X 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2007 witii funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 littp://www.arcliive.org/details/adversereportofsOOarizrich 
 
A DVBRSE REPORT 
 
 ) 1-' T I (I- 
 
 SURVEYOR GENERAL 
 
 < )l ARIZONA. I 
 
 i; 
 tl 
 
 lioY< tl ^^ Jolmsoii t 
 
 •' ♦ 
 
 t 
 
 Alleged ''Peralta Granf i! 
 
 )M:p»LEa:E: 
 
 ! Ex})08e of Its Fraudulent Character, j 
 
 1 1 
 
 It • o 
 
 I* 1890. 
 
 ♦ • ♦ -»--♦-' 
 
 .J 
 
ADVERSE REPORT OF 
 
 THE SURVEYOR GENERAL, 
 
 OF ARIZONA, 
 
 ROYAL A.JOHNSON, 
 
 UPON THE ALLEGED 
 
 PERALTA GRANT. 
 
 A Complete Expose of ItsJFraudulent Character. 
 
 1890. 
 
Tlje Surveyor Seneral's Report, 
 
 Under the power vested in me as Siirveyer General of 
 Arizona by the Act of Congress approved July 15, 1870 en- 
 titled "An Act Making Appropriations for Sundry Civil 
 Expenses of the Government for the Year ending June SOth^ 
 1871,and for Other Purposes," wherein it was provided, "That 
 it shall be the duty of the Surveyor General of Arizona, under 
 such instructions as may be given by the Secretary of the In 
 terior, to ascertain and report upon the origin, nature, characs 
 ter and extent of the claims to lands in said Territory, under 
 the laws, usuages and customs of Spain and Mexico, and for 
 this purpose he shall have all the power conferred and shall 
 perform all the duties enjoined upon the Surveyor General of 
 New Mexico by the eighth section of an act entititled "An 
 Act to Establish the Offices of Surveyor General of New- 
 Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska, to Grant Donations to Actual 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 Settlers, and for Other Purposes," approved Jul/ 22nd, 1854, 
 and his report shall be laid before Congress for such action 
 thereon as shall be deemed just and proper." 
 
 The act creating the office of Surveyor General, referred 
 to, provides that the Surveyor General in pursuit of the invess 
 ligation of claims, or alleged grants "may issue notices, sum- 
 mon witnesses, administer oaths, and do other necessary acts 
 in the premises." 
 
 1 herewith submit my report on a claim made to an 
 alleged land grant of enormous proportions, located by claim- 
 ants within the Territory of Arizona, and commonly known and 
 designated as the "Peralta Grant." 
 
 In proceeding to report on this grant that, Cr)ngress may 
 realize the importance of this claim, I will state that the so- 
 called "Peralta Grant" is claimed to cover an area of land 
 approximating fifty miles wide by one hundred and fifty miles 
 long, and includes everything valuable within its extensive 
 boundaries, particularly claiming the minerals. As claimed 
 the Peralta grant con ersa very large proportion of the counties 
 of Maricopa, Pinal, Graham, Gila and Apache and takes 
 in more than half of the White Mountain or San Carlos 
 Indian reservation and the major portion of the Pima and 
 Maricopa Indian reservation. The latter Indians are pre- 
 eminently the agricultural Indians of the Territory, and have 
 fertile farms on their reservations. It is also claimed that the 
 city of Phoenix, one of the largest and most prosperous cities of 
 Arizona, together with Florence, Tempe, Globe, Silver King, 
 Pinal, Casa Grande, Solomonville and other towufe of great 
 future promise are located within the confines. In fact this 
 grant in its vast entirety covers a section of country populous 
 and fall of promise. In addition mines of great wealth, many 
 of which I'.re constant bullion producers, are located on the 
 claimed grant. 
 
 Since the purchase of this Territory from Mexico, the 
 United Stales Gover.iment has been issuing its patents, and 
 
giving its titles to residents on the alleged grant, and this has 
 been particularly the case in the fertile valleys of the Gila 
 and Salt rivers, towards which locality the tide of immi- 
 gration has naturally diifted and today the people on the 
 alleged grant are resting secure in the possession of govern- 
 ment titles to their homes, and other property. 
 
 As long as this land grant title hovers over the section 
 of country claimed, without action, there must necessarily be 
 retarded prosperity in that locality and it becomes the duty 
 of those having cognizance of cases of this nature to act as 
 expeditiously as possible. 
 
 In my report I shall maintain: First, That the King 
 never recommended the grant as alleged by claimants. Second, 
 That no such grant as the alleged Peralta Grant was ever 
 made by the Viceroy of New Spain. Third, That admitting 
 the legality of the alleged grant there are no legal claimants 
 before this office, and none in existence so far as the records 
 show. Fourth, That again admitting its legality, it is abso- 
 lutely impossible to establish its boundaries, the alleged grant 
 never having been bounded or surveyed, and without identi- 
 fied boundaries it fails. 
 
 The papers filed in this case by the s'everal claimants are 
 as follows: I will give the original petition of James Addison 
 Reavis in full as it is an important factor in the consideration 
 of the alleged grant. It was filed March 27th, 1883. 
 
 "To THE Hon. J. W. Robbins. 
 
 United States Surveyor General for Arizona: 
 
 The petition of James Addison Reavis respectfully sets 
 forth: That he is owner, by purchase from the legal heirs 
 and representatives of the original grantee of a certain tract 
 of land, situated in the Territory of Arizona, containing three 
 hundred square leagues (Castilian or Spanish measurement) 
 granted on the third day of January, 1758, by the Viceroy of 
 New Spain to Don Miguel Peralta, Baron of the Coloradoes 
 under royal decree of the King of Spain, directing such grant 
 to be made to the said Peralta in consideration of and as a 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 reward for distingiiisned military services rendered to the 
 Crown in the war of Spain, as set forth in the following 
 muniments of title: 
 
 First. "Royal decree signed at Madrid on the 20th of 
 December 1748, directing grant to be made to Miguel de 
 Peralta, Baron of the Coloradoes, of three hundred square 
 leagues of land, or 19,200,000,000 square varas, Castiiian or 
 Spanish measurement, to be located on the royal lands in the 
 northern portion of the Vice Royalty of New Spain. 
 
 Second. '^Report of the Royal Inquisition in the city 
 and arch bishopric of Mexico, dated October 1757, setting 
 out that they make no opposition to the location as selected 
 by Peralta. That as the concession will be attended with bene- 
 ficial results, they have determined to recommend that the 
 location be made so as to include the Gila river, to the north 
 of the Mission of San Javier, the tract granted extending ten 
 leagues from north to south and thirty leagues from east to 
 west. 
 
 Third. Grant made by the Viceroy on the 3rd of Janus 
 ary 1758, in accordance with royal decree, and the recom- 
 mendation of the Royal Holy Tribunal of the Inquisition, 
 giving to Peralta 300 square leagues, to be located according 
 to the reconmiendation of the Royal Tribunal of the Inquisi- 
 tion, granting with the land all the minerals, waters and 
 streams, together \vith.all things thereto pertaining. 
 
 Fourth. Statement of Peralta, dated 13th of May 1758, 
 showing by metes and bounds the location of the land granted 
 
 Fifth. Petiti«)n of Peralta to Corlos III, King of Spain, 
 dated August 1st 1768, asking conhrmation of a concession 
 made to him (Peralta) by Ferdinand VI. and the location 
 thereof by order of the Viceroy in 1758. 
 
 Sixth. Order of the King dated Madrid, January 20th, 
 1776, granting petition of Peralta. 
 
 All ot which is fully and clearly set forth in original 
 documents hereto annexed, marked "Exhibil A," with trans- 
 lation of same, which original documents are from the govern- 
 
SURVEYOR GENERAL S REPORT. 
 
 mentarchives of the City of Mexico, and are made part of this 
 petition. 
 
 Petitioner further represents that besides the original title 
 papers procured from the government archives of the City of 
 Mexico, a record of said grant is found in the p/oper office in 
 the city of Guadalajara in Mexico, which city was at the date 
 of the grant the pUice at which, under the then existing laws, 
 grants of this character were required to be recorded, a trans- 
 cript of which records, duly attested by the proper officers of 
 the state of Jalisco, and officers of the Cabinet of the United 
 States of Mexico and Secretary of Legation of the United 
 States of America, is hereto annexed, marked "Exhibit B," 
 with translation thereof, and made a part of this petition. 
 
 And your petitioner further states that a record of said 
 grant, together with a copy of the last will and testament of 
 the said Peralta, Baron of the Colorados, was made in the 
 year 1788, in the ancient mission San Francisco Javier del 
 Bac, giving to the legatee, Miguel Peralta, absolute possession 
 and control of said grant, photographic copies of which, duly 
 attested, are hereunto annexed, and marked "Exhibit C. 1-2-3 
 which, with translations of the same, are made part hereof. 
 
 Petitioner alleges that under and by virtue of the above 
 described grant, Miguel de Peralta, Baron of the Colorados, 
 became, in the year 1758, the owner in absolute property of 
 the tract of land as described in the title papers above referred 
 to, with all things thereunto pertaining, under the highest 
 title that could be given to the royal domain in any part of 
 the Spanish dominions, in the year 1758, towit: A grant by 
 the King with title to nobility for distinguished military ser- 
 vices to the crown, and that ijjrants of such extent, or even 
 greater, were, during the times of the Spanish rule in AuDcrica, 
 under similiar circumstances, often made is historically 
 notorious. 
 
 Petitioner further alleges, that it being shown by the origs 
 inal title papers that in the year 1758, an absolute title 
 
SURVEYOR GENERAL S REPORT. 
 
 becoming vested in Miguel de Peralta de la Cordoba, Baron of 
 the Colorados, to the tract of land as hereinbefore described 
 the right so possessed by him under the law was bequeathed 
 to Miguel Peralta, his legal heir and representative. And 
 petitioner represents that the present ownership of the tract 
 of land granted in 1758 to Miguel de Peralta is clearly shown 
 by the following chain of title. 
 
 First. Will of grantee dated in Guadalajara, January 
 13th, 1788 as set out in Exhibit B and C 1-2-3, hereinbefore 
 referred to by which will Miguel de Peralta, Baron of the 
 Colorados, left to his son Miguel Peralta, the tract of land 
 described in said grant. 
 
 Second. Deed from Miguel Peralta to George M. Willing, 
 dated October 20th, 1864. 
 
 Third. Power of attorney from George M. Willing to F. 
 A. Massol, dated May 11th. 1864. 
 
 Fourth. Deed from Massol, attorney in fact of George 
 M. Willing, to J. A. Reavis, dated May 22nd 1867. 
 
 Fifth. Deed from Florin A. Massol and wife to James 
 Addison Reavis, dated July 29th, 1881. 
 
 Sixth. Deed from Mary Ann Willing, widow of George 
 M. Willing, deceased, to James Addison Reavis, dated May 
 1st, 1882. 
 
 Petitioner alleges and claims that under and by virtue 
 of the original title papers and the several powers of attorney 
 and conveyances hereinbefore described, he is now the owner 
 in the property or tract of land as granted, in the year 1758 
 by the Spanish government to Migu«^l de Peralta, Baron of 
 the Colorados, as the same is <lescribed in the original title 
 1 apers; and he therefore prays the Hon. Surveyor General of 
 the United States of America that after the necessary examin- 
 ation he recommend a confirmation thereof to petitioner, and 
 the issue of a patent to him by the government of the United 
 States of America for the tract of land as described in the 
 original title papers, in Castilian or Spanish measurement 
 
which equals 49f English miles in width uorth and south by 
 149 J English miles in length east and west, be the same more 
 or lesjs. 
 
 James Addison Reavis, 
 Tucson, A. T., March 27th, 1883. 
 
 The other papers filed in addition to the petition of Reavis 
 consist of: 
 
 The papers bound together in pamphlet form, with cot- 
 ton cloth back and distinctly claimed by petitioner Reavis in 
 his petition, dated March 27th, 1883, as "Original Title 
 Papers". (This claim as to these papers being original title 
 papers Reavis abandons in his late deraignment of title in his 
 wife.) These bound papers consist of: 
 
 The royal decree (cedula) ordering grant. 
 
 The report of the Royal Inquisition. 
 
 The alleged grant by the Viceroy, 
 
 A statement in writing by Peralta showing the approxi- 
 mate location of the land. 
 
 A petition by Peralta to Carlos III. of Spain asking con- 
 firmation of grant. 
 
 An order of the King dated January 20th, 1776, at 
 Madrid, Spain. 
 
 A letter from Santa Ana, President of the Mexican 
 Republic, to Senor Don Miguel de Peralta, son of original 
 grantee. 
 
 Three photographs of books of records of San Xavier 
 church. 
 
 A copy of will of grantee dated in Guadalajara, January 
 13th, 1788, filed March 27th, 1883. 
 
 A deed from Miguel Peralta to George M. Willing dated 
 October 20th, 1864. 
 
 A power of attorney from George M. Willing to F. A. 
 Massol, dated May 11th, 1864. 
 
 A deed from Massol, attorney in fact of George* M. Wil- 
 
8 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 ing to J. x\. Reiivis, dated May 22iid, 1867. (See Massol 
 affidavits that deed is a forgery.) 
 
 A deed from Florin A. Massol and wife to James Addis 
 son Reavis, dated July 29tli, 1881. (Of no import if valid 
 as there is nothing to show that Massol ever had any right to 
 the Peralta grant, even if found to he genuine.) 
 
 A deed from Mary Ann Willing, widow of George M. 
 Willing, deceased, to James Addison Reavis, dated May 1st, 
 1882. 
 
 A sketch ofahe alleged grant and accompanying petition 
 for survey. 
 
 Photographs of Maricopa mountains and "Monumental 
 Rock", so named by Reavis) filed September 2nd, 1887. 
 
 Amended deraignment of title, filed September 2nd, 1887 
 
 Marriage contract and identity of heir at law, filed Sep- 
 tember 2nd, 1887. 
 
 Photographic copy of testimonia. * 
 
 A bound book marked on outside cover as follows: 
 
 "Exhibits 'AAA' and 'BBB' Royal Patent, also Wills, 
 Codicils and Certified Copy of Possession Given to Don Miguel 
 de Peralta de la Cordoba, Baron of the Colorados, of Baronial 
 Estate in Arizona," said to contain papers indicated by the 
 markings on the cover. 
 
 In addition to the above a deed purporting to be from 
 George M. Willing, (father of Dr. George M. Willing, de- 
 ceased), to Brittain A. Hill is on file, and two reports made by 
 Rufus C. Hopkins and a brief in the case by Hon. Clark 
 Churchill, also a brief i^' Reavis. The above enumerated 
 papers, together with some unimportant letters, complete the 
 papers in the case. The alleged title papers filed originally 
 in the office of the United States Surveyor-General (March 
 27th, 1883), upon which the claimant to the so-called Peralta 
 Grant made his entire claim to the property as defined in the 
 petition of Reavis, were bound together in pamphlc^t form by ' 
 a cotton cloth back, and consist of a title page and six other 
 
SURVEYOR GENERAL^S REPORT. 9 
 
 pages of printed and written matter, all in the Spanish lan- 
 guage. Nothing of a satisfactory nature was filed contemn 
 poraneously or has been since to show how claimant Reavis, 
 who filed these papers, got possession of what he termed 
 " Original Papers" at the time of filing. Nothing as to where 
 these "Original Papers" had been for the one hundred and 
 thirty years or n^ore during which period of time they are 
 claimed to have been in existence. Nothing even as to who 
 the last man was that transferred these old papers to Reavis 
 or whence they came in any instance. They are simply pro^ 
 duced by Reavis, and thisoflSce is given to understand that 
 the papers are simon pure productions from the proper sources. 
 The clainiant Reavis did make an oral statement »»f a roman- 
 tic nature to me personally to the eflfcct that long after Dr. 
 Willing's death in Yavapai county, through whom Reavis 
 originally claimed title, he (Reavis), went to Yavapai county 
 in search of any efifects belonging to the deceased Dr. Willing 
 and finally his trip was made fruitful by finding the papers 
 above referred to stored away in an old cabin attic in a gunny 
 or grip sack, from which place of deposit he managed dex-» 
 terously to take them without the knowledge of the then cus- 
 todian, an ex-probate official of Yavapai county, Arizona, so 
 that claimant cannot even prove that he got the papers in the 
 way claimed, or that they were ever even in Dr.Willing's pos- 
 session ; but I want to call | articular attention right here to 
 the fact that claimant Reavis alleged that the papers were in 
 Dr. Willing's possession in view of the fact of his having 
 abandoned this deraignment of title through the said Dr^ 
 Willing, alleging that such deraignment was void; that Dr. 
 Willing never had a bona fide title ; in other words that 
 Peralta deeding to Willing had no title whatever ; in fact was 
 a fraud. How, then, in light of claimant's own assertions re- 
 garding the title, did Dr. Willing become possessed of what 
 claimant asserted to be original title papers, and where did he 
 get them if the Peralta who deeded the property to him had no 
 title to it, but was a fraud, and how did Reavis find them amonjj 
 
10 SURVEYOR GENERAL S REPORT. 
 
 Willing's papers? Thus Reavis fails to account in tlie very 
 first instance how he came to possess the papers originally 
 depended on to prove his litle, or if we accept his romantic 
 story of their recovery from Dr. Willing's effects he places 
 them in the hands of a man whom he now alleges had no 
 title, and makes him the last custodian before the petitioner 
 Reavis. It may be that the object of the letter on the last 
 slieet of the document under consideration, said to be from 
 Santa Ana, President of the Mexican Republic, is to account 
 for the presence in this country of these papers, making it ap- 
 pear that Santa Ana, President of a Republic, sent them to 
 the man Peralta, who deeded to Willing at Wickenburg, from 
 whom Willing possibly received them at the same time he is 
 said to have received the deed. If the claimant takes this 
 stand then he has to maintain according to the title he now 
 alleges as the perfect one, that Santa Ana, President of tli3 
 Republic of Mexico, took the trouble to gather up original 
 papers from the archives of Mexico and send theni to a stran- 
 gQr in the United States without the stranger being satisfac- 
 torily identified, and as a result of such gross carelessness on 
 President Santa Ana's part, he sent them to a fraud in tho 
 person of ihe man Peralta, from whom Willing is supposed to 
 have received the deed for the property. This must be Reavis' 
 position, and all this is highly improbable and does not bear 
 the impress of truth or ordinary sense or reflect credit on the 
 claimant. Governments, and particularly the Spanish and 
 Mexican people, zealously look after their archives and pride 
 themselveson their system of records, and they do not at the 
 mere solicitation of an absolute stranger deplete their archves 
 by gathering up and sending original papers of great value to 
 unknown persons. At the time Reavis filed Santa Ana's 
 alleged letter to account for the papers being in the hands of 
 the Mi<xuel Peralta ofWickenburjr, and through him in Dr. 
 AVilling's possession, he was claiming under a deraignment 
 of title through Dr. Willing and the Wickenburg Peralta. In 
 
11 
 
 proceeding to consiier the dociiraents originally filed by 
 Reavis, and alleged to have been fonnd by Reavis at Prescott 
 among Dr. Willi ng's long neglected posthumos effects, upon 
 which Reavis originally rested his whole title, I shall take the 
 ground that he filed for consideration all the papers he coy Id 
 possibly produce at tliat time, and that he rested his case and 
 he certainly closed his exparte showing by submitting his 
 brief. The other claimants likewise producedin those same 
 papers the best results obtainable. I shall consider these 
 papers in the light of their competentcy as evidence in sup- 
 port of the claim set up. 
 
 The first or title sheet is old and dilapidated, lull of holes 
 where t4ie ink is supposed to have eaten through or where the 
 paper is supposed to have yielded to the ravages ot time. In 
 its upper left hand corner, over what may be sealing wax, is 
 what appears to be a small, irregular piece of bond or parch- 
 ment paper, pasted on without any apparent significance or 
 meaning. The front of the sheet is printed Spanish and reads 
 as follows: 
 
 "Book which only serves to note therein the deposits 
 that may be delivered to me by order of the Royal Holy 
 Inquisition for the proofs of petitioners that may be as a de- 
 pos.tory of the same, June 23rd, 1768." 
 
 Now this frontispiece to this remarkable production ot 
 alleged antiquity would indicate that it was a cover to a 
 book of records of the acts of the Inquisition, and certainly 
 leads me to suspect that it was copied from some such book. 
 In this particular instance it seems much out of place, as what 
 follows this original sheet under consideration is not sueh rec- 
 ords as are kept by such officials as the reading on the page 
 would indicate, the reading on the page would make the man 
 in whose possession it is, a recorder of papers of the Holy Inqui- 
 sition, and should appear on the cover of a general record 
 book of such papers; instead of which it is filed here as a 
 frontispiece of half a dozen pages of matter, all of which pages 
 
12 SURVEYOR GENERALS REPORT. 
 
 appertaiti to the alleged grant of Peralta, and in no way, 
 shape or form, go to make up several acts of the Royal Inqui- 
 sition, as the i)age referred to indicates. 
 
 This page simply plays no important part whatever in 
 this case, and is not germane to iU consideration, but I want 
 to call particular attention to the fact that the name Peralta 
 does not even appear in any way, shape or form on this out- 
 side sheet, as would naturally be expected. On the back of 
 this front or title page, on which it will b3 remembered is pasted 
 a yellow sheet of thin parchment paper, calculated to hide 
 from view the back of the title page. By raising this yellovr 
 sheet of paper it was found that the great defect of the title 
 sheet had been remedied by the following words in writing : 
 'In relation to the concession to the Senor Don Miguel de 
 Peralta, Baron of the Colorados." 
 
 This writing has been added to the back of this page 
 within a few years, and of course was placed there for thepui- 
 pose of connecting the title sheet with Don Miguel de Pera!ta. 
 It is written with a steel pen, hair lines being apparent 
 throughout the entire writing, and the ink used seems to be 
 he same as that in which the King's name is signed on the 
 succeeding pages. 
 
 The person adding this writing evidently appreciated the 
 importance of connecting the outside page with Don Miguel 
 de Peralta. The next page is mostly printed in beautiful 
 type. I have examined this printing very critically in con- 
 nection with printing done in Mexico during the same cen- 
 tury by the Inquisition. I find an altogether different ap- 
 pearance in the printing under discussion from those papers 
 issiied by the Inquisition from the City of Mexico, with which 
 I have compared it. (See letter herewith from Assistant 
 Librarian of Congress, to whom I submitted a photographic 
 copy of this printing for comparison). One very important 
 diff*erence is that while the papers filed by Reavis invariably 
 shows a fine cut shapely modern S, whether the letters appear 
 in the middle or at the end ef the word; the documents issued 
 
SURVEYOR GENERAL*S REPORT. 13 
 
 by the Inquisition used both the old-fashioned and modern S 
 according to their position in the word, and the modern S is 
 not the shapely S used in the^ Peralta papers ; some writing 
 and rubricas appear on this isheet. "Yo el Rey" is printed at 
 the bottom of the printed matter. A seal printed on the paper 
 also appears. It is not impressed on the paper, and has no 
 special significance unless to simply indicate that it was used 
 on a great deal of paper of this kind, therefore by proper in- 
 ference if used in large quantities for like purposes it would 
 be comparatively easy to obtain and would not be difficult to 
 duplicate. Tiie signature of the Seuor Minister of State, "Don 
 Jose de Carvajal y Linciiter," is printed, and under it appears 
 a rubrica. There are many rubricas over this sheet and the 
 claimants fail to offer any evidence whatever as to whose 
 rubricas they are. It is not to be suppose I that a grant fifty 
 by one hundrol and fifty miles of the best land in Arizona is 
 to pass on the strength of a few rubricas that any boy might 
 imitate without corroborative evidence as to the genuineness. 
 It is my experience that even genuine rubricas vary very 
 much. In considering a document of the import of the one 
 at present under consideration, wt: would naturally suppose 
 that it would be taken from department to department of the 
 government, to receive the several signatures and rubricas 
 this page purports to convey and t'aat considerable variation 
 would appear in the pens and ink used ; but an a[)pearance 
 of similiarity is uniformly preserved throughout the entire 
 page. To the right of the small seal printed on the paper 
 above referred to, the Senior Minister of the Council of State 
 certifies that he has annexed the great seal of the state to the 
 sheet. This expression of the. Minister of State would lead us 
 to expect that the impress of the great seal of state would be 
 found impressed or attached to the sheet. Nothing of the 
 kind appears, and in place of the attaclied seal that the Min- 
 ister seems to refer to, we simply have a little printed so.il. 
 This little printed seal may have been printed on reams of 
 
14 
 
 blank paper used for royal purposes during the past century ; 
 if such was the case it would not be difficult to secure a sheet 
 of paper with this small seal printed thereon and add above 
 such seal the printed matter which is found above the seal 
 under consideration and which presents such a modern appear- 
 ance as far as the type used is concerned. It will he borne 
 in mind that the claimant Raavis under the present claim of 
 his wife does not assert this sheet to be the original "Ceclula 
 of Ferdinand the VI," but produces in his new claim what he 
 asserts to be the original "Cedula." 
 
