More to Explore

Santa Teresa Grant

by J. J. Bowden

Sometime prior to the year 1790, a four‑league tract of land situated on the west bank of the Rio Grande River, the southeast corner of which was located about seven miles northwest of El Paso del Norte, Mexico, was granted to Francisco Garcia, the military commandant of El Paso del Norte, by the Lieutenant Governor of Nueva Viscaya. The tract be­came known as “Rancho de Santa Teresa.” Garcia used the tract primarily as a pasturage for his extensive herds of cattle and sheep from the time he acquired it until the summer of 1822. Zebulon Pike in 1807, advises us that Garcia had twenty thousand sheep and a thousand cows in the vicinity of El Paso del Norte.[1]

During the summer of 1822, Garcia was forced to temporarily abandon the grant when Apache war parties commenced crossing the Rio GrandeRiver at Muleros Ford, which was located just south of Garcia’s ranch house, while on their frequent raids into the interior of the present state of Chihuahua. From 1822 until the time of his death in 1840, Garcia pastured livestock on the grant whenever the Indian disturbances subsided. Under the Mexican Community Property Laws, Garcia’s undivided one‑half interest in the grant was owned by Francisco Garcia’s widow, Josefa Horcasitas Garcia.

Jose Maria Garcia, the eldest son of Francisco Garcia permanently reoccupied the Santa Teresa Grant in 1840. He repaired the ruined buildings and corrals and stocked the grant with cattle, sheep, goats and horses. A portion of the grant was also placed under cultivation.

After the Battle of Bracito, the victorious American forces under Colonel Alexander N. Doniphan were quartered in the public buildings and certain private homes in the city of El Pasodel Norte. A portion of Doniphan’s troops occupied Jose Maria Garcia’s home, and after their departure, it was discovered that Garcia’s copy of the title papers to the Santa Teresa Grant were missing. The expediente to the Santa Teresa Grant, which had been filed in the Archives of the Ayuntamiento of El Paso del Norte was also missing after the invading forces left the city. It is a notorious fact that the soldiers quartered in the MunicipalBuilding destroyed a large portion of the public records by using them to kindle fires and to light candles. It was, therefore, presumed that both copies of the grant papers were either lost or destroyed by the American occupation forces. [2]

Josefa Horcasitas Garcia died in about the year 1848. Due to the loss or destruction of all of the copies of the title papers pertaining to the grant, it became necessary for the heirs of Francisco and Josefa Horcasitas Garcia to institute a judicial inquiry under the provisions of the Act of May 23, 1837, to perpetuate the testimony of certain witnesses which would tend to prove the validity of the Santa Teresa Grant and define its boundaries. Jose Marie Garcia, as one of the executors of his mother’s estate, instituted such an ex parte proceeding on January 7, 1853. Bentura Lopez, Second Judge of the First Instance of the Canton of El Paso del Norte, after investigating the validity of the Santa Teresa Grant, issued a decree on January 16, 1853, which reaffirmed the title to the grant in Jose Maria Garcia, Francisco Noriega y Garcia, Rafael Garcia, Pedro Garcia, Guadalupe Garcia Albo, and Jesus Garcia, the heirs of Francisco Garcia and Josefa Horcasitas Garcia. The Court reestablished and defined the boundaries of the grant as follows:

Beginning at a cottonwood tree on the west bank of the river in the bend of Piedras Paradas; thence north along the west bank of the river 20,000 varas to a cottonwood tree on the west bank of the river in the bend of the Cobrena; thence 5,000 varas to a monument of stone above the brow of the hills; thence south 20,000 varas to a monument of stone in a depression in the hills; thence east 5,000 varas to the point of beginning.[3]

While the Gadsden Treaty of December 30, 1853, solved the boundary controversy arising out of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo by moving the International Boundary south 31° 47' north latitude, it presented a new problem for the claimants of the Santa Teresa Grant. Since the grant was located within the area ceded to the United States under that treaty, the claimants would have to secure its recognition by the United States, but the dangers incident to a trip to Santa Fe, which required the crossing of the dreaded Jornada del Muerto, caused them to postpone the presentation of their claim to the Surveyor General until June 4, 1877. [4]

