Douket No. - S 5 4
AUG 11 i95'
Before the
Indian Claims Commission
Ol" Tn.., UN'1T1IlD ST.t.~'ES
THE PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO. and Richard Martine.
and Botero Montoya, repreller,tatlvcB of thc Pueblo, of San
IldefoDBo and of the Pueblo IndlaoB uf the l~io Grande,
PetitionerB,
THill UNITED STATES OF AMERIOA,
DfifertdGfl'
PIlTmOlf
I
f
I
~
i
,i.'
DA.BWIN
P.
KIN08LIIlY,
JB.,
~22
East 42nd Street,
New York City 17, N. Y.,
, AttC/meg of Record for the Pelitw,'p.rs.
Betore the
Indian Claims Commission
Docket No. ,­
THE PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO, and Riellllrd MlIrtinez
and Botero Montoya, repreecntativce of thc Pueblo 0; Son
lIdefonso and of the Puoblo Indip"lS of the Rio Grande,
Petitioners,
vs,
THIll UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant
PETITION
FmST OAUSE 01' AOTION
Jurisdiction
1. Tribal E:lJistence. The Pueblo of San TIdefonso, also
known as the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, is and has been
since time immemorial a tribe of American Indians resid­
ing within the present territorial limits of the ,United
States.
(
,
2. Tribal Orgamsation. Petitioner Pueblo has bee\recog­
nized by the Government of the 'United States as a tribe
and as a corporation, having a regularly elected Governor
and Council to ,represent it. Such reeognition is evidenced
by a cane in the posaession of the present Governor of the
)
I
I
3
2
Pueblo, granted to Petitioner Pueblo by President Abra·
ham Lincoln. Petitioner Pueblo was Rimilarly recognized
by the Government of Mexico, as evidenced by a similar
cane in the possession of the present Governor, and was
also simUlU'ly reoogniledby the Government of Spain, as
evidenced by a oone granted by the sovereign of Spain,
and now in the posseasion of the present Governor of the
Petitioner Pueblo. Petitioner Pueblo is -authorleed under
the laws o! New Mexico to sue and be sued as a corpora­
tion. This action is instituted by and under the direc­
tion of tho Petitioner Pueblo, aoting through its G'lvernor
and Council. Petitioner Pueblo has acted in aeoordauce
with unwritteD oustoms of Pueblo Indian government of
long standing.
No group of innl-viduals or tribal organizations othel'
than that set forth in the preceding paragraph is recog­
nised by any department, office, or other agency of the
United States Government as having authority to repre­
SeDt, or act in the name of, the Petitioner Pueblo with reo
spect to the matters oovered by this Petition.
g. Relation, to Other PtUlblo Itldiafl8. The Petitioner
Pueblo is one of a gronp of Pueblos aU recognized by the
Governments of Spain, Mexioo, and the United States,
which ~re located within the valley of the upper Rio Grande
and its tributariei, and which have for more than 270 yearR
oonlltitnted' an identifiable group of Indians; hereiriafter
sometimes referred to as "the Pueblo Indians of the Rio
Grande" or, more brioDy, as "Potitioner Indians." This
group it 80metimes referred to as the Pueblo Tribll, but is
more aCClllntely designated lAS a oonfederation of tribes.
operating throllgh a oounoil oommonly mown as the All­
Pueblo Ccuncil. This group bas never presumed to inter­
fere with the internal aflai!s of any particular Pueblo,
but hae concemed itself with matters of general concern
to aU its member Pueblos. Among such matters of general
concern during the past 270 years have been the .hunting ,
rights and water rights of the various Puebloseutaide of
the areas separately owned ,by individual Pueblos,
defense of the Pueblo Indians against aggression, the. Be
tlement of inter-Pueblo disputes, and thell.eld of·puebio
relations with the sovereign.
" Petitioners~re
'
4. Employme,ae of Oounset.
repre~ted
in this proceeding by their attorney, D~ P.:Kingsley,
122 East 42nd Street, New Y?rk City-F'~~!';l?rk,
according to the terms of a written contract of employment
duly executed on behalf of the P~titioners~n.A.ugUstl.
1951,and filed with the Commissioner of Indian Aflairs on
August 2, 1951.
s-;
5. Statutory Authority; Petitioners file. the claims as­
serted herein pursuant to the Act of Congress. of ·August
'13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049,25 U.S. C. 7(\, et seq.), hemllafter
sometimes referred to as the "Act".
6. Ea:c/usive"es8 of F~rum. The olaimsXp rtlsenf:a .lilSrein
accrued prior to August 13, 1946. No suitis~~ding in
the Court of Claims or the Supreme Court· of the United
States with respect to said claims, nor have ~.~~ ~m8
been filed in the Court of Claims under le~slatioD exist­
ing at, or prior to, the date of the approvatof SIIoi~;;.A~t..
7. Nature of Claims. These cla~ms 'areba~DPonI>e­
lendant's violation of variouBpromisell, treaty.oormnit ­
ments, and other obligations, under law aud ~uitrand
under standards of fair and honorable dealings estll.blished
by the Act, by which Defendant was bOlmd to pro.teolvalu­
able rights which Petitioner Pueblo and Petitioner IJldi3ns
enjoyed at the time when they first came u~der.th~"sov­
ereignty of Defendant. Among these valuable rights were
the right to unimpaired use water, grazing lands, timber
0'
5
lande, and other lands which had been used from time im·
memoriai, and the right to enjoy all opportunities and
prlvllegl'B available to white citizeus. As a result of vari·
ous violations of these rights by Defendant and its agents,
Petitioner Pueblo has been deprived of certain lands which
it once owned in full title, and Petitioner Pueblo and Peti­
tioner Indians have also lost the use, rentals,. andproll.ts,
forsubatantial periods 6f time, with respe~t to other lands
. in which they hadlegaUy proteoted rights under Spanish
and Mexican sovereignty. This suit is brought to secure
'.lOmpensation for the various losses so suffered.
