest to Butler for
$25,000.
Elkins soon followed suit. In 1884 he agreed to sell Butler all of his
interests in the Mora grant, estimated at 100,000 acres. The selling price
was $75,000.81
Considering that Elkins probably spent less than $5,000
obtaining these interests, he stood to realize a tidy profit on the sale,
even though he did not actually occupy a single acre. Apparently, how-
ever, this deal fell through, possibly because Butler never paid Elkins.82
Butler died in 1893 and his children and heirs, Paul and Blanche, to-
gether with Blanche's husband Adelbert Ames, continued the elder
Butler's quest to obtain the grant. In August of 1893 another deed was
recorded between Elkins and the Butlers which again conveyed title for
all of Elkins' personal holdings in the Mora grant.83
An analysis of Elkins' abandonment of the Mora grant illuminates
a number of important points. First, even though Elkins was said to have
owned almost half of the grant (thirty-six of the seventy-six full inter-
ests), he himself recognized that this represented approximately 100,000
acres, not 350,000 acres, the figure stated by Knowlton.84
Second, Elkins
also recognized that his title to the grant was shrouded in difficulties,
and for this reason he was willing to sell his interests for a price he
considered very low.85
'

By 1893 Elkins' involvement in the Mora grant ended, and two par-
ties now held the majority interests: Thomas B. Catron and the
Butler-Ames family, (the major shareholders in the Union Land and
Grazing Company). Catron and his wife, Julia, claimed twenty-three of
the original seventy-six interests while the Butler-Ames faction held
another thirty-six, for a total of fifty-nine. Unable to cooperate or man-
age their interests collecthrely the Catrons and the Butlers decided to
divide their interests geographically: the Butlers deeded to the Catrons
all lands north ofthe thirty-sixth parallel (also known as the Fifth Cor-
rection Line), while the Catrons deeded to the Butlers and the Union
Land and Grazing Company the lands south of that line.86
In his discussion of this agreement, Knowlton wrote: "Catron re-
ceived 250,000 acres ... and the Butler heirs received 350,000 acres...."87
While Knowlton does not state how he arrived at these figures, it ap-
pears that he took the original size of the grant, 82,7,000 acres, divided it
by seventy-six (the original number of interests), and obtained the fig-
ure of some 18,000 acres as the value of each interest. Catron's twenty--
three interests converted into approximately 250,000 acres, and the
Butler's thirty-six into 350,000-400,000 acres. In this Knowlton sim-
ply followed the methodology employed by the courts early in the par-
tition suit to determine an acreage figure for the undivided interests.
The problem with this methodology, however, was that it did not take
into consideration the hundreds of thousands of acres already occupied
by individuals who possessed no interest whatsoever or whose inter-
ests were insufficient to cover the amount of land they actually occu-
pied. As the "undivided commons" gradually became occupied, the
theoretical acreage value of each interest fell. In fact, by the turn of the
century many calculated the value of their interests at 8,000 acres in
recognition of the fact that the so-called unallotted lands had been
greatly reduced in si~e. This error of evaluating the interests in terms of
the original size of the grant explains why some authors have concluded
that the speculators obtained as much as 80 or 90 percent of the total
grant.88
While this may have been the goal of the speculators, it was not
realized. What the speculators eventually received was not the acreage
value of the interests they held on paper, but a share of the lands which
in 1915 remained unallotted or unclaimed by individuals in fee simple
tenure.
But this final resolution had not yet occurred when Catron and the
Butler faction imperiously split the grant in two. Catron, for his part,
held on to his interests until 1901 when he and his wife finally deeded
them to their son, Charles, forthe stated sum of $2,000.89 Continuing in
the footsteps of his father, Charles Catron attempted to obtain clear title
to the grant and to prevent local people from exploiting the graiing and
forest resources north of the thirty-sixth parallel. Like his father, he

ROBERTD. SHADOW AND MARlA RODRlGUEZ-SHADOW 283
had Iittle success. By the 1890s, the people of Mora clearly understood
the intentions of the speculators and other ricos, and community oppo-
sition had coalesced to such a degree that one of Catron's agents was
killed, and the senior Catron felt that his life was in danger when he was
in the area. 90
Local people refused to pay royalties to the Catrons or to
recognize in any way their claims to the lands. It appears, then, that the
Catrons received no income from their lands. They were, however, as-
sessed county taxes on their interests, and this economic crunch brought
an end to Catron's decades-long attempt to gain control of the Mora
land grant.
From 1897 through 1910, the Catrons had steadfastly refused to pay
the taxes assessed against their claims. Finally, in November of 1911,
the county seized their interests for the accumulated back taxes of
$17,000. In February of 1913 the county sold these interests to Frank
Roy, a prominent local rancher and former Mora County Commissioner,
for the sum of $17,093. Two years later, in October of 1915, Roy sold
the interests for an unknown sum to the recently formed State Invest-
ment Company of East Las Vegas.91
Such was the situation; in early 1915 when suddenly, for reasons
, not yet entirely clear, the partition suit was revived. District Court Judge
David 1. Leahy presided over the case and one of his first actions was to
rule that due to the difficulties of identifying the exact location and ex-
tent of the unallotted (common) lands, and of physically placing the
"owners" of the distinct interests in possession of such lands, the parti-
tion would be accomplished through a sale of the unallotted lands and
the division of the funds so obtained among the owners of the interests.
Under this arrangement, only the or individual(s) who actually bought
the land at auction would obtain any property; the rest of the holders of
the interests would receive a cash payment, the amount determined by
the number of interests held and the selling price of the land.
In Judge Leahy's second act, he segregated from the grant all those
lands actually occupied and/or for which claims and deeds had been
presented since the initiation of the suit in 1877. Determining the total
acreage of these occupied and segregated lands with precision is an im-
possible task, but the information contained in the list of "Exceptions"
drawn up by the court, and in survey plats from the period suggest that
at least 500,000 acres (probably more) were recognized as occupied
under some legal claim, and were therefore segregated from the grant
and not subject to partition or sale. These included the large cattle
ranches established in the eastern ranges as well as the more modest
ranches and so-called community lands that consisted of the arable and
adjacent woodlands occupied and exploited as private property by the
residents of the various settlements of the western valleys. The court
also stated that any other lands occupied under adverse possession, but