Meanwhile, the executors of the estate of Josefa Horcasitas Garcia had conveyed the southern one‑half of the grant to Pablo Miranda on August 8, 1872. This conveyance was made in consideration of legal services rendered by Miranda in connection with the Mexican Judicial Inquiry of 1853.[5] Pablo Miranda sold his interest in the grant to Jesus Maria Escobar for $800.00.[6]  Thereafter, Jesus Maria Escobar and his brother Jesus Escobar y Armindaris, purchased the greater portion of the northern half of the grant from a majority of the heirs of Francisco and Josefa Garcia.[7]

Surveyor General Henry M. Atkinson, on December 11, 1878, held that the grant was valid and recommended that the claim be confirmed by Congress unto the heirs and assigns of Francisco Garcia according to the boundaries set forth in the Mexican Decree of January 16, 1853. The Surveyor General stated that in addition to the documentary evidence and peaceful occupation of the lands since 1790, which alone were sufficient to establish the validity of the grant, the genuineness of the grant was corroborated by the fact that the southern boundary of the Refugio Civil Colony Grant was stated to be the lands of Jose Maria Garcia, or the lands covered by the claim under investigation.[8]

The grant was surveyed in April, 1883, by John Shaw, a United States Deputy Surveyor, under Contract Number 184. His survey disclosed that the grant straddled the International Boundary between the United States and Mexico. The portion of the grant located in the United States contained 9,681.29 acres of land. Surveyor General Atkinson approved the Shaw survey on November 28, 1883.[9]

No further action was taken on the petition for the confirmation of the grant during the balance of Surveyor General Atkinson’s term or during the term of his successor, Clarence Pullen. George W. Julian was appointed to the office on July 22, 1885. In response to special instructions he had received from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Julian reviewed all of the evidence pertinent to the grant and on October 16, 1886, reported that such evidence established a strong equitable claim, if not a legal one, but that he could not recommend it for approval, because the title papers of the grant were not then located in the Archives of Mexico,

Jesus Escobar through M. Romero, Minister of the Mexican Legation in Washington, D.C., protested the position taken by Julian in his opinion. He stated that the claimants had offered creditable evidence establishing the fact that the original Spanish muniments of title had been duly recorded in the Archives of El Paso del Norte, and had satisfactorily accounted for their loss at the hands of the agents of the United States. He further stated that the validity of the grant was based not so much upon the original Spanish grant, which was valid and completed, as upon the duly archived title created by virtue of the confirmation and recognition of title‑to the grant by the Government of Mexico through a Court of competent jurisdiction in January, 1853. [10]

Escobar concluded that the Surveyor General’s recommendation that the grant be rejected on grounds that it was not recorded, in the Archives of Mexico was unfounded and should not prevent the confirmation of the title by Congress. Escobar also objected to the Shaw survey and requested the grant be resurveyed in order to include four leagues of the lands instead of merely 9,681.29 acres. The protest concluded by pointing out that despite the passage of thirty‑four years since the United States had assumed the obligation of inviolably respecting the property rights of Mexican citizens and the lifetime efforts by the claimants of the grant to secure the confirmation of their claim, the Government repeatedly had failed to discharge its solemn obligation.[11]