··P"titloners do not intend by any assertion in this com­
plaint to concede that their rights have been terminated
All to any partioular traot used, claimed, or possessed by
it when lIuch Idnds first eame under the jurisdiction of De­
fendant. Petitiuners are informed and believe, and on such
. inf0rm~~on and beliof, assert the fact to be, that by far
the greater ]ll\rt of such land, outside of the original San
Ddefonso Pueblo Grant and ether Pueblo grants, pur.
chases, and resorvations, is still hold by Defendant without
~ing subject to valid vested rights of" third parties. As
to an such lands 'upon which no valid grant to Gny third
party has ever been made, Petitionl'.s do not claim that
s~.ch land bas been taken by Defendant or that Defendant
is bound to pay just compensation as for such a taking
of land, but on the contrary, Petitioners claim only com­
pensatorydamagos for such interference with their ex­
'elusive us~ of such land as shall be proven-to have taken
pl8ce prior to the entry of judgment herein,
.
'"
BDent &Del Batme of Petitioners' Land Bights
8. Location of Lands of Petitiotler Putlblo. The lands
now exolusively occupied and possessed by Petitioner
Pueblo lie generally within three adjoining tracl~ com­
monly known as (a) the original San Ildefonsc GraIlt,
shown as Area No. 673 on the Map in Royoo'sLand Ces:
siotls, bearing the caption "New Mexico Ij"..and eompris­
, ing, according to the patent issued by Defendant, 17,29
'
acros; (b) the San Ildefonso Reservation, establi~
dct of Cougreas dated February 11, 1929(~Stab
and identified by said act as a narrow str~p·~litUe.~~~e .
than one and a half miles wide and four nllles 10~~I~~yirig
between the western bound~\ry or the Sanndefons()r,.~~?lo,
and the eastern boundary of II portion of'~b.~:~t8.'iFe
National Forest on the west, and (c) a tractcornprisirig
some 5,913.66 acres res f"l'ud to Petitioner Pueblo by Act
of Congress dated August 13, 1949 (63 stat. 604). ".This
tract was part of the originalaacred Area.orr,etitioner.
Pueblo, and is designated on various mapsasuSaored
Area. '" ; ' ...::);)<••.• .• .
These .three tracts were within the eXclusiv.~,~pancy
and po9S0ssion of Petitioner Pubelo .~t the. tim~~~~neJ1~h
lands came under the sovereignt}'. of theUmtedSta~s.
In addition to these lands, PetitiollerPue
and for many centuries prior the~eto;excl
occupied certain additional lands adjacent
from which Petitioner Pueblo hall
since
9. Use Made of LaMS of Petiti~tJers.
assertion of United States sover~ignty .
Petitioners, the Supreme Court or~ew.M .
of judges appointed by the PresideJ.l~,,"th
consent of the Senate, characteriZedthe,/i,. . ! ; } u­
diana as "'a people living for three .een~~~<tenlled
abodes and cultivating· the soi1fortheJM.i~~ce/of
themselves anel families, and giving an~~leo~.~e,
honesty and industry to their mOre ci~/J.l~igb.lJ:c)~s."
The materials upon which the Petitioner ID.~ l.lX~rcised
thoir industry came from the lands in their possession.
6
These lands lie at an altitude varying from about 5,000
12,000 feet above sea-level. The maximum
frost·free growing season within this area does not exceed
100 days a year. and in some parte of the aTca freezing
temperatur~s may occur on any day in the year. During
that portion of the year when the raising of crops is pos­
sible, Petitioner Indians have for many centurics past
directed their chief labors to the work of irrigation farm­
ing'..... The permanent homes, irrigation works, and public
buildings of Petitioner Indians are located within, or
immedi3tely adjaoont to, the areas irrigated from the Rio
Grande and its tributaries. During the greater part of
the year. when climatic conditions preclude agricultural
occupations, Petitioners did not limit their occupancy of'
land to the village area in which their homes, bulldinga
and irrigntion works were Ioeated, but utilized ccrtain defi­
nite areas aljaoont and contiguous thereto. A.t the time
. . 'When Defendant assumed sovereignty over the' area Peti­
tioners were raising large herds of horses, mules, sheep,
and goats, utilizing for such purposes grazing lands out­
side of the village areas. Petitioners had used such lands
for grazing since the Introduetlon of livestock by Spanish
priests and explorers in the sixteenth and seventeenth
Clenturies. Throughout that period and for many centuries
prior thereto Petitioner Pueblo and Petitioner Indians
also . made regular and exclusive use of other defined
areas cutside the village areas for ceremonial purposes
and .for purposes of hunting, trapping and fishing, cutting
.wood for eonstruetion and fuel, securing salt, clay,f1int,
turquoise, and various other mineral products, collecting
pition nuts, medicinal herbs, dyestuffs, materials for bas.
ketry, materials for making soaps, clothing, ornaments
and cosmetics, edible roots and berries, and other mineral
and vegetl/.bJe products.
to more than
7
10. Charac'er of pos.QeSBor1/ Ri~~~s.rul
ereigl a. Within the areas referrlid to
parazraph, l'etitionerll openly and~otorio~~ly.
elusive possessory rights, and enjoyed 1I0ieand
use, occupancy and possession nt}he time~h~~
first came under the ,jurisdiction o~ Defe~~~
similarly claimed and enjoYlid~uch~h~ •. th~)
period of Spanish and Mexicanr.ove~igntY .
