{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0376061":{"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"CONTENTdm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy":[{"value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1739053","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"British Columbia Historical Books Collection","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"Bancroft, Hubert Howe, 1832-1918","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2019-01-14","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"1886","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"\"Imprint varies : vols.8, 14, 16-17, 22-26, 29-32, 34-39 published by the History Company of San Francisco.<br> The list of authorities quoted in each volume includes mss. now in the Bancroft Library.<br> The Works with changed t.p.'s and binder's titles and without the first five volumes, were published under the title History of the Pacific States of America. For the period up to the I840s, it is necessary to consult all the volumes relating to the northwest Pacific. <br> Bancroft's histories have been bitterly attacked on grounds of prejudice and failure to give adequate recognition to contributing authors. \" . .. produced in a literary factory ... the work of many hands, they are spotty in quality\": - Phil Townsend Hanna in Zamorano 80. \"As time passes and prejudice drifts into obscurity, these works become more strongly entrenched each year. For scholars and investigators they will always remain the greatest source of authority\": - Cowan. <br><br> Contents: vols. 1-5. Native races.- vols.6-8. Central America. vols. 9-I4. Mexico.- Vols.I5-I6. North American states and Texas.- vol.17. Arizona and New Mexico.- vols. 18-24. California.vo1.25. Nevada, Colorado and Wyoming.- vo1.26. Utah.- vols.27- 28. Northwest coast.- vols.29-30. Oregon.- vol.31. Washington, Idaho and Montana.- vo1.32. British Columbia.- vo1.33. Alaska.vo1.34. California pastoral.- vo1.35. California inter poculi.- vols. 36-37. Popular tribunals.- vo1.38. Essays and miscellany.- vo1.39. Literary industries.\"-- Strathern, G. M., & Edwards, M. H. (1970). Navigations, traffiques & discoveries, 1774-1848: A guide to publications relating to the area now British Columbia. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, p.","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcbooks\/items\/1.0376061\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/extent":[{"value":"vii-xv, 792 pages : maps, tables ; 23 cm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format":[{"value":"application\/pdf","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":"     THE  WORKS\nOF\nHUBERT HOWE BANCROFT.\n  THE   WORKS\nHUBERT HOWE BANCROFT.\nVOLUME XX.\nHISTORY OF CALIFORNIA.\nVol. III.    1825-1840.\nSAN   FRANCISCO:\nTHE HISTORY COMPANY, PUBLISHERS.\n1886.\nAn ARNO PRESS book published in cooperation with\nMcGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY\nNew York    Toronto    London    Sydney\n Manufactured in the U.S.A.\nARNO PRESS, INC.\nLibrary of Congress Catalog Card #67-29422\n CONTEISTTS OF THIS VOLUME.\nCHAPTER I.\nA TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\n1825.\nPAGX\nRatification of the Federal Constitution\u2014Junta de California^ in Mexico\n\u2014Compafiia Asiatico-Mexicana\u2014Sessions of the Diputacion\u2014Eche-\nandia Appointed Governor\u2014Transfer of the Office at San Diego\u2014\nBiography of Don Luis Arguello\u2014Echeandla's Companions\u2014Pacheco,\nZamorano, and Ramirez-*-Herrera as Comisario de. Hacienda\u2014The\nMissions\u2014The Padres Refuse Allegiance to the Republic\u2014The Diputacion on Secularization\u2014Padre Duran as.- President\u2014Mission Supplies and Finance\u2014Vessels on the Coast\u2014Surrender of the Asia and\nCamtante\u2014Morrell's Visit and Book \u2014 Commerce \u2014 Foreign Residents\u2014A Rainy Season       1\nCHAPTER II.\nECHEANDfA's RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\n1826-1830.\nNational Measures, 1826\u2014Junta de Fomento\u2014Echeandfa at San Diego\u2014\nGuerra for Congress, 1827-8\u2014Colonization Regulations of 1828\u2014Territorial Diputacion, 1827\u2014Proposed Change of Name\u2014Echeandfa in\nthe North\u2014Diputacion, 1828-30\u2014Election\u2014Maitorena Sent to Congress, 1829-30\u2014Acts of the Supreme Government\u2014Padres as Ayu-\ndante Inspector\u2014Gomez as Asesor\u2014California as a Penal Colony\u2014\nArrival of 130 Convicts\u2014Carrillo Elected to Congress for 1831-2\u2014\nExpulsion of Spaniards, 1827-30\u2014List of Spanish Residents\u2014Echeandla's Appeals for Aid\u2014His Resignation\u2014Appointment of Antonio\nGarcia \u2014 The Californias Separated \u2014 Manuel Victoria Appointed\nGovernor.     31\nCHAPTER III.\nECHEANDFA AND HERRERA\u2014FINANCE\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\n1826-1830.\nHard-times Items \u2014 Aid from Mexico\u2014The Revenues\u2014Comisario and\nHabilitados \u2014 Secret Investigation\u2014Suspension and Resignation\u2014\nEstrada, Vallejo, and Jimeno Casarin as Administrators\u2014Revolt of\n(vii)\n *\"i CONTENTS.\n1828\u2014Revolt of 1829\u2014 Causes\u2014Monterey Taken\u2014Joaquin Solis^*\n\u2014Plan of November 15th\u2014Arguello Declines the Command\u2014Solis\nMarches South\u2014Echeandia's Preparations\u2014Revolt at Santa Barbara\n\u2014Bloodless Battles of Dos Pueblos and Cieneguita\u2014Retreat of Solis\n\u2014Retaking of the Capital\u2014Avila Captures Solis\u2014Trial\u2014The Spanish Flag\u2014Banishment of Herrera and Twenty Conspirators\u2014Financial Affairs in 1829-30..      I       #    50\nCHAPTER IV.\nECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES\u2014MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\n1826-1830.\nMission Prefect and Presidents\u2014The Question of Supplies\u2014The Oath of\nAllegiance\u2014Sarria's Arrest\u2014Friars Still Masters of the Situation-\nCouncil at San Diego\u2014Southern Padres Willing\u2014Northern Padres\nRefuse\u2014Flight of Ripoll and Altimira\u2014The Friars as Spaniards\u2014\nEcheandia's Conciliatory Policy\u2014Petitions of the People\u2014Exile of\nMartinez\u2014Progress towards Secularization\u2014Mexican Policy\u2014Difficulties\u2014Junta of April 1826\u2014Decree of July\u2014Experimental Freedom\u2014Mission Schools and Lands\u2014Plan of 1829-30\u2014Approval of the\nDiputacion\u2014Action in Mexico\u2014Indian Affairs -Sanchez's Expedition\u2014Vallejo's Campaign against Estanislao\u2014Northern Fort\u2014Seasons *  i    gij\nCHAPTER V.\nECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\n1826-1830.\nVessels of 1826\u2014Revenue Rules\u2014Hartnell's Business\u2014Hawaiian Flag-\nCooper and the Mover\u2014Lawsuit with Arguello\u2014Beechey's Visit in\nthe Blossom\u2014Books Resulting\u2014Trading Fleet of 1827\u2014Reglamentos\non Liquors and Live-stock\u2014Embarrassment of McCulloch, Hartnell,\n& Co.\u2014Cunningham at Santa Catalina\u2014Visit of Duhaut-Cilly and\nBotta\u2014Maritime Affairs of 1828\u2014Restrictions\u2014Smuggling\u2014Affair\nof the Franklin\u2014Cannon-balls\u2014Affair of the Karimoko\u2014Vessels of\n1829\u2014Custom-house\u2014Arrival of the Broohline\u2014Gale's Correspondence\u2014Raising the Stars and Stripes\u2014Lang at San Diego\u2014The\nSanta Barbara Built in California\u2014Ships and Trade of 1830\u2014List of\nVessels, 1825-30   \\i\u00a7\nCHAPTER YL\nOVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\n1826-1830.\nThe Eastern Frontier\u2014The Trappers\u2014First Visitors by the Overland\nRoute\u2014Jedediah Smith, 1826-8\u2014Errors Corrected\u2014Original Documents\u2014The Sierra Nevada Crossed and Re-crossed\u2014First Entry of\n CONTENTS. ix\nPAGE\nthe Hudson's Bay Company\u2014McLeod and Ogden\u2014Pattie?s Visit and\nImprisonment, 1828-30\u2014Flint's Narrative\u2014Truth and Fiction\u2014A\nTour of Vaccination\u2014j Peg-leg' Smith\u2014Trapping License of Exter\nand Wilson\u2014Vaca from New Mexico\u2014Ewing Young and his Hunters from New Mexico\u2014Foreign Residents\u2014Annual Lists of Newcomers\u2014Regulations on Passports and Naturalization   150\nCHAPTER VII.\nRULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\n1831.\nAppointment of Victoria\/\u2014Arrival\u2014Echeandia's Delay\u2014Command Surrendered\u2014Beginning of a Quarrel\u2014Golpe de Estado\u2014Schemes of\nPadres and Party\u2014Victoria's Address to the People\u2014Charges against\nthe Governor\u2014Refusal to Convoke the Diputacion\u2014Memorials and\nThreats\u2014Victoria's Manifiesto\u2014Replies of Bandini and Pico\u2014Administration of Justice\u2014The Death Penalty\u2014Case of Atanasio\u2014The\nRobbers Aguilar and Sagarra\u2014Execution of Rubio\u2014Exile of Abel\nStearns\u2014Victoria and Alcalde Duarte of San Jose\"\u2014Trouble at Los\nAngeles\u2014Exile of Jose\" A. Carrillo\u2014Jose\" M. Padres Banished\u2014Plots\nof Carrillo, Bandini, and Pico\u2014Pronunciamiento of San Diego\u2014\nEcheandia in Command\u2014Angeles Revolts\u2014Fight near Cahuenga\u2014\nDeath of Pacheco and Avila\u2014Victoria Sent to San Bias\u2014Rodrigo\ndel Pliego\u2014Action in the North\u2014Carrillo's Efforts in Congress....  181\nCHAPTER VTEI.\nAN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\n1832.\nThe Diputacion at Los Angeles\u2014Action against Victoria\u2014Attempts to\nMake Pico Governor\u2014Echeandia's Opposition\u2014A Foreign Company\nat Monterey\u2014Zamorano's Revolt\u2014A Junta at the Capital \u2014 The\nNews at San Diego \u2014 Sessions of the Diputacion \u2014 Los Angeles\nDeserts Echeandia\u2014Warlike Preparations\u2014Ibarra at Angeles\u2014Bar-\nroso at Paso de Bartolo\u2014Indians Armed\u2014Compact between Echeandia and Zamorano\u2014The Territory Divided\u2014Final Sessions of the\nDiputacion\u2014The Avila Sedition\u2014Who is Governor? \u2014 Affairs in\nMexico\u2014Carrillo's Efforts and Letters\u2014Choice of a Governor\u2014Jose\"\nFigueroa Appointed\u2014Instructions\u2014Mishaps of a Journey\u2014Mutiny\nat Cape SanXiicas\u2014Waiting for a Ruler  216\nCHAPTER IX.\nFIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014HIJAR AND PADRES COLONY.\n1833-1834.\nArrival of Figueroa\u2014Primitive Printing\u2014Imaginary Difficulties\u2014Amnesty to Rebels\u2014Echeandia and Zamorano\u2014Biography of Echeandia\n CONTENTS.\n\u2014Bandini Elected to Congress\u2014No Sessions of the Diputacion in\n1833 \u2014 The Northern Frontier \u2014 Figueroa Resigns\u2014A Warning\u2014\nMutiny at San Francisco\u2014The Diputacion in 1834\u2014Address by the\nGovernor\u2014Legislative Affairs\u2014The First Book Printed in California\n\u2014Reglamento\u2014Petaluma and Santa Rosa\u2014Santa Anna y Farias\u2014\nConspiracy of Guerra and Duran\u2014New Election\u2014Events in Mexico\nPadre's and his Schemes\u2014Colonization \u2014 Hijar as Gefe Politico\u2014\nColony Organized\u2014Compania Cosmopolitana\u2014Political Schemes\u2014\nThe March to Tepic \u2014Voyage of the Natalia and Morelos \u2014 Reception of the Colony at San Diego and Monterey\u2014Wreck of the\nNatalia\u2014Authorities  240\nCHAPTER X.\nFIGUEROA,  CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\n1834-1835.\nSanta Anna Orders Figueroa not to Give up the Command to Hijar\u2014\nQuick Time from Mexico\u2014Hijar Demands the Mission Property\u2014\nHis Instructions\u2014Action of the Diputacion\u2014Lost Prestige of Padres\n\u2014Bando\u2014Controversy\u2014Bribery\u2014Submission of the Directors\u2014Aid\nto the Colonists\u2014At Solano\u2014New Quarrel\u2014Rumored Plots\u2014Revolt\nof Apalategui and Torres\u2014Pronunciamiento of the Sonorans\u2014Surrender\u2014Legal Proceedings\u2014Figueroa's Orders\u2014Seizure of Arms at\nSonoma,\u2014Arrest of Verduzco and Lara\u2014Exile of Hijar and Padre's\u2014\nFigueroa's Manifiesto\u2014Sessions of the Diputacion\u2014Carrillo in Congress\u2014Los Angeles Made Capital\u2014Foundation of Sonoma\u2014Death of\nFigueroa\u2014Life and Character\u2014Castro Gefe Politico\u2014Gutierrez\nComandante General\u2014Estudillo's Claims 270\nCHAPTER XI.\nMISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\n1831-1833.\nEcheandia's Plan of 1830\u2014Decree of 1831\u2014The Comisionados\u2014Views\nof the Padres\u2014Carrillo's Efforts in Mexico\u2014The Pious Fund\u2014\nEvents of 1832\u2014Diputacion and Friars\u2014Echeandia's Reglamento\u2014\nNotes of Padre Sanchez\u2014Bachelot and Short\u2014Exiles from the\nHawaiian Islands\u2014New Missionaries in 1833\u2014The Zacatecanos\u2014\nDivision of the Missions\u2014Troubles in the North\u2014Flogging Neophytes\u2014Supplies for San Francisco\u2014Misconduct of Padre Mercado\nat San Rafael\u2014Massacre of Gentiles\u2014Figueroa's Instructions on\nSecularization \u2014 Echeandia's Regulations\u2014Figueroa's Policy\u2014Experiments in the South\u2014Provisional Rules\u2014Emancipation in Practice\u2014Projects of President Duran\u2014Figueroa's Report against Secularization\u2014Mexican Decrees of 1833\u2014President and Prefect  301\n CONTENDS.\nCHAPTER XII.\nMISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\n1834-1835.\np\nEmancipation\u2014Indian Pueblos\u2014The Diputacion\u2014Figueroa's Policy\u2014\nMexican Law of April 1834\u2014Provisional Regulations of August 9th\n\u2014Hfjar's Instructions\u2014Their Meaning\u2014The Reglamento in Practice\n\u2014Local Results\u2014Ten Missions Secularized\u2014Views of the Padres\u2014\nSupplementary Regulations of Nov. 4th\u2014Destruction of Mission\nProperty by the Friars\u2014Slaughter of Cattle\u2014Stipends in 1835\u2014\nMission Supplies\u2014Mission Ranchos\u2014Garcia Diego's Suggestions\u2014\nLocal Items of 1835\u2014Six Missions Secularized\u2014The Fernandinos\nContent\u2014Mexican Decree of Nov. 9th\u2014Mission Statistics, 1831-5\u2014\nSeasons\u2014Pestilence\u2014Indian Affairs, 1831-5 J\nCHAPTER Xirt.\nMARITIME,  COMMERCIAL,  AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\n1831-1835.\nAnnual Lists of Vessels on the Coast\u2014Revenue Statistics\u2014Smuggling\nItems\u2014Seizure of theLoriot\u2014Commercial Regulations\u2014Victoria and\nBandini\u2014Contraband\u2014Ports\u2014Bandini and Angel Ramirez\u2014A Disappointed Inspector of Customs\u2014Fur Trade\u2014Salt\u2014Abel Stearns'\nOperations at San Pedro\u2014Treasury Officials\u2014Comisarios\u2014Bandini,\nGomez, Gonzalez, Estrada, and Herrera\u2014Minor Revenue Officers\u2014\nLocal Items \u2014 Financial Correspondence \u2014 Statistics \u2014 Municipal\nFunds\u2014Taxation\u2014Tithes\u2014Plan of Ways and Means\u2014Alphabetical\nList of Vessels  J\nCHAPTER XIV.\nPIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\n1831-1835.\nOverland Immigration\u2014New Mexican Route\u2014Wolf skill's Party\u2014Yount\nand Burton\u2014Jackson's Company\u2014Warner\u2014Ewing Young's Second\nVisit\u2014Carson, Williams, Sparks, and Dye\u2014Graham and Leese\u2014\nAcross the Sierra \u2014 Captain Joe Walker\u2014Nidever\u2014Bonneville's\nNarrative\u2014Hudson's Bay Company Trappers\u2014Otter-hunting in California\u2014New Mexican Horse-thieves\u2014Chino Pando\u2014Foreign Policy\n\u2014Fears\u2014Offer of Purchase by U. S.\u2014Spaniards\u2014Pioneer Names\u2014\nThose Who Came before 1830\u2014New-comers of Each Year\u2014Alphabetical'Lists\u2014Douglas the Botanist\u2014Thomas Coulter's Visit\u2014Mori-\nneau's Memoir\u2014Visit of Hall J. Kelley\u2014John Coulter's Lies\u2014Dana's\nTwo Years Before the Mast  385\n xii CONTENTS.\nCHAPTER XV.\nRULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\n1836.\nPAOB\nCastro Transfers the Gefatura to Gutierrez\u2014A Quiet Rule\u2014Centralist\nPrecautions\u2014The Capital\u2014Vigilance Committee at Los Angeles\u2014\nShooting of a Man and Woman\u2014Bandini's Plan at San Diego\u2014Appointment and Arrival of Governor Chico\u2014Inaugural Address\u2014\nSwearing of the Bases\u2014Chico's Orders\u2014Address\u2014Sessions of the\nJunta Departamental\u2014Agent for Mexico\u2014Chico in the South\u2014Beginning of Troubles\u2014Californian Views of Chico's Character\u2014Dona\nCruz, the Governor's Mistress\u2014Feeling of Foreigners\u2014Chico and\nStearns\u2014Revolution Planned\u2014Results of the Vigilantes\u2014Chico and\nDuran\u2014Amours of Castafiares and Dona Hdefonsa\u2014Chico and Estrada\u2014Excitement at the Capital\u2014Chico Leaves the Country 414\nCHAPTER XVI.\nGUTIERREZ,  CASTRO,  AND ALVARADO\u2014REVOLUTION.\n1836.\nSecond Rule of Gutierrez\u2014His Policy and Character\u2014Vague Charges\u2014\nQuarrel with the Diputacion\u2014Popular Feeling\u2014Causes of Revolt\u2014\nJuan B. Alvarado\u2014Revenue Quarrel\u2014Another Version\u2014Preparations at San Juan\u2014Californians in Arms\u2014Graham's Riflemen\u2014Siege\nof Monterey\u2014Documentary Record \u2014 Surrender \u2014 The Mexicans\nExiled\u2014Biography\u2014Gutierrez\u2014Castillo Negrete\u2014Herrera\u2014Muiioz\nNavarrete\u2014The Estradas\u2014Rule of Jos6 Castro\u2014Plan of Conditional\nIndependence\u2014Lone-star Flag\u2014The Diputacion as a Constituent\nCongress\u2014Vallejo as Comandante General\u2014Revenue\u2014Civic Militia-\n\u2014Alvarado as Governor\u2014Division of the State\u2014Commerce\u2014The\nNew RCgime\u2014Affairs in the North  445\nCHAPTER XVHV\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\n1836-1837.\nCauses of Southern Opposition\u2014Sectional, Local, and Personal Prejudice\n\u2014The News at Angeles\u2014San Diego Aroused\u2014Plan of November\u2014\nCounter-plan of Santa Barbara\u2014New Ayuntamientos and New Plan\n\u2014Letters of Prominent Men\u2014Castillo Negrete\u2014Osio\u2014Bandini\u2014Pio\nPico\u2014Carlos Carrillo\u2014Alvarado in the South\u2014The Barbarefios Submit\u2014Angelinos Obstinate\u2014Dieguinos Patriotic but not Warlike\u2014\nDefensive Measures\u2014Campaign and Treaty of San Fernando\u2014Alvarado at Los Angeles\u2014Castro's Arrival\u2014Another Plan\u2014Speeches\u2014\nFears of Attack from Sonora\u2014Castro at San Diego\u2014Diputacion Sustains Alvarado\u2014Plan de Gobierno\u2014Intrigues of Osio and Pico\u2014Los\nAngeles Submits\u2014Governor's Manifiesto of May\u2014Return to Monterey\u2014Events in the North, January to May  478\n CONTENTS. xiii\nCHAPTER XVni:\nSAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\n1837.\nPAGK\nBandini's Movements\u2014Plots on the Frontier\u2014Zamorano, Portilla, and\nEstrada\u2014Plan of May\u2014Seizure of Los Angeles\u2014Don Juan at San\nDiego\u2014The Army at Angeles and San Fernando\u2014Castillero's Commission\u2014Oath of Centralism in the South\u2014Alvarado at Monterey\nand Santa Clara\u2014Rumors from Mexico\u2014Ramirez Revolt\u2014Monterey\nTaken and Retaken\u2014Alvarado Returns to the South\u2014Treaty with\nCastillero\u2014Alvarado Swears to the Constitutional Laws\u2014His Motives\u2014Diputacion at Santa Barbara\u2014Castillero Sent to Mexico\u2014\nThe California\u2014Vallejo Refuses to Accept Centralism\u2014Carlos Carrillo's Appointment\u2014Alvarado's Position\u2014Carrillo Assumes Office\nat Angeles\u2014San Diego Obedient\u2014Not so Sta Barbara\u2014Letters of\nVallejo and Alvarado  515\nCHAPTER XIX.\nDON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON  CARLOS.\n1838.\nDon Carlos Closes Northern Ports\u2014Sends for Mexican Troops\u2014Castro's\nPlan\u2014A Spurious Appointment\u2014Carrillo's Letters\u2014Military Preparations\u2014Castaneda at San Buenaventura\u2014Santa Barbara Threatened\n\u2014News from Mexico\u2014Battle of.San Buenaventura\u2014Los Anjgeles\nTaken\u2014Alvarado at San Fernando\u2014Don Carlos at San Diego\u2014A\nNew Plan\u2014Tobar in Command\u2014Campaign of Las Flores\u2014Treaty\u2014\nNegotiations at San Fernando\u2014Escape of the Pretender\u2014Vallejo\nFavors Don Carlos\u2014News by the Catalina\u2014Arrival of Castillero\u2014\nRecognition of Alvarado and Vallejo\u2014An Island for Carrillo\u2014Aba-\njenos Despondent\u2014Arribefios Triumphant\u2014Re-arrest of Canillos and\nPicos 545\nCHAPTER  XX.\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\n1839-1840.\nGovernor and General at Santa Barbara\u2014Carlist Prisoners\u2014Don Carlos\nYields\u2014End of the Conflict\u2014Military Discipline\u2014Presidial Companies\u2014Diputacion as a Junta at Monterey\u2014Division of California\ninto Districts and Partidos\u2014Prefects\u2014Plots of Ramirez and Padre\nMercado\u2014Life of Angel Ramirez\u2014Sedition at Branciforte\u2014Flag Tumult at Los Angeles\u2014Castillero Elected to Congress\u2014Vocales Elected\n\u2014War with France\u2014Jimeno Acting Governor\u2014Alvarado Married\nby Proxy\u2014Arrival of the California\u2014Alvarado Appointed Governor\n\u2014Cosme Pefia\u2014Castaneda Sent to Mexico\u2014Annals of 1840\u2014Sessions\nof the Junta Departamental\u2014Tribunal de Justicia\u2014Monterey the\nCapital\u2014Conspiracy of Carrillo and Gonzalez 579\n CONTENTS.\nCHAPTER XXI.\nLOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nPAGE\nMilitary Commandants\u2014Decrease and Disappearance of the Presidial\nOrganization\u2014Fort and Other Buildings\u2014Population\u2014Private Ran-\nchos\u2014Summary of Events\u2014Politics and Indian Depredations\u2014\nTreasure on the Colorado \u2014 Civil Government\u2014Ayuntamiento\u2014\nCriminal Record\u2014San Diego Mission\u2014Padre Martin\u2014Statistics\u2014\nSecularization\u2014Ortega as Administrator\u2014San Luis Rey\u2014.Padre\nPeyri\u2014A Prosperous Mission\u2014Slaughter of Cattle\u2014Chronologic\nHappenings\u2014Pio Pico in Charge\u2014Hartnell's Investigation\u2014Mission\nRanchos\u2014San Juan Capistrano\u2014Statistical View\u2014Annals of Emancipation\u2014Administration of the Arguellos\u2014The Ex-neophyte Pueblos of San Juan, San Dieguito, Las Flores, and San PascuaL 608\nCHAPTER XXIX\nLOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nA Centre of Political Agitation\u2014Chronologic Summary and Index\u2014Local\nOccurrences\u2014Indian Hostilities\u2014Day and Stearns\u2014Vigilance Committee\u2014Sectional Warfare\u2014Carrillo's Capital\u2014Tumult of the Flag\n\u2014Arrest of Foreigners\u2014Increase of Population\u2014Private Ranchos\u2014\nAyuntamiento and Municipal Affairs\u2014Criminal Record\u2014A Race\u2014\nThe Prefecture\u2014Pefia, Tapia, and Arguello\u2014Port of San Pedro\u2014San\nGabriel\u2014Padres Boscana and Sanchez\u2014Statistics\u2014Secularization\u2014\nEvents\u2014Bandini's Reforms\u2014San Fernando Rey\u2014Father Cabot\u2014A\nProsperous Mission\u2014Antonio del Valle as Comisionado\u2014Chronologic Record 629\nCHAPTER XXHT.\nLOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nGain in Population\u2014Presidial Organization\u2014Military Items\u2014Summary\nof Events\u2014Santa Barbara in the Political Controversies\u2014Chico and\nDuran\u2014Municipal Affairs\u2014Official List\u2014Sub-prefecture\u2014Grants of\nPrivate Ranchos\u2014Santa Barbara Mission\u2014Statistical View\u2014Amials\nof Secularization\u2014San Buenaventura\u2014Fathers Sufier, Uria, and For-\ntuni \u2014 Population, Agriculture, and Live-stock \u2014 Majordomos and\nAdministrators\u2014Santa In^s\u2014Father Arroyo de la Cuesta\u2014Statistics\nof Decadence\u2014A Gain in Cattle\u2014Moderate Prosperity\u2014Local Happenings\u2014La Purisima Concepcion\u2014Secularization\u2014Inventories.... 6\n CONTENTS. xv\nCHAPTER XXIV.\nLOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT,\n1831-1840.\nPAGE\nPopulation\u2014Visits and Descriptions\u2014Summary and Index of Events\u2014\nMilitary Record\u2014Municipal Affairs and Administration of Justice\n\u2014Prefecture\u2014Criminal Record\u2014Private Ranchos\u2014Mission San Carlos\u2014San Luis Obispo\u2014Padre Gil y Taboada\u2014Statistics of Decline-\nSan Miguel \u2014 Padre Juan Cabot \u2014 Population and Property\u2014San\n^Antonio\u2014Secularization\u2014Mercado's Complaints\u2014Hartnell's Inspection\u2014La Soledad \u2014 Padre Sarria \u2014 Inventories of Live-stock and\nCrops\u2014San Juan Bautista or San Juan de Castro\u2014Padres and Neophytes\u2014Mission Estate\u2014Emancipation of the Indians\u2014Pueblo and\nCapital of the District\u2014Santa Cruz, or Pueblo de Figueroa\u2014Villa\nde Branciforte.  667\nCHAPTER XXV.\nLOCAL; ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nGain in Population\u2014Number of Inhabitants in California, North and\nSouth\u2014Summary of San Francisco Events\u2014Military Affairs-r^Com-\npany Transferred to Sonoma\u2014Pueblo and Ayuntamiento\u2014Granting\nof Lots\u2014Later Litigation\u2014Growth of Yerba Buena\u2014Richardson,\nLeese, and. Spear\u2014Private Ranchos of the District\u2014San Francisco\nMission\u2014San Rafael\u2014Padre Amor6s' !Map of Mission Lands\u2014San\nFrancisco Solano\u2014Pueblo \u00bbof Sonoma \u2014 General Vallejo's Achievements in the Frontera del Norte\u2014San Jose\" Mission\u2014A Prosperous\nEstablishment\u2014Santa Clara\u2014Padres Viader and Moreno \u2014 Pueblo\nde San Jos6 de Guadalupe de Alvarado \u2014 Population \u2014 Municipal\nAffairs and List of Officials\u2014Summary of Events 6\nPioneer Register and Index.   'Fabbol' to <Hyde' 733\n  HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA.\nCHAPTER I.\nA TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\n1825.\nRatification of the Federal Constitution\u2014Junta de Californias in\nMexico\u2014Compa^Ia AsiAtico-Mexicana\u2014Sessions of the Diputacion\u2014EcheandIa Appointed Governor\u2014Transfer of the Office\nat San Diego\u2014Biography of Don Luis Arguello \u2014 Echeandia's\nCompanions\u2014Pacheco, Zamorano, and Ramirez\u2014Herrera as Comisario de Hacienda\u2014The Missions\u2014The Padres Refuse Allegiance\nto the Republic\u2014The Diputacion on Secularization\u2014Padre Duran as President\u2014Mission Supplies and Finance\u2014Vessels on the\nCoast\u2014Surrender of the 'Asia ' and ' Constante '\u2014Morrell's Visit\nand Book\u2014Commerce\u2014Foreign Residents\u2014A Rainy Season.\nIn the preceding volume I have completed the annals of California as a province of Spain and of the\nMexican empire to the year 1824. In the present\nvolume I continue its history as a territory and department of the Mexican republic to 1840. But while\n1825\u201440 are the chronological limits assigned, it has\nbeen found inconvenient, as already explained, to make\nthe subdivisions of time and topics agree exactly.\nLocal annals have been continued in an earlier volume\nto 1830; herein they are completed for another decade,\nand the regular thread of political history is followed\nto 1840; but the institutional history for 1836-40,\nincluding some important phases of foreign relations, is\nnecessarily left for the first six^ chapters of volume iv.\nThe leading features here presented are the develop-\nVOL. III.    1\n 2 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPCJBUC.\nment of republicanism, the downfall of the missions,\nrevolutionary movements, the first overland explorations, growth of foreign influence, the up-building\nof commercial industry, and the complicated series\nof political and sectional controversies. At the end of\nthe^ volume I continue alphabetically the biographical\nregister of pioneers begun in volume ii.\nEarly in 1825 Governor Arguello received the\nfederal constitution of the Mexican republic adopted\nby congress October 4, 1824, and addressed to the\nstates and territories on the 6th. It is not necessary\nto analyze this document here. By it Alta California\nbecame a territory, lacking the population for a state;\nentitled to a diputado in congress, but without the\nforty thousand inhabitants requisite to give him a\nvote; yet capable of being erected into a state by act\nof congress. This organic law made no provision for\nthe government of the territories; and I know not exactly what authority the president had for appointing\na governor and allowing the diputacion to subsist; or\nwhat authority congress had to make laws on the subject; or further, on what authority the two Califor-\nnias were immediately united in one territory, or at\nleast put under one governor. The constitution was\nsimilar to that of the United States of America.1\nBefore noting the reception of the constitution in\nthe north, it is well to glance at subsequent acts of the\nnational government in behalf of California down to\nthe end of 1825\u2014and briefly, for in Mexico but slight\n1 Mexico, Constitucion Federal de los Estados Unirtos Mexkanos, saneionada\npor el Conurcso General Cunstituyente el 4 de Octubre de 1824. Mexico, 1S24,\nlGmo, 31. xviii. 02 p. 21. 3p.; with at the end the following: Mexico, Acta\nCoriHtUutiva de la Federation Mexicana. 31 de Enero, 1824. Mexico, 1S24.\nlGmo, 12 p. There are other editions of both documents. In the Acta the\ndivision into states and territories had been different, the two Califomias being\none territory. There is no evidence that the Acta reached California before\nthe constitution. Among the signers of the constitution there appears no\ndiputado for Alta California, though Baja California was represented by Manuel Ortiz de la Torre. Gov. Arguello understood Cal. as a territory to be\nattached to the state of Mexico. Dent Hec, MS., i. 120: Devt St. Pav. Ami\nMS., i. 82-4. *       J\n JUNTA DE F0MENT0. 3\nattention was paid to this distant frontier, either in\nthis or any other year. The first president did well\nenough, however, at the beginning, for he not only\nappointed a ruler, with a superintendent of territorial\nfinances, but he sent troops, arms, supplies, and even\na little money. I have noticed the lack of any constitutional provision for territorial government; but to\naid the president in this respect a special board, or\ncouncil, the \u25a0 junta de fomento de Californias,' was organized.2\nIn a note I have given the titles of this junta's reports. Ex-governor Sola was a member, though not\na very prominent one. None of the plans ever attained to the dignity of law, but each had an influence\n2 This junta was dissolved at the end of 1827. It had ten members, in\nwhom there were frequent changes, the following list including all that served\nin the order of their appointment: Mariano Bonilla, Pablo V. Sola, Josdlgn.\nOrmacchea, Mariano Domingucz, Tomas Salgado, Francisco de P. Tamariz,\nManuel Ibarra, Francisco Cortir.a, Ignacio Cubas, Juan J. Espinosa de los\nMonteros, Jose\" Mariano Almanza, Francisco Fagoaga, Alejo Garcia Conde,\nCarlos M. Bustamantc, Servando Mier, Isidro Icaza, Diego Garcia Condc, Pedro Cardenas, Juan Francisco Azcarate, Tomas Suria, sec'y, Crecenio Suarez,\nsec'y.\nThe various reports of this body were printed in Mexico, 1827, under the\nfollowing title: Junta de Frmcnto de Californias\u2014Coleccion de los principales\ntrab:rjos en que se ha ociq>ado le Junta nombrada para meditar y proponer al\nSupremo Gobierno los medios mas necesarios pnra promover el progreso de la\ncidtura y civilization d<>. los terri'oriosd'. la Alta y de la Baja California. Afto\nde 1827. . This collection includes the following documents: Dktdmen que did\nla Junta, etc., sobre las instrucciones quepara el Gefe superior Politico. Dated\nJan. 3, 1825. 1G pages, 8vo; Plan para el Arreglo de las Misiones de los terri-\ntorios de la Alta y de la Baja California. April G, 1825, lip.; Plande Colon-\nizacion Estrangera (subtitle\u2014Reglamento & que debe sujetarse la colonizacion,\netc.), dated April 24, 1825, 8 p., with a diagrr.m; Plan de Colonizacion de\nNacionales para los territorios, etc. (subtitle\u2014Reglamento para la colonizacion por familias de los Estados Federados de Mexico, en los territorios de\nCalifornias),^ dated May 30, 1825, 18 p., 3 sheets, with a diagram; Plan Politico Mercantil para d mas pronto Fomento de las Californias, including 1st,\nCorrespondence Feb.-July 1S25; 2d, Proyecto para el Establecimiento de una\ncompaniadecomereio directo con el Asia y marPacifico, cuyo punt-ace\" ntrico debe\neer Monterey, capital de la Alta California, la cual sera conocida baja el nombre\nde Campania Asidtico- Me.dc.ana, Prctertora del Fomento de la Peninsula de Californias. Presented to the president by its author, Francisco de Paula Tamariz,\nDec. 14, 1825, 14 p.; 3d, Proyecto de Reglamento en Grande para el Establecimiento delaCompania Asidtico-Mexicana. Dec. 14, 1825,18 p. (numbered 24);\nIniciativa de Ley que propone la Junta para el mejor arreglo del gobierno de los\nterritorios de Californias. Dated May 12, 1S27; including a Subdivision de\nlos territorios de la Alta y de la Baja California en cuatro distritos, of June 26,\n1826; and the final brief report of the junta announcing the close of its labors\non Aug. 31, 1827. 44 p.\nAnd finally\u2014Lista de los asuntos comprendidos en este libro.    1 leaf.\n 4 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\non legislation in behalf of California. Several of the\nreports, or parts of the same, relating to special topics\nof government, colonization, and mission policy, will\nrequire notice elsewThere, and may therefore be briefly\ndisposed of here.\nUnfortunately the instructions to Governor Echeandia, on which the junta reported January 3, 1825,\nare not extant. In the suggestions made, especial importance is attached to the obtaining of accurate information about the country, its people, and its productions; and it is evident from the allusions to Vizcaino, Venegas, the Sutil y Mexicana, Humboldt's\nworks, etc., that the members had no idea of the fresh\nand complete sources of information accessible in the\nform of missionary and other official reports. There\nis also a noticeable confusion between the two Californias. Great circumspection and careful instructions\nwere recommended on the mission problem and Indian\npolicy, subjects which must be treated with much delicacy to avoid trouble until a radical reform could be\neffected by means of definite laws. The junta expressed some very wise views,- and showed a clear\nappreciation of the difficulties to be overcome, leaving,\nhowever, the w7ays and means of overcoming them\nmostly to a subsequent report of April 6th, which\nwill be noticed in another chapter. In the matter of\ndistributing lands, it was thought that the governor\nshould confine his immediate attention to investigation\nand reports on the actual condition of the territories.\nThe subject of foreign relations was believed to require\nserious consideration, with particular reference to possible encroachments of Russians and Americans on the\nnorth. There was yet some doubt whether the boundary of the forty-second parallel had been recognized by\nMexico, but it was necessary at all hazards to prevent\nany passing of that line; and in this connection a naval\nforce for the upper coast was recommended as of urgent necessity. Particularly was the attention of the\ngovernment called to the prospective importance of\n PLANS FOR CALIFORNIAS. 5\nthe northern province, both by reason of its varied\nproducts and of its frontier position.3\nThe plan of April 21st for foreign colonization may\nbe disposed of, since I have no space to give the document in full, with the remark that it was utilized by\nthe government in preparing the regulations of 1828,\nin which many of its twenty-eight articles were more\nor less fully embodied.4 To a great extent the same\nremark may be applied to the plan of May 30th for\nnational colonization or settlement by Mexicans. But\nthis plan contained certain elements intended for the\nspecial benefit of the Californias, and therefore not included in the general regulations which applied to all\nMexican territory. It was proposed not only to grant\nlands to Mexican colonists, but to pay the expenses of\ntheir journey, a daily ration and monthly sum of three\nor four dollars to each family for three years, besides\nfurnishing live-stock and tools; or in case the settler\nwere not a farmer, he was to receive expenses of the\njourney, necessary tools, a house lot, and rations for one\nyear. This aid it was thought might be furnished\nwithout burden to the treasury, by utilizing the accumulations of mission capital. It was deemed desirable to favor settlements on the coast islands; and to\nset apart one of them as a penal colony \u25a0, not for Mexico,\nbut for California.6\nAnother scheme of the junta, though pertaining to\ncommerce, may as well be mentioned here, since it\nnever went into practical effect. It was a politico-\nmercantile plan for the organization of a Compania\n8 Jan. 6, 1825, Jose Arguello wrote to Captain Guerra from Guadalajara\nthat a board had been established in Mexico to make regulations for Cal.\nGuerra, Doc, MS., vi. 97. The dictdmen, so far as it relates to Indian policy,\nis incidentally quoted by Manuel Castanares in an address of March 30, 1844,\nto Congress. Castanares, Col. Doc, 12, 14, 50. Both Alvarado, Hist. Cal.,\nMS., i. 122-3,233-6, and Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., i. 299-300, speak of Sola as\nthe leading spirit of the junta, which devised many liberal and enthusiastic\nmeasures without the slightest idea as to Where the money was to come from.\n* Fifty years later,' says Alvarado, ' in the hands of energetic men backed by\ncoin, some of these plans might have proved successful.'\n4 See chap. iL this vol. for reglamento of 1828.\n6 There are several other items, but as the recommendations were never\nadopted, it seems unnecessary to notice them.\n 6 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nAsHtico-Mexicana, protective of Californian industrial\ndevelopment. Monterey was to be a grand commercial centre; and not only was California to be saved\nfrom all possibility of foreign aggression, but the whole\ntrade of the Pacific was to be wrested from American\nand English hands. The author of the project, Tamariz, aimed at a revival of the old Philippine trade,\nwith vastly augmented facilities and profits; and he\npictured California in glowing colors as a veritable\nparadise abounding in all good things, and better\nfitted than any other spot on earth for its grand destiny. | \" Fortunate the Californians in the midst of the\npromised land; happy the provinces that adjoin that\nland; lucky even the hemisphere that contains it,\"\nwrites the enthusiastic Mexican* in substance page\nafter page. The scheme was a grand one on paper-\ntoo grand to go any further; Tor though approved by\nthe famous junta, and favored apparently by president,\ncabinet, and congress, it was never heard of so far as I\nknow after-1827.?,\nIn addition to the acts of the president and junta\nde fomento, there is nothing to be noted bearing on\nmy present topic, beyond a few minor routine communications of the ministers in the different departments,\nin one of which the Californians were showered with\nflattery, even if they got no more substantial tokens\nof attention.7\n6 The reglamento is copied in full by Vallejo in his Hist. Cal., MS., i. 300-\n10, from an original formerly in the possession of David Spence. The company is also mentioned in Castanares, Col. Doc., 50. It seems useless to give\nthe details of such a plan; some of the leading points are as follows: Capital,\n$4,000,000 in 2,000 shares, 50 of which were to be taken by the Mexican government, and 50 reserved for Cal. until she was able to pay for them. Term\nof existence, 10 years. The president of Mexico to preside at meetings. The\ncompany to have privileges in the matter of paying duties; to be preferred as\nsellers and buyers; to have a monopoly of fisheries and pearl-diving against\nforeigners; but had to bring settlers free to Cal., aid in the suppression of\nsmuggling, etc.\n7 Californians are lovers of order and justice, 'compensating with these virtues for the influence which in other communities would be the effect of law\nand authority.' ' They have always shown a strong attachment to the supreme\npowers, and given constant evidence with ardent fidelity that they are^ and\nglory in being, excellent Mexicans; and their benemArito gefe politico Arguello\nanswers in his last communications for good order and strict administration\n CONSTITUTION RATIFIED. 7\nOn receipt of the constitution, Arguello at once summoned the diputados to assemble. The rivers were so\nswollen by the rains that the southern members could\nnot come; but on the 26th of March the four Castros,\nwith the president and secretary, met to ratify the\nnew organic law of the nation. The document was\nread by Secretary Torre, and the oath was taken by\ngovernor and diputados. Then the constitution was\nread again in the plaza, and Arguello administered\nthe oath to the garrison drawn up under arms, and to\nthe assembled citizens of all classes. A salute of artillery, and the usual shouts of acclamation, with ringing of bells, repeated for three days, marked the act;\nbut for the first time on such an occasion there was no\nmass, or sermon,,or other religious ceremony, for Prefect Sarria declined to sanction republicanism. On\nthe 28th of March Arguello forwarded copies of the\nconstitution to the different presidios and pueblos, at\neach of which it was ratified with appropriate ceremonies before the end of May. At San Francisco\nPadre Estenega conducted the customary religious\nservices, though it is not certain that he took the\noath. At San Diego, as at Monterey, the padres refused to take any part in the ratification. At other\nplaces there is no record respecting the friars' action.\nThus California become formally a territory of the\nMexican republic.8\nof justice, even in their actual condition.' Mexico, Mem. Justicia, 1826, p. 6.\nGeneral information on finances of California, and relief sent from Mexico in\n1824-5, in Mexico, Mem. Hacienda, 1826, p. 27. Aug. 6th, Minister Alaman\norders gefe politico to report on the suspensibn of the assembly, and to propose\nan administrative system. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., iii. 9.\n*\u25a0 I shall have more to say on the action of the friars. Action of the diputacion March 26th, in Leg. Rec, MS., i. 41-3. March 28th, Arguello sends out\nthe new constitution to be ratified, and orders all copies of the old Spanish constitution to be collected. Dept Rec, MS., i. 116; St. Pap., Sac, MS., xiv. 37.\nApr. 22d, constitution received at S. Francisco, and will be published on Sunday. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xix. 36. May 1st, comandante describes the ceremony, which took place Apr. 24th. The troops after three days were permitted\nto amuse themselves, $2 being. given to each private and $3 to each corporal.\nId., xiv. 41-2. April 30th, swearing of allegiance at Los Angeles, where, on\npetition of the citizens, the ayuntamiento, with the approval of the diputados,\nPalomares and Carrillo, set at liberty a prisoner, Juan Jos6 Higuera. Original record in Doc Hist. Cat, MS., iv. 739, 745.    May 1st, Comandante Ruiz\n 8 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nA final meeting of the diputacion was held April\n7th, when the majority were in favor of punishing\nrecalcitrant friars by taking from them the management of the mission temporalities,9 and then on May\n2d the sessions were suspended by the governor, until\nnew instructions could be obtained from national authorities. His reason for this action was that the term\nfor which the body had been organized according to\nthe Spanish constitution had now expired, and the\nnew constitution made no provision for a territorial\ndiputacion.10\nGeneral Minon, appointed the year before to be\nruler of California, did not accept the position, so\nthat in January 1825 a new appointment had to be\nmade.11\nThe choice fell upon Lieutenant-colonel Jose* Maria\nEcheandia, an officer said to have been director of\na college of engineers in Mexico. His appointment\nas gefe politico superior and comandante general mili-\ntar of both Californias was perhaps dated the 31st of\nJanuary.12    In June he sailed from San Bias to Lo-\ndescribes the ratification at S. Diego, where not only the Franciscans but apparently the Dominican padre Menendez, who chanced, to be present, refused\nto assist. Estudillo, Doc, MS., i. 209. May 10th, certificate of ayuntamiento\nto the taking of the oath at San Jos6, and to the three days of bull-fighting\nand other diversions that followed. S. Jose\", Arch., MS., vii. 22; DeptSt. Pap.\nMS., i. 116-17. I find no record of the event at Sta Barbara. Dec. 4, 1826,\nthe governor sends copies of the constitution and acta constitutiva to be circulated among the escoltas and padres. Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lvii. 23.\n9 Leg. Rec, MS., i. 41-6. More of this topic when I come to speak of the\nmissions. From Doc Hist. Cat., MS., iv. 725, it would appear that at a session\nheld early in this year the office of comisionado for the pueblos was restored.\n10May 2d, Arguello to comandantes and prefect. Dept Rec, MS., i. 119.\nMay 22d, Arguello to ayuntamiento of Los Angeles on same subject. Dept\nSt. Pap., Angeles, MS.,'i. 82. June 3d, comandante of S. Francisco has published the order. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xiv. 36.\n11 As early as April it was known in Cal. that Mifion would not come. With\nhis successor Arguello at that time expected 60 artillerymen. Apr. 11th, Arguello to P. Duran. Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 321-2.\n12His instructions seem to have been issued oivthat date, St. Pap., Miss.\nand Colon., MS., ii. 42, and it was on Feb. 1st that his appointment was announced by Minister Pedraza in a letter to Arguello. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS.,\niii. 3. Feb. 28th, Echeandia to Herrera, announcing his appointment with a\nsalary of $3,000. Dept St. Pap., MS., ii. 1. The fact that he was director of the\ncollege of military engineers in Mexico rests on the.statements of Valle, Lo\nPasado, MS., 1, and Ord, Ocurrendas, MS., 42-3, but is probably accurate.\n ARRIVAL OF ECHEANDIA. 9\nreto on the schooner Nieves. Possibly he had come\nup from Acapulco on the Morelos, which was at San\nBias at the time en route for Monterey; but I think\nnot, though some of his officers came on that vessel\nand joined him there.13 He remained at Loreto from\nJune 2 2d until October, reorganizing peninsular affairs, issuing a reglamento, and appointing a sub gefe\npolitico.14 He finally set out for Monterey by land\non October 4th, but, worn out by the hardships of the\nroute, soon despatched to Arguello an order to meet\nhim at San Diego, where he arrived late in October.15\nMeanwhile Arguello first heard of Echeandia's\nappointment on July 4th by a letter from the latter\ndated June 25th, and announcing his arrival at\nLoreto en route for the capital. Later in the month,\nprobably by the Morelos, came the official notice\nfrom Mexico.16 The order to meet his successor at\nSan Diego came about the 26th, on which date\nArguello replied that the state of his health would\nnot permit him to make the journey so rapidly as was\nordered, but he would come slowly.17 Two days later he\nsailed on a schooner for San Diego,18 where he turned\nover his office in November. Though Arguello was\ndoubtless displeased at this innovation on   his own\n13 In April-May he was at Tepic, and had some trouble about collecting\npay and supplies for his troops. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 27-9. He also asked to\nDe relieved of the military command. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS.,iii. 4. June 7th\nhe was at Tepic, expecting to sail on the Morelos, a new name for the old San\nCarlos. Guerra, Doc, M.S., vi. 139. For trip on the Nieves, see Pacheco's\ntestimony in Herrera, Causa, MS., p. 67-8; St. Pap. Sac, MS., x. 31. Echeandia's statement in 1827 was that he sailed from S. Bias June 12th, and reached\nLoreto in 10 days. Dept Rec, MS., v. 103. June 25th he wrote to Argulleo\nfrom Loreto. Dept St. Pap., MS., i. 120-1.\nu See Hist. North Mexican States, ii., this series.\n15 In July he sent up to S. Diego for mules. Arch. Arzob., MS., iv. pt ii. 150.\nOct. 4th, started. Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lvii. 3. Oct. 18th, sent\norder to Arguello to come south. Guerra, Doc, MS., iv. 161-2. Oct. 31st,\nwrites from S. Diego. Dept St. Pap., MS., i. 74; Dept Rec, MS., ii. 6.\n16 July 4th, Arguello to comandantes with purport of Echeandia's letter.\nDept St. Pap., MS., i. 120-1. July 22d-3d-8th, Arguello had received official\nintelligence. Id., Ben. Mil., MS., liv. 9; Dept. Rec, MS., i. 230; ii. 37. Oct.\n1st, Arguello expected his successor soon, and had made preparations for his\nreception, being uncertain whether he would come by sea or land. Guerra,\nDoc, MS., iv. 159.\n\"Oct. 26th, Arguello to Guerra. Guerra, Doc, MS., iv. 161-2.\n18Dept St. Pap., MS., i. 80.\n 10 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\npersonal comfort and on the old customs, and though\nthe people of Monterey liked not the new governor's\ndisposition to fix his residence in the south, yet I find\nno contemporary evidence of controversy or of contemplated resistance. The records, however, are far\nfrom complete, and both Alvarado and Vallejo credit\nArguello with a patriotic refusal to listen to the counsels of Montereyans and the troops who urged him to\ntake advantage of Echeandia's arbitrary order and\nproclaim revolt.19 It is not unlikely that there was\nsome clashing of opinion when the two officers met;\nbut there is no record on the subject. Echeandia had\nremained at San Diego at first because exhausted by\nhis journey; and he continued to reside there chiefly\nbecause he deemed the climate favorable to his health,\nbut also that as ruler of both Californias he might be\nnearer Loreto, and because he found nothing in his\ninstructions which absolutely required him to live at\nMonterey.20    No transfer of the capital was  made;\n19 Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 48-51; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 105-9.\nVallejo states that the padres took advantage of the excitement in the north\nto create a prejudice against Echeandia. Both imply that there was a gharp\ncorrespondence before Arguello went south, which is impossible; and that one\ncause of the excitement was the transfer of the custom-house to S. Diego,\nwhen no such change was made. I suppose that both writers greatly exaggerate the popular feeling, looking at it through the colored glasses of memory, respecting later dissensions between the north and south.\n20 Doubtless the persuasions of the southerners had also an influence; and\nJ. J. Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 87-9, implies that a certain lady of S. Diego had\nmore influence than all the rest. General mention of Echeandia's arrival\nwithout additional details, or blunders worthy of notice, in Machado, Tiem-\npos Pasados, MS., 21, 23; Amador, Memorias, MS., 85; Ord, Ocurrencias,\nMS., 19-20; Lugo, Vida, MS., 12-13; Avila, Cosas de Cal, MS., 25; Petit-\nThouars, Voy., ii. 90; Mofras, Explor., i. 293.\nThe version of one author, who has made claims to be an accurate historian, is worth a record here. I allude to that given in Willson's Mexico and\nits Religion, 148-50. ' The new republic was at peace, and the surplus soldiery\nhad to be got rid of. It was not safe to disband them at home, where they\nmight take to the roads and become successful robbers; but 1,500 of the worst\nwere selected for a distant expedition, the conquest of the far-off territory of\nCalifornia. And then a general was found who was in all respects worthy of\nhis soldiery. He was pre-eminently the greatest coward in the Mexican\narmy\u2014so great a coward that he subsequently, without striking a blow, surrendered a fort, with a garrison of 500 men, unconditionally, to a party of 50\nforeigners. Such was the great General Echandrea, the Mexican conqueror\nof California; and such was the army that he led to the conquest of unarmed\npriests and an unarmed province.' ' Had there been 50 resolute persons to\noppose them, this valiant army would have absconded, and California would\nhave remained an appanage of the crown of Spain,' etc.    'When the prefect\n LUIS ANTONIO ARGUELLO. 11\nbut very soon the people of the south chose to take\nthat view of the governor's residence among them, and\nwere not a little elated at the honor.21\nAlthough Ex-governor Arguello remained in California, resuming his former position as comandante of\nSan Francisco; yet as he was never again prominent\nin public affairs, and as he died within the limits of\nthis decade, on March 27, 1830, it seems best to append here his biography.22    Don Luis was the first\nof the missions was shipped off to Manilla the war was at an end.' Comments on -this rubbish are unnecessary.\n21 As early as Nov. 9th, Sepulveda from Los Angeles congratulates Echeandia on his arrival, and is glad that he will make San Diego his capital.\n' You may count on this dismembered ayuntamiento and on all under my\ncommand.' Los Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 2, 3.\n22 Luis Antonio Arguello, son of D. Jose1 Diario Arguello, then alferez of\nthe Sta Barbara company, and Dona Ignacia Moraga, was born at San Francisco presidio June 21, 1784, and was christened the next day, his godparents\nbeing Lieut. Moraga and wife. S. Francisco, Lib. Mis., MS., 20. He entered\nthe military service as cadet of tho S. Francisco company on Sept. 6, 1799, and\nwas promoted to be alferez of the same company on Dec. 22, 1800. St. Pap. Sac,\nMS., xi. 5; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xv. 94; Gacetas dc4trex., x. 240. This same year\nhe petitioned for license to marry Doha Rafaela Sal; but as the petition had\nto go to the viceroy and king, it was not until 1807 that the permission was\nreceived, and even then burdened with the condition that the wife should\nhave no claim on the montepio fund at her husband's death, unless he were\nkilled on the field of battle. The wife died at S. Francisco, Feb. 6, 1814.\nProv. St. Pap., MS., xix. 40, 196-7; Prov. Rec, MS., ix. 101. She is said\nto have been remarkable for the kindness of her disposition and for her influence over her somewhat erratic husband. Amador, Mem., MS., 121;\nLorenzana, Mejm. de la Beata, MS., 3.\nOn March 10, 1806, Don Luis was promoted to the lieutenancy, and in Au<\ngust his father turned over to him the command of the company. Prov. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, MS., xxxvii. 3, 15. According to his hoja de servicios at the end\nof 1816, beside the routine of garrison duty, he had been engaged in two expeditions, one in pursuit of fugitive neophytes, and the other to explore new\nregions among the gentiles. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xv. 94. He was recommended\nfor promotion by Gov. Sola, July 8, 1817; was commissioned Oct. 30th, and\nwas recognized as captain of the company from April 1,1818. Prov. St. Pap.,\nMS., xx. 194; Prov. Rec, MS., ix. 196; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xvi. 48; S. Francisco, Cuentas, MS., i.-vi.\nAbout 1818 Capt. Arguello made a boat voyage up the Sacramento River;\nin 1821 he made an expedition to the far north, up the Sacramento Valley,\nbeyond what is now Red Bluff, and back over the coast mountains, to S.\nRafael; and in 1822 he accompanied Can6nigo Fernandez and Prefect Pay eras\non a trip to Bodega and Ross. Meanwhile he had married, in 1819, Dona\nSoledad, daughter of Sergeant Jose\" Dolores Ortega, who brought him as a\ndowry of somewhat doubtful cash value her father's arrears of pay due from\nthe royal treasury.\nArguello was elected acting governor on or about Nov. 11,1822, Arch. Arzob.,\nMS., iv. pt i. 96; St. Pap., Sac, MS.., xi. 6, and took possession of the office\non the day of Sola's departure, on or about Nov. 22d. The events of his rule\nhave been already given. His office of governor being only provisional, he still\nretained nominally the command of San Francisco.    After he resigned rule at\nJ\n 12 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nhijo del pais called upon to rule California, and he\nfilled most creditably a position which was by no\nmeans free from difficulties. Had the rival candidate,\nJose de la Guerra, been chosen, it is hard to point out\nin what wTay he could have ruled more wisely. Arguello's education was in some respects deficient, being\nsimply what his father could give him in his presidio\nhome; but in every position which he occupied he\nshowed much practical common sense if no extraordinary ability. He was much less strict than his\nfather, or than most of the old Spanish officers, in his\nregard for the letter of national law; he was sometimes\nreproved when comandante for his concessions to foreigners, and especially to the Russians; and when he\nbecame governor, he still continued his innovations in\nS. Diego in Nov. 1825, I think he remained for some time in the south with\nhis brother, Don Santiago. On April 15, 1826, Echeandia ordered his pay as\ncomandante to cease, the reason not being explained. Dept Rec, MS., iv. 31.\nOn May 20th Echeandia ordered him to S. Francisco to take command of his\ncompany. Id., v. 46. Aug. 8, 1827, the minister of war was informed that\nArguello claimed the commission of lieutentant-colonel that had been given\nhim by Iturbide. Id., v. 128. Oct. 7, 1828, Echeandia relieved Arguello\nof his command in consideration of ill health; and on Nov. 20th he was ordered to Monterey 'for the good of the service.' Id., vi. 109, 138. His purchase of the Rover, his enterprise in the China trade, and the resulting lawsuits with Capt. Cooper, the only notable events of his later iffe, are noticed\nin other chapters.\nArguello's military record down to the end of 1828 gives him 29 years, 3\nmonths, and 27 days of service, with an addition of 11 years and 11 days for\ncampaigns. Echeandia appends the following notes: 'Courage, proved;\nability, more than average; military conduct, indifferent; health, Broken;\nloyalty, supposed faithful. His services merit all consideration, but his conduct is now loose, doubtless from excessive drinking. He was suspended\nfrom command for reasons presented to the supreme government on Feb.\n15, 1828.' St. Pap., Sac, MS., xi. 5-7. He died at San Francisco on March\n27, 1830, at 1:30 a. m., at the age of 46 years, and was interred in the mission\ncemetery next day by P. Estenega. S. Francisco, Lib. Mision, MS., 73-4;\nVallejo, Doc, MS., xx. 165. Mariano Estrada was the executor of the estate,\nS. Jose\", Arch., MS., i. 36, which five years after his death was in debt to the\nmissions to the extent of over $1,000. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas.,\nMS., iii. 76-7; S. Francisco, Cuentas, MS., v. 1. To his widow, Dona Sole-\ndad, was left the rancho of Las Pulgas, and notwithstanding the depredations\nof lawyers and squatters, she was in easy circumstances until her death in\n1874. None of the. sons of Don Luis ever acquired any prominence in public life.