not specifically mentioned in the "Exceptions" should be respected.92
In effect, then, the court recognized the rights of hundreds of villagers
to the cultivated bottomlands and to the intervalley forests of western
Mora-for which deeds were almost non-existent-as well as the rights
to any property which could be demonstrated, through deeds or occu-
pation, to have been under private, individual tenure for some years
(ten ?) prior to 1915.93
For the "community lands" the court appointed
"trustees"-prominent local men-whose task was to issue deeds to the
rightful owners forall the properties occupied and contained within the
community tract. The responsibility for adjudication of the occupied
lands outside of the community tracts fell to the individual landowner,
and required the filing of an intervention with the court describing the
location of the lands and the conditions of occupation. This unfair re-
quirement proved to be especially burdensome for the small- and
medium-sized rancher since it was the custom of the lawyers who drew
up the papers to receive 50 percent of the land for their fees. For the
larger ranchers this was less onerous since many were lawyers them-
selves or relied on the services of a brother or other family member.
The court identified the segregated portions of the grant and their
owners and on 18 December 1915 it ordered the remaining unallotted or
common lands sold at public auction. These lands were non-eontiguous;
they included both forests and pastures and they were geographically
dispersed throughout the western and eastern sections of the grant. We
suspect that some of the properties were actually exploited by adjacent
landowners as if they were private property, but had not been segre-
gated from the grant due to inadequate documentation or failure to file
an intervention. Other tracts still constituted true commons and were
collectively and freely exploited by the local people for wood, forage,
hunting, and so forth.
What was the total acreage of these unalloted common lands? The
court record suggests a figure of 375,000 acres. There are uncertainties
in the methods and figures used to obtain this total, however. We sus-
pect that the actual amount totalled less than 300,000 acres.94
Based on
the available data, it appears that Knowlton's suggestion that some
600,000 acres were disposed of in the partition suit overestimated the
actual figure by as much as 100 percent. Whatever the exact number of
acres involved, it is clear that the lands were grouped into two bulk par-
cels. One consisted of the property north of the Fifth Correction Line,
where the majority of the land was situated, the other the lands south of
that line.
By ordering the unallotted lands sold in this manner, the court op-
erated in accordance with the wishes of the speculators: it not only re-
spected the long-standing Catron-Butler division of the unallotted
commons, but also effectively excluded all but the. wealthiest from bid-

ROBElIT D. SHADOW AND MARiA RODRIGUEZ-SHADOW 285
ding on the commons since it decreed that the land would be sold in
two very large tracts. Most local people, even if they had knowledge of
the proceedings, simply did not have the cash resources required to bid
for the premises. The social class orientations of the court could not be
clearer: not only would the remaining commons be converted into pri-
vate property, but they would also be placed in the hands ofthe wealthy.
On 21 February 1916, Speci~l Master William E. Gortner, who may
have had personal and business connections with Catron, carried out
the "public" auction at the east door of the San Miguel County Court
House.95
We do not know how many parties submitted bids, we only
have the results. The premises south of the line were bought.by the East
Las Vegas lawyer and former agent of the Union Land and Grazing Com-
pany, Edward B. Wheeler, for $6,000; the lands north of the correction
line, which we estimate at about 160,000 to 175,000 acres, were obtained
by the State Investment Company for the sum of $40,000.96
The State
Investment Company had purchased the interests in these very same
lands just four months earlier from Frank Roy. By "re-purchasing" the
lands through auction, the company acted very shrewdly: it assured it-
self that it would receive clear and exclusive title to the lands; and it
accomplished this at little cost. Almost the entire $40,000 which the com-
pany bid for the lands was returned to it immediately! How was this
neat deal carried off? Since the company already owned twenty-three
interests (those purchased from Roy and others), it was entitled to re-
ceive payment for these interests from the funds obtained in the auc-
tion. The court determined that the value of the twenty-three interests,
after deducting costs, was $37,458, and it ordered that this amount be
paid to the company. Thus, for about $2,500 (plus the money it paid
Roy for the purchase of the interests) State Investment obtained title to
between 160,000 and 175,000 acres of Mora's common lands. Even
Wheeler got a small rebate on his purchase price of $6,000. Since he
owned a one-fourth of one seventy-sixth interest, he received $204 as
his share of the auction proceeds.97
Within a month of the sale, Special Master Gortner issued deeds to
both Wheeler and State Investment granting them title to all lands in
their respective areas not already segregated or occupied under adverse
possession. Thus, forty years after its filing, Mora County Civil Cause
632-the partition of the Mora grant-was finally adjudicated. This is
not the end of the story, though, for there still remain a number of inter-
esting yet unanswered questions concerning the fate of the ex-commons.
Neither Wheeler nor State Investment harbored interest in producing
anything from the lands. They were not cattlemen, nor sheepmen, nor
farmers, nor people seeking livelihood through productive activity; both
were speculators-ruthless "man-eaters" or "sharks" according to lo-
cal people, symbolically excluded from the moral order of decency and

humanity-whose goals were to use the system to get rich (or richer) as
quickly as possible.98
To complete the history of the Mora commons,
then, and to explain the role of the National Forest Service in this
chronicle, we must consider what Wheeler and State Investment did with
their properties in the aftermath of the partition suit, and the impact of
the loss of the commons on the villagers of Mora:
With the question of legal title apparently resolved, Wheeler and
the State Investment Company took actual possession of their lands.
Not surprisingly, this led to another round of litigation when the new
owners attempted to occupy or dispose of lands which they considered
unoccupied but which in fact were in use or claimed by individuals as
private tracts or by people who had exploited them as commons. One
of the areas of greatest controversy concerned a strip of valuable forest
lands on the western edge of the grant, sOJl.1e three miles wide and thirty-
three miles long. The problem arose due to changes in the location of
the western boundary of the grant. The original boundary line, run by
surveyor Thomas Means, was located high in the mountains, roughly
paralleling the divide between the Rio Grande and Rio Mora drainages.
Means' survey was technically faulty, however, and both the General
Land Office and the Surveyor General sent new survey parties into the
mountains to better locate the boundary. One of these, made in 1882,
located the western boundary some three miles east of the Means line.
The General Land Office accepted this survey, and thereby reduced the
size of the Mora grant and placed within the public domain-open to
homesteading-the three by thirty-three mile strip of land between the
Mora grant and the recently created Pecos National Forest. Since the
1860s and 1870s, individuals from Mora had moved into this area of the
common resources within the grant to set up sawmills and had success-
fully defeated Catron's repeated attempts to evict them or to collect
royalties.
After the boundary was moved to the east, many of these people
suddenly found themselves on public-not grant-land, and thereby
subject to the land laws governing the settling and occupation of public
lands. Another survey, made by Alonzo Compton in 1909, reestablished
the boundary at about the same longtitude as the 1882 survey. After the
partition suit, the State Investment Company and Wheeler sued to have
the original Means line recognized as the official western boundary since
this would place them in possession of another one hundred square miles
of forest. 99
The United States Supreme Court eventually reviewed the
case which upheld the lower courts' decision that Wheeler and State
Investment owned the disputed strip, subject to the stipulation that the
occupants of the land who had legally entered the premises under small
holding claims or otherwise while it was public land could not be de-
prived of their property. In 1934, Wheeler was forced to make quit claims