 Under these circumstances I would like to ask claimant 
 how all the prior alleged original rubrical cmne on this sheet if 
 it is not an original cedula, as formerly claimed by Reavisf 
 
 This remarkable sheet is dated January 3rd, 1748. A 
 paper of^this description counts for nothing in considering the 
 case, as its validity is in no way proven. Nothing to show 
 that it is an original document or a bona fide reproduction of 
 the same is offered. It is simply submitted for what it is worth, 
 and is not competent evidence in the consideration of a case 
 either in court or in the o'lfice of a Surveyor-General. Much 
 of the writing on this sheet bears evidence of having been 
 done with a steel pen, which, of course, is impossible if the 
 document was executed at the date it is alleged to have been, 
 as the steel pen made its first appearance in an imperfect con- 
 dition in 1803, but was not made useful for many years after 
 that date. On this sheet also appears "Yo el Rey" with a 
 rubrica, represented of course to be the King's, and judging 
 from the date in connection therewith, December 2d, 1772, it 
 is meant for the rubrica of Carlos III of Spain. The Ameri- 
 can Minister at Madrid in answer to a letter from me, sent 
 through the Interior and State Departments during my pre- 
 vious term as Surveyor-General, sent me a tracing of the 
 name of Carlos III, signed by the King in 1759, and it ap- 
 pears as "Carlos" with a rubrica. This plays no important 
 part, as it was customary to sign documents "Yo el Rey." 
 The " Yo el Rey " appears to have been written with a stub 
 
SUKVEYOR general's REPORT 15 
 
 pju or quill. Nothing appears on this page entitled to 
 credit, considered without corroborating evidence. This docu- 
 ment was primarily alleged to be the original cedula or de- 
 cree of King Ferdinand the VI, ordering the grant to be 
 made, and was presented to this office as such, though now one 
 of the claimants, Reavis, claims to have since discovered 
 the original cedula in Spain, and now if he attaches any im- 
 portance whatever to the paper he originally urged upon this 
 office as the original cedula, which I am now considering, it 
 must be a mere copy. 
 
 This is an important feature inthe case, showing how com- 
 pletely claimant Reavis his abandoned what he originally pre- 
 feented as his title papers, without submitting any good reason for 
 doing so. A good reason, however, may be supplied claimant 
 Reavis when the Massol affidavit is taken into consideration. 
 Next in order considering this document comes three pages of 
 written matter in the same handwriting. It purports to be a 
 copy of the report of the Inquisition on the grant proposed to 
 be given to Peralta and also a copy of the grant a^ actually 
 made by the Viceroy of New Spain, as well as a lame descript 
 tion of the locus of the grant. The original report of the 
 Inquisition and the original grant of the Viceroy made about 
 the middle of the last century are not produced, and unques^ 
 tionably have not been found ; but in lieu of the original 
 papers so very important in considering this case these poor 
 substitutes are produced. Why the locus of the original can- 
 not be established when correct copies can be made from them 
 I am at a loss to understand. Reason dictates that if bona 
 fide copies from originals on file can be produced there ought 
 to be no trouble in locating the place of deposit of such 
 originals. 
 
 When we stop and reflect on the learned body ot men 
 comprising the Holy Inquisition this alleged copy is but a 
 sorry exhibit of their handiwork at producing certified records. 
 It lacks every appearance, (with the possible exception of 
 old age) that would naturally be expected in a certified rec- 
 
16 SURVEYOR general's REPORT 
 
 ord of such important documenU by such an educated body 
 
 of men. 
 
 This paper demands our careful attention, as it is a paper 
 playing no unimportant part in considering the question 
 whether these papers have not been fiibricated in aid of estab'* 
 lishing a title to a large proportion of our territory. At the 
 end of the pages under consideration appear the words "A 
 Copy, June 23rd, 1768," and a large seal, claimed to be the 
 seal of the Inquisition. This seal is not impressed on the page 
 proper, but is on a separate piece of parchment paper pasted 
 on the page. When claimant Keavis filed his "original" 
 papers he pointed to the seal of the Inquisition as being con- 
 clusive evidence of the genuineness of the paper bearing its 
 impress. Being desirous of ascertaining how difficult it would 
 be to procure these seals of the Inquisition and to satisfy my- 
 self a« to the probability of a person being able to secure them 
 for the purpose of fabricating a paper purporting to be from 
 the Holy Inquisition of New Spain, I sent a letter to the 
 proper Mexican authorities, and as a result a duplicate of the 
 seal produced on the Peralta papers has been furnished me. 
 The following is a quotation from the letter sending the seals: 
 " I enclose three documents found in said archives and which 
 could be spared from them, containing the impress of the seal 
 of the said ecclesiastical tribunal." The attachment of the 
 seal of the Holy Inquisition to the paper filed by Reavis carries 
 no weight whatever with me under the circumstances, inas- 
 much as I have been able to secure from Mexico an exact 
 duplicate which I could attach to as solemn a document as 
 Reavis claims his document to be in the space of one minute. 
 The production of the counterpart of his seal, so easily ob- 
 tained and the wording of letter transmitting them, shows be- 
 yond controversy that the impress was readily obtainable 
 and thereafter could be utilized for the fabrication of papers. 
 
 One very noticeable feature in comparing the seal of the 
 Inquisitio:i obtained by me from undoubted sources of validity 
 
SURVEYOK GENERAL'8 REPORT 17 
 
 with that filed in the case b}' Reavis on his document, is that 
 the seal obtained by me was impressed on the paper with a 
 metal seal, which, while it made its impress on the face of the 
 seal, at the same time made a corresponding impress on the 
 back of the parchment paper to which said seal was attached, 
 while the seal cm the Reavis documents appears to be simply 
 pasted on the paper under consideration and shows no evi- 
 dence whatever of having been impressed thereon by a metal 
 seal; the parchment paper directly back of such seal of the 
 Inquisition is smooth, its smoothness evidently being foreign 
 to any impress whatever. Although the seal obtained by me 
 is much older than the period in which the Reavis seal is 
 alleged to have been attached, it does not present the brown 
 appearance of the Reavis seal. Said brown color looking as 
 though it might have been scorched by being heated over a 
 flame for detachment from its original resting place, or in 
 placing it in its present position. In further proof it is 
 cracktd as though scorched. It is folly to talk about land 
 grant records from the archives of the Inquisition as the law 
 existed. 
 
 At this stage of this report it must be borne in mind that 
 the all important paper of this claim, the paper whose exist- 
 ence must be proven or the claim that such a grant ever ex- 
 isted for a moment must fall to the ground, is the origmal 
 grant of the Viceroy. This paper must be produced to show 
 that the ivordii ol recommendation attributed to Ferdinand VI 
 in his communication to the Viceroy had received any weight 
 in the eyes of the Viceroy, or that he had acted on the King's 
 suggestion and made a grant to Peralta. Of course if claim- 
 ants cannot in a perfectly clear way prove that the Viceroy 
 granted the land their case is at an end. The King's words, 
 if we allow that he wrote them, or caused them to be written, 
 were onlv words of recommendation, and it was left to the 
 Viceroy to carry out the granting of the land if he saw fit 
 aud to refuse to do so if he saw fit. 
 
 It now becomes an all important proposition in the sup- 
 port of this claim to get the original "g:rant" of the Viceroy 
 
18 SURVEYOIl GENERAL S REPORT. 
 
 or it that cannot be done in a manner satisfactory to the gov- 
 ernment for, the plaintifis to ^ccure such a copy of theoriginal 
 as the claimants consider the government will recognize. To 
 this end are produced the papers under consideration. No 
 certificate of a modern date nor any other reliable certifis 
 cation appears on tlie copies which would point to jthe origi- 
 nals being at present in the custody of some custodian of 
 archives where they could be readily located and seen, but 
 the certification of the copies is remarkably ancient and un- 
 satisfactory, and nothing 's at hand of an acceptable nature 
 in a court or in this office to enable i.ne to ascertain the where- 
 abouts of originals or to prove their existence, and if they 
 were to be obtained it is the duty of the claimants to produce 
 them or to obtain and submit undoubted proof of their exist- 
 en'^e in their proper archives. 
 
 The above referred to certified copy is produced without 
 showing where it was certified from, unless the writing is 
 under the seal of the Inquisition, and it is expected by the 
 claimants that this poor specimen ot a copy shall play an im- 
 .portant part in the question of the validity of the grant. The 
 inability to ascertain where this paper was written or the place 
 of deposit of the originals invalidates the entire paper. The 
 signature and rubricas attached to this document have the 
 appearance of being written by one man, with the ^^ame pen 
 and ink, and could be easily reproduced by a good penman. 
 The paper looks old. I want to particularly impress upon 
 the mind the fact that the copy of, or possibly, it may be 
 claimed, the original of the Viceroy's grant is claimed to have 
 been on deposit in the archives of the Holy Inquisition, 
 whence the copies under consideration are al'eged to have 
 come certified by the priests, otherwise, of course, the alleged 
 copies could not have l)een made from the ecclesiastical 
 archives. 
 
 By what propriety an original grant, or a copy of such a 
 grant, by a Viceroy should leave its natural channel in the 
 governmental archives to become part and parcel of the 
 ecclesiastical records i^ not shown. It is certainlyout of place 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 19 
 
 among such recor'ls. 
 
 The last sheet of this document is covered with writing, 
 rubricas, etc. On one side is what purports to be a letter i'nfm 
 Miguel Peralta to the King of Spain, Carlos III asking a re- 
 confirmation of the grant, and his (Peralta's) location of the 
 same. He particularly states that his land contain- much 
 mineral. It is dated in Mexico, the first of August 1768, when 
 Peralta, according to claim, was an old man. The writing is 
 made to appear as the writing of an aged and decrepit man, 
 Below this letter sometiiing is written which it is impossible to 
 correctly decipher on account of its torn and mutilated condi- 
 tion, but it is evidently intended for some writing in connec- 
 tion with the King's alleged signature on the following page, 
 in confirming the grant to Peralta, as at the top of the other 
 side of the sheet, the last page of the papers bound together, 
 appears" January 22nd 1776,"'*Yo el Rey,"with rubrica, with- 
 out the slightest mention of Peralta or his alleged grant or 
 any words of confirmation. The signature "Yo el Rey" and 
 the rubrica following, in both instances, are unquestionably 
 written by the same person, and are claimed to have been at- 
 tached by Carlos III, when the papers were returned to him 
 for reconfirmation by Miguel Peralta. A difference of over 
 three years is made to appear in the dates connected with these 
 signatures. The first signature has preceding it "Passed be- 
 fore me, dated in Madrid on the second of December 1772, Yo 
 el Rey." The last signature is claimed to be the King's and 
 alleged to have oeen attached at the same time when Peralta 
 asked for reconfirmation has the date "January 22nd, 1776." 
 How this occurred, or how it is to be accounted for no evidence 
 is offered to show, but under the circumstance it is a very 
 noticeable discrepancy. Following "Yo el Rey" and the 
 rubrica referred to is a seal similar to the one described by me 
 as being on the title of first page. It looks like a daub of seal- 
 ing wax, with a little piece of parchment paper ntuckon w.iile 
 hot, and is about the size of a five cent nickel piece. 
 
 Nothing is filed to show how this last paper became at- 
 tached to the other papers unless some writing at the foot of 
 
20 SURVEYOR GE^EKAl/S REPORT. 
 
 the page, badly torn and disfigured with parts of the paper 
 missing, i? allowed to account for it. It is filed as a letter from 
 Santa Ana, President of the Mexican Republic, to Miguel de 
 Peralta, .«on of the original grantee, then living at San Diego, 
 California. 
 
 He goes <m to say to the son of the oTantee, that diligent 
 search has been made, through his several ministers, for the 
 papers relating to the concession to his father, and that all 
 fhat could he found he sent to him, and in relation to the por- 
 tion lying in the United States of Mexico he assures the son 
 he will be secure with these papers, although he has separated 
 the originals; and he believes he will be equally secure in that 
 part lying in the United States. Th'^ letter is dited May 
 10th, 1853. 
 
 Now this would seem to intimate that Santa Ana had 
 possibly fastened these papers together in sending them to 
 Peralta's son; but this would be contradictorv of the idea that 
 Peralta himself had submitted all chese papers together to 
 Carlos in, with his letter asking reconfirmation, four score 
 years before, and the claim that King Carlos III, had signed the 
 document twice, once on the first, (or Ferdinand's cedula sheet) 
 and once on the last page, would go to show that the papers were 
 together when submitted to him, provided his signatures are gen- 
 uine; instead of having been gathered together by Santa Ana 
 in 1853. Then again the two small seals claimed to be royal 
 seals, appear on the front or title page and on the back page 
 after the alleged signature of (Carlos III, seeming to be exact 
 duplicates. 
 
 An inconsistency at least is apparent as to when these 
 papers were first gotten together. The whole document to 
 my mind, where writiuir or printing appears, shows the proba- 
 bility of being a modern production. It is not to be enter- 
 tained as evidence as it appears of record in this office, and 
 must remain a lot ot unauthenticated copies at best, and can 
 in no way be (considered as (competent evidence to the validity 
 
SURVEYOR GENERAL^S REPORT. 21 
 
 of the Peralta claim as it in no way establishes the grant by 
 the Viceroy. 
 
 If I admit, for the sake of argument, that the alleged 
 letter of Santa Ana is genuine, he practically informs young 
 Peralta of the loss of the originals, and that his claim in the 
 United States without them is doubtful, and further informs 
 him that they have sent all the documents that a very careful 
 :^earch brought to light. 
 
 The letter of Santa Ana's, if genuine, would only be im- 
 portant to show, that though the records of Mexico were 
 searched with all the great facilities of the government itself 
 at the instigation of the President of that Government no other 
 papera were on file anywhere, consequently a natural deduc- 
 tion is that papers now found were surreptiously put in the 
 archives after President Santa Ana's thorough search had 
 failed to Jiul them. 
 
 The claimants in urging the validity of Santa Ana's let- 
 ter really put a quietus on their production of any more 
 papers from the Mexican archives. Still the claimant Reavis 
 produces, as will be seen hereafter, further papers from Gua *'< 
 alajara, the very first place where President Santa Ana would 
 naturally look for official documents, that being one of the 
 proper places of record of such documents as belonged to New 
 Spain; and Reavis although a private citizen of a foreign 
 country accomplishes what President Santa Ana, with all his 
 great power, could not accomplish. 
 
 I will say in closing my examination of the papers origi- 
 nally filed that where writing appears for the royal signature 
 to follow it is of a character that might be attributed to a 
 twelve-year old schoolboy, instead of bearing out the reputation 
 possessed by Spain at that time of being in advance of the 
 world's civilization in this respect. The whole appearance of 
 the papers is against their validity. These papers were filed 
 by Reavis as the evidence of his claim to be one of the largest 
 land owners in the world, and at the same time of their filing, 
 and for a long time thereafter, he, as well as the other claimants, 
 rested their entire case on their nierits, claiming: that even 
 
22 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 if they could not prove the first printed page ordering the 
 Viceroy to make the grant to be an originri cedula of the 
 King Ferdinand VI, it was finally made an original b}r the re- 
 confirmation of Carlos III, when he twice attached his royal 
 signature to the papers, and it is my opinion that the whole 
 object of the signature of Carlos III was to fill the void cre- 
 ated by inability to plausibly produce the original recom- 
 mendation of the King, Ferdinand VI, or the original grant 
 by the Viceroy of New Spain. The claim however that the 
 signature of Carlos III made the paper an original grant is 
 farcical. By their own showing the claimants make Peralta 
 the sender of the papers to the King, and it is represented 
 that Carlos III, upon the mere statement by Peralta that he 
 had such a grant, confirmed the grant that the Vicerov had 
 made. It seems to me that the allegation that Peralta ever 
 sent the papers to Carlos III with the representation that 
 he had a grant, and asked him to confirm it, is a shrewd mov^e, 
 to formulate a new and equally fraudulent claim in case the 
 Viceroy claim failed on account of close research. Why, I 
 want to ask, if Peralta had received a grant of land from the 
 Viceroy under the recommendation of Kinor Ferdinand 
 VI, which claimants assert positively carried minerals, etc., 
 in specific terms in the original grant by the Viceroy, did 
 Peralta take the trouble to have it all done over again by 
 Carlos III when Peralta should have been in full possession 
 more than ten years before? I cannot entertain such a silly 
 proposition, and I think it only figures in this case to help 
 the claim out on account of the original grant itself being 
 absent and unaccounted for. Then if Peralta, the grantee, 
 had the original papers, especially the grant by the Viceroy, 
 why did he not send them to Carlos III? The King, Carlos 
 III, don't say he makes a grant ; he is made to appear in the 
 light of attaching his signature to a grant already made, and 
 the way his name appears on the last sheet withou the words 
 of confirmation on the same sheet even or legible, makes the 
 whole proposition absurd, 
 
 I want to call attention here t.) the fact that although the 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 23 
 
 King in his alleged order to the Viceroy to make the grant 
 explicitly states that it is upon the recommendation of the 
 Inquisition still the claimants do not file or allege that they 
 have found the original recommendation of the Inquisition 
 prior to 1748 ( when Ferdinand VI is said to have made the 
 grant) and inasmuch as they have produced similiar evidence 
 from the records of the Inquisition, I am wholly unable to 
 understand how so important a document ais this original 
 recommendation was not found, if in existence, as on account oi 
 its being the original act of the Inquisition that brought about 
 the alleged action of Ferdinand VI, it should by all means 
 have been produced from the archives. I don't want to con 
 found the original recommendation of the Inquisition prior to 
 the year 1748, wkioh I now ask for, and which the king refers 
 to in his alleged recommendation to the viceroy, with the al- 
 leged copy that is produced of an alleged report of the Inqui- 
 sition in the premises. This latter act of the Inquisition 
 purporting to be the report on the location, etc., occurred 
 several years after King Ferdinand's alleged recommendation 
 to the viceroy. 
 
 Ferdinand VI is also made to refer in his recommenda- 
 tion to the viceroy to a recommendation to him of a "consulado" 
 and "superior judge" approved by the government and pres 
 sented to the general military board. Clpimants do not 
 account for the non production of the originals or satisfactory 
 copies of these papers, and say nothing as to where they are. 
 They ought to be easily produced. 
 
 One of the most important facts to consider in this paper, 
 the sheets of which are pasted together with cloth, is that 
 neither on the title page (where it properly belongs) nor on 
 the last page where the king's signature is alleged to be signed 
 does the name of Miguel Peralta appear or anything in con- 
 nection with a grant to him; which founds a very reasonable 
 suspicion that these pages might have been used originally for 
 some other purpose. In connection with the king's alleged 
 approval of the grant, nothing but the date above the alleged sig- 
 nature of the king appears on this page. This creates a very 
 
24 SUKVEYOK «iENEKAL'i< KEl'OKT. 
 
 stroni; suspicion of fraud. The writing stating tlie object of 
 the king risigmiture u on the preceding page. Tome this is 
 very conclusive evidence that tnese outside sheets may at some 
 |)ast lime have been used for other purposes, for certainly the 
 outside sheets of so important a document should have noted 
 the name of the grantee and his title, etc. Nothinu^ of the 
 kind appears, but on the contrary they might be today attached 
 to other interior contents, with the same degree of propriety that 
 they at present nestle under their protecting sheets, such sus- 
 picious looking documents as th >se relied on by the claimants 
 to the Peralta grant. This ommission of Peralta's name in 
 the title on these outside pages is no ordinary on»is.sion: it is 
 a mostextriordinary defect. In ad(iition the ragged and un- 
 intelligible writing at the bottom of the last page, claimed to 
 l>e from Santa Ana, adds nothing to the genuineness of this 
 suspicious page. In its mutilated condition it can receive no 
 serious attention and presents no evidence of being genuine- 
 tt may be asserted that the alleged king's signature (Carlos 
 III) on the page containg the alleged order of the King FenK 
 inand VI strengthens the genuine appearance of the document- 
 To this I would answer that the king's signature on the last 
 page, admitting it to be genuine, for the sake of argument 
 but to have been originally used for some other purpose, vvhich 
 the sheets would seem to indicate was the case, on account of 
 the absence above the king's signature of anything appertain- 
 ing to Peralta, would furnish the very means to aid its being 
 succressfully duplicated on the page containing Ferdinand's 
 cedula. 
 
 A paper is presented to this office from Guadalajara as a 
 certified copy of papers on tile at Guadalajara, found there by 
 Reavis in the face of the assurance by President 8anta Ana, 
 in his alleged letter (filed by claimant Reavis) that with all 
 the facilities as prsideent of ihe republic he could not find 
 any such papers iji any archives of the republic, and Guada- 
 lajara it is to be presumed is the place where Santa Ana would 
 have given careful search. The records at Guadalajar have 
 been loosely kept, only a small portion of them being bound; 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 25 
 
 the balance have been kept for a long period of time in boxes, 
 easy of access, and easily added to by a person taking the 
 necessary time to accomplish such an object. Binding of the 
 records was going on in 1883 and for some time before, and as 
 a consequence records that weie loosely scattered in 1881-1882 
 or 1883 might be found in a bound condition a year or so 
 later. The Mexican archives were so loosely protected in 
 Guadalajara as to create suspicion where papers are found by 
 a foreigner that the president of the republic himself and his 
 machinery ot the state sought in vain to find. Mr. R. C.Hop. 
 kins, then an employee of the Surveyor Generals office, in his 
 report about the Guadalajara papers says: 
 
 "The archives in Guadalajara formerly consisted of un- 
 bound papers, with the exception of a few books bound in 
 parchment, after the old style and, like the archives of all 
 Spanish countries, consisted of official correspondence and 
 decrees, civil and criminal proceedings, and in fact of all such 
 official papers as would naturally be produced by the machins 
 cry of such governments as those of Spain and Mexico. Th® 
 greater portion of these miscellaneous archives have within 
 the last few years been bound for preservation by the state 
 department as appropriations have been from time to time 
 made for that purpose, and in one of these volumes, thus bound 
 within the past two years, are found the papers in relation to 
 the Peralta grant. These title papers show folding marks, as 
 do many others in the books referred to. Most of the records 
 of archives from the years 1740 to 1760 appear to have been 
 destroyed, as I was informed by the archivero." 
 
 Now we have this statement of Santa Ana that the papers 
 could not be found, and we have also the information that 
 most of the records between 1740 and 1760 were destroyed, 
 but Keavis produces from a newly bound volume that, accord' 
 ing to Mr. Hopkins, was bound in 1881, the copies of the 
 papers he sought. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins says in his report: "It is important to 
 ascertain, if possible, if these title papers be historically con- 
 sistent, that is, if the parties whose names appear therein did 
 
._;(} SUKVEYOK UENEKAL'S KEPORT. 
 
 in tact exist, and if they occuiied the positions as stated in 
 the papers at the respective dates mentioned * H^ ^ 
 * * * Contemporaneous history, found in Ban- 
 croft's library in the city of San Francisco, California, shows 
 that the above named individuals (referring to names on the 
 papers) were living and acting in the capacities above stated 
 at the date mentioned in the report, except it appears that 
 Father Tameron, is mentioned by the historian as bishop of 
 Durango, New Mexico, at the time, belongs to the bishopric 
 Durango." 
 
 This kind of an investigation amounts to next to noth- 
 ing, as what was accessible to a man examining into the 
 matter would likewise be accessible to a person desirous of 
 making up a perfect record to formulate grant papers. Ii> 
 tact to secure names of otiicials contemporaneous with the 
 grant would be the first step in a chain of fraud. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins says: ''The original grant by the viceroy not 
 being produced — his signature is not found among the title 
 papers. In 1758 the Marquis de las Amarillas filled the of- 
 fice of viceroy of New Spain," 
 
 Mr. Hopkins further says in his report: "One of the 
 paoers found in the government archives at Guadalajara is 
 'Testimonio Original' This paper is a copy of the decree of 
 Ferdinand VI recommending the grant. This testimonio 
 (certified copy) is authenticated by these signatures made with 
 rubricas alone." 
 
 Mr. Hopkins goes on to say that rubricas similar to those 
 referred to above are found on other papers issued contemper^ 
 aneous with the decree of Ferdinand VI. The papers filed in 
 this office from Guadalajara amount to this: A petition by 
 Reavis dated November 27th, 1883, to the Second General 
 Court, wherein he represents himself as the rightful owner of 
 the "Peralta Hacienda'* in Arizona, that he had in his pos- 
 session a copy, and a photograph of a document, and a map 
 of said property, which, with the consent of the governor of 
 that state, was issued to hin\ in 1881. (the very year that 
 Hopkins says the book containing the records was being bound) 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 27 
 
 by the persun in charge of the archives at Guadalajara, which 
 show a concession made to Don Miguel Peralta. Petitioner 
 then prays that the court will issue the necessary order to the 
 public register in charge of the records, etc., directing him to 
 issue to the petitioner a "testimonio" of the record. The above 
 petition shows that Reavis was in communication with the Ar- 
 chivero at Guadalajara in 1881 ivhen the important act of bind- 
 ing the volume within ivhich was found the Peralta papers was 
 being accomplished. 
 
 The papers produced on this petition is a certified copy 
 (which petitioner asserts he got from the proper officer) of 
 copies of the alleged originals of Ferdinand's decree; the vice- 
 roy's grant; an uncertain description of the locus of the 
 grant; a will of Peralta leaving grant to his son, and direct- 
 ing him to go and take possession. This certified copy of the 
 copies of the several papers cited immediately above, which 
 said copies are on file in Guadalajara, is presented to this 
 office as evidence, and I am asked to give credit to a paper of 
 this character found in a volume which had only been bound 
 two years before produced; all of which copies were 
 probably filed at one time, and by one man. Nothing is of- 
 fered among the papers to show where the original papers 
 were filed, and it is very remarkable that the original Peralta 
 himself should not have given definite information about the 
 originals, considering the great anxiety evidenced in his alleg- 
 ed will to have his son inherit his large donation of land. 
 
 These copies, of copies would not make competent evidence 
 in any court and are not admissable for serious consideration 
 in this case. The production of copies taken from copies has 
 proven the remarkable feature in this case. Copies from 
 originals apparently being out of the question. 
 
 I will premise my consideration of the next paper filed in 
 this case, by stating that on February 1st, 1884, I wrote a 
 request to the Hon. Minister Plenipotentiary at Madrid ask^ 
 ing him for certified copies of each and every important paper 
 appertaining in any way to the alleged Peralta grant; and 
 thinking that a request transmitted through the high medium 
 
28 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 of the stale department might receive better attention on the 
 part of tlie Spani.-jl) government, tlian one from this office 
 direct, I sent an additional request to the Secretary of the 
 Interior, which was transmitted through the state department' 
 . with photograpiis etc. furnisiied by me, to secure a full and 
 intelligent examination of the records of Madrid and Seville. 
 I al."i0 took si miliar ste[)s to have the records of Mexico care«» 
 fully searched. In response to these repuests on May 2nd, 
 1885 I received a letter from the Commissioner of the General 
 Land Otilce containing the following: "You are further ad- 
 vised that this department has received from the department 
 of state official information communicated by the Spanish 
 *:overnni('nt, through the Anieiican legation at Madrid, that a 
 careful search has been made by the Director of the Archives 
 and that the so called Peralta grant does not exist in those 
 archives." 
 