In response to Escobar’s protest, S. M. Stockslager, acting Commissioner of the General Land Office, replied that no further action could be taken by the Executive Department to expedite Congressional action on the Santa Teresa Grant, and if the grant was eventually approved by an act of Congress, the grant would be resurveyed in order to conform with the boundaries designated in the act. Romero wrote the Secretary of Interior, T. H. Bayard, on July 13, 1888, and called the Secretary’s attention to the provisions contained in the Treaties of Guadalupe Hidalgo and Mesilla, whereby the United States had agreed to inviolably respect vested property rights located within the ceded areas. Romero stated that it had been clearly established that the original grant had been legally made, that subsequently it had been confirmed by the proper Mexican authorities, and that evidence thereof had been recorded in the Public Archives of El Paso del Norte. Romero advised the Secretary that if the Department of Interior would not expedite the settlement of Escobar’s claim, then, as the Mexican Minister to the United States, he would have no alternative but to present the claim through the Department of State,. He then proceeded to review the deplorable history of the United States’ efforts to settle the Spanish and Mexican Land Claims in New Mexico. He called the Secretary’s attention to the fact that during the 26 years that had elapsed since the enactment of the Act of July 22, 1854, [12] which established the only procedure for proving the validity of Spanish and Mexican Land Claims in New Mexico, that over one thousand private land claims had been filed in the Surveyor General’s office, that the various Surveyor Generals had transmitted one hundred and fifty of such claims to Congress, but that only seventy‑one claims, or 7% of the total number filed, had been acted upon by that body. Romero surmised that based upon its previous progress that it would take Congress several centuries to settle the land claims which had already been filed in the Surveyor General’s office. As a result of Minister Romero’s letter, Secretary Bayard requested the President, William Henry Harrison, to present the chaotic land grant problem to Congress with his recommendation that an effective and competent court be established to determine the validity of Spanish and Mexican Land Claims in the Southwest. [13] On July 1, 1890, President Harrison sent a special message to Congress calling its attention to the urgent need of legislation for the adjustment of New Mexico’s private land grant problems. Awakened to the fact that special legislation was needed to provide a practical method of adjudicating private land claims, Congress passed an Act creating the Court of Private Land Claims on March 3, 1891.[14]

The tenacious owners of the Santa Teresa grant persistently prosecuted their claim to the lands which they and their predecessors had occupied for more than a century by filing suit in the Court of Private Land Claims against the United States[15] on March 2, 1893. In the petition, they alleged that they were the owners of the Santa Teresa Grant by inheritance and purchase from the original grantee, that title to the grant was complete and perfect on the date the United States acquired sovereignty over the land in question, and that they and their predecessors had held peaceful, uninterrupted possession of the grant since the date of its conception. The petitioners concluded with a prayer that the grant be confirmed in accordance with the boundaries set forth in the Mexican Court Decree of January 16, 1853.[16]

On December 24, 1894, M. R. Pendell acquired the interests in the Santa Teresa Grant which had formerly been owned by Jesus Maria Escobar [17]and Jesus Escobar y Armindaris. Nayes Rand and James H. White intervened in the case on February 23, 1897 as party defendants. They alleged that they owned certain lands located on the west bank of the Rio GrandeRiver lying between the International Boundary Line and the Southern Pacific Railroad Company bridge upon which were located their brick kilns and yards.

The case was tried before the Court on the 29th and 30th of August, 1899. At the trial, Pendell produced a substantial amount of testimony and documentary evidence, tending to prove that the grant had originally been made by a duly authorized representative of the King of Spain, but the archives containing the original title documents had been sacked by the invading American forces during the Mexican war. The plaintiff next asserted that the grant had been duly reaffirmed in 1853, and in support of this contention, they attempted to introduce into evidence a certified copy of the Mexican Court proceedings.

The Government objected to the admission of the Mexican Court proceedings on the grounds that they merely perpetuated certain testimony, and therefore, could not be construed as a confirmation of the grant. The Government pointed out that the Mexican proceedings failed to disclose the authority under which the grant was issued, the name of the granting authority, the date of the grant, or any of the other details connected with the alleged concession which were required to be set forth and proved under Section 6 of the Act of March 3, 1891. [18]The Government next asserted that a grant issued by a Lieutenant Governor of Nueva Viscaya about the close of the 18th century would be invalid, because the lands in question were then situated in the Province of New Mexico. Continuing this line of reasoning, the Government argued that if the original grant was invalid, the Mexican Court proceedings, which were held in order to perpetuate the evidence of such a grant, could not cure this fatal defect in the plaintiff’s title. The Court overruled the Government’s objections and accepted the proceedings into evidence.

Oral testimony presented by Pendell tended to show that Francisco Garcia and those holding under him had held peaceful possession of the lands covered by the grant for many years prior to the date of the signing of the Treaty of 1853. On cross‑examination, it was fully developed by the Government that Pendell and his predecessors’ possession had not been exclusive, but the inhabitants of El Paso del Norte had also used the premises as a common pasture ground.

