JAM 6
]956
Defore the huUan Claims Commission
No. 354
THB PUEBLO OF SAN ILDE~'ONSO, ET. AL., PETITIONERS
11.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT
ANSWER
Now comes the defendant, by its Assistant At­
torney General, and for its answer to the petition
herein flIed says:
AS TO THE PIRST CAUSE OP ACTION
First Defense
1. The allegations in the first cause of action of
the petition fail to state a claim against defendant
upon which relief can be granted. '
Secon,d Defense
2. As to the allegations in paragraph 1, defend­
ant admits that the Pueblo of San Ildefonso is and
has been for many years a tribe of American Indi­
ans residing within the present territorial limits
of the United States.
3. As to the allegations in paragraph 2, defend­
ant admits that petitioner, the Pueblo of San Ilde­
fonso, has been recognized by defendant as a tribe
(1)
2
and corporation and is authorized under the laws
of New M:exi~o to sue ItUU btl sued as a cOl'l!vralioll.
Defendant is not advised as to the truth of the re­
maining allegations of paragraph 2 and therefore
denies the same.
4. Answering paragraph 3, defendant admit!'
that petitioner, the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, is one
of several pueblos located within the valley of the
upper Rio Grande and that the government of the
United States has reeognised such pueblo as' an
identifiable group of Indians ever since defendant
obtained sovereignty over this area. Because of
the indefiniteness of petitioners' allegations in this
paragraph, however (a) ill failing to designate­
what particular area is included in the "uppcr
Rio Grande and its tributaries"; (b) what par­
ticular pueblos are included within such area; and
(c) what particular pueblos are included in this
action as petitioners, defendant denies all remain­
ing allegations of paragraph 3.
5. Answering, paragraph 4, defendant denies
that Darwin P. Kingsley, Jr., the attorney by
whom this petition has been filed, is authorized
under the terms of the contractreferred to in para­
graph 4 and on file with this Commission to insti­
, tute this action on behalf of any Pueblo Indians
except the Pueblo of San TIdefonso.
6. Defendant admits the allegations of para­
graphs 5 and 6.
7. Defendant says that, in general, the allega­
tions set forth in the two paragraphs numbered 7
3
in the petition describe in very broad language the
nature of the claim or theory of suit upon which
this action is alleged to be founded and require
neither admission nor denial by defendant..\!!~;;
ever, in so far as petitioners allege that~~f.~~~~t
violated any promises, treaty coDlDljtJnentsi·and
other obligations owed to petitioners,~rfai1.~d.to
"protect valuable rights which petiti~~ers enjoyed
at the time when they first game ~~erthe sov­
ereignty of defendant," such as .. tbe~ig~~toun­
Impaired use of water, grazing lauds, titpbe~l~nds,
and other lands which had been used from iline im­
memorial," defendant denies such allegations and
requires strict proof thereof. Defen~ant, fUryhe~­
more, denies that petitioner, tbe . . J.luebloofySan
Ildefonso, has been deprived of any l~n~~.~~~~~ch
it once owned in full title. "\J\\J,yyY "
8. Answering paragraph 8, defen~~~>y~~ts
that petitioner, the Pueblo. of San TIdef~~,/~u­
pies and possesses a tract of land identified!~n
Hoyce's Map of New Mexico1 as Tract :lt6~~i~
patent to such lands was, issued to. thei~e~loiof
San IIdefonso by the United Statesp~R~,abOut
November 1, 1864, after Congress haa.!c~~
the claim of such petitioner thereto bY>~~j.Act of
December 22, 1858 (11 ~tat; 374).The~~ge
named in the patent is 17,292.64 acres rather. than
17,292.10 acres as alleged in thepetitio~;Further
answering paragraph 8, defendant ad~tlJtbe es­
tablishment of the San Ildefonso Reservation
described in the petition and that BUchreservation
as
4
was established by the Act of Congress dated Feb­
ruary 11, 1929 (45 Stat.U61). Defendant further
admits that such reservation was established' for
the sole use and benefit of the Indians of the San
Ildefonso Pueblo except that any rights and cl!\ims
of bona fide settlers initiated under the public land
laws prior to July 27, 1928, the date of the with­
drawal of the lands from all forms of entry, were
not to be affected by such Act. Defendant also
admits the enactment of the Act of August 13, 1949
(63 Stat 604), referred to in paragraph 8. TIy
such Act title to certain lands and the improve­
ments thereon, which had been acquired by the
United States under authority of various statutes
referred to in such Act, was declared to be vested
in the United States in trust for the respective
tribes, bands, or groups of Indians occupying and
using the same as a part of their respective exist­
·ing reservations, but subject to valid existing
rights. Under the authority of such Act a tract
comprising some 5,913.66 acres was restored to the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso, such tract being referred
to as Sacred area of the Ramon Vigil grant. Not
being advised as to the truth of the remaining
allegations of paragraph 8, defendant denies the
.same and requires strict proof thereof.