thereto.A.t all.sueh times these ~~g~~~ ofP~)
had been recognized by the neigh~~~~g Ind~n
adjacent Pueblo of Santa Clara onthe.N?rth
boring Pueblos of Pojoaque allcll':Il.1l1beo~~~<
...~nd
the neighboring Pueblo of Tesuq~.~ on the/.~';ltheast,iand
by other Indian Pueblos of the RioGl.'and~tall
11. Protec'iofl by Spaflish andMe:J:icIJfl~~~ .., ). !~~~going possessory rights were prote~ted b)"th'Go"etnJrl~nt
of Spain and by thc Governme~t9.f.:yor
Bubstantially all of the areasus.lidancl<e~.
tioners. The Spanish .laws of t~e~nc1i~
ued
to be the law under Mexican sov~~ip
grant of lands which might ~ . p~eju •
oClcuparicyrig~ts of th.e original!~
copi/acidn de lndias, Book 4,Tit!~;12,<
laws recognized "immemo~al cus~~~~
Indian occupants of land to prot~~~n (N
cidn, Book 10, Title 17, Law 1) fgllara~
consented to live in Pueblos. th~t their
sions away from the puebl08wo~~d
nized and protected(Recopilac~n~~lt1tl
8, Law 9) ; required the removal of lUlyn .•. . . . ",."......... . 8
which operated to the prejudice of the~~(~~~
cidnde lndias, Book 4, Title 12, w 9• ~)!~~riCI~. ~,t.?
Viceroys, 1596, eh. 21); required the ~:~f~t.tot11~1c.to
.i
Ltl
8
9
appear on behalf of the Indians for the protection of their
land rights in all cases where such land rights might be
affected (RecQpilacw~ de Ittdias, Book 2, Title 18, Law 36);
and provided for the designation of a special attorney for
the Indians by the court wherever Indian rights adverse
to the Crown might be involved (Ibid., Law 35, approved
February 13,1554). The principle that the Indian Puebles
had possessory rights not only within the areas which they
aotually occupied, but also within the areas which they
utilized, continued· to be recogniz('d and implemented
throughout. tho period· of. SpaJlis~ authority, and subse­
quently was reaBirmedby the Mexican Government. Under
Mexican rule the Plan of Iguala of February 24, 1821,
inoorporated into the Mexican Detllaration or Independence
of October 16, 1821, further declared that "all the inhabi­
tants of New Spain, without distinction, whether En"",
peana, african&, or Incllans, are oitizens of this mona; .'
.~.. ,," and .also that "the person and property of every
citizen will be respected and protected by the govern­
menL"
had been regularly ani: exelusivelyuaed byPlltitiollers for
many decades for l:razingpur~ses and, ~t?~ tbJle lm­
memorial for other purposes set fortb}n paragrapb~'
Such rigl:ts of user w.ere generally regarde<lun~er·.Spa~·
and Mexican law as "imperfect rights, ..which woul
minate when no longer utilized,whereasthePueb~<
grant to the village area was considered a "pe~~t.l'igb.t"
capable of alienation under. prescribed conditi0lls~\T? the
Indians this distinction was of. no <imPOl',~nee~~in~>~ey
had no intention of either alienating their!to,IDes.~~/aban­
doning any of the lands on which theirsubsistenee de­
pended.
Obl!ptl.ODl Asaumed.. b7 Defendu.t
12, Oo_jfrmatio" of Pueblo Grant. Petitioner Pueblo's
ownership of the village area described in paragraph 8(a)
is confirmed by an ancient Spanish grant or confirmation.
13. Water Rit/Ats. Under the laws of Spain and Mexico,
and ~nder the cnstom of Indian' Pueblos long prior to the
ClOming of the Spaniards, Petitioners were entitled to use
the waters on which they depended for their irrigation
WOrks without interference from any human source. Dur­
ing the. period of Spanish and Mexican dominion, Peti­
tioners' rights in this regard were protected by general
laws and deerees,
14. Rig"ts of Ilser, At all iimes the Spanish and Mexican
Governments rocog'luzed and protected Petitioners' rights
to uninterrupted and exclusive use of thor.e areas which
15. Tl'eaty. Petitioners first ClIoIIle under~e.JlOlitical
jurisdiction and protection of the> Utd~,S~~ollor
about August 18, 1846, when Ge~eral :K~~~!'caf~r tak­
ing possession of New Mexico, el~bl~ea'~,.:~~t~fci~
govern'ment in thnt territory,This·~~J?tiou'Of sov­
erignty was suhsequently ratiAed by the'1l~~,
lupe Hidalgo of February 2, 1~ (9~ta~>~
Republic of Mexico. In said troa~, .De!~~ll
the policies regarding land tenureadop~~the
sovereigns, specifically promised ~bi~~ .'o
Mexican territory, iucluding.the .~etitioB~r~t;C) -:"Ci; ... ?Y~
ment of their lihel'ty and property;>' . . T~<l~~~ebers.of
Petitioner :pueblO and otherPqeblos, IUl~JlO~~;part
of this prowsed liberty was the libertyto.. ~~~­
tional sacred area for ceremonial P.1U'JI088Il,>to.i~.~ir
llvestoek in arcus not far removed from~~it:.~, to
resort to usual and accustomed hUJltinJJ~i.traPping
grounds and to secure materials ~fori8U~ten.ce
and for 'industry, Likewise, to the meJIl~~fPetitiouer
Pueblo, an important part of the ~"~nt
of property" related to land used for the f~ pur­
.