\nThe Californian writers, almost without exception, speak in the highest terms\nof Arguello's honesty, ability, and kindness of heart: See Alvarado, Hist.\n<7aZ.,MS.,ii. 102^t; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS.,i.327-30; ii.42-3; Osio, Hist. Cal.\nMS., 5-21, 57; Amador, Mem., MS., 81-3; Castro, Pel., MS., 13-14; Avila,\nCosas, MS.,22; Romero, Mem., MS., 10; Machado, LoPasado,MS., 21;Spence's\nNotes, MS., 14; Hayes'Em. Notes, MS., 505; StaBdrbaraPress, Oct. 24; 1874;\nS. Diego Union, Oct. 29, 1874.\n REENFORCEMENT OF OFFICERS. 13\nthat respect; but his disregard for law was always in\nthe interest of his province and people, and no selfish\nor unworthy action is recorded against him. After his\naccession to the chief command, he had some enemies\u2014\nnotably Jose* Maria Estudillo, Jose Joaquin de la Torre,\nand Jose* Antonio Carrillo; but none of these were Californians of the best class. With the people, and\nespecially with his soldiers, he was always popular, by\nreason of his kindness, liberality, and affability. If he\ncame into somewhat more bitter controversy with the\nfriars than had his predecessors, it was due to the\ntimes and circumstances rather than to the man. In\nperson he was tall, stout, and attractive, with ruddy\ncomplexion and jet-black hair. He was a jovial companion, a bon vivant, so far as a man could be so in this\npoverty-stricken province, free with his money, in\nfact a spendthrift, and always in debt. His peculiarities of temperament led him into an increasing\nfondness for wine and aguardiente; and his drinking\nhabits doubtless broke down his health, and hastened\nhis death in middle life.\nThere were embarked on the Nieves, in June, from\nSan Bias, besides Echeandia, Alferez Romualdo Pa-\ncheco and Alferez Agustin V. Zamorano, both engineer officers, and probably from the college of which\nEcheandia had been director, the former coming as\naide-de-camp and. the latter as secretary to the governor; also Alferez Jose' Maria Ramirez, a cavalry officer, whose position at this time under Echeandia is not\napparent; Alferez Patricio Estrada, in command of a\ndetachment of about forty infantry of the battalion\nknown as Fijo de Hidalgo;23 and also probably a fifth\nalferez, Juan Jos6 Rocha, though it is possible that he\ncame on to Monterey by the Morelos. Of Estrada and\n23 In 1833 this body of men was spoken of as the piquete del 2\u00b0 batallon\npermanente, consisting of 1 sergeant, 3 trumpeters, 3 drummers, 1 corporal\nof fusileers, 1 corporal of artillery, 9 grenadiers and chasseurs, and 16 fusi-\nleers\u201434 in all. Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxvi. 31.\n 14 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nhis men, though they remained ten years in the country, hardly anything is known; but Zamorano, Pacheco,\nRocha, and Ramirez were somewhat prominent in\nlater annals.24\nAll those mentioned are supposed to have stopped\nwith Echeandia at Loreto, and to have accompanied\nhim to San Diego by land, though it is possible that\nthere were some exceptions; but another passenger\non the Morelos, which had sailed from Acapulco on\nMarch 25th, and had probably brought some of the\nofficers named as far as San Bias,25 was Jose Maria\nHerrera, who, being sent as comisario subalterno de hacienda to administer the territorial finances, did not stop\nat Loreto, but came' on to Monterey, where he arrived July 27th, and took possession of his office August 3d, relieving Mariano Estrada, who had held a similar position under a different title by authority of the\ndiputacion. Herrera was subordinate to the comisario general de occidente at Arizpe, and in financial\nmatters he was largely independent of Echeandia.\nHe brought with him a memoria of goods worth $22,-\n379, and $22,000 in silver;26 but.there was no provision\nmade for the back pay of the troops; and Herrera\nrefused to comply with Echeandia's order to pay the\nsoldiers for three months in advance, because such an\nact was not allowed in his instructions, the funds were\ninsufficient, and it would not be wise to put so much\nmoney into the hands of the troops.27  Beyond some\n24 Pacheco's first important service was rendered this year, when he escorted\nLieut.-col. Romero to the Colorado on his way to Sonora; explored two routes\nto the river; and perhaps made some preparations for permanently opening\none of the routes. See vol. ii. p. 507 et seq., this work.\n25Dept Rec, MS., v. 103; Herrera, Causa, MS., 67.\n26 Mexico, Mem. Relaciones, 1826, p. 32; Mexico, Mem. Hacienda, 1826,\np. 27, and annexes, 9, 25. Two hundred boxes of manufactured tobacco\nseem to have been also sent, worth $23,863; and there was an order on the\ncomisario de occidente for $12,000, which does not* seem to have been paid at\nthis time. A small part of the $22,000 was perhaps spent at Loreto. With\nreference to the tobacco, Huish, Narrative, 426, says that the government, by\nway of paying up arrears of 11 years at S. Francisco, sent a brig with a\ncargo of paper cigars to be issued to the troops in place of dollars; but as\nMartinez observed, cigars would not satisfy the families, and the compromise was refused 1\n27 Sept. 1st, Echeandia's order to Herrera. Dept. Rec, MS., ii. 2.   Oct.\n NEW ARRIVALS. 15\nminor correspondence on routine aspects of the department, and a slight clashing between the new\ncomisario and the habilitados, there was nothing in\nconnection with Herrera's administration during this\nyear that requires notice.28\nHerrera, however, was not the only official who\narrived on the Morelos in July 1825. The vessel\nbrought also to California Lieutenant Miguel Gonzalez in command of a detachment of artillerymen, who\nwas immediately made a captain, and became comandante de armas at Monterey by virtue of his rank.\nThere also came, probably in this vessel, and certainly\nabout this time, three more alfereces, or sub-lieutenants, Antonio Nieto, Rodrigo del Pliego,. and Jose*\nPerez del Campo, the first being in command of a\nsmall body of infantry sent as a guard to eighteen convicts condemned to presidio life in California for various offences. With few exceptions, the new-comers,\nwhether officers, soldiers, or convicts, were Mexicans\nof a class by no means desirable as citizens.29\n15th, Herrera to Arguello, explaining his reasons for not obeying, and alluding\nto other communications. Dept St. Pap., MS., i. 105. It is likely that Echeandia gave the order in the interest of his own popularity, knowing that it\ncould not be obeyed.\n28 Oct. 10th, Lieut Estrada speaks of complaints of Echeandia through the\ncomandante of iSlonterey, and calls for a statement of charges for supplies.\nOct. 31st, Herrera is willing to furnish the account, though there are some mission items of supplies to escoltas that cannot be included yet. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., i. 98. Nov. 17th, the habilitado of Sta Barbara objects to the comisario exacting accounts of the mission supplies, etc. He says the company will\npay its own debts if the funds due it are supplied. Dept St. Pap., Ben. Com.\nand Treas., MS., i. 6. Dec. 6th, Herrera says that public creditors are\nmany and resources small. The government expects him to make a just distribution of the small revenue he controls; and he will make to the public a\nrespectful statement of his administration. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 148-9.\nGeneral mention of Herrera's appointment and arrival. See Mexico, Mem.\nHacienda, 1826, p. 27, by which it appears that he was appointed on Feb.\n8th; Dept St. Pap., MS., iii. 209-10; Leg. Rec, MS., i. 282-3; Dept St.\nPap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 12; St. Pap., Sac, MS., xiv. 2. He is\ncalled comisario subalterno, comisario sub-principal, comisario provisional,\nadministrador sub-principal, comisario de guerra, sub-comisario, treasurer,\nsuperintendent of customs, etc.\n29 The number of the soldiers, both artillery and infantry, is not recorded.\nVallejo, Hid. Cal, MS., ii. 62-6, and Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 110-14,\nconfound this arrival of convicts with the later ones of 1830. A list of the\n18 convicts who started is given in St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 20-2, and of the 17\nwho arrived, in Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lvii. 3, besides mention of\nseveral of the number in Id., Ii. 2-3.    Eight or nine came with definite sen-\n 16 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nPrefect Sarria, as we have seen, declined to swear\nallegiance to the federal constitution or to sanction\nrepublicanism either as friar, prelate, or vicar. He\nleft each of the friars free to decide for himself, and\nrefused to issue instructions on the subject. There\ncan be no doubt, however, that the question had been\nthoroughly discussed by the padres, and a definite\nunderstanding reached, during the many months in\nwhich the formal declaration of the republic in California had been only a question of time. Yet that\nthe agreement had not been entirely unanimous is\ntendes, while the rest were simply banished to California. The former were\nmostly the companions of Vicente Gomez, ' el capador,' a fiend in human form,\nthief and assassin, who is said never to have spared nor failed to torture any\nman, woman, or child of Spanish blood that fell into his hands, but who, in\nconsideration of his services to the' cause of independence,' was simply sent to\nCalifornia subject to the orders of the comandante general. It is not quite\ncertain that he came to Monterey with the rest, since there are indications\nthat he came to S. Diego with Echeandia, or at least about the same time. He\nwas soon sent overland to Sonora, perhaps in the hope that he would be killed\nby the Indians, where he arrived in March 1826, after narrowly escaping\ndeath at the hands of the Yumas. After having been employed by Gen.\n. Figueroa on various commissions, he was sent back, and on the way he was\nkilled by Alf. Jos6 Maria Ramirez at S. Vicente, Lower California, in a per-1\nsonal quarrel, probably in September 1827. Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS.,\nlvii. 21; Dept Rec, MS., v. 96-7, 130.\nOne of the companions of Gomez bore the illustrious name of Fernando\nCorte\"s, ' de muy mala fama en toda la repiiblica,' but of whose Californian experience nothing is known. Another was Joaquin Solis, ' principal agente de\nGomez, de muy mala conducta, voz general ser ladron,' who acquired fame as\nleader of a revolt in 1829, described in chap. iii. of this volume, as did also in\nlesser degree in the same affair another companion, Antonio Avila, condemned\nto death for murders and robberies in Puebla, but pardoned on condition of exile\nto California. Another of the band was Francisco Badillo, sentenced to 10\nyears of presidio work in chains, or to be shot without hesitation or formality\nshould he venture to move from the spot where he might be put to work, fit\n1835, the time having expired, Badillo was set at liberty, but remained in the\ncountry. Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxvi. 20-2. In 1833 he had been\ncharged with a new robbery. Id., lxxiv. 44. He was married in 1830 to his\nmistress at Sta Barbara. Carrillo (Jose\"), Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., 26. He at one\ntime kept a monte bank at Sta Barbara, and Manuel Castro once found him\nconcealed under the table, and stealthily reaching out to steal his own money,\nmerely, as he said, to keep in practice! After a long career as cattle-thief, he\nwas finally lynched about 1860, his body with that of his son being found one\nmorning hanging to a tree with the feet very near the ground. A little granddaughter wept bitterly because the cruel Americans allowed her grandpapa\nto die when a little earth under his feet would have saved him 1 Another son\nknown as Six-toed Pete escaped across the frontier. Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS., ii. 251-3; Streeter'sRecol, MS., 159-63.\nOther members of this band of convicts were for the most part ordinary\nthieves and vagabonds, of whose life in California nothing is known, a few\nalso not being named here by reason of their good behavior and respectable\nconnections.\n RECALCITRANT FRIARS. 17\nindicated by Padre Est^nega's participation in the\nreligious services at San Francisco as well as by ocur-\nrences of a later date. Sarria defended his action in\nletters to the governor.30 Anterior obligation to\nthe king of Spain was the ground on which he based\nhis refusal, with special reference to the fact that the\nnew constitution required him to take up arms and\nresist invasion by a foreign power, including Spain.\nThus he might have to resist the king himself at the\nhead of his army, in a province which was justly a\npart of his dominion, which would be to disobey the\ndivine law and teachings of the saints. He foresaw\nthe objection that his previous oath to independence\nunder Iturbide had required the same opposition to\nSpain; but he answered it by claiming that before\nSpain was not under her primitive government, the\nking was deprived of liberty, and religion was threat-\ntened; that under the plan of Iguala, Fernando VII.\nwas to be called to the throne, with some chance of\nSpanish approval; and moreover, that the previous\noath had not only been ordered by his diocesan, but\nhad been formally decided on by a majority of the\nfriars, including the prefect.\nOn the 7th of April the diputacion took up the\nmatter. Francisco Castro urged immediate steps to\nlearn at once who of the padres would follow the example of their prelate in refusing allegiance. He\nalso proposed that such as took this course should be\n80Feb. 11, 1825. jMy Venerable Sir and Master: After reflecting on the\noath we are ordered to take to the federal constitution of the United Mexican\nStates, for which oath you have designated next Sunday, 13th inst., I have\ndecided that I cannot do it without violating what I owe to anterior obligations of justice and fidelity; and this I announce to you, though not without\nmuch and very grave regret on my part, since I would like so far as possible\nto give an example of submission as I have done up to this time; but I cannot,\nthe decision of my conscience opposing. For the same reason I shall not use\nmy influence that the other padres take the Oath, nor that they sanction it\nwith mass, te deum, etc., as ordered in your communication of the 3d. I\nunderstand that we are threatened with expatriation; but I will pass through\nall, though with tears at leaving my beloved flock. That which I took up for\nGod, I will always leave if it be necessary for the same God, to whom I have\nprayed, etc. In other things very much at your service,' etc. Arch. Arzob.,\nMS., iv. pt ii. 135-6. Also letters of March 30th and April 14th, in Id., 137-9<\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   2\n 16 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\ndeprived of all control over the temporalities of their\nrespective missions, which should be intrusted to administrators. Arguello opposed the measure, because\nit would result in the padres abandoning spiritual as\nwell as temporal interests, and also because it would\nbe impossible to find competent administrators. Don\nFrancisco zealously defended his proposition, and even\nwished to hold Arguello personally responsible to the\ncountry for any harm that might result from leaving\nthe recalcitrant friars in charge of public property.\nAll three of the Castros, that is, all the rest of the\nmembers, wTere of the same opinion, though Don Antonio was somewhat doubtful about the religious\naspects of the case. Thus the vote remained on the\nrecords; but the only result that I find was the issuing of an order to the comandantes that each padre\nmust be required to state in writing whether he would\ntake the oath or not.31\nIn April Padre Narciso Duran assumed the presidency of the missions, an office that since the death\nof Seiian had been held by Sarria in addition to that\nof prefect.32 Duran also refused to take the oath, not,\nas he said, from any \"disaffection to the independence,\" nor for any \" odious passion,\" for indeed he\nbelieved independence to interest Spain more than\nAmerica\u2014that is, that Spain was better off without\nMexico. But he was tired of taking so many oaths\nduring the past few years, when oaths seemed to have\nbecome mere playthings. \"I offer,\" he writes, \"an\noath of fidelity to do nothing against the established\ngovernment, and if this be not accepted, I am resigned\nto the penalty of expatriation, which the constitution\n31 Leg. Rec, MS., i. 44-6. June 3d, governor's order to comandantes, acknowledged by Sarria June 22d. Arch. Arzob., MS., iv. pt ii. 140. The padres\nseem to have made no immediate reply. There is some reason to suppose\nthat the above date should be June 3, 1826.\n32 April 2d, Duran notifies the governor of his assumption of the office.\nDept Rec, MS., i. 117; Arch. Arzob., MS., iv. pt ii. 140. June 3d, comandante of S. F. has proclaimed Duran as vicario foraneo. St. Pap. Sac,\nMS., xiv. 36. Oct. 15, 1824, bishop grants to president all the powers conferred by the former bishop. Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 320.\n ARREST OF PRESIDENT SARRIA. 19\nimposes.\"33 Meanwhile the news of Sarria's refusal\nhad been sent to Mexico, and in June an order of\nPresident Victoria was despatched to California that\nthe royalist prefect should be arrested and sent to\nMexico by the first vessel.34 This order was carried\ninto effect in October, as appears indirectly from\nEcheandia's order to Padre Duran to come to San\nDiego and take the oath of allegiance in order that\nhe might assume the duties of prelate during Sarria's\narrest.35 The arrest was, I suppose, nominal, merely\na suspension from his authority as prelate, involving\nlittle or no interference with his personal liberty; and,\nas we shall see later, he was not sent away at all. It\nseems that Padre Martin of San Diego had based his\nrefusal to participate in religious services on his prelate's prohibition. The government called for a declaration as to the nature of that prohibition; and also\ndesired Padre Est^nega to be informed of its, great\nsatisfaction at his patriotic conduct in pronouncing a\nstirring discourse at the taking of the oath.36\n88Oct. 12th, Duran to Herrera, in Arch. Arzob., MS., iv. pt. ii. 148.\n34 June 29th, Esteva to comandante general of Cal. Sup. Govt St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 4-5.    P. Sarria was, however, to be treated with respect.\n3*Oct. 31st, E. to D. Dept Rec, MS., ii. 6. In D.'s letter of Oct. 12th,\nArch. Arzob., MS., iv. pt ii. 148, he said that he could not act as prefect\nuntil certain that Sarria was out of the province. This shows that Sarria's\narrest was probably effected by Arguello before Echeandia's arrival, or perhaps by order of the latter issued while en route.\n36Sept. 2d, Minister Llave to governor. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., iii. 1.\nThe general fact of the padres' opposition to the republic is mentioned by\nnearly all who have written on California annals, and it is not necessary to\ngive specific references. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 20-5, and Vallejo, Hist.\nCal., MS., i. 341-2, dwell on the fact that the padres never lost their feeling\nof dissatisfaction and anger; that as a body they took subsequently but slight\ninterest in the progress of Cal.; and that through their influence the Indians\nwere disaffected and the difficulties of local government greatly increased.\nAlvarado is much the more radical of the two. It was the policy, he says, of\nemperor and clergy to make of the people their burros de carga. This, as\nthey well knew, could not be done with republicans. True, they might win\nover many influential republicans; but there were so many factions that all\ncould not be controlled. Sooner or later the j ass was sure to kick.' Therefore,\nwhen they could not prevent the establishment of a republic, they wished to\nleave the country; were not allowed to go and take with them the wealth of\nthe territory; were angry; preached against the existing government; and in\nshort, made all the trouble they could.\nAmong other classes besides the padres, there was no special manifestation\nof feeling for or against the republic at this time. The masses now and later\nwere indifferent; the older officers and soldiers looked with deep regret on the\n 20 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nThe old question of mission supplies still remained\nopen as a ground of controversy. The reasons which\nhad impelled the padres to give with a spirit of cheerfulness, real or feigned, had largely ceased to exist.\nNow most gave grudgingly, because they could not\nhelp it; or in a spirit of apathetic indifference to what\nmight become of the mission property; or\" in a few\ncases refused in the interest of their neophytes. Padre\nDuran on one occasion told Martinez of San Francisco\nthat he could send no more supplies, and it would be\nbest to discharge the soldiers if there was a lack of\nrations. Martinez in turn asked the governor for permission to take the supplies by force. Padre Viader\nwrote that Santa Clara had to buy wheat for its neophytes, while the pueblo had plenty of grain to sell\nthe presidios. \" The moment the keys are taken from\nus by force,\" he wrote, \" we will not take them back,\nnor attend to the temporal administration.\" The destitution was very gpeat at San Diego, but the comandante in his letters implies that the padres gave all\nthey could. The commandant of Santa Barbara had\na sharp correspondence with Padre Ibarra of San\nFernando, trying to prove that the furnishing of supplies was by no means a special favor to the troops,\nbut an ordinary duty of the missions until the expected\nmemorias should come from Mexico, together, with a\nnew band of missionaries. The padre, however, was\nincredulous about the anticipated aid. \" If you do not\neat till then,\" he said, \"you will need elastic bellies;\nand as to the coming missionaries, I will believe it\nwhen I see them, not before.\"    He would, however,\nchange of government; and some of the younger Californians with the Mexican element were more or less enthusiastic republicans. The Indians had of\ncourse no choice, but their condition was in no respect improved by the\nchange. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 105-7, has something to say on the advantages\nof the Spanish rule. He notes that as late as 1842 an invalido hesitated to\nmake a declaration before an alcalde, fearing that it was wrong for an old\nsoldier of the king to do so. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 40-4, mentions a\nkind of -secret politico-historical society formed by the youth of Monterey,\nwith Jose\" Joaquin de la Torre as president, by which various schemes of\nindependence from Mexico as well as Spain were discussed, and where even\nannexation to the U. S. was proposed, or a French t>r English protectorate.\n MISSION AFFAIRS. 21\nnot be surprised if Mexico were to send to California\nfoi supplies. From San Luis Padre Luis Martinez\ncomplained of everything in general, and in particular\nof some I missionaries' of a new sect, including one of\nthe Picos, who were travelling with a barrel instead\nof a cross, and were making many converts to drunkenness, while the soldiers of the escolta did nothing\nbut destroy.37 In Mexico the guardian made a detailed representation to Minister Alaman on the critical condition of affairs in California, owing to the fact\nthat the Indians were naturally disgusted at having\nto support by their labor themselves, the padres, the\ngovernment, and the troops. He declared the amount\nof unpaid drafts to be $259,151, and that of unpaid\nstipends $153,712, begging most earnestly for at least\na partial payment to save the missions from ruin.33\nThe junta de fomento took up the question of\nmission policy, which was regarded as one of the most\nimportant matters submitted to that board. In its\ndictdmen on Echeandia's instructions,89 the junta,\nwThile regarding the necessity of reform as a matter\nof course, called attention chiefly to the importance\nof proceeding with great caution until a satisfactory\nmethod could be devised for introducing a radical\nchange in the old system. Finally in April the mission plan was presented. In prefatory remarks the\nhistory of the system was briefly traced, with a view\nto show the growth of the monastico-military government in the Californias. \"The junta is not ignorant\nthat from the Spanish system of discoveries and\nspiritual conquests has resulted all the progress made\n87Corresp. of Duran, Viader, and Lieut. Martinez in St. Pap., Sac, MS.,\nxiv. 22-4, 35-40. Destitution at S. Diego. Dept St. Pap., MS., i. 110;\nGuerra, Doc, MS., v. 201-2; Com. of Sta Barbara vs. P. Ibarra. Doc. Hist.\nCal, MS., iv. 731-2; Guerra, Doc, MS., vii. 68-9. P. Martinez to Arguello,\nArch. Arzob., MS., iv. pt ii. 135. June 1st, 8th, Arguello on his efforts to obtain supplies from the missions. Dept Rec, MS., ii. 35; Guerra, Doc, MS.,\n-iv. 158.\n88July 5th, Guardian Lopez to Alaman. Arch. Arzob., MS., iv. pt ii.\n143-8. .\n89 For an account of the various reports and plans of the junta, see note 2,\nthis chapter.\n A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nin the Jesuit missions of old California, and in those\nfounded later in new California by the Fernandinos.\nIt knows the consideration and the praise which these\nestablishments have merited, not only from Spaniards,\nbut from enlightened foreigners; and it has given due\nweight to all the reasons ordinarily urged in defence\nof the system to show it to be not.only just and. convenient, but absolutely necessary. Still\" the junta \"has\nnot been able to reconcile the principles of such a\nsystem with those of our independence and political\nconstitution, nor with the true spirit of the gospel.\nReligion under that system could not advance beyond\ndomination. It could be promoted only under the\nprotection of escoltas and presidios. The gentiles\nmust renounce all the rights of their natural independence to be catechumens from the moment of\nbaptism; they must be subjected to laws almost m6-\nnastic, while their apostles deemed themselves freed\nfrom the laws which forbade their engaging in temporal business; and the neophytes must continue thus\nwithout hope of ever possessing fully the civil rights\nof society. The junta has not been able to persuade\nitself that this system is the only one fitted to arouse\namong the gentiles a desire for civil and social life,\nor to teach its first rudiments, much less to carry it\nto perfection. It believes rather that it is positively\ncontrary to the political aims in accordance with\nwhich it should have been arranged, and still more to\nthe true spiritual aim which should be kept in view*.\"\n\"The present condition of the missions does not correspond to the great progress which they made in the\nbeginning. This decadence is very noticeable in Lower California, and would suffice toprove that the system needs change and reform,\" especially in respect\nof the temporal management by the friars. The\nplan \\>y which the junta proposed to effect the needed\nreforms I append substantially in a note.40    It shows,\nt0 ' La Junta en suma reduce su dictdmen para el-arreglo .de las misiones\nde Californias a las proposiciones siguientes:' 1. Conversions among gentiles\n VESSELS ON THE COAST, 23\nlike the prefatory remarks which I have quoted, the\nfeeling on the subject in Mexico under the. republican\nregime; and while as a whole it never became a law,\nit doubtless had an effect on subsequent legislation\nrespecting secularization. In the colonization plan\nproposed by the junta a little later, the expense of\nbringing settlers from Mexico and an allowance for\ntheir support during a term of years were to be taken\nfrom the mission capital, which was supposed to have\naccumulated during the friars' administration; but\nthe amount was to be 'equitably divided' between\nthe sums due the missions for supplies, and the funds\nactually on hand! Echeandia took some time to investigate the condition of mission affairs, and therefore did little or nothing this year which could indicate his policy.\nOf the forty-seven vessels more or less clearly recorded as having been on the coast in 1825, seventeen\nwere whalers; three were men-of-war; one was the\nnational transport; respecting eleven or twelve we have\nonly a mere mention, in some cases erroneous, of name\nand presence, with no information about their business;\nwhile of the remaining fourteen the objects, mainly corn-\nmust be effected by visitas and entradas of friars and priests, who must\nobtain the permission of the government, and will receive their stipends as a\nlimosna from the pious fund. 2. The supreme government should administer\nthe pious fund, act upon the petitions of those who wish to convert gentiles,\nand assign to them their stipends and vidticos, but the territorial government\nmay report on places for new conversions, and propose the priests, already in\nCal., deemed qualified for the new ministry. 3. The right to evangetizar\nshould not be restricted to members of any particular order. 4. The friars\nnow in charge of the missions should remain in charge as curates. 5. To\navoid burdensome taxes, etc., these friars as curates may receive their\nstipends as before from the pious fund. 6-7;. There should be two friars in\neach mission, besides those temporarily residing or resting there while\nengaged in converting gentiles. 8. The missions to continue in this condition until formally made parishes and delivered to the bishop. 9. The government should reassume the administration of mission temporalities, forming the necessary regulations to prevent loss of property or damage to\nneophytes, and should distribute lands to the latter as soon as they are able\nto govern themselves. 10. The government should take measures to abolish\nthe mission escoltas, but at the same time to afford full protection to persons\nand property. 11. The necessary changes in municipal laws, to correspond\nwith this plan, to be referred to congress.\n 24 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nmercial, are well known. Nationally the fleet included\ntwenty American craft, eight English, three Spanish,\ntwo Russian, two Mexican, one Californian,one French,\nand eight of unknown nationality.41 Captain Cooper\nin the Rover started probably in February for a new\nvoyage to China, not returning until the next year.\nThe Sachem and Spy came from Boston for Bryant,\nSturgis & Co., presumably under Gale's superintendence. McCulloch, Hartnell & Co.'s vessels were probably the Pizarro and Junius, and perhaps others, for\nthe records are far from clear.\nOf all the vessels of the year those which created\nthe greatest sensation were three Spanish men-of-war\nwhich made their appearance in April and May. . The\n27th of April a large line-of-battle ship flying the stars\nand stripes of the United States was seen approaching\nMonterey. The people thought of 1818, \"el ano de los\ninsurgentes,\" and made hasty preparations for a flight\nto the interior, while the governor prepared his garrison for defence.42 Late in the afternoon the strange\nvessel anchored just beyond the range of the battery's\nguns, fired a salute, and sent an officer ashore, who\nshouted, \" Viva la libertad!\" and asked to see the governor. The commander soon landed, and proved to\nbe Jose* Martinez, an old acquaintance of the Argiie-\nllos. A short interview served to remove all fears,48\nand the motives of the strangers were soon explained.\n41 The vessels of 1825\u2014see also list for 1825-30 at end of chap. v.\u2014were:\nThe Apollo, Aquiles, Arab, Asia, Bengal (?), Carlos Huat (?), Constante,\nCourier (?), Don, Eagle, Elena, Eliza, Factor, lnca (?), Juan Battey (?), Junius,\nKiafikta, Maria Ester, Merope, Morelos, Nile, Pizarro, Plowboy, Recovery,\nRover, Sachem, Santa Magdalena (?), Sta Rosa (?), Snow (?), Spy, Tartar,\nTiemechmach (?), Tomasa, Warren, Washington, Whaleman, Young Tartar,\nand nine American whalers not named.\n42 J. J. Vallejo, Reminiscencias, MS., 84-6, and Dorotea Valdes, Reminis.,\nMS., 2-5, have more to say of the fright of the people than others, though all\nmention it. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 91-112, narrates the whole affair at some\nlength. He says that Arguello was importuned to retreat, and that the\nartillery commander, Lieut. Ramirez, was especially desirous of securing his\nlife, as he had just married a pretty wife with $8,000, but the governor refused\nto abandon the presidio.\n43 P. Altimira. however, still feared some hostile intention; May 12th he sent\nfrom S. Francisco a warning to Arguello, declaring that the men were bad,\nand should be looked upon with horror.    He also recommended the sending\n THE 'ASIA' AND 'CONSTANTE.' 25\nThe ship was the Asia, or Sail Gerdnirno, of seventy-four guns and six hundred men; and three days\nlater her consort, the brigantine Constante, with sixty\nmen, anchored in the harbor. These vessels had formed\na part of the royal Spanish squadron operating against\nthe rebels on the coast of South America. Together\nwith the Aquiles and the transport Garinton, they\nhad sailed from that coast for Manila in January 1824,\nafter the fall of Callao, under Roque Guruceta. On\nthe way the men revolted in March 1825, at Guahan,\none of the Mariana Islands. They landed all the officers and passengers who would not join in their\nscheme, burned the Garinton, put Jose* Martinez, formerly of the Constante, in command, and returned\neastward with a view of surrendering the vessels to\nsome of the American enemies of Spain. The Aquiles\nstarted first and was not seen again, and the others directed their course to California, as the most practicable route, and with a view of obtaining supplies.\nThis was the account given by Martinez with more\ndetails on his later arrival at Acapulco.44\nAn agreement was signed on May 1st, by which\nMartinez formally surrendered the Asia and Constante\nto Arguello as an officer of the Mexican republic, under\ncertain conditions intended to secure the safety of the\nmen and the payment of their wages.45    Thereupon\nof the news to Mexico, and stated that the American schooner Tartar at San\nFrancisco would carry a despatch for $1,500. Perhaps the padre had an\nunderstanding with Capt. Morrell, and was to have a share of the profits.\nSt. Pap. Sac, MS., x. 10-11. Morrell, Narrative, 209, mentions the man-of-\nwar at Monterey, giving some details.\n44 'Asia' y 'Constante,'Expediente de la Capitulacion, 1825, in Gaceta de Mex.,\nExtra, June 15, 1825, which is devoted wholly to this affair, contains all the\ndocuments, and is the best authority. Jules Verne, the novelist, in The\nMutineers, a story founded on this mutiny, gives many names and other particulars, which do not seem to be altogether inaccurate.    The Asia had car-\n' ried Viceroy O'Donojii to Vera Cruz in 1821, and Conde de Venadito to Habana.\nAlaman, Hist. Mex., v. 329, 818-19. See also Zamacois, Hist. Mej., xi.611-13.\nThe affair is also described in Campaigns and Cruises in Venezuela, i. 404-7.\n45 'Asia' y 'Constante,' Tratado de Capitulacion de los Navios en Monterey,\n1825, MS.; also in Gac Mex., Extra, June 15, 1825; signed by Jose\" Estrada\n(appointed by Arguello as comisionado), Jose Ramirez, Jose\" Cardenas, and\nAntonio Ventura Roteta. Mention in Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS.,lvi\n8. May 3d, Arguello approves the contract in a communication to Martinez, and reappoints the old officers temporarily.    Martinez was comman-\n 26 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nthe officers and men came ashore, swore allegiance to\nindependence and the federal constitution, pitched their\ntents on the beach, and.for over twenty days made\nthings lively at Monterey. First, however, they had a\nreligious duty to perform. The holy virgin had been induced at a time of great peril by prayers and vows so\nto strengthen a weak sail that it bore the violence of\nthe gale better than those thought to need no prayers;\nand now all the men walked barefoot with the sail to\nchurch, and rendered their thanksgiving with much\nceremony.46 Finally, when the merry-making was\nover, health restored, and some necessary refitting\ncompleted, the strangers embarked for Acapulco\nMay 23d, under the charge of Captain Juan Malarin\nas chief navigator and bearer of despatches to the\ncity of Mexico, by Arguello's appointment. The\nMexican government approved the action of the Cali-\nfornian authorities, and assumed the obligation to pay\nthe wages of the men to the amount of over $90,000.\nWhether the debt was ever paid is another matter.\nThe new vessels thus unexpectedly added to the federal navy were sent round to Vera Cruz, and the Asia\nwas subsequently known as El Congreso.41    Several\nder of the two vessels; Cardenas and Antonio Ferrer were next in rank on\nthe Asia; while Antonio E,oteta and Manuel Galindo were the officers of the\nConstante. Dept Rec, MS., i. 54.\n46Torre, Reminis., MS., 39-46, describes this church ceremony, and also\nthat of swearing allegiance, at some length. Osio also gives some details.\nVallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 3-18, who gives considerable space to this affair of\nthe Asia, tells us that in a quarrel about a girl, the gachupin Arnoldo Pierola\nkilled Juan B. Lopez, and took refuge on the ship, where Lieut. Valle and\nthe writer were sent to arrest him, but the crew refused to give him up. By\ncareful precautions, further disturbances were prevented. The ladies presented\ntwo Mexican flags to the vessels, though, as appears from another document,\nthey had to use blue stuff instead of green. Vallejo speaks of a grand ball on\nthe Asia. All the old residents agree that money and sugar had not been so\nplentiful at Monterey for a long time. Sra Avila, Cosas de Cal, MS., 22-3,\nspeaks of the ludicrous attempts of the sailors and marines to ride oh horseback, and says further that their blasphemies shocked the Californians.\nAlvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 93-101, notes that green corn was in season;\nalso that the Indian maidens reaped a rich harvest of money, handkerchiefs,\nand beads from the strangers.\n47 June 11,1825, Manuel Victoria, com. at Acapulco, to sec. war, announcing arrival of the vessels. May 21st, Arguello to com. at Acapulco on the surrender and Malarin's mission. June 11th, Martinez to com. Acapulco, announcing arrival and enclosing his narrative of same date.   May 1st, the treaty as\n THE 'AQUILES' AT SANTA BARBARA. 27\nmen from the two vessels remained in California, but\nnone of this number ever acquired any prominence\nin the territory.48\nThe third vessel of the fleet, the Aquiles, did not\njoin the others at Monterey, but made her appearance\nat Santa Barbara early in May; neither did her commander, Pedro Angulo, deem it best to surrender to\nthe Mexican authorities. During their stay of a few\ndays the crew and passengers contracted as many debts\nas possible, we are told, and otherwise behaved badly.\nFinally on their departure, having left behind the pilot\nwith seven or eight men, they fired two cannon with\nball cartridges against the presidio as a parting salute,\nand disappeared in the south-west.49\nalready cited, certified copy of Monterey, May 22d; and finally announcement\nof approval by Mex. govt on date of the gaceta, June 15th. All making up the\nAsia y Constante, Expediente. Sailing of the vessels on May 23d, Guerra, Doc,\nMS., iv. 158. May 23d, Arguello to commandante at Acapulco, explaining\nthe whole affair, and sending copies of contract. Dept Rec, MS., i. 56. May\n2d, Arguello to comandantes, giving an account of the surrender and plans.\nId., i. 117. Mention of the affair in Niles' Reg., xxix. 74; Gaceta de Mex., i.\n1-4. Contract religiously carried out. Mexico, Mem. Marina, 1826, p. 3.\nThe $90,000 paid. Id., 1830, p. 1. Echeandia, on hearing of Arguello's action,\nhad some fears that he had been tricked, and ordered more strict precautions.\nSt. Pap. Sac, MS., x. 32-3; Dept St. Pap., MS., i. 68. Osio, not friendly\nto Echeandia, says that the latter was severely snubbed by the minister of\nwar for his intermeddling, and that consequently he later took every occasion\nto annoy Arguello, killing him with disgustos in 5 years!\n48 In July 1828, 4 of the number remained in the Monterey district. St.\nPap., Ben., MS., i. 75-6. Manuel Fogo and Francisco Gutierrez named..\nDept Rec, MS., v. 17; vi. 45. David Spence, Hist. Notes, MS., 1-3, who\ngives a very clear narrative of the whole affair, says that 12 of the Asia's crew\nremained and became good citizens. I have also a letter of Spence to Hart-\nnell of May 2d, announcing the arrival with some details. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nxxviii. 451. May 2, 1829, decree of president about the Asia's crew. Dispo-\nsiciones Varias, ii. 60.\n49May 6th, Guerra to Arguello, in Dept St. Pap., MS., i. 113; Id., Ben.\nMil, liv. 7; Dept Rec, MS., i. 227. June 25th, Esteva from Mexico to comandante of Monterey. If the Aquiles arrives give her no food; induce her to\nsurrender like the Asia; take two officers as hostages; seize her sails; and report quickly. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., iii. 8. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS.,\n18-19, says that when the commander of the vessel landed and called at Capt.\nGuerra's house, he found there a great crowd celebrating the wedding of her\nsister and Hartnell. With his companions he was invited to join in the festivities, and was induced by Hartnell to drink a good deal of wine with a\nview the better to learn his business, though without much success. Osio,\nHist. Cal, MS., 99-102, also speaks of the wedding, and tells us that Angulo,\nan ignorant Chileno, at first thought to hide his bad Spanish from so cultured\na company by pretending to be a Frenchman; but Hartnell soon discovered\nhe could not speak French. Learning that the Asia was at Monterey, Angulo hurried onboard without waiting for anything, and sailed for Valparaiso,\nafter sending a cannon ball into town.\n 28 A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\nOne other visit to California this year requires\nspecial attention, from the fact that the voyager published his experiences in a book. I allude to that of\nBenjamin Morrell Jr., in the American schooner Tartar. Having sailed from New York in July 1824, he\narrived at San Diego from the south in April 1825,\nperhaps bringing a cargo for Hartnell from Chili, but\nchiefly bent on catching seals. His description of\nSan Diego, where he remained twelve days,50 and his\nstill more absurd description of his adventures on a\nhunting tour in the interior\u2014where with seven\nSpanish companions he defeated fifty native mounted\nwarriors in a desperate hand-to-hand battle, killing\nseventeen of their number, and himself receiving\nnumerous wounds\u2014leave no room to doubt that the\nvaliant captain was a liar. He touched at Monterey\nand San Francisco, whence, finding that there was no\nprospect of success in the seal-fishery, he sailed in\nMay for the Hawaiian Islands, going up to Cape\nBlanco and down to Socorro Island on the way.\nMany of Morrell's geographical and other details are\ntolerably accurate. His book was not published until\n1832. He ventured on a prophecy \" that long before\nanother century rolls round the principal avenue of\ntrade between the United States and the different seaports on the Pacific Ocean will be the river Colorado,\nas connected with the gulf of California. The China\nand India trade will of course ultimately flow through\nthe same channel.\" Not a cargo has yet been known\nto be sent down the great canon\u2014but the century has\nnot yet rolled round.51\n60 ' Its form is nearly circular, and it is surrounded by a wall about 20$eet\nin height, which forms the back sides of the houses. There are about 250\nhouses erected in this manner, from one to two stories high, built of freestone\nand neatly finished. There is also a large church, one nunnery, and a very\nneat little court-house. This town contains about 1,500 inhabitants, principally natives of the coast.' His way of saying that the women rode astride\u2014\nas they did not\u2014is very good, however: viz., * They usually honor each side\nof the horse with a beautiful little foot and ankle.' A whale-boat was built\nduring the stay.\n51 Morrell, A Narrative of Four Voyages to the South Sea, etc., 1822S1. N.\nY. 1832. 8vo. 492 p.  The matter on California is on p. 197-213. This was the\n REVENUE AND FOREIGNERS. 29\nThe customs revenue for the year was from $8,000\nto $11,000, so far as maybe determined from the\nrecords.52 Vessels seem to have paid duties in\naccordance with the plan of 1824 and the subsequent\naction of the diputacion abolishing the duty on exported produce after January 1st, though the governor, owing to a 'forgetfulness which was natural\/\nneglected to publish the decree until March.53 Echeandia's only action on commercial matters was a\ndecree by which all trade was forbidden except at\nthe four presidial ports, to the great inconvenience of\nthe missionary traders. A little later, however,\nSan Pedro was excepted, to accommodate the citizens\nof Los Angeles.54\nSeveral of the foreign residents married hijas del\npals this year, but none did much else that calls for\nnotice. Of new arrivals only about twenty names\nare known, of which number most are but visitors,\nchiefly masters of vessels; and only six have any\nclaim to be considered as pioneer residents. John\nBurton, Robert Livermore, and Alpheus B. Thompson are the prominent names; but in the case of each\nthere is a degree of uncertainty respecting the exact\nyear of arrival, as fully explained elsewhere.55\nThe winter of 1824-5 was marked by an unprece-\nsecond of the four voyages. Notices of Morrell's visit in the archives. St.\nPap. Sac, MS., x. 11, 14; xiv. 37; Dept St. Pap., MS., i. 64-5. Blundering notice of the voyage in Taylor's L. Cal., 43.\n52 The amount is given as $8,014 and elsewhere as $11,036, in Dept St.\nPap. Ben. Cust. H., MS., i. 101-2, 212. Duties at Sta Barbara, $1,220.\nProv. St. Pap. Ben. Mil, MS., lvi. 1. Amount at S. Francisco, $1,061; at\nS. Diego, $471. Probably $11,000 was the total, and $8,000 the amount at\nMonterey.\n53 Dept Rec, MS., i. 115.\nM E.'s decree of Dec. 15th, iaS. Antonio, Doc. Sueltos, MS., 101-3; S. Jos\u00a3,\nArch., MS., vi. 23; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxviii. 82; Dept St. Pap., MS., i.\n94. Dec. 20th, S. Pedro excepted. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxviii. 83. Complaint\nthat S. Diego did not get its share of the revenue. Guerra, Doc, MS., v.\n201-2.\n65 See Pioneer Register at the end of these volumes, ii.-v., for the names\nof all, including visitors. The pioneers proper of 1825, besides Burton,\nLivermore, and Thompson, are Fisher the negro, William Gralbatch, and\nJames Grant. Of old residents, W. E. P. Hartnell and Wm. A. Richardson\nwere married; Daniel Hill was baptized; and Capt. Henry Gyzelaar is said\nby Phelps\u2014Fore and Aft, 242-3\u2014to. have been drowned in Russian River,\nthough it may have been a year or two later.\n A TERRITORY OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC.\ndented fall of rain, from which damages more or less\nextensive were reported throughout the length of the\nterritory. At Sonoma many of the new adobe buildings were destroyed. The; voyager Kotzebue notes\nthe violence of the storms at San Francisco. At Santa\nCruz the river overflowed the gardens and undermined\nthe buildings. Considerable grain was spoiled in the\nfields at different missions. The southern rivers were\nso swollen as to prevent the diputados from coming to\nMonterey to ratify the. federal constitution, and considerable changes in the course of the southern streams\nand general drainage of the country are reported, notably at Los Angeles and San Diego; More particu-*\nlars will be found in local anuals.56 The rains- were\non the whole beneficial, to the crops in spite of the\nlocal losses, for the harvest was 68,500 fanegas, the\nlargest of the decade except that of 1821.\n56General mention not likely to occur in local ailuals. Leg. Rec, MS., i.\n42; Dept Rec, MS., i. 300-1. A newspaper item, accredited to Salvio Pa-\ncheco and widely copied, states that from 1824 to 1826 hardly any rain fell.\nMention of the floods in Alta Cal., Dec. 30, 1852; Yuba Co. Hist., 67.\n CHAPTEK II.\nECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\n1826-1830.\nNational, Measures, 1826\u2014Jujnta de Fomento\u2014Echeandia at San\nDiego^Guerra for Congress, 1827-8\u2014Colonization Regulations\nof. 1828^TerritorIal Diputacion, 1827\u2014Proposed Change of\nName\u2014Echeandia in the North\u2014Diputacion, 1828-30\u2014Election\u2014\nMaitorena Sent to Congress, 1829-30\u2014Acts of the Supreme Government\u2014Padres as Ayudante Inspector\u2014GoMez as Asesor\u2014\nCalifornia as a Penal Colony\u2014Arrival of 130 Convicts\u2014Carrillo\nElected to Congress for 1831-2\u2014Expulsion of Spaniards,. 1827-30\u2014\nList of Spanish Residents\u2014Echeandia's Appeals' for Aid\u2014His\nDesignation\u2014Appointment of Antonio Garcia\u2014The Californias\nSeparated\u2014Manuel Victoria Appointed Governor.\nFor the last half ofvthe decade under consideration,\ntne course of events adapts itself more conveniently\nto a grouping in topics than to strict chronological\ntreatment, since the epoch, with the exception of the\nSolis revolt, was not one of radical changes and startling events, but rather of gradual progress toward the\nMexican ideal of republicanism and the secularization\nof the missions. There was chronic and ever-increasing Restitution among the troops, resulting in open\nmutiny, constant scheming to make both ends meet,\nwith no little rascality on the part of the territorial\nfinanciers, and growing commercial industry under the\nauspices mainly of foreigners. Of the topics to be\nseparately treated, usage, as well as convenience in this\ninstance, gives the first place to politics, and to matters more or less closelv connected with territorial and\nnational government.\n(31)\n 32 ECHEANDfA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nPolitically, then, 1826 was wellnigh a blank. The\nnational authorities attached some importance to California as affording by her rich missions a possible\nstronghold for Spanish reactionary sentiment, and\nthey had a vague idea that there was a problem to be\nsolved there; but having sent a political chief to study\nthe state of affairs, a small military reenforcement, an\nadministrator of finances, and a small amount of money\nand goods for him to administer, they felt that they\nhad done a good deal, and were content to let California work out her own salvation for a time. Yet it\nseems that the junta de fomento was still engaged\nupon a general plan of government for the province,\nand for the report of this body, of whose acts we have\nunfortunately no record, all were waiting.1\nCheering news was also sent north that with the\nsurrender of San Juan de Uliia the Spaniards had\nlost their last foothold in Mexico, and also that the\npope had recognized the Mexican independence. These\nevents were celebrated at different points in the territory, by the governor's order, in April and May.2\nEcheandia, sent to establish the republican regime,\nremained at San Diego engaged in studying the country's needs. He was not in robust health, was naturally inclined to be easy-going and dilatory, and was\ncertainly in no haste to adopt any radical policy.\nSome items of business connected with the arrival of\nvessels claimed his attention; he slightly agitated the\nmatter of secularization, trying one or two experiments\nwith a view to test the feelings of the friars and the\n1 Mexico, Mem. Relaciones, 1827, p. 36-7. The minister says that in California very marked vestiges of the old monastico-military government still\nremain, presenting serious obstacles; but the governor is instructed to gather\ninformation, and the junta is at work on a plan.\n3 Corresp. of 1825-6, with notice of celebration at Sta Barbara, Monterey,\nS. Buenaventura, and S. Fernando. Echeandia's order was dated April 15,\n1826. Dept Rec, MS., iii. 16; iv. 31; Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxxvii.j\nId.i Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 11; St. Pap., Ben., US., i. 69-70; Sup. Govt\nSt. Pap., MS., xix. 26. Double pay for three days was ordered for soldiers;\nand some silver coins seem to have been distributed. At S. Fernando the\npadre refused to officiate, and the neophytes said some pater-nosters and ave\nmarias on their own account.\n GUERRA AS CONGRESSMAN. 33\ncapabilities of the Indians; and he wras engaged together with Jose* Maria Herrera in laying the foundations of what became later a very bitter quarrel. But\nof these topics I shall speak elsewhere. Montereyans\nwere forming a prejudice against the new governor\nbecause he chose to live in the south. The padres\ndisliked him because of the republic he represented\nand his expected opposition to their interests; but the\ngovernor attended to his routine duties in a manner\nthat afforded little or no ground of complaint.\nThe diputacion had no existence since its suspension by Arguello; but at the end of 1826 Echeandia\nseems to have ordered a new election, and on the 18th\nof February five electors de partido met at San Diego\nto choose, not only diputados to reorganize the territorial diputacion, but also a diputado to the national\ncongress.8 Pablo de Sola was on the first vote chosen\nas representative in congress; but in view of the doubt\nwhether Sola could be deemed a resident of California\nand of the urgent necessity that the territory should\nbe represented, the vote was reconsidered, and Captain\nJose* de la Guerra y Noriega was unanimously elected,\nwith Gervasio Arguello as substitute. The term of\noffice was for 1827-8. Guerra did not start for Mexico until January 1828. His friends urged him not\nto go, fearing that as a Spaniard he would not be well\nreceived. Their fears were w7ell founded, since lie was\nnot admitted to congress, and even had to hurry back\n8 Dec. 5, 1826, Gov. orders that electors are not to start until further\nnotice. Dec. 31st, he orders them to start. Dept Rec, MS., iv. 19-26.\nThe order for an election is not extant, but it appears from another document\nto have been dated Nov. 14th. The five electores de partido, one for each presidio and one for Los Angeles, were Francisco de Haro, S. F.; Est^van Mun-\nras, Monterey; Carlos A. Carrillo, Sta B.; Vicente Sanchez, Los Angeles;\nand Agustin Zamorano, Sr Diego. Adas de Elecciones, MS., 1-4; Dept St.\nPap., Angeles, MS., x. 1; Guerra, Doc, MS., vii. 155-8, in which documents\nis found the record of the action of the meeting. The only partido election\nof which we have a record was that at S. F. on Jan. 1, 4, 7, 8, 1827, where\nHaro was chosen over Joaquin Estudillo. Details given. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i.\n99-102; and the only primary elections recorded were that at S. F,, Id., and\nthat at San Antonio on Nov. 26th, where Eugenio Nactre was chosen to go to\nMonterey and vote for the elector de partido. Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS.,\nlix. 17-19.\nHist. Cal., Vox.. HI.   3\n 34 ECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nto California to avoid serious troubles, although he\nhad left Spain at a very tender age.4 Gervasio Ar-\ngiiello, the suplente, took the seat, but failed to distinguish himself or to be of much use to his constituents.\nThe famous junta concluded its labors in behalf of\nCalifornia at the end of 1827; and in 1828 congress\nmade an appropriation to give the territory a district\njudge.6\nAmong the acts of the supreme government, the\ndecree of November 21, 1828, containing general regulations for the colonization of Mexican territory, deserves prominent notice. This was a supplementary\ndecree, designed to give effect to the law of August\n18, 1824,6 by establishing rules for the guidance of the\nterritorial authorities in making grants of land, as\nalso of petitioners who might desire to take advantage\nof the law's provisions. With some slight modifications, these regulations were in force down to the end of\nMexican power in California, and in this decade a few\ngrants seem to have been made in accordance with\nthem. I reproduce the substance of the rules in a\nnote.7\n* Guerra, Doc., MS., vi. 99-100, 123, and passim. He sailed on the Maria\nEster, carrying high recommendations from Echeandia. That he had not been\nadmitted was known at home on Dec. 6th, Dept Rec, MS., vi. 46-7; and his\npassport to return was signed by President Victoria on Dec. 16th, and vis6d at\nS. Bias on May 16, 1829. Oct. 20, 1829, he speaks of his late penoso viaje in\ndunning Bandini for a debt. Hayes' Mission Book, i. 216. $1,000 of $5,000\ndue Guerra for mileage and salary was later collected in 1831. Guerra, Doc,\nMS., iv. 209-10. June 18th, Arguello from Guadalajara than ks the junta electoral. Dept St. Pap., MS., ii. 23. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 98, accuses Arguello\nof having intrigued, or at least used his* influence, to keep Guerra from his\nseat. A pamphlet of 1828, giving sketches of the congressmen of 1827-8,\nspeaks of him of California as nada, or 'nothing,' Semblanzas de los Miembros.\n6 The secretary of the interior mentions the completion of the junta's work\nin his report of Jan. 30, 1828, stating that a copy in print was distributed to\nmembers. Mexico, Mem. Relaciones, 1828, p. 22. Bustamante, CuadroHist.,\nv. 64, speaks of the junta. The Aguila newspaper mentioned a set of the\nrecords of the junta for sale. Guerra, Doc, MS., iv. 175. It is remarkable\nthat I have found none of these records in the archives.\n6 See chap, xxiii., vol. ii. this work. In forming these regulations of 1828,\nthe plans proposed by the junta de fomento in 1825 were doubtless taken into\nconsideration and adopted to a certain extent. See chap. i. of this volume.\n7 Mexico, Reglamento para la colonizacion de los territorios de la republira.\n21 de Noviembre de 1828, MS. Translation in Hatleck's Report,App. No.