9. Defendant further says that the" Apache N (1­
tion," in Docket No. 22, has filed a petition with
this Commission claiming aboriginal ownership of
Tract #688 as identified on Royce's Map of New
Mexico 1, which includes some of the land adjoin­
ing Tract #673. Thus, the "Apache Nation" is
claiming "Indian title" to certain land adjacent to
5
Tract #673 which is also claimed by petitioner,
the Pueblo of San Ildefonso.
10. Defendant is not advised as to the truth of
the allegntions in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and
14, and therefore denies the same and requires
strict proof, thereof.
11. Answering pllragl'aph15, defendant admits
that petitioner, the Pueblo of San Ildl!fo~BO,and
other pueblos of the upper Rio Grande first came
under the political jurisdiction ofthelJJlited
States in 1846 when General Kearnyestabli~ed a
system of civil government ill that te~~it~~y; De­
fendant says that this entire territory ",a8~~fl?ired
by defendant from the Republic of Mexico in.L~~8
by virtue of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (9
Stat. 922) at which time defendant, in aeco~~.n.ce
with the provisions of Article VIII of said ~~Y"
agreed to respect all property rights of tbetben
owners and their heirs to property· within the
limits of the territory then acquired. Allallegll.- '
tions of paragraph 15 inconsistent with the fore­
going admissions by defendant are denied.
12. Defendant denies all anegati~~~!<~­
graphs 16 and 17, except those whic~ir~erein­
after specifically admitted to be tru~7D~fendant
admits that an agreement was executedi()n.~~~bout
July 7, 1850, by James S. Calhoun, I~~nAgent
in New Mexico Territory, acting for~ef~n~nt,
and on J Illy 14,1850by the Cacique, Governor, and
Principal named in the petition, acting for the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and that the same agree­
ment was signed by representatives of nine other
pueblos, namely-Nambe, Tesuque, Santa Clara,
7
6
Jemez, San Felipe, Cochiti, Santo Domingo, Santa
Ana, and Cia (or Silla). Under the provlsions of
the aforesaid agreement, among other things, the
pueblos agreed to place themselves under the ex­
clusive jur~sdiction and protection of the United
States and never thet:ellftel' to associate with or give
aid to any Indian tribe or band, or anyone else
hostileto the United States. Any cases of aggres­
sion against the pueblos were to be submitted for
adjustment and settlement to such tribunal~' as the
Government of the United States might provide.
At the eurliest time possible, the Government of
the United St~tes agreed to ufford to the pueblos
its protecting power and influence i to adjust und
settle, in the most practicable manner, the bound­
aries of each pueblo, which should never be dimin­
ished but might be enlarged whenever defendant
deemed it advisable. Defendant says that it has
lived up to the terms of this agreement, even
though it was never ratified by thc Senate or pro­
claimed by the President.