J
10
11
poses, notwithstanding that under the theory of Spanish
law, Petitlcners" proJrilrty rights in such lands were de­
nominated "imperfect" rather than "perfect."
16. Promises by Calha". and Others. During the yeaI'I;
followiJ18 August 18, 1846, the military and civil repre­
sentatives of the Unite<!. States in charge of the Territory
of New Mexico repeatedly promised Petitioners that, un­
der the dominion of the United States, its use and posses­
sion of .lands and water would forever be protected and
sftf~.larded against trespass,. interference or alienation.
Among such promises was that contained in an agreement
executed by James S. Calhoun, acting as Commissioner on
the part of the United States, on July 7, 1850, and on July
1~, 1850, by Juan Jose Palomo, Cacique, Juan Deos Yate,
Governor, ana Juan Esteven Vigil, Principal, on behalf
of Petitlouer PUl.':bIQ providiug,imer alia, as follows: .
4. The Government of the United States ..• will
adjust and' settle, in the most. practicable manner, the
boundaries of each Pueblo, which shall never be dimin­
ished, but may be enlarged whenever the Government
of the United Stl'tes shall deem it advisable.
Pueblos shall be referred, foradj~stmentartds~~~~~~~~t,
to such tribunals as the Government of the Unit<ldStates
as provided or may provide, "j"~
Such agreement was also executed b:\-- representatives of
various other Pueblos of the Rio Grande, including the
Pueblos of Santa Clara, Tesuque, Nambe, Santo Domingo,
J~mez, San Felipe, Cochiti, Santa Ana, and Zia, between
July 7, 1850, .and July 16, 1850.
In consideration of these and other promises on the
part of the United States, the Pueblo of San I1defonso and
other signatory Pubelos placed themselves "under the
exclusive jurisdiction and protection of the Government
of the United States," surrendered the right to use force
to protect their lands, their waters, and the interests of
their inhabitants, and agreed that" all cases of aggression
against the persons and interests of. their respective
.I
17. Finali,tg of Agreement. Neithe.r thepro~~'
United States in the aforesaid agreement no,rJ.th0s
adhering Pueblos were made dep~edentu~e;~n,."'j ... r
aetion by the Senate or Preside~tjo!.~~'P"~~~tat~,or
by any other person 01' body. .J a~~~ .~.~• CIllh,9~~' in.ClXeout.; .
ing the aforesaid agreement, repre~~~ted
. itlid~tates
by virtue of an A'ppointment by the Presi
e ;with
the advice and consent of the Senate, and
to instructions from the Commissioner of Ifid1
dated April 24, 1850. Petitioners 'underll~
promises made in the agreement of Jw,. 16,1
solemn promises of the United~~t~s.~e~tio '. <.;er­
stood that they were bound by the ~p.r~cal~~s~s,
which they had given. and th~l'O~!!~r. !ai~nY)~b.ered
to those promises. Petitionersdo,,~9t~.~~ofan~advi~
or notice ever issued by Defe~~n~~~~.1fect~te~~
agreement is invalid or has ever been revok8d.
eel,
and if any such notice or adviae has
.
known to Defendant, Petitioners hereby
records be produced and presented to
Petitioners' inspection.
. 18. Assumption of Guardi.atl.shi~:Follo. .... i
mission of Petitioners to "theeJ;~!~ve jurisdicti;:... ~
~:'''tection of the Government o!~he United ~tatlj~:!V) a:'
provided in the Calhoun Agr'eemeiltof JW!~6, ..l85()~~- .
fendant aesumed to exercise guardiansllip.an~.>~~~()!over
the lands, water rights, funds and otherp~~~.~~ Peti­
tioners.'
<,\\,(,
19. E:z:tension of IMimI TrtJde' MIll Ittte~~~~~ LmA;s.
By Section 17 of the Act of September 9,1850 (9 f;Jtat. 446,
12
13
452) and by Section 7 of the Act of February ZI, 1851 (9
Stat. 574,587), Defendant extended to the Territory of New
Mexico the laws prohibiting trespass or settlement upon
Indian .lands and controlling the alienation of such lands
and other lawsprote:3ting the property and other rights of
Indians.
failed adequately to carry out th~ dutiesandt1'tuJtS~~poBed
in them, with respect to the protectio~~f Peti~~ne~~~ri~ts
in land and water, in ways hereinafter st;tfort~~d,as .
result, such rights have beenviolated and,}n BOm
stances, lost.
20. Survey atla ProtectiOf6 of Pueblo Latul Olaims. By
a~tof July 22, 1854 (10 Stat. 308), Congress authorized
the President to appoint a Surveyor General who, under
the instructions of the Secretary of the Interior, was "to
uoortain the origin, nature, character, and extent of all
claims to land under tbe laws, usll.ltes, and customs of Spain
and Mexiooand was to make a full report on:
Notwithstanding the obligatioDJl1aid0~~~ .•
General and the Seoretary of theI!1teri9r to
report on the various olaims'of Petiti~.!1
...
ous grades of title" involved in IIllJlh' c1 ..,
"w,.\,.' ,~
report was never made, and l\etiti~n~ra weJ;'~. ~,~Y~l',giy~n
a hearing or .opportunity to present suob' c1aim~<;~~t ,~e
Surveyor General, under the supervill~on of the Seol'Ctalj
of the Interior, restrioted his. cons.idel'l'!i0
ing the validity of certain ancient ~ts
into the possession of Defendant, ~~~ ha~~i
that such grants were valid, failed~'consider .
and deorees and other olaims.o~Pe~~~n
all
such claims 9.8 originated before the cession of
the territory to the United States by the treaty of
Guadalupe Hida:go, of eighteen hundred and forty­
eight, denoting the various grades of title, with his
decision as to th,! validity or im'alidity of eaoh of the
same under the l:iws, usages, and oustoms of the eoun­
try before its eession 1.') the United States; and shall
also make a report in regard to all pueblos existing
. ' in the Territory, showing the extent and locality of
each, stating the number of inhabitants in the said
pueblos, respectively, and the nature of their titles to
the land...• and, until the finnI action of Congress on
such olaims, all lands covered thereby shall be reserved
from sale or other disposal by the government, and
shall not be subject to the donations granted by the
previous provisions of this Act.