There was also a large amount of testimony presented by both parties bearing on the boundaries of the grant. The plaintiffs contended that the southern boundary of the grant was located near the International Boundary Line while the Government placed it near Piedras Paradas as stated in the Mexican Court Decree. The Piedras Paradas were a group of well‑known “standing rocks” which were located some distance north of the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge across the Rio GrandeRiver. Evidence was also introduced by the defendants showing that the Guadalupe Miranda and Barela Grants were located between the Santa Teresa Grant and the International Boundary Line.

The Government finally urged that even if all of the plaintiffs’ evidence concerning title and possession were true, the claim was still not entitled to confirmation, because the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a copy of the original * grant papers were located and recorded in the Mexican Archives as required by the Sixth Article of the Gadsden Treaty.

On May 4, 1900, the Court, through Justice Henry C. Sluss, announced its majority opinion confirming the grant on the grounds that the long, peaceful possession of the land by Francisco Garcia and his successors was sufficient under the [19]Doctrine of Presumption of Title announced in the Chaves case to establish a presumption that the Santa Teresa Grant was valid. A majority of the Court was of the opinion that the Doctrine of Presumption also bound the Court to assume that all necessary steps had been taken to vest absolute title to the grant in the plaintiff, notwithstanding the require­ment contained in the Gadsden Treaty that the grant be located [20] and duly filed in the Archives of Mexico.

Justices William H. Murray and Thomas C. Fuller in a dissenting opinion, stated that they did not believe that it could be presumed under the Doctrine of Presumption that the title to a presumed grant had been duly filed in the Archives of Mexico, because under the Laws of Mexico, failure to file such title papers did not affect the validity of a grant. They felt that the location of title papers in the Archives of Mexico was a prerequisite to the recognition by the United States of any perfect or presumed grant located within the area covered by the Gadsden Purchase. They reasoned that if the Treaty prohibited the recognition of a perfect grant because it was not located and recorded in the Archives of Mexico, then the Government under the same reason­ing would be under no obligation o recognize a presumed grant. [21]

The Court of Private Land Claims, in a formal decree of August 16, 1900, confirmed title to the following described land located in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, to the heirs and assigns of Francisco Garcia:

The tract of land known as the “Santa Teresa” bounded on the north by that bend known as “Cobrena”; on the south by the bend of the Piedras Paradas, the same being somewhat to the north of the present location of the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge, where the same crosses the Rio Grande del Norte; on the east the old bed of the said Rio Grande del Norte, as the same ran and existed in the year 1853; and on the west the brow of the ridge running parallel with the said river.[22]

In his report to the Attorney General, the United States Attorney stated that he was of the opinion that the confirmation of the Santa Teresa Grant was not justified by the record and recommended an appeal be taken in the case.[23]  As a result of his recommendation, the Government appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in affirming the judgment of the lower court on April 21, 1902, held the evidence of long uninterrupted possession of the lands in question coupled with testimony showing that the United States occupational forces had partially destroyed the Public Archives of El Paso del Norte was sufficient not only to presume the existence of the grant, but also to presume that the grant papers had been duly recorded in the Archives of Mexico as required by the Gadsden Treaty. [24]

24

22. 4 Journal 208‑210 (Mss., Records of the Ct. Pvt. L.Cl.).

Deputy Surveyor Wendell V. Hall surveyed the grant on December 23, 1903. His survey showed the grant as containing 8,478.51 acres.[25] Notice of the filing of the Hall survey of the grant was given in accordance with Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1891, [26] and gave all persons claim­ing an interest in the lands covered by the survey 90 days to file objections to the survey. George Zimpleman, Joseph W. Magoff in and Josephine Crosby protested the approval of the Hall Survey on the grounds that it extended into the State of Texas and conflicted with the Canutillo Grant. They alleged that they owned and had occupied a portion of the lands in conflict ever since the title to the Canutillo Grant had been confirmed by a Special Relinquishment Act of the Texas Legislature on February 11, 1858.[27]