13. Defendant specifically denies the allegations
of paragraph 18. Defendant says that an ordinary
guardian and ward relationship has never existed
between defendant and the Pueblo Indians and
, whatever control defendant has exercised over any
property of such Indians has been done in good
faith and for the sole benefit of the Indians. De­
fendant,furthermore, specifically says that it has
at all times dealt fairly and honorably with peti­
tioner, the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and all other
pueblos of the upper Rio Grande, and has always.
.'
protected such Indians in preserving whlitever
right, title or interest in any lands, water rights, or
other property they may have had.
14. Answering paragraph 19, defendant admitB
the enactment of the two statutes referred to,
namely, the Act of September 9, 1850 (9 Stat 446,
452), and the Act of February 27, 1851 (9 stat.
ij74, 587). Defendant says that by Section 17 of
the 1850Act, the Constitution and applicable laws
of'the United States were extended over the Terri­
tory of New Mexico und by Section 7 of the 1851
Act /111 laws then in force regulating trade and
iutercourse with the Indian tribes were extended
to New Mexico.
15. Defendant admits the allegations of para­
graph 20.
16. Defendant specifically denies the allega.tions ,
of paragraphs 21 and 22.
17. Answering paragraph 23(a), because of the
failure of petitioners to spell out or clearlydefiDe
and describe their so-called "imperfect property
rights" and "inchoate claims", defendant denies
the allegations therein set forth relative to such
"imperfect property rights" and '''inchoate
claims." Defendant also denies that it merely
. offered petitioners a 'theoretic opportunity" be­
fore the Court of Private Land Claims (26 Stat.
854) to establish other grante which they had or
claimed to bave to land other than that represented
by the San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant confirmed to
petitioner, the Pueblo of San lldefonso, by Con­
gress under the Act of December 22, 1858 (11 Stat.
8
9
374), and for which such Pueblo was issued a pat­
ent on November 1,1864. Defendant says that by
the Act of :March3,1891 (26 Stat. 854), Congress.,
established a Court of Private Land Claims to in­
vestigate all private land claims to lands within
the limits of the territory derived by the United
States from the Republic of Mexico, by virtue of
any Spanish or Mexican grant, and which at the
date of the passage of such Act had not been con­
firmed by Act of Congress or otherwise finally
decided upon by lawful authority. Under the
provisions of such Act, the Court had full an-,
thority to determine the validity of the title and
boundaries of any lands snbinttted to it for adjudi­
catiol1. All other allegations in paragraph 23(a)
which have not been specifically admitted are de­
nied.
18. Answering paragraph 23(b), defendant ad­
mits the correctness of the Supreme Court refer­
ence and quotation from the Santa Fe case (165
U.S. 675) but denies that the Act of August 13,
1946 (60 Stat. 1049), authorizes this Commission
to adjudicate controversies relating to "imperfect
rights of property under treaties such as those by
which territory was ceded by Mexico to the United
States in 1848 and 1853,in existence at the time of
such cessions".
19. Answering paragraph 23(c), defendant ad­
mits that under authority of the Acts of February
11, 1929 (4.'5 Stat. 1161) and 'August 13, 1949 (63
Stat. 604) certain lands immediately to the south
and west of the San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant WE're
conveyed to petitioner, the Pueblo of San Ilde­
fonso. Defendant is not advised as to the truth of
the remaining allegations in paragraph 23(c), how~
ever, and therefore denies the same.
20. Defendant denies the allegations' in para­
graph 23(d).
21. Defendant denies the allegationfl in" para­
graphs 24 and 25.
22. Answering paragraph 26, defendant 'denies
the materiality of the allegations th~~in set fo:rth
and that such allegations constitute ground for
relief under the Indian Claims ConmrlSSiOILAet.
Defendant, furthermore, says that~n~;~Cijon
taken by it regarding the matters compl~edof
in this paragraph was perform'ed in 'good faJth'and
tor the best interests of the Indians atthe,tiD1e.