ROBERTD. SHADOW AND MARlARODR:lGUEZ-SHADOW 287
deeds to ninety small holders for a total of almost 11 ,000 acres. The
State Investment Company, for its part, deeded more than 4,200 acres
to forty-three small holders for their properties in the strip north of the
Fifth Correction Line. loo In this manner, more than 14,000 acres offor-
est within the strip between the Means and Compton survey lines were
retained by local residents, not as commons, however, but in fee simple
tenure.
Perhaps the most interesting event in the history of these forest lands
took place in 1931 when the State Investment Company turned over to
the National Forest Service the remaining forest which it held in the
strip, some 41,000 acres, in exchange for lumber rights in Washington.
In this manner, some of the most important forest lands within the Mora
grant passed through almost the entire gamut of tenure forms: from un-
restricted commons to private property to public lands open to regu-
lated exploitation. In recent decades, at least, the latilla (timber),
hunting, pasture and firewood resources on these lands have been ex-
ploited mainly by local residents.
South of the Fifth Correction Line, in the Wheeler tract, the over-
whelming majority of the land remained private property. In part this is
because here, in the Manuelitas creek and Rito de Gascon area, the in-
habitable v.alleys extend further west than they do north of the line, and
Wheeler was forced to issue deeds to many of the rancheros who settled
this area during the late-nineteenth century. In addition, it appears that
he was able to retain thousands of acres of forested ex-commons both
within and adjacent to the disputed three mile strip. Most of this prop-
erty he sold not to the National Forest Service but to third parties. To-
day it remains private property, closed to community or public access. tol
One exception is the Capulin canyon area, a forested tract of some
7,100 acres which the National Forest acquired from Gross, Kelley and
Company in 1942 under an exchange agreement similar to that carried
out with State Investment. We suspect that Gross, Kelley and Company
obtained title to the property from Wheeler. Currently the pasture on
these lands is exploited by permit holders who almost without excep-
tion are local small-scale ranchers. The same holds true for other areas
of the former grant which are now held by the National Forest Service.
Whereas the National Forest system is generally viewed as having
played a major role in the breakup of the commons and in the dispos-
session of local people from their traditional resources, in Mora the situ-
ation evolved a bit differently. The partition suit first converted the forest
reserve that dominated the 'western part of the grant into private prop-
erty, placed in the hands of outside speculators. Because the Mora grant
confirmation occurred before the 1897 Sandoval decision-which ruled
that common la nds belonged to the government and not to the commu-
nities-the National Forest Service obtained no interests in the Mora

288 NEW MEXICO HISTOR1CAL REVIEW JlJLY 1995
grant either before or during the partition suit of 1916, and did not ap-
pear on the scene until after the 1930s.1
02
Ironically, its role since then
has been to transfer ownership of previously privatized common lands
to the public domain, and thus make available to local people-albeit
on a regulated basis~some of the resources seized by the speculators.
The speculators also obtained title to many thousands of acres of
mountain forest outside the strip of land which eventually passed to the
National Forest Service. State Investment alone owned at least 20,000
acres spread across the northwest corner of the grant above the village
of Chacon. With their title established, State Investment began to sell
the properties outside of the disputed strip where commercial timber
was already depleted. Between 1919 and the early 1940s, seventeen in-
dividuals received deeds from State Investment for a total of 21,851 acres
within this area. Two of these individuals were Anglo newcomers and
they alone accounted for almost half (48.6 percent) of the total acreage
purchased. Just fifteen local residents obtained the rest of the land,
11,662 acres, in smaller parcels that ran~ed from less than 100 to over
1800 acres; the average size parcel totalled 777 acres.
Wheeler's holdings in this part of the grant were substantially less
than State Investment's, due in part to the court decision which required
him to "return" 11,000 acres to the earlier occupants. To date we have
uncovered information for 1,900 acres transferred by Wheeler between
1916 and 1930 in the area. These lands were conveyed to thirteen indi-
viduals in parcels that averaged 167 acres. Only one transaction involved
more than 200 acres: Santiago Espinosa obtained 601 acres. All but one
of the purchasers were local Mexicanos.103
Thus, the post-partition djstribution of the land in the western part
of the grant was highly skewed both quantitatively in terms of acreage
and qualitatively in terms of ethnic representation. Three recently ar-
rived or non-resident Anglos-who constituted only 10 percent of the
total purchasers-obtained about- 43.5 percent of the land put up for
sale. The remaining 56.5 percent, 13,402 acres, was deeded to
twenty-seven mostly Mexicano local residents in parcels that varied
greatly in size, but which averaged just under 500 acres (see tables 1
and 2). Considering that traditionally hundreds offamilies enjoyed ac-
cess to these resources, the post-partition distrubution of the forest
commons had the obvious effect of eliminating or drastically reducing
free public access to these resources especially to the commercially valu-
able timber. It is hard to assess precisely the direct economic impact of
privatization, however. The new owners were primarily interested in
marketable timber, and they jealously guarded this resource. Local
peoples therefore were denied this valuable source of income. On the
other hand, it seems that residents had more success in retaining access
to the mountain pastures, which offered a marginal commercial value