Violation of DefendaDt'. ObUgatlona
21. General Statement. Notwithstanding the foregoing
actS of Defendant .recognizing Petitioners' rights and
promising their proteotion; agents of Defendant charged
with suob protection, by various acts of misfeasance, mal.
feasance and nODieasanoc, violated suoh promises and
22. Failure of SurtJe"orG/l~~ .toC0r!'
23. Failure to protect "lmperfegtBig B',r<;>
though Defendant attempted topr(l~~t the ~.~:l,per-·,
feet property rights" ;JI Petitioner.Pueblo in,Jhe17,292' 64
acres of the origins.i SaT, ndefo~,soPueblo
Act of Congress dati'!! DeCember22,l~'
oonfirming the said grant, and bya patent i
";}:5;.t
to such Act in 1864, and took. similar aCti()D;~t:J1,~,~t
to other Pueblos, and although' it offered~~~~~~~1'S'at
least a theoretic opportlinityto esmbliBh' c",;s~r
grants before the.Court of Private ClaimsP by:the .
Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 854), Def . ;."; .• ~~PIICi to
. provide any judicial or administrative tri~~. prior .• to
August 13, 1946,wherein there might be adjudi~~ llithdr
or
the extent and character of "imperfeot prope~ riill
"inchoate olaims," or the extent of d&mages~~ to
Petitioner by the violation of suob rights.
.
ts "
lIS ..
14:
to proteotion of Petitioners' property, Det
protect lands of.Petitioners,both within;
original Pueblo grants, from tresp&88,
seizure under 00101' of irivalids~tute"afud>~
dispossession, exoept as to -, those cases!>f
illegal alienation that feU "?tl:IiJl'0itJi8 lh,nit
of the Pueblo Lands Boardun~~r~~~:(lto
(43 Stat. tiJ6). Following .the ~l~~~
Lands Board, Defendant again ?Jlll~~;~.
to take over, or trespase upon, l&J1dlI,~o;:~
hold title.
.
(b) Although the Supreme Court of the United States in
1897' (in the case of United. States v, Sattle Fe, 165 U. S.
675) determined that "the duty of protecting imperfect
rights of property under treaties aueh as those by which
territory was ceded by Mexico to thtl United States in 1848
and 1853, in existence at the time of such cessions, rests
upon the political and not the judicial departments of the
Government" (at p, 741), Defendant, did not, prior to Au.
.gust 13, 1946, authorize the political arm of the Govern­
.•mont toadi"dicate, generally, contrcvereles relating to
'such rights.
(e) Adjacent to the South and West boundaries of the
'original San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant lies a traet of land
which was traditiollRlly used by the Petitioner Pueblo for
oeremonial purposes and for purposes of grazing, gnthel'­
ing firewood, and securing other materials Clf value. Al­
though l'etitioner Pueblo had been protected in its use
of this area under Spanish and Mexican rule, Defendant
failed .to proteot the rights of Petitioner Pueblo therein
but utilized sueh land for its own purposes, exoept that by
the Act ,of February 11, 1929 (45 Stat. 1161), Defendant reo
stored a part of this area to Petitioner Pueblo, and by the
Act of .iugust 13, 1949 (63 Stat. 604), Defendant restored
another portion of this ares to Petitioner Pueblo, leaving
.unrestored a substantial part of the sald area.
(d) Otlier areas in which Petitioners enjoyed exelusive
rights of user from time immemorial have been taken or
utilized by Defendant and by persons claiming rights by
and through Defendant without oonsent of Petitioners.
24. Failure to Protect Rights Within Pueblo Grant. Not­
. wlthstandlug the promises made by Defendant in the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Calhoun Agreement
of July 7, 1850, and on numerous other occasions, and the
obligations otherwise assumed by Defendant with rellpect
Prote~t Wat~r,Ri;l",.:Nci~th8~cling
}
25. Failure to
its obligations to protect PetitionerPu. water
rights, Defendant allowedsullhrirhts to
:by
giving its sanction to the diversi0!l of wa
que
Creek and of the Rio Grande, whi~~
~ .•.~.~.
used from time imme~orial,and bf.Jlll
and author­
izing the. drilling of wells, .in~~ll!Dg
stations, and pipe lines by third
agenls at various points where such
pairing the supply of irrigation water
water-table on the lands" remaining ,
Petitioner Pueblo, and thus~~,,'
such lands. Defendant f'urth~rpe
g~aze livestnek upon the waterlhed8
supply of Petitioner Pueblo,·.iniiucli;:hnmbets
fashion as to cause acute erosionaud'iCI.·
regular water supply of Petitioner
purposes.
contrO
26. Prevention of Self-Help. In
guardian of Petitioners' interes£s,De!