Defendant says that nothing it dHi~,~~~~n
with any property rights of whieh~~~~~t is
herein made, in any way caused ~~t;~~mageto
these Indians.
. ' ';>;'" ., •',',t' .'
23. Answering paragraph 27, defendan~,~eJlies
that it was guilty of any negligenceorine~~\lsable
delays as alleged in this paragraph.,{;,;;>!'"
(a) Defendant admits that under,~~p:rovisions_
of the Act of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. ~?;~Pueblo
Lands Board,was created for the purpose~fquiet­
ing title to various land claims in New·Mexieo
located within Pueblo Indian land" gr~U~s. De­
fendant, however, denies that the juri~etion of
such Board was as restricted and limited as
in this subparagraph (a) of the petition.
. (b) Defendant denies that by the
10
11
3, 1871 (16 Stat. 570), it denied any Pueblo Indi­
ans the right to be represented by attorneys of
their own choosing but says that by such act it
required the approval of the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs and Secretary of the Interior to the
employment of any attorney chosen by them. De­
fendant admits that it did not until about 1899des­
ignate a government attorney to represent the
various pueblos in litigation affecting them but
denies that the authority of such attorney WIIS
limited to pueblo litigation with third parties and
did not confer upon such pueblos rights of repre­
sentation enjoyed by non-Indians as alleged in sub­
paragraph (b). Defendant further says that 1I0nc
of the allegations set forth in this subparagraph
of the petition is in any way materiel-or relevant
to this cause; that none of such allegations is in­
dicative of unfair or dishonorable dealings 011 the
part of defendant in its dealings with the Indians
or states a cause of action which entitles these
Indians to relief under the Indian Claims Com­
mission Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049).
(c) Answering paragraph 27(c), defendant
says that it is not advised as to the truth of the
allegations therein set forth relating to the mainte­
nance of schools under Spanish dominion and
therefore denies the same : furthermore, '~uch alle­
gations are irrelevant and in no way material to
this action. Further answering this paragraph
defendant denies that it at any time, either directly
or indirectly, encouraged territorial and local au­
thorities to deny free public education to any of
the Pueblo Indians as alleged in subparagraph' (c).
(d) Defendant deuies the allegations of sub­
paragraph (d) except as to the enactment of
Act of March ~, 1905 (33 Stat. 1048,1069).
(e) All other allegations in paragrape.27, in­
cluding subparagraphs (a), (b), (c),and(d),
J
which are not specifically admitted.,.·.llre.• . . .~. .• er.. •. e.•. .?y
X. ...../ .,
denied.
24. Answering paragraph .28, defendant denies
the allegations therein set forth,
25. Answering paragraph 29, defendant admits
that no treaties Ill! referred to in this paragraph
were ever negotiated between defen~~nt. a~dthe
various Pueblo Indians, and also adn1it~. ;/~~at cer­
tain treaties were negotiated with th~.•~~"c~~~~Ute
and Apache Indians. Defendant a!.~~~,~~~~yer,
that this has no relevancy to an)' el~~~••!~!i~~es!3
petitioners mayor may not have .against defe~dant
under the Indian Claims Commission Act (60 Stat.
1049). Defendant also admi~ . t hat theSu~~me
Court rendered the Sandoval (231'p:.~~; . ~))•.~eci~
sion referred to in this paragraph bu~ag~:rI~Ueges
that such decision has no bearing Up?~/~~~~?ners'
right to recover in this case. Defe~~~~~,.~pecifi­
cally denies that it was responsible in~~~!:",a~ .for
any losses as alleged in this paragraph an~~~~~
all other allegations not herein specifically ad­
mitted.
.
i'''''.