The Court of Private Land Claims overruled the Texas complainants’ objections to the survey on the grounds that they had not offered any evidence tending to prove that Hall’s survey had not correctly located the eastern boundary of the Santa Teresa Grant, which was situated in the bed of the river as it existed in 1853. The Court held that the boundary between Texas and New Mexico was not a shifting and changing boundary, but was a fixed line located in the center of the Rio Grande as it ran on the date of the signing of the Gadsden Treaty. The Court of Private Land Claims, therefore, approved the survey on June 16, 1904.[28]

Realizing that the confirmation would greatly increase the value of the choice lands embraced in the Santa Teresa Grant, Pendell filed a Quiet Title Suit against the unknown heirs of Francisco and Josefa Garcia in the Third Judicial District Court of New Mexico in order to remove any cloud cast on his title by the outstanding interest owned by Zimpleman, Magoff in and Crosby. The Court issued a Decree on August 1, 1907, which recognized and established Pendell’s title to all of ‑'the Santa Teresa Grant against any and all adverse claims. [29]

After Pendell had cleared the cloud from his title, he reimbursed the Government for one‑half of the cost of surveying the grant and demanded that a patent be issued for such lands. Upon learning that the Government intended to patent the Santa Teresa Grant, the State of Texas protested such action and requested that a hearing be held in order to permit it to show that Hall’s survey embraced lands located within the boundaries of the State of Texas. Texas’ protest was overruled by the Secretary of the Interior, and a Patent was issued on August 16, 1909, to Francisco Garcia, his heirs and assigns for the 8,478.51 acres of land designated in the Hall Survey.[30] The Patent for the Santa Teresa Grant conflicted with 2,704 acres of land which had previously been patented by the State of Texas.[31] A patent issued by the United States to lands in the state of Texas would be absolutely voice since Texas had retained all of its public domain upon its entrance into the Union.

In order to settle the confusion and uncertainty which had resulted from the Santa Teresa‑Canutillo boundary dispute, New Mexico, following its admission into the Union, filed suit on January 31, 1913, in the United States Supreme Court against Texas in order to determine the exact location of its boundary along the Rio Grande between 32° and 31° 47' North Latitude. New Mexico alleged in its Bill of Complaint that the boundary was located in the channel of the Rio Grande as it ran on September 9, 1850, and on that date the river ran in an almost straight line down the extreme side of the MesillaValley from 32° to 31° 47´. This would have placed approximately 20,000 acres of land that had been patented by the State of Texas under the jurisdiction of New Mexico. Texas filed an answer and cross bill on April 1, 1913, agreeing that the boundary was located in the middle of the channel of the river as it ran on September 9, 1850, but alleged that on that date the river was located near the center of the valley. Since both parties admitted that the boundary was a fixed line located in the middle of the channel of the river as it ran on September 9, 1850, the sole issue to be determined by the Court in the case was the actual location of the river on that date.

It is historical accident that the location of the river as it ran on September 9, 1850, had never been determined by an officially recognized survey. It was conceded that the river had not changed its course between 1848 and 1853. During this six‑year period, the river had separated two nations. The river had also divided two major political subdivisions of the United States for more than three‑quarters of a century. Because it had generally been accepted that the boundary between Texas and New Mexico was subject to the doctrine of accretion and avulsion, Texas had continuously claimed and exercised jurisdiction over the lands located east of the river and had issued patents to nearly all of the land bordering the east bank of the river of 1850 located between 32° and 31° 47´ North Latitude.

Testimony pertaining to the true location of the river in 1850 was taken for several years. It tended to prove that the river was actually located in the position asserted by the State of Texas. Thereafter, L. M. Crawford, the owner of certain lands under the Santa Teresa Grant in the Country Club Bend was permitted to intervene in the case as amicus curiae Crawford asserted that the boundary was not a fixed line but was subject to the doctrine of accretion and avulsion. The Supreme Court then referred the question of the location of the boundary line to a special master.