ROBEIITD. SHADOW AND MARiA RODRlGUEZ-SHADOW 289
anyway. The major non-resident landowner, N.H. Read, did not use the
land for pasturing his own herds. 104
Very little of the land was fenced
and it was almost impossible for the new owners to effectively police
their properties against neighbors' livestock.
Other than the social outsiders, the twenty-eight local families, who
obtained exclusive control over the remainder of the ex-commons, con-
stituted the major beneficiaries of the post-partition distribution. Many
of these families belonged to the existing social elite in Mora, and their
procurement of these lands simply added to their own wealth and to the
process of social differentiation that became increasingly marked as the
county became more tightly woven into the fabric of commercial agri-
culture and stock ranchi ng. In the central and eastern parts of the grant,
the distribution of the commons followed a different pattern than in the
pine, spruce, and fir forests of the west. In central Mora, the specula-
tors received title to uplandmesas and canyons clad injuniper and pinon,
while in the east the land consisted of grass-covered plains. In both
areas the forest resources were either absent or uninteresting to the Na-
tional Forest Service and, once this land became privatized, it remained
entirely under private ownership. Since agriculture and cattle ranching
expanded rapidly at this time in Mora county, the new owners had little
problem finding buyers for these lands, and within two years after the
conclusion of the partition suit, most of the speculators' properties in
these areas had been sold off.
In the mesa and canyon lands of the central part of the grant, the
speculators obtained title to at least 27,880 acres. Again, State Invest-
ment was the major holder with a minimum of 24,873 acres; Wheeler's
properties to the south totaled just 3,007 acres. State Investment sold
its holdings to twenty-nine separate buyers, Wheeler to three. Of the
total, only six were Anglo newcomers, and together they obtained a
"modest" 26 percent (7,342 acres) of the total acreage. lOS Local residents
purchased the remainder in parcels that varied from less than 100 acres
to one that surpassed 6,400; the average size transaction equalled 871
acres. In short, local people fared much better in obtaining title to land
in the area of.the central mesas and canyons than they did in the west-
ern forests; they managed to recoup two-thirds of the commons (20,538
acres) usurped by the courts and the speculators. An important caveat,
however, is that the lands recovered were "returned~' to the "commu-
nity" under private rather than communal tenure. The beneficiary, there-
fore, was not the general populace viewed as a seamless whole but rather
a select number of local rancheros who, like their fellow Morenos in the
west, had the resources necessary to purchase the privatized commons.
As in the west, the disposition of the commons contributed to growing
class differentiation and stratification within local society.

On the eastern plains, however, a very different pattern evolved. As
the lands were mostly suited for ranching, the transactions there involved
thousands and tens of thousands of acres, considerable amounts of cash,
and the concentration of land in fewer hands. State Investment sold off
at least 65,440 acres in this area, and Wheeler another 14,520, for a total
of 79,960 acres. Five entities purchased the entire amount-all either
Anglo newcomers or large cattle companies. The Bloom Land and Cattle
Company obtained the lion's share of these pastures, about 49,400 acres,
while the Union Land and Grazing Company (founded by Benjamin
Butler in the 1890s), and the McNierney and Hixenbaugh ranch obtained
tracts of 14,520 and 12,000 acres, respectively. Local ranchers were to-
tally excluded. 106 .
In the final accounting, local residents recovered only 26 percent of
the total land area sold after the partition suit. The rest went to recent
arrivals or to large cattle companies. The amount of land which passed
beyond local control in each of the three areas, however, was not uni-
form. The greatest loss occurred in the eastern ranges where outsiders,
economically and culturally representative of the southern plains-Texas
cattle industry, took over at least 79,960 acres (60 percent of the total
amount of land sold). In the western and central portions of the grant,
the amount of land alienated from local society was less. In these areas,
and especially in central Mora, a small number oflocal residents-mostly
members of the social and economic elite-were sufficiently well-off
to buy up the former commons. The greater participation of local resi-
dents in the purchase of the western and central lands reflected the fact
that these lands were in their own "backyard," in many cases nearby or
adjacent to properties they already owned. The grasslands of the east-
ern plains, in contrast, had always been sparsely populated and were
many miles from the more heavily populated valleys of the west and
center. Since atleast the 1880s, they had been heavily "Texanized" un-
der the influence of the range cattle industry. Anglo cattle-ranchers
quickly moved into this area, and by 1900 controlled almost 70 percent
of the total property assessed in the eastern part of the county. 107 The
post-partition disposition of land in this area represented the continua-
tion of processes which had been at work for decades, and simply legal-
ized what was most likely a de facto situation: the exclusive possession
and exploitation of the range by the predominately Anglo owners and
operators of large cattle spreads.
The speculators for their part no doubt realized handsome profits
on their activities, although we lack hard data on just how much they
received for the sale of the lands. The greatest injustice in this entire
drama, of course, was borne by the poor majority of Mexicano villagers
who saw their resource base dwindle and who lacked the economic
wherewithal to buy a piece of the commons. Most scholars who have

TABLE 1:
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF LAND OBTAINED BY
STATE INVESTMENT CO. AND E.B. WHEELER
acres by area
State Investment
E. B. Wheeler
TOTALS
Western·
63,248
9,575
72,823
Central
24,873
3,007
27,880
Eastern
65,440
14,520
79,960
TOTALS
153,561
27,102
180,663
Note: These figures do not include the more than 14,000 acres deeded to
small holders by Wheeler and State Investment in accordance with the
court order.
• After the conclusion of the partition suit State Investment transferred
41,397 acres of its lands within the western part ofthe grant to the National
Forest, while approximately 7,100 acres of Wheeler's total in the same area
was eventually obtained by the National Forest.
Sources: see text.
TABLE 2:
PURCHASES OF LAND BY
NEWCOMERS AND LOCAL RESIDENTS
acres and number of purchasers, by area
Western Central Eastern TOTALS
Purchasers
acres no. acres no. acres no. acres no.
Anglo newcomers
10,349 3 7,342 6 79,960 5
97,651
14
or corporations (74%)
Local residents 3,402 27 20,538 26 0 0
33,940
53
(26%)
TOTALS 23,751 30 27,880 32 79,960 5
131,591
67
(100%)
Note: These figures do not include the 41,397 acres which the State Investment
Co. transferred to the National Forest Service in 1931, nor the more than 14,000
acres deeded to small holders by Wheeler and State Investment in accordance
with the court order.
Sources: see text.