26. Answering paragraph 30, defe~~~nf~.#rlts
that it has in its possession certain b~lts andJ;'eC­
ords which disclose the receipt and~sbursement
of certain funds which mayor may not be consid­
12
ered or found by this Commission to belong to peti­
tioner, the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and defendant
states that on or about October 3, 1952, a request
was made of the General Accounting Office for a
report in response to the allegations of this peti­
tion. At the time of filing this answer this report .
has not been received.
27. Answering paragraph 31, defendant denies
each and every allegation therein set forth.
28. Answering paragraph 32, defendant denies
that it has failed to carry out any promises made
to petitioner, the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, or at
any time failed to fulfill any duty that might be
owed to said petitioner in protecting and promot­
ing the best interests of said petitioner in the use
and management of its property. Defendant fur­
ther says that it has at all times dealt with said
petitioner in 'a fair and honorable manner. De­
fendant further denies all other allegations set
forth in this paragraph and says that none of such
allegations constitutes ground for relief against
this defendant.
29. As further evidence of its fair treatment of
petitioner, the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, defendant "
says that after the Pueblo Lands Board had in­
vestigated the various claims affecting certain
lands within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo
of San Ildefonso Grant, as well as other lands
claimed by said petitioner, and had made its find­
ings and final awards in connection with such
claims, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
pursuant to resolutions of the 70th and 71st Con­
13
greases, caused a further investigation to be made
of such claims of said petitioner with the result
that, although there was on legal obligation to do
so, an additional award of $37,058.28 was th~.:.';;j'
after appropriated for said petitioner by the Acts'
of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1764), August 9,1937
(50 Stat. 572), and May 9,1938 (52 Stat. 299), such
appropriation' being in' three equal amounts, and
in addition to the award of $30,588.17 made by the
Pueblo Lands Board and appropriated by Oon­
gress for said Pueblo of San Ildefonso by the Acts
of March 26, 1930 (46 Stat. 102), March 4, 1931 (46
Stat. 1566), and July 1, 1932 (47 Stat. 532).
30. Answering paragraph 33, defendant denies
each and every allegation therein setforili,'and
again asserts that the petition herein flled,.;~~~ls, to
set forth n claim against defendant, UP~~~~i~~
relief can be granted under the liidianYJ;CllI.iml!
Commission Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat:1.049).
Third Defense
'ii:/,S:;,.
31. Further answering the first cause o!;a,ction,
de~endant says that petitioner, the Puebl()off:ian
Ildefonso, never occupied from timejm~~~rial
or for many centuries prior to United~~tt!tlsov­
ereignty over the Territory of New It:~~o~ t<lthe
exclusion of other Indians or non-lIl~~ lands
adjacent to the San Ildefonso Pue~I~9~~nt, as
claimed in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the petition.
32. Petitioner, the Pueblo of San Ildefonso,
never had any compensable right, title' or interest
in the lands referred to, except possibly the so­
14
called San IIdefonso Pueblo Grant.
,
33. Neither Spain, Mexiconor the United States
recognized in or conferred upon petitioner, the
Pueblo of San IIdefonso, any compensable right,
title or interest in or to said lands claimed by said
petitioner, except possibly the lund included within
the so-called San IIdefonso Pueblo Grant.
34. During the years that New Mexico was
under the sovereignty of 'i:lpain and Mexico, long
prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (9 Stilt.
922) by which the United States acquired control
over this territory in 1848, the Spuni8l111nd Mexi­
can governments made grants to non-Indians of
much of the land herein claimed by petitioner, the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso. Under the provisions of
Article VIII of the aforesaid treaty, defendant
agreed to recognize and respect all bona fide grunts
of land then owned by Mexican citizens within the
territory ceded to the United States by such treaty.
, Thus, if Spain or Mexico made grants of any of
the land herein claimed aboriginally by the above
named petitioner, defendant says that it is not
responsible to said petitioner for such loss, if any,
suffered by said petitioner.