 The same letter says: "Thorough search has been made 
 under the direction of the government of the Republic of 
 Mexico at the instance of this government and no record of 
 this grant nor any of the various minute proceedings required 
 by the laws of Spain and the Indies connected with the making 
 of such grants has been discovered." 
 
 Now here we have the highest possible authority from 
 the pn>j)er sources, that nothing whatever could be found in 
 the archives where such papers would naturally be kept, either 
 in Spain or Mexico. These communications coming to the 
 attention of the claimant Keavis, it is alleged he went toSpain 
 and again succeeded, as he (;laims, in finding papers of alleged 
 value to this claim in the archives there, and when he next 
 appeared in the office of the Surveyor General h- filed these 
 papers with an amended >'d deraigument of title, claiming the 
 title for his wife as "Sofia Lorkta Mkaela Maso Reavis 
 Peralta de la CoRrxmA" and signs himself James Addison 
 Femlta Reavis. All this on the strength of the papers found 
 i)y Reavis in Spain, after the positive assurance by the Spanish 
 government to our government that nt) such papers could be 
 lound. it is inipossible for us to set aside the statement of a 
 
29 
 
 government and accept that of Reavis. In this last and most 
 remarkable move everything appertaining to the original de- 
 raignment of title is apparently set aside by the new claimant* 
 the wife ofReavis, without Reavis interfering in behalf of his 
 orignal claim or offering anything in explanation of the abandon 
 ment of the former, and the adoption of the last filed claim. 
 The latter claim is made in a matter of fact way, wholly ig- 
 noring Reavis (except as the husband of the claimant) and 
 his former stupendous efforts to deraign title direct from the 
 old Baron to himself. The claim as now made by the peti- 
 tioners Reavis and wife, that the wife, the said "Sofia Loreta 
 Micaela Maso Reavis de la Cordoba" is a lineal decendant, 
 and sole heir to the original grantee of the alleged so called 
 "Peralta Grant," being the great-grand-daughter of the original 
 Peralta, and that she is entitled to the alleged grant as stated 
 above. This petition was filed in the Surveyor General's of- 
 fice on the 2nd day of September, 1887. They also file a 
 petition for a preliminary survey of the grant, and a map of 
 the land they claim, and by them it is located about eight 
 miles south of the former claim made by claimant when he 
 was simply James Addison Reavis. Contemporaneous with 
 the filing of the new claim to this colossal property, petition- 
 ers file photographic copies of Spanish documents, will, codi- 
 cils, etc., which photographic copies are certified as true copies 
 by the Secretary of the Interior under section 882 of the 
 Revised Statutes providins; that "Copies of any books, records, 
 papers or documents in any of the executive departments, 
 authenticated, under the seals of such department, respectivel y 
 shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals there- 
 of." This section, by the words "originals thereof," evidently 
 means the papers on file in the department from which the 
 copies certified to as the copies by the department head, have 
 been made; not necessarily the o.:iginal title papers themselves, 
 for the very papers filed in the department may be, and very 
 probably are, only copies brought to the department and filed; 
 from which, after they are filed, other copies may be made and 
 Certified to by the secretary of the department as correct copies 
 
30 SURVEYOR GENKRAI/S REPORT. 
 
 of the papers on file in the department, be they copies or 
 eriginals. To give any other meaning would make the depart- 
 ment responsibla as giuiranteeing that copies of papers filed 
 in the department were correct copies of bona fide orignals, or 
 tiie originals themselves, and that gurely was never intended 
 
 To give weight to copies produced here authenticated as 
 provided for in the section referred to, I take it for granted 
 that the Statute contemplated such documents as are properly 
 on file in the department. The section certainly cannot mean 
 that any paper may be placed in the files of a department* 
 however wrongfully and merely upon the certification that a 
 copy given to some one is a correct copy of the paper on file 
 in the dei)artment, make that copy, so certified, competent 
 evidence. Secretary Muldrow, in certifying to the copy pro*- 
 duced in the Surveyor General's olfice certifies in the follow 
 ing language: "Pursuant to section 882 of the Revised Statutes' 
 I hereby certify that the annexed is a true copy of a document 
 on file in this department, except to the following discrepan- 
 cies." (Noting them.) In no way does this certification bear 
 out the idea that Secretary Muldrow meant to convey the fact 
 that the papers were originals, or of any import as bona fide 
 copies of originals. He simply says that they are copies of 
 certain papers placed on file in the department adding nothing 
 whatever of their history, and stll these papers are brought 
 before me and I am asked to give them weight in the matter 
 under Consideration. A more veritable fjtrce in the annals of 
 legal investigation was never enacted. 
 
 This office was the proper place of deposit tor any papers 
 the claimants wished considered in connection with this grant 
 or attached any importance to. The other papers were filed 
 here for the Careful scrutiny of the Surveyor General. Why 
 was such a marked departure observed in this last matter? 
 
 The papers filed, certified as shown above, consist of six 
 photographs made in Washington. Nothing appears to show 
 that any originals were produced to take the photographs from. 
 No evidence is produced here to show where the originals are, 
 or haw he secured the copies. . We can hardly be asked to 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 31 
 
 believe that a toreign private citizen could secui*« papers that 
 our governuieut, with all the aid of the government machinery 
 of Spain, found no trace of. It is asking too much of me to 
 give credit to such a statement. 
 
 The photographs are alleged to represent the original 
 cedula of Ferdinand VI, or royal patent. A will of the. orig^ 
 inal grantee. Another will of the younger Peralta, the son o^ 
 '^he original grantee, who in his will, lays the ground work for 
 the change in the deraignment of title that has occurred, care- 
 fully reciting alleged facts that will be considered in connec- 
 tion with that part of the report that treats of the heirs, etc. 
 The last Peralta also recites his muniments of title very 
 minutely and speakfe of the papers he refers to in his will in 
 regard to title as "authenticated copies," 
 
 During my previous term as surveyor general it w'as often 
 remarked to Reavis that under even the most favorable cir- 
 cumstances, for instance, the production of the viceroy's grant* 
 his grant, would fail, as it was never taken possession of. 
 What I consider as one of the most marvelous features of the 
 last filings in the following quotation, alleged to have been 
 recited in the last will of Peralta, the son of the grantee, but 
 on no occassion by the grantee himself, viz: "We have given 
 possession, in the name of his majesty the King, by conmiand 
 ()f the viceroy of New Spain. Done at the eastern base 
 of the aforesaid Maricopa mountain, a«.f? the draiving tiiade on 
 the rock, on this ISth day of May, in the yea?' one thousand seven 
 hundred and fifty-eight.^^ 
 
 By the above we are given to understand that Don 
 Miguel de Peralta, son of the alleged grantee, recites in his will 
 in minute detail copies of papers to show the giving of posses- 
 sion to the property alleged to have been granted ^lo his alleged 
 father, and the identifying of the boundaries by a map on the 
 rock. (The describing of the map on the rock, lam confident, 
 was to ciiange the boundaries and thus avoid the vigorous 
 fightihg of the Arizona Canal Company.) The claimants fail 
 entirely to prove any connection whatever between the Peralia 
 
32 8UKVEYOK general's RBPOKT. 
 
 making the will in which the above passage about the map 
 and possession being given appears, and the original grantee; 
 even allowing such a grant was ever made to an original 
 Peralta; or any connection with the Peralta at Wickenberg, 
 Arizona. They do not show where the elder Peralta died, 
 what children were left, or why we should take it for granted 
 that the latter Peralta who so considerately recited so much 
 in his will to favor the present claim of claimants, should in 
 any way ue considered as the son of Peralta and particularly 
 as his only favored son. 
 
 By their two sets of claims they first prove that the son 
 of Peralta, in Arizona, on October 20th, 1864, made a deed to 
 Willing, and then claimant Reavis turns around and proves, 
 with about the same show of pr.>bability and equal certainty, 
 that before deeding to Willing he or same other Peralta also claim 
 ing to be the son and sole heir, attempted to make other dispo- 
 sition of the property on the 2nd day of January, 1863, by a 
 will. By this new state of affairs Reavis' wife would cut out 
 hj Sj. L)ui?; heirs claiming under the deed to Dr. Willing, 
 and at the same time Reavis renders null and void all titles 
 he issues while claiming under the same deed from Peralta, 
 the alleged son, to Dr. Willing, for which deeds Reavis is said 
 to have received large sums of money. 
 
 Nothing is offered by claimants to harmonize these dis- 
 crepancies about the Peraltas, the wills, deeds, codicils, etc. I 
 am simply left to solve the proposition. In showing the fact 
 that the grant would fail for the want of possession and defi- 
 nite location, if the 6th article of the treaty of December 30th, 
 1853, ceding this Territory to the United States is considered 
 in connection with this grant, which provides that no grants 
 shall "be respected or be considered as obligatory which have 
 not been located and duly recorded in the archives of Mexico." 
 I have shown ample reason for the filing of the remarkable 
 historical features of the alleged will, said to be the will of the 
 son and heir of the grantee. 
 
 Nothing was ever said by claimants under the original 
 deraignment of title that Peralta, the son, had ever 
 
 made a will, and now that it is produced, and nullifies all of the 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 33 
 
 early deeds of Reavis and and wipes out the other claimants 
 altogether. I likewise show an additional incentative for its 
 late production, which 1 believe to have been purely an after 
 thought, subsequent entirely to the papers filed in 1883 and 
 claimed at the time as originals. 
 
 Even after the execution of the deed to Willing by Peralta, 
 the son, on October 20th, 1864, the copy last filed and referred 
 to above as containing the will of Peralta, the son, makes 
 Peralta execute a codicil on the 9th day of April, 1865, 
 (which would be after the Wickenberg deed to Willing) in the 
 city of Madrid with the stated sole object of granting unto his 
 aforesaid grand-daughter. Dona Sophia Loreta Micaela Maso 
 y Peralta de la Cordoba, the permission legally necessary to 
 enable her to take possession of the grant made to his father 
 in pursuance of the command of his majesty the King of Spain , 
 to his aforesaid grand-daughter "Dona Sophia Loreta 
 Macaela Maso y Peralta de la Cordoba, may go and 
 take possession thereof, and in order to secure compliance with 
 this provision I have appointed as her guardian the aforesaid 
 Don Antonio Pablo Peralta." 
 
 Reflect on this in the light of the same Peralta hav- 
 ing executed a deed to Willing in October 1864, as originally 
 claimed by Reavis. The object of this codicil is to place the 
 present claimant as heir, in a position to take possession of 
 the property, that no (»ne heretofore has ever had possession 
 of, so all important, if contemplated in connection with the 
 treaty of DeceHd)er 30th, 1853. It will be noted that this last 
 will was produced from Madrid, no record being produced 
 from Guadalajara where the record had been bound in books 
 apparently before the necessity for this will was discovered. 
 
 To my mind the consideration of these last filed papers 
 go t.) show against the plausibility of the title as set up by the 
 wife of Reavis, but if, for the sake of argument, we should 
 admit a reasonable appearance of validity of the papers claim- 
 ed to be photographic copies of originals, I should still report, 
 adversely on the grant, as nothing whatever of a reasonable 
 
34 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 nature has been produced in this office to show that the vice- 
 roy ever made a grant to Peralta, or that possession was ever 
 taken of said property by the alleged grantee. 
 
 A viceroy was an officer of the greatest discretion and 
 responsibilities and acted at a long distance from the court he 
 was serving, and it is fair to presume was actuated in his acts 
 by his own knowledge as to the situation in the country he 
 was appointed to govern. This must necessarily have been 
 the case (see page 15, section 28, cedula of 1754, Hall's Mex- 
 ican Law). Much had to be left entirely to hi;* discretion, 
 and the king treating with his subjects domiciled in the 
 country governed by the viceroy, necessitating the action be- 
 ing taken through the viceroy, as a medium, would naturally 
 listen to any reason the viceroy might have tor not making 
 the grant, or not performing a certain act and would himself 
 be governed to a lar^e extent by the recommendation of the 
 viceroy pro or con. The very language of the king in his 
 alleged cedula recommending the grant to Peralta is "I, the 
 Kin^: of Spain, by this public order, and decree, in conformity 
 with the custom of the Crown, recommend to the most excel- 
 lent Viceroy of New Spain." etc. 
 
 Now there is the plain language of the king (if we accept 
 as valid his cedula) that he only recommends the grant to the 
 viceroy, leaving it wholly and entirely within the discretion 
 of the viceroy to make it or not as would be natural under the 
 circumstances. Did the viceroy make a grant, or did he 
 notify his king that it was impracticable? We are left in 
 ignorance in the premises. Now the claimants allege the 
 viceroy waited ten years and then made the grant. This would 
 only go to show what power he had in the premises; how com- 
 pletely he was master of the situation, and the great discretion 
 he was allowec^ to exercise by the crown ov^r matters within 
 hi^ own province. He c>)uld even allow the king's recommen- 
 dation to remain unacted upon for ten years. This claim that 
 he delayed action for ten years after the king's recommendation 
 demonstrates the greater necessity of the production of his 
 
35 
 
 grant to show that he ever made ajrrantthat was only "recnm- 
 mended" to him by the king. 
 
 There are some old .books ot records of the old missi<»n 
 known as the San Xavier church at present in the possession 
 of one R. T. Hunter, at \Vashington City, and saii to have 
 been loaned him originally by Bishop Salpointe then in con- 
 trol ot the San Xavier Mission. These books should have 
 been returned to the proper resting place long ere this, as they 
 are of great importance to many families living in southern 
 Arizona. The claimant Reavis, I presume, in corroboration of 
 the ancgati()ns that the church and inquisition were lookir.<:- 
 after Peralta, had some photographs taken in Washington c* 
 what purports to be the sheets of these old books, and filed thr^ 
 photographs in this office. The filing of these photographs ar? 
 evidence in this case I consider as fatal management on the 
 part of claimants. The photographs filed, purport to show 
 that a copy of Peralta's will and the viceroy's grant, was 
 among the leaves of the old mission books. To my mind the 
 production of these photographs of supposed copies, show»to 
 what straits the claimants were driven to obtain corroborating 
 evidence that the viceroy ever made the grant. It is evident 
 the claimants intention to jump up from every conceivable 
 corner something touching on the fact that the viceroy did 
 make the grant, but it seems in poor taste that the old books 
 of the San Xavier Mission, wherein were recorded the births, 
 marriages and deaths of persons under the cognizance of the 
 church, should be selected to have inserted and rudely inserted 
 among its withered leaves a copy of the grant of Peralta 
 by the viceroy, and acopy of Peralta's will. It must be borne 
 in mind that these books have been out of the custody of the 
 church for many years, and that we know very little as to their 
 history in that time. The photographs produced show that what 
 appears to be the regular pages of the old book bear every 
 indication of age, the writing is done with a quill pen, the 
 sheets are regular in shape and size and present an even ap- 
 pearance in matter of age, handwriting,etc., with the exception 
 
36 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 of tlie very sheet that the claimant Reavis relies so much on. 
 Here we have a radical change, a complete departure of 
 perspective. In the first place th& sheet is pasted in at right 
 angles to the other siieets and is onesthird larger 
 than the regular sheets. The upper end ' of the pasted 
 in sheet is inserted in that part of the binding 
 that holds the back of the large book together, instead 
 of being in regular order, nor is this the only singularity 
 about it. The writing, ink and paper is different from the 
 reaular leaves of the book, the entries proper being in a regu- 
 lar hand, written with a quill pen, and the sheets proper bear 
 an appearance of having been written about the same time, 
 while the sheet pasted in, I unhesitatingly pronounce written 
 with a steel pen, which would, of course, have been impossible 
 jf the sheet was pasted in there at the time it was made to ap- 
 pear as the date was fully half a century before steel pens 
 were made at all successful. I am firmly convincejl that the 
 sheet referred to was pasted in at a comparatively recent date. 
 Ifr is too apparent to admit of doubt and it plays a sufficiently 
 important feature in this case to account for a necessity for its 
 appearing somewhere in ancient archives, though a most inap- 
 propriate resting place is claimed for the paper. The com- 
 mittees in Congress can easily cause the books now in the 
 possession of R. J. Hunter to be brought before them for 
 examination as to the correctness of my conclusion, as Mr. 
 Hunter, their present custodian, is a resident of Washington. 
 This can be done without expense. Mr, Hunter offered his 
 services to show up this fraudulent grant, if paid by the gov-* 
 ernment, but inasmuch as the Peralta claim is without any 
 merits whatever, little or nothing would be gained by paying 
 for information that the congressional committee can so easily 
 obtain without expense. 
 
 Herewith is published a letter from C. M. Bell, the pho- 
 tographer in Washingion, to the effect that Reavis bought 
 from him (Bell) the negatives from which these photographs 
 of the San Xavier Mission were taken. It is to be presumed 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 37 
 
 from this act that the claimant was not desirous of perpetuat- 
 ing tliese telltale records. 
 
 Herewith is an affidavit €)f Mr. Frank C. Hise, chief clerk 
 of the office of the surveyor general, setting forth the fact that 
 Reavis was in possession of, and exhihite.t to him a metal seal, 
 which Reavis boldly claimed was the offic'al seal of the Span- 
 ish king, and that tiie Spanish government had entrusted this 
 seal to him under heavy bonds for its return. Was ever a 
 more preposterous claim submitted for serious consideration? 
 The idea that such an occurrence took place is ridiculous, and 
 entitled to no serious consideration, except to show thataccord- 
 ing to the allegations of Reavis himself, he was in a position 
 to attach the king's seal to any paper that might be useful to 
 him. The photographs filed in this office of what Reavis 
 claimed to be originals in Spain and filed in support of the 
 claim of the wife of Reavis, show as the most prominent 
 feature, the king's seal; and Mr. Reavis exhibts said seal, which 
 while in his possession, he could use ad libitum, and could 
 easily produce just such papers as his photographs purport to 
 be made from. It seems to me that Reavis in producing this 
 metal seal, and his statements accounting for his being inpos- 
 se.«sson of it, is one of the worst features in this miserablv got- 
 ten up land, claim. Even if the seal ne genuine and the 
 Spanish government did allow Reavis to have it, as he alleges, 
 we can readily see that it might be used for fabricating papers 
 and possibly avoid the detection of the fabrication of the 
 papers better than the finest counterfeit seal could, as its 
 impress would be perfect. Regarding the matter in either 
 light, it is a dangerous instrument to be at large, and should 
 have been kept in Spain, if genuine, and if a forgery should 
 not be in Reavis' possession. The allegations of Reavis in 
 connection with this seal absolutely unsupported by corobora- 
 tive evidence are too monstrous for the credulity of parties 
 having jurisdiction over private land grants. 
 
 Forgery, (Massol Deed). 
 
 In the original deiaignment of title from tha original 
 
HR SURVEYOR GENERAT/S REPORT. 
 
 grantee to James Addison Reavis, it will be remembered w»« 
 a deed alleged to have been executed by F. A. Massol, »« 
 attorney of George M. Willing, to James Addison Reavis. The 
 Massol affidavits herewith show this deed to be a deliberate 
 forgery. I became convinced of this from the appearance of 
 the face of the deed, and during my former term as Surveyor 
 General, I learned Mr. Massol's address by correspondence, 
 and would have obtained conclusive evidence of the forgery 
 had not my term of office been curtaile<f by the appointment 
 of a successor. I am satisfied that it was asceriained by the 
 claimant that I had located Mr. Massol, and it was probably 
 understood what my object was in finding him. After I had 
 found Mr. Massol and was in the way of securing the infor- 
 mation I wanted, the claimant Reavis disappeared. When 
 he again appeared at this office he said he had spent the 
 intervening time in Madrid, and he presented the entirely new 
 chain of title in his wife, and without showing any particular 
 reason why, he abandoned the chain of title in himself, wherein 
 occurred the forged Massol deed. This deed was originally a 
 bona fide deed for some mining claims excuted by F, A. Massol 
 as attorney for Willing, bur. to some other grantee than Reavis, 
 and all the blank portion of the deed had been carefully red- 
 lined. In a different colored ink from that used in writing 
 the body of the deed and in a different hand writing, Reavis 
 was made grantee, and after the blank space had been used to 
 convey several mines, the blank space not used h*ad been red- 
 lined, showing conclusively that nothing but the mining claims 
 was to pass by the deed; then down below, in the middle of the 
 printed matter, in the same handwriting and ink used in mak- 
 ing Reavi'- the grantee in the deed, this great landed estate 
 was supposed to have passed from \Villing to Reavis through 
 the medium of F. A. Massol as attorney, and still several years 
 later Willing himself put papers on file in Prescott showing 
 title in himself. I do not show this forgery in connection with 
 the latest claim that the man Reavis makes through his wife, 
 but to show what means has been resorted to in this case to 
 fraudulently wrest from the domain of the United States an 
 
StJKVEYOK general's REPORT. 39 
 
 estate laige enough to prove a satisfactory principality to the 
 ordinary European potentate. 
 
 When Mr. Massol learned ot the existence of this fraudir 
 lent de3 1 he a3t3 1 with the greatest promptness in repudiating it 
 
 The Grantingf of Minerals. 
 
 One of the most suspicious features of this alleged grant 
 is, that it passed absolute title to all the minerals on the 
 property. 
 
 That this was regarded as an extraordinary feature is, to 
 my mind, conclusively shown by the alleged letter of Peralta 
 to the king, Carlos III, asking him to confirm the grant, with 
 the minerals. When we consider that this confirmation was 
 wholly unnecessary at law and that the original grant was made 
 to give all minerals, J cannot but infer that the alleged letter 
 from Peralta to the king asking confirmation, was a cunningly 
 devised plan by some interested party to make up the fatal 
 defect of the absence of the viceroy's grant by showing that 
 Carlos III confirmed the grant papers submitted to him by 
 Peralta and thus made a grant, whether the viceroy had made 
 a grant or not. While this may be an ingenious mode of per- 
 fecting title, it has legal defects that would be fatal to -uch a 
 claim. 
 
 The course observed by the Spanish monarch in regard 
 to mineral lands does not admit of belief that he relinquished 
 all minerals in such a vast territory, covering what was then 
 known to be a rich mineral country. 
 
 Legal Claimants, 
 
 I maintain that there are no legal claimants. No com- 
 petent evidence to prove that heirs or legal claimants exist, 
 has ever been filed in this otfice. Under the original papers 
 filed in this office in 1883, by Reavis, by which papers he 
 claimed title in himself as plain "James Addison Reavis," his 
 claim was that the original grantee was in the year 1748 so 
 well and favorably known in Spain, and to the king of Spain 
 
40 SUKVEYOK general's REPORT 
 
 that he was selected by the monarch, Ferdinand YI, to be 
 ninde a grandee of Spain, and to have conferred on him one 
 of the largest estates in the world, certainly the largest in the 
 United States. It would naturally be inferred that Peralta 
 wns a man of high station in New Spain, and should have 
 been a very prominent historical character. It was especially 
 recited in the original cedula of Ferdinand VI that this great 
 grant was in recompense for valiant services in war. When 
 we consider the importance of the grant, the title of Baron of 
 the Colorados, and the high reputation the alleged Baron had 
 as a soldier (as established in the cedula) it would be absos 
 lutely essential that Peralta should be a historical character, and 
 that the death of so prominent a man should be noticed, but 
 history i'^ strangely silent on this >»ubject, and nothing is estab" 
 lished regarding the members ot his family. 
 
 Bancroft's "Arizona and New Mexico," just published, on 
 pages 898 and 399 publishes an account of the Peralta claim, 
 and deraigns the title to Reavis through Willing; which title 
 Reavis now entirely repudiates, though Reavis was claiming 
 its validity actively enough at the time Bancroft's volume on 
 Arizona and New Mexico was being compiled. Bancroft 
 closes his account as follows: "In a sense the title is plausible 
 enough on its face; but it is somewhat remarkable that annals 
 of the province, as recorded, contain no allusion to Peralta, to 
 the Caballero de los Colorados, or to the Caudal de Hidalgo." 
 
 Considering the vast production of papers from archives 
 by Reavis, I can only reconcile Mr. Bancroft's statement on 
 the ground that he is a })ioneer investigator and like President 
 Santa Ana, the Mexican authorities, and the Spanish authori- 
 ties, must have visited the archives before Reavis had been 
 there, which may account for Mr. Bancroft's failure to find the 
 records. 
 
 To say the least with such a record he must have been a 
 man in middle life which would date his birth somewhere 
 about the year 1700. In the natural course of events his 
 children would have been born before 1760, and still Reavis 
 tells us in the papers that he originally filed, that the son of 
 
SURVKYOK OENEHAL's REPORT. 41 
 
 the grantee was in the little town of Wickenberg, Arizona, in 
 1864, where he deeded to Willing, and for aught that is proved 
 to the contrary, may still be living. This state »f affairs is 
 highly improbable, if not utterly impossible. If we suppose 
 the Peralta at Wickenberg making the deed to Willing in 
 1864 was eighty years at the time of said deeding, his father 
 at the time i»f his birth was certainly in the neighborhood of 
 eighty years of age, and in the natural order of things as they 
 exist in ninety per cent of cases his mother must have been 
 seventy-five years of age at this important epoch in the Peralta 
 family history. The Lic'c, howaver, to sitista^tjrily prove any 
 relationship between Peralta at Wickenberg and the old Baron 
 of the Colorados, settles the question oi title in th^s direction, 
 and completely disposes of those claiming under the deed from 
 the Wickenberg Peralta. California and Arizona have many 
 Peraltas. It is a common name and very full evidence would 
 be rciquired to prove a connection between a Peralta in Arizona 
 and the alleged baron. 
 