written about the impact of the break-up of the commons have cor-
rectly stressed the hardships this placed on the small-scale ranchero.
Clark Knowlton has stated that the privatization of the commons con-
stituted a major factor in the economic collapse of rural villages in north-
ern New Mexico. 108 Regrettably, he presents no quantified data to sustain
this assessment, and one wonders if it is not possible to obtain more
precise knowledge on such an important issue. Our query is stimulated
by the uncomfortable fact that the economic collapse of rural northern
New Mexico occurred at the same time as the collapse and transforma-
tion of rural society throughout the American West. Farm abandonment,
foreclosures, land loss to outsiders, out-migration, and the disappear-
ance of commerce and trade, were not features restricted to the villag-
ers of New Mexico, but seem to be the result of the structural
transformation of rural society that occurred throughout America after
1920. What distinguishes New Mexico is that this process of capitalist
transformation was carried out in the context of cultural subordination
and ethnic conflict. While it is important to recognize these relations
and the significance of the language of race and ethnicity to legitimize
hierarchy and dispossession (or to rally opposition and resistance), this
should not blind us to the fundamentally "class character of the racial
order."109 We hope that future research will broaden our knowledge and
understanding of the intricacies and operation of class and ethnicity in
this agrarian transformation.
NOTES
This study was supported, in part, by the United States Studies Program of the
Universidad de las Americas-Puebla, the American Council of Learned Societies,and the
New Mexico Endowment for the Humanities.
I. Fray Angelico Chavez, "Early Settlements in the Mora Valley," El Palacio 62
(November 1955), 319-20.
2. For summaries of the early history of Mora, see Chavez, "Early Settlements";
Clark Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant: A New Mexican Tragedy," Journal ofthe West
27 (July 1988), 59-73; David Kamer, Report: National Register of Historic Places,
National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior (1989); Kamer, "Report
on the Historic Acequia Systems of the Upper Rio Mora," manuscript (author's posses-
sion, 1992); Ralph Emerson Twitchell, The Spanish Archives of New Mexico (SANM),
(Cedar Rapids, Iowa: The Torch Press, 1914); Twitchell, The Leading Facts of New
Mexico His/ory. 5 vols. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: The Torch Press, 1917), vol. 3.
3. The following account of the apportionment of the Mora grant is based on a copy
of the original act of possession. The original was apparently destroyed when United
States troops attacked and burned Mora in 1847. The copy was made 12 August 1842, and
is contained on microfilm in Surveyor General's Records (SGR), reel 15, file 66, report
#32, New Mexico State Records Center and Archives (NMSRCA), Santa Fe, New Mexico.
It should be mentioned that the English translation ofthis document published by Twitchell,
SANM 55, contains a number of errors of transcription. The site of the town of San Anto-
nio is said to contain 2000 varas from north to south, when in fact the 1842 document

states 200 varas. The names of various settlers or agraciados (grantees) are likewise
misspelled:Juan Lorenzo Alire erroneously appears as Juan Lorenzo Aliso, Carlos Quinto
as Carlo Nieto, Mateo Kinquiel as Mateo Ringinel, and Miguel Paiz as Miguel Paez.
4. The Spanish vara measured about thirty-three inches. See G. Emlen Hall, Four
Leagues ofPecos: A Legal History ofthe Pecos Grant, 1800-1933 (Albuquerque: Uni-
versity of New Mexico Press, 1984), 84-85, for an account of the controversy surround-
ing the conversion of the vara into English units of measurement.
S. Eight settlers, including two Americans (Mateo Kinquiel or Matthew Kinkead and
Francisco Conen or Frank Cohen?) and two women, Maria Dolores Romero and Maria
Dolores Sanchez, received plots 'of 200 varas each.
6. This point was originally known as La Junta; later, after the American invasion, it
was renamed Watrous in honor of one of the principal (Anglo) ranchers. Quotations from
SGR, reel 15, file 66, report 32, NMSRCA. Translations are available in Twitchell, SANM.
1:174.
7. Land grant scholars commonly distinguish between two types of grants: private
and communal, and they use the term "private" to refer to grants issued to individuals.
However, it seems that a more precise typology or terminology is required. For one, United
States law recognizes two basic categories of land: public and private, the latter refer-
ring not to whether land is held by an individual or by a collective, but simply to the fact
that the lands in question have been segregated from the public domain. Thus, in its treat-
ment of Spanish and Mexican land grants, the United States government treated confirmed
and legal grants as private grants, irrespective of whether they were made to individuals
or communities, reflecting the fact that the land had been legally separated from the pub-
lic or state domain. Within the private domain, the grants fall into three subtypes: commu-
nity, settler (tenants-in-common), and individual. What traditionally have been called
private grants are more accurately designated as individual grants, and to continue to
refer to them as private grants contributes to unnecessary confusion in an already com-
plex matter. For an excellent discussion of this matter see David Benavides, "Lawyer--
Induced Partitioning of New Mexican Land Grants: An Ethical Travesty," (thesis,
University of New Mexico School of Law, 1992).
Malcolm Ebright (personal communication), on the other hand, disagrees with our
typology, and feels that the private/community distinction is preferable since it is based
on Spanish and Mexican usages and calls attention to the original nature of the grant, not
to post-1846 redefinitions based on chance and United States law.
8. 1845 Mexican Census, "Demarcaciones de 10 de Mora y del Valle de San Anto-
nio," microfilm, NMSRCA.
9. Lawrence Waldo, a trader who had been trekking the Santa Fe trail since 1829,
wrote his brother in January 1847 from Las Vegas stating his position on the situation.
James W. Goodrich, "Revolt at Mora, 1847," New Mexico Historical Review 47 (January
1972), 49-60. It should be noted that not all Nuevomexicanos universally welcomed the
American invasion. Some residents, however, such as merchants and ricos, clearly did
not oppose the invasion. See Thomas D. Hall, Social Change in the Southwest. 1350-1880
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1989), 192-93. Such an accommodating posi-
tion, though, was not shared by large sections of the rural population who were not yet
trade dependent.
10. The American cannons were set up on a small knoll a few hundred yards south of
the town center. Later, in an act abounding in symbolic content, Ceran St. Vrain, a French
merchant-miller-landowner who collaborated with the Americans in their takeover and
served as a colonel in the United States' Army, selected this very same site for his grave.
St. Vrain commanded the United States forces at Taos during the uprising. See Clark
Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant," 60-61; Goodrich, "Revolt at Mora," 49-60.
11. The destruction of the town by the American forces has left an indelible mark on
the collective memory of the people of Mora, and today, I SO years after the event, the
story of how the gringos destroyed the community and burned the archives is perhaps the
most widely known and repeated historical narrative in the community.

