occupation. A few are missing. These singularly interesting documents contain, for each marriage, statements by both of the contracting parties, and by the parents of each, concerning the age, character, social position, property, etc., of the prospective bride and groom. All this was a ceremony under the auspices of the church, and records of the proceedings were left with the priest. Enough evidence has been presented here to show that the church archives at Albuquerque are not only of great importance, but that they are probably the most important in New Mexico. CHURCH ARCHIVES AT SANTA FE. Baptismal and birth record (both in same entry), 1747-1909, 18 volumes. Only a few entries for 1766–1770. Marriage record, 1728–1909, 6 volumes. No records for 1783-1821. Funeral record, 1726-1909, 9 volumes. Early records confused. No record for 1834-1845. Undoubtedly there are other records of priceless value at Santa Fe aside from these merely formal records; but the writer gained access to none but these. ARCHIVES OF THE CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE, TAOS. Record of baptisms, marriages, and funerals (in same book), 1799-1826, 1 volume. Baptismal record, 1789-1908, 17 volumes. First volume covers 1789-1799; second begins with 1827. Marriage record, 1827-1908, 7 volumes. Funeral records, 1827-1908, 6 volumes. Confirmation records, 1830-1850 and 1894-1908, 2 volumes. Diligéncias matrimoniales, 1830-1847. Five bunches containing probably 125 documents. (For explanation see Archives of San Felipe, Albuquerque, above.) ARCHIVES OF ARROYO HONDO PARISH, TAOS. Baptismal record, 1852-1869, 2 volumes. During the period 1852-1869 Arroyo Hondo was an independent parish. Now it is a part of the parish of the Church of Our Lady of Guadalupe, at Taos, and its records are part of the records of that church. Those covering the period 1852-1869 are in the keeping of the parish priest at Taos. ARCHIVES OF THE SAN JUAN CHURCH AT CHAMITA. Baptismal record, 1726-1908, 12 volumes. Complete except for parts of a few volumes that have been lost, particularly of the volume for 1853-54. Marriage record, 1726-1776, 1 volume; 1829-1855, a bunch of loose records making about one volume; 1857-1908, 2 volumes. No records at all for 1776-1829 and 1855-1857. Funeral record, 1726-1908, 6 volumes. Early records very few and irregular. None at all for 1826-1851 and 1855-1857. ARCHIVES OF SANTA CRUZ CHURCH AND SURROUNDING MISSIONS. I. Santa Cruz. Baptismal record, 1731–1908, 11 volumes. No record for the year 1768. Marriage record, 1726-1908, 7 volumes. No records for 1768, 1795, and 1870-1885. Funeral record, 1726-1908, 5 volumes. No record for 1781-1795. II. Surrounding missions. Baptismal records: San Ildefonso and Nambe, 1779-1876, 3 volumes. No record for 1840-1853. Nambe and Pojoaque, 1772-1837, 1 volume. Santa Clara, 1841-1854, 1 volume. Marriage records: San Ildefonso, 1728-1880, 2 volumes. No record for 1853-54. Santa Clara, 1726-1846, 1 volume. Pojoaque, 1780-1853, 1 volume. Nambe, 1772-1862, 1 volume. Funeral records: San Ildefonso, 1840-1875, 2 volumes. Nambe, 1772-1869, 1 volume. CHURCH ARCHIVES AT MORA. Baptismal record, 1856-1908, 7 volumes. CONCLUSION. Before closing this report I wish to direct attention to some general conditions which have come to my notice during these investigations, some of which have already come out in the body of the report. 1. In almost every group of archives the records for certain data or period have been reported as "missing," or, sometimes that there is "no record," which in most cases means the same thing. There is, however, evidence in some of these cases tending to show that there never was any record. But what became of those that have disappeared? They have gone in many ways. It seems highly probable that the larger part of them have been carried away by curio hunters both from within and without the Territory. I am reliably informed that scholars have in some cases secured access to groups of these old records, and that after their departure old manuscripts were missing which had been there for generations before. Such abuse of confidence as this has made the church records almost inaccessible, and except under the eye of a keeper, absolutely so. My letters of introduction from the chairman of the public archives commission and a few influential citizens of the Territory gained me access to the ordinary archives everywhere that I desired it, with one exception. One priest, who would not allow me to enter his archives room, was gracious enough to go through the records for me and furnish a complete written statement of their contents. This is strong evidence of the fear of having some document carried away by anyone who gets a chance. 2. In all the archives, Territorial, county, and church, more or less confusion is apparent in the early records. It is not uncommon to find two or even three volumes of the same record for the same years. For example, one for 1847-1860, a second for 1850-1858, and perhaps even a third for 1854-1859. This simply indicates the carelessness and complete lack of system which prevailed in early days, and which has found its way down to very recent times. 3. I should regret, however, if anything that I have said should be construed as reflecting on the present Territorial officials or recorders in the various counties visited. For there is every evidence that during the last decade or two they have been performing their duties faithfully. The archives are in fireproof vaults, and, except in a few counties, are in steel cases. It is very much to be regretted that none of the church archives are in any place of safe-keeping. Even a small safe would be some protection from fire. But there are none. And these priceless records lie unprotected except by the jealous care of their keepers. 4. The prevalence of the Spanish language in every kind of archives is especially noticeable. In the church archives it is used down to the present time to the practical exclusion of English. This, however, would be expected in view of the fact that probably 95 per cent of the Catholics in the Territory are Spanish-speaking people. The county archives furnish a greater variety. In general, it may be said that during the last 15 or 20 years they are in English, and that prior to that time they are in Spanish. Almost every set of records, however, furnishes exceptions to the rule. It is not uncommon to take up a volume of records dating back to 1850, or even earlier, and find numerous entries in English. On the other hand, it is easy to find twentieth century records with little or no English in them. The statements made here concerning the county archives are almost equally true of the Territorial archives in the various departments at Santa Fe. This difference is the most conspicuous: Records in the departmental offices for recent years are exclusively in English. This condition is of special importance to the student of even the most recent periods, since he must have a good command of Spanish in order to use records which are chiefly English. Otherwise he may find himself checked at any time by coming upon a group of Spanish entries. 5. In view of the mixture of languages, I have in this report listed almost everything with the proper English title, unless it is to be found under some specific Spanish caption. In the latter case I have ordinarily given the Spanish title, with English translation when there was an exact English equivalent. 6. There is in New Mexico a rich mass of documentary material in the hands of private individuals who are descended from early Spanish and English settlers. This should be exploited at an early date. It could not be touched upon in this report for want of time and money, and because the report concerns itself only with official or semiofficial archives. |