 The claimant under the new deraignment of title is tht 
 wife of "James Addison Peralta Reavis." She claims as a 
 lineal descendant of the grantee, but the claim is vague, and 
 not established, even by the papers filed; which would be 
 thrown out by any court as unsatisfactory, Her case has the 
 same remarkable feature of longevity evidenced in tracing 
 the descent through the Peralta at Wickenberg as we are given 
 actual dates. Tha original grantes in his will as produced by 
 copy from Madrid is made to say under date 1783 that he is 
 'seventy-five years of age, married to Djna Sophia Ave Maria 
 Sanchez, now residing in Gaudalajara * ;fc ^ j 
 declare that by my marriage with the aforesaid Djna Sophia 
 Ave Maria Sanchez we have had one son who is called Miguel 
 Peralta de la Cordoba y Sanchez and who is two years of age 
 or thereabouts." 
 
 The age of the mother so all important in considering 
 this case is left to 'the imagination. No papers are produced 
 to prove the date of her birth, but when we are told that her 
 
42 SURVEYOR GENEKAL'S KEFORT 
 
 husband is seventy-five old by his own confession, and with 
 nothing to prove an extraordinary difference in their ages, I 
 must naturally infer that she was seventy years old, or there- 
 abouts, at the birth of this child; this is a natural conclusion. 
 Now if the Peralta making the second will defining so par- 
 ticularly the ''monumental rock," and the giving of posses- 
 sion, and who made the codicil in Madrid in 1865, be the 
 little two year old boy in 1783, he was 84 years old, at the 
 time of making the codicil, immediately after which he died, 
 as the papers filed show. Satisfactory evidence i*lentifying 
 the Peralta making the second will with the two year old 
 bab«j of the alleged grantee is not produced, and the entire 
 line down to the present claimant, is unsatisfactory, the whole 
 practical record of the lineage appearing in the copy of the 
 authenticated copy of the will of an alleged Peralta, claiming 
 to be the grandfather of the present claimant, but failing to 
 show in any trustworthy way that he was the direct heir of 
 the grantee, or that he was the same Peralta, who about the 
 same time was deeding the entire Peralta grant away in 
 Wickenberg for the paltry sum of One Thousand dollars, al- 
 though at that timei(1864) Arizona was being settled up, and 
 the value of a great estate, like the one under consideration 
 must have become apparent. If these two Peraltas, the one 
 making a will in 1863, and a codicil at Madrid in 1865 will- 
 ing away all thii property; the other executing a deed at 
 Wickenberg, Arizona, in 1864, deeding t»>way all this proper- 
 ty are one and the same maii, then which one, if either, is the 
 legal heir? And how can the question be settled without a 
 complete chain of evidence? If they are one and the same 
 person, how can the acts of willing away the property at Ma- 
 drid, and deeding away the property &t Wickenberg to differ- 
 ent persons be reconciled? If it was shown that they were 
 one and the same person, and CHoable of doing so rascally an 
 act a* providing in a codicil to his will, to give possession of 
 the Peralta Grant to his grandaughter, the present claimant, 
 when he had a year before at Wickenberg deeded the estate 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 43 
 
 to Dr. Willing lor $1000, would he not be scoundrel enough 
 t« personate the son of the grantee, and forge his name? And 
 if claimant Reavis alleges these apparently two Peralta's as 
 one and the same person, and the son of the old Baron, then 
 his wife would fare poor as heir, inasmuch as his deeding 
 away the grant to Dr. Willing, a >ear before the date of the 
 codicil would deprive him of leaving to her the estate already 
 3©ld. The claimants dare not allege the identity of the two 
 men, and they cannot prove that either is heir. The wife ot 
 Reavis is claiming under a Peralta's will and codicil made at 
 Sau Francisco and Madrid respectively in 1863 and 1865; and 
 the legal representatives of Dr. Willing are claiming under 
 the deed of 1864, executed to Di. Willing by a Peralta at 
 Wickenberg. Nothing entitled to consideration to prove 
 •ither title is on file. 
 
 Boundaries and Possession. 
 
 The only papers on file in this case, to show even ap- 
 proximate location of this grant, are certified copies of authen* 
 ticated copies of the supposed originals not locatable. 
 
 None of the papers in the form submitted to me as evi- 
 dence, are entitled to be treated as evidence, or worthy of 
 credence. Alleged copies and photographs of crude pen drawn 
 maps, without having been made from surveys, or having es- 
 tablished lines or corners or alleged measurements on the 
 ground, as was customary in giving possession of grants un 
 der the Spanish and Mexican laws, are not entitled to serious 
 consideration in connection with showing the location of the 
 grant. 
 
 This is particularly the case where possession was never 
 taken, nor a reasonable claim as to boundary lines ever es- 
 tablished on the ground. 
 
 In the middle of the last century "Pimeria Alta" was 
 over run by apache Indians. The apaches were always a 
 warlike, murderous race of Indians, and the whites dreaded 
 them from time immemorial, and very carefully avoided them 
 These Hre indisputable facts, although Peralta, the grantee, is 
 
44 SURVEYOR GENERAI/S REPORT. 
 
 made to make a rough drawing of 19,200,000,000 square 
 varas of land claimed by him^ no claim is made that a sur- 
 vey ever occurred, and it i* a fact, that possession was never 
 given Peraltji in the customary way which has prevailed in 
 Spain and Mexico for the greater part of the past century, and 
 is so essential in defining boundaries, and locating land, enab- 
 ling the grail tee to comply with the law requiring perfect re- 
 cords of all proceedings in connection with the grant, and its 
 location. 
 
 It is claimed that the grantee, Peralta "established th© 
 western frontier line thereof, running from north to south to 
 the basin of the Maricopa mountain; to the east of the Sierra 
 Estrella in a direct line to the west of the mouth of the valley 
 of the Santa Cruz, crossing the river Gila and the Salt river, 
 and in conformity with the concession of the viceroy of New 
 Spain, granted under the decree published by order of his 
 majesty, the King of Spain, I send with this an eastern per- 
 gpectiv^e (map) of the tract as described." 
 
 This mode of allowing the grantee to locate himself in 
 the manner suggested, would have been a radical departure in 
 the usual proceedings attending the location of Spanish Grants* 
 Such a line might be located anywhere within a territory of a 
 (lozen miles in width, even allowing that such a mountain as 
 the Maricopa mountain was known and so designated one hun- 
 dred and thirty years ago. This line itself would show a de- 
 gree of uncertainty that would invalidate a bona fide grant 
 for lack of proper designation. 
 
 The affidavit of Mr. Monihon herewith, details a conver- 
 sation, had both with Dr. Willing as to the location of the, 
 grant, and also a later conversation had with Mr. Reavis. It 
 shows to a remarkable degree, that they were then claiming 
 this grant as a "floater" and were looking around for a most 
 desirable spot for its anchoring. In corroboration of Mr. 
 Monihon's affidavit, and to show the extreme absurdity of un- 
 dertaking to positively claim any established, or well defined 
 
SURVEYOR ^ENKRAL'S REPORT. 45?; 
 
 boundary line, it will be remembered tliut ReAvis originally 
 claimed a certain hill or hills near the line of the Phoenix and 
 Maricopa railroad, as being the Maricopa mountain Peralta 
 described in 1788. Keav is claimed that he was positive of 
 these then. selected locations being identically the same spot 
 described by the original Peraita; and he rested his whole • 
 claim us to the western boundary on this mountain, and his 
 claim to the other boundaries was dependent on this western 
 boundary as established by him. No hieroglyphics on the 
 rocks figure 1 in tills location; no such remarkable coinci- 
 dence was ever eUiimed, as a map, one hundred years old, 
 drawn on a barren rock, which had fallen from its original 
 resting place; but with the ordinary fatality accompanying 
 the remarkable muniments of title in this case, finally landed, 
 map side up,, at the foot of the hill. 
 
 Later on, however, Reavis discovered, through some 
 means presumably satisfactory to himself, that the initial 
 monument was eight miles south of the spot originally claimed 
 by him. The floating quality of this grant, as evidenced in 
 this change, is accounted for in the affidavit of Mr. Monihon. 
 This change was made by Keavis contemporaneously with 
 the filing of the claim of his wife. Reavis positively asserts to 
 day, thaD a large rock overed with Indian hieroglyghtcs, or 
 especially marked for the purpose of this grant, is the initial 
 point; and that the tracings on the rock referred to, form a 
 map of the grant. This state of affairs, it will be remembered, 
 was carefully laid out by the will of Pcralca, the alleged son 
 of the original grantee, in the codicil the said son is alleged 
 to have executed in Madrid, although no record of this will 
 or codicil is produced from the proper archives in the United 
 States, where the property is located. 
 
 How Peralta, the son, found out so much of his father's 
 doings in connection with this grant, that his father (the orig- 
 inal grantee) apparently did not know, is veiled in mystery, 
 
 It is my opinion that thisiConveient will and codicil sup- 
 plying so many legal deficiencies was produced for the purpo.^e 
 
46. SUKVEYOK GEJSEKAf.'S KEPUKT 
 
 of floating the initial point to a spot eight miles south of its prior 
 establishment to avoid includin:i the property of the Arizona 
 Canal Company, a rich and powerful corporation. (See Mon- 
 ihon's affi lavit) which acc;)rdin'x to the ori';^inal location was 
 included in the claimed boundaries of the grant. By shifting the 
 initial point, the greater part of the company's property is out- 
 side of the boundaries, but the loss to tiie claimant of this 
 valuable property is more than made up by including the Gila 
 valley in the neighborhood ot Solomonville. That Reavis 
 appreciated thoroughly the value of the |)roperty added is 
 shown by the affidavits of Mr. Manning and Mr. Hise, here- 
 with. This act in itself shows that Reavis is today, bv liis own 
 actions, eight miles out in his boundaries, or was under his 
 original claim. If anything could have been added to show 
 the uncertainty as to the boundaries, this act of Reavis' has 
 completed the showing. 
 
 The identifying of the rock with the hieroglyphics as the 
 correct initial monument, and which was never in any way 
 referred toby the original grantee, is farcical. Even if weal- 
 low that any markings on the rock was not of modern origin, 
 it is nothing more than the ordinary Indian hieroglyphics 
 found on the rocks all over Southern Arizona. I have visited 
 and personally inspected many localities where they occur, 
 and have seen the photographs filed by Reavis of the alleged 
 map on the rock. It is wholly unworthy of serious considera. 
 tion and could only be entitled to be considered a monument 
 of this grant if corroborative evidence was filed here showing 
 that possession was given the original grantee, and that this 
 identical rock was selected as a boundary monument, and 
 marked according to the allegation of the codicil produced 
 here by Reavis. 
 
 It will be borne in mind in connection with this change 
 and the adoption of this rock as a monument, that Peralta 
 the alleged son and heir who made the deed to Dr. Willing at 
 Wickenberg, Arizona, said nothing about any such rock. If 
 Reavia claims that the Peralta who made the deed at VVir-ken- 
 
8URVEYUK general's REPORT. 47 
 
 berg in 1864 is the same Peralta who made a codicil in Spain 
 in 1865, then he must have acquired all the information so 
 romantically included in the codicil within a year following 
 his deeding the property to Dr. Willing at Wickenberg. 
 
 The last will and codicil produced in behalf of the wife 
 of Reavis will commend themselves as most remakable pro- 
 ductions of detailed minuteness of description, and for supply- 
 ing fatal discrepancies in other papers already filed. The 
 lack of all acceptable evidence to prove relationship between 
 Peralta (who describes the rock, and the hieroglyphics so in- 
 geniously), with the original grantee, if such a grantee ever 
 existed, is a fatal defect and renders all alleged description of 
 location contained in the will of the alleged son of no import- 
 ance whatever. The Peralta at Wickenberg who made the 
 deed to Willing has as much claim to be the son of the original 
 baron of the Colorados as far as the papers presented here go, 
 as the Peralta making the remarkable will, and a codicil in 
 Spain; and the Peralta making the deed at Wickenberg, 
 Reavis originally claimed, got the papers that Reavis origin- 
 ally filled in this office direct from President Santa Ana, which 
 under ordinary circumstances would seem to give color to the 
 claim that he was the so" of the original grantee. Under 
 these circumstances the "monumental rock" is entitled to no 
 consideration. The moving of the location eight miles south 
 shows conclusively that claimants have no knowledge of prac- 
 tical value, either to themselves or to anybody else as to the 
 correct locus of this grant. 
 
 If we should admit this grant as legal it is utterly impos- 
 sible to define even its approximate boundaries. Under no 
 circumstances can it be intelligently located from the papers 
 j)roduced in this office. The land claimed can never be intelli- 
 gently taken possession of, nor could a deed for a portion of it 
 ever be executed that would have any legal weight. 
 
 By their own showing, eight miles .s a pretty wide margin 
 for land boundaries. 
 
 Tt has been the custom of Spain and Mexico in investing 
 
48 SUKVEVUK UKNEIIAL S KEPGRT. 
 
 titles ill gniiitees to give judicial possession and to make sur- 
 veys. Lines were frequently marked by natural monuments; 
 if .-lesiralde natural monuments could not be utilized artificial 
 monuments of stone, were built. The lines were surveyed and 
 measured, sometimes estimated, between natural objects; but 
 in nil cases-the locating of a grant occurred on the ground 
 granted. When possession was doliverejl it was done in a 
 manner sufiicienlly intelligible to finable the grantee to pass 
 title such as a court would recognize. It was then the duty 
 to file the plat of survey, with all the proceedings appertain- 
 ing to giving possession in the proper governmental archives; 
 as to n)anner of obtaining granta under viceroys, and the rc'^ 
 quirements in giving possession (sae chaps. V & IX, Hall's 
 Mexican Law). This shows that detailed proceedings such as 
 surveys, locations, etc., occurred on the ground. 
 
 The oldest of the Pima Indians located at present in the 
 "Pimeria Alta" of the days of the Jesuits at San Xavier del 
 Bac, whose fathers and forefathers have been born and resided 
 from time immemorial in the immediate country alleged to be 
 covered by this grant, have no knowledge or tradition of such 
 a grant or any one taking possession of such a property and it 
 is almost certain such a tradition would exist if such an 
 occurrence took place as claimed. (See affidavit Hon. P. R. 
 Brady, herewith). Besides this the law of Spain applicable to 
 the time when this grant was said to have been made, antici- 
 pated possible trouble with the Indians by providing that 
 they should be consulted and treated witb in regard to land 
 grants in their neighborhood, and a knowledge of the trans- 
 action of giving this land to Peralta would have been dissem- 
 inated among peaceable Indians living on the land such as the 
 Maricopa and Pima tribes. 
 
 The state of aflPairs that existed regarding the boundar- 
 ies of this grant would invalidate it for lack of certainty, if 
 the grant was determined to be genuine. The laches of the 
 original owners receiving a grant in 1758, under a vicerov of 
 
SURVEYOR liENERAl/S REPORT. 49 
 
 Spain, who neglected taking possession of the property until 
 it passed under the independent Mexican government, and 
 still neglected taking possession until it became the property 
 of* the United States by the treaty with Mexico, and who 
 thereafter still neglected taking possession for a period o' 
 thirty years, should forfeit every property right. It is pre- 
 posterous now, for the United States to be asked to put claim 
 niants, or alleged heirs into possession, whose ancestors or 
 grantors were unable to produce satisfactory evidence, that 
 they owned this land. 
 
 To show how seriously the Mexican authorities consid- 
 ered the question of positive boundaries, I will call attention 
 to the "Buena Vista Grant," which was made in the early 
 part of the present century. In this case the attorney-general 
 reported to the treasurer-general, in the matter of the survey 
 of the grant "that in the measurement made, are only found 
 the measurements made from the center to the east, west> 
 north and south, without making out the square, without 
 which no survey of a Sitiocan be considered to have been 
 made," and the papers were returned on this account, the 
 treasurer general having approved the views of the attorney- 
 general. 
 
 It is not to be supposed that this extraordinary care 
 sprung into practice at a moments notice, but rather that it 
 had prevailed for fifty years before, and that it was made part 
 of the law of Mexico, on account of its having been the ordi- 
 nary practice theretofore. In many of the various cases in- 
 volving land grants, as reported in the U.S. reports, the ques- 
 tion of boundaries and taking possession, has steadily arisen, 
 and many grants have been declared void, and of no effect, on 
 account of the laek of documentary proof of possession etc. re- 
 quired by the Spanish and Mexican laws. 
 
 Proceedings Required in Granting Lands 
 In 1758. 
 
 The Cedula of October 15th. 1754, which will be /emem- 
 bered, was issued between the alleged recommendation of the 
 King in 1748, and the alleged grant by the Viceroy in 1758, 
 
50 SURVEYOR GENERAl/S REPORT. 
 
 .somewhat changed the modus operandi, hitherto prevailing in 
 land grant matters. It relieved the grantee from being com- 
 pelled to have hi>* grant confirmed by the king. 
 
 The proceedings for the adjudication of untitled lands 
 customary in 1777, were unquestionably the same as those 
 practiced in 1758, in which year the Peralta Grant is said to 
 have been made. 
 
 The proceedings of 1777, are quite minutely stated to have 
 been the following: — 
 
 First, Writing of the applicant submitted to the spe. 
 cialjudgeof land and water. 
 
 Second, Writ of attorney-general. 
 
 Third, Attorney's report, authenticated by notary on 
 what was called "Acordado." 
 
 Fourth, Transmission of the "Acordado" to the gover- 
 nor of the province, where application was made. 
 
 Fifth, Proceedings (paso) of the lieutenant-general of 
 the province. 
 
 Sixth, Proceedings of the justice of the town, where 
 the application was made. 
 
 Seventh, Writ of execution. 
 
 Eighth, Writ of order to publish warrant. 
 
 Ninth, Writ of publication requiring the interested 
 parties to present witnesses. 
 
 Tenth, Testimony of witnesses. 
 
 Eleventh, Writ to summon the owners of adjoining 
 lands, if there be any. 
 
 Twelfth, Summons to same parties. 
 
 Thirteenth, Reply to same. 
 
 Fourteenth, Appointment of experts. 
 
 Fifteenth, Appointment of interpreters. 
 
 Sixteenth, Acceptance of the charge. 
 
 Seventeenth, Writ to visit place of proceedings. 
 
 Eighteenth, Ocular examination. 
 
 Nineteenth, Notice that survey and ocular examina- 
 tion had been terminated. 
 
 Twentieth, Measurement with cord. 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 51 
 
 Twenty-first, Beginning of the measurement of the 
 land. 
 
 Twenty-second, Continuation of the measurement with 
 cord. 
 
 Twenty-third, Notice that measurement had been con- 
 cluded, and report of the result obtained. 
 
 Twenty-fourth, Declaration showing the extent of the 
 land that had been measured. 
 
 Twenty-fifth, Map of the land. 
 
 Twenty-sixth, Appraisement. 
 
 Twenty-seventh, Opinion of the judge of the proceedings, 
 declaring whether there is not prejudice of a third party, 
 and if land can be granted. 
 
 Twenty-eighth, The record of the proceedings is deliv- 
 ered under seal to be transmitted to the special judge of 
 lands and water rights, who resides in Mexico. 
 
 Twenty-ninth, The special judge ordered the records to 
 be referred to the attorney-general. 
 
 Thirtieth, Opinion of the attorney -general of the pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Thirty-first, Decision of judge, comply with the in- 
 structions of the attorney-general. 
 
 Thirty-second, The royal officers are instructed to revise 
 the sum for which the land was adjudged. 
 
 Thirty-third, Receipt of said sum. 
 
 Thirty-fourth, Transmission to the attorney-general for 
 confirmation. 
 
 Thirty -fifth, Issue of grant. 
 
 (See Mexican ordinances of lands and water rights.) 
 
 What Judg:e Field said on page 261, 4th. Wallace (Gra- 
 ham, United States) is equally applicable to the Peralta 
 claim, under the above required proceedings. Judge Field 
 says: — 
 
 "As we have had occasion heretofore to observe, the 
 Mexican law, as well as the common law, made a formal de- 
 livery of possession, or livery «)f seizen of the property, es- 
 
62 SURVEYOR general's REPORT 
 
 sential alter, the execution of a grant, for the investiture of 
 the title. This proceeding was usually taken by the magis- 
 trate of the vicinage, with assisting witnesses, in the presence 
 of the adjoining land proprietors, who were summoned for the 
 occasion. As preliminary to the actual delivery of possession, 
 the land had to be measured, and its boundaries established, 
 when there was any uncertainty of description of the premi- 
 ses. Various regulations for the guidance in these matters of 
 the magistrates were prescribed by law. That which con- 
 cerns the present inquiry is that they required the magistrate 
 to preserve a record of the measurement, and all other steps 
 of the proceedings, to have the same attested by the assisting 
 witnesses, and to furnish an authentic copy to the grantee. 
 By this proceeding — called in the language of the country the 
 delivery of juridical possession — the land granted was separated 
 from the public domain, and what was previously a grant of 
 quantity became a grant of specific tract." 
 
 As to Records and Where to be Found. 
 
 The council of the Indies, **Conseljo Supren^o de Indies," 
 was formed August Ist, 1524, and held its sessions at Madrid, 
 Spain, and had both executive and judicial jurisdiction and 
 its powers were exclusive of all others as regards the govern- 
 mental affairs of New Spain, and it continued the exercise of 
 such powers until the year 1834. See Sec. 6, page 3, Hall's 
 Mex. Law. In Law 43, page 27, Lib. 11, Tit 2, White's re- 
 compilation it is provided "No memorial from any person 
 whatever shall be received for services which shall not be 
 supported by certificates from viceroys, generals, or other 
 chiefs under whom such services shall have been performed, 
 except those persons who shall have served in the councils." 
 
 Such certificates were to be furnished to the council of 
 the Indies. Peralta was an alleged captain of dragoons, and 
 claimed the. grant as a reward for military and other services. 
 
 It is postive from the laws existing at the time of this al- 
 leged granting of the land to Peralta that the king would not 
 have is.-iued a recommendation to the viceroy of New Spain to 
 
8UKVEYOK general's KEPORT. 6H 
 
 make a grant, except through the medium of his council of 
 the Indies, which was made to sit at Madrid so as 4o be cons 
 venient to his royal person, and created especially to take 
 cognizance of such matters, being located near the royal per- 
 son of the king for easy consultation on matters appertaining 
 to the very country over which the grant was to be floated 
 and preceding any action by the king or council, the proper 
 certificate as to Peralta's services would have to be produced 
 and would be on file in the archives of the council. 
 
 The law 54, page 29, White's Recompilation provides, *'and 
 we permit that in cases of petitions and memorials for rewards 
 or for compensation for services or other matters of grace, the 
 same may be entitled to consideration and reconsideration, the 
 records whereof and all matters connected therewith shall 
 remain in custody of the secretary of the council, together with 
 the other papers of the office." 
 
 Now the grant to Peralta would be purely a "matter of 
 grace" to reward him for military or other services of a dis- 
 tinguished nature, and the records of the proceedings should 
 be in the place provided by law. The records of the council 
 of the Indies should show all the details of the steps preceding 
 the grant, if such a grant was ever made, and under the law 
 the viceroys recommendation in favor of Peralta or the 
 recommendation of some general under whom Peralta 
 served, should h^. on file in the records of the council 
 of the Indies, as the very initial step of the whole proceedings. 
 Nothing of this nature is produced. No one can reasonably 
 dispute that it would be especially fitting that a matter of so 
 much importance within the jurisdiction of the viceroy of 
 New Spain should have been recommended by him (esi)ecially 
 when the requirements of the law are considered) and it is 
 hardly probable that the king would make a recommendation 
 in the absence of so important a link in the routine observed 
 at time and in the face of all the laws established by himself, 
 even if he meant to override the council of the Indies in this 
 single instance. No recommendation from the vicerov in 
 
54 SURVEYOR GENERAL^S REPORT. 
 
 favor of Peralta on which the king could base his act is found 
 but in lieu of such proper procedure the king is made to take 
 the initiative on an alleged recommendation of the Inquisition 
 etc. which never had any jurisdiction whatever, and is not 
 produced. Such an act would have been to completely 
 ignore the viceroy under whose jurisdiction Peralta and his 
 great estate would come. Such a state of affairs cannot be 
 entertained, but if under the circumstances the king was to 
 violate the established custom of the time we imagine it would 
 be for some grandee of Spain close to the throne and would 
 not occur in the case of a man wholly unknown to Spanish 
 history. The action of the king in 1748 is alleged to have 
 occurred "Agreeably to the petition of the Royal Inquisition 
 of New Spain, the recommendation ot the Council of Com- 
 merce, and the Judge of Appeals," still these papers are not 
 even produced from the archives of the council of the Indies 
 where they should be found. 
 
 The Law — Lib. 11, Tit. 2, Law 45, White's Recompilation 
 provides: "The party addressing a meniorial shall therein set 
 forth all the services rendered by him up to its date, because 
 no other shall thereafter be admitted and the members of our 
 Royal Council of the Indies shall receive orders not to admit 
 them." 
 
 Now it is only claimed that Peralta was a captain of 
 dragoons and operating in the province of the viceroy, there- 
 fore if a person memoralized the king to perform an act of 
 grace, and make a grant to Peralta, the memorial would be 
 minute in setting forth the seryices of so small an officer as a 
 captain of dragoons, who expected so vast a grant, and more 
 especially when an ocean lay between the king and the brilliant 
 performances of Peralta, and without the recommendation of 
 the viceroy. , ' ; - 
 
 History and the records however are silent in the matter 
 and the kingly act is left in solituda. While the jurisdiction 
 of the Council of the Indies comprehended small matters of 
 reward, compensation and grace, they likewise took cognizance 
 
ciURVEYOU general's REPORT. 55 
 
 of matters of the greatest importance occurring in the (ndics, 
 and New Spain, wherein ihz kingdom of Spain was interested 
 and no difflculty should exist in producing the proper records 
 appertaining to the alleged grant, if bona fide. That the 
 author of the paper produced here as the act of Ferdinand VI, 
 whether king or layman, understood thoroughly what an im- 
 portant factor the Council of the Indies was in the prennses, 
 is evidenced by the reference in the cedula to persons, etc., who 
 recommended the grant to the king, in the apparent hope 
 that sight would be lost of the proper channel through which 
 a grant of the nature of the Peralta grant would have to go. 
 