Fourth Defense
35. As a further defense to the ji1'8t cause of
action, defendant says that as evidence of its good
faith and as a means of carrying out the provisions
of Article VIII of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo between the United States and -Mexico (9
Stat. 922), Oongress passed the Act of July 22,
15
to establish
the office of Surveyor General of New Mexico, * * *
and for other purposes." By this act the Con-:':;o
gress provided for the appointment of a Surveyor
General for New Mexico Territory who should.
ascertain the origin, nature, character and extent
of all claims to lands within such Territory as
might have existed under the laws, usageSand cus­
toms of Spain and Mexico. A full report of his
findings was to be submitted to the Congress on all
such elaims as originated before theceflsion of the
Territory to the United States with his decision as
to the validity or invalidity of the same under. the
laws, usages and customs of the country before
such cession; and also a report in regard' to aU
pueblos existing in the Territory, showing' the
extent and locality of each, the number of.iIihabi­
tants in each pueblo, and the nature of their titles
to the land. Under the provisions ofSecti~~8 of
the Act, such report was to be aUbmi~ to Con­
gress for such action as might be dee~edjustand
proper with a view to confirm aU b~ fid6gl'lUlts,
and thus give full effect to the aforesaid treatY be­
tween the United States and Mexico.
36. In accordance with the provisiorisofthe
above act, the land claim of petitioner,the Pueblo
of San Ildefonso, was duly investigated. and' re­ ported upon favorably by the Surveyo~ ~eral
under date of September 30, 1856, whereupon Con­
gress confirmed such claim by passing the Act of
December 22, 1858, entitled"An Act to confirm'the
land claim of certain pueblos and towns in the Ter­
. 1854 (10 Stat. 308), entitled, "An Act
16
17
ritory of New Mexico," (11 Stat. 37-1). Under this
act the Oommlssionei- of the Land Office was di­
rected to have a survey made of all claims recom­
mended for confirmation by the Surveyor General,
and to cause a patent to be issued therefor, but
with the proviso that such confirmation by Con­
gress should only be construed as a relinquishment
of all title and claim of the United States to such
lands, and should not affect any adverse valid
rlghta, should such exist.
a7. Thereafter, in accordance with the nfo]'esaid
l..'Onfirmation, the lands claimed by petitioner, the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso, we-e duly surveyed and
in conformity with the provisions of the Act of
1858 aforesaid, the United States issued a patent
to such lauds to said petitioner on or about Novem­
ber 1, 1864.
38. Defendant, therefore, again says that ii has
at all times protected the interests of the aforesaid
petitioner in any land to which it has laid claim
and that said petitioner has no claim against de­
fendant upon the allegations set forth in the first
cause of action of the petition.
39. Defendant says further that although under
no obligation to .do so defendant has, from time to
time, expended various sums of money out of gra­
tuity approprtatioas on behalf of petitioner, the
Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and for its benefit, the
exact amount of which is not known to defendant
at this time but will be subsequently set out by an
amendment hereto under Rule 12, if it shall be
determined that defendant is liable to ,~ iJ peti­
tioner in any amount.
40. Defendant, while at all times asserting that
petitioner has not set forth a claim upon which
. 'relief can be granted, further alleges that if
sum is found due said petitioner by this Commis­
sion, petitioner is not entitled to interest thereon.
AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OP ACTION
It'irst De/ernie
41. The allegutions in the second cause of action
of the petition fuil ttl state a claim against defend­
ant upon which relief can be granted;
SecondDefense
42. Answering paragraph 34 defendant re­
alleges, as though herein fully rewritten, all,of the
allegations contained in paragra},ihs 4' through 25
and 28 through 30 of its second defell8Cto theftrst
cause of action.
43. Answering paragraphs 35 through 46. de­
fendant denies each and every allegation therein
set forth and requires strict proof thereof by these
petitioners.