\n5; Dwindle's Colon. Hist. S. Brancisco, Add. 25-6; Wheeler's Land Titles,\n8-9; i. Rockwell, 453.\n1. Governors of territories may grant vacant lands to such persons, Mexi-\n CONSTITUTION FOR CALIFORNIA 35\nOn May 12, 1827, the junta de fomento presented\nan iniciativa de ley, or general system of laws for the\nfederal district, with the recommendation that the\nsame be adopted by the government, as a kind of\nconstitution for California and the other territories.\nThere is no evidence that Hwas so adopted; and indeed, I find nothing to show that any general system\nof organic law was ever adopted as a whole; but it\nwould seem that the different branches of territorial\ngovernment were provided for by separate laws as\nneeded from time to time.8\ncan or foreign, as will inhabit and cultivate them. 2. A person desiring lands\nshall, in a petition to the governor, express his name, country, etc., and shall\ndescribe the land by means of a map. 3. The governor shall at once ascertain\nif the conditions, as regards land and claimant, are those required by the law\nof 1824, and may consult the respective municipal authority. 4. This done,\nthe governor may accede or not to the petition, according to the laws. 5.\nGrants to families or private persons shall not be valid without the previous\nconsent of the diputacion, to which body the expediente shall be forwarded.\n6. Not obtaining the approval of the diputacion, the governor shall report to\nthe supreme government, with the necessary documents for its decision. 7.\nGrants to contractors for many families will not be valid until approved by the\nsupreme government, to which must be sent the necessary documents, including\nthe approval of the diputacion. 8. The governor shall sign a document to serve\nas a title to the party interested. 9. A record, shall be made, in a book kept\nfor the purpose, of all petitions and grants, including maps; and a quarterly\nreport must be made to the supreme government. 10. No contract for a\nnew settlement will be admitted, unless the contractor binds himself to introduce as settlers at least twelve families. 11. Non-compliance with the terms\nwithin a proper designated period shall invalidate the grant; but the governor\nmay revalidate it in proportion to the part fulfilled. 12. The colonistwill prove\ncompliance with his contract before the municipal authority, in order, on the\nnecessary record being made, to secure his right of ownership, with power to\ndispose of it. 13. New settlements shall be built with all possible regularity,\nand shall follow the rules of existing laws for other settlements. 14. The\nminimum of irrigable land to one person shall be 200 varas square; of agricultural lands, 800 varas square; and of grazing lands, 1,200 varas square.\n15. Land for a house-lot shall be 100 varas. 16. Spaces between colonized\nlands may be given to adjoining proprietors who have cultivated their lands\nwith most application, and have not received the full amount allowed by the\nlaw; or to their children, who may desire to combine the possessions of their\nfamilies. 17. In those territories where there are missions, the lands occupied by them cannot be colonized at present.\nIn Halleck's Report, 121-2, a law of April 6, 1830, is cited, which authorized the reservation or taking of lands for forts, etc.; and also repealed art.\n7 of the law of 1824 by prohibiting frontier colonization by adjacent foreigners. At least twice in these years, Oct. 7, 1827, and July 15, 1830, general\norders were issued in California for owners of lands to appear and give information about them and the titles. Olvera, Doc., MS., 1; Dept St. Pap., Ben.\nMil. MS., lxxi. 3.\n8 For an account of the acts of the junta de fomento, see chap, i., this\nvolume. Of this iniciativa de ley, I shall not attempt to present more than a\nbrief r&ume' or framework, as follows: 1. Attributes of the president as gov-\n 36 ECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nThe junta of electors at San Diego, on February\n19, 1827, also chose seven vocales, or members, and\nthree suplentes, or substitutes, for the territorial diputacion, which was ordered by Echeandia to convene\nat Monterey a little later. It does not appear that\nhe made any effort to have the sessions held in the\nsouth. The body assembled at the capital on June\n14th, but several changes were necessary in its personnel to keep a quorum in attendance.9 The governor now came north for the first time to preside at\nthe meetings, and doubtless directed in great measure\nthe legislative policy.    The town was illuminated on\nernor of the federal district, who delegates his powers to a governor for each\nterritory, reserving, however, the power Of this and other appointments, with\nother faculties. 9 articles. 2. Attributes of the governor of the Californias.\nAppointed for 4 years, but removable at any time by the president, 35\narticles. 3. Lieut.-governors, one for Upper and one for Lower California,\nappointed by the president for 4 years. 8 articles. 4. Council of government, 4 persons for Alta California, elected by the people for 4 years. 10\narticles. 5. Ayuntamientos of alcalde, 3 regidores, and sindico for a population of 500 in Alta California. Elected, alcaldes yearly. 26 articles. 6.\nAdministration of justice. Civil, 8 articles; criminal, 22 articles. 7. Judges\nlearned in law; 5 in Alta California. 8 articles. 8. Superior tribunal of\njustice, consisting of a president and 2 ministers; no salary; 15 articles. 9.\nEcclesiastical government under bishop of Sonora; 9 articles. 10. Military\ngovernment under governor as comandante militar; 15 articles; with recommendations of strengthened defences, a comisario de guerra, and a military\nacademy. 11. Navy, recommendation of a maritime force at S. Francisco and\nMonterey; and transfer of the navy-yard of S. Bias to Monterey. 7 articles\nand 3 notes. 12. Treasury and revenue, 4, 9 articles. 13. Commerce, 8\narticles. 14. Subdivision of Alta California into 4^districts (practically\nagreeing with that which I have always followed); adopted by the junta on\nJune 26, 1826. There is attached to the iniciativa also the voto final of the\njunta, dated May 13, 1827, and containing general conclusions on the prospects of the Californias and the labors,of the board.\n9 The members elected on Feb. 19th were, in the order of their seniority: 1st,\nMariano Estrada, 2d, Tiburcio Tapia, 3d, Ignacio Martinez, 4th, Antonio M*.\nOrtega, 5th, Juan Bandini, 6th, Anastasio Carrillo, 7th, Antonio Buelna, 1st,\nSupl.^Nicolas Alviso, 2d, Joaquin Estudillo, 3d, Romualdo Pacheco. Actas de\nElecciones, MS., 4-5; Dept St. Pap. ,Ang., MS., x. 1. All seem to have been present at the first session or within a few days, but they were called away by private\nor military business until, on Sept. 1st, the two remaining vocales, apparently\nEstrada and Buelna, had to call in the ayuntamiento of Monterey, and with the\naid of that body elect 5 provisional members, who lived in or near the capital and\ncould be depended on. They were Francisco Pacheco, Estevan Munras, Juan\nJose Rocha, Mariano G. Vallejo, Jose\" Castro. Sworn in on Sept. 19th. How\nthe whole body now stood as respects seniority does not appear. Lieut-\nMartinez at first served as secretary, but on June 26th, Juan B. Alvarado was\nduly chosen, and awarded a salary of $25 per month. Leg. Rec, MS., i. 47-80;\nDept Rec, MS., v. 67, 73, 75, 82, 87; Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 170; Dept St.\nPap. S. Jose\", MS., iv. 47; Id. Monterey, vi. 3-4. Alvarado's salary was to\nbe paid from the municipal funds of Monterey.\n ACTS OF THE DIPUTACION. 37\nthe night of the 13th, and sessions were held at short\nintervals until the 20th of September. The subjects\nconsidered were mainly those connected with commerce and finance, and especially with Herrera's administration of the revenues. Reserving those topics\nfor other chapters, I append in a note an abstract of\nthe legislative proceedings.10\n10 June 14th, oath of office taken by diputados before Echeandia, and Martinez chosen temporarily as secretary. June 16th, Comisario Herrera took the\noath. A reglamento for the dip. was begun and completed at the next session of June 19th. Details of routine rules for business need not be given;\nsuffice ifcto say that these rules were somewhat carefully prepared. There\nwere to be two regular sessions of 3 hours each week, each including a secret\nmeeting. The members were to be divided by the president into 3 sections\nor committees: 1st, on missions and finance, 3 persons; 2d, on police regulations, 2 persons; 3d, on education, agriculture, industry, and govt of the\ndip., 2 persons. The committees named were: 1st, Ortega, Bandini, and\nMartinez; 2d, Estrada and Tapia; 3d*, Carrillo and Buelna. June 23d, Estrada's\nprop, that vessels be allowed provisionally to touch at the minor landing-\nplaces with the governor's consent, approved and referred to committee.\nBandini introduced a manifiesto urging certain changes and reductions in\nduties; that the supreme government be asked for teachers for a college or\nacademy; and that Los Angeles be declared provisionally the capital of the\nterritory, -with the title of city. June 26th, tax on wine and brandy regulated\naccording to report of committee on finance. In afternoon Alvarado elected\nsecretary, Martinez resigning. June 28th, sec. sworn in. Additional regulations of the liquor traffic. June 30th, July 2d, liquor traffic continued. Martinez allowed to join his company in S. Francisco. July 7th, liquor regulations\nconcluded. Bandini's proposition to make Los Angeles the capital taken up,\nbut no action. Gov. proposed a change in the name of the territory. See text.\nJuly 13th, Echeandia's proposition discussed and approved, subject to decision\nof supreme government. Orteganotallowed toretire until Bandini should come.\nContador appointed. July 16th, petition from padres that vessels be allowed to\ntouch at the landings of Sta Inez and Purisima. No power to act. July 17th,\n18th, 20th, Sept. 19th-20th, action on revenue matters, involving the investi-\natioh of charges against Herrera, and resulting measures directed against him.\nSee chap. iii. Pacheco as vocal suplente sworn in oh July 20th. July 24th,\nlong discussion on Bandini's commercial propositions, in which Comisario\nHerrera took part. See chap. iii. Contador Gonzalez takes oath of office.\nBandini and Tapia granted leave of absence; Suplentes Estudillo and Alviso\nsummoned. July 31st, Aug. 4th, 9th, 11th, 17th, Sept. 12th, regulations respecting live-stock and branches of commerce and police therewith connected.\nAlvisosworninAug.4th. Aug. 17th, Echeandia reportshaving ordered the prefect to establish a school in each mission. Sept. 1st, ayuntamiento called in and 5\nnew members elected provisionally. See note 9. Sept. 11th, report received\nof removal of a local officer at Los Angeles. The next session regularly\nrecorded, after Sept. 20th, was on July 10, 1830. Leg. Rec, MS., i. 47-\n104. Incidental mention, Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt. i. 34; St. Pap., Sac,\nMS., xix. 39; Dept Rec, MS., v. 50, 126. June 22d, Echeandia to minister\nof relations asks if the sub-comisario should attend as intendente, and if he\nand the writer should have a vote. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 118-21,\nrepresents Echeandia as having opened the sessions with a long discourse, in\nwhich he explained the situation of the territory, the policy of Mexico, and\nall that he had done since his arrival. This writer states that all the acts of\nthe diputacion in 1827-9 were really the work of Echeandia.    Duhaut-Cilly,\n 38 ECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nOne act of this diputacion merits further notice,\nwhich may as well be presented in the words of the\noriginal record: \" The committee presented the proposition made by his excellency the president at the\nsession of the 7th\u2014this being July 13th\u2014namely, that\nthere be proposed to the supreme government a change\nin the name of the territory, and also in that of the\nPueblo de Los Angeles, in order to distinguish the latter from the city of Puebla de Los Angeles, capital of\nthe state of Puebla, which after close examination the\ncommittee reported for discussion, with the suggestions that the territory be\/ named' Moctezuma, and\nthat to the pueblo be given the name of Villa Victoria de la Reina de Los Angeles; also that there\nshould be proposed to the supreme government as a\ncoat of arms for the territory * an Indian with plume,\nbowT, and quiver, in the act of crossing a strait, all\nwithin an oval having on the outside an olive and an\noak\/ in memory of the first peopling of these Amer-\ncas, which according to the most common opinion was\nby the strait of Anian; all of which, after sufficient\ndiscussion, was Approved.\" So far as the-records show,\nno attention was paid to this proposition in Mexico,\nand fortunately California escaped the burden of a new\nand inappropriate name, founded on one of the least\nreliable traditions of American antiquity.11\nEcheandia di<J not extend his tour northward to\nSan Francisco, perhaps not beyond Monterey; and I\nhave not been able to find the general report on the\nViaggio, i. 282, who attended some of the meetings, tells us the diputauos\nwere mere puppets in the governor's hands. Echeandia would make a proposition supported by specious pretences and prosy arguments; sometimes by\nprevious agreement one or two trusted ones would offer some weak objection\nfor the president to overthrow; if any other dared to oppose, he was interrupted with a reprimand; did any one wince at the last moment, a look controlled his vote.    This, of course, though amusing, is grossly exaggerated.\n11 Leg. Rec, MS., i. 62r-3. On Nov. 3d, Echeandia forwarded this act to the\nsecretary of relations, Dept St. Pap., MS., ii. 44, .and he included with it\nthe proposition to make Los Angeles the capital as well as a villa, though the\nlegislative record does not show the diputacion to have approved Bandini's\nmotion to that effect. Taylor mentioned this proposed change of name in a\nnewspaper article, and from him apparently it was taken by Tuthill. Hist.\nCal., 123.\n GONZALEZ AND THE GOVERNOR. 39\ncondition of the country which he probably made as a\nresult of his inspection.12 For reasons with which\nthe reader is familiar, Echeandia had a somewhat cool\nreception at Monterey; but by his policy at the capital he did much to remove the current prejudice, and\nto gain the good will of that class of Californians\nwhich constituted the progressive republican element.\nHis course in the Herrera quarrel pleased Estrada and\nhis large circle of friends, and he disavowed certain\nunpopular sentiments wThich his foes had attributed to\nhim, such as approval of making California a penal\ncolony.\nAnother affair which helped to give Echeandia a\nbetter standing at Monterey was his method of dealing with Captain Miguel Gonzalez. This Mexican\nofficer had by virtue of his rank held the place of\ncomandante de armas since 1826, greatly to the disgust of lieutenants Estudillo and Estrada, and of all\nthe Californian officers and soldiers. Gonzalez is\nsaid\u2014by his enemies, it must be remembered\u2014to have\nbeen an ignorant, brutal, and despotic man, popularly\nknown as El Macaco, the 'ugly ape.' The regular\ncavalry company, officers and men, accused him of\narbitrary acts, and of partiality to the Mexican troops\nof his own artillery detachment and the others; while\nhe complained of insubordination on the part of the\nCalifornians. It is not very important, even if it were\npossible, to investigate the details and merits of this\nquarrel. Mexican and Californian officers were inclined to look down, each upon the other, from a\nheight of superiority; but the revolution gave commissions to many ruffians, and there is no special reason\nto doubt that Gonzalez was one of them. In February* 1827 he wrote long and somewhat incoherent\ncomplaints to Echeandia, asking to be relieved of his\n12 Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 127-35, says he was received enthusiastically at Sta Barbara, contrary to his expectations, founded on the influence of\nthe friars there; yet it was at this very time that two padres at Sta B. fled\nfrom Cal., as we shall see elsewhere. Vallejo, Hist. Cal.,.MS., ii. 266-71,\nnotes a grand reception at San Jose-, and a rather cool one at Sta Clara.\n 40 ECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\ncommand, but refusing to be subordinate in any way\nto Estrada or Arguello. Usurping Estrada's authority over the presidial district outside of Monterey, he\nput that officer under arrest; but Echeandia affirmed\nEstrada's powers and ordered his release.13 When the\ngovernor came to Monterey in May, he soon took\nsides against Gonzalez, administering frequent reprimands, and finally in November ordered him to prepare for a march to Santa Barbara, in order that\npeace might be restored by his absence. How far\nEcheandia was influenced by the fact that Gonzalez\nwas the friend and father-in-law of Herrera,14 we have\nno means of knowing.15 It would appear that Gonzalez did not accompany Echeandia to the south in\nDecember, or that he returned immediately; for in\nFebruary 1828 he was suspended from his command\nand put under arrest at Monterey by Estrada, at the\ngovernor's order, after some investigations had been\nconducted by Lieutenant Pacheco. At the end of\nthe year he was ordered to leave the country on the\nMaria Ester, in accordance with instructions of May\n31st from Mexico; but he was at San Diego as late as\nApril 1830.16\n13Feb. 22, 24, 1827, Gonzalez to gov. Dept St. Pap., MS., ii. 2-7, 10-11.\nMarch 6th, Apr. 10th, gov. to Gonzalez.    Dept Rec, MS., v. 32, 36-7.\n\"Of Doria Alfonsa, the beautiful wife of J. M. Herrera and daughter of\nCapt. Gonzalez, we shall hear more in later years.\n!5 June 13th, Gonzalez to gov., protesting against firing a salute on corpus\ncristi day. Dept St. Pap., MS., ii. 25. July 14th, 27th, Sept. 27th, Nov. 16th,\n19th 20th, 21st, gov. to Gonzalez, with repremands for misconduct and disrespect\u2014including the shooting at an alcalde, and allowing bis wife to meddle\nin official business. The order to prepare to march for Sta Barbara was on\nNov. 16th. Nov. 21st, gov. to alcaldes, stating his orders for Gonzalez departure and forbidding any insulting or sarcastic remarks about that officer or his\nmen or his family. Dept Rec, MS., v. 64, 69-70, 92-3, 108-11.\n16 Dec 15, 1827, Pacheco ordered to continue investigations. Dept icec,\nMS., v. 117. Feb. 14, 1828, Echeandia to Gonzalez, ordering his suspension\nand 'arrest for intrigue among the troops to keep himself in power; for disturbances at various places; for ignorance, disobedience, and inciting of insubordination. Id., vi. 183-4. Feb. 22d, Estrada has arrested Gonzalez, bt.\nPap., MS., xii. 13. Feb. 29th (?), Echeandia's order to Estrada. Dept St.\nPap* ii 73. Nov. 9th, gov. orders Gonzalez to leave on the Maria Ester.\nDept'Rec, MS., vi. 131. Dec. 22d, to same effect. Id., vi. 161. Dec. 9th,\nhowever, he was ordered across the frontier by land en route to Loreto. Id.,\nvii 260. Apr. 23, 1829, testimony of Gonzalez at S. Diego about a statement\nin a Mexican newspaper that he had destroyed a Spanish flag. Dept St.\nPap., Ben, MU., MS., lxxx.-vii. 72.   Feb. 5, 1830, order from secretary of\n ELECTIONS OF 1828. 41\nBack at San Diego in April 1828,17 Echeandia\nsummoned his diputados to assemble, presumably at\nSan \u00a3)iego;18 but there is no record of any action of the\nbody this year, and little or no evidence that it met at\nall, except perhaps, as Alvarado says, to protest against\nthe holding of meetings out of the capital, to listen\nto Echeandia's views on the subject, and to adjourn.19\nLater in the year, however, at an electoral junta held\nat San Diego on October 6th, the diputacion was reorganized by the choice of four new members.20    All\nwar for Gonzalez to proceed to Mexico. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., vi. 1.\nInocente Garcia, Hechos, MS., 40, 44, says that one of the offences for which\nGonzalez was sent away was the arbitrary infliction on him, Garcia, of 100\npalos without trial, and he not being a soldier. Beechey, Voyage, ii. 57, 85,\nspeaks of Gonzalez as having risen from the ranks by his own merit.\n17 En resume^ E., as shown by his corresp., had left S. Diego late in\nMarch 1827; was at Sta Barbara during a large part of April; arrived at\nMonterey about the middle of May, and left there late in Nov.; was at Sta\nB. from Dec. until March; and returned to S. Diego early in April.\n18 April 10,1828, Echeandia's summons to Estudillo, Alviso, Buelna, Ortega,\nBandini, and Tapia to meet as agreed upon at the close of the last sessions,\nbut not naming the place. Dept Rec, MS., vi. 198. Buelna and Anastasio\nCarrillo mentioned as members in Sept. Id., vi. 92. Aug. 9th, E. orders Habili-\ntado Domingo Carrillo (of S. Diego) to pay out of the municipal funds Alvarado's\nsalary of $25 per month as secretary. Id., vi. 81. Other indications of Alvarado's presence as secretary at S. Diego as late as Dec. Dept St. Pap.,.\nBen. Mil, MS., lxvi. 90-1. Alvarado's own version is confused in respect to\ndates, representing a first visit to S. Diego as having been in 1826, before E.'s\nvisit to the north.\n19 Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 139-40; iii. 14-22, tells us that when the\ndiputados arrived at S. Diego they sent him as secretary to inform the governor\nof their presence and that they awaited his message. The first act on assembling in the large hall of the comandancia was to protest on motion of Buelna\nagainst meeting away from the capital. Echeandia received the protest\ncourteously, and a few days later explained his theory that as comandante\ngeneral he had the right to live where he could do most for the interests of\nthe country, that is in his opinion at S. Diego. The diputacion replied that\nif he had that right, it as a body had it not, but was required by law to meet\nat the capital under the presidency of the senior vocal in the absence of the\ngefe politico. Echeandia replied: *I do not object. Let the diputados return to Monterey if they like.' The governor, however, had some resentment\nagainst Alvarado, in whose handwriting was the protest. Soon, on account\nof a quarrel with P. Menendez, chaplain of the troops\u2014a Dominican whose\nwine he had been drinking and whose sermons-he bad been writing\u2014Alvarado\nwas summoned before the gefe politico, and reprimanded for disrespect to a\nfriar. A stormy scene followed, in which the young secretary\u2014so he says\u2014\ncrowded Echeandia into a corner, pretended to have a dagger, and finally\ninduced him to become calm, talk the matter over, and listen to reason. They\nparted friends, and E. went so far as to explain his real reason for choosing\nto live at S. Diego, viz., his fear of Herrera and his confederates, who had\nplotted to seize him and send him to Mexico!\n20 These were Carlos A. Carrillo, Pio Pico, Vicente Sanchez, and Jose\"\nTiburcio Castro, as 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th respectively. Adas de Elecciones,\nMS., 8; Leg. Rec, MS., i. 127; Dept St. Pap., S. Jose\", MS., ii 12; Dept Rec,\n 42 ECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nwere summoned to assemble at San Diego on January 1,\n1829; and they seem to have done so, part of them, at\nleast, only to prove unmanageable, and to be dismissed\nby the gefe politico. Immediately after the suspension of the southern session, a summons was issued\nfor the diputados to convene at Monterey June 1st,\nand proceed to public business under the presidency\nof the senior vocal; but I find no evidence that any\nsuch meeting wTas held; in fact, Echeandia himself\nhad no confidence that his summons would be heeded.\nThus it may be said that in 1828-9 the legislature\nwas not in session.21\nIn December 1829 Echeandia started northward\nagain, and on the wajr summoned the diputacion to\nmeet, this time at Santa Barbara by reason of the\ntroubles at Monterey. Possibly the body did assemble there, but only to adjourn;22 for the troubles, to\nMS., vi. 108. At the same time Manuel Dominguez, Salvio Pacheco, and\nCarlos Castro were chosen as 1st, 2d, and 3d suplentes. The first three\nplaces were held respectively by Bandini, Anastasio Carrillo, and Buelna,\nwho held over from the old board. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xix. 42-3.\n21 Dec. 1828, summons to Pico, Sanchez, and Dominguez to meet at S. Diego\non Jan. 1st. Dept Rec, MS., vi. 159. Feb. 19, 1829, gov. permits Dominguez to retire because it is impossible to have any session, 3 of 5 members having\nrefused to attend. Id., vii. 88. May 22d, gov. says that the diputados summoned to S. Diego had not wished to come on account of the illegality of\nmeeting except at the capital; therefore he asks them to go, on at Monterey\nwithout his presence. Id., vii. 164. April 10th, gov. tells the minister of relations that he suspended the junta on account of its *desorganization,'attributable largely to the influence of Vicente Sanchez, prompted as he believes\nby Herrera. He proceeds to give a description of each of the 10 members\nin respect of character, ability, education, and property\u2014in no case a\nflattering picture. Doubts that the diputados can be induced to leave their\nprivate affairs to meet even in Monterey. Id., vii. 4-6. It does not seem\nlikely, however, that Sanchez, a Los Angeles inan\u00bb should have plotted in favor\nof Monterey. Don Pio Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 17-19, says that at S. Diego\nthere was just a quorum, and that he prevented the session by insisting on its\nbeing held at Angeles, and withdrawing when his wish was not followed.\nHe also went to Monterey, and met Jose T. Castro, the only other proprietary\nmember present. April 9th, summons to convene at Monterey June 1st.\nDept Rec, MS., vii. 128. May 10th, Wm. A. Gale, in a letter to Cooper\nfrom S. Pedro, mentions the meeting ordered for June 1st. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nxxix. 354. It seems that Sanchez was suspended from his position as diputado in the course of this affair. Dept Rec, MS., vii. 260.\n22Dec. 8, 1829, E. from S. Gabriel to Sanchez, Pico, and Bandini, revoking\nthe suspension of the first, and urging all to hasten as patriots to Sta Barbara,\nin view of the critical condition. Dept Rec, MS., vii. 260. Jan. 18, 1830,\nsimilar summons to the Carrillos. Id., viii. 10. Feb. 5th, E. to comandante\nat Monterey, states that the diputacion did meet to devise means for the\nrestoration of tranquillity. Dept St. Pap., MS., ii. 128.\n SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE. 43\nbe described in the next chapter, having passed, the\ngovernor went at the end of March to the capital,\nwhere he succeeded with some difficulty in getting\ntogether four of the vocales,23 and regular sessions\nwere held from July 10th to October 7th, save that\nfor one month during this period the members were\nallowed leave of absence to attend to their harvests.\nI append in a note an abstract of legislative action,\nmuch of which is noticed more fully elsewhere in\nconnection with the special topics treated.24\nThe electoral junta which met at San Diego and\n23Dept Rec, MS., viii. 25, 53, 61; Dept St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., ii. 4;\nLeg. Rec, MS., i. 130. The four were Buelna and Jose\" T. Castro, with Sal-\nvio Pacheco and Carlos Castro as suplentes.    Other members came in later.\n21 July 10th, the four members sworn in. Alvarado was still secretary.\nCastro and Buelna were named for 1st committee; Pacheco for the 2d; and\nCarlos Castro for the 3d. July 14th, a proposition was presented by the committee on education, that schools be established at such missions as had none.\nJuly 16th, Juan B. Alvarado was appointed contador de propios y arbitrios\n(municipal treasurer), in accordance with a decree of the cortes in 1813. Salary, $15 per month. July 16th, secret session. Regulations on the proposed\nmission schools. July 20th, the matter of instructions to the newly appointed\ncontador was referred to a com. The reglamento adopted in 1827 was\nmodified in some respects, the changes including provision for 3 sessions\na week, on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. The president then submitted to the diputacion his plan for changing all the missions into pueblos. See\nchap. iv. July 23d, voted $30 dollars a month to P. Menendez as chaplain.\nThe president made a speech on the necessity of making a beginning of\nestablishing an ayuntamiento at Monterey and Sta Barbara, according to the\nbando of Dec. 15, 1820, and decree of June 23, 1813, and consequently of\nassigning bounds to pueblo lands. A salary of $20 per month was voted for\nthe teacher of S. Diego. July 24th, boundaries of the egidos of Monterey\nwere fixed. See local annals. July 28th, boundaries of the jurisdiction of\nMonterey, continued. July 29th, same subject, continued. Also the secularization project taken up, and the first articles approved. See chap. iv. July\n31st, Aug. 3d, approval of Echeandia's secularization plan concluded. Aug.\n6th, the subject of convict settlers discussed, the dip. strongly disapproving the\nsending of any more of them to Cal., expressing a desire to get rid of those\nnow here as soon as possible, but approving Echeandia's plan of a public\nworkshop for such as had trades. It was voted to ask the sup. govt that\nonly good and useful families be sent in the future. Aug. 10th, a reglamento\nin 6 articles for the contador de propios y arbitrios discussed and approved.\nDetails of keeping the books of the office, etc. Aug. 13th, establishment\nof two convents approved as a supplement to the secularization project.\nAug. 17th, a tariff of duties on timber established. See chap. v. Aug. 21st,\n24th, certain members ask and receive leave of absence for 15 days. Others\nwere to be summoned, but it seems this was not a success, since there were\nno more meetings for more than a month. Sept. 29th, at Bandini's request the\ndifficulties of getting a quorum in attendance were put on record. Sept. 30th,\napproval of land grants to IgnaciO Vallejo and Dolores Fico, in accordance\nwith the colonization law of Nov. 24,1828. Oct. 7th, sessions closed because\nseveral members wished to go home to attend to private business. Leg. Rec,\nMS., i. 130-72.\n 44 ECHEANDIA'S RULE-POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nchose the diputacion whose acts I have just recorded\nassembled in obedience to a proclamation issued by\nEcheandia on July 30, 1828, which not only ordered\nan election, but prescribed in detail the methods to be\nfollowed.25    The primary object was to elect a meni-\n25 Echeandia, Bando sobre EUcckmes, 1828, MS. This document was in\nsubstance as follows: 1-2. Elections to be primary, or municipal; secondary,\nor of the partido; and tertiary, or territorial. Must be accompanied by public prayers. 3-6. Primary juntas shall include all citizens over 18 years of\nage resident in the partidos. Sentenced criminals, men morally or physically\nincapable, vagabonds, and domestic servants were not voters. 7-9. Primary\nelections to be held on 3d Sunday in Aug. in plaza of the 4 presidios and 2\npueblos, presided by comandantes and alcaldes, in the morning after mass, a\nsecretary and 2 inspectors being chosen. 10-12. Challenging voters, etc. 13.\nMunicipal electors to be chosen as follows:' 8 for S. Francisco; 5 for S. Jos\u00a3;\n9 for Monterey; 7 for Sta Barbara; 7 for Los Angeles; and 13 (?) for S. Diego. 14-15. Method of voting.' The voter to repeat the names of hi3 candidates, to be written down by the sec. He may have the names on a list,\nwhich the secretary must read aloud. 16-17. The president to announce the\nresult. A tie to be decided by lot. Each elector chosen to receive a copy of\nthe acta. 18-22. A candidate must be a citizen, etc.; 25 years old, or 21 if\nmarried; able to read and write; holding no office, civil, military, or ecclesiastical. Cannot excuse himself. No weapons at the election. No other business to be done by the junta. 23-5. Secondary juntas, .or partido elections,\nto be held on 1st Sunday in Sept., at same places as the primary; under same\npresiding officer; composed of the municipal electors before chosen. 26-8.\nThree days before the election the electors meet and choose a secretary and 2\ninspectors. Next day, credentials presented. Next day, report pn credentials. 29-32. Election by secret ballot. If no one has a majority, there\nmust be a 2d ballot from the 2 highest candidates, a tie being decided by lot.\nThree votes at least required for election. 33-5. An elector de partido must\nhave 5 years' residence in the partido in addition to the other qualifications.\n(See 18-22.) Credentials, a certified copy of the acta, given to the successful\ncandidate, and also sent to the president of the territorial junta. 36-8. Tertiary or territorial junta to consist of the 6 electores de partido, and to meet\nat S. Diego on 1st Sunday in Oct. being presided by the highest political\nauthority present. 39-41. Preliminary meetings for 3 days, as in secondary\nelections. 42-6. Election first of a diputado, and then of a suplente.\nMethod as before, except that the meeting must be with open doors, the\nvoting viva voce, and 5 electors at least must take part. 47-52. Qualifications for a diputado to congress: 25 years of age, and two years of citizenship in the state if not born in it; 8 years of citizenship, and an estate of\n$8,000 or income of $1,000, if not born in Mexican territory. Property qualification not required of those born in Spanish America who have not jomed\nanother nation. Certain high officials debarred. 53-6. Method and fornvof\ncredentials. 57. The day after this election of a congressman, the junta is\nto rene.w the territorial dip. by electing the new members required, in the\nsame manner as before. 58. After the election, all officers, electors, and elect\nshall pass to the church, where shall be sung a solemn te deum of thanksgiving.\nOn pp. 125-30, in continuation of the preceding bando, there are partial\nrecords of the primary and secondary elections at the different places except\nS. Francisco. The electors who met at S. Diego were Miguel Gonzalez de\nAlava, for S. Jose; Jose Tiburcio Castro, for Monterey; Francisco Atanasio\nCota, for Sta Barbara; Manuel Dominguez, for Los Angeles; and Agustdn V.\nZamorano, for S. Diego. Leg. Rec, MS., i 126; Dept Rec, MS., vi. 107;\nAdas de Elecciones, MS., 6-7.   In thS\"last-named authority, the election of\n MATTORENA FOR CONGRESS. 45\nber of congress to take the place of Gervasio Arguello for the term of 1829-30; and on Sunday, October 5th, Lieutenant Jose* Joaquin Maitorena of Santa\nBarbara was chosen for the place, with Santiago Arguello as substitute. This was a most extraordinary\nchoice; for Maitorena, though honest enough and\ngood-natured, was unreservedly given up to drunkenness, and had retained his place in the Santa Barbara\ncompany only because he had when sober some skill\nas an accountant. There were times, generally following illness and confinement in the calabozo, when,\nlike Rip van Winkle, he 'swore off\"; perhaps it was in\none of these sober intervals that he was elected to congress. But the honor was too much for the poor fellow. He was very drunk at Tepic, where he was the\nobject of much ridicule; he seems not to have been\nin a condition to take his seat as diputado, and he\ndied in Mexico about the time his term of office expired.26\nMaitorena by 3 votes and Arguello by 4 is recorded, as also in St. Pap., Sac,\nMS., xix. 48; Dept. St. Pap., S. Jose\", MS., iv. 74; and^. Rec, MS., i. 130.\nEcheandia's bando is also found in Dept. St. Pap., S. Jose\", MS., iv. 55-71.\nAug. 1st, E. orders comandantes and alcaldes to publish the bando. Dept. Rec,\nMS., vi. 74. Nov. 1828, Jan. 1829, E. orders Maitorena to start for Mexico. Id.,\nvii. 70; vi. 128. June 25, 1829, Echeandia explains to minister of justice\nthe arrangement of election districts, S. Gabriel and S. Fernando being\njoined to Los Angeles, and Sta Clara and Sta Cruz to S. Jose\\ Id., vii. 23.\n26 Jose\" Joaquin Maitorena entered the military service as a soldado distin-\nguido, his father having been an officer in 18Q0; came to Cal. in 1801 as cadet\nin the Sta Barbara company; was made alferez in 1806; and after several recommendations from governor and comandante he was finally promoted to be\nlieutenant of the company in 1827. Prov. St. Pap., MS., xxi. 58; Dept. Rec,\nMS., v. 39, 121-2; Doc. Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 655-6. 1816-21, corresp. of Sola\nand Guerra, with frequent mention of Maitorena's drunkenness, and the resulting troubles to his family as well as to the public service. Guerra, Doc., MS.,\niii. 95-0,101,113; iv. 4,16-19, and passim; Prov. St. Pap.. MS., xx. 110. From\n1822 to 1827 little is said on the subject, and it is probable that Don Joaquin\nbehaved himself better than before. His actions at Tepic, where he stayed\ntwo months on his way to Mexico, are described in a letter of Manuel Varela,\ndated Tepic, Aug. 1,1829. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 135-7. He was constantly\nintoxicated; attracted the attention of everybody by his foolish actions and remarks; was initiated into a mock lodge of masons; and had a ludicrous quarrel\nwith the treasurer to whom he applied for money on account of his vidticos. Carlos Carrillo, in a letter from Tepic of April 2,1831, gives the remaining details\nof Maitorena's life as learned from Navarro, the member from Lower Cal. In\nMexico he was rarely in his right mind, and was not deemed in a fit condition\nto take his seat, though his credentials were admitted, and part of his salary\nwas paid. He died probably late in 1830 of apoplexy caused by his dissipation. Guerra, Doc, MS., iv. 199-200.   The vagaries, of this congressman are\n 46 ECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nThus California was not represented in the congress\nof 1829\u201430, for there is no evidence that Santiago\nArguello went to the national capital at all; yet the\nterritory received some slight notice from the Mexican\nauthorities. The minister of the treasury department\nincluded in his report some information respecting\nCalifornian finances,27 which, so far as it is intelligible,\nwTill be utilized elsewhere. The military establishment\nwas also honored with brief mention, and an ayudante\ninspector, an officer unknown in California since the\ntime of Captain Soler, was sent to aid General Echeandia, in the person of Lieutenant-colonel Jose* Maria\nPadres, who came up from Loreto in the summer of\n1830.28 To supply another urgent need of the territory, where there were as yet no lawyers, the licenci-\nado Rafael Gomez was sent to California as asesor, or\nlegal adviser. He arrived about the same time as\nPadres', and took the oath of office at San Diego on\nAugust 18,  1830.29    The political struggles, revolu-\nalso noticed in Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 122-6; Fernandez, Cosasde Cal,\nMS., 35-7; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 18-24. Alvarado attributes to him\nmany good qualities, although admitting his' faults. Maitorena left some\nkind of a quarrel with Capt. Miguel Gonzalez, which both Gov. Victoria and\nGov. Figueroa were ordered to investigate; but finally in 1834 Capt. Zamorano suggested that, Maitorena being, dead, the matter might as well be\ndropped. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxiv.\n27 Mexico, Mem. Hacienda, 1830, annexes 24, 33, 37, 41, 43, 44,'52, 56, 57,\n64. Aug. 17, 1829, law imposing a forced loan on California with other territories, and discounting salaries. Sept. 15th, decrees creating a fund for the\nwar against Spain; but exempting the troops of California from the discount\non pay, on account of their position on an Indian frontier. Arrillaga, Reco-\npilacion de Leyes, 1829, p. 214-23; 1831, 24-36, 48.\n23 In Mexico, Mem. Guerra, 1830, annex,, 1-3, the force in the Californias\nis given as 422 cavalry, supported at a cost of $131,440. Feb. 11, 1830, order\nto merge the S. Bias company into the regular presidial companies. Sup. Govt\nSt. Pap., MS., vi. 2. Arrival of Padre's at S. Diego on the Leonor on July\n1, 1830. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., vi. 9; Carrillo {J.), Doc, MS., 27-8; Dept.\nSt. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxii. 21.\n29Gomez's taking possession of the office.. Dept. St. Pap., S. Jose\", MS., iv.\n91; Id., Mont., vi. G; Id., Ben. Mil, lxxii. 21, 42; JDept. Rec, MS., viii. 92.\nHe had a salary of $3,000. The law creating the office seems to have been\ndated July or Aug. 29, 1829.' In his report of Jan. 1831 the sec. of justice\nrecommended that the asesor be made judge as well, with appeal to the nearest circuit court jnstead of Mexico, on account of the great distance. Mexico,\nMem. Justicia, 1831, p. 7, annex 4. Mexico', Mem. Hacienda 1832, annex N.\nOct. 12, 1829, Virmond from Mexico announces the appointment of the following officers for California:- Rafael Gonzalez, administrator of customs at\nMonterey; Manuel Jimeno Casarin, contador of custom-house; Francisco Perez\n A PENAL COLONY. 47\ntions, and counter-revolutions for the presidency, between Gomez Pedraza, Guerrero, and Bustamante, in\nthe years 1828-30, made no impression, in fact were\nhardly known, in California.80 Other national measures, with a single exception, require no special attention.31\nThe exception was in the matter of utilizing California as a penal colony for .Mexican criminals. A\nsmall number of convicts had arrived, as we have seen,\nin 1825, and now orders were issued to send them\nfrom all parts of the republic32 These instructions,\nwhich the Mexican authorities had the assurance to\nregard as a means for improving the morals of the\nconvicts and for colonizing California, were much\nmore promptly obeyed, it is safe to say, than if they\nhad been calculated to benefit the territory; and within\na year'.mOpe than a hundred criminals had been sentenced to presidio work in this northern Botany Bay.33\nEcheandia protested rather feebly, as soon as the news\nPacheco, comandante of the resguardo; and Lieut. Zamorano, promoted to\ncaptain. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 145.\n30Sept. 9, 1829, news of Pres. Guerrero's accession received. Dept. Rec,\nMS., vii. 222. Feb. 19, 1829, gov. forbids communication with Acapulco,\nand adhesion to the plan de Perote. Id., vii. 87. March 14th, communication\nreopened. Id., vii. 109.\n31 Jan. 21, 1828, orders from Mexico circulated to send in bids for repairs\non the public roads. May 21st, no bids. Echeandia, however, recommends the\nopening of a road to Sonora, and one from Sta Barbara to S. Diego. Dept.\nRec, MS., vi. 173; vii. 17. Jan. 30, 1829, minister of justice wants a list of\nayuntamientos, jurisdictions, prisoners, etc. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., v. 1.\nCongress urged to give the Californias a form of government suited to their\ninterests, since now the old Spanish laws prevail. Mexico, Mem. Relaciones,\n1829, p. 21.\n32 April 29, 1829, secretary of justice issues a circular urging judges to sentence criminals to California presidios instead of Vera Cruz. Order transmitted by secretary of war. May 9th, further orders to governors of different\nstates about forwarding convicts. Arrillaga, Recop., 1829, p. 67-9. Oct. 21st,\nsec. of war to comandante of Acapulco. The govt will send to Cal. the families of such convicts as may desire it. Id.', p. 269-70. March 22d, the govt\nexpects improvement in the morals of the convicts, is preparing a regulation\nfor their management, and to give them the means of earning an honest living, forwarding their families, etc. Mexico, Mem. Justicia, 1830, p. 13, 19-20.\n331 have before me the records of sentence of very many of these criminals,\nwith name, place, date, and crime, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 408-80; St.\nPap., Ben., MS., i. 82-9; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxx. 12-13; Id.,\nBen. Gust.-II., MS., iv. 484-^-5. List of 80 convicts brought to Cal. on the\nMaria Ester, with full particulars, in St. Pap., Ben., MS., i. 86-9; De\/d. St.\nPap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxii. 19. List of 60 convicts sentenced to California\nbefore Dec. 1829.    Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 85; St. Pap., Sac, MS., xi. 10-12.\n 48 ECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\ncame, in September 1829, against the sending of any\nbut 'useful' convicts, since California had no jails, and\nthe local government could be responsible neither for\nthe safety of the criminals nor for the morals of the\ncommunity thus exposed to contamination.34 Of\ncourse this had no effect; and in February 1830 the\nMaria Ester brought up about eighty of the unwelcome colonists from Acapulco to San Diego. Captain Holmes was not allowed to land them in the\ngovernors absence, and went on to Santa Barbara in\nMarch. A sergeant and twelve soldiers were in\ncharge of the convicts.35\nHow to dispose of the new-comers was a question\nof much perplexity. Nobody wTanted anything to do\nwith them; and a month passed before any decision\nwas reached, perhaps before they were landed at all;\nand then, late in April, thirty of the worst of them,\nand probably many more, were sent over to Santa\nCruz Island with a supply of cattle and fish-hooks to\nget a living as best as they could; while the rest were\nset to work for private employers in the region of\nSanta Barbara and Los Angeles.36    Protests were re-\n34 Sept. 18, 1829, E. to sup. govt. Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 38-40. In Doc\nHist. Cal., MS., iv. 897, I find an unsigned document dated Mexico, April\n25, 1830, purporting to be addressed by the diputado of Cal. to the sup..govt,\nin which the writer protests against the sending of convicts. If there is no\nerror, this would indicate that Maitorena did make at least one honest effort to\nserve his constituents.\n35 The Maria Esterdeft Acapulco Dec. 19th, touched at S. Bias and S. Lucas,\nand lost one convict on the voyage. The exact number varies from 77 to 83\nin different documents. The Enriqueta was reported to be coming with more\nconvicts. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 133; Id., Cust.-H., i. 32-3; Id., Ben.\nCust.-H, iii. 55-6; Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 25, 28, 50.\n30 Com. Carrillo's letters to the governor about landing the convicts on Sta\nRosa Island in March-Apr. 1830. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxviii.\n1-3. April 23d, the Maria Ester sailed for Sta Cruz Island with 31 of the\nnumber, the missions furnishing some tools, cattle, hooks, and a little grain.\nCarrillo (J.), Doc., MS., 22. March 18th, Echeandia to comandante of Monterey from S. Luis Obispo, explaining his plan to send\u2014apparently all\u2014the\nconvicts to the islands. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 29-32. Mrs. Ord, Ocurrencias,\nMS., 25-7, says the convicts were in a naked and very filthy condition on\ntheir arrival. Capt. Guerra furnished them with clothing, made a speech\nencouraging them to good conduct, and personally employed 8 or 10. At the\nislands a fire soon destroyed all they had, and after a time, getting no relief,\nthey built rafts, and all came over to the main, landing at Carpinterfa. The\nnarrator says that as a rule they became very gObd people. Nov. 2d, 13 of\nthose sent to the island had returned and presented themselves to the comandante. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 122.\n COMING OF THE CONVICTS. 49\nceived from all directions; and at Monterey a meeting\nwas held in May to pass formal resolutions and appoint\na committee to wait on the gefe politico, and urge\nthe importance of sending the convicts back on the\nsame ship that brought them.87 The diputacion passed\nresolutions of similar purport in August, as has been\nnoted in the legislative records; but meanwhile, in\nJuly, there had arrived the Leonor, Captain Pitch,\nwith .fifty more convicts, about whom we have less\ninformation: than in the case of the first company.38\nWith few exceptions, no attempt was made to confine the criminals; but they were distributed through\nthe territory to earn their living under a surveillance\nof the local authorities, more nominal than real. A\nfew escaped across the frontier; and of those who\nserved out their time, a large part remained permanently in California, where some were the founders of\nrespectable families.89\nThe sending of the convicts and the resulting discussions doubtless had an effect to embitter the feeling\nthat was beginning to exist between Californians and\nMexicans, particularly at Monterey, where the quarrel between Gonzalez and Estrada had originated a\nsentiment qf hostility which outlasted the Mexican\npower in California. At the celebration of the independence on September 16,1830, a free fight is said to\n37 May 1, 1830, resolutions signed by Juan Malarin, Mariano Soberanes,\nJose1 Castro, Antonio Osio, Juan B. Alvarado, Abel Stearns, Juan Cooper,\nDavid Spence, and Wm Hartnell. 10 articles subsequently approved by\nEcheandia. Dept. St. Pap., S. Jose\", MS., v. 34-5. May 30th, alcalde (?) of\nMonterey to governor, speaks of the excitement caused by the arrival, the\ngreater because of the part taken by convicts in the Solis revolt; and begs in\nthe name of the citizens that they be not permitted to land. St. Pap., Sac,\nMS., x. 89-90.\n88 July 21, 1830, arrival of the Leonor at S. Diego, where 23 of the convicts\nremained. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-II., MS., iii. 54; Dept. Rec, MS., viii.\n83. In the Atleta, Apr. 1, 1830, it is stated that Gen. Berdejo levied a tax\nof $3 on such presidiarios as wished for freedom, and many destined for\nCalifornia were set at liberty.\n89 According to Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 69-73, Echeandia excused the\nMex. govt for sending convicts, on the ground of ignorance. ' El Gobierno\nignoraba que existiesen familias decentesy de educacion en la peninsula,' he\nsaid to Lieut. Sanchez. . A squad of soldiers came as a guard of this last as of\nthe first convict band. These soldiers seem to have been sent back to the south\nsoon.   Alf. Antonio Nieto commanded the last squad.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   4\n 50 ECHEANDfA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nhave taken place in the governor's house between the\nnative-born youth of the capital and 'los de la otra\nbanda\/ Juan B. Alvarado and Rodrigo del Pliego playing the leading roles, and the occasion being an insulting toast by Pliego. Later in the year, as the records\nshow, Jose* Castro was arrested on a charge of posting\npasquinades and of publicly expressing his patriotic\ncontempt for the Mexicans.40\nOn October 3, 1830, five partido electors, chosen by\nthe process already described, met at Monterey in accordance with Echeandia's proclamation of August 1st,\nand elected Carlos A. Carrillo as diputado to congress\nfor 1831-2, with Juan Bandini as substitute, Jose*\nAntonio Carrillo and Agustin Zamorano being the\ndefeated candidates. Next day, the 4th, they chose\nthree new members, as required by law, to complete the territorial diputacion, with the same number\nof suplentes. The services of the officers thus chosen\nbelong to the annals of another decade.41\n40CarriUo(J.), Doc, MS., 30-1; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 116; iii. 8-\n11; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 113-15. Incomplete record of proceedings in the\nCastro case. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxi. 60-6. On another occasion,\naccording to Alvarado, Jos6 Castro slapped Pliego's face in return for insulting\nremarks on the lack of education among the Californians.\n41 July 12,1830, Mexico, Reglaspara las cleccionesde Diputados y de Ayunta-\nmientos, del distrito y territorios de la Rep4blica, 1830. Printed copy from department of the interior in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxx. 99; also in Arrillaga, Re-\ncop., 1830, p. 253-63. Much of this law relates more particularly to the city\nof Mexico, its blocks, wards, etc.; but in so far as it applies to California, it\ndoes not differ materially from the regulations given in Echeandia's bando of\n1828. Oct. 3, 1830, certificate of the election of Carrillo and Bandini, signed\nby Echeandia and by the electors, who were: Domingo Carrillo, of Sta Barbara; Juan Maria Osuna, of S. Diego; Jose Antonio Carrillo, of Los Angeles;\nJos6 Pefia, of S. Francisco; and Juan Malarin, of Monterey. The document\nwas also signed by the alcalde of Monterey, and by Francisco Pacheco and\nAntonio Buelna as witnesses. Doc Hist. Cal., MS., i. 57. Names of electors\nalso in ActasdeElecciones, MS., 9-10; Luis Peralta, fromS. Jose\\ was rejected\nfor want of proper credentials. Notice of Carrillo's election in Carrillo (J.),\nDoc, MS., 31; Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 104. Record of municipal or primary elections at S. Francisco Aug. 15th; 9 electors chosen. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 6;\nat Los Angeles, same date, Los Angeles, Ayunt. Rec, MS., 6; at S. Diego,\nAug. 22d, 13 electors chosen. It is difficult to account for the large number\nin comparison with other places. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 16-17. The three vocales of the dip. chosen Oct. 4th to take the place of retiring members were\nMariano G. Vallejo, 5th; Joaquin Ortega, 6th; Antonio Maria Osio, 7th. Suplentes: Francisco de Haro, 1st; Tomas Yorba, 2d;, and Santiago Arguello,\n3d. Adas de Elecciones, MS., 11; Dept. Rev., MS., viii. 104. Oct. 7th, gov.\nnotifies Vallejo of his election. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 7.\n EXPULSION OF SPANIARDS. 51\nFrom 1827 to 1829 the national government issued\na long and somewhat complicated series of laws and\nregulations on the expulsion of all Spaniards from\nMexican territory, the principal laws being those of\nDecember 20, 1827, and March 20, 1829.42 By the\nterms of the former, the classes exempt \u2022 from expulsion were quite numerous, including those Spaniards\nphysically disabled, those over sixty years old, such\nas were married to Mexican wives or had children\nnot Spaniards, professors of useful arts and sciences,\nand all who had rendered special services to the cause\nof independence, or who had manifested great affection for that cause. Such by taking the oath of\nallegiance might remain. The chief application of\nthis law in California was of course to the friars, of\nwhom I shall speak separately; but there were also\nother Spaniards in the territory. Echeandia seems\nto have interpreted the law, or instructions that may\nhave been sent with it, to mean simply that resident\nSpaniards were to be. reported and required to take\nthe oath. Corresponding orders were issued and lists\nwere sent to Mexico in 1828.48\n42 Arrillaga, Recop., 1828-31, passim. Law of 1827 in Id., 1828, p. 100-\n7; Law of 1829 in Id., 1831, p. 224-6. See also Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS.,\nv. 2-5; xix. 44-54; Dept. St. Pap., MS., v. 28; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 5;\nDispos. Varias, ii. 55.\n43 EspaHoles, Relacion de los Militares Espanoles, que han prestado jura-\nmento, con expresion de sus closes, edades, servicios, etc., 1828, MS. This list\nwas forwarded by Echeandia to the minister of war on Dec. 6th, and contains\nthe following names: Capt. Jose Maria Estudillo; Capt. Jose\" Bandini; Padre\nAntonio Menendez; Lieut. Narciso Fabregat; Capt. Jose* de la Guerra y\nNoriega; Manuel Gutierrez, ranchero and capitalist, 82 years old, 40 years in\nCal.; Vicente Can6, one of the Asia's men; Juan Mariner, retired artilleryman with rank of lieut.\u2014over 60\u201433 years in Cal.; Manuel Gutierrez, 45\nyears, 7 in Cal.; Francisco Caceres, 36 years, 11 in Cal.; Jose* Amesti, 36\nyears, 7 in Cal.; Estevan Munras, 39 years, 8 in Cal.; Antonio Sufiol, 35\nyears, 12 in Cal.; Ramon Espindola, artilleryman, 60 years; Antonio Pefia,\nartilleryman, 50 years; Francisco Garcia, invalido, 60 years; Joaquin de la\nTorre, 44 years, 25 in Cal.; Francisco Cayuelas, 80 years; Jaime Monyii, one\nof the Asia's men; as were also Manuel Fogo and Salvador Garcia; Jose\nFernandez, 25 years, 11 in Cal.; Luis Castro, deserter from the Aquiles; as\nwere also Jose Nadal, Francisco Fernandez, Francisco Filibert, Ramon Obes,\nsergt., Pablo Sobradelas, and J. M. Iglesias, trader; Miguel Culebras, trader;\nRafael Romero, 30 years, suspected thief; Juan Ign. Mancisidor, 40 years,\nsupercargo; Antonio Jose* Cot, already embarked; Francisco Martinez, has\npassport; P. Luis Martinez, has passport. * Contrary to the indication in the\ntitle, many of those named had not taken the oath, but had been ordered to\n r\n52 ECHEANDiA'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nThe law of 1829 was more stringent than that of\n1827, which it annulled, ordering the immediate expulsion of all Spaniards except those physically incapable of departure and those who were sons of American-born parents. I find nothing in the law indicative\nof any favor to such as had sworn allegiance; but so\nit was evidently understood in California, where it was\npromulgated in July. Nine men, nearly all deserters\nfrom the Aquiles, were selected for exile, two of whom,\nhowever, were allowed after all to remain; while all the\nrest on different pretexts, chiefly of infirmity and addiction to the republican cause, were deemed exempt.44\nAnother branch of this national proscription was the\ndecree of May 10, 1827, debarring Spaniards from\nholding any office or public employment until Spain\nshould recognize the independence of Mexico. Some\nsoldiers were discharged, and the officers Guerra, Es-\ndo so. There are several documents relating to different individuals of those\nnamed above in Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 72, 95, 125-6, 153; vii. 204, 209; Dept.\nSt. Pap, MS., xix. 6-8, 19, 22, 45; St. Pap., Ben., MS., i. 73-5.    Nov. 22d,\n1828, Echeandia orders investigation of an insult offered to the national flag\non Sept. 16th; also outrages to old Spaniards. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 136. Dec.\n1828, Valencia arrested for saying that neither he nor Maitorena nor the\nvecinos of Sta Barbara had sworn to the independence. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nPref. y Jusg., MS., iii. 60. Dec. 14, 1827, R. C. Wyllie writes from\nMazatlan to Hartnell that all the states are expelling Spaniards. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS. xxix. 182. May 9, 1829, Echeandia orders arrest of a Spanish\ndeserter who had forfeited his right to remain by serving two years under a\nforeign flag. Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 156. May 30,1829, J. M. Padres wrote'to\nthe sup. govt, attributing the evils in Cal. to Spanish ideas, and complaining\nthat the law on expulsion had not been executed. Oct. 6, 1830, Minister\nAlaman writes to the gov. for an explanation. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., vi.\n10-11.\n44 July 6, 1830, Echeandia proclaims the law of March 20,1829. Dept. Rec,\nMS., viii. 190-1. July 24th, E. orders passports for the 6: Culebras, Obes,\nSobradelas, Francisco Fernandez, Iglesias, and Nadal. Id., MS., vii. 208.\nMancisidor was added to the list. The two exempted were Luis Castro, 60\nyears old; and Francisco Galindo, having a family (not in Echeandia's list).\nAug. 11th, governor's report to minister of relations. St. Pap., Sac, MS.,\nx. 42-6. List of the nine at first deemed liable to expulsion. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil., MS., lxix. 29-30. List of nine Spaniards who ask to remain,\nmostly on the ground of infirmity. Munras, however, simply wants an extension of time. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xix. 11-14. Aug., 2 Spaniards at S.\nFrancisco; 2 at Los Angeles; and 16 at S. Diego. Id., xix. 1-2, 19. Nov. 3d,\nlist sent by gov. to Mexico of 12 who have claimed exemption. They were:\nGutierrez (2), Fabregat, Garcia (2), Sufiol, Torre, Amesti, Munras, Fog6 (or\nFogu6), Jose\" Fernandez, and Luis Castro. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 49-5&.\nCulebras asked for a passport to Ross, but was refused. Dept. Rec, MS., vii.\n235.\n THE GOVERNOR'S DEMANDS. 53\ntudillo, and Fabregat were suspended for a time,\nthough by decree of the president they received half-\npay\u2014quite as good as full pay in those days.45 Yet\nanother phase of the feeling against Spain was the\npatriotic alarm and enthusiasm caused by the report\nthat a Spanish 1pirate' was cruising on the coast.\n| The time has come to show once more to the universe that before submitting to Spanish rule we *vill\nrepose in the sepulchre,\" was the wTay the governor\nput it.46\nReturning finally to Echeandia, and to matters more\nclosely connected with the governorship, we note that\nfrom the beginning of 1827 he had insisted more and\nmore earnestly in his communications to the supreme\ngovernment on certain reforms and on further assistance to himself and the territory. He demanded a\nsubordinate gefe politico for Lower California; an\nayudante inspector, who might assume the command\nin case of his illness or death; additional clerical aid,\nor the funds with which to procure 'such aid; more\nmilitary officers and troops, priests, war-vessels,judges,\nand above all, money and improved financial management. And if such aid could not be afforded, he repeatedly asked to be relieved from his command.47\nSome of his  requests were granted.     Jose* Maria\n45 Decree of May 10, 1827. Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., ix. 3. Half-pay\norder, Oct. 1829. Id., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., ii. 7; Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, MS., lxxix. 13. Guerra and others suspended. St. Pap., Sac., MS.,\nx. 67; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 18. Sept. 3, 1829, discharge of soldiers ordered\nby Echeandia. Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 220. July 15th, a soldier at Sta Barbara\ndischarged. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxx. 16. Casares, or Caceres, one\nof the Spaniards sent away, was a regidor of Monterey. Dept. Rec, MS., vi.\n171.\n\"Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 94, 197, 264-6; vii. 83, 254. The pirate was reported to be the Griego, Capt. Juan de Mata; and the alarm lasted more or\nless from 1828 to 1830. The orders in 1828 were, however, that Spanish captains, supercargoes, pilots, etc., of vessels belonging to neutral nations were to\nbe allowed to transact their regular business at the ports, but must be\nwatched and not admitted to the interior. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and\nTreas., MS., i. 105.\n47 Jan. 9, May 25, Oct. 17, 19, Nov. 7, 1827; Oct. 20, 1828; Aug. 11, 1829,\nE. to different national departments, complaining of difficulties, asking relief*\nand, particularly on Nov. 7, 1827, offering his resignation. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., ii. 44; Dept. Rec, MS., v. 125-6, 131, 133; St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 40-1.\n44-5.\n r\n54 ECHEANDIA'3 RULE\u2014POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\nPadres and Rafael Gomez were sent to California as\nayudante inspector and asesor, respectively.48 The\nmilitary command of Lower California was detached\nin the middle of 1829 and joined to the comandancia\ngeneral of Sonora;49 and about the same time Colonel\nAntonio Garcia was appointed to succeed Echeandia\nin the governorship.50 For reasons that I suppose to\nhave been connected with Bustamante's accession to\nthe presidency in January 1830, Garcia did not come\nto take possession of his office; and on March 8th\nLieut.-colonel Manuel Victoria was made gefe\npolitico of Alta California, the gefatura politica of the\npeninsula being now detached as the mando militar\nhad been before, so that now the two territories were\nagain distinct.61 Victoria had been previously for a\ntime comandante principal of Lower California; he\ncame up from Loreto by land, arriving at San Diego\nperhaps in December 1830; but he did not take possession of his office until the next year. Meanwhile\nin these last years Echeandia was busied chiefly with\nmission affairs and commercial matters.   He had been\n48 Padres had been comandante at Loreto and sub-gefe politico, of Lower\nCalifornia. I find no record showing the date of his appointment as ayudante\ninspector; but in Feb. 1829 he seems to have been made sec. of the comandante\ngeneral. Sup. Govt St. Pap.9 MS., v. 1; and in July 1828 was ordered to\nassume the command in Echeandia's place. Id., vi. 9. Apr. 3, 1829, Rafael\nVelez was approved as secretary of the comandancia, instead of Padres, but he\nnever came. Id., v. 3.\n49 June 1, 1829, gov. announces this change. The two territories were\nstill subject in civil matters to the same gefe politico. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nMil, MS., lxix. 2.\n60 Feb. 17, 1829, Moctezuma to Echeandia. Orders him to deliver the\ncommand to Garcia. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., vi. 2. May 1st, Gervasio\nArguello writes from Guadalajara that Garcia has been appointed comandante\ngeneral. Guerra, Doc, MS., v. 227. June 8th, Moctezuma to Garcia. Vessels are ready to take him to California, and the president desires him to sail\nat once. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., v. 11. July 17, 1828, Echeandia had\nbeen ordered to give up the command to Padr6s and proceed to Mexico. Id.,\nvi. 9. Doubtless the political changes in Mexico had much to do with these\nsuccessive and confusing orders. The records of this period are moreover\nvery incomplete.\n61 March 8, 1830, Victoria's appointment. March 11th, Minister Facio to\nEcheandfa, ordering him to surrender the gefatura of California to Victoria,\nand of Lower California to Monterde. Sup. Govt St. JPap., MS., vi 6^-7.\nMarch 6, 1830, Capts. Juan Zamora, Juan Aguayo, Gerdnimo Hernandez,\nand Luciano Mufioz; Lieut. Leonardo Diez Barroso, and Alf. Mariano Crecero\nhave been destined to California. Id., vi. 5-6.\n RECEPTION AT MONTEREY. 55\nmore cordially received in the north in 1830 than at\nthe time of his former visit; and except among the\npadres and their adherents, he had gained considerably\nin popularity.52\n62Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 26-7, describes his formal reception at Sta\nBarbara by the ayuntamiento. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 156-7, say\u00ab his\nreception at the capital was enthusiastic, Lieut Estrada making for all the\ncitizens a speech of reconciliation, and the governor joining most heartily in\nthe ensuing festivities.\n CHAPTER   III.\nECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014FINANCE\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\n1826-1830.\nHard-times Items\u2014Aid from Mexico\u2014The Revenues\u2014Comisario and\nHabilitados\u2014Secret Investigation\u2014Suspension and Resignation\u2014\nEstrada, Vallejo, and Jimeno Ca sarin as Administrators\u2014Revolt op 1828\u2014Revolt of 1829\u2014Causes\u2014Monterey Taken\u2014Joaquin\nSolis\u2014Plan of November 15th\u2014Arguello Declines the Command\u2014\nSolis Marches South\u2014Echeandia's Preparations\u2014Revolt at Santa\nBarbara\u2014Bloodless Battles of Dos Pueblos and Cieneguita\u2014Retreat of Solis\u2014Retaking of the Capital\u2014Avila Captures Solis\u2014\nTrial\u2014The Spanish Flag\u2014Banishment of Herrera and Twenty\nConspirators\u2014Financial Affairs in 1829-30.\nIt is not my purpose to present financial statistics\nin this chapter. Only fragments survive to be presented anywhere, and these will receive such slight\nattention as they require, in connection with local presidio annals, commercial topics, and general remarks\non the subject of ways and means for the whole\ndecade. Here I have to speak of the management,\nor mismanagement, of the territorial revenues, of the\ninsufficiency of those revenues, as administered, to\npay the soldiers or other employees of the government, and of the resulting destitution, discontent, and\nfinally revolt.\nThere is little or nothing that is new to the reader\nto be said of the prevalent destitution in these years,\na destitution which oppressed only the troops.1     The\nComplaints are not very numerous in the archives, since the uselessness\nof writing on the subject had been learned by long experience. The following minor items on this topic are perhaps worth preservation: 1826, Echeandia's complaints about the suspension of officers' pay.   Only those officers who\n HARD TIMES\u2014SOURCES OF REVENUE. 57\nrancheros and pobladores were at least as well off as\nin earlier Spanish times, the improved market for their\nproduce afforded by the trading fleet counterbalancing\nthe heavy duties that were now exacted. Few if\nany of these classes seem to have made an effort to\ndo more than support themselves and families; and\nthis, save to the incorrigibly lazy, was an easy task.\nThe lands produced food both for the owners and for\nthe Indian laborers who did most of the work; while\nthe natural increase of their herds furnished hides and\ntallow more than enough to be bartered with the\nagents of Hartnell or Gale for groceries, implements,\nand clothing. So far as the records show, they did\nnot even deem it worth their while to complain of\nexcessive duties and consequent high prices.\nFor the support of the military establishment and\nto defray other expenses, the only resources were the\nduties collected on imports and exports\u2014or the taxes\non production, which practically took the place of the\nlatter\u2014the chief source of revenue, but one liable to\nconsiderable variation; contributions exacted from the\nmissions as gifts, loans, sales on credit, or special taxes,\ngiven by the padres more and more grudgingly as the\nyears passed by; and finally the supplies furnished di-\ncame with him to Cal. are paid, and there is much discontent among the\nothers. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xix. 32-4. Complaints heard by Beechey of nonpayment of dues, and of excessive duties which greatly increased prices.\nBeechey's Voy., ii. 10. March 30, 1826, petition of soldiers, alleging that\nthey were getting la radon, nada mas, as in years past, notwithstanding the\npromises of the govt. Repeated June 7th. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS.,\nIvii. 13. April 30th, no funds to furnish $400 for the celebration of a great\nnational event. Id., Ivii. 14. Hartnell lent the comisaria 264 cattle, which\nin 1839 had not been repaid. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., iv. 59.\n1827, Feb. 1st, comisario has no funds to supply blankets; great want of\nmoney and food; impossible to get a loan. Id., i. 79. Feb. 5th, gov. lends\n$600 in view of the urgent needs of the soldiers. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 21.\nJuly 5th, complaint that S. Bias company do not get their share of supplies.\nId., v. 58. Nov. 21st, decree of national govt on a loan, part of which is to\ngo to the relief of California. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xx. 8. 1828, March\n3d, troops naked and in great want. Could get no part of their dues. Dept.\nSt* Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxvi. 68. Same date, gov. tells com. gen. that\nno supplies have been sent from Mexico for a considerable time! Dept. Rec,\nvi. 7. March 10th, eight soldiers at Monterey granted leave of absence to go\nand earn their living for 3 months, for want of funds at Monterey. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxvi. 24-5.\n 58   ECHEANDtA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOUS REVOLT.\nrectly or indirectly by Mexico\u2014that is, the $22,000\nsent in 1825, possibly one or-two small amounts sent\nlater, and a few drafts on the national treasury which\nin one way or another foreign or resident traders were\ninduced to accept as security for loans or in payment\nfor goods supplied.2 Theoretically, the national treasury should have paid the territorial expenses and received the net product of the territorial revenue; but\npractically, the territory was left to pay its own expenses, nominally about $130,000 a year, always excepting the small amounts furnished as before specified,\nand a considerable supply of very bad tobacco. To\nestimate the actual revenue with any approach to accuracy would probably have been wellnigh impossible at -the time,3 and is entirely so now. Fully collected and honestly administered, the total revenue\ncould hardly have amounted to one half the nominal\nexpenditure; and indications are not wanting that a\nconsiderable portion was lost to the troops through\nsmuggling operations and the rascality of officials.\nMoreover, there were charges of partiality and injustice in the final distribution of the net product, cer-\n*On the $22,000, see chap, i., this vol. At theNsame time $12,000 was ordered paid in favor of California through the comisario general at Arizpe;\nbut I find no evidence that any part of the sum was ever paid. July 1826,\nrecord that $3,000 was sent to Cal. by the Sirena from the sup. govt. Sup.\nGovt St. Pap., MS., iii. 6.' In Jan. 1829, Enrique Virmond seems to have\naccepted drafts from the presidial comandantes to the amount of about $5,000\nfor goods supplied from the Maria Ester; and again in Dec. he supplied the\nsame amount in goods and silver coin. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 1,153, 168,176.\nVirmond had exceptional facilities for getting his claims allowed by Mexican\nofficials, and he probably lost nothing. Nov. 11, 1828, M. G. Vallejo authorized to borrow $500 payable on sight, or 15 days after sight of draft! Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., i. 160. According to Mexico, Mem. Hacienda, 1830, annex. 33,\nthe govt of Cal. had borrowed $7,262, of which sum $1,564 had been repaid\ndown to June 29th. Hartnell also lent the govt $7,100 in 1827; the draft\nsigned by Herrera was not accepted in Mexico, on account of some alleged irregularity; and on Nov. 20, 1830, Hartnell petitions the gov. on the subject..\nVallejo,Doc, MS., xxx. 154.\n8 Feb. 19, 1830, gov. informs the comisario general that commerce, carried on by a peculiar system, 'authorized by force of circumstances' in Cal.,\nyielded barely two fifths of the expenses; while mission contributions, by dint\nof constant requisitions and annoyances, yielded not more than one fifth of the\ndeficit. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 72. The revenue obtained from vessels is insufficient for garrison expenses; therefore, the missions advance grain and cattle,\nand the nation assumes the debt. Bandini's letter of 1828 in Bandini, Doc,\nMS., 8.\n SUB-COMISARIO AND HABILITADOS. 59\ntain presidios, and certain classes of troops, being favored or slighted.\nDuring the Spanish rule, and the interregnum that\nfollowed, the provincial finances had been managed\u2014\nfor the most part honestly, if not always with great\nskill, so far as accounts were concerned\u2014by the habil-\nitados of the respective companies, one of whom in\nthe later days had been named administrator, with\nvery little authority over the others. On the establishment of the republic, Herrera had been sent, as\nwe have seen, in 1825, as comisario to take charge of\nthe territorial finances as a subordinate of the comisario general of the western states Sonora and Sin-\naloa. The instructions to Herrera are not extant;\nbut it is evident from subsequent communications of\nhimself and his superiors that he had exclusive control of the treasury department, and was independent of the gefe politico, except that like any other\ncitizen he was within the civil and criminal jurisdiction of that officer. The habilitados, the only persons in the territory qualified for the task, served as\nHerrera's subordinates for the collection of revenue\nat the presidios, so that locally there was no change.\nWhether the comisario appointed them voluntarily\nor in obedience to his instructions does not appear;\nbut their duty was simply to collect the revenues and\npay them over to Herrera, their duty as company\npaymasters in disbursing funds subsequently re-obtained from the comisarla being a distinct matter.\nNaturally the habilitados were jealous from the\nfirst of the authority exercised by their new master,\nand were displeased at every innovation on the old\nmethod under Estrada's administration. Moreover,\n'Herrera was a stranger, and worse yet a Mexican,\nbeing therefore liable to distrust as not properly\nappreciative of Californian ways. He was also a\nfriend and relative of Captain Gonzalez, and involved\nto some extent in the quarrel between that officer\nand Estrada, which circumstance contributed not a\n 60        ECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\nlittle to his unpopularity. A quarrel resulted, the\ndetails of which it is neither desirable nor possible\nto follow closely. What were the relations between\nHerrera and Echeandia before they left Mexico, I do\nnot know; but after their arrival in California there\ncould hardly fail to be jealousy, especially on Echeandia's part; and at any rate, the latter soon became\nleader in the opposition to the comisario% I append\nsome items from the correspondence of the times.4\nHerrera was an intelligent and able man; his acts\nwere approved by his superior officer; and I find in\ncontemporary documents no proof of irregularities\nor unfaithfulness in his official conduct; * though it\nwould perhaps be presumptuous to found on the imperfect record an opinion that he acted wisely or\n* March 3, 1826, com. gen. to Herrera. Reproves him for not sending\naccounts so that the great necessity of the troops might be known and relieved. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 22. March25th, Id. to\nId., announces that all claims of Cal. may be presented at the comisaria. Id.,\nii. 17. April 7th, H. to Echeandia. Charges that Lieut. Estudillo for a just reprimand becomes abusive. Id., i. 41-2. May 11th, E. orders that all amounts\ndue the treasury be paid at the comisario's office. Dept. Rec, MS., iv. 37. June\n27th, H. to E. Wishes to know why he is not recognized as gefe de hacienda;\nmeasures have been ordered without his consent or knowledge. He wishes\nE. to define his own position, so that he, H., may be freed from his burdens and\nreport to the supreme government. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 136. July 11th,\nH. to E. Defence of the practice of allowing vessels to touch at way points.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., i. 42-7. Sept. 11th, com. gen. to E. Asks\nhim to order habilitados to send in their accounts to Herrera in two months, or\nhe will appeal to Mexico. Reprimands him for exceeding his powers, using\nfunds without Herrera's permission, tree \u2022\u25a0mg H. as a subordinate and not as the\ngefe of all treasury branches, and not obe> iug the laws. Threatens to withdraw\nthe comisario altogether if E. does not mend his ways. Accuses him of preventing the execution of Herrera's decree on the payment of duties, without authority to do so. H. was under no obligation to submit his orders or those\nof his superior to the gefe politico. ' Watch also over those friars with their\nSpanish ideas.' The comisario must bo supported, not opposed. In the ap-;\npointment of a sub-comisario at Loreto, E. had also usurped authority. 'I\ncan not permit you thus to interfere. The power of appointment rests exclusively with H. as my subordinate.' H. was not to be blamedfor reporting these\nthings, since he had positive orders to do so. Id., i. 23-34. Oct. 16th, H. to E.\non the details of business, explaining his efforts to get along with an insufficient\nrevenue. Complains of habilitados for not rendering accounts, and for drawing\ndrafts on him when they knew he had no money. Protests, aopinst paying\none company more than another; and claims that in case of urgent neea the\nsoldiers should be preferred to officials. Id., i. 56-60. Dec. 1st, H. complains that his orders are disregarded, and that Estrada refuses to render accounts. Repeats the complaint a little later, with threats to report to Mexico. Dec. 27th, 30th, orders from Mexico requiring half the revenues to be\nremitted to the national treasury! and that regular accounts be sent for publication in the Gazeta of Guadalajara. Id., i. 72-3, 89-91, 14.\n CHARGES AND INVESTIGATIONS. 61\nhonestly throughout the quarrel, especially in opposition to the statements of several Californians who\nremember the controversy.5 It is my opinion, however, that the class of Californians represented by*\nAlvarado, Osio, and Vallejo look at Herrera's acts\nthrough the colored glasses of political prejudice; and\nthat among other classes the comisario was by no\nmeans unpopular.\nIn April 1827 Echeandia ordered a secret investigation of Herrera's administration, to be conducted by\nZamorano. The proceedings were begun at San Diego\nthe 30th of April, and afterwards continued at Monterey and Los Angeles in May and June. The main\ncharge was that the comisario had, on his way to\nCalifornia, invested a portion of the $22,000 of territorial funds intrusted to his care in effects to be sold\nfor his own account and profit, though it was not\nclaimed apparently that there was any deficit in his\naccounts, or that the money thus improperly used had\nnot been refunded.6   Zamorano as fiscal reported the\n5 No one has anything to say in Herrera's favor. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS.,\nii. 111-17, 132-46, is especially bitter in his criticism, charging H. with\ndishonesty, embezzlement, conspiracy, usurpation, insolence, and pretty much\neverything that was bad. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 122-3, is hardly less severe.\nVallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 62-3, tells us that H. 'did nothing but conspire\nand make trouble.' J. J. Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 91-2, represents H. as\nintriguing with the support of the padres to unseat Echeandia and put himself\nin power. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, i. 282-6, describes the quarrel without\nattaching much blame to Herrera; and it is to be noted that Mrs. Ord, one of\nthe clearest-headed Californian writers, personally friendly to Echeandia, expresses no opinion on the merits of the parties to this quarrel. Ocurrencias,\nMS., 20-1.\n^Herrera, Causa contra el Comisario Sub-Principal de Californias, Jose\"\nMaria Herrera, 1827, MS.; also an abridged record in the archives. Capt.\nGuerra testified that of the $22,000 the Sta B. Co. had got only $3,600; knew\nnot what had become of the rest; had heard that the money was landed at S.\nBias, and only a part reshipped with goods supposed to have been purchased\nwith that money. Maitorena had heard of the investment of public funds,\nand had seen in the possession of Luis Bringas certain bales of goods, which\nhe judged to be the ones bought by H. In a letter of later date, Maitorena\nattempts to show some irregularities in the collection of duties from the Nile,\nin 1825. Juan Bandini reserved his formal testimony until the matter should\ncome before the diputacion; but declared it to be a matter of public notoriety\nthat H. had misapplied the public funds. Alf. Romualdo Pacheco noticed at\nS. Bias that only $6,500 of the $22,000 was reshipped, and was told by J. M.\nPadres that H. had invested the balance in goods, having admitted as much\nto him, Padres. It was a notoriousJact that Bringas had sold the goods at\nthe presidios, towns, and missions of Cal.    Alf. Juan Jose\" Rocha confirmed\n 62        ECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOUS REVOLT.\ncharge well founded; and it must be admitted that\nthe testimony against the comisario, though for the\nmost part weak, furnished some grounds for suspicion\n\u2014and nothing stronger under the circumstances\u2014that\ncertain packages of goods had been purchased with\npublic money. When we consider that these proceedings were conducted in secret, mainly by Herrera's\nenemies, that they were never carried further in public,\nthat Herrera was never called upon for a defence upon\nany criminal charge, and that Echeandia was smarting\nunder the rebukes of the comisario general, it seems\nwisest at the least to attach little importance to the\naccusations.\nThe matter was discussed by the diputacion in the\nsessions of July, Bandini and the president making\nall the speeches. Bandini's deferred revelations proved\nto be the reading of a treasury report on the sums of\nthe statement as to what was seen in S. Bias. Lieut. Estrada testified that\nthe Morelos brought some 20 packages, including cigars and brandy, more\nthan were on the manifest; and these goods were opened at Herrera's house,\nwhere and elsewhere they were sold by Bringas. Deponent believed the\ngoods belonged to H. Luis Mariano Bringas, after much difficulty, was\nfound and induced to testify at Angeles before the alcalde and Capt. Portilla.\nHis testimony was clear enough, and to the effect that of the $4,500 in goods\nwhich he had brought to California and sold, $3,000 belonged to his friend\nTejada, a trader of Saltillo, and $1,500 had been committed to him by H. as\nbelonging to his (H.'s) cousin. Full particulars were given of his dealings.\nBut by the testimony of Ignacio M. Alvarado it was shown that Bringas,\nwhile refusing to testify on various pretences, had sent a messenger post-haste\nto Monterey and had received a message from H. Capt. Portilla's opinion\nwas, therefore, that Bringas had testified falsely under instructions from H.,\nwhose accomplice he was. One of the documents exhibited by Bringas, in\nsupport of his testimony, was a draft bearing the name of Wm. A. Gale,\nwritten Galle, and pronounced a forgery by Gale himself, who denied that he\nhad ever had any transaction with Bringas. Moreover, Rodrigo del Pliego\ntestified that H. had openly boasted of furnishing Bringas with papers that\nwould serve his purpose, implying that the signatures were forged by him. Za-\nmorano's final opinion, rendered to Echeandia at the end of July, was that EL\nhad invested a part of the public funds for his own account at Tepic, since of\nthe $22,000only about $8,500in coin could be proved to have arrived in Cal.;\nand it was very likely that the bales of goods referred to represented the balance; though it was hard to prove, because H. had had plenty of time to\nreplace the deficit in coin. June 16th, Echeandia in a circular orders the apprehension of Bringas, who is to be compelled to testify. Dept. Rec, MS., v.\n53. April 26th, E. to com. gen., says that H. has not acted properly, and\nthat proceedings have been instituted to prove his misbehavior. Id., v. 136.\nJuly 10th, H. to gov., with renewed complaints on the disregard of his orders\nby Martinez, Estrada, and Arguello. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas.,\nMS., i. 76-9.\n ACTION OF THE DIPUTACION. 63\nmoney intrusted to Herrera, and his own statement\nthat he was positive of Herrera's misuse of the funds.\nThe record of the previous secret investigations seems\nalso to have been read. Ternas, or trios, of candidates\nfor contador and treasurer were proposed in due form.\nBandini then advocated the suspension of Herrera;\nbut Echeandia opposed so radical a measure, arguing\nthat the comisario would be so closely watched by the\nnew officials that he could do no harm, and meanwhile\nthe charges against him could be investigated by the\nsupreme government. It is not easy to determine\nwhether the governor's opposition was a mere pretence, or whether, while wishing to humble his rival,\nhe doubted the expediency of suspending him on so\nslight evidence. On the first vote, four members were\nfor suspension, one against it, and one besides the president did not vote. Subsequently another member\nwas called in, the arguments were repeated, and Bandini obtained a secret vote in favor of suspension. It\nis not unlikely that this result had been prearranged,\nand that the arguments of Bandini and Echeandia\nwere made merely for effect.7\nHerrera was not suspended, because the candidates\nfor treasurer declined to serve, and no suitable person\nfor the place could be found; but Pablo Gonzalez\nwas installed as contador from July 23d, and matters\nwent on much as before, save that Herrera, offended\nat the charges of interfering with other officials, now\ndeclined to perform some duties thought to belong to\nhim.8    He neglected certain* details of gathering sup-\n7 Leg. Rec, MS., i. 91-101. For contador the terna was, 1. Pablo Gonzalez,\n2. Joaquin Estudillo, 3. Manuel Dominguez. For treasurer, 1. Jose\" Antonio\nCarrillo, 2. Jose\" Antonio Estudillo, 3. Antonio Maria Osio. In the first vote\nOrtega, Bandini, Carrillo, and Buelna \/oted for suspension; Estrada against,\nand Tapia reserved his vote. Romualdo Pacheco was the suplente; called in',\nbut the final vote was secret, no names being given.\n8 Appointment of Gonzalez, who spoke English, as contador, July 23d. Leg.\nRec, MS., i, 64, 91; Dept. Rec, MS., v. 71.    Aug. 7th, Echeandia to com.\n- gen. Says he has forwarded to the secretary of the treasury the secret investigations against H., whom the diputacion does not suspend for want of a\nsuitable man to take his place. Id., v. 138. Sept. 19th, H. to com. gen.\ncomplaining that the ministro de hacienda fails to answer his important questions. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Coni. and Treas., MS., i. 91.\n 64        ECHEANDtA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\nplies and serving out rations to prisoners, was summoned before the diputacion on September 19th, denied\nthe right of that body to question him, but indulged\nin a wordy warfare with Echeandia in the legislative\nhall. Next day the governor evolved from his inner\nconsciousness, and caused to be approved by the diputacion, the theory that the duty of a comisario sub-\nprincipal de hacienda was confined to 'systematizing\nthe financial administration,' by reporting on needed\nreforms, and keeping accounts of net products of revenue.9 Accordingly he notified Herrera of the result\nof his legal studies prompted by the comisario's misdeeds, and ordered him to restore to the habilitados\nall their former powers, and to confine his own authority to the narrow limits indicated above. Herrera\nthereupon, in obedience as he said to previous instructions from his superior, resigned his position, leaving\nthe financial administration wholly in the hands of\nthe gefe politico, and asking for a passport to go to\nMazatlan, which Echeandia refused. Thus the matter\nstood during the rest of 1827.10\n9Leg. Rec, MS., i 86-90,101-4. Sessions of Sept. 19th-20th. Echeandia\nsupported his new theory with an elaborate argument. A new terna for treasurer was proposed, consisting of Santiago Arguello, Maitorena, and Ignacio\nMartinez; but military duties prevented their acceptance.\n10Sept. 25, 1827, gov. to H. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 91-2, repeated Sept. 27th.\nSept. 26th, H. to Estrada, announcing his resignation. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i.\n110. Sept. 26th, gov. to Estrada, announcing and explaining the change.\nThe complaint was in the matter of furnishing supplies and rations, and the\ntheory was that Gov. Arguello had given up to II. at first powers to which\nhe was not entitled. Id., i. 109. Same date, Echeandia notifies Prefect Sarria\nof the change. Arch. Arzob., MS., Vi pt i. 38-9. Echeandia's argument quoted\nin Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 172-4. E. says in 1829 that H. *se suspendidy\ntenazmento se neg6 en el ejercicio de todas mk funciones desde el dia 26 de Sep-\ntiembre de 1827,' dejandolas al cargo de este gobierno.' Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nMil, MS., lxx. 19. Sept. 29th, E. to H. Chides him for his refusal to perform\nduties belonging to his office, and refuses a passport. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 93.\nOctober, E. asks minister of the treasury that the trial or investigation of himself and H. may take place in Cal. Id., v. 130-1. Oct. 1st, E. to comandantes\nand prefect on his orders to H. Id., v. 93-4; Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 41. Oct. 3d,\nE. to H. Never told him not to manage the funds entering his office; and if he\npersists in resigning the place, the treasury will be injured even more than it\nwas by his assumption of the habilitados' duties and rights. Dept. Rec, v. 95.\nOct. 11th, H. to E.. protesting against the orders which detain him in Cal. If\nthe treasury interests were injured, it was because he was not allowed to go\nto report to his superior in order that the latter might put another man in\nhis place; and the governor, to whom he was in no way responsible, was the\nonly one to blame.   If charged with criminal acts, he was ready for trial; if\n FINANCIAL AFFAIRS IN 1828. 65\nNor did 1828 bring any notable change in the situation. The habilitados attended to the revenues as\nof old, Estrada and afterward Vallejo of Monterey\nexercising a kind of supervision, until in November\nManuel Jimeno Casarin, a young man brought to\nCalifornia by his brothers, the friars Jimeno, was\nappointed by Echeandia as acting comisario, or administrator of the revenues, his position being similar to\nthat held by Estrada before the coming of Herrera;11\nand Juan Bandini was appointed at about the same\ntime as subordinate comisario at San Diego. Meanwhile Herrera continued \u2022 his protests against being\nkept in California; could obtain neither a trial nor a\npassport; but made some efforts to obtain material for\na later prosecution of his adversary. Echeandia was\ngreatly blamed by both the comisario general and the\nminister of the treasury for his course towards his\nfoe; but he defended himself as well as he could in\nwriting, and insisted on keeping Herrera in the territory and holding him responsible for all financial ills,\npresent and prospective.12\nnot, there was no right to detain him. He wished to enjoy the wise laws of\nhis country where they were respected and obeyed, and not remain where they\nwere shamefully transgressed, as he was ready to prove. He also claimed his\narrears of salary, he having received only $126 in a year, and having to sell\nhis furniture to keep alive. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 51. Oct. lGth, E. to\ncomandantes, alcaldes, etc., announcing hi3 action towards H., urging habilitados to attend carefully to their duties, and explaining why H. was not allowed\n\u2022to depart\u2014that i3 because at a distance it would be hard to prove H. 's frauds or\njustify his own action or that of the diputacion. Dept. Rec,MS., 101,103; Dept.\nSt. Pap., S. Jose\", MS., iv. 49-50; Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., xi. 1. Oct. 28th,\nE. to com. gen. Thinks the administration of the revenue by the habilitados\nis injurious. With an administrator, vista, and guard at each port, the\nrevenue might amount to $30,000 or $40,000 annually. Dept. Rec, MS., v.\n139. Nov. 27th, E. tells the comandante that the company officers had\nnever been free from responsibility in the matter of finances. Id., v. 105.\n'., }] Dept. Rec,JMtS., vi. 13, 13'3;Leg. Rec, MS., i. 286. Oct. 6th, P. Antonio\nJaneno writes to P.. 'Peyri about getting for his brother the position of col-\n\u2022 lector of customs. Peyri replies that he should obtain a certificate of fitness,\nand security for $4,000. Perhaps Jimeno did not take possession until Jan.\n1, 1829.   Vallejo, J?oc, MS., xxx. 308.\n12 Jan. 11, 1828, gov. to min. of war. Defends himself against charges of\nusurpation by the min. of the treasury. Some of the charges had apparently\nbeen printed, for which satisfaction is demanded. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 18-\n19. Feb. 22d, H. asks for a passport to go and render his accounts at Maza-\ntlan. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 101. March 1st and April 26th, com. gen. toE.,\nblaming him and the diputacion for exceeding their powers, even on the supposition that H. was guilty as charged, in which case a report should have\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   5\n 66 ECHEANDfA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\nA kind of revolt occurred in the north in October\n1828, with which Herrera's name is connected as\ninstigator by Alvarado, Osio, and Vallejo, without\nthe slightest foundation so far as can be known.\nThere is indeed very little information extant respecting the movement, although I have the statements of\nseveral old Californians on the subject, including two\nof the leaders, Jose* de Jesus Pico and Pablo Vejar.\nIt appears that on the 8th of October, a large part of\n\u2022the cavalry soldiers at Monterey, joined by those of\nthe escoltas who left their missions, refused to serve\nlonger unless they were paid, thereupon marching out\nof the presidio with their weapons. Touching subsequent events, there is no agreement among the narrators, beyond the fact that Lieutenant Romualdo\nPacheco persuaded the rebels to return to their duties,\nseveral of the number being put in prison to await\nthe decision of the supreme government on their\nfate.13    All agree that want of clothing and food was\nbeen sent to his superior officer. H. is also reprimanded on the same date for\nfailing to report properly on E.'s misdeeds and other matters. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 96-103. June 13th, H. to E. Protests against\nwhat is virtually his arrest, since he is not allowed to leave Monterey for Sta\nBarbara and S. Diego to attend to business. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 58.\nJuly 1st, H. required by the pres. of Mexico to form a regular accusation\nagainst E.; nothing to be kept back. Id., Ben. Com. and Treas., i. 92-3. Aug.\n7th, E. says he did not intend to prevent H. from travelling by land within\nthe territory. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 79. Sept. 15th, E. to com. gen. Says\nH.'s charge that he and the diputacion deprived him of his office is false. Id.,\nvi. 12-13. Nov. 7th, E. orders that H.'s salary be paid punctually. Id., vi.,\n131. Same date, will not allow him to leave the territory till .ordered to do\nso by the sup. govt. Id., vi. 129. Dec. 4th, 9th, 17th, further correspondence, showing that H. went to S. Diego, apparently to make secret investigations against his foe, which caused additional complications not very clearly\nrecorded.   Id., vi. 148, 150, 154-6, 158.\n13 Oct. 1828, escoltas from S. Luis Obispo to S. Juan Bautista have abandoned their posts. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., i. 6, 8-9. Oct.\n18th, Echeandia orders comandante of Monterey to bring the rebels to trial\nby court-martial; but if he cannot master them, to offer a pardon. Dept.\nRec, MS., vi. 113. Oct. 20th, E. to min. of war. Says the escoltas left\ntheir posts, and with the other troops came with arms in their hands to\ndemand their pay. Hopes by the aid of the artillery lately arrived to prevent such disorder; but needs officers. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 36-8. Oct.\n31st, Id. to Id. Mentions the revolt, and asks that the guilty ones be pardoned. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 36. Nov. 7th, comandante of Montereyhas\nmade known to the troops the governor's pleasure at their loyalty in rejecting the proposals by some degenerate militares. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 159.\nJan. 1829, fiscal's opinion in case of Francisco Soto for the revolt of Oct.\n8th, and other insubordination, then in prison.   Thinks the death penalty\n DISCONTENT OF THE SOLDIERS. 67\nthe cause of the rising; and there is no reason to suppose that it had any politically personal significance.\nThere is also a vague allusion to insubordination at\nSan Francisco about the same time, but we have no\nparticulars.14\nIn 1829 there was a practical cessation of the financial controversy in its old phases, the situation remaining Unchanged, save that Antonio Maria Osio acted\nas comisario during part of the year in' the place of\nJimeno, and an opportunity was afforded Echeandia\nto rid himself of Herrera by sending him away as a\nprisoner for trial, on charges somewhat less unfounded\nthan that of mismanaging the revenues. Discontent\namong the soldiers continued, resulting in a revolt\nmore extensive and complicated than that of 1828,\nthough not much more serious in its results. Destitution, resulting from non-receipt of pay and rations,\nand attributed naturally by the troops to some fault\nof the governor, was the leading motive of the soldiers;  the participants in the last revolt, yet under\nshould not be inflicted. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., Ixix. 24. Osio, Hist.\nCal., MS., 123-5, says 40 soldiers, not including the older sergeants and corporals, marched 12 leagues to Codornices Mt., and were induced to come\nback by Pacheco and the padres, the former offering to intercede for their\npardon. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, ii. 83-5, tells us the cavalry company went to\nSauzal, could not agree among themselves, and when Pacheco put himself at\ntheir head, they instinctively obeyed his order to march back to their quarters, where they were under arrest for many months. Pico, Acontecimientos,\nMS., 10, says that 80 men wandered about for a month, when half went back\nand were pardoned. The rest, the leaders being Felipe Arceo, Raimundo\nand Gabriel de la Torre, Pablo Vejar, Jose* de Jesus Pico, and Francisco Soto,\nremained away longer, but at last returned at the request of their friends\nand families, and were put in prison. Vejar, Recuerdos, MS., 8-9, says he and\nanother man were\" sent to Estrada to say that they would serve no longer\nwithout pay; and that before they returned to duty Estrada promised pardon and some relief. Torre, Reminiscencias, MS., 8-9, says that Arces was\nleader, and that the rebels went as far as Sta Cruz, S. Juan, and S. Jose*.\nAvila, Cosas de Cal, MS., 25-7, saw the rebels form in line near her husband's\nhouse to return with Pacheco. She says Vejar was the leader, and that while\nin prison all were terrified at threats of being put to death. Amador, Memorials, MS., 86, tells us it was a long time before all returned to duty. He\nand Jose\" de Jesus Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 15-16, represent the soldiers as\nhaving been in a pitiable state of destitution when they were driven to insubordination. Mention of the affair in Lugo, Vida, MS., 13; Larios, Convul-\nsiones, MS., 8; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 24.\n\"Oct. 20th, gov. to min. of war. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 38-9.\n ECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\narrest, were rendered reckless by current rumors that\nthey were to be shot;15 Herrera and some of the\nfriars, from motives of personal hostility, were willing\nto encourage any movement directed against Echeandia; and finally the records, without clearly implicating any prominent individual, leave room for a suspicion that most of the officers at Monterey and San\nFrancisco were at the least not very earnest in their\nopposition to the rebels, though lacking confidence in\ntheir success and courage to take risks.\nIn June two soldiers revealed to Almrez Jose* Fernandez del Campo a plot of the troops to rise against\nthe governor and all those de la otra banda, with a\nview to put all the offices in the hands of Californians.\nThe outbreak at Monterey was to take place 'June\n22d, but the plan was revealed on the 18th. The\nleader was Joaquin Solis, a convict ranchero, living\nnot far from the presidio. Solis was a companion of\nVicente Gomez, El Capador. Like him, he had rendered service in I the war of independence, and like\nhim, had been sentenced to California for brutal\ncrimes, which, but for his past services, would have\nbeen more severely punished. This revelation strangely\nseems to have caused no special sensation. There was\na formal examination of several witnesses, with some\nofficial correspondence. Difficulty was experienced in\ninducing any officer to act as fiscal, or prosecutor, and\nfinally the matter was dropped for reasons not apparent. Stranger still, this affair was ignored in all\nthe proceedings arising from later troubles.16\n13 June 9,1829, order from Mexico that the soldiers under arrest for mutiny\nbe set at liberty,.after admonishment as to their duties. Sup. Govt St. Pap.,\nMS., v. 12.- .It doe's not appear that .this order reached Monterey before the\nrising. The.JaCt that the..prisoners began'the movement is stated by Pico,\nAcont., MS!,~ 10-13;\" Larios, Couvulsiones, MS., 8-10; Avila, Cosas de Cal.,\nMS., 25-8.\n16 June 23, 1829, com. of Monterey to Echeandia.. Says a conspiracy of the\nCalifornians against the. Mexicans had been detected, and his men had been under arms for 3 days, though the conspirators had not dared to break out. Dept.\nRec, MS , vi. 16. June 25th, Alf. Fernandez reported to the com. therevela-\ntionsof Mariano Peguero, corporal of artillery, and of private Pedro Guerrero.\nGabriel Espinosa and Raimundo de la Torre were named as concerned in the\nplot.    The cavalryman, Juan Elizalde, confirmed the statements of Peguero\n REVOLTING TROOPS TAKE MONTEREY.       69\nDuring the night of November 12th-13th, the soldiers at Monterey rose and took possession of the\npresidio. By a previous understanding, doubtless,\nthough little or nothing was ever brought to light on\nthe subject, there was no opposition in any of the\nbarracks; but some of the men, especially of the infantry, seem to have been permitted to remain neutral\nby giving up their weapons. The ringleaders were\nMariano Peguero, Andres Leon, Pablo Vejar, and\nthe two brothers Raimundo and Gabriel de la Torre,\nthough even of these none would subsequently admit that he entered altogether willingly into the plot,\nor that he contemplated anything more serious than\nthe sending of a 'representation' to the governor.\nSmall parties, each including two or more of the men\nnamed, proceeded to the houses of Vallejo, the acting\ncommandant of the company, Juan Jose Rocha of\nthe artillery, Sergeant Andres Cervantes, and of the\nacting comisario Manuel Jimeno Casarin, all of whom\nwere roused from their slumbers on one pretext or\nanother, and were locked up in the calabozo before\ndawn. Juan B. Alvarado and Jose* Castro seem also\nto have been arrested. No resistance beyond verbal\nprotest was attempted, except that the doors of Vallejo and Rocha had to be kicked down by Estevan\nEspinosa.17\nand Guerrero. Follows a record of preliminary legal proceedings, leading to\nno intelligible result. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxix. 15-19. July 1st,\ngov. to com. of Monterey. Orders arrest of Solis, Espinosa, and Torre, and\nexamination of Elizalde, Guerrero, and Fernando Curiel. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,\nii. 96-7; Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 187. July 8th, gov. orders artillery comandante\nto redouble his efforts to prevent the threatened revolt. Id., vii. 193. Sept.\n22d, Jose T. Castro, alcalde, assures Echeandia of the fealty of S. Jose. St.\nPap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 7. Sept. 28th, Fernandez del Campo to alcalde. Must watch that no one carries forbidden arms. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nxxix. 419.\n17 The details of the arrests are given at considerable length in testimony\nto be referred to later. R. Torre, Vejar, Leon, Dolores Garcia, Espinosa, and\na few artillerymen composed the party that took Vallejo. He was called on\npretext of an important message just arrived, but suspecting something, would\nnot come out; therefore the door was kicked in after consultation. Peguero,\nVejar, and Espinosa arrested Jimeno. Several witnesses testified that Alvarado and Castro were imprisoned. Avila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 25-8, was told by\nVe\" jar at the time that the object was to make the officers eat morizqueta and\nlearn how the soldiers had to live.   Spence, Hist. Notes, MS., 3-7, says Solis\n 70\nECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\nThe rebels thus secured Monterey without opposition, and similar easy success at all other points was\nanticipated. . There was the usual indulgence in prospective death or liberty as a figure of speech, but\nclearly none of the conspirators expected serious obstacles. A leader was needed, none of the conspirators ranking higher than corporal, or feeling competent to take the command. Raimundo de la Torre\nwas accordingly despatched with a summons to Joaquin\nSolis, who came in from his rancho on the 14th and assumed the position of comandante general of the Californian troops.18 I suppose that all this had been prearranged, although Solis and the rest insisted on their\ntrial, that the convict general now heard of the rising\nfor the first time, and he even had the assurance to claim\nthat he accepted the command to prevent the disorders that would naturally arise from leaving the rabble uncontrolled!\nNow that there was a general, a plan or pronuncia-\nmiento was an absolute necessity. Solis applied for\nsuch a plan\u2014or, as he afterward tried to make it\nappear, for a petition or 'representation' to Echeandia\non existing evils\u2014to Jose* Maria Herrera.    The ex-\ntook the officers of the presidio by stratagem. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii.\n148-59, says he and Castro were sleeping in the same room with Vallejo, when\n10 soldiers came and marched all three to jail, where they spent the night on\nthe bare ground, half-dressed. Vallejo got a chance to make a speech, but\nto no avail. The prisoners feared at first serious results from the reckless\ncharacter of the conspirators. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 86-96,110-11; iii.\n245, gives a similar narrative to that of Alvarado. Says it was 2 a. m. when\nthe soldiers came on pretence of giving him the mail-bag. They were shut\nup with the lowest criminals, who were however soon released. He was much\nrelieved to hear from Jimeno, the last prisoner brought to jail, that the plot\nwas to overthrow Echeandia, and not, as he had feared, to plunder the town\nand flee on one of the vessels in port. Torre, Reminis., MS., 10-21, says his\nbrothers Raimundo and Gabriel were in command of the escoltas of S. Miguel and S. Luis respectively, and came with their men and those of S. Antonio and Soledad, arriving on the night of the revolt. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS.,\n125-51, tells us that Rocha, Vallejo, and Fernandez del Campo had repeatedly\nwarned Echeandia of the danger, without his having paid the slightest heed.\nVe\"jar, Recuerdoss MS., 9-35, says Echeandia would certainly have been' shot\nhad he been in Monterey at the time, as the soldiers considered him responsible for all their troubles.\n18\u00abNov. 13, 1829, summons to Solis to take the command, in Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, MS., lxxii. 45, signed by Peguero, Leon, Gabriel de la Torre, and\nPetronilo Rios.    See also Id., p. 40, 43, 53,55.\n A PRONUNCIAMIENTO. 71\ncomisario was in sympathy with any movement against\nthe governor. We are told by Osio, Vallejo, Alvarado, and others that he was the prime mover in the\nrevolt, Solis being merely a tool in his hands. I\nthink this view of the case an exaggeration, and that\nHerrera, like several others perhaps who were never\ndirectly implicated, was willing to wait, and even aid\nso far as he could in safety. However this may have\nbeen, the troops counted on him to a certain extent,19\nand he at the least dictated the plan, which was written at his house by Petronilo Rios, and completed in\nthe evening of November 15th. It was read aloud\nto a group of foreigners, including Hartnell, Spence,\nCooper, Stearns, Anderson, McCulloch, and others\nwho happened to be present, and who more, or less\napproved the document, 'from motives of courtesy,'\nas David Spence afterward testified. It was read to\nthe soldiers and approved by them the same night.\nMany claimed later not to have been pleased with the\npaper, since it was a plan of revolution', and not a\npetition for redress of grievances; but this was an\nafterthought in most cases.\nThe plan was made to embody the grievances of\nHerrera, as well as of the troops, and was directed\nagainst Echeandfa as the author of all territorial\nevils.20    The avowed object was to put the territory\n19 There are several vague allusions in the testimony to two brazosfuertes,\non whom dependence was placed. One was supposed to be Herrera, and the\nother perhaps Capt. Gonzalez, or Lieut. Lobato, or Francisco Pacheco. Solis\nclaimed to have acted in many things on H. 's advice after he had taken the\ncommand. H. in his testimony said he first knew of the trouble when in the\nnight of the 12th he heard a noise in Jimeno's room next to his own, and\nrushed out sword in hand to defend him. Next day he was offered the com-\nisaria, but declined, and advised the rebels to await the arrival of Osio, who\nalready had the appointment from Echeandia. He again declined the office\nwhen offered by Solis. He Wcis asked for advice, and gave it in the interest of\ngood order. He subsequently agreed to dictate the plan on condition that\nthe officers should be set at liberty, and with a view to secure respect for the\nauthorities, to prevent outrages on persons and property; jn fact, to control\nfor the good of the territory so far as possible a revolution which he was powerless to prevent. Dept. St. Pap., MS., lxxii. 71-4. It is fair to state that\nthis defence was at least plausible, and that there is really no evidence of any\nweight against its accuracy, except the statements of persons liable to be in*\nfluenced by prejudice.\n20 Solis, Manifesto al Publico, 6 sea Plande Revolucion, 1829, MS. It was\nsigned by Solis, Peguero, Leon, Rios, and Gabriel de la Torre.   In substance,\n 72\nECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOUS REVOLT.\nin the hands of a temporary governor appointed by\nthe diputacion. There was no need of a such a revolution, or at least no reason to expect relief from such\nmeasures; the charges against Echeandia were grossly\nexaggerated, since he was merely a weak man placed\nin circumstances where a strong man could have done\nbut little; but the prevalent destitution among the\ntroops was real, and was perhaps a sufficient motive\nthe document was as follows: The sup. govt, which is ever anxious\nfor our good, and to which we are ever obedient, sent a governor who has\nfailed to comply with his instructions; has scandalously abused his authority; has devoted himself to his own interests and comforts and those of a\nfew men about him; and has paid no attention to the complaints of hungry\nand naked soldiers. The laws call for a diputacion chosen by the people; but\nthe gefe fails to either convoke that body or to explain his~ reasons for not\ndoing so, and consequently agriculture, commerce, education, and other vital\ninterests are grossly neglected. Two years ago the gov. suspended the comisario of the revenues for reasons not known, which has resulted in the most\nscandalous mismanagement of the public funds. The administration of justice and military discipline are in a state of detestable abandonment; immorality and crime are rampant; and all results directly from the ruler's neglect and lack of energy. Therefore, having endured all of misery and neglect\nthat is humanly possible, having resorted* in vain to every other expedient,\nthetroops have resolved to use force, and to support the following plan: 1.\nThe diputacion shall meet in due form with all its members. 2. When it has\nassembled Echeandia shall resign all his powers to the dip., which shall\nappoint a person worthy of confidence to serve until the arrival of a new\ngefe sent by the sup. govt, who will be immediately recognized. 3. Both\nthis ayuntamiento (of Monterey) and those of other places will name proper\npersons to manage the revenues provisionally in accordance with the laws. 4.\nThe troops will remain under their old officers, if the latter agree to this plan;\notherwise they will choose a sergeant or corporal as. comandante, who shall\nacknowledge the authority of the gefe appointed by the diputacion. 5. Commandants of troops will apply for pay and supplies to the respective aclminis-\ntrators of revenue appointed as above, and never to missions or private\npersons. 6. Only alcaldes may apply to missions for supplies, giving proper receipts, and delivering the product to the administrators.