 "The council to have supreme jurisdiction in the Indies 
 to make laws, examine statutes, and to be obeyed there, and 
 in these kingdoms." Lib. 11, Tit. 2, Lav/ 2, White's Recom- 
 pilation. -'No council, chancery tribunal, judge, no justices 
 of these kingdoms other than the Council of the Indies, shall 
 take cognizance of affiiirs connected with them." Lib. 11, 
 Tit. 2, Law 3, W bite's Recompilation. 
 
 I quote these laws to show how completely the affairs of 
 the Indies were in the hands of the council in 1748, and prior to 
 that date, and how exceedingly improbable it appears, that the 
 king should ignore that body, in the matter of a mammoth 
 grant; to a mere Captain of Dragoons 3000 miles away. 
 Law 42 provides: "In the reports made to us in cases of re- 
 wards, and compensation for services the qualiHcations, mer- 
 its and services of the persons in whose behalf they are made, 
 shall be fully stated, together with the testimony and the facts 
 supporting the S'^me, setting forth how and where such ser- 
 vices have been rendered, the compensation made in money or 
 otherwise, and the objections of our fiscal, if such there be; 
 -:. .and for the better fulfillment of this, there shall be in the 
 .. custody of our secretaries, a record and statement of said com- 
 pensation, and reward as shall have been granted by us, and 
 each shall keep one for the provinces and districts resorting to 
 this office." This law shows conclusively that the greatest 
 care wa*^ exercised by the King of Spain, in making grants, 
 
56 SOKVEYOK GJi:JSEKAL'S REPOKT. 
 
 and rewarding persons. He had to haveevidenceof just what 
 the services were, and how much the petitioner for further 
 royal favors had received, in order that he might judge wheth- 
 er the money paid, or favors done, had been adequate com- 
 pensation for the services performed. In no other way could 
 royal patronage be safely bestowed, and papers would have 
 been produced in the c«se of such a grant as that alleged to 
 Peralta, showing everything connected with his services, be- 
 fore the king would act, otherwise Peralta might have been 
 unwisely rewarded in the premises. The Audieneies of the 
 Indies, were under the jurisdiction of the supreme council of 
 the Indies. See Lib. 2, Tit, 15, Law 1. Consequently all 
 proceedings had before them, would be referred with the evi- 
 dence to the council of the Indies; which shows an additional 
 reason, why the full record of the preliminary proceedings of 
 the Peralta Grant, if genuine, should be found in the Archives 
 of the Indies. 
 
 The following is a legal factor in the Peralta grant, of 
 no mean proportion-f See Lib. 2, Tic. 15, Law 164, vVhite's 
 Recompilations. "The audieneies shall besides keep a regis- 
 ter, where shall be inscribed the names of the inhabitants of 
 the'r respective districts, a statement of their services, and the 
 amount of compensation paid to each in money, by the way 
 of extra compensation, or otherwise, and of the offices to which 
 he has been appointed, which register shall agree with the 
 journal of the audieneies, in order, that whenever a claim fpr 
 services shall be presented, said audience may set forth its 
 opinion thereon. Of this register a copy shall be transmitted 
 to our royal council of the Indies, with as little delay as pos- 
 sible, and if subsequently there be made to it any addition, 
 correction or amendment, information thereof shall immedi- 
 ately be transmitted to us, that the corresponding alteration 
 may be made in the copy first sent, and that we may know 
 »fhat is the nature of the services, and grant the proper com- 
 pensation." This shows how particular the provisions were 
 for transacting business in the Indies of the nature of the 
 
67 
 
 Peralta Grant, and all kindred acts. Here we have as care- 
 ful a system of registration, as the present laws provide for in 
 our own country. 
 
 "The audiences shall besides keep a register, where shall 
 be inscribed the names of the inhabitants of their respective 
 districts, a statement of their services." How in the face of 
 such laws, could so exalted a personage as Peralta have been 
 entirely unknown? The presumption is greatly against his 
 having existed or having received a grant. 
 
 In the view that the Peralta grant is claimed as an abso- 
 lute grant in consideration of services rendered, and that no 
 further proceedings after the grant was actually made were to 
 occur, the records should have been complete, and when I say 
 recprds, I refer to the records of the Council of the Indies. It 
 IS utterly impossible for such pi-ovisions of law asexisted at the 
 time the grant is alleged to have been made, to have been 
 ignored, and the archives should be replete with records con- 
 nected with the Peralta grant, if ever made. 
 
 In Pibo vs. U. S. 2nd Wallace 282, Jud^:e Field in 
 delivering his opinion said; "As will be perceived from this 
 statement it was an essential part of the system of Mexico 
 to preserve full record evidence of all grants of the public 
 domain and o the various proceedings by which they were 
 obtained. When therefore, a claim to land in California is 
 asserted under an alleged grant from the Mexican governtiient 
 reference must, in che first instance, be had to the archives of 
 the country embracing the period when the grant purports to 
 have been made. If they furnish no information on the sub- 
 ject a strong presumption naturally arises against the validity 
 of the instrument produced which can oidy be overcome, if at 
 all by the clearest proof of its genuineness, accompanied by 
 open and continued possession of the premises." 
 
 Now the above unquestionably not only contemplates the 
 j)roduction of full records, but it contem|)lates these records 
 being produced from tbe proper archives, that is the claimants 
 to the Peralta grant should have produced full records from the 
 
58 SURVEYOR general's REPORT.* 
 
 archives of the Council of the Indies. The proper archives of 
 Spain, "embracing the period when the king's recommendation 
 purports to have bean made," were the archives of the Council 
 of the Indies. According to Judge Field then inasmuch as 
 proper records have not been produced in evidence from the 
 proper resting place, a strong presumption naturally arises 
 against the validity of the inatrument produced, and the Judge 
 goes on to say that the clearest proof must be offered as to 
 the genuineness of the papers accompanied by open and con- 
 tinued possession. 
 
 The claimants of the Peralta claim fall short in both 
 these requirements. 
 
 The Pico case covered a claim alleged to have 
 been granted under the regulations of 1828, which 
 were adopted in connection with the colonization law 
 of 1824, but what was applicable in the Pico case 
 was equally applicable in the Peralta case, as far 
 as record evidence of the grant was concerned, as the laws 
 governing in the premises in the time of the council of the 
 Indies were equally circumspect in prescribing the necessity of 
 perfect records of grants. Judge Field, in the Pico case, says: 
 "Tested by this rule, the grant under which the appellant 
 claims was properly rejected as invalid." 
 
 It is provided in Lib. 2, Tit. 33, Law 1, White's Kecom- 
 pilati^)n that when anyone asks for reward he shall go before 
 the Royal Audience of the District, set forth his claim, etc. 
 The audience then to seal the same together with their own 
 opinion in the premises and send it through two different 
 channels to the council of the Indies. This gives additional 
 force to the wisdom of the court's position in the Pico case, as 
 applied to the Peralta case; and on the question of the non- 
 production of the records from the proper archives, this case 
 must fail, if all else is admitted as genuine. 
 
 To the student of Spanish law it early becomes a patent 
 fact, that during the previous century and prior thereto, the 
 royal patrimony was the beneficiary in all cases of grants of 
 
SUKVKYUK UE^•EKA^/S KbJl'UKT. 59 
 
 land belonging to the throne, but in Peralta's case the king 
 reeommends to the vieeroj the absolute donation of the 5,000,- 
 000 acres uf Inud, in violation of all former customs and exist- 
 ing laws, and all this to a mere captain of dragoons in New 
 Spain. The objects of the Spanish grants were to encourage 
 settlements. To extend the lines of civilization throui{hout 
 the length and breadth of Spanish provinces. To settle up 
 •the countries as rapidly as possible in order to be able to offset 
 the incursions of hostile Indians. Conditions were inserted 
 almost without exception in grants to incur the settlement of a 
 certain number of familes, or people, on the land granted 
 within a certain limited time; as in the case of "Arrendonda.'' 
 See page 691, 6th Peters. Or mills were to be erected, towns 
 to be built, cattle to be put upon tlie land, or some other 
 requirement as would conduce to advance the state of civiliza- 
 tion. See U. S. vs. Clark, 8 Peters, page 436; U. S. vs. 
 Sibbald, 10 Peters, page 313; U. S. vs Mills, 12 Peters, page 
 215. This class of grants cited above made with 
 conditions precedent in the early part of the present century* 
 do not seem to have grown out of any royal order, 
 but became customary in the interest civilizing the Amer- 
 i(.'an provinces. I quote these cases in the interest of 
 showing that so well were the king's desires in the 
 premises understood, and so thoroughly were precedents 
 established that without any royal order on the subject the 
 governors, captains, generals and others empowered by th« 
 king to act inserted conditions precedent to grants, and they 
 stood in that condition when the territory was acquired by the 
 United States. Dozens of these grants with conditions, as the 
 only cost of purchase or gift will be found in the United States 
 supreme court reports. All these grants, however, were Lilli- 
 putian when compared to the great grant to Peralta, and we 
 are told that this utdinown; insignificant captain of dragoons, 
 got his grant without conditions or any formalities of law 
 whatever; while Bancroft tells us on page 360, volume 9 that 
 Augustin de Ahumada y Villalon, the viceroy, who is alleged 
 to have made this 5,000,000 acre grant to Peralta who was 
 
t)0 SUKVEYUK (iENEKAL'S KEl'UKT. 
 
 appointed viceroy by the king on account of his great military 
 career in Italian wars, died without any means and left a pov- 
 erty stricken widow, is it reasonable to believe that the king 
 weuld leave this great historical figure to die in poverty, this 
 sub-king of the Spanish realm, and still regard this man 
 Perlta with so lavish a hand, when he is not even mentioned by 
 the Audiencia of his 01V71 district, \indei the law, and rewani 
 him by violating established laws and customs and sacrificing, 
 the opportunity to enrich tlie royal cofiers; all of which is 
 incredible, considering the date at which the jjrant is alleged 
 to have been made. 
 
 Bancroft particularly speaks of the enriching of the king 
 by Augustin de Ahuniada's predecessor, suid it is not con- 
 sistent that this marked departure should occur in the case of 
 a man like Peralta, who was not known, and whose name wa • 
 not e^'en among the records wherein were registered the most 
 humble under the laws of that time. 
 
 One of the weakest propositions in the case is the produc- 
 tion of the papers purporting to be from the archives of the 
 holy inquisition. A knowledge of the Spanish law appertaining 
 to the times under consideration shows that there is no more 
 propriety in producing the Peralta records from the archives of 
 the inquisition, than there would be in producing the present 
 records of the state department from the archives of Trinity 
 church 100 years hence. The inquisition, under the law, was 
 not the proper custodian for land grant papers, and in no way, 
 shape or form had jurisdictiou to mix up in the matter, and it 
 is very unbecominir, from a legal standpoint, to produce 
 records from such alleged resting places. 
 
 The king zealously watched and controlled his New Spain 
 provinces through proper established channels, and left the 
 inquisition to successfully perform its proper functions; the 
 disseminating of the religious doctrines of the times, etc., 
 throughout the country entrusted to their spiritual care by 
 the Spanish government. 
 
 The papers ot testators etc., have on all occasions provided 
 that no bonds shall be required of executors in this Peralta 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 61 
 
 claim. It is a fact that an executor executing so important a 
 trust as settling up this vast estate, would probably be required 
 to furnish bonds in the sum of at least $10,000,000 so a very 
 potent reason for the insertion of so important a clause as the 
 exemption fiora bonds exists. Very few persons indeed could 
 furnish bonds to administer an estate of this kind. 
 
 One very noticeable feature in this case is that no will is 
 produced in this office enumerating that the testator owned a 
 watch, money, heirlooms, or even books, carriages, or that 
 inseparable companion to the average Mexican a horse. In 
 the will of the grantee, in 1783, and the codicil of 1788, not a 
 thing is devised but the Peralta grant. Are we to be asked to 
 credit a showing that a grandee of Spain, a man of heroic 
 deeds, and recognized merits, a man under the immediate 
 patronage of a great king, a friend of a viceroy, and a captain 
 of dragoons possessed nothing in the world that he could leave 
 his child except this very land claim, which it is so essential 
 should be traced in these wills. 
 
 Again in the will and codicils of the alleged son we have 
 a repetition of the same state of affairs. The son had lived a 
 long life, had been in Mexico and the United States, and when 
 he died with a great flourish of will and codicil, he left the 
 Peralta grant to his alleged grand daughter, the present 
 claimant, and did not as much as leave a finger ring in addi^ 
 tion. This identical Peralta claim is the whole subject of both 
 the wills and codicils of these great men. Neither of them 
 had a house, corral, or a head of stock, but the Peralta grant 
 is never lost sight of and as a solitaire its effulgence is undim- 
 med by le&s kingly associates. If Peralta ever lived on this 
 grant in possession, where is the house and other property that 
 should be noticed in the will? 
 
 It will be remembered that at the date of these wills and 
 codicils the great industry of the Mexican landowners was the 
 raising of cattle and exporting tallow and hides. A grandee 
 of Spain of the importance of Peralta and with the advant- 
 ages of a captain of dragoons, owning 5,000,000 acres of land 
 
62 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 should have had cattle on a thousand hills, but by the wills 
 and codicils filed here by this man Reavis he did not possess 
 at the time of his death a calf, sheep or goat. Neither did the 
 old baron, nor his alleged son leave either a working interest 
 in mines or mineral wealth of any kind unless we except those 
 on their alleged grant. When we consider these facts and at 
 the same time consider the fact that they never had possession 
 of the alleged grant, nor derived any benefits from it, they 
 must indeed have been poor. 
 
 Such an inconsistent state of aflTairs is wholly unworthy of 
 credit, and shows to my mind the fabrication of these papers 
 by a person or persons of shallow reasoning powers. 
 
 In the brief submitted by the Hon. Clark Churchill, here- 
 with, will be found a careful criticism of the Spanish used in 
 the several documents filed in this case, and a comparison of 
 the Spanish used in the documents, purporting to be of the 
 same origin, but produced from different places. Many vari- 
 ations in spelling etc., are found, and the class of Spanish used 
 is not at all times of the'high order that was used in the Cas. 
 tilian court of the last century. Other matters of importance 
 are touched upon by Mr. Churchill in his brief; of value in 
 the consideration of this case. 
 
 I think I have conclusively shown that this Peralta claim 
 to a very large part of this territory is worthless from a dozen 
 legal standpoints, the chief of which is that no grant was ever 
 made by the viceroy, as alleged. When such gigantic efforts 
 are made to produce evidence, and records as we have witnessed 
 in this case, without locating the grant by the viceroy, it is to my 
 mind positive, that no such grant exists or ever existed. The 
 papers in the case read like a romance, and to believe in the 
 claim we have got to discredit the representations of our min* 
 ister at Madrid and the Mexican government, who caused 
 thorough searches to be made of the archives of Spain and 
 Mexico, without finding records, and we are compelled to 
 credit the story that the king departed from his own laws, the 
 established customs of the times and overriding all precedents 
 at a break neck gait, undertook to reward a man with a verit- 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 63 
 
 able principaility, whose name is unrecorded in history, and of 
 whose brilliant deeds in war there ceases to be a remembrance. 
 
 If these allegations are true as to the king's act, is it to be 
 wondered at, that the viceroy failed to credit such a state of 
 affairs on the part of the king, and ignored a recommendation, 
 which after all, submitted the matter to his discretion? 
 
 The claimant in alleging that the viceroy made a grant 
 asks us to believe that in his zeal to serve Peralta he departed 
 from the long established customs of New Spain, and waived 
 every precedent and law in favor of Peralta. But if we believe 
 all this the claim would still fall for legal reasons. 
 
 Another ridiculous feature in this claim is the allegation 
 that the papers, not even claimed as originals, were gotten 
 together and sent to Carlos Til for confirmation by Peralta. 
 The cedula of Oct. Idth, 1754, relieved solicitants for titles from 
 transmitting them to the king for confirmation, on account of 
 great expense. Why should Peralta have sought the confirm 
 ation of the king on August first 1768, and incurred this heavy 
 expense, when this alleged grant specifically carried minerals? 
 No reasonable answer can be given this state of affairs. 
 
 Herewith are letters from Spain showing conclusively 
 that the search of that government was in vain. A very long 
 letter furnished Mr. Morgan, our American minister to Mexico, 
 by the secretary of state in charge of the department of foreign 
 relations of Mexico, dated Mexico, Juue 14th, 1884, being an 
 answer to questions emanating from this office during my former 
 term says: "Itappears that under date of December 6th, 1883, and 
 at the request of Mr. Hopkins it pleased you to haveth-^ same 
 identical search made by the employees of this office for the 
 purpose of exhibiting to the interested party the documents he 
 desired to examine regarding concession, Mr. Hopkins said in his 
 petition quoted in the order referred to that he had in his posses- 
 sion a copy with the seal of the inquisition and certified by the sec 
 retaries of the tribunal, Mess. August Anthony Carritlo y 
 Callautes and Joseph de la Ceda y Debago, and also by Mr. 
 Joseph de Avalas, notary. 
 
 He solicited permission to examnie the original signatures 
 
64 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 of King Carlos III^ and the archives of the viceroyalty of 1758. 
 and also the archives and the seal of the royal tribunal of the 
 inquisition of the year 1777. The search being made at the 
 time, and repeated today, no record has been found relating 
 to the said grait, under the following headings: 'Grants.^ 
 'Lands' 'Royal Decrees and Internal Provinces,' " 
 
 "Mr. Hopkins was shown various printed signatures of 
 King Carlos III as no original ones are on file, the seals of the 
 inquisition, and he was informed that there was no record of 
 such grant. The search having been repeated as afoi'esaid, to 
 compjly with the request made by Minister Morgan, in the name 
 of the government of the United States no better result has been 
 obtainedr 
 
 Then follows the matter which is corroboration of the 
 powers of the council of the Indies, historical matter, etc. 
 Now it is distincly allege i that this is a viceroy's grant, and 
 still the archives of the viceroyalty itself at the City of Mexico, 
 show not a scratch of a pen in relation to this grant, although 
 thorough search has been made twice on requests from this 
 office, and it is explicitly stated above, that not only has the 
 archives of the viceroyalty been searched but the viceroy's 
 SiTQ\\\wes of the very year \n which the grant is alleged to be 
 made. Is this not conclusive evidence that the viceroy never 
 made a grant? Santa Ana's alleged letter says: '' He searched 
 in vain.'' 
 
 This question was put to the Mexican government: "Was 
 any record kept in Madrid of the concessions made by the 
 viceroy of New Spain, on the recommendation of the king of 
 Spain?" 
 
 In this same letter the answer comes as follows: "Un- 
 doubtedly such record was kept in the archives of the Indies, 
 as it is generally known that the viceroy reported his most 
 ordinary acts to the king." 
 
 Where are the records of the council of the Indies and 
 why are they not produced? Where too, is the record that 
 should have been produced from Madrid, showing that Carlos 
 
SURVEYOR general's REl'ORT. 65 
 
 III, confirmed a grant, which by the cedula of 1754 did not 
 have to be confirmed? 
 
 The same letter again says: "As in the present case it is 
 alleged that the grant made by the Marquis de his Amarilhis, 
 to Mr. Micljael Peralta in 1758, was ccmfirmed l)y King Carlos 
 III in 1772, it is safe to presume that not encountering in this 
 oflSce the royal decree conveying the said confirmation, it may 
 be found in the archives of 'Simancas' whicli contain those of 
 the Indies, accuniuhited during the time of the viceregal 
 government, and which pertain to the country formerly 
 known as New Spain." 
 
 Now we have ''Simancas'' the place of de|)osit of the 
 archives of the Indies. Unfoilunately for claimants during 
 my previous term I caused these archives to be scArched, and 
 the letter herewith from Hon. Dwight T. Reed, to Secretary 
 Bayard, March 26th, 1885, shows that the search failed as 
 usual. Wliat can be made of all this except that no such 
 grant ever existed? 
 
 The royal s^upreme cjurt of Guadalajara had povyer to 
 make grants of land, and was in direct correspondence with 
 the king. Such grants as were made by the powers imme- 
 diately referred to should properly beofrecoid at Guadalajara! 
 but claimants do away with all such consideniiions as it is 
 positively asserted that this grant was made by the viceroy and 
 it falls on that issue. The archives of the viceroyalty were ifi 
 the Cit/ of Mexico where he presided. A president of the roijal 
 audiencia presided at Guadalajara. 
 
 The letter under consideration contains the following: "It 
 is probable that under the archives^ of the Indies now kept at 
 Simancas in Spain a record may be found of the documents 
 called for, in view of the fact that even the mo^t ordinary acts 
 were reported explicitly to the king of Spain by the viceroys, 
 especially so when in the present case a special mandate of the 
 sovereign had issued previously." . 
 
 This lett"r is from the archivero of the general jHiblic 
 archives of the nation of Mexico, a savant of Spanish laws, 
 
66 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 customs and regulations. To argue the illegality of this grant 
 further, with such a showing as I have made. I consider a loss 
 of time, bat one more point in this report before I rest. The 
 following question was asked by this office of the Mexican 
 government: "What rule appears to have been observed in 
 Mexico at the time the document above referred to is said to 
 have been executed. Were the original concessions, recom- 
 mendations, etc., filed as records or copies of the same? Did 
 the government put on file the originals or the copies? Did 
 grantees receive the originals or copies of the same?" 
 
 The archivero answering in the letter under consideration 
 says: "The viceroy and the royal supreme court general^ 
 made the grants of land and water rights in the name of his 
 majesty, the king of Spain, keeping a certified copy on file in 
 the section of grants, and the original document was delivered 
 to the interested party as a safe guard for his title./ 
 
 I now ask the claimant or claimants to produce this orig- 
 inal grant of the viceroy. 
 
 Speedy and final action should be had on this base claim? 
 in order that the people of this territory may enjoy their homes 
 with peace of mind. And parties guilty of forgery or the 
 fabrication of papers that have caused so much trouble should 
 be vigorously prosecut»ul by the government, and that without 
 delay. 
 
 I recommend that the alleged grant should not be con- 
 firmed as is prayed for, it being to my mind without the slight- 
 est foundation in fact and utterly void. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 [Signed] ROYAL A. JOHNSON, 
 
 U. S. Surveyor General for Arizona. 
 
 EAL 
 
SUKVEYUK GENEKAL'S KEPOKT 67 
 
 Affidavits and Letters Referred to in 
 Report. 
 
 Legation of the 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 Madrid, 6th, June 1884. 
 ROYAL A. JOHNSON, Esq., 
 
 U. S. Surveyor General, 
 Tucson, Arizona. 
 Sir: — Referring to your letter of the 1st, February hist 
 to Mr. Foster relative lo the "Peralta Grant" and to his reply 
 of the 4tli April, I have now to enclose herewith, a copy of a 
 letter of the 14th ultimo, addressed to me by the Sub Secretary 
 of the Ministry of Ultramar, from which you will observe that 
 careful search has been made for the desired documents but 
 without success. 
 
 The Department of State, at the instance of the Secretary 
 
 ,of the Interior, has sent me a copy of your letter to him dated 
 
 March 14th last. Upon the receipt of the photographs tJjerein 
 
 referred to the Legation will request the Minister of Ultramar 
 
 to cause a further search to be made. 
 
 I am, sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 [Signed] Dwight T. Reed, 
 
 Charge 'd'Affaires ad interim. 
 P. S. I beg to add that Mr. Foster first applied to the Min- 
 ister of Fomento ivho replied (after Mr. Foster had left tor the 
 Unit*id States) that the desired documents did not exist in 
 his department and recommended that we apply to the Minister 
 of Ultramar. This I did with the above result. 
 MINISTRY OF ULTRAMAR 
 Dear Sir: — The Chief of the General archives of the 
 Indies in Seville, in a communication of date the 3d instant, 
 informs me among other things as follows: 
 
 "Dear Sir: — (Ilino Sr.) This office has duly received 
 
68 SURVEYOR general's report. 
 
 your communication of tiie 24th of April last, enclosing a copy 
 of the royal order communicated by his Excellency the Min- 
 ister of Ultramar, that the certified copies desired by the 
 government of the United States be made of all existing docu's 
 ments relating to a concession of land situated in the Territory 
 of Arizona, known as the Peralta concession and particularly 
 of a recommendation made by Ferdinand VI December 20, 
 1748, of the concession granted by the viceroy of New Spain, 
 D. Augustin Aiiumada y Villalon, Jan. 3d, 1758, and of the 
 confirmation of said concession by Carlos III, Jan 20th, 1776. 
 
 I at once arranged that the sixth official, the oldest in 
 the office and not one who was less fitted to guarantee the sue 
 cess of the search, should proceed immediately with it. 
 
 For the past four days he has devoted himself exclusively 
 to the search, ivithout any success whatever. 
 
 That which by royal order has been communicated by the 
 Minister of Ultramar I trausmit to you as an anvverto the B. L. 
 M. of your Excellency of date April 22 last requesting to know 
 if the documents mentioned in the memorandum you sent 
 enclosed existed in the archives of this office. 
 
 God protect your Excellency many years. 
 Madrid, May 14th, 1884. 
 
 Sub Secretary, 
 
 Miguel Sanrez Vigul, 
 To the representative of the United States of America. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 General Land Office, 
 Washington, D. C, Jan. 24th, 1885. 
 Royal A. Johnson, Esq., 
 
 U. S. Surveyor General, 
 
 Tucson, Arizona. 
 Sir: — For your information IJierewith transmit the fol- 
 lowing described jnipers, viz: 
 
 Copy of a letter from the Hon. Secretary of State to the 
 Hon- Sc'Tctary of (he Interior, under date of the 12rh instant 
 
SUKVEYOK general's REPORT. 69 
 
 with a copy as its enclosure, being a copy of a communication 
 dated Dec. 24th 1884 from the Legation of the Uuited States 
 at Madrid, to the Department of State, rehitiveto the alleged 
 "Peralta Grant" pending investigation in your office. 
 
 PU'ase acknowledge the receipt. 
 