12. Leo E. Oliva, Fort Union and the Frontier Army in the Southwest (Santa Fe,
New Mexico: Southwest Cultural Resources Center, National Park Service, 1993).
13. Malcolm Ebright, "New Mexican Land Grants: The Legal Background," in ed.
Charles L. Briggs and John Van Ness, Land, Water, and Culture: New Perspectives on
Hispanic Land Grants (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987),31-41;
also Victor Westphal1, Mercedes Reales: Hispanic Land Grants ofthe Upper Rio Grande
Region (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1983), 8.5.
14. Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant," .59-73.
1.5. Sarah Deutsch, No Separate Refuge: Culture. Class and Gender on an
Anglo-Hispanic Frontier in the American Southwest, 1880-1940 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1987), 20.
16. Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant," 66-67.
17. G. Emlen Hal1, "San Miguel del Bado and the Loss of the Common Lands ofNew
Mexico Community Land Grants," New Mexico Historical Review 66 (October 1991),
413-32.
18. The Southern Pacific Railroad claimed to have purchased one-seventh of one
seventy-sixth interest in the Mora grant from Mateo Montoya, one of the original grant-
ees. In 1879, it requested that this interest be applied to a strip of land 200 feet wide
along its track in the southeast corner of the grant. Petition, 21 August 1879, Mora Civil
Cause no. 632, File 4, NMSRCA.
19. Hal1, "SanMiguel del Bado."
20. Robert J. Rosenbaum, Mexicano Resistance in the Southwest: "The Sacred Right
ofSelf-Preservation" (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 111-24.
21. Marianne L. Stol1er, "Grants of Desperation, Lands of Speculation: Mexican
Period Land. Grants in Colorado," in John R: Van Ness and Christine M. Van Ness, eds.
Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in New Mexico and Colorado (Manhattan, Kansas:
Sunflower University Press, 1980), 37.
22. Ibid.; Westphal1, 56-57.
23. Reminiscences of Private John Hudgins, Missouri Mounted Volunteers, cited in
Goodrich, "Revolt at Mora," 54.
24. Malcolm Ebright, "The Guadalupita Grant and the Lawyers," (n.d., manuscript in
author's possession), 1. In the case of the Las Vegas grant, the grants-within-grants did
not necessarily result in·the fragmentation of the commons (Ebright, personal communica-
tion).
25. Malcolm Ebright, Land Grants and Lawsuits in Northern New Mexico (Albu-
querque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994), 191-92,195.
26. Clark Knowlton, "The Town of Las Vegas Community Land Grant: An Anglo-
American Coup D'Etat," in Van Ness and Van Ness, eds., 1.5.
27. Richard L. Nostrand, The Hispano Homeland (Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1992),80-81, for a general discussion of this eastward movement.
28. Ebright, "The Guadalupita Grant."
29. Mora County Libro del Juez de Paz, 1: 158-159, NMSRCA.
30. Libro de Registro Book 2 or B, 182-83, County Clerk's Office, Mora County
Courthouse (CCOMCC).
31. This figure is very crude, and was determined by superimposing the boundaries
mentioned in the hijuela on United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' quadrangle maps.
The Iinderos were: "por el orient el camino que conduce de la Lorna Parda al Sapello
Iinia recta a la seja de la Lorna Parda. y por el poniente la seja de a Sebolla y por el
norte la Seja de las Golondrinas [h]asta topar a la Lorna Parda. y por el Sur donde
nase el arollo de la lara todo el sentro del arrollo hasta incontrar con la Iinia del
camino de la Lorna Parda" (to the east the road that leads from Lorna Parda to Sapel16 in
a straight line to the ridge of Lorna Parda, on the west the ridge ofSebolla and in the north
the ridge of Golondrinas up to Lorna Parda, and in the south at the source of the Jara
arroyo, al1 the middle of the arroyo up to where it meets the line of the Lorna Parda road).
Libro de Registro, Book 2 or B, 182, CCOMCC).
32. Mora County Libro del Juez de Paz 1, 15-161, NMSRCA.

33. 1880 Agricultural Census, enumerator sheets for Mora County, microfilm,
NMSRCA. The five precincts mentioned here are Mora, Guadalupita, La Junta, Ocate,
and Coyote.
34. Olen Leonard, The Role ofthe Land Grant in the Social Organization and So-
cial Processes ofa Spanish-American Village in New Mexico (Albuquerque, New Mexico:
Calvin Horn, 1970), 141.
35. Rosenbaum, 108-09.
36. We are grateful to Malcolm Ebright for bringing th'is action to our attention, and
for pointing out its significance for the interpretation of the status of the common lands in
the late 1870s. S,ee also Robert W. Larson, NewMexico's Questfor Statehood. 1846-1912
(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1968), 336n.
37. Rosenbaum, 108-09.
38. Mora County District Court Cause no. 1679, NMSRCA.
39. Mora County District Court Cause no. 170 I, NMSRCA.
40. Testimony of F. Meredith Jones, 16 November 1896, Mora County Civil Cause
no. 632, file 3, NMSRCA.
41. Stipulation between John D. W. Veeder, Elmer E. Veeder and Thomas B. and
Charles C. Catron, 21 October 1914, Cause no. 632, File 12, SRCA.
42. Other settlers in this same area of Cherry Valley, however, employed a different
strategy and argued that the lands they occupied (located in Township 18 N, Range 20 E)
fell outside the Mora grant and were part of the public domain. They therefore claimed
ownership through preemption. The court did not accept this argument, but it was dis-
posed to recognize the property rights of these individuals based on simple occupancy.
Testimony of J.B. Wasson, 19 April 1894 (?), Mora County Civil Cause no. 632, file 2,
NMSRCA.
43. Testimony of William B. Brunton. 19 April 1894, Mora County Civil Cause no.
632, file 2, NMSRCA.
44. The Union Land and Callie Company was incorporated in Camden, New Jersey
in 1885 with a capital stock valued at $250,000. The first president and principal share-
holder (with 1,000 shares) was Benjamin F. Butler. The purpose of the company was to
acquire agricultural and grazing land in Colorado, "in order to cultivate, improve, sell or
otherwise convey it." The company was not registered to do business in New Mexico
until 29 August 1912. This fact did not prevent it from expelling rival users from the
lands it claimed and from leasing its properties. See: Mora Base Abstract, 7.
45. The Union Land and Grazing Company v Marcos Salas, Cause no. 2252, Mora
District Court, October 1913; also A. A. Jones Papers, NMSRCA.
46. Answer of Marcos Salas, The Union Land and Grazing Company v Marcos Salas,
Cause no. 2252, Mora District Court, November 1913; also A. A. Jones Papers, NMSRCA.
47. Decree, The Union Land and Grazing Company versus Marcos Salas, Cause no.
2252, Mora District Court, November 1913; also A A. Jones Papers, SRCA.
48. Mora County District Court Cause no. 2261, Microfilm roll 1149, San Miguel
County Courthouse. Interestingly, these Loma Parda pastures were the only lands within
the entire Mora grant to survive as commons into the 1920s. By the 1930s, however, these
properties too had been privatized, due, according to local accounts to the machinations
and deceit of some county officials. .
49. Testimony of Rafael Romero, 16 April 1894, Mora County Civil Cause no. 632,
file 2, NMSRCA.
50. Ibid.
5 I. M. C. Hinderlider, Report on the Water Rights. Irrigated Lands and Present
Irrigatino System of the William Salman Ranch. Mora County. New Mexico (Santa Fe,
New Mexico: State Engineers Office, 1945), 2. Testimony of La Cueva Ranch Company,
16 April 1894, Mora County Civil Cause no. 632, file 2, NMSRCA.
52. Testimony of David C. Deuel, 16 April 1894, Mora County Civil Cause no. 632,
file 3, NMSRCA.
53. Intervention of Jose Y. Lujan, 15 November 1915, Cause no. 632, File no. 2,
SRCA.