Special Master Charles Warren, on April 21, 1926, reported that in 1850 the river ran down the approximate center of the MesillaValley as contended by the State of Texas. The master further found that the boundary was not a fixed line, but was subject to the doctrine of accretion and avulsion. He concluded by ruling that the boundary had shifted eastward by accretion.[32]

On December 12, 1927, the United States Supreme Court held that the only proper questions in issue in the case were whether the master’s findings as to the location of the river in 1850 were correct, and. if so, whether the boundary had subsequently changed by accretion. The Court held that the Act of September 9, 1850, established the Texas‑New Mexico boundary as a fixed line in the middle of the Rio Grande channel between 32° and 31° 47' North Latitude, and that the master’s report as to the location of the river in 1850 was substantially correct. However, the Court rejected the master’s findings insofar as it held that the boundary had changed by accretion. [33]

Samuel S. Gannett was appointed Commissioner by the United States‑Supreme Court to survey and mark the fixed boundary line. Gannett’s survey showed that the boundary line between 32° and 31° 47' was 25.17 miles in length. The line was marked by 105 permanent monuments which are approximately .24 of a mile apart. The Commissioner also established and marked 45 reference points and 6 triangulation stations. The number, elevation, and geographic position of each individual monument, reference point, and triangulation station were inscribed on a bronze tablet imbedded in the top of a marker which designated such site. The survey was completed on July 17, 1930, and it was subsequently approved by the Court.[34]

 As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, patents issued by the United States Government covering 4,627 acres of land in Texas were invalidated and Texas patents to 2,499 acres of land located in New Mexico were set aside.[35]

Crawford filed suit in the 41st Judicial District Court of Texas against Z. T. White, the owner of certain lands on the Canutillo Grant on January 25, 1928. Crawford alleged that while the Supreme Court Decision had fixed the boundary line as of September 9, 1850, the line had subsequently moved eastward by accretion. He asserted that as the owner of the adjoining lands, he had acquired all lands lying west of the river in the Country Club Bend under the doctrine of accretion. The trial court instructed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the grounds that this issue had previously been adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court.[36] Crawford promptly appealed the decision. The Eighth Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that the Texas‑New Mexico boundary was a fixed line, and that the title to the lands adjoining the Rio Grande was not affected by the doctrine of accretion and avulsion.[37]

 Here is an unusual case from the records of state and federal courts. The net effect of this strange decision was that the forces of nature are, in effect, declared subject to man’s jurisdiction. One is dealing with a legal fiction when he considers the Court’s statement that the proper legal boundary between Texas and New Mexico is a fixed line and, in addition, that the fixed line is the channel of the Rio Grande. Under the decision of the Court, the river may, and had, moved physically, but not legally. Seen through the eyes of the Court, the Rio Grande must eternally flow through its channel of 1850.

One material advantage which resulted from defining the boundary between Texas and New Mexico as a fixed line was that property rights were securely tied down and no longer subject to change or alteration through accretion by the annual Rio Grande floods of the ever‑shifting river.

During the more than a quarter of a century it took to settle the Texas‑New Mexico interstate boundary controversy, which had evolved out of the Santa Teresa‑Canutillo conflict, a majority of the landowners whose farms were intersected by the boundary line had purchased the conflicting title to their land. Therefore, they held under both United States and Texas chains of title. Both the United States and Texas passed relief legislation which permitted persons who had held actual bona tide possession of land under patent or color of title from the previous sovereign, but whose title had been invalidated by the Supreme Court’s decision, to purchase the same under certain conditions from the new sovereign if such lands were a part of the vacant public domain.[38]

The confirmation of the grant and the final adjudication of its disputed eastern boundary together with the completion of the Elephant Butte Darn and irrigation system greatly increased the value of the 5,774.51 acres of choice valley remaining in the Santa Teresa Grant.


[1] Quaife, The Southwestern Expedition of Zebulon Pike,166 (1925)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] 6 Deed Records, 515-517 (Mss., Records of the CountyClerk's Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico).

[6] 6 Deed Records, 517-519 (Mss., Records of the CountyClerk's Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico).

[7] 6 Deed Records 519‑521 (Mss., Records of the CountyClerk’s Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico).