.. ~t~nl;ypro­
hibited Petitioners from exeroising sell-help ~.tJi~protee.
tion of their lands and wate~ but also de~~t()~eti­
tioners recourse to the political age~es 0(goV8rnmeDt
16
available to Petitioners' non-Indian neighbors. Thus, on
February 16, 1854, an agent of the Defe:ldant, to wit, the
Governor of the Tel'dtory of New Mexico, approved an
.aot·of the legislature of that Territory, deolaring that the
Pueblo Indians .. until they shall be declared by the oon­
gress of the United States to have the right, are excluded
from ,tl>.e privilege of voting at the popular elections of
tho U!TI'itory, except in tho elections for overseers of ditohes
to,which'they belong, and in the eleotions proper to their
own pueblos to elect their officers according to their ancient
customll. It Congress failed to take action to establish their
right to vote, and until the deoision of a speoial Federal
Court on August 2, 1948, members of the Petitioners were
denied the right to vote in Federal, Territorial, State,
County, and City elections within the Territory and State
of New Mexico. As a result, Petitioners and their mem­
bets were unable to proteot their property rights through
measurea of Congressional, Territorial, or Stat.e legisla­
tion and, throuch other measures available to their voting
neighbors. Petitioners and their membera were likewise
deprived, by Act of Congress on March 3, 1871, and by
various later acts, of the privilege of being represented
by attol'Deys of their own choosing in the defense of their
land ~:hts, and were at the same time depri ved of the op­
portunity to contract for other services with respect to
their lands. Through these measures Petitioners' hands
were etrectively tied so that Petitioners were unable to act
on their own behalf to secure and protect their property
rights 110d the property rights of their members.
21. ~.regligence j",d, Procrastination. Those obligations
of Defendant to Petitioners which were carried out were'
oarriooi out only after long and inexcusable delays, as a
result 'Df which Petitioners were deprived of normal facili­
ties for the proteotion of their own rights. Among such
delays were the following:
11
(a) Although promising protection against. tre!,p8se~ra
as early as 1850, Defendant delayed until.June .1, 1925
the' insti tution of any effective,action to· aooolJ1P~ .
result. Responsibility for adjud,ioationof poeseeeory
adverse to Petitioners .was ves,ted in the Pueblo,
Board by aot of Congrebs on that date.<Th~j~ :,
of said Board was so narrowly clironmeoribed,!;~ttre"'"
passes initiated before 1902, in certain ~<o.~>bef~re'
ve
1889, in' other oases, did nGt fall wi~ ;~~
power of the Board.
.. " ' y 't.' . ·"'i,·. /
(b) Although denying Petitioners theright·to·.~t:tpre.
sented by attorneys of its o~ ohoo~ after 18!l,I>,efend.
ant did not, until 1899, desigll&te a Gov.e~ent; dtorney
to represent Petitioners and the~rityot~~ atto~~y
was limited to Pueblo litigation with thb'~r~~~!,!and
did not extend to oontroversies with Defellaant,~~whioh
Petitioners oontinued to be without the~~ts~;I~~~s:~­
tation enjoyed by non-Indians. . " ' ; '
'<"1'
(0) Furthermore, althoughschoolahad"
.~n~
under Spanish oiominion lor' theben~t ?f.fetitici~~~~<and
their children, aud a reaBOnabledegn;!l1J!<~t,~~;the
Spanish language had been ~ttained,~!~I1~,~,:~idn~t,
prior to 1870, make any proviElion for the<~~~tion of
Petitioners and their children, but.011 the contrll...,.,;~deny­
iug them the franchise, encouraged' te~rJtori&1 ~dlocal
authorities· to deny free public ecblOll.ti~n~
'oner,
Indians.
..;
'0
(d) From 1846 until 1905 threatsoUaDti,;~e COIJ1'
monly used to persuade or coerce P~titi~l1eraiand their
members to make allegedly. voluntary.Clls~i~J1!' .0.fI.md
within the Pueblo grants, but not until the:A.o~ ~!;!aroh 3,
1905 (33 Stat. 1048), did Congress act to co~the taxexempt status of such lands.
,"'; .
oorr:u
28. Failure to Publish Agreemeflt. Defendanr, &lthough
authorizing execution of the agreement refelTed ~ in para­
,:,
:
18
graph 16, and although it well knew that Petitioners re­
, garded suob agreement·as a solemn pledge on the part of
the. United 8tates and was acting in reliance upon that
agreement,· failed, for 65 yoars,to publish the agreement,
failed ever to submit the agreement for ratification by the
Sen..te of the United States, failed to allt to carry out the
agreement, and until 1915failed to bring this agreement to
,.the attention of officials and agents of Defendant charged
with matters covered by this agreement.
29. DCIlW of Rights of CitiseMhip and Protectiot18 of
Wardship. When rights of oitizens were at stake agents
,of Defendant considered Pefitioner Indians to be non­
Citizens, and they were thus denied the right to vote, until
1948, and were also denied ordinary rights under the pub­
lio land laws, at least uutil 1924. On the other hand, when
rights generaily available to non-citizen Indians were .at
'<;tissue, such as ri~ "elts to protection under the Indian Trade
and.•~;:t-~rcourse Laws, rights to recognition of hunting ter­
ritories, and the right to make treaties and receive annul­
tieS; the Petitioner Indians were viewed by agents of Dc­
;fendant as eitleons, and therefore denied such protection.