54. Testimony taken before the Special Master, William E. Gortner, 17 April 1894,
Mora County Court Cause no. 632, file 2, NMSRCA.
55. Libro de Registro Book 2 or B, 9, CCOMCC.
56. Libro de Registro Book.2 or B, 85, CCOMCC. Again the calculation of these
distances is very crude, since the document simply identifies the boundaries as "por el
norte con los linderos 0 limites del silio de la Cueva. por el oriente el filo del creston
de Buena Bista. de Halli tirendo una linia recta hasi al sur linda con los limites del
sitio de Manuelitas que actualmente pertenese al Condado de San Miguel, y por el
poniente sera con los linderos de Matias Belasques. .." (in the north the boundaries of
the La Cueva site, on the east the top of the Buena Bista crest, from there tracing a straight
line to the south it ends with the boundaries of Matias Belasques ...).
57. The three recipients were Jose Francisco Lucero, Gabriel Lucero and Facundo
Valdez. Libro de 'Registro Book 2 or B, 10, CCOMCC.
58. Deed Book E, 584-88, CCOMCC.
59. Deed Book N, 37, CCOMCC. See also Ebright, "The Guadalupita Grant," 9.
60. In "The Mora Land Grant," 62, Knowlton states that the initial petition was dated
20 June 1851. This date seems incorrect since the statutes under which it was filed and
which created the office of the Surveyor General were not passed until 1854. Report 32,
File 66; microfilm reel 16, frame 8, SGR, NMSCRA.
61. Knowlton provides an excellent discussion of the problems that arose concern-
ing the survey of the Mora grant in "The Mora Land Grant."
62. Abstract ofthe Mora Grant, 2. Knowlton, "The Mora Grant," 66, citing Westphall,
158, states that the patent was issued to Catron and Elkins. This is imprecise. While Catron
and Elkins may have claimed that they owned the grant, the patent itself makes mention
only of the seventy-six original settlers and their heirs and assigns. Catron and Elkins
still had to obtain the partition of the grant to obtain the lands, and the issuence of the
patent itself in 1876 resulted in no important change in the occupation of the land.
63. In one of the very earliest rounds of testimony taken after the partition suit was
filed by Vicente Romero and Elkins, Dolores Romero denied that the grant "was for the
exclusive benefit of the [seventy-six] names in the bill and alleges that said grant was for
the benefit of all who might settle thereon and cultivate the unoccupied lands." Answer of
Dolores Romero, 21 April 1879, Cause 632, File 32, NMSRCA.
64. On these points see Benavides, Westphall, 134-35 and Knowlton, "The Townof
Las Vegas," 17_18.
65. Abstract of the Mora Grant, 4-5.
66. For a general discussion of these matters see Westphall, 156-57, 175-79.
67. See Ebright, "The Guadalupita Grant," 5; and Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant,"
65.
68. In "The Mora Land Grant," 65, Knowlton gives the membership of this pool as
Elkins, Darling, Spencer, and Colonel Samuel Smoot, a land speculator. The Darling,
Murray, and Elkins list comes from a document titled "Articles of Agreement between E.
J. Darling, Brown Murray and S. B. Elkins," dated 2 August 1869, Libro de Registro,
Book 2 or B, 602, CCOMCC. Catron is mentioned as a fourth member in the "Articles of
Agreement ..." recorded in Deed Book 0, 224, CCOMCC.
69. Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant," 65.
70. Ebright, "The Guadalupita Grant"; Benavides, "Lawyer-Induced Partitioning."
To some of his contemporaries, the aristocratic Catron was "as corrupt, as dishonorable a
politician as ever lived," (Ada Morley to Anne Martin, 15 March 1916, National Woman's
Party Papers, Library of Congress, cited in Joan Jensen, "'Disfranchisement is a Dis-
grace': Women and Politics in New Mexico, 1900-1940," in ed. Jensen and Darlis Miller,
New Mexico Women: Intercultural Perspectives (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press, 1986),312.
71. The data synthesized here was obtained from various Deed Books held by the
Mora County Clerk's Office. This information represents only a small portion of the total
material collected.
72. Deed Book A, 419, CCOMCC.