[8] Land Claims Records 48‑51 (Mss., Records of the S.G.N.M.). Atkinson’s last assumption was subsequently proven erroneous in the Refugio Civil Colony Grant case. In that case, it was held that the call for the Refugio Civil Colony Grant to extend south to the lands of Jose Maria Garcia meant for the grant to extend to the southern boundary of the Refugio Civil Colony lands which had been allotted to Jose Maria Garcia by Commissioner Ortiz and not to the north boundary of the Santa Teresa Grant, which was then owned by Jose Maria Garcia and his co‑heirs. The grant of the Colony of Refugio V. United States, No. 150, Ct. Pvt. L. Cl. (1898).

[9] The Santa Teresa Grant No. 111 (Mss., Records of the S.G.N.M.).as required by Article Six of the Gadsden Treaty of December 30, 1853.

[10] S. Exec. Doc. No. 19, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., 2‑3 (1887)

[11] S. Exec. Doc. No. 170, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., 2‑5 (1890)

[12] An Act to Establish the Office of Surveyor General of New Mexico, Kansas, and Nebraska, to grant donations to actual settlers, and for other purposes. Chap. 103, 10 Stat. 308 (1854).

[13] Ibid., 6‑15.

[14] Court of Private Land Claims Act, Chap. 539, 26 Stat. 854 (1891).

[15] Escobar v. United States, No. 168 (Mss., Records of the Ct. Pvt. L. Cl.).

[16] Ibid.           

[17] Deed Records 138 (Mss., Records of the CountyClerk’s Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico).

[18] Court of Private Land Claims Act, Chap. 539, Sec. 6, 26 Stat. 854 (1891).

[19]United States v. Chaves, 175 U.S. 509 (1899). In this case, the Supreme Court held that long and uninterrupted possession of real property in the absence of rebutting circum­stances created a presumption that formal instruments or records of title once existed, even if they could not be found.

[20] Pendell v. United States, No. 168, Ct. Pvt. L. Cl. (1900).

[21] Ibid.

[22] 4 Journal 208‑210 (Mss., Records of the Ct. Pvt. L.Cl.).

[23] Report of the United States Attorney dated August 29, 1900, in Pendell v United States (Mss., Records of the General Services Administration, National Archives, Washington, D.C.) Record Group 60, Year File 9865‑92.

[24]United States v. Pendell, 185 U.S. 189 (1902).

[25] The Santa Teresa Grant, No. 111 (Mss., Records of the S.G.N.M).

[26] Court of Private Land Claims Act, Chap. 539, Sec. 10, 26 Stat. 854 (1891).

[27] 10 Gammel, The Laws of Texas 1027 (1898).

[28] The Santa Teresa Grant, No.111(Mss., Records of the S.G.N.M.).

[29] Pendell v. The Unknown Heirs, Executors and Administrators of George Baggs, No. 2741 (Mss., Records of the District Clerk’s Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico).

[30] 35 Deed Records 252 (Mss., Records of the CountyClerk’s Office, Las Cruces, New Mexico).

[31] Turney, Burges, Culwell & Pollard, The Texas and New Mexico Boundary Along the Rio Grande Valley Between the 32nd Parallel of North Latitude and the Parallel 31° 47´North Latitude (Latter Parallel Being the International Boundary Line Between the United States and Mexico, 18 (1930).

[32] Report of the Special Master in New Mexico v Texas 6, 75, 78, 90 (1926).

[33]New Mexico v. Texas, 275 U.S. 279 (1927).

[34] Report of the Boundary Commissioner in New Mexico v Texas, 1‑9, 20, 54.

[35] Turney, Burges, Cuiwell & Pollard, The Texas and New Mexico Boundary Along the Rio Grande Valley Between the 32nd Parallel of North Latitude and the Parallel of 31 Degrees and Minutes North Latitude Latter Parallel Being the Inter­national Boundary Line Between the United States and Mexico, 25 (1930).

[36] Crawford v. White, No. 29011 (Mss., Records of the District Clerk’s Office, El Paso, Texas).

[37] Crawford v. White, 25 S.W. 2d 629 (Tex. Civ. App. 1930).

[38] An Act to authorize the Secretary of Interior to issue Patents for lands held, under color of title, Chap. 47, 45 Stat. 1069 (1928); and Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 5421(d) (1947).