44. Further answering' the various' allegations
of petitioners' second cause of action, defendant
says that none of the pueblos of the Rio Grande
and its tributaries ever had any compensable right,
title or interest in the lands referred to iIf'1Jara­
graph 35 of the petition except possibly the lands
confirmed to individual pueblos by the United
States since acquiring sovereignty over this terri­
I
i
18
19
I
tory uuder tpe Treaty uf Guadalupe Hidalgo (9
Stat. 922). i
45. Neithe~ Spaiu, Mexico nor the United States
recognized in or conferred upon the Pueblo Indi­ ans of New Uexico any compensable right, title 01' ,
interest in Ol~ to the lands claimed except possibly ,:
the lands since confirmed to particular Individnal'
pueblos us mentlcned in the immediately preeed­
ing paragraph,
.
PiliI'd Defense
46. Fnrth.el· apswering the second cause of
'.H!­
tion" defendant again says that Darwin P. Kings­
ley, Jr., t i.e attorney of record in this case, is with­
out authority to file this notion fOl' all the Pueblo
Indians of the "upper Rio Grande and its tribu­
taries" as claimed by the allegations of paragraphs
:1 and 4 in the petitioll. As shownby the attorney
. contract in this case and on file with the Oommls­
sion, the Indians signing tbe same-namely; Rich­
.ard Martinez and Sotel'o Montoya, executed such
contract in their official capacity as governor and
lieutenant governor of tbe Pueblo of San Ildefonso
and as the duly authorised representatives of such
pueblo only, 'I'hey did 1I0t sign the contract as
representatives of "tbe Pueblo Il'idians of the Rio
Grande." Furthermore, the contract in question
only authoriaea suit on eletms of the Pueblo of San
Ildefonao, In fact, independent suits have been
filed by four other pueblos of the' upper Rio
Grande represented by Mr. Kingsley-namely,
Pueblo of Santo Domingo (Indian Claims Com­
/
!
mISSIon Docket #355); Pueblo of Sllnta01ara
(Indian Claims CommissionDocket #356)~p~eblo
of 'l'aos : (Indian .Claims Commission;DOOket
#357), and Pueblo of Nambe (Indian>C.l~
Commission Docket #358). and six, ~te~r.l,~~~~r:}
pueblos of this region who a~~ rep~~~~e)"~~
torneys not affiliated With.Mr.Kingsl~Y',~~~("~:P••~!
,Whom have attorney contracts wi. sU~.indi~~~l
pueblos approved by till! CommissioD81'0f1ndian
Affairs.
.
47. Defendant, while at .all times as8llrt~ng;~ptat
the allegatioDs of the second cause ofac~io!,:d~not
state a claim upon ,...hieh relief caJl.~~granted,
furtber alleges that if any Bum is. fo~.nd~\l.~.(i~~i­
tioners, they sre not elltitl~d!.~ !Jltl!~~~Jl:
Furthermore, defendant says that it.·
•• !J1.. ~~.
to time, although under no obligll••••. ~.}~~.IlO'
expended various sums. of money 0ll~gr.~~~uitt·
appropriations on behalf of
the~e~~o~ll~
of the Rio Grande and lor tl'eirbeDeftti.ttiees:aet
i;",this
amount of which is not known todefen~
th
,d1
20
time but will be subsequently set out by an amend­
ment hereto under Rule 12 if it shall be determined
that defendant is liable to petitioners ill any
amount.
WREREFORE, defendant prays that none of the
petitioners herein recover anything in thia action
and that tho petition be di<!misse·\.
PERRY W. MORTON,
" Assistant Attorney General."
A. RooROW,
Attorney.
'WAL'rER
I hereby certify that on the
day of January,
1956,fifteen (15) copies of the above answer were
mailed to Darwin P. Kingsley, .Jr., 230 Park Ave­
nue, New York 17, New York, the attorney of
record for petitioners.
WALTER
tt
u.
'0 eneUIl'"
A. Rocnow,
Attorney.
PllIlTnl' Orrlel, .".
,fI."
n.