\n7. In very urgent cases the ayuntamiento and administrator may require a\nmoderate loan from private persons, the amount being proportioned to their\nmeans. 8. Persons and property to be fully protected, especially in the case\nof foreigners belonging to a friendly nation. (Herrera added to this article a\nnote in his own handwriting which extended the assurance of protection to\nthe Spaniards already living in the territory\u2014that is, leaving all further action against them for the sup. govt and the new governor to dispose of.) 9.\nAn eloquent peroration, in which the pronunciados declare that they will never\nlay down their arms until their object is accomplished; that no violence\nwill be used beyond what is necessary in defence of their rights; that\nthere will be no persecution of opponents; that anxiety may be banished\nfrom the minds of all, citizens or foreigners; that the object was to reestablish and not to overthrow the government; that 'the military apparatus which\nhas caused alarm is only the effort of free men against tyranny, and the\nuse of this last resource made everywhere to overthrow tyranny by soldiers\noverwhelmed by misery, weakened by hunger, and fully awakened by the\npainful spectacle daily presented to their eyes of a dear wife and tender\nchildren, naked, and on the point of becoming victims to indigence.'\n 1\nREBEL ORGANIZATION. 73\nfor mutiny. It wras natural enough that all existing\nevils should be popularly attributed to the ruler, and\ncould the soldiers have induced some popular and intelligent officer to take the command, the movement\nwould have been successful so far as the overthrow ol\nEcheandia was concerned.\nSoon after his arrival at Monterey, Solis transferred\nthe imprisoned officers from the calabozo to the warehouse. Meanwhile Raimundo de la Torre was sent to\nSan Juan, where he lay in wait for and captured Fernandez del Campo, an officer who at vthe time of the\nrevolt was absent on an Indian expedition. His men\njoined the rebels, and the leader was brought to the\npresidio under arrest. Whether he also was locked\nup with the rest does not appear; but in a few weeks\nall the prisoners were released at the intercession of\nforeigners, and on the advice of Herrera, much against\nthe wishes of some of the soldiers. Vallejo and Rocha\nwere however sent south in the Brookline. Stephen\nAnderson carried copies of the plan to Santa Barbara\nby water, and Meliton Soto, a citizen, was sent south\nwith letters calculated to advance the rebel cause}\nwhile Raimundo de la Torre read the plan to the soldiers of every escolta from Soledad to San Luis Obispo.\nThe ayuntamiento of Monterey, headed by Tiburcio\nCastro, the alcalde, accepted the plan, proclaimed it to\nthe assembled citizens, and urged its acceptance by\nother towns.21 Castro turned oyer the municipal\nfunds, and replenished the rebel treasury by imposing\na tax or loan of a few thousand dollars on the traders,\nchiefly foreigners. In accordance with the plan, an\nadministrator of revenues was chosen, the position\nbeing given to Antonio Maria Osio, who accepted it.22\nWhen all had been arranged at the capital, General\n21 Nov. 16,1829, Alcalde Castro to Solis, in Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v.\n859-60.\n22 Nov. 16th, Tiburcio Castro's statement. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v. 358.\nIn his Historia de California, MS., 145, Don Antonio Maria naturally calls attention to the fact that he had been previously appointed by Echeandia.\n 74\nECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOUS REVOLT.\nSolis turned his attention to the north, leaving Francisco Pacheco in command at Monterey.23\nOf the march northward and return we have few\ndetails; but there had been a previous understanding\nwith the garrison, and neither at San Francisco nor\nat any point on the way did Solis encounter opposition.\nThe northern tour consumed about a month, to December 20th. The ayuntamiento of San Jose* accepted\nthe plan as the best means of securing peace and order; or at least so I interpret a letter of Alcalde Archuleta, which that dignitary perhaps intended to be\nvague and unintelligible. At San, Juan and Santa\nClara Solis received supplies and money to the amount\nof a few hundred dollars; but Padre Duran at Mission\nSan Jose\\ not in the comandante's route, declined to\ncontribute, on the ground that he had no official knowl-\n23 Nov. 21st, Pacheco to Solis. Says he is not capable of undertaking the\ncommand, having neither talent nor disposition for it; but he was willing to\nserve his country,in any possible way. The following items are from the various statements made from memory: Pablo Vejar, Recuerdos, MS., 9-17, says\nhe had for a week the key of the comisaria, where there was a large box of\nsilver coin, which fact he did not reveal, fearing the men would, seize the\nmoney and give color to a charge that they had rebelled for plunder. He\nclaims to have been a leader with Torre at first.' Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 143-6,\ntells us that Castro was forced to lend $1,000 of the municipal funds, and that\nhe, Osio, distributed-over $3,000 in effects to the troops. He arrived the\nsame day as Solis, and helped to secure the release of the prisoners. Est6van\nde la Torre, Reminis., MS., 12-14, gives some details of the capture by his\nbrother of Fernandez del Campo at S. Juan. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 86-90,\nattributes his release to the efforts of the foreigners headed by David Spence.\nHe says Sergt Cervantes was also sent south in the Brookline. Jose\" de Jesus\nPico, Acont., MS., 10-13, says he was sent to intercept the mail at Soledad\nand to bring away the guard, succeeding in both undertakings. Gonzalez,\nRevoluciones, MS., 1-3, gives a brief account of the whole affair. Robinson,\nLife in Cal, 69-70, says that Solis seized about $3,000 in the comisaria, and\nlevied a contribution on the inhabitants. James O. Pattie's version of the\nSolis revolt is perhaps worth presenting apart. That part relating to this first\nphase of the affair at Monterey is as follows: In January 1830 (the date is\nwrong) my acquaintances informed me on landing 'that there was a revolution in the country, a part of the inhabitants having revolted against the constituted authorities. The revolted party seemed at present likely to gain the\nascendency. They had promised the English and Americans the same privileges and liberty in regard to trade on the coast that belonged to the native\ncitizens, upon the condition that these people aided them in their attempt to\ngain their freedom by imparting advice and funds. I readily appropriated a\npart of my little store to their use, and I would fain have accompanied them\nin hopes to have one shot at the general with my rifle. But my countrymen\nsaid it was enough to give counsel and funds at first, and it would be best to\nsee how they managed their own affairs before we committed ourselves by\ntaking an active part in them.' Pattie's Nar., 222.\n AT SAN FRANCISCO. 75\nedge of any change in the government. He was perhaps the only man in the north who ventured to question the authority of Solis.24 At San Francisco Solis\nand his army were received with an artillery salute;\nthe whole garrison promptly joined the rebel cause;\nJose Sanchez was made comandante instead of Martinez; and that is practically all that is known on the\nsubject.25\nAt San Francisco Solis tried to induce- Luis Arguello to take the chief command of the rebel forces.\nThere is no documentary evidence of this fact, but it\nis stated by many of the Californians. The effort was\nnatural; and Jose* Fernandez says that the offer was\nmade in his presence, Solis urging Arguello's acceptance, and promising to retire himself, so that Don\nLuis might not have to associate with a convict.    But\n2i Nov. 22d, Solis announces that he is near S. Juan, and his mea need\nclothing. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v. 36\u00bbNov. 25th, Alcalde Archuleta\nseems to accept the plan. Id., v. 357-8. Amounts of money obtained, $140\nat S. Juan; $100at Sta Clara,- and $200at S. Jose. Dept. St. Pap,, Ben. Mil,\nMS., lxxii. 46. Nov. 26th, Solis, at Sta Clara, to ayunt. of S. Jose\". Must\nhave $ 100 from municipal fund or nearest mission in order to resume his march.\nS. Jose\", Arch., MS., vi. 14. Nov. 30th, Id. told, from S. P., again demands\nmoney to supply the troops. Id., vi. 15. Dec. 1st, P. Duran declines to give\n$200 for a comandante general interino of whose authority he knows nothing.\nId., vi. 17. Dec. 4th, 6th, Solis, at S. Francisco, to the ayunt., arguing the case\nas against P. Duran. The beauties of the plan and the duties of all, including\nfriars, under it are earnestly set forth. Id., vi. 12, 11. Dec. 6th, Solis, back\nat Sta Clara, gives receipt for $100 of the tithes of S. JosC, and $200 of Sta\nClara. Id., ii. 49. Dec. 11th, Solis, at LaLaguna, with complaint against the\nalcalde of S. Jose\" for nothing in particular. Id., i. 35.\n25 Feb. 19, 1830, Martinez writes to Echeandia, that on Nov. 15, 1829,\nSolis was about to attack S. Francisco and he prepared to resist him, but found\nthe troops so demoralized and so disposed to join Solis that he was obliged, not\nto accept the plan, but to remain neutral and await results. Nov. 30th, he\nwas ordered to deliver the military command to Jose\" Sanchez and the habili-\ntacion to Francisco Sanchez, and also to remain in his house as a prisoner.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 129. It would seem that on the final approach of\nSolis, Martinez had some idea of resistance, for Nov. 19th he wrote to S. Jos6,\nasking for a reenforcement of 10 vecinos. S. Jose\", Arch., MS., i. 33. In Feb.\nand March 1830 Corporal Joaquin Pina, who had been in command of the artillery in the past Nov., was accused of insolence to Martinez on Nov. 28th,\nwhen he came by order of Solis, then at the mission, to demand ammunition\nfor a salute. Pina denied the insolence, but in turn accused Martinez of having approved the plan when it was first read, Nov. 2lst or 22d, and of having\nsent to Solis a written surrender of the presidio, much to the disgust of Pifia,\nbut with the approval of Francisco do Haro. Dept. St. Pap:, Ben. Mil, MS.,\nlxxi. 21-8. All of the Californian writers mention the expedition to S. Francisco, but none give details. Osio, however, says that Solis met with no opposition from Martinez.\n 76\nECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\nArguello, while admitting that he would rejoice at\nthe overthrow of Echeandia, had no disposition to\nhead a revolution, and persisted in his refusal. A part\nof the San Francisco garrison was incorporated in the\narmy of Solis, but most of the men deserted at San\nJose on the march to Monterey.\nOn his return Solis received despatches warning him\nto make haste or Santa Barbara would be lost to the\ncause. Accordingly after a short stay at the capital,\nhe began his march southward with over one hundred\nmen, Gabriel de la Torre commanding the cavalry and\nLdzaro Pina the artillery. Beyond the facts that the\narmy was at San Miguel December 28th, got plenty of\nsupplies at each mission, and was in such good spirits\nat Santa Inds that the men refused to accept the governor's indulto which met them at that point, we have\npractically no details respecting the march. Thus far\nall went well; but the leader had no ability, nor control\nover his men; the army had no elements of coherence,\nand would fall apart of its own weight at the slightest\nobstacle; yet if success should take the form of a hole,\nthe fragments might fall into it.26\nLet us now turn to the south. Echeandia heard\nof the Solis revolt November 25th, or a day or two\nearlier. On that date he revealed it to the officers and\npeople in a circular, stating that he had convoked a\ncouncil of seven officers, who were asked for a frank\nopinion whether his rule was satisfactory, and what\nchanges if any could be advantageously made in the\nadministration. The response was unanimous that\nhe was a good governor, though Juan Malarin was\nnamed as the best man for the revenue department.\n26 The march south, organization of the army, trifling details. Deptt. St;\nPap., Ben. Mil.,'MS., lxxii. 41, 45-6, 76-7, and scattering. Jan. 15, 1830,\nAlcalde Soberanes writes from Monterey that he has notice of Solis passing\nPurisima on Jan. 10th, and that Pacheco is awaiting him at La Cieneguita\nwith 200 men. S. Jose\", Arch., MS., i. 37. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 147, mentions that at Monterey Solis showed an inclination to give up the command;\nthat his old companion Antonio Avila threatened to oppose him if he continued to be the tool of Herrera; aad-that a sergeant of artillery went south\nin his army with the express purpose of betraying him (Lazaro Pina?), as he\ndid.\n REVOLT IN THE SOUTH. 77\nConsequently he declares that the adherents of Solis,\nif they do not lay down their arms and leave the authorities free, shall be deemed traitors and accomplices of the Spanish invaders at Vera Cruz.27 Two\ndays later Echeandia reported the matter to the minister of war, announcing that he would start north in\na few days to retake the capital. He declared his\nbelief that Herrera was at the bottom of the revolt,\nhoping to gratify personal hatred, to avoid the rendering of accounts and exposure of his frauds, and\neither to escape by some vessel, or more likely to\ndeclare for Spain or North American adventurers.\nEcheandia does not fail to make the affair a text for\ndiscourse on the difficulties of his position, and the\nurgent need of aid from Mexico.28 He left San Diego\non December 1st and reached Santa Barbara the 15th,\nafter having made arrangements on the way for re-\nenforcements to come from Los Angeles, and for a\nmeeting of the diputacion, as elsewhere related.\nAt San Diego the rebellion obtained no foothold;29\nbut at Santa Barbara in the early days of December,\nbefore Echeandia's arrival, the garrison rose much as\nat Monterey, and held the presidio for nearly two\ndays. The outbreak seems to have taken place just\nafter the arrival of Meliton Soto with despatches from\nthe north on the 2d. The coming of such a messenger\nhad been expected, and a rising had been planned\nsince the beginning of November.   It was now settled\n27 Nov. 25, 1829, Echeandia's circular.  Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 257.\n28 Nov. 27, 1829, E. to min. of war. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 53-5. He is\nhard pressed by numerous duties, the difficulty of maintaining harmony with\ndisaffected Spanish friars, the fear of a neophyte uprising, the total \"want of\nfunds, the difficulties of communication, etc. He wants officers, troops,\npriests, money, and above all, just now 50 men from Sonora to establish communication by land.\n29Nov. 26, 1829, Echeandfa orders the comandante to summon the militia\nin case of need to serve against Solis. Dept. Rec., MS., vii. 258. Dec. 30th,\nArguello assures E. that all at San Diego are opposed to the plan and determined to support the govt. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 92. Sergt Jose Maria\nMedrano was accused by P. Menendezof saying that he had expected the outbreak since July, and that had he been at Monterey he would have favored\nthe plan; but after investigation the padre's testimony was doubted, and\nMedrano acquitted as a faithful soldier.\n 78 ECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOUS REVOLT.\nthat the discharge of a musket at midnight of the 3d,\neve of Santa Barbara, should be the signal; but an\naccidental discharge brought on the outbreak prematurely at 11 A. m. Romualdo Pacheco, acting comandante, and Rodrigo del Pliego were seized and\nplaced under arrest in Pacheco's house, guarded by a\ncorporal and eight soldiers. Sergeant Damaso Rodriguez was perhaps the leader of the rebels, or perhaps, as he afterward claimed, only pretended to be so\nto preserve order. No violence was done to persons\nor property, A distribution of warehouse effects was\nproposed, but was postponed until the soldiers of the\nmission guards should come to claim their share. The\nquelling of this revolt was a simple matter. The officers were released by Rodriguez and a few others, on\nthe 4th, against the wishes of many. Pacheco easily\nwon over a few soldiers, marched to the barracks next\nday, and advised the troops to return to their allegiance and duty. They were given until 9 p. m. to\nthink of the matter, and they deemed it best to surrender, after six of the number, presumably the leaders, whom only Pacheco had threatened with arrest,\nhad been given time to run away with Meliton Soto\nfor the north.30\nEcheandia put Santa Barbara in the best possible\nstate for defence.  He obtained reenforcements of men,\n30 The best account is given in the testimony of the artilleryman Maximo\nGuerra. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS,, lxxii. 65-7. He names as implicated in the revolt and in the previous plans: Damaso Rodriguez, Ajjtonio\nGuevara, Vicente Rico, Joaquin Cota, Martinez, and himself, who were the\n6 who ran away; also Jose\" Maria Perez. Luciano Felix, and Ex-alcalde Fernando Tico, who spoke of Anastasio Carrillo as the prospective comandante.\nSoto in his testimony, Id., 62-3, claimed to have had nothing further to do\nwith the plot than, having business in the south, to carry letters for Solis,\nreceiving $50 for the service. He was back at Monterey before Solis started\nfor Sta Barbara. Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 26-9, who was alcalde of Sta\nBarbara at the time, gives a version agreeing with that of Guerra, so far as it\ngoes. Dec. 8th, Echeandia at S. Gabriel wrote about the revolt, stating that\nRodriguez was said to have only pretended to accept the command, that Pacheco had regained control by the aid of citizens, and that he was in pursuit\nof wounded (?) mutineers. Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 259. Slight mention in St.\nPap., Sac, MS., x. 56. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 28-32, tells us that all\nthe artillery revolted except Corporal BasualdcywhO'took refuge in the com-\nandante's house.\n CAMPAIGN OF SANTA BARBARA.\n79\nanimals, and supplies from the pueblo and missions,31\nstationed Pacheco with about ninety soldiers at Ciene-\nguita, two or three miles from the mission, and awaited\nthe approach of the rebel forces. The 7th of January, 1830, he issued a proclamation, in which he called\nupon the Monterey insurgents to surrender on condition of full pardon and liberty, except to the leaders,\nwho would be simply imprisoned until their pardon\ncould be obtained from Mexico. He believed the revolt to be due to the selfish aims and the crimes of\nHerrera, who had deceived the troops; and he warned\nthem that in opposing him they were really in rebellion against the republic, a state of things that could\nlead only to blood and ruin.32 Next day he received\na communication from Solis, dated at Santa Ines or\nEl Refugio the 7th, in which he was called upon to\ngive up the command in accordance with the plan.\nHe answered it the same day with a refusal. He ordered the rebels to present themselves unarmed for\nsurrender, and renewed the argument against Herrera,\nclaiming that the troops had received two thirds of\ntheir pay, and that there had been no complaint to\nhim.33\nNone of the Solis men accepted the first offer of\npardon received at or near Santa Ines. No obstacles\nhad yet been encountered, and this revolt was so\nplanned as to overcome everything else. It was yet\nhoped that the Santa Barbara garrison might join the\nmovement, and the rebel army marched bravely on to\nDos Pueblos, even coming in sight of the foe on the\n13th.    Pacheco and his men immediately executed a\n31 Thirty-one citizens went from Angeles. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS.,\nlxxiii. 60-1. Dec. 20th, Echeandia directs padres of Sta Ines and Purisima\nto send to Sta Barbara all people capable of bearing arms; also all spare animals and supplies to keep them from the hands of the rebels. Dept. Rec, MS.,\nvii. 206. Jan. 5, 1830, E. orders alcalde of Angeles to send armed and mounted\ncitizens. Id., viii. 2. Pacheco's advance guard consisted of 30 of the Maza-\ntlan company, 8 artillerymen, 30 of the regular presidial company under Alf.\nPliego, 20 of the S. Diego company under Alf. Ramirez, and about 100 neophytes with bows and arrows. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 56.\n82 Jan. 7, 1830, proclamation. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 4.\nnId., viii. 4-7.\n 80   ECHEANDf A AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOUS REVOLT.\nchange of base to prevent being cut off\u2014that is, they\nretreated from Cieneguita as fast as their legs would\ncarry thetn, and took refuge in the presidio.34 Solis\nseems to have come somewhat nearer Santa Barbara,\nbut we know little in detail respecting what occurred\nfor three days. Echeandia wrote to the minister of\nwar: \"On the 13 th the rebels came in sight of the divi-\nsioncita of government troops, and from that time\nby their movements and frivolous correspondence endeavored to gain a victory; but knowing the useless-\nness of their resources and the danger of being cut off\non their retreat, they fled precipitately at dusk on the\n15th in different directions, spiking their cannon, and\nlosing twenty-six men who have accepted the indulto.\"35\nThe last act of Solis before running away was to announce that his men were ready for a fight, and would\nnever surrender until they got their pay.36 The rebel\nchieftain described the events at Santa Barbara thus:\n\"Having taken a position between the presidio and\nmission, I found it impossible to enter either one\nor the other, the first because it was fortified, the\nsecond because of the Walls pierced with loop-holes for\nmusket-fire, and of all the people within, so that I\nknew we were going to lose, and this was the motive\nfor not exposing the troops by entering.    wrote\nme that the general had ordered Portilla to march\nwith 150 men to surprise us, and seeing myself without means of defence for wTant of munitions, I determined to spike the cannon, and retire with my army\nto fortify myself in Monterey\u2014lo que verifiquS al mo-\n84 The retreat is definitely stated only by Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 29-39;\nGonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 27-9; and Pico, Acont., MS., 10-13; but all are\ngood authorities.\n85 Jan. 26, 1830, Echeandia to min. of war. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x.\n58. He says the pursuit of the fugitives had to be suspended temporarily at\nPurisima. A list of 28 soldiers, who at this time surrendered themselves, is\ngiven in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxvi. 23. Jan. 16th, E. announces the\nsurrender of the 26th and his hopes of final success. Some additional correspondence of minor importance, from Jan. 8th to 18th. Dept. Rec, MS., viii.\n10. Jan. 13th, Pacheco tells E. that he has gained an advantage over the foe.\nId,, viii. 85.\n3*Jan. 15th, Solis from 'Campo Nacional' to E! Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS.,\nii. 4.    He was willing, however, to have a conference.\n H\nBATTLES OF CIENEGUITA AND DOS PUEBLOS. 81\nmento.\"2,1 Dr Anderson wrdte to Captain Cooper:\n\"You would have laughed had you been here when the\ngentlemen from your quarter made their appearance.\nAll the people moved into the presidio, except thirty\nwomen, who went bag and baggage on board the\nFunchal. The two parties were in sight of each other\nfor nearly two days, and exchanged shots, but at such\na distance that there was no chance of my assistance\nbeing needed. About thirty have passed over to this\nside. The general appears to be perplexed what to do\nwith them. He seems as much frightened as ever.\"38\nAll my original witnesses state that canno\u00bb*were fired,\nbut give no particulars save the important one that\nnobody was hurt. Several represent the army of\nSolis to have fled at the first discharge of Pacheco's\nguns. At any rate, the rebel force fled, pursued at\nnot very close quarters, scattering as they advanced\nnorthward, and wholly disbanded before they reached\nthe capital, where singly and in groups they soon\ntook advantage of the renewed offers of pardon. The\ncampaign of the south, and the battles of Santa Barbara, Cieneguita, and Dos Pueblos\u2014the first in which\nCalifornians were pitted against Californians\u2014were\nover.\nOn the 18th Echeandia summoned the soldiers of\nthe north, that is, those who had surrendered, before\nhimself, Carrillo, and Zamorano. Each one was interrogated about the charges made in the plan. Each\ndeclared  that there were no grounds whatever for\n37 Jan. 20th, Solis, at S. Miguel, to Jose\" Sanchez. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii.\n118. Solis at this time claimed to have over 100 men left, and to be confident\nof success. He had only 40 men when he reached Soledad. Id., Ben. Mil,\nlxxii. 46. Jan. 15th, 16th, 18th, 28th, E. to Pacheco. Instructions about\nthe pursuit of the rebels, and the retaking of Monterey. Dept. Rec,MS., viii.\n85-90.\n88 Jan. 24th, Dr Anderson to Cooper. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxx. 7. The affair as reported, at Monterey and reported by Pattie, Narr., 225, was as follows: 'A continual firing had been kept up on both sides during the three\ndays, at the expiration of which Gen. Solis, having expended his ammunition\nand consumed his provisions, was compelled to withdraw, having sustained\nno loss, except that of one horse, from a sustained action of three days!\nThe cannon-balls discharged from the fort upon the enemy had so little force\nthat persons arrested them in their course without injury.'\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   6\n 82 ECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\ncomplaint; whereupon the governor showed documents to prove that in 1829, one month with another,\nthe soldiers had received two thirds of their full pay.39\nOn the 24th the Brookline arrived at Qan Diego with\nVallejo and Rocha, the Monterey prisoners, and the\nsame day or the next there came the news that the\ncapital had been retaken. Pacheco was already on\nhis way north to assume the command at Monterey.40\nOn the 26th, Echeandia reported all he had done to\nthe supreme government, and did not fail to utilize\nthe occasion by expatiating on California's great dangers and needs.41\nThe recapture of Monterey was effected January\n20th, largely by the aid of the foreign residents. It\nwas feared that Solis and his men, defeated at Santa\nBarbara, would devote their efforts to plunder, and\nit was deemed prudent to act before their return.\nThere was no more difficulty in bringing about this\nmovement in favor of Echeandia than in effecting the\noriginal revolt against him; yet David Spence indulged in a little Mexicanism when he wrote of the\naffair that \"with the firm resolution of death or victory, like bold British tars, we stood it out for twelve\ndays and nights.\"42 Malarin, Munras, Alvarado, and\nJose* de Jesus Vallejo were most prominent among\nthose who aided the foreigners; and the citizens of\nSan Jose* seem to have sent a party to assist in the\nreestablishmeht 'of the regular government.43    Fran-\n39 Dept. St. Pap^ MS., ii. 120-1.\n40 Arrival of Vallejo and Rocha. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., iii.\n58. It is erroneously stated by some that these prisoners first carried the\nnews of the revolt to the south. Jan. 26th, Echeandia to Francisco Pacheco,\nin reply to the latter's announcement that order has been restored at Monterey. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 12.\n41 Jan. 26th, E. to min. of war. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 56-8.\n*a Feb. 4,, 1830, Spence to Hartnell.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxx. 19.\na Meliton Soto in his testimony stated that Cooper's house was the headquarters, whence he went with Alvarado, Santiago Moreno, Alcalde Sober-\nanes, and several citizens and foreigners to take possession of the artillery\nbarracks at 7 or 8 p. m. , Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxii. 64. Galindo,\nApuntes, MS., 8-13, tells us that the alcalde of S. Jose\" sent 45 men, who\narrived at midnight and surprised the garrison. Pattie's account of events\nat Monterey, from the time that Solis marched for the south\u2014absurdly inaccurate in many respects\u2014is as follows in substance: Solis marched on\n ar\nEND OF THE REVOLT. 83\ncisco Pacheco was apparently still left in command,\nand Solis' men as they came straggling in were pardoned and incorporated in the garrison. Eight or\nten of the ringleaders failed to present themselves,\nand patrol parties were sent out to find them. Solis\nhimself, concealed near his rancho, was- taken by a\ncompany of thirty men under Antonio Avila. This\nman was a convict companion of Solis and Gomez,\nand he undertook the capture on a promise from\nSpence and Malarin to obtain from him a passport\nfor Mexico. Neither Echeandia nor his successors\ncould grant the pass, and Avila had to stay in California.44 Just after the capture of Solis, early in\nFebruary, Romualdo Pacheco arrived with a force\nMarch 28th with 200 men. Echeandia had no knowledge of the revolt. The\ninsurgents were so elated at their victory at S. F. that they were sure of success, and decided to expel all Americans and Englishmen. Capt. Cooper's\nfather-in-law, Ignacio Vallejo, reported this to the foreigners, and at a consultation it was decided to send to Echeandia notice of the impending\nattack on him at Sta Barbara, which was done successfully by means of a\nletter forwarded by a trusty runner. April 12th news came of the battle\nand retreat. 'The name and fame of Gen. Solis was exalted to the skies.'\nI The climax of his excellence was his having retreated without the loss of a\nman.' Capt. Cooper rolled out a barrel of rum, and when the admirers of\nSolis were sufficiently drunk, they were locked up, 50 in number, and the\nrest of the inhabitants took sides against Solis. ] Huzza for Gen. Echedio\nand the Americans! was the prevailing cry.' There were 39 foreigners who\nsigned the rolls, and Capt. Cooper was chosen commander. They spiked the\ncannon of the castle, except 4 which they carried to the presidio; broke open\nthe magazine for powder and ball; and stationed sentinels for miles along the\nroad. The Spanish people were all locked up at night to prevent possible\ncommunication with the approaching general. In a few days Soils drew\nnear; the Americans waited at their guns with lighted matches until the\narmy was at the very gates, and then ordered a surrender. The soldiers\nobeyed, but Solis with 6 officers fled. Six Americans, of whom Pattie was\norderly sergeant and commander, armed with rifles, were at once sent in pursuit to bring back the fugitives dead or alive. Minute details are given.\nSeveral shots were exchanged; one American was wounded, and a Mexican\nkilled, with 4 bullets through his body; but the rest surrendered and were\nbrought back to Monterey, where the American flag floated until Echeandia\narrived! Pattie's Narr., 225-9.\n** Spence, Osio, Vallejo (M. G. and J. J.), Alvarado, and others mention\nthe promise to Avila; but most of them state that the promise was kept,\nEcheandia granting the pass and $500 in money. Fernandez even speaks\nof Avila as subsequently becoming a brigadier in Mexico. I have before me\nAvila's petition to Gov. Figueroa in 1833, narrating the Solis capture.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxv. 13. Botello, Anales, MS., 53, mentions Avila as being at S. Buenaventura in 1838. For some reason unknown\nto me, the Californians are disposed to regard Avila very favorably, representing him as sent to Cal. for political offences merely; but in the records he\nstands as ' a vicious man of very bad conduct, who took part in various murders and assaults on travellers.'   He was sentenced on Aug. 24, 1824, and\n 84 ECHEANDIA AND HERRERA\u2014THE SOLIS REVOLT.\nfrom the south, and took the command. Herrera\nwas now put under arrest in his own house.\nNow followed the formal investigation and trial of\nthe imprisoned leaders. It was carried on at Monterey and Santa Barbara, by Zamorano, Pacheco, Lo-\nbato, and Pliego, under instructions from Echeandia,\nand extended from January to June. The testimony45\nI have utilized in the preceding narrative, and it requires no further notice except in a single point. The\nevidence respecting the revolt was clear enough; but\nnearly all the troops were implicated; few men of any\nclass had shown real opposition to the movement in\nthe north; a rising of soldiers with the object of getting their pay was not a very serious offence from a\nmilitary point of view; and pretty nearly everybody\nhad been included in the various indultos offered. In\nfact, the criminal case was hardlyr strong enough to\nsuit Echeandia's purposes respecting Herrera, the only\none of the accused for whose fate he cared particularly. A more serious charge was needed, and grounds\nfor it were easily found. After their defeat at Santa\nBarbara, Solis and one or two of his men, wishing to\ngain the support of the padres, like drowning men\nclutching at straws, talked about raising the Spanish\nflag. It was easy to prove these ravings of the soldiers, and the foolish remarks of Padre Luis Martinez\nat San Luis Obispo. Particular attention was given\nto this phase of the matter in the investigation.46 A\nrevolt in favor of Spain would sound very differently\nin Mexico from a rising of hungry soldiers against\ncame on the Morelos in July 1825. Prov. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., Ii. 2;\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., Ivii. 3.\n45 Solis, Proceso instruido contra Joaquin Solis y otros Revolucionarios de\n1829, MS. These documents do not contain the final sentence under which\nthe prisoners were sent away.\n\"Pp. 78-105 of the Proceso noticed in the last note are entitled 'Autos\nque aclaran que elobjeto dela faccion de Solis era de pronunciarse en favor del\nGobierno EspafioV Meliton Soto, Raimundo de la Torre, and Maximo Guerra\nwere said to have spoken in favor of a grito for Spain; and a letter of Solis,\ndated Jan. 17th, to P. Arroyo de la Cuesta, was produced, in which he announced his purpose to raise the Spanish flag, asked for a neophyte force to\naid him, and said that the southern padres had agreed to the' plan.  p. 88.\n EXILE OF HERRERA, 85\ntheir local chief, and Echeandia hoped he might now\nsafely send Herrera out of the territory. Respecting\nthe banishment of Padre Martinez, I shall speak in\nthe following chapter.47\nOn May 9, 1830, the American bark Volunteer,\nJohn Coffin Jones, Jr., master, sailed from Monterey\nwith fifteen prisoners on board to be delivered at San\nBias. Herrera was confined to a room constructed\nfor the purpose on deck; Solis and the rest were in\nirons.48 We have no particulars about the reception\nof the prisoners by the Mexican authorities, but it is\ncertain that they were discharged from custody without punishment.49 Three at least of the soldiers,\nTorre, Vejar, and one of the Altamiranos, found their\nway back to California in later years; while Herrera,\nin spite of all Echeandia's accusations and precautions,\nwas soon sent back, as we shall see, to take his old\nposition as comisario de hacienda. California's first\nrevolution was over, and little harm had been done.60\n*7Feb. 23d, Echeandia reported to min. of war the pacification of the territory, begged most earnestly for aid, and announced the fact that the revolution\nhad really been in the interests of Spain. St. Pap., Sac., MS., x. 61-3. April 7th,\norder from Mexico that Solis and his seven companions be tried for treason.\nAlso thanks to E. for having suffocated the revolt. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS.,\nvi. 8. Miscellaneous communications respecting the trial in addition to those\ncontained in the Proceso, mDept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 127-130; Dept. Rec, MS.,\nviii. 13, 22,32, 36, 78.\n48May 7, 1830, receipt of Jones for the 15 prisoners, as follows: Jose\"\nMaria Herrera, Joaquin Solis, Meliton Soto, Serapio Escamilla, Raimundo de\nla Torre, Pablo Vejar, Victoriano Altamirano, Gonzalo Altamirano, Leonardo\nArceo, Mariano Peguero, Andres Leon, Maximo Guerra, Antonio Guevara,\nGracia Larios, In6s Polanco. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxii. 17-18.\nSailing of the Volunteer on May 9th. Id., lxii. 28. Pattie, Narr., 238-9,\nalso sailed on the Volunteer, and names Capt. Wm. H. Hinckley as having\nbeen on board and leaving the vessel at S. Bias. The prisoners reached Tepic\nMay 22d. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 129. Those belonging to the Monterey cavalry company were dropped from the company rolls in 1836. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, MS., lxxxii. 65. Six other men had been sent away from Sta Barbara in February in the Emily Marsham, 3 of them, Joaquin Garcia, Jose\" M,\nArenas, and Antonio Pena, for complicity in the Solis- affair. Dept. Rec, MS.,\nviii. 74.\n49Torre, Reminis., MS., 19-21, says that his brother Raimundo was tried\nby court-martial and acquitted; whereupon the rest were discharged without\ntrial.\n50 The Solk revolt is described more or less fully in the following narratives,\nin addition to such as have been cited in the preceding pages: Avila, Cosasl\nMS., 25-8; Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 71-2; Amador, Mem., MS., 86-90; Fernandez, Cosas de Cal, MS., 59-64; Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 20; Castro, Rel,\nMS., 19-23; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 2;  Valdds, Mem., MS., 18-20.    It is men\n S6 ECHEANDf A AND HERRERA-THE SOLIS REVOLT.\nRespecting the management of the revenues in\n1829-30 there is little or nothing to be said beyond\nnoting the fact that Osio, Jimeno, and Bandini are\nmentioned as comisarios during 1830, without much\nregard to chronology. It would seem that after the\nrevolt Jimeno was restored to his old position, and\nthat Bandini was appointed before the end of the year,\nthough there is inextricable confusion, not only in\ndates, but in the offices of comisario, administrador,\nand contador.51\ntioned in print by Mofras, Explor.t i. 293-4; Petit-Thouars, Voy., ii. 90-1; La-\nfond, Voy., 209; Pickett, in Shuck's Rep. Men, 227; Wilkes, Narr., v. 173-4;\nCapron, Hist. Cal, 37-8; Tuthill, Hist. Cal, 130-1; Robinson, Life in Cal,\n69-70; and Flint, Pattie's Narr., 222-30.\n51 See Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 155-6; iii. 209-10; Id., Ben. Mil, lxii. 22;\nlxxiii. 53; lxxiv. 6; Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 246-8; Leg. Rec, MS., i. 269, 281-\n90. Apr. 25, 1830, the Californian diputado in congress urged the useless-\nness of sending special officers to man? m the revenues. Doc. Hist. Cal, MS.,\niv. 898. Jimeno was appointed contador on Sept. 30, 1829, by the min. de\nhacienda, but declined the place in Nov. 1830. Oct. 21, 1830, Echeandia,\nBandini, and Jimeno met at Monterey, and decided on the following customhouse organization at Monterey: administrador, with duties of comisario, at\n$1,000 per year; contador, With duties of vista, at $800; commandant of the\nguard, with duties of alcalde, at $800; guarda and clerk at $400; servant at\n$144; patron and two sailors at $144 and$96. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 155-6.\n *\nCHAPTER IV.\nECHEANDfA-AND THE PADRES\u2014MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\n1826-1830.\nMission Prefect and Presidents\u2014The Question of Supplies\u2014The\nOath of Allegiance\u2014Sarria's Arrest\u2014Friars Still Masters of\nthe Situation\u2014Council at San Diego\u2014Southern Padres Willing\u2014Northern Padres Refuse\u2014Flight of Ripoll and Altimira\u2014\nThe Friars as Spaniards\u2014Echeandia's Conciliatory Policy\u2014Petitions of the People\u2014Exile of Martinez\u2014Progress towards\nSecularization\u2014Mexican Policy\u2014Difficulties\u2014Junta of April\n1826\u2014Decree of July\u2014Experimental Freedom\u2014Mission Schools\nand Lands\u2014Plan of 1829-30\u2014Approval of the Diputacion\u2014Action in Mexico\u2014Indian Affairs\u2014Sanchez's Expedition\u2014Vallejo's\nCampaign against Estanislao\u2014Northern Fort\u2014Seasons.\nVicente Francisco de Sarria retained the position\nof comisario prefecto of the missions, and was not disturbed in the performance of his official duties from\n1826 to 1830, though nominally in a state of arrest as\na recalcitrant Spaniard. Narciso Duran retained the\npresidency until September 1827 when he was succeeded by Jose* Bernardo Sanchez. The latter retained ^possession of the office until 1831, though\nDuran was re-elected in May 1830.1\nThe old controversy between government and friars\nrespecting supplies for the troops continued of course\nduring these five years, but with no novel aspects.\nIn addition to commercial imposts, a secular tithe of\nlArch. Sta B., MS., xi. 350, 358-60, 400; xii. 369. The guardian sent\nSanchez his patent June 9, 1827; and Duran notified him Sept. 30th. San-\n' chez was at first unwilling to accept. Duran was elected the second time May\n26, 1830, Peyri and Antonio Jimeno being named as second and third suplentes.\nBoth Duran and Sanchez held the title of vicar under the bishop.\n(87)\n 88\nECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\nall mission products was exacted, citizens having presumably to pay this also in addition to their ecclesiastical tithes.2 The method of collection was to exact\nfrom each mission the largest possible amount of supplies for escoltas and presidial garrisons, and at the end\nof each year to give credit on account for the excess\nof amounts thus furnished over the taxes. I find no\nevidence that any part of the balance was paid in any\ninstance.8 The padres gave less willingly than in former years, when there had been yet a hope of Spanish\nsupremacy, but the quarrels in local and individual\ncases were much less frequent than might naturally be\nexpected, or at least such controversies have left little\ntrace in the records.4\n2 According to the plan de gobierno of Jan. 8, 1824, citizens paid 10 per\ncent in kind on all produce, while the missions were to pay a fixed rate per\nhead of cattle or fanega of grain. By decree of Jan. 1, 1826., Echeandia, with\nthe consent of Prefect Sarria, ordered that the tax be equalized between citizens and missions, the latter apparently to pay in kind.    Decree of Jan. 1,\n1826. S. Jose\", Arch., MS., iv. 13; Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 47-8; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., i. 123; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxviii. 81, 84, 86, including orders for circulation of the decree and some directions for the keeping of accounts.    Aug. 25,\n1827, Echeandia to Sarria, urging the importance and justice of this tax, which\nhere and elsewhere in official accounts is spoken of as a 'loan.' Dept. Rec,\nMS., v. 80; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 37; Vallejo,. Doc, MS., xix. 138.\nApril 22, 1826, Echeandia to min. of war. Argues that the missions should\nalso pay tithes. He is informed that some of them have $70,000 or $100,000\nin their coffers. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xix. 30-1. Oct. 31st, Herrera to Estrada\non mission accounts.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 98.\n8 June 23, 1826, circular from president received at S. Rafael to effect that\nthe Mex. govt was going to pay all drafts presented within six months from\nJan. 1st, and those not so presented would be outlawed. This news reached\nCal. just after the expiration of the time! Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxviii. 94.\nJuly 28, 1827, Echeandia notifies the prefect and comandantes that all creditors of the national treasury must present their claims to the comisario.\nDept. Rec, MS., v. 71.\n* June 10,1826, P. Duran to Herrera. Protests against furnishing the diezmo\nof cattle branded for the national rancho, when there has already been delivered\nduring the year a much larger amount than that of the tith e. A rch. A rzob., MS.,\nv. pt i. 13-16. Nov. 30th, P. ViaderJ upbraiding Lieut Martinez for not sending money to pay for blankets, says,' My friend, we have now arrived at a point\nof date et dabitur vobis.' Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 94. Dec. 18th, Duran says\nhe likco ji ~ee the soldiers fill their bellies with meat, and not feel hungry.\nId., 95. April 19, 1827, draft by Habilitado Maitorena on habilitado general\nin favor of Sta Barbara mission for $8,725, the amount of supplies furnished\napparently before 1825. Arch. Misiones, MS., ii. 177-8. Feb. 27, 1827, gov.\norders Lieut Ibarra, since all conciliatory and courteous means have failed, to\ngo with a force to S. Diego mission, and bring away all the grain the mules\ncan carry. Resistance will be regarded as ah overt act against the nation.\nDept. Rec, MS., v. 27. Many certificates to effect that a padre has delivered\nprovisions ' en calidad de prestamo para que se le reintegre por cuenta del\n OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. 89\nMeanwhile the missions got nothing from the pious\nfund through the Mexican jbreasury, in addition to the\nstipends of 1819-22, the payment of which has already\nbeen noted. It is not certain even that any of the\nlatter amount, about $24,000, ever came to California,\nbut probably some cargoes of mission goods were paid\nfor by the sindico at Tepic out of that sum. Only\nfragments of the mission accounts have been preserved\nfor these years.5\nWe have seen that the padres as a rule refused to\ntake the oath of obedience to the constitution of\n1824, or to solemnize by religious exercises any act of\nthe republican government; and that Prefect Sarrfa\nhad been put under arrest, though it had not been\ndeemed wise to carry into effect the orders requiring\nthe reverend prisoner to be sent by the first ship to\nMexico. In fact, the friars were yet, in a great measure, masters of the situation, because they could keep\nthe neophytes in subjection, and above all make them\nwork.     The  great  fear  was  that the  missionaries\nsupremo gobierno.' Arch. Arzob., MS., vii. passim. A large number of\ndrafts of comandantes in favor of missions, 1825-30, in Id., v. pt 2. June 7,\n1828, Echeandia proposes that the expense of maintaining friendly relations\nwith the Indians be deducted from the sums due the nearest missions. Dept.\nRec, MS., vi. 27. Oct. 7th, E. instructs Capt. Arguello to borrow $800 of the\nmission of S. Jose. Id., vi. 109-10. Oct. 22d, E. orders Lieut Jose Fernandez\nand 30 artillerymen just landed to be quartered at S. Diego mission. Id., vi.\n115. Jan. 8, 1829, E. to Duran, urging him to j lend' supplies, or sell them for\na draft on the comisario of Sonora, which he doubts not will be paid promptly.\nId., vii. 53. May 4th, Vallejo complains of destitution at Monterey, and no\naid from the missions. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 80. Nov. 24th, similar complaints from Castro. Dept. St.^Pap., Ben., MS., v. 369-70. Dec. 6th, P.\nDuran says he has paid $200 on menace of force being used. S. Jose\" Arch.,\nMS., ii. 48. Jan. 15, 1830, P. Viader refuses to aid directly or indirectly in\nmatters pertaining to war. Id., i. 37. April 25th, congressman urges the injustice of imposing such heavy burdens on the missions. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS,,\niv. 897-8. July 17th, com. of Sta Barbara complains that the padre will\nneither give nor sell supplies. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 55.\n6 May 31, 1827, guardian to president, stipends of 1819-21 and most of\n1822 paid. Certificates should be sent in for those of 1825-6. Arch. Sta B.,\nMS., xii. 400. June 27th, news received at S. Rafael; amount, $24,000.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., xviii. 97. The brig Bravo with mission goods was\nwrecked at Acapulco late in 1827, but the cargo was saved. S. Luis Obispo,\nLib. Mision, MS., 7. Aug. 25, 1828, $6,861 in goods sent from Tepic to S.\nBias for shipment, consisting of woollen and cotton stuffs, rice, sugar, rebozos,\nmetates, and 25 pounds of cinnamon, shipped by the Maria Ester. Id., 8-9;\nDoc Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 827-8. ,\n 90 ECHEANDtA AND THE PADRES.\nwould leave the territory en masse if too hard pressed.\nHad the situation of affairs, from a financial and military point of view, been more reassuring, the territorial authorities w7oiild not have been averse to\nassuming entire ^and immediate charge of all the\nmissions; while the people, for the most part, would\nhave rejoiced at the prospect of getting new lands\nand new laborers. But as matters stood, the rulers\nand leading citizens understood that any radical and\nsudden change, effected without the aid of the friars,\nwould ruin the territory by cutting off its chief resources, and exposing its people to the raids of hostile\nIndians. Thus a conciliatory policy was* necessary,\nnot only to the government, but to the friars themselves\/ The latter, though they knew their powTer\nand often threatened to go, were old men, attached to\ntheir mission homes, with but a cheerless prospect for\nlife in Spain, fully determined to spend the rest of\ntheir days in California if possible.\nSarria's condition of nominal suspension and arrest\ncontinued for ^ve years or more. Once, in 1826, his\npassport was made out, and he went so far as to call\nupon his associates for prayers to sustain him on his\nvoyage. There was no countermanding of the orders,\nbut a repetition of them in November 1827, yet the\npadre remained. He seems to have been included\nwith the rest in the proceedings against the friars as\nSpaniards, and the special orders in his case were\nallowed to be forgotten,6 though as late as the middle\n6 May 1826, one of the padres claimed to have refused to perform mass,\netc., by Sarria's order, and he signed a certificate to that effect. Dept. Rec,\nMS., iv. 39. Oct. 31st, Echeandia notifies S. that he must leave Mexican\nterritory. Nov. 13th, Sarria says he is ready. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i.\n24. Beechey, in 1826, speaks of S. as waiting at Monterey to embark. Voyage, ii. 12. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 56-8, speaks of a personal interview\nbetween the gov. and prefect at Sta Barbara. Oct. 31st, E. notifies S. that a\nsuccessor will be named and a passport issued. Dept. Rec, MS., iv. 11. Nov.\n30th, sends the passport from S. Diego to Capt. Gonzalez at Monterey. Id.,\niv. 17. Dec. 11th, S. to the padres. Has received his passport from the\npres. of Mex. Is resigned, but asks for prayers. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxviii.\n89. 1827, Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, i. 254-5, found S. kept as a kind of prisoner, and was asked to take him away, but declined, much to the gratification\nof the padres.    Nov. 21, 1827, order from Mex. that S. be made to obey the\n 8T\nFRIARS AGAINST THE REPUBLIC. 91\nof 1828 the governor still pretended to be waiting for\na vessel on which to send him away.\nOn the 28th of April, 1826, Echeandia with Zamorano as secretary and the alcalde of Los Angeles met\npadres Sanchez, Zalvidea, Peyri, and Martin at San\nDiego to take counsel respecting the taking of the\nconstitutional oath by the friars. The representatives\nof the latter said there was no objection to the oath\nexcept that it compelled them to take up arms, or use\ntheir influence in favor of taking up arms, for differences of political opinion. They would take the oath\nwith the supplement \"So far as may be compatible\nwith our religion and profession;\" but Echeandia\nwould not agree to any change in the formula, and\ndirected that a circular be sent out requiring each\npadre to explain his views on the subject.7 June 3d\nthe circular was issued through the comandantes to\nthe friars; but it was not so much a call for views\nand arguments as for a formal decision in writing\nwhether each would take the oath or not.8 The answers of the five padres of the San Diego district\nwere sent in on the 14th. Padre Peyri was willing\nto take the oath, and was enthusiastic in his devotion\nto the national cause. Martin had already sworn,\nand did not approve of taking two oaths on the same\nsubject. The rest were ready to take the oath in the\nmanner indicated at the junta of April 28th;'that is,\nto be republicans so far as was compatible with their\nprofession and so long as they might remain in California.    Replies from the Monterey jurisdiction, sent\norders of July 9, 1825, and Nov. 15, 1826, to depart. Supt. Govt St. Pap.,\nMS., xix. 43. June 30, 1828, E. to min. of justice. S. will be sent away as soon\nas there is a vessel for Europe or the U. S. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 30.\n' 7Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 128-9. The old trouble was still active in 1826,\nfor on May 1st Capt. Arguello reported that yesterday having called on P.\nAbella to take part in the celebration of the pope's recognition of national\nindependence, the padre refused. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., Ivii. 13-14.\nNext day it was complained that P. Estenega declined to perform religious\nservices in connection with the publication of certain bandos. Arch. Arzob.,\nMS., v. pt i. 4. April 28th, record of the council referred to in the text.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., i. 12S-9.\n8 June 3, 1826, E. to com. of Monterey.  Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 134.\n 92 ECHEANDtA AND THE PADRES.\nin on July 7th, were to the effect that the friars could\nnot take the oath, and were ready to endure the penalty, though some of them promised fidelity and respect to the constituted authorities. The response\nfrom San Francisco and Santa Barbara is not so far\nas I know extant.9\nThere was no further agitation of this matter during the year, though a warning was received from the\ncomisario general against the disaffected friars, and\nespecially against the president, who, as the writer\nhad heard, talked of nothing but his religion and his\nking, protesting his willingness to die for either. \"If\nthis be true, it would be well to grani him a passport\nto go and kiss his king's hand, but to go with only\nbag and staff, as required by the rules of his order.\"\nI am not certain whether this referred to Duran or\nSarria.10\nDuring 1827 politico-missionary matters remained\nnearly in statu quo. No disposition was shown to\ndisturb the padres further on account of their opposition to the republic, though there were rumors afloat\nthat some of them were preparing to run away. Martinez, Ripoll, and Juan Cabot were those named in\nJune as having such intentions, and Vicente Cane*\n9 The position taken by the other padres will, however, be learned from a\nsubsequent document. Answers of the S. Diego and Monterey friars in Arch.\nArzob., MS., v. pt i. 5-9, 17-20. Among the latter Sarria was not included,\nnot being regarded as the minister of any particular mission. Abella 'came\nto this country for God, and for God will go away, if they expel him;' Fortuni\n'no se anima a hacer tal juramento, pero si guardar fidelidad;' Arroyo de la\nCuesta 'was born in the Peninsula, and is a Spaniard; swore to the independence only in good faith to the king of Spain; has meditated upon the oath demanded, and swears not;' Uria 'finds it not in his conscience to take the\noath;' Pedro Cabot 'has sworn allegiance to Fernando VII.;' Sancho, the\nsame, and 'cannot go back on his word;' Juan Cabot 'cannot accommodate his\nconscience to such a pledge;* and Luis Martinez says 'his spirit is not strong\nenough to bear any additional burden.' Aug. 7th, Sarria addresses to the\npadres a circular argument on the subject, similar to that addressed in former\nyears to Gov. Arguello, and called out by an argument of P. Ripoll, who it\nseems had wished to accommodate his conscience to the oath by bringing up\nanew the allegiance sworn to independence and Iturbide. Id., v. pt i. 10-13.\n10 Aug. 16, 1826, com. gen. to Echeandia. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and\nTreas., MS., i. 36-8. Beechey, Voyage, ii. 12, speaks of the dissatisfaction\ncaused by the exacting of the oath, and says many padres prepared to depart\nrather than violate their allegiance to Spain.\n ar\nFLIGHT OF RIPOLL AND ALTIMIRA. 93\ngave evidence on the mysterious shipment of $6,000\nin gold on the Santa Apolonia by Padre Martinez, an\nact supposed to have some connection with the plans\nfor flight. Captain Gonzalez took a prominent part\nin the charges, and this was perhaps a reason why\nEcheandia and others paid very little attention to the\nsubject.11\nThe rumors had some foundation, for at the end of\nDecember, or perhaps in January 1828, padres Ripoll\nand Altimira went on board the American brig Harbinger, Captain Steele, at Santa Barbara, and left\nCalifornia never to return. They went on board the\nvessel on pretence of examining certain goods, and\nsuch effects as they wished to carry with them were\nembarked by stealth. Echeandia was there at the\ntime, and David Spence tells us he was for some mysterious purpose invited to take breakfast on the brig\nbefore she sailed, but was prevented by other affairs\nfrom accepting.12 Orders were at once issued to seize\nthe Harbinger should she dare to enter any other\nport; but Steele chose to rim no risks. The fugitives\nleft letters in which they gave as their reason for a\nclandestine departure the fear that their going might\nbe prevented otherwise, prompt action being necessary\nfor reasons not stated. They were among the youngest of the Franciscan band, and in several respects\nless identified than most others with the missionary\nwork in California, the reader being already familiar\nwith certain eccentricities on the part of each. Their\ndestination was Spain, which they seem to have reached\nin safety. A suspicion was natural that the two padres\ncarried away with them something more than the\n'sack and staff' of their order, that they took enough\nof the mission treasure to insure a comfortable voyage,\n11 Statement of Cane* to E. about the $6,000 shipped in August 1826. St.