 Very Repectfully, 
 
 [Signed] N. C, McFarland, 
 
 Two enclosures. (Commissioner. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 
 
 Washington, D. C. 12 Jan. ISSo- 
 Thv- Hon. H. M. Teller, 
 
 Secretary of the Interior. 
 Sib,: — Referring to your letters of the 30th July 
 and February last, I have the honor to enclose a copy of a 
 dispatch from Spain touching the Peralta grant, Arizona 
 Territory. I havp the honor to be, sir. 
 
 Enclosure, Mr. Reed, Your obedient servant 
 
 to Mr. Frelinghuyseu, Fred'k T. Frelinghuysen. 
 
 24 Dec. 1884, No. 272. 
 
 LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Madrid, 24, Dec. 1884. 
 No. 275. 
 The Hon. Fred'k T. Frelinghuysen, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Sir: — Referring to the Department's instructions Nos. 129 
 and 224, and to Mr. Foster's reply No. 262, I have the honor 
 to enclose herewith a copy of the reply of the Sub Secretary of 
 Ultramar to Mr. Foster's application in the matter of the 
 "Peralta Grant." 
 
 It will be observed from the letter of the Sub Secretary 
 that the original copy of the Peralta Grant does not seem to be 
 among the archives of the Indies at Seville, but there is a simil- 
 arity between the signature of Carlos III, attached to other 
 documents on ^le there, and that, as showu in the photogjrapb 
 
70 SURVEYOR UENERAI/S REPORT. 
 
 forwarded with your No. 224, the chief of the archives at Seville 
 reports, however, that the original document may possibly be 
 found among the archives at Simancas. I have consequently 
 requested the Minister of Fomento under whose department 
 the archives at Simancas come to be good enough to cause a 
 search to be made for the original document and to aid in the 
 search. I have sent him the photograph above reterred to 
 which was returned to me by the Sub Secretary of Ultramar, 
 With a view to complying with your instruction No. 283 
 I have requested of the Minister of State a photograph of the 
 autographic signature of Carlos III, and the Minister has 
 replied by note dated the 19th instant that he has referred the 
 request to the Superior Chief of the Palace. 
 I have etc. 
 
 Dwight T. Reed. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE' 
 Washington, D. C, April 16th, 1885. 
 The Hon L. Q. C. Lamar, 
 
 Secretary of the Interior. 
 Sir: — Referring to the letters of your department of the 
 30th July last and February 1884 I have the honor to enclose 
 a copy of a dispatch from Spain additional to the one sent 
 your department on the 12th January last touching the Peralta 
 Land Grant and a fac simile of the autograp'i of Carlos III> 
 of Spain received therewith. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 T. F. Bayard. 
 
 Enclo:ures, 
 
 Mr. Reed to Mr. B.iyard, 26th March, 1885, No. 316. 
 
 No. 316. 
 
 LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Madrid, 26th March, 1885. 
 To the Honorable T. F. Bayard, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 Referring to Department's instruction No. 283 and to my 
 
6UKVEYUK GENKKAl/S KEPUKT. 71 
 
 reply No. 275 I have now the honor to enclose herewith :i 
 fac simile of the autograph of Carlos III, and of a copy and 
 translation of a note from the Minister of State transmitting 
 the same to me. As will be observed by the note of the Min- 
 ister the character of the document would not permit of a 
 photoirraphic copy being taken. 
 
 With further reference to my No. 275 I beg to state that 
 I have received a note from tlie Minister of Fomento enclos- 
 ing to me the reply of the Director of the Archives at Simancaa 
 stating that careful search had been made and that the so called 
 ^'Feralta Grant" does not exist among those archives. 
 I have the honor to be 
 
 Very respectfully etc. 
 
 1) wight T. Reed. 
 [Translation.] 
 Enclosure No. 3 to Mr. Reed No. 816. 
 
 MINISTRY OF STATE, 
 
 Palace, 13th March 1885, 
 My Dear Sir: — In reply to your note of 13th of December 
 last, in which you request in the name of 3'our Government J* 
 photographic; copy of the signature of King Curios III I have 
 the honor to inform you that his Majesty, my August Sovereign^ 
 deigned to accede to the request but the character of the doc- 
 uments from which it had to be produced not permitting it to 
 be done photographically he ordered a faithful fac simile of 
 the autograph to be made, which I enclose to you. 
 
 I avail mvself of this opportunity to reiterate to you the 
 assurance of my distinguished consideration. 
 
 J. Eldnayen 
 Mr. Charge 'd'Aff'aires of the United States. 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 
 
 Washington, August 13th, 1889 
 Hon. Royal A. Johnson, U. S. Surveyor for Arizona, 
 Tucson, Arizona ; 
 Dear Sir: — In reply to your communication of July 29th 
 last, to Hon A. R. Spaffjrd, Librarian of Congress, whicli has 
 
72 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 been forwarded to me by him from Mohawk, New York, where 
 he is spending his vacation, I have to report that although I 
 have not found in this library any Spanish book printed either 
 in or out of Spain, in exactly the year 1748, there are many 
 published in neighboring years. I have examined a consider- 
 able number of them, and it appears to me that, the printing 
 in the photograph you send is more modern than that in them. 
 The long "S" except as a final letter appears to have been 
 used invariably until up to say, 1770, but that is not found in 
 the photograph. All the letters in the latter, even when not 
 differing much in form from the old ones, seem to be more 
 clearly cut, and rather in more modern style. All the indi- 
 cations point to its being at least some what later thao 1748. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 C. VV. Hoffnian, for 
 A. R. SpafFord, Librarian of Congress. 
 [Copy] 
 PORTRAITS OF NOTED MEN. 
 
 ENGRAVING, 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHIC ARTIST. 
 
 C. M. BELL, 
 
 Nos. 459, 461, 463 & 465, Penn'a Ave. 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Crayons and 
 
 Pastel Portraits. 
 
 Washinjrton, D. C, Sept. 25, 1889 
 R. A. Johnson, 
 
 Surveyor General, Tucson, Arizona. 
 
 Dj:ar Sir:— In reply to yours of Aug. 29tb in regard to 
 photographic copies for Mr. Reavis, would state that we pho- 
 tographed them and sold him the negatives several years ago 
 but kept no record of them. 
 
 We only keep a record of those we retain. 
 
 Very resp'y, 
 [Signed] CM. Bell. 
 
 Phoenix, Arizona, August 20th, 1889. 
 To his Excellency 
 
 Governor Lewis Wolflev, 
 
 Phoenix, Arizona. 
 Dear Sir: — Pursuant to your request I have t!ie honor. 
 
SUKVEYOK liE^'EKAL'8 KEl^OKT. T6 
 
 to submit lierevvith the following sw(.rn statement of what I 
 personally know of the claim of one James Addison Reavi.s, 
 to the .so-called "Peralta Grant." 
 
 With much resj)ect, 
 
 Very obediently yours, 
 
 James D. Monihon. 
 
 Territory of Arizona, ) or. 
 County of Maricopa, j 
 
 James D.Monihon, being duly sworn, deposes and says. 
 I am a resident of Phoenix, Maricopa county, Arizona, 53 
 years of age, have lived in Arizona nearly all the time since 
 i863. 
 
 In the winter of 1866 and 1867 I became acquainted, in 
 Prescott, Vrizona, with one Dr. Willing, he was a mining man, 
 and claimed to have mines in Black ('anon, to the southw'ard 
 of Prescott. I kept a livery stable and he used to put up his 
 horse there. I was keeping the stable for a man named 
 Alexander. 
 
 Doctor VVilliiig asked me if I knew a man by the name 
 of Peralta, and if so, if he was not in Black Canon. I told 
 him that I knew the man but that I believed that he was at 
 Wickenberg. Doctor Willing then asked me if I knew of any 
 one that intended going that way as he would like to have 
 company as the Indians were very bad. I told him I knew 
 of two or three men who were going that way in a day or two; 
 he left with them. I cannot now remember their names. I 
 did not see or hear of him again until the fall of 1867 when 
 he canje to a stable I was keeping for myself on Plaza at 
 Prescott. I kept his two hor>^es there until his bill ran up to 
 some $35.00 or S40 00 and he said he wanted to go to St. 
 Louis on some business and would send me the money from 
 there. I told him I couldn't let him go in any such way; that 
 he would have to have the money before he left. Next day 
 he came to me and said he liad a Hue scheme on hand; that he 
 had got a floating grant; that he would sell me one half of it 
 for two hundred and fifty (S250.00) dollars down and we could 
 
74 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 lay it on those mines and plains where the grass was growing 
 in abundance. The two hundred and fifty dollars cash down, 
 the balance when we sell the land, but he never named any 
 amount or what the balance would be. I felt very indignant 
 over it, and answered him very shortly saying I didn't want 
 to take any land away trom my neighbors, that I didn't 
 believe in grants, and thought they were all fraudulent; he 
 endeavored to reason with me, saying it was an easy way to 
 to make money if properly carried out; that we could sell the 
 mines back to the owners, and take our pay as they took it out 
 of the mines, and in the valleys we could keep large herds of 
 stock, and sell the beef to the miners, and the people who 
 would come into the valleys. 
 
 Finding no encouragement from me, he sold his horses, 
 paid my livery bill, and went off on a government outfit. I 
 could not say now just what kind of an ou'fit it was he left on 
 for New Mexico, saying that once in New Mexico, he could 
 get i\\\ the help he wanted, to go through to St. Louis. 
 
 Before he left Prescott, when the people there found out 
 about his claims to a pretended grant and his intention to try 
 to float it over their lands they got hostile, and treated Dr. 
 Willing in such a manner that he became alarmed, and said 
 to me that he believed that he A^oiild try to float it over the 
 Hualapai valley, and leave Prescott out, and asked me about 
 the valley. Next I heard of Dr. Willing became to Prescott 
 and recorded his grant claim, and that night he died there. 
 This was in 1875 or 1876. 
 
 In the spring. I think in March 1877, Jan)es Addison 
 Reavis came to Phoenix claiming to be agent, I think, for the 
 Alta California, a San Francisco paper. I was keeping a livery 
 stable at that time in Phoenix, Arizona. He wanted me to 
 take him out over Salt River Valley so that he could write 
 it up. I drove him out some four or five miles west. He was 
 very much })leased with the valley and inquired very particu- 
 larly about the junction of the Gila and Salt rivers, and wanted 
 to know if tlie ground at the juncti( n of the two rivers was 
 
SUUVEYOK (ibJNKKAL'S KKl'OKT. 75 
 
 solid, and as it was stone, and had been i)ractically unchnnged 
 for ages, I told him so. I told him that about half a mile 
 back from the junction of the rivers was a solid formation of 
 rock. We wound our way in a north western direction over 
 the valley for a couple of hours, but nothing more was said 
 about the river. 
 
 Upon our return home we came to a river about three 
 miles northwest from town. We stopped t') view the surround- 
 ings, and he told me that he could get a floating grant and 
 thought he would lay it on this valley aufj thoujfht he would 
 make his initial j)uint at the junction of the Gila and 8alt 
 rivers. I told him that he hod not better try to float any 
 grant on this valley, as the people would hang him. He 
 said he was going to do it to make money, and the Southern 
 Pacific Railroad Company would back him He had pas.^es 
 to travel on the Southern Pacific Railroad wherever he wanted 
 to go. He was short of money and had been compelled to 
 walk from a station on the railroad to Phoenix, and his feet 
 were sore, and he had the appearance of being worn out. I 
 may be in error in the date or year of his coming to Phoenix 
 as above described; but the statement given is exactly what 
 occurred when he came. He left for Prescott, and I was in- 
 formed that he could not pay his bill at the hotel in Phoenix to 
 Charles Salari. I understand that he went to Prescott to try 
 to get the papers on this grant. I think he told me he had an 
 order for papers that were in Pres(;utt. Aft 'rwards lu' came 
 to Phoenix and claimed to have a grant and it was the same 
 one tliat Dr. Willing had been endeavoring to lay. He 
 recorded a lot of paj)ers in connection therewith. 
 
 Last year in May, 1888, while I was on the train coming 
 from St. Louis to Arizona, I met Reavis. We had quite a 
 conversation on general topics. He referred to the co-called 
 Peralta grant, and said that the line of it was now two miles 
 north of the city of Phoenix, that he had moved the south line 
 of his grant eight miles further south. I asked why, and if he 
 was afraid of the Arizona Canal Company, and if they were 
 
76 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 too strong for him to fight on the grant churn. He said yes, 
 and that he wanted to take in Florence and other locations 
 that he considered more valuable; and that he had relocated 
 his initial point at the point of the Maricopa mountain about 
 eight miles from the junction of the Gila and S.tlt rivers on 
 a rock bearing hieroglyphics. Since then I haven't seen him. 
 
 James D. Monihon. 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of August 1889. 
 
 R K. Hickey, 
 [seal] * Notary Public. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 County of Santa Clara, 
 
 and town of Los Gatos. 
 
 F. A. Massol being first duly sworn says that the deed of 
 mining claim and landed property as recorded May 24th, 1883, 
 at request of Wells Fargo & Co., which said deed conveys unto 
 J. A. Keavis the above mentioned property in Arizona, and 
 bears date of acknowledgement of May 22, 1867, was recently 
 exhibted to him, and after careful scrutiny pronounces it a 
 forgery as regards the grantee. That to the best of his recol- 
 lection he does not know to whom he conveyed the mining 
 property. That he did not know nor had he ever heard of J. 
 A. Reavis in 1867, nor did he afterwards until after the death 
 of George M, Willing which occurred in 1874, or 1875. That 
 to the best of his knowledge the said J. A. Reavis obtained the 
 deed aforesaid from among the private papers of the. Willing 
 estate about 1881, in his possession. That he never until 
 recently heard of the land grant recited in the said deed. That 
 that part conveying the land together with all that part grant- 
 ing the described property unto J. A, Reavis has been inserted 
 since the deed left his possession. 
 
 [Signed] F. A. Massol. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to 
 this 14th of September 1889. 
 A. Berryman, 
 [bfat.] Notary Publit' 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 77 
 
 State of California, | 
 
 County of Santa Clara. J ®^ 
 
 Fen Massol being first duly sworn says that during the 
 years of 1880, 1881 and 1882 he was a resident of the 
 city of Sacramento, county of Sacramento and State of Cali- 
 fornia, and that during that time he met and became acquaint- 
 ed with J. A. Reavis. That he has seen the deed purporting 
 to convey certain mineral and other lands in the Territory of 
 Arizona to the said Jas. A. Reavis, dated May 22, 1867 and 
 executed by F. A. Massol, his father. 
 
 That he fully believes the said conveyance was obtained 
 from his father in the month of July 1881 when the said Jas. 
 A. Reavis secured a number of private papers relating to the 
 estate of G. M. Willing, Jr., in Arizona. That to the best of 
 his knowledge and belief the said deed was made and 
 executed to an unknown party and conveyed nothing but 
 mineral lands. That the said deed never passed from the 
 possession of his father until the before mentioned time. That 
 to the best of his knowled and belief the said deed has been 
 changed and the name of J. A. Reavis inserted in the place of 
 the original grantee, and all that part deeding lands of Miguel 
 Peralta has been inserted since the death of G.M. Willing, Jr' 
 
 That the said deed was executed under a power of 
 attorney of Geo. M. Willing, Jr. 
 
 Los Gatos, Oct. 3rd, 1889. 
 
 [Signed] Fen Massol. [seal] 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to 
 
 before me this 3rd day of October 1888. 
 A. Berry man, 
 
 [seal] Notary Public. 
 
 Frank C. Hise being first duly sworn deposes and says 
 that he is a resident of Tu^on, Territory of Arizona. That 
 he is at present and has been for a period of nearly four years 
 chief clerk of the office of the Surveyor General for the district 
 of Arizona, and deponent further says that he knows one 
 James Addison Peralta Reavis. and tliat soon after the rfiturn 
 
78 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 of the said Reavis from Madrid, he exhibited in the private 
 office of the then Surveyor General Hise, a metal seal weigh- 
 ing about one pound which he claimed was the Spanish King's 
 seal, the same as the photographic copies filed in the Surveyor 
 General's office on Sept. 2nd, 1887, by said Reavis showing 
 the impressions of. Said Reavis was questioned as to how the 
 royal seal was allowed in his hand by the Spanish government. 
 He responded that he had to give heavy bonds for the safe 
 keeping and return of the seal. 
 
 Frank C. Hise. ' 
 Sworn to before me this eighth day of August, 1889. 
 
 Royal A. Johnson, 
 
 [seal] U. S. Surveyor General. 
 
 Levi H. Manning being first duly sworn deposes and 
 says: That he is a resident of the city of Tucson, Territory of 
 Arizona. That he has been mineral clerk in the office of the 
 United States Surveyor General at Tucson, and that he was. 
 employed in such capacity during the year 1887, Deponent 
 further says: That he is personally acquainted with a man 
 representing himself to be James Addison Peralta Reavis, the 
 claimant of an alleged land grant in xirizona, designated as 
 the "Peralta Grant." That at or about the time the said 
 Reavis saw fit to move his initial monument south about eight 
 miles from the point originally claimed by him as the original 
 point (center point of the west boundary line) I heard him in 
 conversation in the Surveyor General's office say that the 
 change ef location would very materially enhance the value of 
 the grant as it would take in Solomonville and the rich Gila 
 valley in the neighborhood of Solomonville; also valuable 
 lands in the Santa Cruz valley, and further deponent saith not 
 
 Levi H. Manning. 
 Sworn to before me this eighth day of August 1889. 
 Royal A. Johnson, 
 
 [seal] U. S, Surveyor General. 
 
 Frank C Hise being first duly sworn deposes and says- 
 That he is a resident of the city of Tucson, Territory of Ari- 
 
SUKVEYOK general's REPORT. 79 
 
 zona. That he has been chief clerk in the office of the 
 United States Surveyor General at Tucson and that he was 
 employed in such capacity during the year 1887. Deponent 
 further says that he is personally acquainted with a man rep- 
 resenting hi -nself to be James Addison Peralta Reavis, the 
 claimant of an alleged land grant in Arizona, designated as 
 the Peralta Grant. 
 
 That at or about the time said Reavis saw fit to move his 
 initial point south about eight miles from the point originally 
 claimed by him as the original point (center point of the west 
 boundary line), 1 heard him in conversation in the Surveyor 
 General's office say that the change in the location would very 
 materiallv enhance the value of the grant as it would take in 
 Solomonville and the rich Gila valley in the neighborhood of 
 Solomonville also valuable lands in the Santa Cruz valley and 
 further deponent saith not. 
 
 Frank C. Hise. 
 Sworn to before me chis eighth day of August 1889. 
 
 Royal A. Johnson, 
 U. S. Surveyor General, District of Arizona. 
 
 Territory of Arizona, | 
 
 County of Pinal. j 
 
 Be it known that on this day personally appeared Peter 
 R. Brady a citizen of Arizona Territory resident of Florence, 
 Pinal county, who being duly sworn deposes and says: That 
 he has at different times within the last two or three years had 
 conversations with several of the principal Indians of the Pima 
 tribe, living upon the lands embraced in the Gila valley, and 
 now claimed by one J. A. Reavis and associates as their prop- 
 erty, under title from the Spanish government made more than 
 a hundred years ago, and that said Indians have upon every 
 occasi.)n stated that to their postive knowledge no such claim 
 or grant has ever been made, and moreover that the Spanish 
 government, and afterwards the government of the Republic 
 of Mexico had always protected them in their occupation of 
 said land§, and at diffi^-rent times paid them annuities in the 
 
80 SURVEYOR GENERAT/S REPORT. 
 
 way of clothing and money and that from time immemorial 
 
 they have been recognized by spjd government as the rightful 
 
 owners of said lands. Peter R. Brady. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before rae this 5th 
 
 day of October 1889 and my oificial seal 
 
 affixed. G. H. Oury, 
 
 [seal] Notary Public. 
 
 Department of the Interior, before the Surveyor General of 
 
 the United States in and for the Territory of Arizona, at 
 
 Tucson in said Territory. 
 
 In the matter of the claim of one 
 
 self styled Sofia Loreta Micaela 
 
 de Maso Reavis and James Addison 
 
 Reavis. 
 
 Now on the twenty-fifth day of February A. D, 1889, 
 appeared before the Surveyor General of the United States in 
 and for the Territory of Arizona, Thomafs H. McMullin, who 
 was thereupon duly sworn to testify in the above entitled 
 matter to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
 and examined as a witness by Clark Churchill, Esq., counsel 
 for settlars on the lands covered by the claim, and testified as 
 follows, to wit: My name is Thomas H. McMullin; I reside 
 in Phoenix, in the Territory of Arizona. In the winter of 
 the years 1887 and 1888 I was in the City of Washington, D. 
 C. While in said city of Washington dnring said winter I saw 
 and examined the original book, photographic copies of parts 
 of which have have been filed in this office by the claimant 
 herein, or one James Addison Reavis, her reputed husband; 
 and which book is claimed to be an original book of the 
 records alleged to have been kept at the Mission San Xavier 
 del Bac by the Jesuit fathers. This book was then in posses- 
 sion of one Hunter, a resident of the City of Washington. I 
 fully identified the book as being the same as that which was 
 photographed an J the photographic copies of pa/ts of which 
 are on file in this office in this matter and designated by 
 claimant as exhibit 1, 2, 3 photographic copies of records of 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 81 
 
 San Xavier Mission. In the printed brief and argument of 
 petitioner tiled herein, I observed that the sheet or page of 
 said book upon which this writing appears whereon the peti 
 tioner relies as referring to the pretended grant, is of a different 
 kind of paper from that in the other pages of said book, and 
 said page or sheet so relied on by petitioner clearly appears to 
 have been interpolated and inserted into said book at some 
 time after said book had originally been bound. The paper 
 composing said sheet was of a different size from that 
 of the other pages of said book; so that when the book 
 was closed the outer edges of the paper was folded into 
 the book to prevent it from protruding beyond the 
 edges of the other leaves of the book. The writing 
 on this sheet ran vertically across the page at right 
 angles with the writing oa the other pages when the 
 book was opened in the usual manner. The writing on the 
 other pages ran horizontally across the page in the usual form 
 of writing in books of record. The other parts of this book 
 seemed to be composed of ancient paper. This sheet had evi- 
 dently been so inserted in said book after said book had been 
 bound and was composed of paper of an entirely different kind 
 and manufacture, and was comparatively new and not of the 
 ancient character as that forming the other parts of said book. 
 The writing on the other pages of said book was evidently done 
 with quill pens, but the writing of this said sheet had evidently 
 been done with a steel pen. The dates of the several entries 
 in said book appeared to be consecutive in chronological order 
 from time except as to the entries on this interpolated sheet. 
 The entries and writing on this interpolated sheet are not in 
 said chronological order. The dates written on this interpo- 
 lated sheet are later in time than the dates of entries which 
 are made upon the other sheets and pages of said book which 
 follow it in said book. Said Hunter, in whose custody said 
 book was when I saw and examined it claimed that it was the 
 original book of records which had been kept at the Mission 
 of San Xavier del Bac by the Jesuit fathers, and that the 
 photographic copies of parts of the same had been taken since 
 
82 SURVEYOR general's report. 
 
 said book had come into his possession, and he stated to me 
 that said sheet of paper had been inserted into said book since 
 it first came into his possession, and whileit was temporarily in 
 the care of James Addison Rcavis, one of the claimants herein 
 who had borrowed said book from him — said Hunter — in the 
 year 1882 by misrepresentation and deceit, and kept it for 
 three (3) days and that during said time there was inserted 
 into it the sheet containing the entries relied on by the claim- 
 ants in this matter, and said Hunter further informed me that 
 within afewdtiys after returning said book said Reavis appeared 
 before him and produced his photographic copies of parts of 
 said book, similiar to those filed herein, and demanded that he 
 — said Hunter — should certify to their correctness, but that 
 he — said Hunter — refused to make any certificate on account 
 of said fraudulent interpolation. The above and foregoing 
 testimony having been given by the witness Thomas H. Mc- 
 Mullin at the time and place and before the Surveyor General 
 as above stated but not then taken down nor reduced to 
 writing, the same is now here written out in full correctly on 
 the foregoing pages and reverified by the said witness who has 
 signed his name hereto and who does hereby certify that the 
 above and foregoing is a correct transcript of his testimony. 
 
 [Signed] Thos. H. McMullin. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of October, 
 
 A. D. 1889, And I certify that Thos. H. McMullin is the 
 
 identical person referred to in the foregoing transcript. 
 
 J. H. Carpenter, 
 
 [seal] Notary Public- 
 
 Department of the Interior, Before the Surveyor General of 
 
 the United States in and for the Territory of Arizona, at 
 
 Tucson in said Territory. In the matter of the so-called 
 
 Peralta Land Grant claim. 
 
 Hon. Lewis Wolfley, being first duly sworn, testified as 
 follows: 
 
 Question by the Surveyor General — What is your name 
 and occupation? 
 
SORVEYOK OENEHAL'S REPORT. 83 
 
 Answer — My name is Lewis Wolfley, and I am the gov- 
 ernor of the Territory of Arizona. 
 
 Question by the Surveyor General. — Do you know R. F- 
 Hunter, who resides at 225 East Capital street, Washington, 
 D. C. ? 
 
 Answer. — I do. 
 
 Question by the Surveyor General. — Have you ever had 
 any conversation with him regardinjjj the so-called Peralta 
 Land Grant Claim? 
 
 Answer. — I have, 
 
 Question by the Surveyor General. — Will you please 
 state in full any conversation you have had with Mr. Hunter 
 in connection with this claim? 
 
 Answer. — I was in Washington during the spring of 1889 
 and met R. F. Hunter, and conversed with him about the 
 Peralta claim. Hunter stated to me that he knew it was a 
 fraud, and that if he was retained he would show that it was 
 a fraud. He further stated he had possession of the old record 
 books of the San Xavier Mission, and that some time ago he 
 loaned them to one Reavis. That after Reavis had possession 
 of these books he returned the same to Hunter, who on exams 
 ing the books discovered that a sheet of paper had been 
 surreptitiously inserted in the book, relating to the Peralta 
 claim. Mr. Hunter told me he would make an affidavit to 
 this effect. 
 
