White] THE PUEBLO OF SIA, NEW MEXICO 73 
The council, on its side, took the position that anyone who lived 
in the pueblo had to abide by all the rules and customs of the com- 
munity. All land belonged to the community; individuals merely 
had rights to use it, but only under certain conditions. The com- 
munity work required of everyone was to be regarded as a form of 
taxation, and no one had the right to exempt himself from these 
obligations. 
The converts continued to hold their meetings. ‘They would 
holler, cry, and laugh during their meetings.” Their preaching and 
‘hollering’ at night meetings disturbed nearby residents. Members 
of the congregation of the heretics’ church in Albuquerque, Negroes, 
used to come to Sia to help hold meetings. A group of them came 
up when San Juanito Moquino died. ‘“They pretended that they 
could talk a strange language, but it was just gibberish that they 
talked.” 
In 1946 Viviano and Juan Pedro Herrera were brought before the 
council. Two years later the council called William Brophy, special 
counsel to the Pueblo Indians, to settle the affair. Antonio Mirabal, 
a Taos Indian who was at that time a law enforcement officer of the 
Indian Service, was there, too. In the end, some of the heretics were 
requested to leave the pueblo; others were permitted to stay. Viviano 
was not requested to leave, but he was told that he would have to 
take his cattle off pueblo grazing lands. Some promised to abide by 
the rules of the pueblo in order to be allowed to remain, ‘‘but they did 
not live up to their promises” [Ascenciona Herrera Galvan appears to 
have been one exception to this statement at least]. Benina was quite 
willing to leave and take her children with her. 
A suit was filed by the heretics against the Pueblo of Sia on Novem- 
ber 25, 1947: “Viviano Herrera et al. v. Pino et al. and Pueblo of Zia, 
No. 1297 Civil, U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.” 
Perfecto Pino was the governor, Joe Medina the lieutenant governor, 
of Sia at the time. In a document dated March 15, 1948, the defend- 
ants stated that tribal judgment was rendered on March 1, 1939, 
“by which the plaintiff’s membership in the Zia tribe was cancelled 
together with all his rights therewith.” This action was taken be- 
cause the plaintiffs refused to do community work; the defendants 
denied that the plaintiffs’ joining a Protestant sect had anything to 
do with their action. The defendant “has no knowledge of the reli- 
gious affiliations, if any, of the plaintiff,” the court records say. 
The plaintiff declared that the pueblo did: (1) cancel his member- 
ship in the pueblo; (2) refuse to allow his stock water and grazing; 
(3) direct him to leave his home; and (4) deprive him of his farmlands. 
The plaintiff averred that the officers of the pueblo gave as their reason 
for their action the fact that he had become a Protestant and had 