ROBERTD. SHADOW AND MARlA RODIUGUEZ-SHADOW 297
73. Deed Book N, 138,243, CCOMCC.
74. Decree of Judge David J. Leahy, 19 February 1916, Mora County Civil Cause
632, File 2, NMSCRA.
75. Answer of William B. Brunton, 7 April 1894, Mora County Civil Cause 632,
File 3, NMSRCA.
76. The history of the transfer of. the "interests" and of the role of local residents
who owned "interests" is recorded in the hundreds of pages of testimony taken and filed
during the partition suit.
77. Testithony of Julinita Lujan de Arag6n, 8 July 1890, Mora County Civil Cause
632, File 8, NMSRCA.
79. Mora Abstract of Title, 8; also in Deed Book 0, 224, CCOMCC. In "The Mora
Land Grant," 67, Knowlton states that this transaction occurred in 1885 and that Benjamin
Butler was the purchaser.
80. Mora Abstract of Title, 10.
81. Mora Abstract of Title, 11-12; also Deed Book C, 69, CCOMCC. Knowlton, in
"The Mora Land Grant," 67, citing Westphall, states that Elkins sold out to Adelbart Ames.
The source of this confusion is not clear although Ames was General Butler's son-in--
law.
83. Deed Book 0, 244, CCOMCC. The history of the Butler-Elkins transactions is
extremely confused, complicated by the existence of a number of deeds drawn up at dif-
ferent times all purporting to transfer title for Elkins' interests. Knowlton, "The Mora
Land Grant," 67, presents a somewhat different sequence of events than is offered here.
84. Special Master's Report, 1894, contained in Mora Abstract, 5.
85. Elkin's opinion is stated in a letter sent to Butler in 1884 to confirm this sale of
his interests. Mora Abstract of Title, 12.
86. Deed Book 0, 161 CCOMCC.
88. Benavides, "Lawyer-Induced Partitioning."
89. Mora Base Abstract, 10; Deed Book 0, 32, CCOMCC. Knowlton, "The Mora
Land Grant," 67, gives 1909 as the date for this transfer. Was this a typographical error?
90. Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant," 69, 72n.
91. Mora Base Abstract, 11-12, 14-15.
92. Mora Base Abstract, 30-34.
93. After the partition suit was concluded, the court ordered that Special Warranty
Deeds be drawn up by trustees from the grant communities, placing all of the occupiers of
land in legal possession of the properties they claimed. These indentures served to estab-
lish the first clear title for many of the lands in western Mora (see Deed Books Y and Z,
CCOMCC).
94. The court based its figure on an analysis of the seventy-six interests. The proce-
dure it followed was to determine who held the interests and in what amount. It then
compared these figures to the amount of land which the individual may have already ob-
tained or claimed through quiet title suit or adverse possession. Using the figure of 8,000
acres as equivalent to the seventy-sixth interest, the court determined the number of acres
interests already segregated. For example: The Union Land and Grazing Company held
36.5842 seventy-sixths interests. It also had actual possession, according to the court, of
64,968 acres. This acreage represented 8.12 seventy-sixths interests. Subtracting this from
the 36.5842 left the Company with rights to 28.4632 seventy-sixths interests. In theory, at
the conclusion of the partition suit, Union Land and Grazing would be entitled to receive
payment in proportion to these interests.
Inconsistencies abound in the calculation of interests/acres. In one place the court
states that a total of 20.3977 seventy-sixth interests have been segregated, equivalent to
163,181 acres (at 8,000 acres/seventy-sixth interest). A summation of the acreage listed
by the court as 'already segregated, however, gives totals of 500,000 or more acres. See
Mora Base Abstract, 20-25.

298 l'ffiW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW JULy 1995
95. We have little information on William Gortner, although we do know that an R.C.
Gortner was a law partner of Thomas B. Catron-and his son, Charles, in 1909.
96. In order to obtain an idea of the location, quantity and disposition of the land
held by the State Investment Company, we searched the Mora County Deed books for
records of the company's land sales. We found that in June 1930, the company took out a
(second?) mortgage from the First Mortgage Company of EI Paso, Texas for the sum of
$144,000, using the properties it held in the Mora and Anton Chico grants as collateral.
The Mora holdings totaled 53,885 acres. We assume that this figure represents the total
amount of land which the company held in Mora at that date. Using the Direct Index to
Deeds we then recorded all the land sales which State Investment made in the period
between the resolution of the partition suit and the issuance of the mortgage deed. We
found deeds recording a total of 107,813 acres sold during this period. Adding this figure
to the 53,885 acres held in 1930 (total=161,698 acres), and allowing for errors in our
search and imprecision in the records themselves, suggests that the minimum amount of
land owned by the State Investment Company within the Mora grant was on the order of
175,OOO.acres. A review of the Indirect Index to Deeds for the same timespan showed that
the Company had obtained title to some 12,000 additional acres independent of the parti-
tion suit, mainly through foreclosure on unpaid mortgages. Subtracting this acreage from
the 175,000 figure leaves 163,000 acres as a plausible estimate for the amount of land
obtained by the company in the partition suit.
97. Mora Base Abstract, 41.
98. Petition to the Secretary of the Department ot the Interior from a Committee Ap-
pointed in a Convention of the Residents of the Mora Grant held on 15 June 1875 in the
Community of Mora, National Archive Record Group 59, Mora Land Grant, New Mexico;
cited in Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant," 66-67.
99. Knowlton, "The Mora Land Grant," 68-69.
I00. Miscellaneous Deed Records, Book 5, 546-50, 603-05, CCOMCC.
101. The western forest tract obtained by Wheeler is concentratad in Townships 18
and 20N, Range 14E.
102. See Ebright, "New Mexican Land Grants," 46-47 for a discussion of the Sandoval
decision.
103. The exact references for all these indentures are too numerous to list. To re-
cover this information we began our search with the Direct Index to Deeds in the CCOMCC
and noted all the entries for the State Investment Company. Then we went to the indicated
deed books to obtain information on the people and acreage involved in the varied trans-
actions.
104. The 1927 Tax Roll records Read's acreage but lists neither livestock nor im-
provements on his property. County Treasurer's Office (CTO), MCC.
105. Of the 3,007 acres sold by Wheeler, 900 were obtained by one Anglo new-
comer.
106. Deed Book W, 224; Miscellaneous Deed Record Book W, 230; Quit Claim Deed
Book n, 74, all in CCOMCC.
107. Data taken from 1900 Tax Roll, CTO-MCC.
109. Ramon A. Gutierrez, "Community, Patriarchy and Individualism: The Politics
of Chicano History and the Dream of Equality," American Quarterly 45 (March 1993),
67.

From Reparticiòn to Partition_ A History of the Mora Land Grant.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to From Reparticiòn to Partition_ A History of the Mora Land Grant.pdf

More from SGB Media Group

Recently uploaded

From Reparticiòn to Partition_ A History of the Mora Land Grant.pdf