 [Signed] Lewis Wolfley. 
 
 Sworn to before me this fifteenth day 
 of October 1889. 
 
 Royal A. Johnson, 
 U. S. Surveyor General for the District of Arizona. 
 
 Notarial Record of the Forged Deed. 
 
 Herewith is the notarial record of the at present changed 
 deed as it originally appeared (by which Reavis originally 
 claimed the Peralta grant) taken by J. W. Bruraagin, notary 
 public of San Francisco, Cal., from the records of F. J. Thi- 
 bault the deceased notarv before whom the forgfed deed was 
 
84 SURVEYOR GENERAl/S REPORT. 
 
 originally acknowledged by F. A. Massol. The deed at 
 present reads: "This indenture made the twenty-second day 
 of May A. D. one thousand eight hundred and sixty^seven, 
 between F. A. Massol of the city and county of Sacramento 
 and state of California, party of ihe first part, for George M. 
 Willing of the Territory of Arizona, by virtue of a general 
 power of attorney dated May 11th, 1864 and J. A. Reavis of 
 the second part." 
 
 According to the record the deed originally read 
 "Between F. A. Massol of the city of Sacramento and state of 
 California, party of the first part, and George M. Willing of the 
 Territory of Arizona, of the second part.'' 
 
 The deed itself plainly shows on its face where the word 
 "and'' was erased and the word *[for" inserted, then all that 
 part in the deed as it now appears after the words "Territory 
 of Arizona" was deliberately addeil to the deed to fit an old 
 power of attorney from George M. Willing to F. i^. Massol 
 dated May 11th, 1864, and for the purpose of making the title 
 in Reavis to complete his original chain. It will be borne in 
 mind that Reavis had possession of Dr. Willing's papers. 
 Even the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by 
 Willing to Massol dated in 1864 was never acknowledged by 
 Willing but it was left until March 12th, 1883, and was then 
 acknowledged by one of the witnesses. At this date Williug's 
 papers were accessible to claimant Reavis. 
 
 Whatever may be the status of this power of attorney as 
 to its validity is unimportant as the deed was forged to fit it. 
 
 Royal A, Johnson, 
 
 U. S. Surveyor General. 
 State of California^ ^ 
 
 City and County of ^ 
 San Francisco ) 
 
 - I, J. W. Brumagim, a notary public in and for said city 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT 
 
 85 
 
 and county residing therein, 
 do certify that the following: 
 
 1867 
 May 24 
 
 duly commissioned and sworn 
 
 'c: 
 
 
 W. H. Allen to 
 
 
 George M. Willing, 
 
 Deed May 22—67 $500 Bradshaw Dist. 
 
 John P. Logan, 
 Power of At. May 22- 
 
 -67, 
 
 F. A. Massol to 
 
 
 George M. Willing 
 
 Deed May 22—67 $500 Bradshaw 
 
 John P. Logan 
 Power of At. May 22- 
 
 -67. 
 
 Is a full, true and correct copy of the record from the book 
 of F. J. Thibault a notary public, now in my possession. 
 Done at the request of Fen Massol. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto sent my hand and 
 affixed my official seal at my office in the city and county of 
 San Francisco State of California this twenty-fifth day of 
 October, A. D. 1889. J. W. Bruraagin, 
 
 [seal] Notary Public. 
 
 Argument of Clark Churchill Agrainst 
 . , the Claim. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. 
 Before the U. S. Surveyor General for Arizona. 
 In the matter of the claim of one 
 self styled Sofia Loreta Micaela 
 de Maso Reavis and James Ad^ 
 dison Reavis of lands under 
 the pretended "Peralta Grant." 
 
 I 
 The burden of proof IS upon the claimants. They must 
 show to the satisfaction of the Hon. Surveyor General: 
 
 1st. That a grant was in fact legally made to Miguel 
 Peralta. 
 
 2nd. That they (the claimants) are the owners of that 
 
86 SURVEYOR general'sreport. 
 
 grant. T take it forgranted that the foregoing propositions! 
 will not be denied by any one. 
 
 II 
 
 No legal evidence has been presented tending to show 
 that any such grant was ever made, and of course, it no grant 
 was ever made to Peralta, then all the claims and pretences 
 of these claimants to the effect that first one of them had 
 acquired Peralta's alleged title by mesne conveyances, and of 
 the other that she is the lineal descendant and sole heir, and 
 hence inherited the title, go for naught, and the investigations 
 of the papers offered in support of those pretences become 
 material only in so far as their inconsistencies and fraudulent 
 and spurious character throw light upon the character of these 
 claimants themselves. 
 
 The following recapitulation, analysis and comparisons of 
 the documents presented in this case by the claimants will show 
 the absurdity and groundless character of this claim. 
 
 Ex. A is a pretended printed cedula of the King of Spain 
 Fernando VI, supposed to be dated and made Dec. 20th, 1748, 
 pretended to have been presented to the "Cama del Real Santo 
 Tribunal de la Inquisicion de Mexico." 
 
 Then follows the pretended report of the Inquisitors to 
 the viceroy, dated at Mexico Oct. 10th, 1757. 
 
 This report is to the effect that ''Francisco Paner" (the 
 true name being Paver) of San Javier's Missions Padre Garcia, 
 another missionary and the Bishop of Nuevo Mexico, Tameron, 
 have given testimony "That they have no interest in the con- 
 cession, and that said concession is quite popular and caused 
 many friends among the Pi mas and we have determin<xl to 
 recommend the granting of it." 
 
 These priests could very well say they had no interest, 
 since by law the ecclesiastics were then prohibited from taking 
 up land. 
 
 Then follows a general pretended approval of the grant 
 describing it as being of 300 square leagues, to enclose the Gila 
 river, which concession shall be located to the north of San 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 87 
 
 Javier in Pimeria Alta iu the Vireiyno of New Spain, and to 
 include rivers, minerals, etc., etc,, signed by Augustin de Ahu- 
 mada y Villalon. Marquis de Amarillos, dated Jany. 3, 1758. 
 
 Then follows a pretended order or direction to Peralta 
 and to Father Paner (Paver?) to locate the concession as com- 
 manded; this is signed only with a flourish or pretended rubric- 
 Then Peralta locates in a general way his concession, and 
 adopts a piano or map of it. (In printed copy this is dated 
 13 May, 1758. Tn the testamentary document there is no 
 date.) Ordered, signed and sealed by Peralta, in the presence 
 of Paner, and the witnesses Vega and Galvez. 
 
 Next comes a pretended petition of Peralta to the King 
 Carlos III to confirm the grant of Fernando VI, which is fol- 
 lowed by a pretended short assent of confirmation, dated Jan. 
 22nd of 1776; signed by the king and countersigned by 
 Antonio Ventura de Taranco, and directed to the Holy Inquis- 
 tion of Mexico of New Spain. 
 
 This Ex. A was filed in this office March 27th, 1883. 
 Next of the photograph and documents filed in this office Sept. 
 2nd, 1887. 
 
 This photograph, supposed to be taken from an original 
 copy found in a will of Peralta, in the archives of a notary 
 public — now deceased — differs from the Ex. A having a whole 
 sentence more and several words added into the document. 
 Again it has some words less than Ex. A. Hence it cannot 
 be said that either is a copy of the other. 
 
 Botl) documents contain apocriphal words, or in other 
 words t\ipy make use of language which was not in use in 1748 
 and some which are not and never have been Spanish. 
 
 I will now note some of the various differences and mis- 
 takes and errors of language which appear to me, viz: 
 
 1st. Ex. A lacks the following words on the 3rd. line 
 after "cuidad de Mexico Por cuanto, en atencion a los meritos 
 y servicios, por tanto mando al Commandante General" also 
 the words "Capitan de Dragones." Which are contained in 
 the photograph. 
 
 2nd. The expression "Por parte de Senor" found in both 
 
88 
 
 the photo and Ex. A was not Spanish in 1748, nor has it ever 
 been to this date; the true expression is "Por Parte DelSenor." 
 
 3d The phrase "Fueron aprobodas" is not Spanish: it 
 should be "Que Fueron Aprobadas", this mistake is made in 
 Ex. A and in photograph. This error would not be made by 
 any person who was born a Spaniard, it is only possible to be 
 made by a foreigner, and neither the King nor any of his 
 ministers were foriegners in 1748. 
 
 4th In Ex A is found the expression "Fuero Militar," 
 which is proper, but in the photo, this appears as "Fuero Tri- 
 bunal." There is no such thing known in Spain or Mexico 
 and how it was possible for Somoderille to present to the 
 Kinff such a document to sign is hard to conceive. 
 
 5th. In both copies ',is found the phrase "y para la 
 recorapensa de grandes y valiosos servicios, tambien para el 
 modo de conducir prontamente las batallos importantes 
 en el servicio del Rey." 
 
 Here the word para should be por. The mistake is very 
 commonly made by Americans speaking Spanish. 
 
 The last part of the sentence "en el servicio del Rey" is 
 good Spanish, but very contrary to the habit of the Spanish 
 monarchs, and there is not a single cedula, where, in speaking 
 such a phrase it is not rendered so, "en mi servicio." 
 
 6th. "Yo el Rey por este mandato y decreto publico." 
 This phrase, though not very bad Spanish, is contrarj^ to all 
 customs of the kings of Spain in making their cedulas. There 
 is not one cedula where the king repeats his name in the mid- 
 dle of the body of it, or that he uses "este mandato y decreta 
 publico" because the kings of Spain were so strongly impressed 
 with their power that they considered their every word a 
 supreme law; they knew that a cedula was a law and they 
 
 needed not to say "this public command"or any other expression 
 to increase the force of the cedula. 
 
 7th. "Recomiendo el exmo." is bad Spanish; it should 
 be "Recomiendo al exmo." 
 
 8th. "Seran Situado" found in Ex. A and photograph. 
 If this sentence refers to leguds it should be "Seran Situados." 
 
SUKVKYOK GENEUAI/S REPORT. 81) 
 
 If it refers to the concession it should he "Sera situada" as it 
 is here it is a verb and participle neither of which agrees with 
 . each other or with the subject. This mistake would not have 
 been made even by the illiterate portion of the lowest Mexican 
 people; and such is only possible to a foreigner who stammers 
 Spanish, let alone the king of Spain. 
 
 9th. "Y ser tal forma," is not Spanish; it should be "y 
 ser de tal forma." 
 
 10th. In Ex. A, "que no molesto/' in photo, "que no 
 moleste." 
 
 11th "Exmo Yirrey de Espana" in Ex. A; in photo- 
 graph "Exnio Virrey de Nueva Espana." 
 
 12th. "Sin embargo incluir" is not Spanish, it should be 
 "sin embargo que incluyan." This mistake is found in Ex. A 
 and Photo. 
 
 13th. In Ex. A "Declara el titulo" in Photo. "Declaro 
 el titulo." 
 
 14th. In Ex. A and in Photo, the ending is "Asi lo 
 proveyo, mando y firmo." 
 
 15th. The king commenced speaking in the first person 
 and ends in the third person. But the u.-^e of the words 
 "proveyo mando y firmo" are not used in a single cedula of 
 the kings of Spain from the time of Ferdinand and Ysabellato 
 the revolution of 1820. They never admonish the person 
 addressed that they so "provide, command and signed" but 
 occasionally they end their cedulas thus, "por ser asi mi 
 voluntai" because such ism v will. See Pandectas Mexicanes, 
 V. Ill, page 534 to 536, Cedulas of 1746 and 1805. 
 
 17th. The seal in Ex. A was not in use in 1748. 
 
 18th. The authentication in Ex. A is contrary to the 
 customs of the times in 1748. In all the cedulas I have 
 examined up to 1810 after the signature of the king "Yo el 
 Rey" is written "Por Mandado del Rey" or "Por JVIadado del 
 R«y nuestro Senor" so and so is the name of the Secretary of 
 State. 
 
 The exj)ressi()n "I the minister so and sojuit the great 
 seal of state" is not found in any documents of state or cedulns 
 of the kings of Spain up to 1800. 
 
 "El sello Real" was in use sometimes, that is "the royal 
 
90 SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 seal." The great seal of state is borrowed by the concoctor of 
 these papers from his English legal knowledge. 
 
 19th. In both Ex. A and Photo, is found an entry 
 beginning with "visitaron y refrendose etc., etc." The whole 
 sentence is barbarous and incomprehensible to Spanish speak, 
 ing people, but the claimants pretend that it means that "this 
 grant was examined and countersigned in the chamber of the 
 Holy Royal Tribunal of the Inquisition of Mexico, for proofs of 
 claimants to previous grants." The absurdity of this will 
 appear when it is understood that this statement is very coolv 
 signed by Somodeville, who at the time is minister at Madrid 
 in Spain, not in Mexico at all. 
 
 If anybody had to sign this statement it should liave been 
 the grand inquisitor of Mexico and his secretarv. 
 
 Both Ex. A and the Photo, are made up in a form entirely 
 different from any cedula of the kings of Spain. The Spanish 
 used is a barbarous jargon, and has more of the English idiom 
 and construction than of Spanish language. The mistakes 
 above pointed out are l)ut a part of those it contains. The 
 author of this cedula appears to have been an American speak- 
 ing bad Californian Spanish of the present day. 
 
 The claimant first presented in 1883 Ex. A as an original 
 copy of the first autograph copy of the King Fernando VI, 
 which having been passed upon by the inquisition, the viceroy 
 and had been taken possesion of by Peralta, this identical 
 printed copy Ex. A is claimed to have been presented to King 
 Carlos III when this king writes this remarkable sentence on it: 
 
 "Passo ante mi 
 
 fechaen Madrid 
 
 a dos de Decembre 
 
 de mill setecientos 
 
 y Setenda y dos. 
 Y6 el Key. 
 
 Countersigned by his secretary's signature, Taraneo, 
 
SUKVEYOK GENEKAL'S KEPORT. 91 
 
 It is very remarkable that Taranco, who for many years 
 served Charles the III as prime minister, in the short sentence 
 above written, "Passo ante mi" etc., etc., should have made 
 three mistakes. I will translate it. 
 
 "Passed before me 
 
 "dated in Madrid 
 
 "the second of December 
 
 "of one thousand seven 
 
 "hundred and seventy 
 
 "two. I the King." 
 
 The unfortunate Taranco wrote passo instead of "paso'' 
 with one single s; he wrote Decembre when the real Spanish is 
 ''Dieiemhre" and wrote mill when it should be"mi^" with one 1. 
 
 But what is still stranger is that when Somodeville wrote 
 the original cedula he had also two I's in mil, that was four- 
 teen, years before. 
 
 By looking at the very bottom of the Ex. A the acknowl- 
 edgment of the leceipt of the cedula by the viceroy of Nueva 
 Espana, is also afflicted with weak knowledge of Spanish, and 
 Contains this expression, viz: "Passo mi," by which we who 
 speak English translate it thus: "it passed me." But as a 
 Spanish phrase, the word passo should be paso; that is, one s, 
 and accent on the q; and the preposition po?' should be between 
 the two words, that is, "Paso })or mi," though even such an 
 expression was improper for the case. 
 
 For this reason I say that the author of Ex. A was an 
 American who spoke bad Spanish. 
 
 In the certificate of Lancaster, appears the word "Mandato- 
 This word was never used by any secretary of the King of 
 Spain, in any cedula up to 1815, when the use of cedulas was 
 discontinued, the only word used was "Mandado," 
 
 We have the following facts evidently apparent from Ex. A. 
 
 1st. The type in which it is printed is modern. 
 
 2nd. The language is not Spanish and would not have 
 been produced or written by any person acting as amanuensis 
 'to the king in 1748 or 1776. 
 
 3rd. The seal of the king it bears had not been cast and 
 
92 SURVEYOR general's report. 
 
 was not in existence in 1748, nor in 1772 nor in 1776, accord 
 ing to my information. 
 
 Yet King Charles ITT says in the first page of Ex. A 
 "passo ante mi, etc., Dec. 2, 1772, and signs it ' Yo elRey'^ 
 
 The inference is plain, either King Carlos III 
 arose from the dead to sign in our day, or some per- 
 son speaking bad Spanish torged his name. 
 
 The sjjme hand who signed the king's name in the first 
 page, forged Charles Ill's name on the last page, pretended to 
 have been done in 1776. 
 
 By an examination it is apparent even to the inexperi- 
 enced that both the signatures of Charles III are tracings; and 
 that the many writings in Ex. A, pretended to have been done 
 at various times and by diflerent persons in it, are the \\ork of 
 the same hand. 
 
 Take for instance the expression: "Passo mi" at the bottom 
 of the first page supposed to have been done by Juan Francisco 
 de Guemes, Viceroy of Nueva Espana ab«ut 1749-50. 
 
 Then take the 'Passo ante mi" supposed to have been 
 written in 1772 by the secretary of the King Charles the Ill- 
 Then take the "Passo ante mi" 4th page s.'gned by a sup- 
 posed original signature and flourish of Joseph Avalos and of 
 Agustin Ant. Cauxillos. 
 
 All these passos have the same orthographical mistakes, 
 the two ss, and the same character of hand writing,, supposed 
 to have been written by different persons at various times 
 between 1748 and 1772. 
 
 This Ex. A purports to be a copy of the original cedula 
 and to contain a copy of the proceedings to execute the will of 
 King Fernando VI. The two last pages pretend to be an 
 original petition of the Caballero de los Colorados to Charles 
 III to confirm his grant. 
 
 Then follows the pretended genuine confirmation by 
 Charles III with his genuine signature countersigned by the 
 secretary Taranco, and then it says: 
 
 "Al Real Santo Tribunal de la Ynquisicion de Mexico de 
 
SURVEYOR UENERAL'S REPORT. 93 
 
 Nueva Espana" which means "To the Royal Holy Tribunal of 
 the Inquisition of Mexico of New Spain." 
 
 All of which signifies that this instrument, after being 
 sanctioned by the king, was returned by the king to the 
 Inquisition; that the instrument, executed and delivered, should 
 be there kept as a testimony of the fact that it had been so 
 executed. Therefore if this instrument really bears the sig- 
 nature of King Charles III, it has no business in the hands of 
 the claimant, but it should be deposited in the archives of the 
 old Inqusition in Mexico, who are the lawful keepers of it, and 
 its date of filing should be noted in the proper book. 
 
 This instrument, if found in said archives, raio^ht be 
 presented here in the form of a copy of it, duly authenticated 
 by the keeper of such records, and then it would have a stand- 
 ing before the government of the United States for consid- 
 atiou. 
 
 As the case now stands, this Ex. A appears as a dislocated 
 fragniQnt from the parent source; and what that source is 
 should be proven first by the claimant against the government 
 of the United States and why or how it came into the claim- 
 ant's hands without due authorization. 
 
 An attempt is made to authenticate this Ex. A by a 
 pretended certificate signed by President Santa Ana, at the 
 bottom of the last page, but it is so blotted and torn that it is 
 impossible to make out what the purport of the authentication 
 is. It appears to be a private letter of Santa Ana without 
 having the countersign of the minister of foreign relations or 
 the seal ot state ot the Republic of Mexico. 
 
 Santa Ana does not say either that Ex. A is a copy or an 
 original or that there is any record of said instrument in any 
 archives of Mexico. 
 
 Nor is President Santa Ana the proper person to say the 
 document is a copy of anything in the archives of Mexico, 
 because, though president he is not the keeper of any archives, 
 and his declaration would not be proof of such fact. Nor was it 
 within the scope of the duties or customs of the president ot 
 
94 
 
 SURVEYOR GENERAL S REPORT. 
 
 Mexico to sign in any way any authentication of this character. 
 The practice was for the keeper of the proper archives to cer- 
 tify them, and for the secretary of state, with the seal to certify 
 to the official character of the keeper. 
 
 To more fully illustrate the inconsistency of the several 
 documents filed in this office, which are alleged to prove that a 
 royal cedula was made by Ferdinand VI, the following copies 
 of each are so arranged in parallel columns as to show at a 
 glance the difference between them. Of course if they ail 
 relate to the same act of King Ferdinand they should be all 
 precisely alike. The column at the left contains the copy 
 found in the pretended will or testament of the alleged Peraltal 
 the middle column, the printed copy and the right hand col- 
 umn the copy in the photograph. 
 
 TESTAMENTARY 
 CEDULA. 
 
 PRINTED 
 CEDtl.A. 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHED 
 CEDULA. 
 
 El Rey Virrey Gov- 
 ernador y Capitan 
 General de las Provin- 
 cias de Nneva Espana 
 y Presidente de mi 
 Real Audiencia que 
 reside en la ciudad de 
 Mejico: 
 
 por 
 parte de fe^mor Don 
 Miguel de Peralta de 
 la Cordoba Capitan de 
 dragones conforme a 
 la suplica de la Yn- 
 quisician Real d e 
 Nueva Espan-a y la 
 recomendacion del con 
 sulado y J u e s d e 
 Alzada? fueion apro- 
 vadas poresoGovierno 
 y llevadas a la junta 
 General militar y en 
 acuerdo de juicio por 
 conciliacion del Fuero 
 Tribunal y en consid- 
 eracion y para la re- 
 compensa de grandes 
 
 El Rey Virrey Gov- 
 ernador y Capitan 
 General de las Provin- 
 eias de Nueva Espana 
 y Presidente de mi 
 Real Audiencia que 
 reside en la ciudad de 
 Mexico. 
 
 por 
 parte d e S r. Don 
 Miguel de Per dta de 
 la '-ordoba ^ * * 
 * * * conforme a 
 la suplica de la Yn- 
 quisicion Real de 
 Nueva Espana y la 
 recomendacion del con 
 sulado y Jues de 
 Alzadas fueron apro- 
 vadas por ese Govierno 
 y llevadas a la junta 
 General militar y en 
 acuerdo de juicio por 
 conciliacion del Fuero 
 Militor y en consid- 
 eracion y para la re- 
 compensa de grandt-s 
 
 El Rey Virrey Gov- 
 ernador y C a p i t a » 
 General delas Frovin- 
 cias de Nueva Espana 
 y Presidente de mi 
 Real Audiencia que 
 res de en la ciudad de 
 Mexico: Por cuanto 
 en atencion a los raeri- 
 tos y servicios por tan- 
 to mando al coman 
 dante. General por 
 parte de Senor Don 
 Miguel de Peralta de 
 la Cordoba Capitan de 
 dragones conforme a 
 la suplica de la Yn- 
 quisicion Real de 
 Nueva Espana y la 
 recomendacion del con- 
 sulado y Jues de 
 Alzados fueron ipro- 
 vadas por eae Govierno 
 y hevadas a la junta 
 General militar y en 
 acuerdo de juicio por 
 conci'iacion del Fuero 
 Tribunal y en consid- 
 eracion y para la re- 
 compensa de grandes 
 
SUKVEYUK UK^JEKAL's liEFUKT. 
 
 95 
 
 y valioras servicios 
 tambien para el modo 
 de conducir pronta- 
 mente las batallos im- 
 portantes en el servicio 
 d-el Rey: Yo el Eey' 
 de Espana por este 
 mandato y decreto pub- 
 lico en conformidad a 
 Ijs costumbres d« la 
 corona recomiendo el 
 .e\mo virrey de Nueva 
 Espana en mi nombre 
 ortorgai y conceder al 
 Sr. D. Miguel de 
 Pei-alta de la cordoba 
 M e d i (1 a C o m u u 
 trescientas leguas cua- 
 dradwsodie* y nuevo 
 mil Docientos m i 1- 
 ]iones vans ciiadrados 
 de tierra seran sitnado 
 eii septentrionales del 
 Vireino de Nueva Es- 
 pana y ser tal fo-ma 
 que no molesia con- 
 cessiones antles, sin 
 embargo incluir todos 
 las tierras aguas y cor- 
 rientes * '••" todos las 
 rainerales y todas otras 
 cor as pertenecientes: 
 V decliirj el tituU) iiono 
 rable del Sr D Mi- 
 <,'uel de Peralta * * 
 * * ser cabal lero 
 de los Colorados con 
 Grandeza asi lo prove 
 yo, Mandn v firino 
 techa en .Vadrid a 
 veinte de Dicimbre de 
 Mil setecientos v cuar 
 enta y ocho Fernanios 
 Yo el Rey con snbrlca 
 sjUo de Espana Por 
 manda to del Rey 
 rauestro sryo minestro 
 y decano del consejo 
 de estado he anotadj. 
 aqiii el Sello Grande 
 de Estado D Jose de 
 Carvajal y Lancaster. 
 [2n.f Forg-ery.) 
 
 y valioras servicios 
 tambien para el modo 
 de conducir pronta- 
 mente las batalios im- 
 portantes en el servicio 
 del Rey: Yo el Rey 
 de Espana por este 
 mandato y decreto pub- 
 lico en conformidad a 
 las costura^^re* de la 
 corona recomiendo el 
 exmo Virrey de * ^■ 
 Espana en mi nombre 
 otorgai y conceder al 
 'Sr. Don Miguel de 
 Heralta * ■■ * ^ 
 M e d i d a coma n 
 trescienta-' lezuas cua- 
 drados * * 
 
 * * * 19,200,000,- 
 000 v-xras cuadrados 
 de tierra seran situado 
 en septentrionales del 
 Vireino de Nueva Es- 
 pana y sel tal forma 
 que no molesto con- 
 cesiones antes, sin 
 embargo incluir todas 
 las tierras aguas y cor- 
 rientes * * todos las 
 minerales y todas otras 
 coras pertenecient?s: 
 y declaivi' el titulo bono 
 rable deKS";- Don Mi- 
 guel de Peralta * * 
 
 * * ser caballero 
 de las Colorados * * 
 
 * * asi lo prove 
 vo, Mando y iirmo 
 fecha en Madrid a 
 veinte de Diciembre de 
 Mill y setecientos y 
 cuarenta V oclio * * 
 Yo, el Rev '" * 
 
 * * • * Por 
 
 Manda to del Rey 
 nut'stfo Sr yo ministro 
 y decana del consejo 
 de Estado he ancxado 
 aqui el Sello Grande 
 de Estado Don Jose de 
 Carvajal y Lancaster. 
 (/.■/ Fortyry) 
 
 y valioras servicios 
 tambien para el' modo 
 de conducir pronta- 
 mente las batallos im- 
 portantes en el servicio 
 del Rey: Yo el Rey 
 de Espana por este 
 mandato y decreto pub- 
 lic- en conformidad a 
 los costunbres de ia 
 corona recomiendo el 
 exmo Virrey de Nueva 
 Espana en mi nombre 
 otorgary conceder al 
 Senor Don Miguel de 
 Peralta de la cordoba 
 Medida comde CaatiUon 
 trescientas lezuas cua- 
 drados o dies y nueve 
 mil Docientos mil- 
 liones varas cuadrados 
 de tierra seran situado 
 en septentrionales del 
 Vereino de Nueva Es- 
 pana y ser tal forma 
 que no molest? con- 
 cesiones antes, sin 
 embargo incluir todas 
 las tierras aguas y cor- 
 rientes y todos 1 a s 
 minerales y todas otras 
 c; ' • r a s pertencientes: 
 y declaivel titnlo bono 
 rable del S«c7r Don Mi 
 guel de Peralta de la 
 Cordoba ser caballero 
 de las Colorados con 
 Grandeza asi lo prove 
 yo, Mando y firmo 
 fecba en Madrid a 
 veinte de Dicimbre de 
 Mill y setecientos y 
 cuarenta v ocho * * 
 Yo el ReV * * •■ 
 
 Mtmda to del Rey 
 S7' Senor yo ministro 
 V decaijo del consejo 
 de Estado lie anotjdo 
 aqni el Sello Grande 
 de Estado Don Jose de 
 Carvajal y Lancaster 
 {~rd Forrery) 
 
96 SURVEYOR GENERAI/S REPORT. 
 
 The foregoing parallel copies: the printed, the photographed 
 and .the testamentary cedula filed in this office present a Dar 
 winian development towards the perfection of the forgery 
 though the successive corrections are not always an im'prove- 
 ment on the printed copy, which was filed first. 
 