Thus, although treaties were made with Petitioners' west­
ernheighb?rs, the Navajo Indians, with their northern
neighbOrs, the Utes, and with their southern and eastern
neighbOrs, the Apa.me, by which Indian rights in extensive
areas of ~unting ground were preserved, and compensa­
tion was paid to the said tribes for various land cessions,
no such treaties were ever made with Petitioners, and Peti­
tionet's never received anYl\nnuities or treaty payments
such as werc disbursed to Petitioners' Navajo, Ute, and
Apache neighbors. Similarly, although the benefits of the
Indian Trade and Intercourse L9-wS were extended to the
Territory of Now Mexicr by the legislation of 1850 and
1851 referred to in paragraph 19, agents of De.fendant
19
took the position that the PuebloIndian8we~~0~11l.di.ans,
and were therefore not entitled' to the prot~ti0D.()fth08e
laws. This mistake was not eorreeted un~11913,W:hen
Supreme Court in the ease ofU"it«l Statesv. 8
231 U. 8. 28, held that the Pueblo India'l'l8'Wet'~
and were entitIed to all the protection of the lndi
and Intc~c.ourse Laws. J?uring
"'~
1913 Petitloners were uUJustly:'depnv. ..8u(lhpr~tee::
tion. The delays and proerasthl~tiona of
nt in
according the promised, proteotion res
Iltial
losses to Petitioners.
30. Dldy to Accolltlt. Defendant,\haVi~g"'L ...ma.n­
agament, dominion, and control over futi~~)Ji~perty; and
other assetll belonging to' thePetitionerPUeblodetehnin­
ing the time and manner In whi(,h au " .
.. dbe
credited, expended or Invested,andth.w~ioh
such property should be adminl8t~red
'of;<has
control of all books of account, and oth
rlain:.
ing to the financial affairs, t~~€f~~~
of Petitioner Pueblo. . Defendarit has
accounting of the performance ofAta
lind a guardian with resIlecrto.~eP
Pueblo. Request ior suob information
of Defendant has been refu~~'r!\ . '
31. Irregularities in Prop~rt1l Ma~~m
Pueblo is informed and belie~~,8,~~.U~;n
tion and belief, states, that DeteJ1~t has .,
obligations to Petitioner' Puebl?~ ;alldi~t·
plete accounting will dlscloeethat 8ubs .•.
....i~iijafu
due and owing to Petitioner Pueblo~~JD!)~eDef~ndant
by reason of the following acts and omisSions:
<a> Payments in money, goocillors~rVi~~l
ropri­
ated by the Congress of the United 8 eswere
not paid, delivered, orperformed;forPetitioner
tlle:J!8ri.Od 'f.....;",
c..,.........
20
Pueblo by reasons of the acts' or omissions of
agents of Defendant.
(b) Payments due and owing to Petitioner Pueblo
were improperly allocated to persons not, entitled
to receive the same, and otber !unds held in trust
for Petitioner Pueblo by Defendant were debited
with expenditures for obligations neither author.
iled by Petitioner Pueblo nor properly charge·
able to its aoecunt, under roverning statutes.
(e) Funds held by Defendant in trust for Petitioner
Pueblo were not eredited with tbe interest which
mould have aoorued thereon.
(d) Funds and other property, real and personal,
which mould h"ve been held by Defendant in trust
for Petitioner Pueblo were administered without
~he couent of the Pueblo ill ways not benefttlial
to it, and inconsistent with the trust obligations of
Defendant.
32. StaMarcls of Fa;r au HOllOrable Dealil4gs. Under
iltandards of fair and honorable dealings Defplldant sbould
hive promptly and faithfully carried out the various prom­
ises made by it, as hereinbefore set forth; should. have
protected against trespass and alienation not only the
lands of the original Pueblo Grants, but the lands outside
those grants in which Petitioners had joint or several
rights of use and ooeupancy; should have protected the
'water supply of Petitioners against impairment; and
•liould ::'"ve aClministered such property of Petitioners as
came' withln its control in accordance with the standards
of a prudent and honorable trustee. Standards of fair and
hone,rable dealings further required that Defendant should
root h'Lve withhl!ld from Petitioner Indians the right to
VI\'~/J, t.ie benefits of the public land laws, the right to pub­
lie scbc.ol education, the right to employ their own attor­
21
neys and other employees, and the prot~~o~,~elnd1an
Trade and Intercourse Laws whi:sbCo~s~dedto
the Indian population of New.lI.uico in,1851.
33. Totalitll of Defetklam 'sColl4ltid.p~titio
asserts that even if thilJ Comtnissioe should'dete
the separate acts and transac~oD1lsetforth by PetitiOJUtrs
in the preceding paragl'aphs, orAltYof~.m, ~Uidered by
themselvel!. fail to constitute a cauM.nf iCltioaj..tifying
J'fllief under the Act, nevertJl~!~ /~. OOIl1~tion ' and
totality of all such acts. and 'traIiaaCitiO......tretcltiing over
a period of n oontury, during w~~·Petitioners ha... lost
the use of substantial areas oflaft'dwlu~h ~.h4d 0:.
elusively used and ooeapied in 1846
prior
1Uld for
thereto, should be held by this ~io. to ClC)utitute
grounds for full and fair compeDllatiOJl for the.cIama,ces
wbich Petitioners have suffered . . . relultoftheeourse
of action followed by the DefeudaDt'dUriDa' the peI'iodlrom
1846 to 19'6.
.
Oent,ul'iel
WUBBlllPOIUl,Petitioner Puebl~praya:
(1) That Defendant be directed· to f1ll'lti81:.:Pet1&raer
Pueblo.a fall and final statementolal1ftutch~p~p­
Ilrty, real and personal, taken; held or clispos8dofliy»e­
fendant in trust for PetitiQner Pueblo, or ..
'
01
. Petitioner Pueblo, showing 8~"
tion, by whom it was authorised, to'
was made and the relation ofillibh'p;
value t.hereof, and that Deferidarifui
closure of all such records. &Sthll';'.> ....> . .; .' ., . . ...h.,}.
Accounting Office. its Bureau of ~nd·~t.auifau
other agencies and ot'ices. · ; » ' L
(2) Tb,!Lt this Commission determine tlu..t;~endautis
liable for the losses suffered by Petiijoner,Puebl4:/'liy rea­
son of the facts above set forth.'