 For instance, ths printed copy contains the words "Fuero 
 Militar" which are very proper. The other copies make it 
 "Fuero Trlbunar a barbarism having no meaning in the 
 Spanish language. Notice the word "Molesto" this word is 
 tonnd in the printed copy as "molesto" which translated 
 means "I molest," in the testamentary copy it is rendered 
 '•Molesta" which means "he molests," and the last development 
 is found in thg photo thus "Moleste'' wuich means "that he may 
 not molest." This is an improvement, for it means "that the 
 concession may not molest" other concessions. 
 
 The printed copy has the word "declara" "he declares," a 
 very improper expression for the king to use, as he commences 
 speaking in the first person; but the other copies mend it by 
 putting the proper tense "dcclaio" "I declare." 
 
 It is evident that when writing the pretended will of el 
 Sr. Don Miguel de Peralta y Si\nchez, Ex. A is the instrument 
 alluded to as the original, as appears by examining article 6th 
 of that testament, as it refers to it, beginning with the frontice 
 page thus a cross, red sealing wax, and a piece of white paj)er 
 where appears to have been a seal. Libro que solo sirve de 
 apuntar etc., etc., and so it goes on to describe minutely 
 the printed copy vvith every flourish and pretended seal on it, 
 only that a few words are added or changed with or without 
 success to better the meaning of the cedula. 
 
 In the printed cedula and in a corresponding place in the 
 statement or copy in the testament of Peralta y Sanchez we 
 find in the one these words, "del padre Exmo Sr Tameron Obispo 
 de Nuevo Mexico". In the testament this is rendered so, "del 
 padre exm Sr Tameron Obispo de Guardiana, y Guliacan y 
 Nuevo Mexico." 
 
 The persons who are supposed to speak here are the grand 
 inquisitors, ecclesiastics of a very high degree, and who should 
 
SUKVEYUK GENERAL'S KEPOKT. 97 
 
 have known the proper address for a bishop, yet they use the 
 expression "Exrao" that is "his excellency" which is entirely 
 a civil dignity while a bishop's title is "Su Senoria" and in 
 1757 they had great care to use correct titles; yet these grand 
 Inquisitors did not know the title of a bishop. 
 
 Of the Testaments. 
 
 These two instruments are written in the same peculiar bad 
 Spanish of Ex. A and the photograph. Thesteryotyped begin- 
 ning of them both are correct enough and must have been copied 
 trom some form book, or old wills, but the moment the testators 
 come to the business on hand to inject into the body of the 
 wills the pretended grant, the Caballero de los Colorados 
 Grandee of Spain and his son Miguel de Peralta y Sanchez, 
 suddenly lose all control of the Spanish language and begin 
 to speak California cow-boy jargon. 
 
 The Caballero de los Colorados in Art. 5 of his will though' 
 he speaks throughout in the first person, when he mentions 
 the grant of three hundred leagues says, speaking: of this pre- 
 tended grant "which was granted to Don Miguel de Peralta de 
 la Cordoba y Caballero de los Colorados" as if this person was 
 somebody else and nott'>e testator himself. The will is signed 
 by the testate r; the notary says he did so, dated Jany. 3. 1783. 
 Then follows a codicil in very bad Spanish, in which the name 
 of the Caballero de los Colorados is said to be a copy, "es 
 copia" but the notary and all the witnesses, the Bishop of 
 Guatemala and the heir apparent, "the child" Miguel Peralta, 
 join wRh genuine signatures; we see this plainly, because the 
 claimant has furnished this office with a photographic copy of 
 the notary's "minuta" or record. 
 
 The will appears to have been made in Mexico Jany. 3rd 
 1783 before a notary, Joseph Avalos. The codicil is made in 
 Guadalajara, before a great number of witnesses including a 
 bishop and a judge. The question arises, how did all these 
 witnesses si2:n a codicil on the notarial records of a notarv in 
 
98 SUKVEYUK GEWJ^JKAl/S KKrOKT. 
 
 the City of Mexico? and by what process did the notarial 
 records of a Mexican notary get transported to Madrid? 
 
 And what force can a record that belongs in Mexico have 
 when found in a foreign country? Even if Mexico now 
 belonged to Spain this record would not probably be in Madrid? 
 and could not be authenticated from there, so as to entitle it to 
 any faith or credit. 
 
 We might attribute many of the features presented here, as 
 the mistakes of an amanuensis, but the claimant has furnished 
 us with photographic copies of the very record; and there 
 appear the genuine signatures of seven witnesses, among them 
 two lawyers, recited as being known for their truthfulness, a 
 judge and the seal of his office, a bishop, who is of course 
 i;ifallible, and all these persons say they signed said document 
 on Jany, 3rd, 1708? Just forty years before this pretended 
 grant is dated. But there is nothing wonderful in the history 
 of this alleged Peralta grant. To retrograde fortv years is not 
 as difficult a task as to make Ferdinand the VI and Charles II [ 
 and all the grandees and dons of Spain of the lust century, 
 speak the cow-boy Spanish of California of our day. Napoleon 
 said it and Reavis accomplished it, the word impossible is not 
 in his dictionary. 
 
 Tkere vv*s uo law in existence at the time, viz: 1783, thnt 
 required a testament to be made before a notary, see Pandectos 
 Espafia Mexicano, Vol. Ill Partida 6, title 1, page 596. Nor 
 had the said notary, by any law, the authority to enter into 
 his records a copy or minutes of the said testament. Nor did 
 such entry give it any force. 
 
 The original or true testament of which the Ex's in AAA 
 & BBB are supposed to be copies, should be in the hands of 
 the claimant, who should have received it from the adminis- 
 trators of the ancestors, and on that will there should appear, 
 under the certificate of the judge, where the Caballero de los 
 Colorados died, that the witnesses were called, examined, and 
 their testimony entered on the will itself, or attached to it, and 
 so certified by the judge, the will should have been given to the 
 "Al-bacca." A note of everything done, and the testimony of 
 
SUKVEYOK GENERAL'S KEPUKT. 99 
 
 each witness signed by him, and all countersigned by the judge 
 sh )a!d and would have remained in the records of the court if 
 they were gea nine. Hence if the Caballero de los Colorados 
 died at Guadahijara in 1788, the record of his will and the 
 opening of it (what we call the probate of it) should be found 
 in the archives of the judge of 1st instance in Guadalajara. 
 
 See Pandectas Esp. Mexicanos Vol. Ill, Partida 6, Title 
 II, pg, 608. And this would have been the proper record to 
 have been brought here to prove the existence of the will and 
 the probation of it. We might just as well produce the notes 
 from the minute book of a justice of the peace of our CHirts to 
 prove the will of any person in Arizona. 
 
 We might just as well say here that the record, or nota>. 
 torial archives of the notary "Joseph Avelas" located in the 
 City of Mexico in 1783, should be to this day in the hands of 
 his successor in office. For notaries in Spain and Mexico in 
 the last and in the present century, eveii today, are officers of 
 the state for certain purposes only, and berond fhese purposes 
 their acts are without authority, and their records are not 
 private but public records, which are transferred to the suc- 
 cess'^r of the incumbent after his death. See Pandectos Spano 
 Mexicanos, Vol. T, page 414, Laws XXVI. 
 
 The notary in Spanish countries being the depositories of 
 local transactions, their records are held af6 public for their 
 localities, and when one of them dies, the judge immediately 
 takes possession of his archives, aud keeps them sealed till a 
 successor is appointed, when he delivers them to him, setting a 
 certain price or value which the new notary has to pay to the 
 family of the deceased. See id — Law XXV. 
 
 I cannot see then how the records of a Mexican notary 
 got transferred to the city of Madrid, in Spain. 
 
 Of the Testament of Miguel Peralta de la Cordoba y 
 Sanchez. This testament purports to have been written by the 
 said testator, and he calls himself a native of Campas (a little 
 town in Sonora) and "residente en la ictualidad," that is "now 
 
100 SDRVEYOR general's REPORT. 
 
 residing" in the city of Herraosillo, and this expression is char 
 acterized by bad Spanish. 
 
 The evident purpose of this will appears to have been 
 to fix the family of the present alleged Baroness de los Colora- 
 dos; as it describes in broken Spanish (spoken by a supposed 
 native of Sonora, and son of a Grandee of Spain) the birth of 
 Sophia and her marriage with Maso; then both conveniently 
 die, leaving twins, a boy whose death is described in a jargon 
 resembling Dutch, leaving Sophia Loreta Mecaela Maso y 
 Peralta de la Cordoba, with a clear field to inherit alone the 
 Baronial estate of Peralta. Then it goes on, and undertakes 
 by his own declarations to prove the great Peralta grant, by 
 copyinor the whole of Ex. A only that there are some few 
 changes made in order to make it better as herein above noted. 
 This will is made out at Hermosillo, but like everything else 
 in this pretended Peralta grant, a notary of San Francisco is 
 made to officiate as the attesting oflSoer, without witnesses, 
 dated Jan. 2nd, 1863. 
 
 This alleged Peralta grant is full of surprises. An ordi- 
 nary mortal would have had his will authenticated by resi- 
 dents of the place where he is. Mr. Peralta gets a notary of 
 San Francisco to do it. 
 
 Again, this alleged Peralta, appears at the "Villa de 
 Madrid," before another notarv — Bernardo Diaz de Antonana 
 (as we might say the village of New York) and makes a codi"* 
 cil, marked as Article 11th, and in worse Spanish than any 
 prior attempt, reiterating the fact that the present claimant 
 provides that the Countess Sophia, etc., etc., is to take posses- 
 sion of the Peralta property. 
 
 The notary here says that the original will and papers 
 and maps were sent to the administrator appointed, to-wit, to 
 Antonio Pablo Peralta, of San Bernardino, California, and 
 that he, the said notary, kept copies of all of said papers. 
 
 This will, as it comes before this office as to the notarial 
 record, etc., etc., is subject to the same remarks herein above 
 
SURVEYOR general's REPORT. 101 
 
 made as to that of the Caballero de los Colorados himself. 
 
 However this third paper brings out some new features of 
 importance. In the prior will, this same testator Miguel 
 Peralta de U Cordoba, signs the codicil with his own hand, 
 though he is called "nino,'' child. That was in 1788. Now 
 he makes his will and the notary declares that the old 
 gentleman, in April 1 1th of 1865, was 84 years of age. By 
 an easy calculation this testator appears to have been only 
 five years old in 1788, when his signature indicates an old 
 practiced hand. For we hnve his photographic copy as fur- 
 nished by claimant on file in this office. 
 
 It appears then that the original will is somewhere on 
 this continent, and it should be produced. 
 
 Of the testimony presented by the photograph of two pages 
 of a book of records of the Mission of San Javier del Bac. 
 
 These photos show on their face that they are forgeries, 
 interpolated in said book by interested parties: 
 
 1st. Because the handwriting is entirely different and 
 niadein different ink and with;a steel pen. 
 
 X i^J- 
 
 2nd. Because the said inscription 
 begins with the Jesuit monogram 
 
 which to use was tantamont to being thrown into prison in 1788, 
 because Father Paner (Paver) was in 1767 expelled from 
 Spanish-America and Spain lo Italy, and it would have been 
 death for him to be at San Javier del Bac in 1788. See 
 Bancroft's History of Mexico Northern States Vol. XV; 
 pages 549-580. The Jesuits left Souora in the beginning of 
 1768, see page 578. 
 
 3rd. The testimony of Thomas H. McMulIen shows 
 that he has seen and examined the original book of parts of 
 which these photographs were made, and that the page or 
 r^heet upon which the entry is made, that the claimant relies 
 upon, lias been interpolated since the book was bound, that 
 the paper is entirely different fVom that made use of in the 
 
102 SURVEYOR GENERAL'S REPORT. 
 
 remainder of the book. 
 
 ~ This alleged Peralta grant was not made or executed 
 in the forms and in the manner required by the customs 
 and laws of the times 1748 to 1776. 
 
 Though the kings of Spain were absolute monarchs at that 
 ^time, yet in order to transact the business of so vast an empire 
 hey themselves established certain rules and regulations, cer- 
 tain channel and ministers to carry out their will and govern 
 their dominions. 
 
 For an instance, any order the king made, signed by his 
 name "Yo el Rey" had the force of law all over the Spanish 
 empire yet such a document in Spain would have had no force if 
 it was not countersigned by his prime minister. 
 
 In the government of his American possessions the king 
 of Spain made the Laws 1st, 2nd and 3rd Title I, Book 2nd 
 "de la Recompilacion de ludias" and law 40 Title I, Book 20 
 of the **Nueva Recompilacion" which laws provide that no 
 decree, law, order or cedula, made by the king should have 
 any force or effect in the American Colonies belon^jfing to 
 Spain, unless such law, decree, order or cedula was adopted by 
 the "Consejo de Indias" and published by that body where it 
 was intended to take effect. 
 
 See alio Bancroft's History of Mexico, Vol. XI. page 51 9. 
 
 See also Hall's Mexican Law, page 13. Here at the end 
 of a cedula of the king it has these words "Dated in Pardo the 
 1st of Nov. 1591. 1, the King:. By order of the king our lord 
 Juan de Harrar. By decree of the 12th of March 1593, it 
 was ordered that the foregoing royal cedula should be obeyed 
 and published. And Bancroft, in the page above quoted says: 
 <'Its jurisdiction (the council of the Indies) extended to every 
 department, civil, military, ecclesiastic and commercial, even 
 the Pope having here to submit for approval his bulls and 
 briefs concerning the Indies." 
 
 But where is this pretended cedula of the alleged Peralta 
 referred for consideration and approval? To the Chamber of 
 
SURVEYOR GENERAL'S REPORT. 103 
 
 the Holy Tribunal of the Inquisition of the City of Mexico! 
 It is assumed that Peralta was so great a man and his privileges 
 were so great that the king resolved to break through the 
 "Customs of the Crown" and all existing laws, pass over the 
 heads of his council of the Indies, which superintended even 
 the commands of the Popes, and ordered the viceroy to grant 
 the land; that in spite of the laws above quoted, by which the 
 king's command of their viceroys and governors of all his 
 dominions in A^merica, that under no circumstances evftn his 
 own orders should be respected or obeyed unless the same had 
 received the sanction of the "Consejo de Indias" in the face of 
 all these laws and customs, the viceroy did give effect to the 
 cedula in favor of Peralta. And yet the name of this pretended 
 great man is not found in the history of Spain or Mexico. 
 Then again this cedula it is claimed, was first approved by the 
 Council of the Inquisition, who never did have the power to 
 receive, consider or approve cedulas of the king. 
 
 Then again it is claimed that this same council of the 
 Holy Inquisition took upon itself the task of finding the loca^ 
 tion of the pretended grant and that upon its recommendation 
 the viceroy ordered Peralta himself with the help of a Jesuit 
 priest to go and locate and survey the said grant to suit his 
 own exclusive will and fancy. 
 
 And where did Peralta locate his three hundred leagues? 
 Why, it is claimed that he went to Sonora, to the Prineria 
 Alta, outside of the jurisdiction of the viceroy of New Spain, 
 and located them. And that the viceroy granted them to him. 
 And it is further claimed that all this chain of blunders 
 is finally approved by Charles III in 1776 and referred for 
 record to the Holy Tribunal of the Inquisition of Mexico. 
 
 Ha^'ing exposed the first blunder in this pretended grant 
 namely: that it did not pass before the "Consejo de Indias" we 
 come to the second that it was submitted to the Inquisition. 
 
 We may read all the history of Spanish America and all 
 the laws contained in the recompilations of Spain and of the 
 Indies, and we have vet to see where this tribunal, whose 
 
104 SDKVEYOK CjtENEKAL'S KEPOKT. 
 
 institution was established to burn heretics and Turks, was 
 empowered to measure, locale or deliver possession of land. 
 It is incumbent on the claimant to prove the law under which 
 the proceedings in his pretended grant were executed; this he 
 has totally failed to do. See Hall's Mx law. Chap. II. In 
 this chapter is a compilation of the land laws of Spain, which 
 was entirely under the control of the civil branch of the Gov- 
 ernment, and nowhere do we see that the inquisition or any 
 priest had the granting; or surveying of lands except in the 
 following cases. The only instance where we find the priests 
 acting as grantors of lands is in the early missionary period ot 
 Lower California and Pimeria of Sonora, but that was when 
 the Jesuits were empowered to manage both the civil and the 
 ecclesiastical affairs, and then, their power was limited to 
 granting lots and small farms near the Pueblos and Missions. 
 But this priestly rule did not last long, and we see that in 
 1693 a Governor was appointed in Sonora. See Bancroft's, 
 XV page 258; and that in 1734 Sonora and Sinaloa were raised 
 to the dignity of an independent province, subject only to the 
 viceroy of Mexico as subordinates in military matters, yet 
 even in military matters the viceroy did not have an indepen- 
 dent power in Sonora, and what power he did exercise was not 
 independent of the Governor of Sonora, but through him- 
 See Bancroft's XV, page 520. From 1734 down to and since 
 1776, the period covered by the proceedings here mentioned, 
 this state of things continued. In certain civil proceedings 
 and for all matters concerning lands, Sonora belonged to the 
 dominion of the Audiencia of Guadalajara that is Nueva 
 Galieia. 
 
 We find in Hall's Mx laws, page 5, Sec. 12, that under 
 the land laws of 1754, which cover the period here in question, 
 Sonora was in land matters under the jurisdiction of the 
 Audiencia of Guadalajara, which had the disposal of lands 
 therein. The law itself of 1754, is fully set forth in Hall's 
 Mx. laws, page 26. 
 
 This pretended Peralta grant was petitioned for in 1748* 
 
SUKVEYUK UENKKAL'S KEPOKT. 105 
 
 directly to the King and in this respect only might the pro- 
 ceeding have been regular, because at that period the law so 
 provided. See Hall's Mexican law, page 14, Sec. 27. 
 
 But it is not pretended that anything was done with the 
 Peralta claim till the report of the mquisitors in October lOthi 
 1757, just four years after the new law had come into effect, 
 and after the power to grant lands was delegated by the King 
 to the Audienciasof Mexico for the Southern, provinces, and to 
 that of Guadalajara for the northern provinces of North 
 America. See Hall's Mexican laws, page 17. et seq. 
 
 Anyway, if Peralta claims his grant was under the law 
 of 1735, that law only g:oes as far as to reserve to the King, 
 the right to receive petitions for lands and confirm them after 
 they have been lo<^ated, surveyed and determined, leaving all 
 those formalities to be settled under the laws in book 4, title 
 12. In these laws, it is expressly said that all the intermedi- 
 ate steps between the petition and the approval of the Kings, 
 shall be made by the viceroy. Governor or other civil officer 
 having jurisdiction of the locality. 
 
 But the law of 1754 does not leave any room to doubt 
 that all proceedings or incomplete grants after that date had 
 to be governed by the new law, and that the grants were re 
 quired to be made bv the Audiencias. Hall's Mx. law, page 
 31-32, Sec. 66. 
 
 This law prescribes who shall make the surveys and who 
 shall make the grant; what proceedings must be followed, all 
 in a minute and detailed manner. 
 
 According to the laws both of 1735 and 1754 the pro- 
 ceedings in this case should be as follows, viz : The cedula 
 of the King should : 
 
 1st. Have been sanctioned by the ''Concijo de Indias." 
 
 2nd. It should have been remitted to th viceroy, who 
 should have endorsed it, and then, 
 
 3rd. Remitted it to the Captain General, or Governor of 
 8onora or Sinaloa, the land being located in his jurisdiction. 
 
 4th. The Governor, of Sonora should have endorsed it, 
 and added an order to the head of the civil and military 
 
106 SUKVKYOK GENKKAl^'S KEFOKT. 
 
 authority at Tiibac, which was the northernmost military post 
 and presidio under direct civil Hpanish rule at the time. (See 
 Bancroft XV, page 559.) To go to the place chosen by the 
 claimant, and start the proceedings by making publication, 
 calling all neighbors and former grantees to appear and pre- 
 sent objections if they had any. 
 
 5th. The report in full of all the proceedings, testimony, 
 survey certified to, returned to the Governor. 
 
 6th. The Governor endorsing the proceedings, sends them 
 to the Audiencia of Guadalajara who issues its grant. 
 
 7th. These Procotols, which by this time in the Peralto 
 claim should have amounted to a small vohime of fifty closely 
 written pages is kepi by the Audiencia, and a copy of it, with 
 the original deed of grant attached on the last page of the e.x. 
 pedients should have been given to Peralta. (Hall's Mx. 
 law, page 71, Sec. 172-1773.) 
 
 As this pretended Peralta grant if ever made, wns issued 
 under two laws; initiated under law of 1735 and finished under 
 law of 1754 it should be found in the recordts. 
 
 1st. Of Madrid. 
 
 2nd. Of a Viceroy of Mexico. 
 
 3rd. In records of the Audencia of Guadnlajara. (See 
 Hall's Mx. law, page 73, Sec. 174-177-1778. 
 
 When in fact not one of those requisite steps appear to 
 have been takeij and no evidence is found in either of the 
 places where it would be if the grant had actually been made. 
 
 Many grants made from 1648 to 1800 now found in the 
 archives of Sonorahave been examined and in none of them 
 are found the bad Spanish used in this pretended cedula. 
 
 The golden age of theCastilian language was the sixteenth 
 century when Calderon, De la Vega, Cervantes and many- 
 others wrote, and their works then crystallized the language, 
 and made it what it is now; and those who pretend to speak 
 Castilian well take the pattern from those authors. 
 
 This pi'^tended cedula has more faults in it than it has 
 words. One word often has two and three niistakes of ortho-" 
 graph y and grammar. 
 
 The whole thing \<ii bold attempt of some person ignorant 
 
SOKVEYOK UENEKAL'S KEPOKT. 107 
 
 of Spanish history, law cr language. Even the stereotyped 
 form employed in the cedula of the Kings of Spain is want- 
 ing. In this pretended cedula of Ferdinand VI or that of 
 Carlos III, the King commences his decree in the same man- 
 ner as any other mortal; in the one it commences : 
 
 "El Rey virrey Governador y Capitan General,." and the 
 other, that of Carlos III is characterized by the same sim- 
 plicity; whereas the forms made use of by Carlos III in all 
 hiscedulas occupied many lines in a preliminary recital of his 
 titles. The following is the form usually employed by Carlos 
 III as appears by an examination of his published cedulas 
 known to be genuine, viz: 
 
 "Don Carlos, Por la Gracia De Dios Rey de Castilla, de- 
 Leon, de Aragon, de las dos Sicilias, de Jerusalen, de Navarra, 
 de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Mallorca, 
 de Sevilla, de Cerdeiia, de Cordova, deCorcega, de Murcia, de 
 Jaen, de los Algarves, de Algecira, de Gibraltar, de las Islas 
 de Canaria, de las Indias Orientales, y Occidentales Islas y 
 Tierra-Firn)edel Mar Oceauo, Archiduquede Austria, Duque 
 de Borgoua, de Bravante, y Milan, Conde de Abspurg, Flandes, 
 Tirol, Barcelona, Senor de Vizcaya, y de Molina, etc., etc." 
 Even these common and usual recitals in the cedulas of the kings 
 of Spain are utterly ignored; and the pretended cedula recom- 
 mending the grant to l)e made by the Viceroy of New Spain fol- 
 low the simple form now in use by the presidents of the several 
 republics in the world; which corroborates the correctness of the 
 view herein expressed that these documents were prepared by 
 persons who never lived under a monarchical government, but 
 whose education, inspiratijn and surroundings were those found 
 only among the people who reside on the Pacific Coast of tlie 
 U niied States of America. 
 
 I therefore respectfully subijiit that this claim is entirely 
 
 unsupported by any evidence; and that it should be given no 
 
 recognition by tlie government of tlie United States under the 
 
 treaty between the Republic of Mexico and the United States. 
 
 Respectfullv submitted, 
 
 CLARK CHURCHILL, 
 Counsel for settlers upon lands covered by the })retended grant.