.
'.
.
':f';:"';";b"
23
(3) That this Commiseion determine the amount of the
so suffered by Petitioner Pueblo, and award
judgment therefor, tQlOther with any interest properly
owing, after pr,)ptlr allowances for oredits and offsets.
herbs, and other vegetable products. For hundreds' of
years under SpaniBh and Mexican rnle.and .long prior
thereto, Petitioner Indians regularly utlliledsuch a
to the exclusion of all oilier Indian tribeS.
('iI.) '.rhat Petitlon1!r Pueblo have such othor and fur·
therrelief as may to thill Commillilion :' ppear to be just
and equitable and in conformity with'Land.ards of fair
and. honorable dealiDB&
37. The rights of Petitil)DOr Iila~an~
~~81l
whether denominated 88 rights of.nser·o~~u
menta, usufruets, pr!ltits a prendre, or by.~uyio
were vr.luable rights.
clamaIea
SBOOlm GAUD OP AOTIOlf
34. Petitioners reallege the' aUe;;;ations contained in
paragraphs :5 tbl'OUlh 11, 13 through 2-0-, 26 through 29, and
31 through 33, and funbar allege:
35. The lands which Petitioner Indianll utilized at the
.time when Defendant Arst aBBumed juriBdiotion thereof
oonsisted of thoae lands watered by the Rio Grande and
its tributaries 'lorthward from the junotion of the Rio
Puereo and the Rio Grande in the north central pari. of
the State of New Mexico, but not inoluding the land5 oc­
cupied or exclusively used by individual pueblotl or the
lands gronted by the IJOverning anthoritiell of Spain or
Mexioo to other parties. Upon information and belief,
PetitioneR assert tl!at legal title to the greater part of
this area is now vested in the Defendant, subject to any
equitable tights or interests of Petitioners or others.
36. Within the area deseribed in. the preceding para­
. groph are located areas whieh are too far removed from
reliable sources of water to permit of settlements or oeeu­
pations i-equiring permanent residence but which are valu­
able, especially in winter manths when snow provides a
readily available water supply, for hunting, trappli'g, the
quarrying of turquoise and other valuable mineral ,':lrod.
nets, and the gathering of various foodstuffs, medicinal
38. These rights were proteeted·· u
Mexican rule.
39. Agents of Defendant promised that aU sueh rWbts
would continue to be proteotlld under United Statea>l1OV.
oreignt)'.
40. 'rhese promises were not carried out.
41. Within the watershed . of the 1lPper
River Petitioner Indians maiJltained,
the highest civilization attaiuecl~ an
now the continental United. Stites.
founded upon the regular availl1.bility ot:~tlt~
pended, in turn, upon the maiJlt6
and virgin forest in the higher areas ~
42. Dnring a single century in whiehWWi~
under the control of the Defendant,
have been largely destroyed, the high
subject to heavy winds has been pl~wed~tn~w . ist
fields, the water-table has been substantlal1ylowe . . . / .nCb
of the fertile top soil hu been moved to thebt!~~,~tthe
Gulf of Mexico,and the Rio Grande and its trlbUtirielilhave
become silted to the pcint where they have largeIY'beoome
high aqueducts which, with increasing frequenoi, &odthe
towns and oities that lie beneath their c!ikes.
.
24
25
4ll During moat of fbi. century agents of the Defendant,
uWl1l.M PetitiOiler Indian&, mwe known what waS hap­
~. to the 'Water of the Bio Grande VaUey and have
W&l'ZUld of the OOIllIeqUtlllOOIl that must inevitably follow
from. t1leIIe eventll. Dellpite t11.e60 wa~nings. athol' agents
or.~ll1ldant continued to, mue homelltead patents, mln­
t&, timber, coniraot&, and otber «rants ~f real
• audio permit on"-grulng Imd o~her improper
,.... . which we.... and lal'gQly remain, within the
o~and eoatro1.of Defendant.
(3) Th.. t Petitioner Indians have BUob. other and further
reliet as may to thi, lJommi.lion appear to be :!ustanlt
equitable and in confllrmltywith Btandards of fair aud
honorable dealinp.
P. KU(G8L1IIY, J\,
122 !!last 42nd, Street,
New York: Oity 17, N. Y.,
DAB~L~
Attorne; of BOtJord lor 1M PdtHOfHlf".
Dated: Augult 11, 1951.
I
NlIlw YOlUt,
County of
'\'.!}t.1c- II:
Darwin P. Kinglle~', Jr., being firlt duly sworn, 6u oath
deposes and says that he iB attorney for thep.titiouerB
herein; that he has read the foregoini petition; and that
the Btatements therein llontflined are'true to thllbelt'of his
STATIII 01'
ttn"s
knowledge and bellet,
,.,-"
# j)M\WltJ--p,"iI"''':'\''~)I, J~,
D~WDr
Sub~oribed and sw~rn to
this 1-'\ tl. day of !! \l ~ u
/.5/ .__~_t':'.!..Nj;o_
\...
P. KmCISLU, J..
before me .
rt
, 1951.
Cc::! l.- ~u R N
Notary Public.
My eommlaslen expires
e.o
....J1Jt&
~:.
Of>M, 0 'NA
l..,
I-\\~.~RN
..'
"'\~ \t~- ~tiu&. "1 Y\a-j
O\Cl.l~.Ob9'1p~ , . r~6MO)
I
-:
TK
~~ I,J.J- V'.. ~ ~~
-,~~ ~~ ~.,,'t~..3
I "\.(
'>..