\nPap., Sac, MS., xiv. 14-15. June 4, 1827, Gonzalez to E. Id., xiv. 26-30.\nG. was very violent in his charges against the padres.\n12 Spence, in Taylor's Discov. and Founders, ii. no. 24. Alvarado, Hist. Cal.,\nMS., ii. 131-2, claims that while Ripoll and Altimira were making their escape with the mission wealth, Echeandia was being feasted by the other padres\nto avert suspicion.   Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 59-60, gives the same version.\n 94 ECHEANDfA AND THE PADRES.\nand perhaps future comforts across the sea. The truth\ncan never be known. An investigation brought to\nlight nothing more suspicious than the transfer of certain barrels and boxes of wine, soap, and olives, with\nperhaps other packages of unknown contents, from San\nBuenaventura to Santa Barbara.13 In their own letters, the padres said they had left the mission property\nintact. Duhaut-Cilly, however, had lately sold Ripoll\nan English draft for 7,000 francs,14 which he said\ncame to him legitimately from his stipend. Though\nAlvarado and Vallejo accuse the padres of having\nstolen large sums, and their method of flight favored\nthe suspicion, I suppose that a few thousand dollars\nwas probably all they took, and that they had but little difficulty in justifying the act to their own satisfaction, in view of their past stipends either unpaid or\ninvested in supplies for the Indians.15\nIn reporting the flight of Ripoll and Altimira,\nEcheandia suggested the expediency of granting\npassports to those who had asked for them, with a\nview to avoid such scandals; and he did send a pass\nto Padre Martinez in September to prevent the disgrace of his intended flight.16 There was also a\nscandal respecting the actions of President Sanchez,\nwhose letters and some goods being conveyed by John\nLawlor from San Gabriel to the sea-shore were stopped\n13Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxvii. 5-9, containing the testimony of\nseveral men and the letters of Altimira to Geo. Coleman, the llavero of S.\nBuenaventura, dated Jan. 23d from on board the vessel. They contain kind\nwishes for all in Cal., instructions about mission affairs, and good spiritual\ncounsels for Coleman. The padre, according to Coleman's testimony, took a\nsmall box of cigars and some books.\n14 Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 184-5.\n15Mrs Ord., Ocurrencias, MS., 22-4, says they took no money at all.\nRipoll wept as he took leave of some of his Indians who went on board in\nSteele's boat. Jan. 25, 1828, Echeandia announces the flight, and orders the\nHarbinger to be seized. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 174. Jan. 28th, Alf. Pliego ordered secretly to investigate the robbery said to have been committed by Altimira. Id., vi. 175. Feb. 5th, Lui3 Arguello alludes to the flight. St. Pap.,\nSac, MS., x. 102-3. Mar. 26th, the authorities at S. Fernando college disavowed having authorized or even known the flight. Arch. Sta. B., MS., ix.\n90-1. Mar. 20, 1829, the Zacatecas college will replace Ripoll and Altimira.\nSup. Govt St. Pap., MS., iv. 2-3.\n16 Jan. 29, 1828, E. to min. of rel. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 22. Sept. 23d,\nE. to Martinez. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xix. 6-7.\n PRESIDENT SANCHEZ ACCUSED OF SMUGGLING. 95\nand searched by Alcalde Carrillo of Los Angeles, on\nsuspicion of complicity in smuggling. Sanchez was\nindignant at what he deemed an insult, and demanded\nhis passport; but Echeandia,by declaring the suspicions\nunfounded, and by conciliatory methods, succeeded in\ncalming the worthy president's wrath.17\nThe law of 1827 on the expulsion of Spaniards\nfrom Mexican territory,73 reaching California in 1828,\nhad no other effect on the status of the missionaries\nthan to give them another safe opportunity to demand\ntheir passports, as many of them did, some perhaps\nreally desiring to depart. There was no disposition to\nenforce the decree, for reasons known to the reader.19\nMeanwhile the Spanish friars had been actually expelled from Mexico, and a most disheartening report\ncame respecting the state of affairs at the college of\nSan Fernando.20\nThere would seem to have been some complaint\nagainst Echeandia for not having' enforced the law of\n1827, for in June 1829, apparently before the arrival\nof the law of March 20th, he sent to Mexico a list of\n17 June 3, 1828, Lawlor to Sanchez. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 63-4.\nJune 8th, Sanchez to E. Id., 65-6. Aug. 21st, 29th, E. to S. and to the\nalcalde. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 84-5, 90.\n18 See chap. ii. of this volume.\n:90ct. 20, 1828, Echeandia to min. of war. The padres are violent at the\nlaw for their expulsion, and are clamoring for passports and complaining of\ndetention by force. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 39-40. Dec. 6th, E. says that\nmost of the 27 padres have agreed long before the date of the law to take\nthe oath as was reported to Mexico on Dec. 6, 1826. (This report is not extant, but it is certainly not true that most had made such a promise.) If\npassports were issued as several have asked, the missions would be left without government and the territory without spiritual care. Dept. Rec, MS., vi.\n50. Duhaut-Cilly says he offered to carry the padres over to Manila; but he\ngot a letter from Sarria, in which he said he was resolved not to abandon the\nflock intrusted to.him by heaven until forced to do so, and he advised his\ncompanions to the same effect. The same writer notes the arrival of 3 Franciscans\u2014they could not have been from California\u2014at the Sandwich Islands\non the French ship Comete.   Viaggio, ii. 200-1, 219-20.\n20 March 26, 1828, P. Arreguin to Sarria. It had been at first proposed to\ndissolve the college; but finally the guardian and discretorio had decided to\nchoose a vicario de casa, and had chosen the writer. He asks for Sarria's\nviews about the policy of keeping up the college, where there were now Arreguin and 3 other priests, 2 sick Spaniards unable to depart, and 6 or 10\nservants of different grades. Arch. Sta B., MS., ix. 90-4.\n 96 ECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\nthe padres, with notes on the circumstances of each,21\nand a defence of his action, or failure to act, on the\nground that all the padres except three were Spaniards,\nand it would have been absurdly impossible to expel\nthem with nobody to take their place. ' He also urged\nthat many of them be allowed to remain permanently\nin the territory. Only a few days later there came\nthe law of March 20th, much more strict than the\nother, and it was circulated on the 6th of July. The\nannouncement was that to all padres who had refused\nto take the oath passports w7ould be given forthwith,\nwhile all the rest must show within a month the\nphysical impediments preventing their departure as\nrequired by the law.22 As before, no friar was expelled, and Echeandia had no idea of granting passports, though several, including Peyri, Sanchez, and\nBoscana, now demanded them, and though the governor really desired to get rid of certain unmanageable\nones as soon as he could obtain others to take their\nplaces.23 Not only did he send to Mexico a defence\nof his policy of inaction, showing the impossibility of\nthe expulsion so far as California was concerned; but\n21 Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 26-33. The following friars had taken the oath:\nFernando Martin, 60 years old; Antonio Peyri, 70 years; Francisco Sufier, 71\nyears; and Marcos Antonio de Vitoria, 69 years, who however had subsequently retracted, though faithful and obedient to the government, of blameless life, and probably influenced by his excessive respect for his prelate.\nThe following had taken the oath with some conditions: Gonzalez de Ibarra,\nAntonio Jaime, and Arroyo de la Cuesta; Boscana was ready to take the oath,\nand Barona, Zalvidea, and Jose\" Sanchez also with the conditions. This left\n14 who would not take the oath, of whom Catala, Viader, and Abella were\nover 60 years old; several were in bad health, and several were highly recom-\nmendable for their faithfulness. Should new padres come, E. proposed to grant\npassports to Arroyo, Ordaz, P. Cabot, Sancho, J. Cabot, Ibarra, Oliva, Duran,\nEstenega, Abella, and Uria, in that order. There were recommended to remain, Amords, Catala, Vitoria, Viader, Fortuni, Martin, Boscana, Sanchez,\nZalvidea, and especially Peyri, Jaime, Barona, and Suner. Martinez was the\nonly one who had. asked for a passport on the ground of not wishing to conform. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 187-8, mentions the coming of the Dominicans President Luna and P. Caballero to S. Gabriel in June, to consult about\nthe expulsion.\n22 July 6, 1829, E. to various officials. Dept. St. Pap.,M8., ii. 92-3, 97; Id.,\nS. Jose\", ii. 16-17; Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 190-1.\n23 July-September, applications of the padres for passports. Arch. Arzob.1,\nMS., v. pt i. 54-7. Aug. 11th, Echeandia to min. of rel. St. Pap., Sac, MS.,\nx. 43-6. In this document the gov. gives a very clear and complete statement\nof the whole matter.\n THE MISSIONARIES AS SPANIARDS. 97\nthe ayuntamientos of San Jos\u00a3, Monterey, and perhaps other places, sent strong petitions on the evils\nthat must result from such expulsion, expressing for\nthe missionaries the deepest love and veneration, and\npleading eloquently that the people might not be deprived of their spiritual guardians.24 I find no responses to these petitions, nor are there any definite\norders of later date on the subject, which, except in\ncertain particulars to be noted in the next paragraph,\nseems to have been nowT allowed to rest. One of the\nSpanish friars, however, received before the end of\n1829 a passport to a land where it is to be hoped his\npolitical troubles were at an end. This was the aged\nand infirm Padre Jaime, who died at Santa Barbara.\nI have said that Echeandia deemed it desirable to\nget rid of certain padres. Personal feeling was his\nmotive in part; moreover, it was important to remove\ncertain obstacles likely to interfere with his policy of\nsecularization, of which more hereafter. Prejudice\nagainst all that was Spanish was the strongest feeling\nin Mexico, and there was no better way for the governor to keep himself in good standing with the power\nthat appointed him than to go with the current. It\nalso favored Echeandia's plans respecting his enemy\nHerrera, while increasing the importance of his own\nservices, to show the existence of a strong revolutionary spirit in favor of Spain. There was, however, but\na slight foundation on which to build. The padres\nwere Spaniards, and as a rule disapproved the new\nform of government; but it is not likely that any of\nthem had a definite hope of overthrowing the republic, or of restoring California to the old system, and\nthe most serious charge that could be justly brought\nagainst them was an occasional injudicious use of the\n24 Aug. 25th, S. Jose\", Peticion del Ayuntamiento en favor de los FrailesEs-\npanoles, 1829, MS.; Monterey, Peticion al Presidente y Congreso en favor de los\nFrailes Espanoles, 1829, MS.. Oct. 22d, gov. approves the petitions. Dept.\nRec, MS., vii. 239. Oct. 12th, Virmond writes from Mexico that the president had not the slightest idea of expelling the friars. Guerra. Doc, MS., vi.\n145-8.\nHist. Cal., Vol. HI.   7\n 08 ECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\ntongue.    Generally the prevalent rumors of treason\ncould be traced to nothing reliable.25\nOf all the padres, Martinez of San Luis Obispo was\nthe most outspoken and independent in political matters, besides being well known for his smuggling propensities. Echeandia deemed, his absence desirable\nfor the quiet of the territory, and had issued a passport which had not been used. It was thought best\non general principles to make an example; it was particularly desirable to give a political significance to\nthe Solis revolt, and Padre Martinez was banished on\na charge of complicity in that revolt in the interest\nof Spain. The evidence against him was not very\nstrong;26 but there was little risk, since as a Spaniard\nthe accused might at any time be legally exiled. He\nwas arrested early in February 1830> and confined in\na room of the comandancia at Santa Barbara. In\nhis testimony he denied all the allegations against\nhim, except that of giving food to the soldiers, as\nothers had also done and as it was customary for the\nmissionaries to do, whoever their guests might be.\nHe claimed to have tried to dissuade Solis from his\nfoolish scheme of raising the Spanish flag. In a long'\nand eloquent communication addressed to Echeandia,\n25 Sept. 9, 1829, gov. to comandantes. Has heard that some padre bums\ndaily two tapers before a portrait of Fernando VII.; and that, another predicts from his pulpit the coming of the Spanish king. Find out secretly who\ndo these things, and forward the result. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x.'25,48; Dept.\nRec, MS., vii. 44.    The guilty parties were not found.\n26 The evidence, some of the items resting on the statement of a single\nsoldier, was, so far as it is on record, as follows: That he had freely supplied\nthe rebels with food, had been very intimate with Solis and his leaders at San\nLuis, had shown anger at certain soldiers when they said 'viva la repubiica,'\nhad spoken mysteriously of his 'amo Francisquito,' in Spain or Mexico, had.\nshown a paper with 'viva Fernando VII.' written on it, had derided independence and liberty, and had lodged Alf. Fernandez del Campo in a room\nwhich bore the inscription ' V. F. 7' on the ceiling. Solis, Proceso, etc, MS.;\nFernandez to Echeandia in St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 26-7. Vallejo, Hist. Cal,\nMS., ii. 93-105, tells us that there were documents proving conclusively that\nMartinez was plotting against the republic and carrying on a secret correspondence with the rebels in Mexico; but nothing of this kind was shown in\nthe recorded evidence, and the same may be said of a letter of encouragement\nfrom Martinez found on the person of Solis at his capture, mentioned by Alvarado.  Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 155.\n EXILE OF FATHER MARTINEZ. 99\nprotesting against the manner of his treatment, Martinez, while not attempting to deny his well known\npolitical sentiments, claimed that he was not such a\nfool as to suppose that Spain could be benefited by\npetty revolts in California, that he desired the welfare of the territory, and that in his opinion it could\nnot be advantageously separated from Mexico. The\ntwo padres Cabot testified to having seen letters in\nwhich Martinez declined to take part in the political\nschemes of Solis, declaring that if the king wished to\nconquistar any part of America, he might do it himself, in his own way. Prefect Sarria also presented\nan argument to prove Martinez innocent.27\nThe 9th of March a junta de guerra, composed of\nsix officers, besides the governor, met at Santa Barbara to decide on the friars fate. Echeandia explained,\nat considerable length, the difficulties in the way of\nadministering a suitable penalty, and he seems to\nhave counselled leniency, fearing or pretending to fear\nthe action of the other padres; but after full discussion, it was decided by a vote of five to one to send\nhim out of Mexican territory by the first available\nvessel.28 Stephen Anderson, owner of the English\nbrig Thomas Nowlan, was called in immediately, and\ngave bonds to carry the prisoner to Callao, and put\nhim on board a vessel bound for Europe. Padre\nMartinez, on the same day, promised in verbo sacer-\ndotis not to land at Manila or the Sandwich Islands,\nand on March 20th the Nowlan sailed.29    The friar\n87 Martinez admitted to Lieut Romualdo Pacheco that he had received\nletters from Solis, urging him to arm his neophytes in defence of the Spanish\nflag soon to be raised. St. Pap., Miss, and Col, MS., ii. 30-1. Testimony of\nMartinez and the PP. Cabot in Solis, Proceso, MS., 100-1, 98-9. March 4th,\nMartinez, Defensa dirigida al Comandante General, 1830, MS., in Id., 93-8.\nFeb. 9th, Sarria, Defensa del Padre Luis Martinez, 1880, MS. Mrs Ord,\nOcurrencias, MS., 31-6, gives some details of the padre's confinement in her\nfather's house, and the efforts of members of the family to relieve the prisoner's wants in spite of the severity of Lieut Lobato. This writerjand many\nother Californians think there was no foundation for the speciil charges\nagainst Martinez at this time.\n28Record of the junta of March 9th, in Solis, Proceso, MS., 102-5. The\nofficers were J. J. Rocha, M. G. Vallejo, Domingo Carrillo, M. G. Lobato, J.\nM. Ibarra, and A. V. Zamorano.    A previous junta of Feb. 26th is alluded to.\n29Carrillo {Jose\"), Doc, MS., 21.   The Spaniards A. J. Cot and family,\n 100 ECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\nreached Callao in June, and subsequently arrived\nsafely in Madrid, whence he wrote to his friends in\nCalifornia. There were those who believed that he\ncarried away a large amount of money, an exploit\nwhich, if actually accomplished, considering the circumstances of his departure, surpassed in brilliancy\naH his previous deeds as a contrabandists ^ Even if,\nas I suppose, he carried little or no gold at his departure, it is not probable that so shrewd a man of business had neglected in past years to make some\nprovision for future comfort.\nThe most important problem affecting the missions\nwas that of secularization; but it hafdly assumed a\ncontroversial aspect during this period. The missions,\nas the reader is well aware, had never been intended\nas permanent institutions, but only as temporary\nschools to fit savage gentiles for Christian citizenship.\nThe missionaries themselves never denied this in theory,\nbut practically nullified the principle, and claimed perpetuity for their establishments by always affirming, no\nmatter whether the spiritual conquest dated back five\nor fifty years, that the Indians were n\u00a3t yet fitted to\nbecome citizens. This was, moreover, always true,\neven if it was a virtual confession that the mission\nsystem was a failure, and it presented serious difficulties in the way of secularization. The c6rtes of Spain\nhad decreed, however, in 1813, that all missions ten\nyears after foundation must be changed into pueblos,\nsubject to secular authority both in civil and religious\naffairs,81 and the success of independence made the\nand J. I. Mancisidor sailed in the same vessel. Feb. 6th, Echeandia's order\nto arrest Martinez. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 16. March 9th, E. announces the\nsentence to Prefect Sarria. Id., viii. 27.\n80 Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 96-100, says that he was the officer who\ntook Martinez on board. He walked very slowly, but as he was old and\ncorpulent, Was not hurried. When they were alone in the cabin the padre\nsaid: 'Perhaps you thought me drunk. Not so, my son, but see here'\u2014proceeding to show that his clothing was heavily lined with gold! The young\nalferez was glad to know that the friar had made provision for a rainy day,\nand promised to keep his secret.\n3^See chap, xviii., vol. ii., for the decree of Sept. 13, 1813, and subsequent\ndevelopments in Cal.\n POLICY OF SECULARIZATION. 101\nchange inevitable. The spirit of Mexican republicanism was not favorable to the longer existence of the\nold missions under a system of land monopoly strongly\ntinged with some phases of human slavery. If the\nIndians were not fit for citizenship, neither were they\nbeing fitted therefor.\nEcheandia and the administration that appointed\nhim desired to secularize the missions, but understood\nthat it was a problem requiring careful study. Neither\nparty was disposed to act hastily in the matter: the\nMexican authorities largely perhaps because of indifference to the interests of a territory so far away;\nand the governor by reason not only of. his natural\ntendency to inaction, but of the difficulties with which\non arrival he found himself surrounded. These difficulties, as the reader has learned, were insurmountable.\nHad the territorial finances been in a sound condition,\nhad the military force been thoroughly organized and\npromptly paid, had there been fifty curates at hand to\ntake charge of new parishes, had the territory been\nto some extent independent of the missions\u2014even with\nthese favorable conditions, none of which existed, secularization would have been a difficult task if not a\nrisky experiment, requiring for success at least the\nhearty cooperation of the friars. Under existing\ncircumstances, however, which need not be recapitulated here, against the will of the padres, who, with\ntheir influence over the neophytes and their threats\nto retire en masse, were largely masters of the situation, any radical change in the mission status would\nbring ruin to the territory.\nThe governor recognized the impossibility of immediate action; but in accordance with the policy of his\ngovernment,82 with his own republican theories, with\n32 Jan. 31, 1825, min. of war to gov. A statement of grievances suffered\nby the Indians of Cal. States that it is the president's desire to do away\nwith so vicious a system, but suggests that the reform should perhaps be-one\nof policy rather than of authority. It is not expedient to break up openly\nthe system of the padres, who if offended might by their influence cause great\nevils. Still it was essential to check the arbitrary measures that oppressed\nthe Indians, and afford the latter the advantages of the liberal system\u2014but\n 102 ECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\nthe spirit rapidly evolved from controversies with the\nfriars on other points, and with the urgings of some\nprominent Californians who already had their eyes on\nthe mission lands, he had to keep the matter alive by\ncertain experiments intended to test the feelings and\ncapabilities of the neophytes.33 On April 28, 1826,\nEcheandia and his secretary, Zamorano, held a consultation with padres Sanchez, Zalvidea, Peyri, and\nMartin at San Diego, at which after the padres had\nexpressed their willingness to surrender the temporal\nmanagement, the governor made a speech on the importance of providing for the Indians of San Diego\nand Santa Barbara who desired to leave the neofia\nand manage for themselves. After discussion, it was\nagreed that those of good conduct and long service\nmight be release.d, to form a pueblo at San Fernando\nor San Luis, under regulations to be fixed by the governor.84\nAfter later consultations not definitely recorded, at\nwhich the plan was considerably modified, Echeandia\nissued, July 25th, a decree, or proclamation, of partial\nemancipation in favor of the neophytes. By its terms\nthose desiring to leave the missions might do so, provided they had been Christians from childhood, or for\nfifteen years, were married, or at least not minors,\nand had some means of gaining a livelihood. The\nIndians must apply to the presidial comandante, who\nafter obtaining a report from the padre was to issue\nthrough the latter a written permit entitling the\nneophyte and his family to go wherever they pleased,\nguardedly and slowly to avoid the license that might result from unwise\nmeasures. All is intrusted to E.'s experience and good judgment. St. Pap.,\nMiss, and Colon., MS., ii. 42, quoted by E. in 1833 in a letter to Figueroa.\n33 According to Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 100-10; Vallejo, Hisf. Cal,\nMS., ii. 51-3; Vallejo, Remind., MS., 89-90, Echeandia, immediately after\ntaking his office, sent Lieut Pacheco to make a tour of inspection in the\nsouthern missions. The padres were not pleased; but Pacheco having some\ntrouble with P. Boscana at S. Juan Capistrano, went so far as to assemble the\nneophytes and to make a political speech, in which he told the Indians of a\nnew chief who had come to the country to be their friend, and give them equal\nrights with Spaniards.\n**Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 129-30.\n EXPERIMENTAL SECULARIZATION. 103\nlike other Mexican citizens, their names being erased\nfrom the mission registers. The cases of absentees\nwere to be investigated by the comandantes at once,\nand those not entitled to the license were to be restored to their respective missions. At the same time\nthe padres were to be restricted in the matter of punishments to the 'mere correction' allowed to natural\nfathers in the case of their children; unmarried males\nof minor age only could be flogged, with a limit of\nfifteen blows per week; and faults requiring more\nsevere penalties must be referred to the military\nauthorities.35 The provisions of this order applied\nonly to the districts of San Diego, Santa Barbara, and\nMonterey; though in 1828 it was extended to that of\nSan Francisco, excepting the frontier missions of San\nRafael and San Francisco Solano.86\nThis order of 1826 was the only secularization\nmeasure which Echeandia attempted to put in actual\noperation before the end of 1830. It does not appear\nthat the missionaries made any special opposition, and\nthe reasons of their concurrence are obvious. First,\nvery few neophytes could comply with the conditions,\nespecially that requiring visible means of support.\nSecond, the decree required fugitives not entitled to\nlicense to be returned to their missions by the military, a duty that of late years had been much\nneglected. And third, and chiefly, experimental or\npartial secularization was deemed by the friars to be\nin their own interest, since they had no fears that the\nneophytes would prove themselves capable of self-\n85 July 25, 1826, Echeandia, Decreto de Emancipation d favor de Nedftos,\n1826, MS. Received at S. Rafael Aug. 23d.' Arch. Misiones, MS., i. 297.\nForwarded by Lieut Estudillo to padre of S. Antonio. Arch. Arzob., MS., v.\npt ii. 114-17. Sergt Anastasio Carrillo sent by Capt. Guerra to proclaim\nthe new order in the missions of the Sta Barbara district, as he did at S.\nFernando on Sept. 26th and at S. Buenaventura on Sept. 29th. Doc. Hist.\nCal, MS., iv. 789-92. Here the Indian was authorized, should the cabo de\nescolta and padre refuse to act in presenting his application for license, to\nleave the mission without permission and apply in person to the comandante.\nVallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 22, quotes the order of July 25th.\n86 June 20, 1828, gov, to comandantes and prefect, DepL Rec% MS., vi,\n67.\n 104 ECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\ngovernment. Respecting the result, we have no satisfactory information. I find no record of the number\nof neophytes who under the order obtained their freedom, nor of the manner in which they used their liberty. Beechey, the English navigator, tells us that\nthe governor was induced by the padres to modify\nhis plans, and to try experiments with a few neophytes, who, as might have been expected, fell soon into\nexcesses, gambled away all their property, and were\ncompelled to beg or steal.87\nWhile the governor doubtless used his influence to\nimbue the neophytes with ideas of independence and\ncivil liberty, not conducive to contentment with mission\nlife,83 no definite progress was made, except in the\npreparation of plans, in the years 1827-9. In July 1827\nthe prefect was ordered to see to it that a primary\nschool was supported at each mission, and compliance\nwas promised.89 In October of the same year, Echeandia called for a detailed report on the lands held\nby each mission to be rendered before the end of the\nyear. I find no such report in the records, though\nthe local reports for the next year did, in several\ninstances,  contain   a list  of the mission ranchos.40\n*rBeec7iey's Voyage, ii 12-13, 320. A few doc. bearing on individual cases\nof application for license. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., Ivii. 23-4; Dept.\nRec, MS., v. 65; viii. 34. April 27, 1827, gov. says to com. of S. Diego that\nas the Indians of S. Juan neglect their work and make a wrong application\nof their privileges, they are to be admonished seriously that those who behave\nthemselves properly will obtain their full freedom when his plans are perfected, while others will be punished. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 44. May 20, 1827,\nMartinez is to inform the Indians that in a few days E. will issue an order for\nthem to be treated the same as gente de razon. Id., v. 46. Dec. 6, 1826, E.\nto sup. govt. Speaks of the monopoly by the friars of all the land, labor,\nand products of the territory; of their hatred for the present system of government; and of the desirability of making at least a partial distribution of\nmission property among the best of the neophytes. Id., v. 132-3. Oct. 20,\n1828, E. to min. of war, says the Ind. at most missions are clamoring to be\nformed into pueblos. St. Pap, Sac, MS., x. 39-40.\n88Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 52-4, says that the ideas instilled into the\nminds of the neophytes by the gefe politico made a great change in them.\nThey were not as contented nor as obedient as before. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS.,\n119-20, takes the same view of the matter.\n*9Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 35; Dept. Rec, MS., v. 54; Leg. Rec, MS., i.\n79-80.\n*\u00b0Oct. 7th, Echeandia's bando in Olvera, Doc, MS., 1. Names of mission\nranchos in the south.  Prov. St. Pap., Presid., MS., i. 97-8.   Bandini, in a\n THE GOVERNOR'S ACTS. 105\nThe order brought out, however, from the padres\nof San Juan Capistrano, a defence of the Indian title\nto the lands in California running back to the time\nwhen, according to Ezra the prophet, the Jews wandered across Bering Strait to people America.*1\nIn a communication of 1833 Echeandia, after alluding to his instructions, by which, as we have seen,\nmuch was left to his own judgment, explained his acts\nin these years as follows: \"Intrusted with the task\nof arranging the system of both Californias, supplying\nas best I could in indispensable cases the lack of administration of justice, busied in regulating the treasury branches since the comisario abused his trust,\nlacking the necessary supplies for the troops, at the\nend of my resources for other expenses, struggling to\nput in good order the necessarily tolerated traffic with\nforeign vessels, anxious to establish regular and secure\ncommunication with Sonora ma the Colorado, combating the general addiction to the Spanish government\nand the despotic system, encountering the abuses introduced in all branches by the revolution and enormously propagated by the total neglect of the viceregal\ngovernment during the war of independence\u2014occupied,\nI say, with so many cares, without aid in the civil or\nmilitary administration, and finally having no Mexican\npriests to take the place of the malecantent Spaniards\nin divine worship, if they should abandon it as happened at Santa Barbara and San Buenaventura, or\nshould be expelled as insufferable royalists, as some of\nthem are, and as was he of San Luis Obispo, who\nfavored the Solis revolt for Spain\u2014which, though I\nhad the good fortune to suppress it, interfered with\nthe progress of good government\u2014some of the missionaries mismanaging the property of ^heir subjects,\nand others refusing to remain under the federal gov-\nletter to Barron, 1828, says the missions have seized upon nearly all the land\nin the territory, so as to exclude private persons. Bandini, Doc, MS., 8.\n41 Zalvidea and Barona, Peticion al Gefe Politico a favor de loslndios, 1827,\nMS. -        + f:\n 106\nECHEANDiA AND'THE PADRES.\nernment if the missions were reformed; compromised\nthus in different ways, seeing that in the missions there\nremained almost illusory my repeated orders and provisions that the converts should be relieved from the\ncruel and infamous punishments which were arbitrarily applied to them, and enjoy a little their personal liberty and the fruit of their toil, and receive in\ntheir schools the elements of a Christian and civil education ; when by my own observations and intercourse\nwith missionaries and neophytes\u2014in spite of the flatteries and obstacles urged that I might not remove\nthe yoke from those miserable conquistados\u2014I had\nformed a definite conception of my duty, I completed\na plan reglamentario to take from the missionaries the\ntemporal administration, which I sent to the government secretly, if I remember aright, in 1829, explaining the necessity of proper persons to make surveys,\nand to establish in due form the new settlements.\"42\nAt the session of July 20,1830, Echeandia brought\nhis secularization plan before the diputacion, by which\nbody, after much discussion and some slight modifications, it was approved in the sessions from July 29th\nto August 3d. This plan provided for the gradual\ntransformation of the missions into pueblos, beginning with those nearest the presidios and pueblos, of\nwhich one or two were to be secularized within a year,\nand the rest as rapidly as experience might show to be\npracticable. Each neophyte was to have a share of\nthe mission lands and other property. The friars\nmight remain as curates, or establish a new line of\nmissions on the gentile frontier as they should choose.\nThe de\\ails of the twenty-one articles constituting the\ndocument, chiefly devoted to the distribution of property aud the local management of the new towns, it\nseems best to notice, so far as any notice may Ipe required, in a subsequent chapter, in connection with\n43March 19, 1833, E. to Figueroa in St. Pap., Miss, and Col, MS., ii.\n42-4. Strange as it may seem, E. makes a fall stop in his sentence as above.\nHe then goes on to explain his policy in 1831, of which I shall speak later.\n PLAN APPROVED BY THE DIPUTACION. 107\nthe decree by which it was attempted to carry the\nplan into effect.43 It was not intended to enforce this\nmeasure without the approval of the supreme government, to which the plan was forwarded the 7th of\nSeptember.44 There were also sent at the same time\nsix supplementary articles, approved by the diputacion\nAugust 13th, providing for the establishment of two\nFranciscan convents at Santa Clara and San Gabriel,\nfor which twenty or more friars were to be sent from\nMexico at the expense of the pious fund, and to which\nthe Spanish padres allowed to remain might also attach themselves. These convents were intended to\nsupply in the future missionaries, curates, and chaplains.45\nThus it is seen that the governor in his policy\ntoward the padres, down to the end of 1830, was by\nno means arbitrary, unjust, or even hasty;46 neither\nwas there so bitter a controversy between him and the\nfriars as would be inferred from the general tone of\nwhat has been written on the subject.47 In these last\nyears of the decade we have from the padres no spe-\n43 Eclieandia, Plan para convertir en pueblos las misiones de la A Ita Californ ia,\n1829-80, MS. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 105-9, and Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS., ii. 159-60, mention the action of the diputacion, and give the substance\nof an introductory message or argument presented by Echeandia on the advantages of secularization.\n\"Sept. 7, 1830, E. to min. of rel. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 79.\n45Leg. Rec, MS., i. 163-6; Guerra, Doc, MS., i. 15-17; Dept. Rec, MS.,\nviii 79.\n46 Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, i. 283-5, notes that E. used gentle measures, as\nhe was obliged to do, while the padres were less careful about the prosperity\nof the missions than they had formerly been. Shea, Catholic Missions, 109-12,\nrepresents E.'s rule as a succession of arbitrary and oppressive acts against the\nfriars. Fernandez, Cosas de Cal, MS., 45, says that E. had few scruples and\naimed only to enrich himself by despoiling the missions. Spence, according\nto Taylor's Discov. and Founders, ii. 24, says that E. had taken some rash\nsteps toward the padres, and they retaliated by subjecting him to every inconvenience. Dr Marsh, Letter to Com. Jones, MS., 2, tells us that E. 'released some of the Indians from the missions that his own particular friends\nmight appropriate their services to their own use.'\ni7 Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS.,ii. 53-4, and Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 89-\n90, tell us that about 1826 the padres not only refused to furnish any more\nsupplies for the troops, but had a large part of the mission cattle slaughtered\nfor their hides and tallow, with a view to run away with as much as possible of\nthe mission wealth. I think, however, that these writers, like others, exaggerate\nthe quarrel, and that there was no such slaughter o$ cattle until several years\nlater.\n 108 ECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\ncial protest against the plan of secularization that was\nbeing prepared. This was partly because they believed that protests and arguments addressed to the\nterritorial authorities would be without effect, partly\nbecause they still thought that secularization could\nnot be effected for want of curates; but largely also, I\nsuppose,, because they had hopes of benefits to be derived from the struggle going on in Mexico. Busta-\nmante's revolution against Guerrero was understood\nto be in the interest of a more conservative church\nand mission policy. There is no proof that the California padres were at the beginning in direct understanding with the promoters of the movement, but\nsuch is not unlikely to have been the case j48 and there\ncertainly was such an understanding directly after\nBustamante's accession. At any rate, their hopes of\naid from the new executive proved to be well founded,\nas we shall see. Meanwhile the national authorities\nwere even more dilatory and inactive than those of the\nterritory. Nothing whatever was done in the matter. The famous junta de fomento seems to have\nmade some kind of a report on secularization before it\nceased to exist. Congress took it up in 1830, but\ndecided to leave the missions alone at least until the\n48In the famous Fitch trial, Fitch, Causa Criminal, MS., etc., 339-40,\nPresident Sanchez, urged to arrest Echeandia for trial before an ecclesiastical\ncourt, declined to do so on account of the tumult it would cause, the prospect\nof an early change of governors, and the recommendations of Bustamante in\nhis 'most esteemed private letter of April 11th,' which is quoted as follows:\n'Your zeal should not rest a moment in a matter of so great interest; you will\nunderstand at x>uce the rectitude of my intentions. Therefore I promise myself that you will not only aid by your influence and by every means in your\npower the success of my plans, but also take the greatest pains to reestablish\npublic tranquillity, which to my great sorrow is disturbed, and to bring about\nperfect peace and harmony among the people. This is my business, which I\nrecommend very particularly to the prudence of your paternity, on whose aid\nI count for the accomplishment of my .desires.' The president also uses, respecting the new governor, the following play upon words: 'Habiendo logrado\nya esta desgraciada provincia su Victoria, seguramente se debe esperar que\nesta jurisdiccion eclesiastica usurpada, y oprimida, tambien conseguira su\nvictoria.* Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 109-10, says that the padres learned\nof Bustamante's pronunciamiento justafter the action of the diputacion, and\nthat they immediately signexl \u2666'^pe^ftion to the govt against Echeandia,\nthough pretending to the latter at the same time to be anxious to give up the\nmission temporalities.\n INDIAN AFFAIRS. 109\narrival of the deputy from California; and finally the\nminister of relations approved Echeandia's plan and\nrecommended it with the report of the junta to congress at the beginning of 1831.49\nThere are a few items of Indian affairs in the\nannals of these years that may as well be recorded\nhere as elsewhere, none of them requiring more than\na brief notice. In April 1826 Alferez Ibarra had\napparently two fights at or near Santa Isabel, in the\nSan Diego district, perhaps with Indians who came\nfrom the Colorado region. In one case eighteen, and\nin the other twenty, pairs of ears taken from the\nslain\u2014a new kind of trophy for California warfare\u2014\nwere sent to the comandante general. Three soldiers\nof the Mazatlan squadron had been murdered just\nbefore, which deed was probably the provocation for\nthe slaughter, but the records are  unsatisfactory.50\nAnother event of the same year was an expedition\nunder Alferez Sanchez, in November, against the Co-\nsemenes, or Cosumnes, across the San Joaquin Valley.\nThese Indians had either attacked or been attacked\nby a party of neophytes from Mission San Jose, who\nwere making a holiday trip with their alcalde, and\ntwenty or thirty of whom were killed, or at least\nnever returned. Sanchez was absent a week, and\nthough he had to retreat and leave the gentiles masters of the field, he had destroyed a rancheria, killed\nabout forty Indians, and brought in as many captives.51\n49 Mexico, Mem. Relaciones, 1831, p. 33. Carlos Carrillo, writing from\nTepic, April 2, 1831, referred to information obtained from Navarro, the\nmember from Lower California, that most of the congressmen had opposed\nany change, in the status of the missions. Guerra, Doc, MS., iv. 200. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 259, says a report was presented to congress on April\n6, 1825, by J. J. Espinosa de los Rios, C. M. Bustamante, P. V. Sola, Tomas\nSuria, Tomas Salgado, Mariano Dominguez, J. M. Almanza, Manuel Gonzalez de Ibarra, J. J. Ormachea, and F. de P. Tamariz (the report of the junta\nalluded to by the minister?), in favor of including the mission lands in the\ncolonization law of 1824. Jan. 15, 1831, Alaman to governor. The plan of\nfounding two convents has been referred to the minister of justice. Sup. Govt\nSt. Pap., MS., vii. 1.\nb0Dept. St. Pap. MS., i. 136-7; Id. Ben., Pref. y Juzg., iii. 81-3; S.\nDiego, Lib. Mision, MS., 96.\n^Sanchez, Journal of the enterprise against the Cosemenes, 1826.    Written\n 110\nECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\nIn 1829 took place the somewhat famous campaigns\nagainst the native chieftain Estanislao, who has given\nhis name to the Stanislaus river and county. Estanislao was a neophyte of more than ordinary ability,\neducated at Mission San Jose, of which establishment\nhe was at one time alcalde. He ran away probably\nin 1827 or early in 1828, took refuge with a band of\nex-neophytes and gentiles in the San Joaquin Valley,\nand with his chief associate, Cipriano, soon made himself famous by his daring. In November 1828 he\nwas believed by the padres of San Jose and Santa\nClara to be instigating a general rising among the\nneophytes, and Comandante Martinez was induced to\nsend a force of twenty'men against him.52 The expedition was not ready to start till May 1829, Estanislao in the mean time continuing his onslaughts and\ninsulting challenges to the soldiers.53\nwith gunpowder on the field of battle!' in Beechey's Voyage, M. 24-31. The\nexpedition lasted from Nov. 19th to Nov. 27th. The mission of S. Jose\" had\ndefrayed the expenses, the padre deeming it necessary to avenge the outrage\non his neophytes; but he thought the 40 new converts too dearly bought,\nfeared a new attack from the Cosemenes, and begged Capt. Beechey for some\nfireworks with which to frighten the foe in case of necessity. In'the diary\nthe Cosemenes, the original form of the later Gosumnes, lived on or near the\nRio San Francisco. On the way thither the army passed Las Positas, Rio\nSan Joaquin, and Rio Yachicume. One soldier, Jose* Maria Gomez, was killed\nby the bursting of his own musket. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 85-6, says\nSanchez could not get \\ at the Indian warriors, but killed 30 women and\nchildren, and with this shameful glory returned, bringing 2 children and an\nold woman captives. He says the neophyte victims belonged to San Francisco\nSolano. Elliot gives the substance of Sanchez's diary in Overland Monthly,\niv. 341-2. Huish, Narrative, 427-30, takes the account from Beechey.\nBojorges, Recuerdos, MS., 4-7, describes the campaign with some embellishments from his fancy. Nov. 3d, Bernal to Martinez. Says that 21 Christian\nIndians have been killed, and calls for aid. The people are much excited.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., i. 135. May 20, 1826, Capt. Arguello leaves S. Francisco\non a 34 days' tour of inspection eastward. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xi. 5. Jan. 22d,\ncorporal of S. Juan Capistrano announces rising of the Indians, who have\ninsulted him and want to put the padre in the stocks. Dept. St. Pap., MS., i.\n134-5. April 1827, complaints of robberies at the same mission. Id., ii. 12.\nFeb. 1827, trouble at S. Luis Rey, where a neophyte used some very violent and\nvile language against the Mexican govt and its Cal. representatives. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben. Mil, MS., lviii. 2; Beechey's Voyage, ii. 36. Nov. 1827, allusion to\ntroubles with gentiles at Sta Clara. Dept.\"Rec, MS., v. 115. Oct. 23, 1828,\nIndian children from the Tulares, that had been given to residents of Monterey, ordered to be restored to their parents. St. Pap., Miss, and Col, MS.,\nii. 6. Dec., two men killed by Indians near S., Jose. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref.\ny Juzg., MS., i. 20.\n52 Nov. 9, 1828, PP. Duran and Viader to .Martinez. Nov. 20th, Martinez to Echeandia.   Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 68-70.\n53 Possibly, however, the force of 20 men was sent out in 1828 as planned,\n EXPEDITION AGAINST ESTANISLAO. Ill\nOn May 5th Alferez Sanchez left San Francisco\nwith about forty men and a swivel-gun. On the\nmorning of the 7th, his force having been increased at\nSan Jose by the addition of vecinos and Indian auxiliaries, he reached the spot where the foe was posted\nin a thick wood on the river of the Laquisimes. The\nfight, opened by the enemy, raged all day, muskets\nbeing used on one side and arrows with a few muskets\non the other. The swivel-gun proved to be damaged\nand ineffective, while the muskets of the foe were\nloaded with powder only. No advantage was gained,\nand at sunset Sanchez withdrew his men to a short\ndistance. Next morning he divided his force into six\nparties of six men each. He stationed one to guard\nthe horses and ammunition, and two others to protect\nthe flanks and prevent the escape of the foe, while\nwith the other three, under corporals Pina, Berreyesa,\nand Soto, he inarched up to the edge of the wood.\nAs before, the fight lasted all day, and as before, nothing was effected; though two of Piria's men, who were\nso rash as to enter the wood, were killed. Ammunition being exhausted, the men tired out, and the\nweather excessively hot, the siege was abandoned, and\nEstanislao left unconquered. Two soldiers had been\nkilled and eight wounded, while eleven of the Indian\nallies wTere also wounded, one of them mortally.\nAbout the losses of the foe nothing was known.54\naccomplishing nothing. Osio, Hist, Cal, MS., 126-30, describes such an expedition under Sergt Soto, during which there was a fight; while Bojorges,\nRecuerdos, MS., 14-17, says it was under Corp. Pacheco and returned without a fight, as did the second expedition according to Osio. In any case, it is\nevident that both writers confound this entrada more or less with later ones.\nMarch 1, 1829, P. Duran to Martinez, complaining of a new attack by Estanislao on the mission Indians. Arch. Arzob., MS., v, pt i. 53-4. April 26th,\nMartinez to alcalde of S. Jos\u00a3, asking for supplies and men for an expedition\nto start next Sunday. The conduct of the Indians is shameful, especially the\nchallenges of Estanislao. S. Jose\", Arch., MS., vi. 16. May 6th (probably an\nerror in date), gov. orders Martinez to send Alf. Sanchez with as many soldiers as possible, the S. Jose militia, and a swivel-gun on a raid against the\nIndians.  Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 149.\n61 Sanchez, Compaiia contra Estanislao y sus Indios sublevados, 1829, MS.\nDated at S. Jose\" on May 10th. Great praise was awarded to the troops for\ngallantry, and especially to Corp. Soto and privates Manuel Pena and Lorenzo\nPacheco.    May 5th, departure of  Sanchez from S. Francisco.   Dept. Rec,\n ECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\nA new expedition was prepared, for which the\ntroops of San Francisco under Sanchez were joined bo\nthose of Monterey under Alferez Mariano G. Vallejo,\nwho was also, by virtue of his superior rank, commander in chief of the army, now numbering one hundred\nand seven armed men. Vallejo had not yet had much experience as an Indian-fighter, but he had just returned\nfrom a campaign in the Tulares, in which with thirty-\nfive men he had slain forty-eight Indians and suffered\ncasualties.55 Having crossed the San Joaquin\nRiver by means of rafts on May 29th, the army arrived next day at the scene of the former battle, where\nit wa& met as before by a cloud of arrows. The wood\nwas found to be absolutely impenetrable, and Vallejo\nat once caused it to be set on fire, stationing his troops\nand his three-pounder on the opposite bank of the\nriver. The fire brought the Indians to the edge of\nthe thicket, where some of them were killed. At 5\np. m. Sanchez was sent with twenty-five men to attack\nthe foe, and fought over two hours in the burning\nwood, retiring at dusk with three men wounded.\nNext morning at 9 o'clock Vallejo with thirty-seven\nmen again entered the wood. He found a series of\npits and ditches arranged with considerable skill, and\nprotected by barricades of trees and brush. Evidently\nthe Indians could never have been dislodged from such\na stronghold except by the agency that had been employed. Traces of blood were found everywhere, and\nthere were also discovered the bodies of the two soldiers killed in the previous battle.    The enemy, how-\nMS., vii. 20. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 129-30, gives some particulars about the\nloss of the two men, and says that Soto died of his wounds a little later at S.\nJose. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 57-60, gives an absurdly exaggerated account of the battle and of the enemy's fortifications. Galindo, Apuntes, MS.,\n22-4, has a quite accurate narrative from memory, recalling even the name of\nthe Rio Laquisimes, which may have been that now called the Stanislaus,\nthough it is not certain.\n66 Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 20. According to a document in Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xx. 280, Vallejo had been in two acciones de guerra as commander, one\nin the Sierra Nevada from S. Miguel, and the other in the Tulares, where he\nhad one man killed and 15 wounded. May 16,1829, Martinez orders Vallejo\nto march with Sanchez to chastise the rebels of Sta Clara and S. Jose\" assembled at Los Rios.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. ,174.\n VALLEJO'S CAMPAIGN. 113\never, had taken advantage of the darkness of night\nand had fled. Vallejo started in pursuit. He encamped that night on the Rio Laquisimes, and next\nmorning surrounded a part of the fugitives in another\nthicket near their rancheria on the Arroyo Seco.\nHere there were some negotiations, but the Indians\ndeclared they, would die rather than surrender, and\nlate in the afternoon the attack was begun. A road\nwas cut through the chaparral with axes, along which\nthe field-piece and muskets were pressed forward and\ncontinually discharged. The foe retired slowly to\ntheir ditches and embankments in the centre, wounding eight of the advancing soldiers. When the cannon was close to the trenches the ammunition gave\nout, which fact, and the heat of the burning thicket,\nforced the men to retreat. During the night the besieged Indians tried to escape one by one, some succeeding, but many being killed. Next morning\nnothing was found but dead bodies and three living\nwomen. That day, June 1st, at noon, provisions\nbeing exhausted, Vallejo started for San Jos6, where\nhe arrived on the fourth.56\n56 Vallejo, CampaHa contra Estanislao y sus Indios sublevados, 1829, MS.\nThis is the commander's official report dated at S. Jose June 4th. Piiia,\nDiario de la Expedicidn al Volte de San Jose\", 1829. fhis is a diary kept by\nCorp. Joaquin Piiia of the artillery, who accompanied the expedition. It\nextends from May 19th, the date of departure from Monterey, to June 13th,\nwhen they returned to Monterey. The details, beyond the limits of the\nactual campaign as given in my text, are unimportant. The original MS. was\ngiven me by Gen. Vallejo. Juiie 5th, Martinez congratulates Vallejo on his\ndefeat of the rebels at Los Rios. Regrets that he could not follow up the\nadvantage gained. Orders him to S. Francisco to plan further operations.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., i. 175. Dec. 31st, Martinez states in the hojns de servicios\nof Vallejo and Sanchez that no decisive results were obtained, though 4 men\nwere killed (?) and 11 wounded. Id., i. 204; xx. 142. Oct. 7th, Echeandia\npardons neophytes who had been in rebellion. Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 230. Alvarado's narrative of this campaign, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 57-68, drawn evidently from his imagination, is so wonderfully inaccurate that no condensation\ncan do it justice, and I have no space to reproduce it in full. Osio, Hist.\nCal, MS., 133-8, gives an account considerably more accurate than that of\nAlvarado, which is not Saying much in its favor. He speaks of but one battle, in which the barricades of timber were broken down by the artillery, the\norder of 'no quarter' was given by Vallejo, the infuriated auxiliaries wrought\na terrible carnage among the foe, and the pits dug for defences were utilized\nas graves. Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 22-6, names two soldiers, Espinosa and\nSoto, as fatally wounded, and says that Estanislao was captured. Bojorges,\nRecuerdos, MS., 14-22, who confounds the three expeditions, names Pefia\nHist. Cal., Vol.. III.   8\n 114 ECHEANDIA AND THE PADRES.\nOne phase of this campaign demands further notice.\nOne of the contemporary narratives, the diary of Pina,\nrepresents that at least six of the captives, including\nthree or four women found alive in the second thicket,\nwere put to death, most of them by the order or with\nthe consent of the commander. Osio in his history\ntells us that some captured leaders Were shot or\nhanged to trees, and Padre Duran made a complaint,\nto which no attention was paid. Vallejo in his official\nreport says nothing respecting the death of the captives. At the time, however, Vallejo was accused by\nPadre Duran, but claimed to be innocent.57 Echeandia ordered an investigation of the charge that three\nmen and three women, not taken in battle, had been\nshot and then hanged;63 and the investigation was\nmade. From the testimony the fiscal decided that\nonly one man and one woman had been killed, the\nlatter unjustifiably by the soldier Joaquin Alvarado,\nwhose punishment was recommended.59 There is no\ndoubt that in those, as in later times, to the Spaniards,\nas to other so-called civilized races, the life of an Indian\nwas a slight affair, and in nearly all the expeditions\noutrages were committed; but it would require stronger evidence than exists in this case to justify any special blame to a particular officer.60\nIn June 1827 orders were sent to Echeandia from\nMexico to found a fort on the northern frontier in the\nregion of San Rafael or San Francisco Solano.    The\nand Pacheco as the two killed under Sanchez, and says that Antonio Soto\ndied of his wounds at S. Jose\\\n67 Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 178.\n58 Aug. 7, 1829. Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 213.\n69 Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxx. 13. Lieut Martinez was the fiscal\nto whom the case was intrusted.\n60 A few items of Indian affairs for 1830: April, sergeants Salazar and\nRico sent with a force to prevent trouble at Sta Ine\"s. Quiet restored in 3 days.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxviii. 1,4. July-Sept., a grand paseo\nmaritimo proposed by P. Duran, in which the vecinos of S. Jose* were invited\nto join. The object was to visit the rivers and Tulares, and inspire respect\namong the gentiles by peaceable methods. The mission would pay the expense.\nS. Jose\", Arch., MS., i. 38-9. Dec, ArrivaPof suspicious Indians at S. Fernando. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., i. 95.\n THE SEASONS, 1826-30. 115\nobject was not only to protect those establishments\nagainst gentile tribes, but also and perhaps chiefly to\nprevent a further extension of Russian power. The\nmissions were to be called upon to furnish the required\naid in laborers, implements, and food, the corresponding instructions being also sent through the guardian\nto the president. Echeandia's reply was to the effect\nthat there were no means to build a fort, but he would\ntry to construct quarters near San Rafael for a military\nguard, and he did in March 1828 order Romualdo\nPacheco to go to the north and select a suitable site,\nwhich is the last I hear of the matter.61\nRespecting the seasons from 1826 to 1830, I find\nnothing or next to nothing in the records; but I suppose that the winter of 1827-8 was a wTet one, and\nthe next of 1828-9 one of unprecedented drought.\nThe flood is mentioned in various newspaper items, on\nthe authority of Vallejo and other old Californians,\nand of trappers said to have been in the Sacramento\nValley; it is confirmed by one letter of the time, January 1828, which speaks of the flood at Monterey as\nsomething like that of 1824-5.62 The drought of 1829\nis shown by the failure of the crops, the total harvest\nbeing 24,000 fanegas, the smallest from 1796 to 1834,\nand less than half the average for this decade; though\nstrangely I find no correspondence on the subject save\ntwo slight items, one from San Rafael and the other\nfrom San Diego.63\n61 June 6, 1827, min. of war to Echeandia. St. Pap., Miss, and Col,\nMS., ii. 310; June 13th, guardian to president. Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 176-\n7; Jan. 8th, 1828, E.'s reply. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 23; Mar. 25th, E. to Pacheco, ordering him to Nopalillos. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 196.\n62 Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 190.\n*Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 364; Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 181.\n CHAPTER V.\nECHEANDIA'S RULE\u2014MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\n1826-30.\nVessels op 1826\u2014Revenue Rules\u2014Hartnell's Business\u2014Hawaiian\nFlag\u2014Coopeb and the I Rover '\u2014Lawsuit with Arguello\u2014Bee-\nchey's Visit in the 'Blossom'\u2014Books Resulting\u2014Trading Fleet\nof 1827\u2014Reglamentos on Liquors and Live-stock\u2014Embarrassment\nof McCulloch, Hartnell & Co.\u2014Cunningham at Santa Catalina\u2014\nVisit of Duhaut-Cilly and Botta\u2014Maritime Affairs of 1828\u2014\nRestrictions\u2014Smuggling\u2014Affair of the 'Franklin' \u2014 Cannon-\nballs\u2014Affair of the 'Karimoko'\u2014Vessels of 1829 \u2014 Customhouse\u2014Arrival of the 'Brookline' \u2014 Gale's Correspondence\u2014\nRaising the Stars and Stripes\u2014Lang at San Diego\u2014The ' Santa\nBarbara' Built in California\u2014Ships and Trade op 1830\u2014List of\nVessels, 1825-30.\nThe vessels of 1826 were forty-four in number, including a few doubtfully recorded. There were twenty-\ntwo American, eight English, five Mexican, four\nRussian, three of the Hawaiian Islands, and one Californian, though the latter carried the American flag.\nEleven were whalers seeking supplies; one was on a\nscientific and exploring expedition; and the rest, so far\nas the records show, were engaged more or less exclusively in trade. Ten or twelve were included in the\nlist of the preceding year, having either remained over\nfrom December to January or repeating their trip.1\n1 The vessels of the year, for more particulars about which see list at end\nof this chapter, were the Adam, Alliance, Argosy, Baikal, Blossom, Charles,\nCourier, Cyrus, Elena, Eliza, Franklin, General Bravo, Harb'nger, Inca, Iuore,\nJdven Angustias, Kiahkta, Maria Ester, Maria Teresa, Mercury (2), Mero,\nMoor, Olive Branch, Paragon, Peruvian, Pizarro, Rover, Sachem, Santa\nApolonia, Sirena, Solitude, Speedy, Spy, Thomas Nowlan, Timorelan, Triton,\nWashington (3), Waverly, Whaleman, Young Tartar, Zamora.\n(116)\n TRADE REGULATIONS. 117\nVessels were not allowed to trade at way-ports,\nsuch as Santa Cruz, San Luis, Refugio, and San Juan\nCapistrano, without permission from the governor,\nwhich was easily obtained unless there was especial\ncause for suspicion. In June, Herrera, following\ninstructions from his superior in Sonora, ordered that\nno vessel be allowed to load or unload in any other\nport than Monterey. He admitted that such a rule\nwas ruinous to the territorial commerce, and said he\nhad protested against it, but could not disobey orders.\nEcheandia, however, countermanded the rule provisionally, and it did not go into effect; but at the same\ntime an internacion duty of fifteen per cent and an\naveria duty of two and a half per cent were added to\nthe former import duty of twenty-five per cent, making a total of 42^ per cent, besides an anchorage tax\nof $10 for each vessel and a tonnage rate of $2.50 per\nton.2 Naturally these exactions displeased both the\ntraders and the consumers of foreign goods; but they\nsought relief, not in written petitions, but in various\nsmuggling expedients, in which they were rarely\ndetected, and which therefore for this year at least\nfind no place in the records.\nFor Monterey, the chief port of entry, I have no\nrevenue statistics for the year. At Santa Barbara,\nwhere accounts are complete, the revenue from customs\nwas $7,446.3    At San Francisco the recorded amount\n2 June 28th, Herrera to habilitados of S. Francisco, Sta Barbara, and S.\nDiego, closing those ports. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 16.\nJuly 5th, Id., insisting on internacion duty according to decree of Aug. 6,\n1824. St. Pap., Ben., MS., i. 67-8. July 11th, Id. to gov., insisting on the*\nreformation of abuses, though said abuses were necessary. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 42-7. July 22d, Id. to habilitados. Countermands order of June 28th until govt decides, but not that of July 5th. Id.,\ni. 51-2. Beechey, Voyage, ii. 10, 69, refers to the excessive duties. Jan.\n24th, revised tariff of prices for products. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 90-1. May\n10th, decree of Mex. govt. All exports free of duty. Sup. Govt St. Pap.,\nMS., xix. 38. Sept. 26th, import duties as given in the text. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil., MS., Ix. 2. July 17th, habilitado of Sta Barbara understands that\nby the decree of Feb. 12, 1825, internacion duty is payable only on goods\ntaken from the custom-house for other ports, foreign vessels having to pay\nonly the 25 per cent and Mexican the 15 per cent of import duties. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 48.\n3Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 65. Partial statistics for\neach vessel are given in the list at the end of this chapter.\n 118\nMARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nwas $4,360 ;4 and at San Diego, $1,666. If the total\nof $13,500 were doubled, it is evident that the\namount would be but a small part of the percentage\ndue on imports. Only a few years later there were\ncomplaints that no accounts had been rendered by\nHerrera and his successors,5 so that it is not strange\nI have been unable to find complete figures.\nAll seems to have been couleur de rose in Hartnell's\nbusiness this year. Echeandia granted a general\nlicense for his vessels to touch at all the ports. Mc-\nCullough from Callao, and the Brothertons from\nLiverpool, wrote most enthusiastically of the prospects\nfor high prices, urging extraordinary efforts to buy\nmore hides and tallow, and expressing fears only of\nrivalry from other firms, while four brigs, the Inca,\nSpeedy, Eliza, and Pizarro, were successfully loaded\nwith Californian produce.6 Gale's Sachem and the\nother Boston ships must have interfered seriously\nwith Hartnell's purchases, but we have no information\nbeyond their names and presence on the coast. Juan\nIgnacio Mancisidor also did a large business, selling\nthe cargoes of the Nowlan and Olive Branch, and\ntaking away large quantities of mission produce,\nthough for him, as a Spaniard, trouble was in store.\nThe Waverly and her two consorts introduced the\nHawaiian flag to Californian waters, opened a new\nbranch of territorial trade, and brought to the country\nWilliam G. Dana, with others afterward prominent\namong resident traders.\n* Habilitados' accounts in Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. passimj Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, MS., Ix. 1-4.\n5Figueroa to Mex. govt in 1834. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 209-10.\n6 Echeandia's permit of June 18 and Aug. 26, 1826, to Hartnell's vessels.\nDept. Rec, MS., iv. 48; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 57. Letters of McCulloch,\nBegg & Co., Brothertons, for the year, in Id., MS., xxix. nos. 4, 6, 12-15,\n21, 40, 43, 52, 65. Some beef was acceptable where hides and tallow were\nnot forthcoming. The Eliza appears to have cleared at Callao for Costa Rica\nto deceive rivals. The Esther, sent to England with hides, had not been\nheard of. The tallow from each mission must be marked 'so that the peculiar\ntricks of each padre may be found out.' Cash is sent and more promised.\nAnderson's competition in Peru was especially feared. War between Buenos\nAires and Brazil made prospects better. Yet P. Uria, from Soledad, protests\non June 11th against being obliged to sell exclusively to Hartnell, and will in\nfuture accept the best offers..\n CAPTAIN COOPER'S VOYAGES. 119\nCaptain Cooper, in the Rover, came back from China\nin April 1826. The voyage had been made under a\ncontract of 1824 with the government,7 which had\nentitled the schooner to $10,000 for freight out and\nback, and the privilege of introducing $10,000 in\ngoods free of duties. Besides some trading done by\nCooper on his own account, he sold at Canton 375\notter skins for $7,000, investing the proceeds in\neffects for the Californian troops. Most of these\neffects were delivered after some delay to the habilitado of San Diego. The delay, and much subsequent\ntrouble, was caused by dissatisfaction on the part of\nthe governor at the prices received and paid in China,\nand by personal difficulties in settling their accounts\nbetween Cooper and Luis Arguello, as master and\nowner of the vessel.8 This last phase of the quarrel\nlasted until 1829, involving a lawsuit and various references to arbitrators. Arguello's side of the quarrel is\nnot represented in the records; Cooper's letters are numerous, containing a great variety of uncomplimentary\nepithets for Don Luis. Arbitrators seem to have\ndecided the case in Cooper's favor in the amount of\n$5,000, \"which,\" writes the captain, \"the damned rascal\nArguello will never pay while California remains in its\npresent condition.\"9 To return to the Rover: the only\nincident of her voyage that is known was the throwing\naway of all Spanish papers on board, including invoices\nand the bill of sale to Arguello, and even of the Mexican\nflag, on' account of revelations by a drunken sailor to\nthe effect that the schooner was not American as\npretended, but Mexican.    This occurred at the Phil-\n7 See vol. ii. p. 520.\n8 Arrival of the Rover, and trouble about the landing of the cargo. Dept.\nSt. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxvii. 68; Id., Ben. Cust.-H., i. 18-20, 30; St.\nPap., Ben., MS., i. 71; St. Pap., Sac, MS., xi. 1.\n9Cooper's letters of 1826-9, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix., nos. 54, 113, 108,\n117, 128, 200, 210, 234, 235, 292, 334, 387, with many more in the same\nvolume, relating to details of C 's business in those years, being of no special\nimportance. It appears that Kierolf & Co., in China, had sent some goods by\nC. to Cal. on sale, and that by reason of his troubles with Arguello, he was,\nunable to settle with that firm for several years. J. P. Sturgis was Cooper's,\ncorrespondent at Canton.\n 120 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nippine Islands.10 On December 17, 1826, she sailed\nfor San Diego, in quest of documents by which she\nmight raise the Mexican flag. Jose* Cardenas was to\nbe master.11 Nothing more is known of the San\nRafael, as it was proposed to call her, from contemporary documents; but two Californians tell us that\nshe was sent with a cargo to San Bias, and not allowed\nto return by the Mexican authorities, who did not\nlike the idea of California having a vessel of her own.12\nThe visit of Captain Frederick William Beechey,\nR. N., in H. M. S. Blossom, deserves notice as a prominent event, by reason of the books to the publication\nof which it gave rise, and the information they contained about California.13 Beechey had sailed from England in May 1825, despatched to Bering Strait, there\nto await the arrival of Franklin and Parry of the arctic expeditions.14    Sailing by Cape Horn, Valparaiso,\n10Cooper's deposition of Dec. 23th, in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxiii.\n9. The loss of the papers complicated the quarrel with Arguello. July 27th,\ngov. ordered the sale of the vessel to Arguello, and the manner of her nationalization to be investigated. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xii. 14.\n11 Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H, MS., i. 25.\n12Fernandez, Cosas de Cal., MS., 37-9; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 84-6.\n13 Beechey, Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific and Beering>s Strait, to Cooperate with the Polar Expeditions, performed in His Majesty's Ship Blossom,\nunder the command of Captain F. W. Beecliey, R. N., F. R.S., etc, in the years\n1825, 26, 27,28. Published by authority of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. A new Edition. London, 1831. 8vo, 2 volumes, maps and plates.\nThis edition is not mentioned by Sabin, being published by Colburn ana Bent-\nley. The original in 4to form, 2 vols., had the same title, date, and publishers. There were published in 1832, according to Sabin, an American edition and a German translation. In the edition used by me the California\nmatter is found in vol. i. p. 471-2; vol. ii. p. 1-88, 319-21,403; with descriptions of S. Francisco and Monterey harbors on p. 422-9; and observations of\nlatitude and longitude on p. 443. Only one plate relates to California, that\nof ' Californian throwing the lasso.' In Huish, A Narrative of the Voyages and\nTravels of Capt. Beecliey, etc, London, 1836, the California matter is given on\np. 415-60, somewhat condensed, and a portrait of Beechey forms the frontispiece. Hooker and Arnott, The Botany of Captain Beechey's Voyage; compris-\ning an account of the plants collected by Messrs. Lay and Collie, etc. London,\n1841. 4to, plates. The matter is arranged geographically in order of the countries visited; and California occupies p. 134-65, with one plate so far as Beechey's voyage is concerned; but on p. 315-409 is given a more important California Supplement, made up chiefly of a description of specimens collected by\nDouglas later, with 23 plates. Richardson and others, The Zoology of Captain\nBeechey's Voyage; compiled from the collections and notes made by Captain Beechey, theofficera and naturalist, etc. London, 1839. 4to. The matter on Cal-\nifprnia is scattered through the volume. The plates are splendidly colored.\nFrom p. 160 there is a chapter on geology, which contains a 'geological plan'\nand description of the port of S. Francisco, which I copy elsewhere.\n14 The Blossom mounted 16 guns.    The chief officers under Beechey were:\n BEECHEY'S VISIT AND BOOK. 121\nand the Hawaiian Islands, he arrived in Kotzebue\nSound in July 1826, remaining in the far north until\nOctober, when he was obliged by the closing-in of\nwinter and by want of supplies to sail for the south.\nHe anchored at San Francisco November 6th,15 and\nwas hospitably received by Comandante Martinez and\nPadre Tomas Estenega. Supplies were, however, less\nplentiful than had been expected, and a party consisting of Collie, Marsh, and Evans was sent overland to\nMonterey. This party was absent from the 9th to\nthe 17th,16 during which time and subsequently Beechey and his men were occupied in making a survey\nof San Francisco Bay and scientific observations about\nits shores. No obstacles were thrown in his way, the\nauthorities asking only for a copy of the resulting\nchart, which was given.17 The Englishmen amused\nthemselves chiefly by excursions on horseback over\nthe peninsula, and especially from the presidio to the\nmission, the inhabitants gaining an extraordinary revenue from the hire and sale of horses. The navigators\nalso visited Mission San Jos6late in November. One\nman was drowned and buried at San Francisco.\n\"By Christmas day we had all remained sufficiently\nlong in the harbor to contemplate our departure without regret; the eye had become familiar to the picturesque scenery of the bay, the pleasure of the chase\nlieutenants Geo. Peard, Edward Belcher, and John Wainwright; master,\nThomas Elson; surgeon and assistant, Alex. Collie and Thomas Neilson; purser,\nGeo. Marsh; mates, Wm. Smyth and Jas. Wolfe; midshipmen, John Rendall\nand Richard. B. Beechey; clerks, John Evans and Chas. H. Osmer. The\nwhole force was 100 men.\n15 Announcement of arrival dated Nov. 7th, in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Gust. -\nII., MS., i. 24.\n16Collie's party, with an escort of Californian soldiers, travelled by way of\nSierra de S. Bruno, Rio de S. Bruno, Burri Burri, over the plain of Las Salinas, with Estrecho de S. Jose\" on the left, and Sierra del Sur on right, S. Mateo, Las Pulgas, Santa Clara, S. Jose\", Ojo del Coche (?), plain of Las Llagas,\nRancho de Las Animas, Rio de Pajaro, plain of S. Juan, S. Juan Bautista,\nLlano del Rey, Rancho Las Salinas, Monterey, and returned by the same\nroute. They were kindly treated by Capt. Gonzalez and Mr Hartnell. The\ndiary of this trip furnished Beechey a large part of the information published\nabout California.\n17 Jan. 25, 1827, gov. to Martinez. Presumes that Beechey laid before\nhim the necessary permit of the sup. govt to make a plan of the harbor. Orders him to forward the plan toS. Diego. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 13.\n 122 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nhad lost its fascination, and the roads to the mission\nand presidio were grown tedious and insipid. There\nwas no society to enliven the hours, no incidents to\nvary one day from the other, and, to use the expression of Donna Gonzalez, California appeared to be as\nmuch out of the world as Kamchatka.\" The Englishmen sailed on December 28th for Monterey. Here\nthey remained five days, cutting spars, and obtaining\nsupplies from missions and from vessels in port,\nlargely by the aid of Hartnell.18 The supplies obtainable in California were, however, inadequate to the\nneeds of the expedition; and on the 5th of January\nthe Blossom sailed for the Sandwich Islands. After\nanother trip to the Arctic, unsuccessful like the first,\nso far \u00abas meeting the ill-fated Franklin was concerned, Beechey returned to Monterey October 29,\n18 27,19 remaining until December 17th, when he went\nagain to San Francisco for water, finally sailing on\nJanuary 3d for San Bias, and thence home via Cape\nHorn and Brazil, reaching England in October 1828.\nIt is thus seen that Beechey's visit was in itself an\nevent of slight importance; but the observations published in the voyager's narrative were perhaps more\nevenly accurate- and satisfactory than those of any\npreceding navigator. Beechey and his companions\nconfined their remarks closely to actual observations.\nThey were less ambitious than some of their predecessors to talk of things they did not understand, and\nthus avoided ridiculous blunders. It is not, however,\nnecessary to notice their remarks at length here, for\nthe following reasons: A large part is naturally devoted to local and personal matters, or to other topics\ntreated in other chapters; notes of the scientific corps\n18 Jan. 4, 1827, Beechey writes from Monterey to the British consul in\nMexico, recommending the appointment of Hartnell as vice-consul in Cal., in\nconsequence of the increasing importance of English trade on the Pacific\ncoast. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 102.\nltt Notice of presence of the Blossom and 3 whalers on the coast in November. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 168. Called the Blondes, at Monterey Nov.\n8th. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 47. Mention of visit in SouWs Annals ofS. F.,\n163-4.\n BEECHEY'S OBSERVATIONS. 123\non botany, zoology, and other branches, though of\ngreat value, can of course receive in a work like this\nno further attention than mere mention;20 and what\nremains of general description, respecting the country\nand its institutions, on, account of its very accuracy,\nwould be but vain repetition here. Had the visitor\nbeen less careful and made more blunders, he would\nreceive more attention from me. Such is fame, and\nthe reward of painstaking.\nThe missions and the Indians claimed a large share\nof Beechey's attention, as in the case of earlier visitors, and he was not blind to either the faults or excellences of the system or of the friars who had it in\ncharge.21 Respecting the result of Echeandia's experiment at partial emancipation of neophytes, this\nauthor happens to be wellnigh the only authority;\nand he also translates an interesting diary of an expedition against the gentiles under AlfeYez Sanchez,\nas noted in the preceding chapter.    He gives consid-\n20 See note 13 of this chapter.\n21 ' Though the system they pursue is not calculated to raise the colony to\nany great prosperity, yet the neglect of the missions would not long precede\nthe ruin of the presidios and of the whole of the district.' Vol. ii. p. 15.\n' As to the various methods employed for the purpose of bringing proselytes\nto the missions, there are several reports, of which some were not very creditable to the institution; nevertheless, on the whole, I am of opinion that the\npriests are innocent, from a conviction that they are ignorant of the means\nemployed by those who are under them. Whatever may be the system,...\nthe change according to our ideas of happiness would seem advantageous to\nthem, as they lead a far better life in the missions than in their forests.' p. 17.\n'The produce of the land and of the labor of the Indians is appropriated\nto the support of the mission, and the overplus jto amass a fund which is\nentirely at the disposal of the padres. In some of the establishments this\nmust be very large, although the padres will not admit it, and always plead\npoverty. The government has lately demanded a part of this profit, but the\npriests, who, it is said, think the Indians are more entitled to it than the\ngovernment, make small donations to them, and thus evade the tax by taking care there shall be no overplus.' p. 19-20- ' Though there may be occasional acts of tyranny, yet the general character of the padres is kind and\nbenevolent, and in some missions the converts are so much attached to them\nthat I have heard them declare they would go with them if they were\nobliged to quit the country. It is greatly to be regretted that, with the\ninfluence these men have over their pupils, and the regard those pupils seem\nto have for their masters, the priests do not interest themselves a little more\nin the education of their converts.' 'The Indians are, in general, well clothed\nand fed.' p. 21-2. 'Nothing could exceed the kindness and consideration of\nthese excellent men to their guests and to travellers;' but they 'were very\nbigoted men, and invariably introduced the subject of religion.' p. 33-4.\n 124 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nerable attention to commerce, presenting a clear statement on this subject.22 Like others, the English\nnavigator was enthusiastic in praise of California's climate and other natural advantages; but like others,\nhe wondered at and deplored the prevalent lack of\nenterprise on the part of Mexican government and\nCalifornian people, predicting an inevitable change of\nowners should no change of policy occur.23    His geo-\n221 may quote at some length on this topic, as being the subject proper of\nthis chapter. ' The trade consists in the exportation of hides, tallow, man-\nteca, horses to the Sandwich Islands, grain for the Russian establishments,\nand in the disposal of provisions to whale-ships,... and perhaps a few furs\nand dollars are sent to China. The importations are dry goods, furniture,\nwearing apparel, agricultural implements, deal boards, and salt; and silks\nand fireworks from China for the decoration of churches and celebration of\nsaints' days. In 1827 almost all these articles bore high prices: the former in consequence of the increased demand; and the latter partly from the\nnecessity of meeting the expenses of the purchase of a return cargo, and\npartly on account of the navigation.' Great complaint of high prices, ' not\nconsidering that the fault was in great measure their own, and that they were\npurchasing some articles brought several thousand miles, when they might\nhave procured them in their own country with moderate labor only,' for example, salt and deal boards and carts. ' With similar disregard for their\ninterests, they were purchasing sea-otter skins at $20 apiece, whilst the\nanimals were swimming about unmolested in their own harbors; and this\nfrom the Russians, who are intruders on their coast, and are depriving them\nof a lucrative trade. With this want of commercial enterprise, they are not\nmuch entitled to commiseration. With more justice might they have complained of the navigation laws, which, though no doubt beneficial to inhabitants on the eastern coast of Mexico, where there are vessels to conduct the\ncoasting trade, are extremely disadvantageous to the Californians, who having no vessels are often obliged to pay the duties oh goods introduced in foreign bottoms.' 17% higher than on Mexican vessels. Not only this, 'but\nas a foreign vessel cannot break stowage without landing the whole of her\ncargo, they must in addition incur the expenses attending that which will\nin general fall upon a few goods only. The imprudent nature of these laws\nas regards California appears to have been considered by the authorities, as\nthey overlook the introduction of goods into the towns by indirect channels,\nexcept in cases of a gross and palpable nature. In this manner several\nAmerican vessels have contrived to dispose of their cargoes, and the inhabitants have been supplied with goods of which they were much in need.' p.\n68-70.\n23' Possessing all these advantages, an industrious population alone seems\nrequisite to withdraw it from the obscurity in which it has so long slept\nunder the indolence of the people and the jealous policy of the Spanish government. Indeed, it struck us as lamentable to see such an extent of habitable country lying almost desolate and useless to mankind, whilst other nations are groaning under the burden of their population. It is evident from\nthe natural course of events, and from the rapidity with which observation\nhas recently been extended to the hitherto most obscure parts of the globe,\nthat this indifference cannot continue; for either it must disappear under the\npresent authorities, or the country will fall into other hands, as from its situation with regard to other powers upon the new continent, and to the commerce of the Pacific, it is of too much importance to be permitted to remain\nlonger in its present neglected state.    Already have the Russians encroached\n VESSELS OF 1827. 125\ngraphical information is usually accurate and valuable;\nbut a curious item is the idea, drawn from the Californians, that the great rivers running into San Francisco bay were three in number\u2014the Jesus Maria,\npassing at the back of Bodega in a southerly course\nfrom beyond Cape Mendocino; the Sacramento, trending to the south-west, and said to rise in the Rocky\nMountains near the source of the Columbia; and the\nSan Joachin, stretching from the southward through\nthe country of the Bolbones.\nThe vessels of J827 numbered thirty-three, of\nwhich two or three arrivals depend on doubtful records. Fourteen were the same that had visited California the preceding year, some having wintered on\nthe coast. Only four were whalers. The trading\nfleet proper was of about twenty craft. Of the whole\nnumber twelve were American, ten English, three\nMexican, three Russian, two each French and Hawaiian, and one perhaps German.24 Revenue receipts\nfrom fragmentary records, which are virtually no\nrecords at all, foot up about $14,000 for the year.25\nAs the reader will remember, it was in this year that\nHerrera resigned, and the revenue branches were, if\npossible, in worse confusion than ever.\nAn attempt was made to remove some of the restrictions on the importation of foreign goods, deemed\ndisadvantageous to Californian interests. The reforms desired were the free entry of foreign vessels\ninto all the ports and embarcaderos, the subdivision\nupon the territory by possessing themselves of the Farallones and some islands of Santa Barbara; and their new settlement at Rossi is so near upon the\nboundary (no Englishman could admit it to be within California\u2014author) as\nto be the cause of much jealous feeling\u2014not without reason, it would appear.'\np. 66-7.\n24See list at end of this chapter. Vessels of 1827: Andes (?), Baikal, Blossom,\nCadboro, Carimacer (?), Come'te^ Courier, Favorite, Franklin, Fulham, Golov-\nnin, Harbinger, Ittros, Huascar, Isabella, Magdalena, Maria Ester, Massachusetts, Oliphant (?), Olive Branch, Okhotsk, Orion, Paraiso, Sachem, Solitude,\nSpy, Tamaahmaah, Tenieya, Thomas Nowlan, Tomasa, Washington, Waverly,\nYoung Tartar.\n23 Net revenue at S. F., $3,304. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., lxii. 8-11. See\nalso figures in the list of vessels at eud of this chapter.\n 126 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nof cargoes for convenience of sale and transportation,\nand the reduction of duties to at most the original\ntwenty-five per cent by the removal of the internacion\nand averia taxes, and even the tonnage dues. The\ntwo first had already been accomplished practically,\nsince the authorities admitted that they had rarely\nrefused permission to engage in coast trade; and as\nto the third, both governor and comisario were opposed to the high rates, and had been as careless as\nthey dared, and their subordinates even less careful.\nThe diputacion considered the matter in June and\nJuly, and by the decision of that body and the resulting decrees, coast trade was legalized, .subject to\nthe decision of the supreme government. The removal of the duties was recommended, the internacion\ntax was restricted to goods carried inland more than-\nfour leagues, while the missions were allowed to give\nbonds for the tax pending the result in  Mexico\n26\n26 Jan. 22, and Aug. 6, 1827, Herrera regulates the details of trade between\nprivate persons and foreign vessels, to prevent abuses of the illegal privileges\nallowed of coast trade and division of cargoes. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and\nTreas., MS., i. 82-6. June 23d, July 24th, sessions of the diputacion.. Bandini took a leading part in urging the reforms. Leg. Rec., MS., i. 52-4, 64-\n72. July 20th, gov. announces that foreign vessels may touch at Sta Cruz,\nS. Luis, Purisima, Refugio, and S. Juan, by applying to the nearest comandante with a statement from the missionary that such visit is necessary. Dept.\nRec, MS., v. 68; Dept. St. Pap., MS., i. 144. Aug. 10th, com. of Sta Barbara on same subject.' Dept. St. Pap, Ben. Mil, MS., Ivii. 12-13. Aug. 7th,\nHerrera announces the change respecting the internacion duty. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 86-7. Aug. 22d, gov. to sup. govt, announcing the act of the dip.; also asking for one or two gunboats and\nfor a naval station at S. Francisco. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 128-9. June 1st,\nmin. of war to E., announcing the president's permission for foreign vessels\nto touch at the way-ports already named in this note and in the text. Dept.\nRec, MS., vi. 176. Vallejo, Esposicion, 6, cites in 1837 a law of Nov. 16,1827,\nforbidding comercio de escala by foreign vessels. The tariff law of Nov. 16th,\nMexico, Arancel Gen., 1827, p. 5, allowed foreign goods to be introduced into\nCal. for three fifths the duties required elsewhere except in Yucatan; but if\nreexported, the other two fifths must be paid. Miscellaneous items on commerce for 1827: Rates of duties\u2014import, 25% on value; averia, 2\u00a3% on do.$\ninternacion, 15% on do.; tonnage, $2.50 per ton (Mexican measurement); anchorage, $10 per vessel; collectors' compensation, 3%. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nMil, MS., lxii. 5-10. Jan., national products free from export duty, except gold and silver. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 71.\nJan. 31st, gov. says Sandwich-Island traders may touch at ports; but not\nwar-vessels, until it be proved that they sail under a proper flag and dtfe\nauthority. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 19. July 20th, Capt. Guerra says the\nMexicans in Cal. will probably abandon trade to the foreigners, who speculate in everything, and with whom they cannot compete.  Doc Hist. Cal.%\n m\nHARTNELL AND COMPANY. 127\nMeanwhile there came an order from Mexico, dated\nbefore the action of the diputacion, and permitting\nforeign vessels to touch at Santa Cruz, San Luis\nObispo, Purisima, Refugio, and San Juan Capistrano.\nIn its deliberations on revenue matters, the diputacion\ngave special attention to the duties on liquors, perfecting an elaborate reglamento, which was duly published by the governor. The proceeds of the liquor\ntrade were devoted to the public schools.27 Another\nprominent commercial topic, since hides and tallow\nwere the chief articles of export, was that of livestock regulations, to which the diputacion also directed\nits wisdom. The result was a series of twenty articles, in which the branding and slaughter of cattle,\nwith other kindred points, were somewhat minutely\nregulated.28\nThe prosperity of 1826 in the business of Hartnell\n& Co. was followed by trouble and financial embarrassment in 1827-9. The exact nature of the reverses\nit is difficult to learn from the fragmentary correspondence; but I judge that John Begg & Co. failed, involving McCulloch, Hartnell & Co. to such an extent that the firm was obliged to delay its payments\nand to close the copartnership. Hartnell, however,\npaid all debts in California, and continued his business\nboth for himself, with the aid of Captain Guerra, and\nas agent for foreign houses who sent vessels to the\nMS., iv. 84. Grain raised only for home consumption, also wool; horse-hair\nsomewhat sought by the French; padres unwilling to take money; exports\namount to what 4 vessels of 300 tons can carry; 47% profit may be counted\non; the export of tallow averages 1 arroba for each hide. Duhaut-Cilly, Viag-\ngio, i. 232-3, 253; ii. 145-7, 150.\n27 Reglamento de Contribuciones sobre Licores, 1827, MS., approved at sessions\nof June 26th, 28th, 30th, July 2d, 7th. Gov.'s decree of July 12th, in Dept. St.\nPap., S. Jose\", MS., iv. 40-7. The tax was $5 per barrel of 160 quarts for\nbrandy and $2.50 for wine in Monterey and S. Francisco jurisdictions; in the\nsouth $10 and $5 respectively, payable by all buyers and by the producer who\nmight retail the liquor. This for native liquors. Foreign brandy and wine\npaid $20 and $10 per barrel. The regulations for the collection of this tax\nare somewhat complicated, and need not be given. Aug. 6th, Herrera announces that by superior orders a duty of 80% on foreign liquors and 70%\non wines is to be exacted, besides the 15% of internacion. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 87-8.\n28 Reglamento sobre Ganados, aprobadopor la Diputacion, 1827, MS.\n 128\nMARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\ncoast. The correspondence would indicate that he\nwent on loading vessels and trading with the padres\nmuch as before. David Spence also went into business for himself. In connection with the financial\ntroubles, Hartnell made a trip to Lima, sailing at the\nend of 1827, probably in the Huascar, and returning\nin that-vessel in July of the following year.29\nCaptain Cunningham of the Courier, in conjunction\nprobably with the masters of other American vessels,\nthought to improve the facilities for coast trade by\nerecting certain buildings and establishing a kind of\ntrading station on Santa Catalina Island. Cunningham wTas ordered by Echeandia to remove the buildings and promised to do so.80\nAuguste Duhaut-Cilly, commanding the French\nship Le Hdros, 362 tons, 32 men, and 12 guns, sailed\nfrom Havre in April 1826, sent out by Lafitte & Co.\non a trading voyage round the world. He was accompanied by Dr Paolo Emilio Botta, afterward famous\nas an archaeologist and writer. This young scientist's\nnotes on the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands and\n59Mrs Hartnell, Narrativa, MS., 2-3, says that the rivalry of Cooper,\nfavored by the government, and of Spence soon obliged the firm of McC, H.\n& Co. to liquidate. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 145, says that H. paid all the\ndebts of Begg & Co. in Cal. April, McCulloch advises H. to propose to Begg\n& Co. a reform in the Cal. establishment, including a small vessel on the\ncoast under Mexican flag. Salting hides won't pay, nor will soap and candles.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 125. July 1 st, P. Viader to H. Speaks of Begg's failure, which he has expected for some time. Id., 135. Fears for success of hide\nbusiness. Id., 141. Aug. 6th, Begg & Co. say the prospect is bad. Men-\ndoza (?) tallow better and cheaper than that of Cal. Id., 148. Nov. 6th, P.\nSarria speaks of H.'s voyage, and sends letters of recommendation to friends\nin Lima. Id., 167. Jan. 5, 1828, Spence at Monterey to H. at Lima. Id., 190.\nMay 1st, circular of Begg, Macala, and Hartnell to the padres of California,\nannouncing the dissolution of the firm of McC., H. & Co., and that H. will settle\nall accounts and continue the business for himself. Warm thanks are rendered\nfor past courtesies, and H. is strongly recommended by the former associates.\nId., 224. July 14th, H. arrived by the Huascar. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 80.\nJuly 16th, Cunningham speaks of a protested bill. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xix. 257.\nMcCulloch continues his letters to H. Aug. 1st, gov. regrets Begg's want of\nconfidence in Mexican commerce. Id., 265. Aug. 28th, balance sheet of $5,097\nbetween Begg & Co. and H. Id., 272. More accounts in October. Id., 282.\nOct. 18th, certificate that H. furnished $14,397 in tallow, as he agreed in Lima.\nId., 283. . The correspondence of 1829 is unimportant, but shows that H. still\nowed considerable money in Lima, and that his creditors were pressing. Id.,\npassim.\n\"Dept. Rec, MS., v. 19; Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 22.\n VISIT OF DUHAUT-CILLY. 129\nCalifornia were added to an Italian translation of the\nvoyager's narrative, made by his father, Carlo Botta,\nalso famous as a poet and historian. Lieutenant Ed-\nniond Le Netrel also wTrote a journal, a large part of\nwhich has been published.31\nOn January 27, 1827, the Heros, coming from\nMazatlan, anchored at Yerba Buena. It yet lacked\nseveral months of the proper time for obtaining hides\nand tallow, but the time could be employed in arranging bargains with the padres; and while the captain\nremained at the port his supercargo, 'il Signor R ,'\nvisited the missions of the district with samples of\ngoods to be sold. After a month's stay, marked by\nadventures with grizzly bears and an earthquake, the\ntraders sailed south March 7th, carrying three Indian\nprisoners condemned to confinement at San Diego.\nTouching at Santa Cruz, Monterey, Santa Barbara,\nand San Pedro, they reached San Diego April\n18th. Here the supercargo was left, while Duhaut-\nCilly made a trip to Mazatlan and back before June\n11th.     'II Signor R '  proceeded   northward   to\nSan Francisco by land, while the captain, having experienced an earthquake, and made a tour to San Luis\nRey, anchored at Santa Barbara on the 29th, and at\nSan Francisco on July 17th. During this visit the\nFrenchman made excursions to Santa Clara, San\nJose*, and San Francisco Solano.    In August they\n31 Duhaut-Cilly! Voyage autour du monde, principalement d la Californie et\naux Isles Sandwich pendant les annees 1826, 1827, 1828, et 1829. Par A.\nDuhaut-Cilly. Paris, 1835. 8vo. 428 p. plate. Of this original French edition I have only a fragment in my collection, and my references are therefore\nto the following: Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio intorno al Globo, principalmente alia\nCalifornia ed alle isole Sandwich, negli anni 1826, 1827, 1828, e 1829, di A.\nDuhaut-Cilly, capitano di lungo corso, cav. delta Legion d'Onore, ecc. Con\nVagglunta delle osservazioni sugli abitanti di quel paesi di Paolo Emilio Botta.\nTraduzione dalfrancese nelV italiano de Carlo Botta. Turin, 1841. 8vo. 2 vol.\nxvi. 236 p. 11.; 392 p. plates. The portion added to this translation, Botta,\nOsservazioni sugli abitanti delle isole Sandwich e delta California de Paolo\nEmilio Botta. Fatte ncl suo viaggio intorno al globo col Capitano Duhaut-\nCilly, occupies p. 339-92 of vol. ii.; that part relating to Cal. is found on p.\n367-78. These notes had originally appeared as Botta, Observations sur les\nhabitans de la Calif ornie, in Nouv. Annates des Voyages, Iii. 156-00. Le Netrel,\nVoyage autour du Monde, etc. Extrait du journal de M. Edmond Le Netrel,\nLieutenant d bord de ce vaisseau {Le He'ros), in Nouvelles Annates des Voyages,\nxiv. 129-82.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.  9\n 130\nMARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nsailed for Santa Cruz and Monterey. Here Duhaut-\nCilly found the French ship Comete, which had come\nover from the Islands, as he claims, at the instigation\nof the mysterious and treacherous Signor R\u2014-, and\nto spoil the trade of the Heros, which venture was a\nfailure, as the author is delighted to observe. In\nSeptember they were at Santa Barbara, having\nanchored on the way at El Cojo to receive tallow\nfrom Purfsima. From San Pedro, about the 22d,\nthe captain, with Botta and a guide, visited Los\nAngeles and San Gabriel, to feel another earthquake.\nOctober 20th, after having broken his collar-bone by\na fall from a California bronco, Duhaut-Cilly sailed\nagain for Callao, again leaving il Signor R to continue, his operations on board the Waverly. He came\nback to Monterey May 3, 1828, made a visit to Bodega and Ross in June, was at Santa Barbara and\nSan Pedro before the end of that month, revisited Los\nAngeles and San Gabriel, and reached San Diego on\nthe 3d of July.   Finally the Heros sailed August 27th\nfor the Islands.    The Signor R had in the mean\ntime run away to Mexico.\nFrom the preceding outline of the French trader's\nmovements, it is seen that his opportunities for observation were more extensive than those of any foreign visitor who had preceded him. No other navigator had visited so many of the Californian establishments. His narrative fills about three hundred\npages devoted to California, and is one of the most\ninteresting ever written on the subject. Duhaut-Cilly\nwas an educated man, a close observer, and a good\nwriter. Few things respecting the country or its\npeople or its institutions escaped his notice. His\nrelations with the Californians, and especially the\nfriars, were always friendly, and he has nothing but\nkind words for ail. The treachery of his supercargo\ncaused his commercial venture to be less profitable\nthan the prospects had seemed to warrant.82    I have\n83 Morineau, Notice sur la Cal\\fornie, 151-2, says that both the H6ros and\n TRADING FLEET OF 1828. 131\nhad, and shall have, occasion to cite this author frequently on local and other topics, and it is with regret\nthat I leave the book here without long quotations.33\nI find notice of thirty-six vessels on the coast in\nthe year 1828, sixteen of which were included in the\nfleet of the preceding year, and several others had\nvisited California before. Six were whalers.34 A\nfew meagre items of revenue amount to less than\n$6,000 at San Francisco and $34,000 at San Diego.\nIn January Echeandia issued an order closing the way-\nports, or embarcaderos, except San Pedro, to foreign vessels.35 This was in accordance with orders\nfrom Mexico, and was enforced so far as possible.\nIn July San Pedro was also closed by an order\nwrhich declared that all coasting trade must be done\nin Mexican bottoms, that Monterey and Loreto were\nthe only ports open to foreign trade, but that in cases\nof necessity trade might be permitted at the other\npresidial ports.36 In September San Francisco and\nSanta Barbara were closed provisionally; though ves-\nthe Corndte brought cargoes, which, besides being too large, were ill-assorted\nand did not sell well.\n\"Mention of theH4rosin Dept.Rec,MS., vi. 32;Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil,\nMS., lxiii. 2; Id., Ben. Pref y Juzg., MS., i. 2. Taylor, in Brown's L. Cal.,\n43, mentions this voyage.\n84 See list at end of this chapter. Vessels of 1828: the Andes, Arab (under a Russian name), Baikal, Becket (?), Brillante (?), Clio, Courier, Emily,\nFenix, Franklin, Fulham, Funchal, General Sucre, Griffon, Guibale (?), Harbinger, Heros, Huascar, Karimoko, KiahUta, Laperin (?), Magdalena, Maria\nEster, Minerva, Okhotsk, Pocahontas, Rascow, Solitude, Telemachus, Thomas\nNowlan, Times, Vevaletf), Vulture, Washington, Wavcrly, Wilmantic I have\nfragments of the Waverhps original log for 1828-9. The author describes, p.\n10, a celebration of St Nicholas day on the Russian vessels at Monterey Dec.\n17th; also a fandango on shore. Peirce's Rough Sketch, MS., and Memorandum, MS., describe the Griffon's voyage as remembered by the author, who\nwas on the vessel. Six vessels at S. F. in January are not named, but described by Morineau as a Russian frigate; a Russian brig of 200 tons loaded\nwith grain for Sitka; an English schooner from New Albion; an American\nbrig of 150 tons from Manila; a Hawaiian brig of 140 tons manned by kanakas; and a Mexican schooner of 100 tons from Sandwich Islands. El Brillante was at S. Diego from S. Bias, according to this author.\n\"Jan. 29, 1828, St. Pap, Sac, MS., x. 104. March 3d, Echeandia to\ncom. gen. Has been obliged to keep open the four presidial ports and S.\nPedro, Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 7.\n86July 8, 1828, gov.'s order. Dept. Rec.tM\u00a7., vi. 63, 77; Dept. St. Pap.,S,\nJos6, MS., iv. 53-4.\n 132\nMARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nsels after discharging their cargoes at Monterey or\nSan Diego might visit the other ports to take away\nproduce, except money and breeding cattle, returning\nto settle accounts.37 I find no evidence, however, that\nthis order was obeyed this year. In the correspondence on revenue the only item worth notice was the\nreduction of the internacion tax to ten per cent, presumably in response to the petition of 1827.33 The\nRussians were permitted to take otter on a small scale\nfor joint account of the company and the government. America i vessels sought hides chiefly; those\nfrom Mexico and Peru gave more attention to tallow,\nwhile the Hawaiio 1 buyers took away by preference\nskins and horses.39\nThe traders were not pleased at the restrictions\nwhich the Californian authorities could not well help\nenforcing to a certain extent; and they redoubled\ntheir efforts at smuggling. In most cases they were\nsuccessful, not much to the displeasure of any one in\nCalifornia, and without leaving any trace of their\nmovements in the records; but occasionally by their\ninsolent disregard of appearances even, they came into\nconflict with Echeandia. Two such instances in particular are recorded, that of the Franklin and that of\n87 Sept. 30, 1828, gov.'sorder in Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 103-3; Dept. St. Pap.,\nS. Jose\", MS., iv. 72-3. Nov. 2v^bh, gov. permits foreign vessels, after discharging their inward cargoes, to carry lumber from Monterey to Sta Barbara.\nDept. Rec, MS., vi. 145. Nov. 30th, E. to min. of war, asking that S. Diego\nbe opened formally and fully to foreign commerce. Id., vi. 52; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 208.\n88 March 29, 1828, com. gen. sends decree of congress reducing the duty to\n8% (on the goods for which bonds had been given?) if paid within 15 days\nafter publication of this order. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., i.\n95. But in August Echeandia says the tax is 10%. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 86.\nFeb. 1st, woollen and silk of Mexican manufacture free of duties. Dept. St.\nPap., Mont., MS., i. 20. Goods still received as duties. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nxvii. 9, ct passim. Consignees must declare tonnage of vessels on presenting\nmanifest of cargo. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.'Com. and Treas., MS., i. 93. June\n20th, revenue from maritime duties belongs to the nation; taxes on retail\ntrade to the municipality. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 58. Sept. 30th, tonnage\n$2.12\u00a3 per ton. Id., vi. 103. Averia duties from July 1828 to June 1829,\n$256. Mexico, Mem. Hacienda, 1829, doc. 29. Duties were computed by\nMartinez at S. Francisco, by taking three fifths of the value, and the tonnage\nwas reckoned at $2.12^ per ton, less two fifths, a deduction for which he was\nblamed by the governor. Vallejo* Doc, MS., i. 157, 162.\n\"Spence's Hist. Notes, MS., 13.\n THE SMUGGLERS. 133\nthe Karimoko. Captain John Bradshaw of the former\nhad been granted all possible privileges, his supercargo,\nRufus Perkins, being permitted to travel by land\nfrom mission to mission;40 but finally in July, at San\nDiego, he was ordered to deposit his cargo in the\nwarehouse as security for duties, and pending the investigation of .charges. He was accused of notorious\nsmuggling on the Lower Californian coast;41 of having\nillegally transferred the cargo of another vessel to his\nown; of having touched at Santa Catalina in defiance\nof special orders; of having refused to show his invoices or make a declaration; and of insolence to the\ngovernor. Bradshaw and Perkins, being on shore,\npromised obedience to the order; but asked permission\nto go on board to make the necessary preparations,\nand when there refused to leave the vessel, laughed\nin the face of the Californians sent to convey and\nenforce\u2014so far as possible by threats\u2014Echeandia's\norder, and on July 11th changed anchorage to a point\nnear the entrance of the harbor. The governor circulated a warning to the padres and others to deliver no\ngoods to the Franklin should she escape,42 as seemed\nlikely to happen, though Bradshaw still promised submission to legal proceedings. Meanwhile Echeandia\nprepared to put a guard on the vessel, and applied to\nDuhaut-Cilly for a boat. The French captain could\nnot refuse, but warned Bradshaw and interposed delays. On the morning of the 16th the Franklin cut\nher cable and ran out of the port, the officers aiid\ncrew shouting their derision of the Mexican flag as\nthey passed the fort. Forty cannon-balls were sent\nafter the flying craft, with no apparent effect;  but\n40May 7, 1828. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 200.\n41A warning had come from Loreto in May. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 203. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 194-200, who was at S. Diego at this time, denounces\none Wm Simpson, a man whom Bradshaw had befriended, for having treacherously exposed the Yankee captain's crimes. Ho says there was some trouble\nabout a deposit of cargo to secure duties, but that it would have been amicably arranged but for Simpson's act.\n42 July 12, 1828, gov. to comandantes, alcaldes, and padres. The Franklin is to be detained, if possible, should she dare to enter, any port. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., ii. 59-60.\n 134\nMARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nDuhaut-Cilly met her a little later at the Islands, and\nlearned that two balls had entered the hull, two had\ndamaged the rigging, and that Bradshaw had been\nwounded.43\nThe affair of the Hawaiian brig Karimoko occurred\nalso at San Diego late in the autumn. John Law-\nlor, or Lawless, as it is often written, was master,\nof the vessel. He it was who, after having employed\nDomingo Carrillo to teach him Spanish, presented\nhimself to Echeandia to ask for a passport in the\nfollowing terms: \" Buenos dias, Senor General; mi\nquiero to voy to the missions y comprar cueros y\ngrease con goods; please mi dar permission. Si quieres,\nquieres; y si no, dejalo.    Adios, Senor General.\"44\n43 June 14th, 18th, July 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 23d, gov.'s communications on the subject. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 28, 32,56, 01, 63-8, 72-3. Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 194-200. Further records dated in December respecting\nthe credits, etc., left behind by Bradshaw. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 53,150-1, 102.\nIn 1841 a claim for damages was pending before the mixed commission in Washington. Vallejo, Doc, MS., x. 131. On this affair of the Franklin, as in several\nother matters, the testimony of James O. Pa btie; who was at S. Diego at the time,\nhas to be noticed separately, since his statements are of such a peculiar character that they can neither be omitted nor used with other evidence in building up my narrative. (See next chapter for notice of Pattie's book.) Bradshaw\nand Perkins were at S. Diego in March and April, and tried to aid Pattie,\npartly as a countryman, and partly in the hope to get some furs which the\ntrappers had left on the Colorado. Bradshaw employed Pattie as a translator,\nsecuring his occasional release for that purpose. In April or May he made a\ntrip in his vessel to Monterey. June 27th, his vessel was seized for smuggling. In the following examination of officers and crew Pattie served as interpreter ('Dice el Americano James Ohio Pettis, que sirvi6 de interprete\n..a dicho capitan, dice que supo tenia este el prop6sito de largarse furtivamente\ny de hacer fuego sobre,la guarnicion si impedia su salida.' Dept. Rec, MS.,\nvi. 73), and was requested by Capt. Bi 'to make the testimonies of his crew\nas nearly correspond and substantiate each other as possible; for some of them\nwere angry with him, and would strive to give testimony calculated to condemn him. I assured him I would do anything to serve him that I could in\nhonor'! The taking of depositions was completed July 28th (Bradshaw had\nreally sailed on July 16th). Capt. B. told Pattie of his intention to run out\nif the vessel were condemned, and offered him a passage on the Franklin. In\nSeptember Bradshaw was ordered to land his cargo, but refused. Pattie was\nagain employed as interpreter; and warned the captain and supercargo on\nSept. 11th of a plan he had overheard to arrest them, thus enabling them to\nescape on board. A few days later he slipped anchor and ran out of the port\nunder a heavy shower of cannon-balls from the fort. 'When he came opposite it he hove to and gave them a broadside in return, which frightened the\npoor engineers away from their guns. His escape was made without suffering\nany serious injury. Their (three ?) shots entered the hull of the vessel, and the\nsails were considerably cut up by the grape.' Panic's Narr., 179, 185, 189-\n201.\n44 Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 60-1. It is said to have been Lawlor's\npractice to hide about seven eighths of his cargo at some out-of-the-way spot on\n LAWLOR'S ADVENTURES.\n135\nOn this occasion he had anchored at San Pedro and\ndeparted without paying $1,000 of duties. He had,\nin spite of repeated warnings, touched at Santa Cata-\nlina Island, and had even deposited goods there,\nbesides breeding animals, the exportation of which was\ncontra bando. The sails of the Karimoko were seized,\nand then Lawlor was ordered to go with part of his\ncrew to bring over the island goods and live-stock,\nwhich wTere to secure the payment of the duties in\narrears. He made all manner of excuses and pleas,\nincluding the suggestion that he could not make the\ntrip without sails, and that his men on the island\nwould starve if not relieved soon. The Maria Ester\nwas employed to carry Santiago Arguello as investigating officer to Santa Catalina, and perhaps to bring\nover the effects; at any rate, Lawlor got a document\nin December certifying that all his duties had been\npaid; but in January of the next year he was again\nwarned to quit the island of Santa Catalina within\ntwenty-four hours.45\nThere were twenty-three vessels on the Californian\ncoast in 1829, besides four doubtful English craft in\nSpence's list, eleven belonging to the fleet of 1828,\nonly six appearing for the first time in these waters,\nand one being built in California.46  Records of revenue\nthe coast or islands, and come to port with one eighth to get permission to\n45 Oct. 28, Nov. 5, 1828, gov. to Arguello. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 121-2, 124.\nNov. 6th. Id. to Virmond, to charter the Maria Ester. Id., 129. Dec. 1st,\nId. to Lawlor. Id., 147. Dec. 13th (3d?), Id. to Id., ordering him to pay\nduties and break up the island establishment. Id., xix. 157. Dec. 5th, Id.\nto Id., arguing the case, with substance of Lawlor's communication. It seems\nthat Lawlor pretended not to have been captain at the time of the S. Pedro\ntransaction. Id., vi. 149. Dec. 9th, receipt in full for duties. Id., 154. Jan.\n8th, 1829, gov. warns Lawlor to quit the coast. Id., vii. 54.\n40See list at end of this chapter. The vessels of 1829 were the Alvins (?),\nAmerican (?), Andes, Ann (?), Baikal, Brookline, Dhaulle, Franklin, Funchal,\nIndian (?), James Coleman (?), Jdven Angustias, Kiahkta, Maria Ester, Okhotsk, Planet, Rosalia, Sta Barbara, Susuna (?), Ttmaahmaah, Thomas Nowlan, Trident, Volunteer, Vulture, Warren, Washington, Waverly, Wilmington;\nalso a Hawaiian schooner not named, Win Aralon' master, at S. Pedro in\nSeptember. According to the Honolulu Frie.ul, ii. 49-50, 4 vessels had arrived from Cal. in 1827, 5 hi 1828, but none in 1829; 2 in 1830.\n 136 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nreceipts are still more meagre than for preceding\nyears.47 There was little or no change in commercial\nregulations; but the governor showed a disposition to\nenforce the orders of 1828 making Monterey and\u2014\nprovisionally\u2014San Diego the only ports free to foreign vessels; and allowing such vessels to trade at the\nother ports only by special license and under strict\nprecautions; that is, in a few instances a trader might\ncarry goods duly examined and listed at Monterey or\nSan Diego to other ports for sale by paying the expense of a guard to remain on board and watch each\ntransaction.48 Something very like a custom-house\nwas therefore maintained at Monterey and San Diego,\neach under a comisario subalterno, Osio and later\nJimeno Casarin at the capital, and Juan Bandini in\nthe -south.49 A treaty between Mexico and England,\nby which English and Mexican vessels were put upon\nterms of equality in respect of duties, was forwarded\nfrom San Bias in July; but I find no evidence that\nthe document had any effect in California.50\n47 Custom-house records seem to make the total receipts at S. Diego\n$117,267 for the year. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., i. passim. Total\nrevenue at S. Francisco to May 31st, $1,177; at San Diego, $2,000. In December for S. F., $1,264; for S. Diego in August, $826. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nMil., lxix. 27-9. Gale states in a letter to Cooper, of May 10th, that the\nduties on the Brookline's cargo were $31,000, of which $26,000 have been paid.\nVallejo, Doc, xxix. 354.\n48Gov.'s instructions of various dates. Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 14, 81, 100-1,\n116; Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 94-5. July 29th, min. of hacienda on the details\nof clearing national vessels for the coasting trade. Vallejo, Doc. Hist. Cal.,\nMS., i. 180.\n49St. Pap., Sac, MS., xix. 46-7. Rather strangely, Gen. Vallejo, not only\nin his Hist. Cal., but as early as 1837, Exposicion, MS., 5-6; Doc. Hist. Cal.,\nMS., iv. 299, represents the regular custom-house as having been established\nat S. Diego, and not at Monterey; but there is abundant evidence to the contrary in contemporary documents. April 4, 1829, sup. govt allows state\nauthorities to appoint customs visitadores at $4.50 per day on federal account.\nArrillaga, Recop., 1829, 56-7. July 29th, Mex. custom-house regulations.\nId., 1833, 562-6. Sept. 29th, regulations on ships' manifests, etc. Id., 1829,\n245-9. Sept. 30th, decree ordering the establishment of a maritime customhouse in Alta California, under a visitador, subject to the com. gen. de Occidente. The president has appointed Rafael Gonzalez administrator; Jimeno\nCasarin as contador; Francisco Pacheco, comandante of the guard; and Mau-\nricio Gonzalez, guarda, at salaries of $1,000, $800, and $450. Id., J829, 249-\n51; Doblan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., ii. 175-6;Mexico, Mem. Hoc, 1831, annex\n9, p. 48.\n60 July 17, 1829, Jose* Maria Lista, S. Bias, to captain of the port of Monterey. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 94.\n GALE AND ROBINSON. 137\nMost notable among the vessels of the year was\nthe Brookline, the successor of the Sachem, brought\nout by Wm A. Gale for Bryant, Sturgis, & Co., of\nBoston, and bringing probably the largest and best-\nassorted cargo of miscellaneous' goods that had ever\nbeen offered to the Californians. Sailing from Boston\nin July 1828, she arrived at Monterey in February\n1829. Alfred Robinson, who published a narrative of\nhis voyage and life in California, in 1885 a resident of\nSan Francisco, and probably the oldest American pioneer of California at this date living, came in the Brook-\nline as supercargo's clerk. Gale was disappointed at the\nrestrictions that had been imposed on foreign commerce since he left the coast, and which bade fair to\ninterfere with the success of his trip; but his wares,\nand his prospective duties of $30,000, were a tempting\nbait; and without much difficulty he concluded an\narrangement with Echeandia, by which he acquired\npractically all the privileges of old, was allowed to\nvisit all the ports, and to pay his duties in goods.61\nJose* Estudillo was put on board with two or three\nsoldiers, at Gale's expense, to watch proceedings, and\nprevent irregularities at Santa Barbara, San Pedro,\nand San Francisco. It would perhaps be uncharitable to suggest, in the absence of proof, that these\nemployees may have served Gale more faithfully than\nthey did the revenue officers.52 Gale was not satisfied wTith the manner in which he was treated, forming an unfavorable opinion of Echeandia's abilities and\nhonesty, and suspecting favoritism toward his business\n61 Robinson's Statement, MS., 2-6, in which the writer gives many interesting items about the methods of trade in those days. Robinson's Life in California, 7-14, where the author speaks of the affair of the Franklin as-having\ncomplicated matters by exasperating the authorities. Mention of arrival and\nmovements of the Brookline, permission to trade, etc., in Dept. Rec, MS., vii.\n100, 116, 158, 191; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 176; xxix. 316; Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nPref. y Juzg., MS., i. 22;  Waverly, Voy., MS.\n52 April 28, 1829, Echeandia's instructions to Estudillo and the guard. All\ntrading was to be done on board. Estudillo, Doc, MS., i. 240; Dept. Rec,\nvii. 138-9. July 13th, E. to com. of Monterey, on the privileges granted to\nGale and the precautions taken. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 95-6. Sept. 12th,\nGale allowed to cut wood. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 412. Mar. 28th, Gale\nannounces the plan to Cooper. Id., 336.\n 138 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nrival, Hartnell; yet he seems to have done this year\nand the next a larger business than any other trader.53\nAn interesting circumstance connected wTith the\nBrookline s visit was the raising of an American flag\nat San Diego, noticed in the newspapers on the authority of Captain James P. Art her.u He had visited\nCalifornia before in the Harbinger, was mate of the\nBrookline, and, like George W. Greene, one of his\ncompanions, was still living in Massachusetts in 1872.\n\"Arthur and his little party were sent ashore at San\nDiego to cure hides. They had a barn-like structure\nof wood, provided by the ship's carpenter, which answered the purposes of storehouse, curing-shop, and\nresidence. The life was lonesome enough. Upon\nthe wide expanse of the Pacific they occasionally discerned a distant ship. Sometimes a vessel sailed\nnear the lower offing. It was thus that the idea of\npreparing and raising a flag, for the purpose of attracting attention, occurred to them. The flag was\nmanufactured from some shirts, and Captain Arthur\nwrites, with the just accuracy of a historian, that Mr\nGreene's calico shirt furnished the blue, while he furnished the red and white.    'It was completed and\n63Gale's letters, chiefly to Cooper, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 325, 331,\n336, 353, 354, 383, 400, 412, 434, 444. Feb. 22d, will begin to kill bullocks\nto-morrow. Wishes Cooper to see Holmes and learn the particulars of the\nFranklin affair. March 15th,\" comisario entrapped him into paying $800 tonnage. The governor's license to trade is 'opening the door just enough to\ncatch my fingers and jamb them.' March 28th, wishes his intention to\nremain trading on the coast to be made public. May 8th, speaks of Hartnell's\nprotested bills. May 10th, is doing a good business. The whalers by smuggling injure legitimate trade. S. Diego is the * centre of hell for strangers;*\nsuspects underhand work in his duties. Will bring no more American cottons\nto Cal. Is not allowed to touch at Sta Catalina, and is drinking Monterey\nwater. Complains of Echeandia. July 19th, hopes Cooper will not lose his\nhead in the revolution. Sept. 12th, trade dull. Oct. 6th, will despatch the\nBrookline sooner than he anticipated. Will pay $25 for targe otter skins.\nOct. 31st, can undersell Hartnell, even if he can pay duties in his own way.\nThe Franklin business will do harm. Speaks of H. 's protested bills. Does\nnot believe H. honorable enough to pay, or that justice can be got under the\npresent imbecile government. His suspicions of underhand work in appraisement are confirmed. Has raised the anchor left by the Franklin, but had to\ngive it up to prevent trouble.   Hopes a new gov. will come soon.\n64 Capt. Arther in a note dated South Braintree, Mass., Sept. 24, 1872, in\nwhich he regrets his inability to write his recollections of the affair, encloses\na clipping from the Boston Advertiser\u2022 of Jan. 8th. See also mention in S. F,\nCall, July 8, 1877.\n LANG THE SMUGGLER. 139\nraised on a Sunday, on the occasion of the arrival of\nthe schooner Washington, Captain Thompson, of the\nSandwich Islands, but sailing under the American\nflag.' So writes honest Captain Arthur. He further\nstates that the same flag was afterwards frequently\nraised at Santa Barbara, whenever in fact there was\na vessel coming into port. These men raised our\nnational ensign, not in bravado, nor for war and conquest, but as honest men, to show that they were\nAmerican citizens and wanted company. And while\nthe act cannot be regarded as in the light of a claim\nto sovereignty, it is still interesting as a fact, and as\nan unconscious indication of manifest destiny.\"65\nCharles Lang, an American, with two sailors and\ntwo kanakas, was found in a boat near Todos Santos\nand arrested. He said he had come from the Sandwich Islands in the Alabama, with the intention of\nsettling somewhere in California. The captives were\nbrought to San Diego; and as Lang's effects, including a barrel-organ and two trunks of dry goods,\nseemed better adapted to smuggling than to colonization, they were confiscated,68 and sold in June. The\ncase went to Mexico, and afterward to the district\njudge at Guaymas, with results that are not apparent.\nAmong the vessels named as making up the fleet\nof 1829, there was one built at Santa Barbara, and\nnamed the Santa Barbara.    This was a schooner of\n65 Boston Advertiser. It is well enough to regard this as the first raising\nof the stars and stripes, in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary;\nthough such an event is by no means unlikely to have occurred before.\n56 Feb. 1829, investigation by Lieut. Ibarra at Echeandia's order. Dept.\nSt. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxix. 10-13, 25; liii. 90. The min. of war sent\nthe case back on June 13th to be referred to the Guaymas judge. June 1st,\nBandini ordered to sell the goods. Gov. says: j After deducting the duties\nand 10 % due me as judge, you will allow me one half as descubridor and\npromovedor, and one half of the rest as aprdiensor; the remainder you will\ntake for having assisted at the taking'! Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 169. Lang\nseems to have gone to Mazatlan on the Washington. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix.\n332. Lang was at S. Diego secretly on Dec. 24, 1828, where he met Pattie\nthe trapper, and told him of his smuggling and otter-hunting purposes. He\nsaid he had a boat down the coast, and his brig had gone to the Galipagos\nfor tortoise-shell. Pattie concluded to join Lang, but on going down to\nTodos Santos a few days later, found-that he had been arrested. Pattie^ Narr.,\n208-10.\n 140\nMARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nthirty-three tons, built for C&rlos Carrillo and William G. Dana for the coasting trade and for otter-\ncatching. After certain delays and formalities, Echeandia granted the desired license for trade in August.\nJose Carrillo was to be the captain, and the crew\nsix men, more than half of whom must be Mexicans.\nLittle is known respecting the career of this early\u2014\nprobably earliest\u2014-product of Californian ship-yards.67\nHere I may introduce the romantic episode of Henry\nFitch's marriage to a 'daughter of California,' a lady\nstill living in 1880. The young American sailor had\nfirst arrived in 1826, and had soon surrendered to\nthe charms of Dona Josefa, daughter of Joaquin\nCarrillo of San Diego, who in turn was won, as she\nstates in a narrative written fifty years later,5S by the\nhandsome person and dashing manners of the captaiu.\nIn 1827 he gave her a written promise of marriage.\nThere were legal impediments on account of the fact\nthat Fitch was a foreigner; but the young lady's parents approved the match, and a Dominican friar consented to perform the ceremony. It was hoped there\nwould be no interference by either civil or ecclesiastical authorities, yet a degree of secrecy was observed.\n57 May 8, 1829, Echeandia orders the construction stopped until a proper\npermit is obtained. Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 166. May 29th, gives the permit.\nRegister must be obtained through the com. of Sta Barbara. Id., vii. 166.\nAug. 12th, grants license for trading for one year. Id., vii. 215-16. May\n13th, E. had written to Mex. on the subject. Id., vii. 10. Michael White,\nCalifornia, MS., p. 14\u201415, says that he built the schooner, with the aid of\nhis cousin Henry Paine, for Capt. Guerra in 1830, out of materials saved from\nthe wreck of the Danube; and that Thomas Robbins commanded her. After\nfinishing this vessel, they built another of 99 tons for S. Gabriel, named the\nGuadalupe. A note in Robbins1 Diary, MS., mentions the building of the\nSanta Barbara in 1830, for Carrillo and Dana at La Goleta, or Hill's Rancho.\nThe Danube appears not to have been wrecked until the spring of 1830, but\nthis is not quite certain. In Carrillo (J.), Doc, MS., 25, 27, 32, it is stated\nthat ' Jose\" el Americano' (Chapman) was at work on a schooner for P.\nSanchez of S. Gabriel in Sept. 1830; and that Guerra resolved to build\nanother from the wreck of the Danube, but gave up the idea at the end of\nthe year.\n58Fitch, Narracion de laSra viuda del CapitanEnriqueD. Fitch, MS., dictated in 1875 by the lady at Healdsburg for my use. Some original papers\nrelating to the marriage are annexed, including an authenticated copy of the\nmarriage certificate.\n THE FITCH ROMANCE. 141\nAs an essential preliminary, Padre Menendez baptized\nthe American, April 14, 1829, at the presidial chapel\nof San Diego.59 The friar promised to marry the\ncouple the next day; preparations were made, and a\nfew friends assembled late in the evening at the house\nof the Carrillos.63 At the last moment, however,\nDomingo Carrillo, uncle of the bride, refused to serve\nas witness; the friar's courage failed him, and the\nceremony could not proceed.61 Neither the arguments and angry ravings of the Yankee novio nor the\ntears and entreaties of the noma could overcome the\npadre's fears and scruples; but he reminded Fitch that\nthere were other countries where the laws were less\nstringent, and even offered to go in person and marry\nhim anywhere beyond the limits of California. \" Why\ndon't you carry me off, Don Enrique?\" naively suggested Dona Josefa. Captain Barry approved the\nscheme, and so did Pio Pico, cousin of the lady.\nThe parents were not consulted. Fitch, though somewhat cautious on account of his business relations and\nprospects on the coast, was not a man to require urging. Next night Pio Pico, mounted on his best steed,\ntook his cousin Josefa up on the saddle and carried\nher swiftly to a spot on the bay-shore where a boat\nwas waiting; the lovers were soon re-united on board\nthe   Vulture;\u00ae' and before morning were far out on\n59Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 345. Enrique Domingo Fitch, Domingo being\nsubstituted for Delano at baptism, was a son of Beriah and Sarah Fitch of\nNew Bedford.    Alf. Domingo Carrillo was godfather.\n60 Besides the immediate family, there were present Domingo Carrillo,\nCapt. Richard Barry, Pio Pico, and Mdximo Beristain. Fitch, Causa Criminal, MS., 345.\n61 This is the version given by Fitch and his wife in their testimony of the\nnext year. There is another version authorized by the lady herself, Fitch,\nNarmcion, MS., 4, and given by Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 117-22; Vallejo\n(J. J.)^Reminiscencias, MS., 103-7; and Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 21-4, to the\neffect that when all was ready and the padre had begun the service, Alf.\nDomingo Carrillo, aid to the governor, appeared and forbade the marriage in\nEcheandia's name. It is also more than hinted that Echeandia's motive was\njealousy, since the fair Josefa had not shown due appreciation of his own\nattentions.\n02 Both the Vulture and the Maria Ester, the latter under command of\nFitch, were on the coast at the time and apparently at S. Diego, for it was\nthe piloto of the Maria Ester who took the lady in hi3 boat. Why Fitch did\nnot sail in his own vessel does not appear; but Mrs Fitch says they went in\n 142 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nthe Pacific. They were married on the evening of\nJuly 3d at Valparaiso, by the curate Orrego, Capt.\nBarry being one of the witnesses. Subsequently\nthey returned to Callao and Lima.\nThe elopement of Sefiorita Carrillo was naturally\nmuch talked of in California; rumors were current\nthat she had been forcibly abducted from her home,\nand the ecclesiastical authorities were greatly scandalized. Next year, however, Fitch made his appearance in command of the Leonor, having on board also\nhis wife and infant son. He touched at San Diego in\nJuly 1830, and thence came up to San Pedro. Here\nhe received a summons from Padre Sanchez at San\nGabriel, vicar and ecclesiastical judge of the territory,\nto present himself for trial on most serious charges; but\nhe merely sent his marriage certificate by Virmond for\nthe vicar's inspection, and sailed up the coast for Santa\nBarbara and Monterey. Sanchez at once sent an order\nto Monterey that Fitch be arrested arid sent to San\nGabriel for trial, Dona Josefa being 'deposited' in some\nrespectable house at the capital. This order was executed by Echeandia at the end of August on the arrival of the Leonor.\u00ae* The lady was sent to Captain\nCooper's house, and the husband was placed under\narrest. He claimed, however, to be unable to travel\nby land. He protested against imprisonment as ruinous to his business, complained that the trial had\nnot been begun at San Diego, and asked that at least\nhe might be allowed to travel by sea. Jose Palo-\nmares, to whom as fiscal Padre Sanchez submitted this\nrequest, gave a radical report against Fitch September 17th, declaring him entitled to no concessions, his\noffences being most heinous, and his intention being\nevidently to run away again. Yet Sanchez concluded\nto  permit the  trip  by sea, on Virmond becoming\nthe Vulture, and the part taken by Capt. Richard Barry in the matter confirms her statement.\n03 Aug. 29, 1830, E.'s order to Alf. Nieto to arrest Fitch. Dept. Rec, MS.,\nviii. 98.\n A RUNAWAY MATCH. 143\nbondsman for the culprit's presentment in due time;\nand on December 8th Fitch arrived at San Gabriel,\nand was made a prisoner in one of the mission rooms.\nMeanwhile Mrs Fitch petitioned Echeandia at the\nend of October for release, and permission to go south\nby sea. The governor consented, and Dona Josefa\nsailed on the Ayacucho for Santa Barbara, whence\nshe proceeded on the Pocahontas to San Pedro, arriving at San Gabriel on November 24th, where she\nwas committed to the care of Eulalia Perez of later\ncentenarian fame. , When her husband came, the- house\nof Dona Eulalia was deemed too near his prison, and\nJosefa was transferred to the care of Mrs William A.\nRichardson. The fiscal pronounced Echeandia's act a\ngross infringement on ecclesiastical authority, declared\nhim a culprit before God's tribunal, and urged that\nhe be arrested and brought to trial. But Vicar\nSanchez, though taking a similar view of Echeandia's\nconduct, thought it best, in view of the critical condition of affairs and the nearness of the time when\nVictoria was to take command, not to attempt the\ngovernor's arrest.\nIn December, Fitch and his wife were repeatedly\ninterrogated before the ecclesiastical court, and Fiscal\nPalomares for a third time ventilated his legal learning.\nHe now admitted his belief that the motives of the\naccused had been honest and pure, also that the affair\nmight be settled without referring it to the bishop,\nbut still maintaining the nullity of the marriage.64\nFitch presented in his own behalf an elaborate argument against the views of the fiscal, complaining of\nhis business losses, and of the threatened illegitimacy\nof his son, but for which he would be glad to have the\nmarriage  declared  null  and  to  marry  over  again.\n64 The objections to the marriage certificate\u2014of which I have the authenticated copy made at this trial\u2014were that it was slightly torn and blotted;\nthat it included no statement of the city or church where the ceremony was\nEerformed; that the paper was neither legalized before 3 escribanos, nor viseM\ny the Chilian minister of foreign affairs. Moreover, P. Orrego. not being the\ncurate of the parties, could not marry them without a dispensation from the\nbishop. PjBjP\n 144 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nMany witnesses*were examined, both at San Gabriel\nand San Diego. On the 28th of December the vicar\nrendered his decision, Christi nomine invocato, that the\nfiscal had not substantiated his accusations; that the\nmarriage at Valparaiso, though not legitimate, was\nnot null, but valid; that the parties be set at liberty,\nthe wife being given up to the husband; and that they\nbe velados the next Sunday, receiving the sacraments\nthat ought to have preceded the marriage ceremony. \"Yet, considering the great scandal which\nDon Enrique has caused in this province, I condemn\nhim to give as a penance and reparation a bell of at\nleast fifty pounds in weight for the church at Los\nAngeles, which barely has a borrowed one.\" Moreover, the couple must present themselves in church\nwith lighted candles in their hands to hear high mass\nfor three dias festivos, and recite together for thirty\ndays one third of the rosary of \"the holy virgin. Let\nus hope that these acts of penance were devoutly performed. The vicar did not fail to order an investigation of the charges against Padre Menendez, who had\nacted irregularly in advising the parties to leave the\ncountry; but nothing is recorded of the result.65\nOnly seventeen vessels are named in the records of\n1830, besides four that rest on doubtful authority; so\nthat commercial industry would seem to show diminished prosperity; yet the records of this final year of the\ndecade are less complete than before.68 A Mexican\nreport makes the revenue receipts at San Diego for\n65 Fitch, Causa Criminal seguida, en el Juzgado Eclesidstico y Vicaria Ford-\nnea de la Alta California, contra Don Enrique Domingo Fitch, Anglo-Americano, por el matrimonio nulo contraido con Doiia Josefa Carrillo, natural de\nSan Diego. Ano de 1830, MS. This most interesting collection of over 30\ndocuments, of which I have given a brief resume\\ is the original authority on\nthe whole matter. Jan. 9, 1831, Fitch writes from San Gabriel to Capt.\nCooper, denying the rumors carrent at Sta Barbara that he was doing penance;\nsays P. Sanchez treated him very well, and seemed anxious to let him off as\neasy as possible. He has had trouble with the parents of Dofia Josefa, who\nabused her, and he will not leave his wife with them. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nxxx. 171.\n* See list at end of this chapter. The vessels of 1830 were the Ayacucho,\nBrookline, Catalina (?), Chalcedony (?), Convoy, Cyrus, Danube, Dryad, Emily,\n TRADE IN 1830. 145\nthe year $22,432, while the custom-house records\nseem to make the amount $36,875.67 No vessel of the\nyear seems to require special notice, neither were\nthere any important modifications in trade or revenue\nregulations. Commercial and maritime annals of 1830\nare thus wellnigh a blank.63 I appeud an alphabetical list of all the vessels, about 100 in number, besides doubtful records, touching on the coast in 1825-\n30, with such items about each as are accessible\nand apparently worth preserving. I might add the\ndates at which all the vessels, or most of them,\ntouched at the different ports on their successive\ntrips; but the information would be of great bulk\nand little real value.69\nFunchal, Globe, Jura, Leonor, Maria Ester, Planet, Pocahontas, Seringapa-\ntan (?), Thomas Nowlan, Volunteer, Washington (?), Whaleman.\n67 Unsueta, In forme, 1829, doc. 9. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., i.\npassim.\n08 A few miscellaneous notes of minor importance are as follows: Feb. 19,\ni830, one sixth of duties deducted in case of national vessels from foreign\nports. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 22. April 23d, agreement between J. C. Jones,\nJr., and Cooper, by which the former is to furnish a vessel under Mexican\nflag, for coasting trade, collecting furs, otter-hunting, etc., to be carrried on\nby the two in partnership. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. xxx. 45. Nov. 24th, gov.\nsays the vice-president complains that many vessels becoming nationalized do\nnot comply with the laws requiring officers and one third of the crew to be\nMexicans\u2014a necessary formality to reduce the duties. Dept. Rec, MS., viii.\n125. Aug. 17th, action of the dip. regulating the duties on timber exported\u2014\nthe proceeds belonging to the propios y arbitrios fund. Leg. Rec, MS., i. 166-7.\nMar. 31st, Mex. law on seizure of contraband goods. Arrillaga, Recop., 1831,\n227-33. Aug. 24, law on consumption duty on foreign goods. Id., 1831, p. 233-\n6. Mexicans engaged in taking otter have no duties to pay to national treasury. Two citizens of Sta Barbara were engaged in the business at the islands.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxviii. 4. June 30th, J. B. Lopez allowed\nto take otter, paying from $1 to $3 per skin to the territorial treasury. Dept.\nRec, viii. 52, 130. In June Mancisidor writes to Guerra very discouragingly\nrespecting the prospects of the trade in Cal. hides and tallow. This state\nof things was largely due to the inferior quality of the Cal. products, resulting\nfrom the carelessness of excessive speculation. All dealers suffer, and some\nwill be ruined. Cal. hides bring less than those of Buenos Aires, being too\ndry and too much stretched. Guerra, Doc, Hist. Cal, MS., vi. 140-1.\nC9List of vessels in Californian ports, 1825-30:\nAdam, Amer. ship, 296 tons; Daniel Fallon, master; at S. Francisco in\nOct. 1826.\nAlliance, Amer. ship; doubtfully recorded as having arrived at Monterey\nin Oct. 1826.\nAlvins, doubtful whaler of 1829.\nAmerica, doubtful whaler of 1829.\nAndes, Amer. brig, 122 or 172 tons; Seth Rogers, master; on coast from\nspring of 1828 (perhaps autumn of 1827) to spring of 1829; paid $430 at\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   10\n 146 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nMont., and was in some trouble about duties at S. Diego, where she loaded\nsalt meat.\nAnn, Engl, ship; Burnie, master; inSpence's list for 1829.\nApollo, whaler; at Sta Cruz, 1825.\nAquiles, Span, man-of-war; Pedro Angulo, com.; at Sta B. in May 1825.\n(See text.)\nArab, Amer. brig. My fragment of her original log ends Jan. 5, 1825, at\nPt Pinos. ,She re-appeared under a Russian name in 1828, having been sOld\nto the Russ. Co.\nArgosy, Russ. brig, 140 tons; Inestrumo, master; at Monterey and Bodega\nin 1826, from Sitka.\nAsia, Span, ship of war, 70 guns, 400 men; Jose* Martinez, com.; surren-'\ndered at Mont., 1825; also called San Gerdnimo:    (See text.)\nAyacucho, Engl, brig, 232 tons; Joseph Snook, master; arr. Mont, from\nHonolulu in Oct. 1830.    (See later lists.)\nBaikal, Russ. brig, 202 tons; up and down the coast from Ross to S.\nDiego each year from 1826 to 1830; Beuseman master, and Khlebnikof supercargo, in 1826; paid $1,216 at S. Diego; Etholin, master in 1828; brought\nvaccine matter in 1829.\nBecket, Hamburg brig; doubtfully recorded as having trouble about smuggling at S. Diego in 1828.\nBengal, Engl, ship; in Spence's list for 1825.\nBlossom, Engl, explor. ship; Beechey, com.; at S. Fran, and Mont, in\nautumn of 1826 and 1827.    (See text.)\nBrillante, perhaps at S. Diego from S. Bias in Jan. 1828.\nBrookline, Amer. ship, 376 or 417 tons, from Boston; Jas O. Locke,\nmaster; Wm A. Gale, sup.; Alf. Robinson, clerk; Arther, mate; Bryant &\nSturgis, owners; arr. Mont. Feb. 1829; paid $31,000 at S. Diego; wintered\non the coast until 1830.    (See text.)\nCadboro, Engl, schr, 71 tons; Simpson, master; at S. Fran, from Columbia Riv. Dec. 1827.\nCatalina, Mex. brig; C. Cristen, master; Eulogio Celis, sup.; doubtful\nrecord in Hayes' list, 1830.\nChalcedony, bark; Jos Steel, master;  doubtful record of 1830.\nCharles, Amer. whaler, 301 tons, 21 men; S. Fran. 1826.\nClio, Amer^ brig, 179 tons; Aaron W. Williams, master; came in 1828\nto load with tallow for Chili.\nComete, French ship, 500 tons, 43 men; Antoine Placiat, master; came in\n1827 as a rival to the He'ros; tonnage at Mazatlan; duties, $1,048 at Sta B.\nConstante, Span, man-of-war; surrendered with the Asia at Mont, in 1825.\nConvoy, brig; at S. Fran, in Oct. 1830, paying $321.\nCourier, Amer. ship, 200 or 293 tons; Wm Cunningham, master; Thos\nShaw, sup.; Geo. W. Vincent on board; on the coast from 1826 (possibly\n1825) to 1828, paying $937. $1,586, and $186 in duties on different occasions..\nCyrus, Amer. whaler, 320 tons, 22 men; Dav. Harriens, master; at S. F.\nin 1826; also at Sta B. Dec. 1830, with 1,500 bbls oil, to be coopered at S.\nDiego.\nDanube, Amer. ship from N. Y.; Sam. Cook, master; arr. early in\n1830, and was soon wrecked at S. Pedro; hull sold for $1,761 and cargo for\n$3,316 in Feb. to Dana and Guerra.\nDhaulle (or Dolly?), Amer. brig; Wm Warden, master; at Mont. July\n1829, from Honolulu; carried 47 horses to the Islands.\nDon, whaler; at Sta B. 1825.\nDryad, Engl, brig, from Columbia River; arr. Mont. Dec. 22, 1830.\nEagle, Amer. schr; at Sta B. Jan. 1825 (re-named Sta Apolonia, q. v.)\nElena, Russ. brig; Moraviof, master; 16 guns, 49 men, 10 Officers; Karl\nvon Schmidt and Nicolai Molvisto, passengers; wintered at S. Fran. 1825-6.\nEliza, Engl, brig; J. Morphew (or Murphy), master; 1825-6; $9,500 of\ncloth to McC, H. & Co.; paid $1,112 duties at Sta B'.\nEmily Marsham; at Sta B. Sept. 1828, from Sandw. Isl.; took prisoners\nfrom Sta B. in Feb. 1830; perhaps had returned in autumn of 1829.\n MARINE LIST 1825-30. 147\nFactor, Amer. whaler; John Alexy, master; at S. Fran. 1825.\nFavorite, Engl, whaler, 377 tons, 35 men; John Fort (Ford?), master; at\nSta B., from London, Oct. 1827.\nFeuix, whaler, 303 tons; Wm Ratiguende (?), master, 1828.\nFranklin, Amer. whaler, 294 tons;  Wm Coffin, master; at S. Fran. 1826.\nFranklin, Amer. ship, 333 tons; John Bradshaw, master; Rufus Perkins,\nand later J. A. C. Holmes, sup.; on the coast from 1827 to 1829. (See text\nfor her troubles at S. Diego in 1828.)\nFulham, Engl, brig; Virmond, owner; came for hides and tallow, and wintered 1827-8.\nFunchal, Engl, brig, 190 tons; Stephen Anderson, master, owner, and\nsup.; on the coast from autumn of 1828 to Feb. 1830, sailing from S. Pedro\nwith 10,400 hides.\nGeneral Lravo, Mex. brig, 100 or 180 tons; Melendez, master; at Mont.\nOct.-Dec. 1826, with tobacco.\nGeneral Suci-e, Amer. brig; Carlos Pitnak, or Pitnes (?), master; left a\ndeserter S. Diego, 1828.\nGlobe, Amer. brig, 190 tons; Moore, master; at Monterey 1830, for Guaymas.\n* Golovnin, Russ. brig; at Mont. Dec. 1827.\nGriffon, Amer. brig, from Honolulu; Peirce, master, 1828.\nGuibale (or Galbale?), Amer. schr, 121 tons; Thos Robbins, master; at\nSta B. April 1S28.\nHarbinger, Amer. brig, 180 tons; Jos Steel, master and consignee; Thos\nB. Park, sup.; two trips from the Islands in 1826-8; paid $450, $576, $1,250;\ncarried away two fugitive friars in Jan. 1828.\nllelvetius, doubtful whaler of 1829.    (See later lists.)\nHeros, French ship, 250 tons; Auguste Duhaut-Cilly, master; trading on\nthe coast 1827-8.    (See text.)\nHuascar, Engl, brig under Peruvian flag, 249 tons; Scott, Alex. Skee, or\nJ. M. Oyagiie, master; Hartnell, passenger; cons, to McC, H., & Co., 1827-8;\npaid $610 at S. Fran.\nInca, Engl, brig, 170 tons, 11 guns; Wm Prouse (or Prause), master;\nfrom Callao to McC, H., & Co. in 1826 (possibly arr. in 1825); then to\nLiverpool in 128 days.\nIndian, Engl, ship; in Spence's list of 1829.\nInure, Hawaiian brig, 155 tons, 1826.\nIsabella (or Sarah and Elizabeth), Engl, whaler, 250 tons, 28 men; Edward David, master; Mrs Hartnell, passenger; at Sta B., from Mont. Oct.\n1827.\nJames Coleman, Engl.; Hennet, master; in Spence's list for 1829.\nJo\"ven Angustias, Mex. schr; at Sta iB. Sept. 1829; also doubtful record\nof 1823.\nJuan Battey, doubtful name of 1825; John Burton, master.\nJunius, Engl, brig; Carter, master; at Mont, in 1825, paying $3,663 duties.\nJura, Engl, brig; at StaB., from Mazatlan, May 1830.\nKarimoko (or Carimacu), Hawaiian brig, 128 tons; John Lawlor, master;\nWm Watts (?), sup.; on the coast 1S27-8, paying $14 and $314. (See text\nfor smuggling adventures.)\nKiakhta, Russ. brig, built in Cal., running between Ross and S. Fran.;\nwintered at S. Fran. 1825-0 and 1828-9; paid $95 and $1,548.\nLaperhi (or Lapwing?), Russ. brig; doubtful record of Nov. 1828.\nLeonor, Mex. ship, 207 tons; 23 men;. Henry D. Fitch, master; brought\nconvicts in 1830.    (See text for Fitch's, runaway marriage.)\nMajdalena (or Victoria), Mex. schr, 90 tons; Ramon Sanchez, master; on\ncoast winter of 1827-8.\nMaria Ester, Mex. brig, 170 or 93 tons; owned by Henry Virmond, who\nwas on board in 1828; came from Lima or Mex. port3 every year from\n1825 to 1830; Davis, master in 1825; to McC, H., & Co.; paid $308; Fitch, master 182G-9; brought artillery in 1828; John A. C Holmes, master in 1830;\nbrought convicts.    Possibly 2 vessels of same name.\n 148 MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.\nMaria Theresa, Amer. whaler, 291 tons; Wm Guilcost, master; at S. Fran.\n1826.\nMassachusetts, Amer. whaler, 343 tons, 21 men; Seth Calheart (?), master;\nat S. Fran. Oct. 1827.\nMercury, Amer. whaler, 340 tons; Wm Austin, master; at Sta B. Nov.\n1826.\nMero, Amer. ship, 300 tons; Barcelo Juain (?), master; doubtful record\nat Sta B. Nov. 1826.\nMerope, Engl, ship from Calcutta and China; Espeleta, sup.; at S. Fran.\nSept. 1825.\nMinerva, Amer. whaler, 160 tons; D. Cornelio, master; at Sta B. Oct.\n1828.\nMoor, whaler of 1826.\nMorelos (formerly S. Cdrlos), Mex. transport; Flaminio Agazini, com.; at\nMont, and S. Fran. 1825.\nNile, Amer. brig; Robert Forbes, master; trouble about $600 duties in\n1825.\nOkhotsk, Russ. brig, 150 tons; Dionisio Zarembo, master; on the coast\n1827-8-9; paid $55 and $179; in trouble for having transferred cargo^to\nKiakhta.\nOliphant, brig; doubtful record as having loaded at Callao for Cal. in 1827.\nOlive Branch, Engl, brig, 204 tons, 13 men; Wm Henderson, master;\nJas Scott, sup.; cons, to Mancisidor from Callao for hides and tallow; wintered 1826-7, paying $510.\nOrion, Amer. whaler, 350 tons, 22 men; Alf on Alfe (?), master; at Sta\nB. Oct., 1827, from Sandw. Isl.\nParagon, Amer. whaler, 309 tons, 23 men; Dav. Edwards, master; at S.\nFran. 1826.\nParaiso (or Paradise), Hamburg schr, 123 tons, 11 men; Henry Adams,\nmaster; cons, to Mancisidor in 1827; paid $3,907 and $631.\nPeruvian, Amer. whaler, 331 tons, 22 men; Alex. Macy, master; at S. Fran.\n1826.\nPizarro, Engl, brig, 1825-6; cons, probably to McC, H., & Co.; paid\n$4,712, and $523.\nPlanet (or Plant), Amer. ship, 208 tons, 20 men; Jos Steel and John\nRutter, masters, 1829-30.\nPlowboy, Amer. whaler, Chadwick, master; at S. Fran. 1825.\nPocahontas, whaler, 309 tons, in 1828.\nPocahontas, Amer. ship, 21 men; John Bradshaw, master; Thos Shaw,\nsup.; autumn of 1830.\nRascow, whaler, 362 tons; Geo. Reed, master, 1828.\nRecovery, Engl, whaler; Wm Fisher, master; at S. Fran. 1825.\nRosalia, Amer. ship, 323 tons; Bruno Colespedriguez (?), master; at S.\nPedro, Oct. 1829.\nRover, Cal. schooner, 83 tons; Cooper, master; Arguello, owner; made\na trip to China and back 1825-6, and then sailed for Mex. ports; paid $812;\nleft $5,250 in goods at S. Diego.    (See text.)\nSachem, Amer. ship, Bryant & Sturgis, owners; Wm A. Gale, sup.; on\nthe coast from 1825 to Jan. 1827, when she sailed for Boston; duties as\nrecorded $489, $2,003, $232.\nSanta Apolonia (formerly Eagle), Mex. schr; Manuel Bates, master;\nRamon Sanchez, sup.; Urbano Sanchez, owner; loaded with tallow at S.\nLuis Obispo in Aug. 1826.\nSanta Barbara, schr. built in Cal. 1829 for otter-hunting and coast trade.\nSta Rosa, doubtful name of 1825.\nSeringapatan, East Ind. ship, grounded on Blossom Rock in 1830 (perhaps an error in date).\nSirena, vaguely mentioned as having brought money to Cal. in 1826.\nSnow, doubtful record of 1825.\nSolitude, Amer. ship, or Engl, brig; Jas or Chas Anderson, master,\n1826-8.\n \u2014-I\nMARINE LIST 1825-30. 149\nSpeedy, Engl, brig, to McC, H. & Co., 1826; carried $26,997 of tallow\nto Callao.\nSpy, Amer. schr, 75 tons, accompanying the Sachem and offered for sale;\nGeo. Smith, master; on the coast 1825-7; also called in some records the\nSpray.\nSusana, Engl, ship; Swain, master; in Spence's list for 1829.\nTamaahmaah, Hawaiian brig, 180 tons; Robt J. Elwell, master or sup.\nin 1827; John Meek hi 1829.\nTartar, Amer. schr; Benj. Morrell, master; on the coast 1825. (See\ntext for captain's adventures and book.)\nTelemachus, Amer. brig; Jas Gillespie, master; from the Isl. in 1828 for\ntrade and repairs; accused of smuggling.\nTenieya, Amer. brig; paid $232 at Sta B. 1827.\nThomas Nowlan, Engl, ship, 201 or. 301 tons; Wm Clark, master, 1826-\n7; cons, to Mancisidor; paid $2,185 and $2,199; John Wilson, master, 1828-\n30; paid $858.\nTiemechmach (?), Amer. brig from N. Y.; John Michi (Meek?), master,\n1825. ,\nTimes, Engl, whaler, 407 tons; Wm Ross, master; at Sta B. Oct. 1828.\nTimorelan, Haw. brig, 160 tons, seal-hunter; at Sta B. Sept. 1826.\nTomasa, at Sta B. 1827, paying $1,570; also doubtful record of 1825.\nTrident, Amer. ship, 450 tons; Felix Estirten (?), master; at S. Pedro Oct.\n1829.\nTriton, whaler, 300 tons, 1825-6; Jean Opham, or Ibre Albet (?), masters.\nPerhaps two vessels.\nVerale, Amer. schr, 140 tons; Wm Deny, master, 1828.\nVolunteer, Amer. bark, 126 or 226 tons; Wm S. Hinkley, master; John\nC. Jones, owner;J from Sandw. Isl. 1829-30; carried Solis and other prisoners to S. Bias in 1830; paid $4,054 at S. Fran.\nVulture (or Buitre), Engl, brig, 101 tons; Rich. Barry, master; Virmond,\nowner; from Callao 1828-9; paid $1,130..\nWarren, Amer. whaler; Wm Rice, master, 1826; also Amer. ship, perhaps the same, at Mont. Dec. 1829.\nWashington, Amer. schr, 52 or 140 tons; Robt Elwell, master from 1828;\nA. B. Thompson, sup.; from Sandw. Isl. 1825-6-7-8-9 and perhaps 1830;\npaid $49, $232, $93; carried horses to Honolulu.\nWashington, whaler, 317 tons; Wm Kelley, master, 1826.\nWaverly, Haw. brig, 142 tons, 9 men, 40 kanaka hunters; Wm G. Dana,\nmaster, 1826; carried away 1,428 guilders, 2,000 Span, dollars, 4 bars silver, 138\notter skins, 212 seal skins; Bobbins, master, 1827-8; John Temple, passenger,\n1827, from Islands; in 1829 carried horses to Honolulu.\nWhaleman, schr; at S. Fran, winter of 1825-6; perhaps a whaler. Written also Guelman.\nWhaleman, brig, 316 tons; Jos. Paddock, master; from Society Isl. 1830.\nWilmantic, Amer. whaler, 384 tons; Juan Bois, master, 1828.\nWilmington, Amer. ship, 364 tons; John Bon, master; at S. Pedro Oct.\n1829.    (Probably same as preceding.)\nYoung Tartar (or J6ven Tartar), Engl, schr, 95 tons; John Brown (?),\nmaster, 1826-7 (possibly 1825); paid $580; cargo insured in London 1827\nfor \u00a34,000.\nZamora, Wm Sumner, master.\nMy authorities for the items of this list are more than 1,000 in number,\nchiefly in manuscript records. As each vessel would require a mention of\nfrom 1 to 20 titles, it is not practicable to give the references separately; and\nin a group for all maritime affairs they would be of little practical value;\n, therefore I omit them, though I have the prepared list before me. The most\nimportant have been named in the notes of this chapter.\n CHAPTER VI.\nOVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS\n1826-1830.\nThe Eastern Frontier\u2014The Trappers\u2014First Visitors by the Over-\nland Route\u2014Jedediah Smith, 1826-8\u2014Errors Corrected\u2014Original\nDocuments\u2014The Sierra Nevada Crossed and Re-crossed\u2014First\nEntry of the Hudson's Bay Company\u2014McLeod and Ogden\u2014Pat-\ntie's Visit and Imprisonment, 1828-30\u2014Flint's Narrative\u2014Truth\nand Fiction\u2014A Tour of Vaccination\u2014'Peg-leg' Smith\u2014Trapping\nLicense of Exter and Wilson\u2014Vaca from New Mexico\u2014Ewing\nYoung and his Hunters from New Mexico\u2014Foreign Residents\u2014\nAnnual Lists of New-comers\u2014Regulations on Passports and Naturalization.\nFor forty years California had been visited with\nincreasing frequency by foreigners, that is, by men\nwhose blood was neither Indian nor Spanish. England, the United States, Russia, and France were\nthe nations chiefly represented among the visitors,\nsome of whom came to stay, and to all of .whom in\nthe order of their coming I have devoted some attention in the annals of the respective years. All had\ncome from the south, or west, or north by the broad\nhighway of the Pacific Ocean bounding the territory\non the west and leading to within a few miles of the\nmost inland Spanish establishments. The inland boundary\u2014an arc whose extremities touch the coast at San\nDiego and at 4U\u00b0, an arc for the most part of sierras\nnevadas so far as could be seen, with a zone of desert\nbeyond as yet unknown\u2014had never yet been crossed\nby man of foreign race, nor trod, if we except the\n WESTWARD MOVEMENT. 151\nsouthern segment cut by a line from San Gabriel to\nMojave, by other than aboriginal feet.1\nMeanwhile a grand advance movement from the\nAtlantic westward to the Mississippi, to the plains, to\nthe Rocky Mountains, and into the Great Basin had\nbeen gradually made by the fur-hunting pioneers of\nthe broad interior\u2014struggling onward from year to\nyear against obstacles incomparably greater than\nthose presented by the gales and scurvy of the\nPacific. If I were writing the history of California\nalone, it would be appropriate and probably necessary\nto present here, en resume at least, the general movement to which I have alluded, embodying the annals\nof the various fur companies. But the centre of the\nfur trade was much farther north, and its annals cannot be profitably separated from the history of the\nNorth-west. For this reason\u2014bearing in mind also\nthose portions of my work relating locally to Idaho,\nMontana, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona\n\u2014I feel justified in referring the reader for the general exploration westward to other chapters of other\nvolumes, and in confining my record here to such\nexpeditions as directly affect Californian territory.\nThese be^an in 1826, when the inland barrier of\nmountain and desert was first passed, and from that\ndate the influx of foreigners by overland routes becomes a topic of ever growing importance. It is well,\nhowever, to understand at the outset, that respecting\nthe movements of the trappers no record of even tolerable completeness exists, or could be expected to exist.\nAfter 1826 an army of hunters, increasing from hundreds   to   thousands,   frequented   the  fur-producing\n1A few English and American deserters, leaving their vessels at Todos\nSantos or thereabouts, had on two or three occasions been sent across the\nfrontier to S. Diego, forming an exception of little importance to my general\nstatement. Another exception of somewhat greater weight rests in the possibility that trappers may have crossed the northern frontier before 1S26. It\nis not improbable that Hudson's Bay Company men may have done so from\nthe Willamette Valley on one or more occasions, though there is no more\ndefinite record than the rumor of 1820-1, that foreign hunters were present\nin the north, and the newspaper report of McKay's presence in Siskiyou in\n1825.\n 152        OVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nstreams of the interior, and even the valleys of California, flitting hither and thither, individuals and\nparties large or small according to the disposition of\nthe natives, wandering without other motive than the\nhope of more abundant game, well acquainted with the\ncountry, as is the wont of trappers, but making no\nmaps and keeping no diaries. Occasionally they\ncame in contact with civilization east or west, and\nleft a trace in the archives; sometimes a famous trapper and Indian-fighter was lucky enough to fall in\nwith a writer to put his fame and life in print; some\nof them lived later among the border settlers, and\ntheir tales of wild adventure, passing not without\nmodification through many hands, found their way\ninto newspaper print. Some of them still live to relate their memories to me and others, sometimes truly\nand accurately, sometimes confusedly, and sometimes\nfalsely, as is the custom of trappers like other men.\nI make no claim of ability to weave continuity from\nfragments, bring order from chaos, distinguish in every\ninstance truth from falsehood* or build up a narrative\nwithout data; nevertheless, I proceed with confidence\nto write in this chapter and others of the men who\ncame to California overland from the east.\nJedediah S. Smith was the first man who made the\ntrip. From a post of the fur company established at\nor near Great Salt Lake a year or two earlier,2 Smith\nstarted in August 1826 for the south-west with fifteen men, intent rather on explorations for future\nwork than on present trapping.8   Crossing Utah Lake,\n2 Smith was associated with Jackson and Sublette, and the post had been\nestablished by W. H. Ashley.\n8 Smith, Excursion d I'ouest des Monts Rocky. Extrait d'une lettre de M.\nJedidiah Smith, employe\" de la Compagnie des Pelleteries, in Nouv. Ann. des\nVoy., xxxvii. 208-12. Taken from an American paper. The news\u2014perhaps\nthe paper, but certainly not Smith's letter as might seem from the translation\u2014was dated St. Louis Oct. 11, 1827. This brief letter, in which very\nlikely wild work is made with names in the printing and translation, is in\nconnection with the correspondence preserved in the archives, the best authority on tho subject. The general accounts extant are full of errors, though\neach purports to correct errors previously made.   Warner, Reminiscences, MS.,\n JEDI^DIAH SMITH. 153\nhe seems to have passed in a general south-westerly\ncourse to the junction of the Virgin River and Colo-\n21-9, errs chiefly in dates and order of events. He makes Smith start in\n1824 and lead a party of hunters through the Green River country, south of\nSalt Lake,, over the Sierra Nevada near Walker Pass, into the Tulare Valley. In June 1825, leaving his men on the American Fork\u2014whence the\nname\u2014he re-crossed the sierra with two men. Starting back for California\nin the autumn of 1825 by a more southern route, he was attacked by the Mo-\njaves while crossing the Colorado, and lost all his men but 2 or 3, with whom\nhe reached S. Gabriel late in 1826. The author of Cronise's Natural Wealth\nof Cal, after being at much trouble to unravel the various stories, 'gathered\nthe following particulars from those who knew Smith personally, and from\ndocuments in the state archives:' 'In the spring of 1825, Smith, with a party\nof 40 trappers and Indians, left their rendezvous on Green River near the\nSouth Pass, and pushed their way westward, crossing the Sierra Nevada into\nthe Tulare Valley, which they reached in July 1825. The party trapped\nfrom the Tulare to the American fork of the Sacramento, where there was already a camp of American trappers (?). Smith camped near the site of the\npresent town of Folsom, about 22 miles north-east of the other party. From\nthis camp Smith sent out parties, which were so successful that in October,\nleaving ail the others in California, in company with 2 of the party, he returned\nto his rendezvous on Green River with several bales of skins. In May 1826\nSmith was sent back with a reenforcement. On this trip he led his party\nfarther south than on the former one, which brought them into the Mojaves'\nsettlements on the Colorado, where all the party except Smith, Galbraith, and\nTurner were killed by the Indians. These three made their way to S. Gabriel on Dec. 26, 1826, where they were arrested,' etc. Cronise also publishes\na translation of 2 documents from the archives, of which more later.\nThomas Sprague, in a letter of Sept. 18,1860, to Edmund Randolph, published in Hatchings' Mag., v. 351-2, and also in the S. F. Bulletin, states that\nSmith, starting from Green River in 1825, reached and went down the Humboldt River, which he named Mary River from his Indian wife, crossed the\nmountains probably near the head of the Truckee, and passed on down the\nvalley to S. Jose\" and S. Diego. Recruiting his men and buying many horses,\nhe re-crossed the mountains near Walker Pass, skirted the eastern base to\nnear Mono Lake, and on a straight north-east course for Salt Lake found\nplacer gold in large quantities. He was ordered to return and prospect the\ngold fields on his way back from California, but near the gold mines he was\nkilled with most of his party.\nRobert Lyon furnished to Angel, author of the Nevada Hist., 20 et seq.,\na version somewhat similar to that of Sprague, including the discovery of\ncoarse placer gold near Mono Lake. His account seems to rest on the testimony, in 1860, of Rocky Mountain Jack and Bill Reed, who claimed to have\nbeen companions of Smith.\nAn 'associate of the daring pioneer' corrected prevailing errors as follows\nin the S. F. Times, June 14, 1867: 'He came into California in 1827, with\na trapping party from the rendezvous of the Rocky Mountain Fur Company,\non the Yellowstone River. He left his party on the American fork of the\nSacramento in the summer of that year, and with two men returned to the\nrendezvous, where he fitted out a new party and returned in 1828 to the\nAmerican, where the two parties were combined, and moving northwardly,\nhe reached the Umpqua River,' etc.\nIt will be noticed that all these versions have the double trip and some\nother points in common, and that the confusion is largely removed by the\noriginal authorities, on which I found my text. Randolph, Oration, 313-14,\ntranslating Smith's letter to P. Duran, and Tuthill, Hist. Cal, 124-5, as well\nas Frignet, La Californie, 58-00, mention Smith's arrival in 1826 in so general a manner as to avoid serious error.   The same may be said of Douglas,\n 154\nOVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nrado, down to the Mojave villages, and westward\nacross the desert to San Gabriel.4\nThe Amajabes on the Colorado treated the party\nwell, furnishing fresh provisions, and horses stolen from\nthe Spaniards, and two wandering neophytes guided\nthe sixteen Americans over the desert to the mission,\nwhere they arrived in December. The trappers gave\nup their arms, and the leader was taken to San Diego,\nwhere he explained his object, and submitted to Governor Echeandia his papers, including passports from\nthe U. S. government, and a diary. The coming of\nthe strangers naturally excited suspicion at first; but\nthis was removed by Smith's plea that he had been\ncompelled to enter the territory for want of provisions\nand water, it being impossible to return by the same\nroute; and his cause was still further strengthened by\na certificate of Dana, Cunningham, and other Americans, that the trapper's papers were all en regie, and\nhis motives doubtless pacific and honorable.5 He was\ntherefore permitted to purchase supplies, and undertake his eastward march by a new route; bat not, as\nPrivate Papers, MS., 2d series, p. 1, Victor, River of the West, 34, andHines,\nVoyage, 110, though these writers speak with reference to later events in\nOregon, and derived their information from distinct sources. The Yolo Co.\nHist., S. Joaq, Co. Hist., and other like works describe Smith's adventures,\nin some cases as accurately as was possibly from accessible data, still with\nvarious combinations of the errors already noted.\n* The details of the route are worth preservation briefly, though not clear\nin all respects. Started Aug. 22d from Salt Lake, crossed the little Uta Lake,\nwent up the. Ashley, which flows into that lake through the country of the Sum-\npatch Indians, crossed a range of mountains extending s. e. to n. w. , crossed\na river which he named Adams for the president, and which flowed s. w. Ten\ndays' march to the Adams again, which had turned s. e. (This is not clear;\nthe text says, 'a dix journees de marche l'Adams River tourne au s. E., il y a\nla une caverne,' etc. Query\u2014Did Smith pass from the Sevier to the Virgin,\nand suppose them to be one stream ?) Two days down the Adams to its junction with the Seeds- Keedcr, a river with many shallows and rapids, and having a sterile country on the south; farther to a fertile wooded valley inhabited\nby the Ammuchcebes (Amajabes, or Mojaves), where he remained 15 days.\nThis was 80 miles above where the Seeds-Keeder, under the name of Rio Colorado, flowed into the gulf of California. Re-crossing the Seeds-Keeder, he\nwent 15 days west into a desert country, and across a salt plain 8 by 20 miles.\nHere the details cease abruptly, and he next speaks of his arrival in Upper\nCalifornia.\n5 Dated at S. Diego Dec. 20, 1826, and signed by Wm G. Dana, Wm H.\nCunningham, Wm Henderson, Diego Scott, Thomas M. Robbins, and Thomas\nShaw, in Dspt. St. Pap., MS., ii. 19-20. An English translation has been\npublished in several works.\n SMITH IN CALIFORNIA. 155\nhe wished, to follow the coast up to the Columbia via\nBodega.6\nThe Californians supposed for a month that they\nwere rid of their overland guests; but at the beginning'of February 1827 some of them were seen at\ndifferent places, particularly near San Bernardino,\nwhere Smith appeared on the 2d of February. There\nhe left a sick man, and thence he seems to have sent\na letter to Padre Sanchez by one of his men. The\nletter, as translated at the time, stated as the reason\nfor return that the trappers in crossing a stream had\nbeen attacked by Indians, who killed eight of their\nnumber and stripped them of everything but their\nclothes\u2014a statement that would seem to be false,\nthough Smith bore the reputation of truthfulness.7\nAt any rate, the trappers had tried without success\nto cross the Sierra, and were reported to be in a destitute condition. The two men to whom I have referred were, I suppose, Isaac Galbraith and Joaquin\nBowman, who were detained at the time for examination, and who remained in the territory. Orders were\nissued to detain the whole party, but Smith had left\nSan Bernardino before the orders could be executed.8\n6 Dec. 30, 1826. Echeandia reports Smith's arrival with 14 companions,\n40 beaver skins, and many traps; also his visit to S. Diego and his apparent\ngood faith. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xix. 37-8. He enclosed Smith's diary to the\nminister of war, and it may come to light some day. Smith himself, Excursion, 210, says: ' Men arrived dans la Haute-Californie excita les soupcons du\ngouverneur, qui demeurait a San Diego. II me fit conduire devant lui; mais\nplusieurs citoyens des Etats-Unis, notamment M. Cunningham, capitaine du\nCourrier de Boston, ayant repondu de moi, j'obtins la permission de rctour-\nner avec ma suite, et d'acheter des provisions; mais le gouverneur refusa de\nme laisser cotoyer la mer en allant vers la Bodega. *\n7 The letter i3 not extant, and its purport only is given in one of Arguello'3\nletters to the governor. It is possible that there is an error somewhere, and\nthat Smith in the original letter spoke of a fight in which he killed 8 Indians,\nespecially as 2 women are also said to have been killed. Smith himself, Excursion, p. 211, gives no details nor even mention of having come in contact with\nthe Spaniards at this time. He says, in continuation of quotation of note 6,\n'I marched therefore e. and then n. e. (from S. Gabriel or S. Diego), keeping\nat a distance of 150 to 200 mile3 from the coast. I went nearly 330 miles in\nthat direction,' through some fertile regions peopled by many naked Indians,\nand 'having reached.a river which I named Kimmel-che' from the tribe living\n\" on its banks. I found beavers, etc. Here I remained some days; I intended\nto return to Salt Lake by crossing Mount Joseph; but the snow was so deep\non the heights that my horses, 5 of which had died of hunger, could not advance.    I was therefore obliged to re-descend into the valley.'\n3Letters of Santiago Arguello to comandante of S. Diego and to gov., with\nJ\n 156 OVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nWhen next heard of in May, Smith had moved\nnorthward and was encamped in the country of the\nMoquelumnes and Cosumnes. Padre Duran, of\nMission San Jos6, accused the Americans of having\nenticed his neophytes to desert, but Comandante\nMartinez pronounced the charge groundless.9 New\ncommunications and orders to investigate passed between the authorities; and a letter came to Padre\nDuran from Smith himself, bearing date of May 19th.\nIt was a frank statement of his identity and situation,\nof his failures to cross the mountains, and of the necessity of waiting for the snow to melt. He was far\nfrom home, destitute of clothing and all the necessaries of life, save only game for food. He was particularly in need of horses; in fact, he was very\ndisagreeably situated, but yet, \"though a foreigner\nunknown to you, Reverend Father, your true friend\nand Christian brother, J. S. Smith.\"10\nThe next day after writing this letter Smith started\nreferences to replies and other communications, in Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii.\n33-7. Mention of Galbraith (Gil Brest) and the 'sick man' in Dept. Rec,\nMS., v. 89, 115, also of Galbraith in Dept. St. Pap., MS., xix. 16-17. Bowman is mentioned as one of Smith's men in Los Angeles, Hist., 19, by Mr\nWarner, and there may be some mistake. The sick man may possibly have\nbeen John Wilson, who was in custody in May as one of Smith's men. Dept.\nRec, MS., v. 45; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 29, 33. Cronise calls Gal-\nbraith's companion Turner.\n9May 16,1827, Duran to com. of S. Francisco. 400 neophytes have been induced to run away. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 27. May 18th, gov. orders Martinez not to rely wholly on reports of the Indians, but to send out scouts to learn\nwho are the strangers and what their business; also to demand their passports\nand detain them until further orders. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 45. On same date\nRocha is ordered to institute proceedings against John Wilson, and take deposition of Daniel Ferguson, with a view to find out the aims of the strangers.\nId. May 21st, Martinez from S. Jose to gov. The Americans had nothing\nto do with the flight of the neophytes. Sergt Soto has been ordered to investigate, find out what gente it is, not allow them to approach the missions, treat\nthem courteously, etc. A letter has been received from Smith to Duran,\nwhich the latter would not receive, but which Martinez had had translated\nand sent to Monterey for Hartnell to retranslate. The Indians say that there\nare 12 of the strangers, the same who were at S. Gabriel, and they had killed\n5 Moquelumnes in a fight. John Wilson, a prisoner at Monterey, has apparently not been missed, and he says something of the party having come from\nBoston in 18 months to make surveys and buy lands of the natives (?). Arch.\nArzob., MS., v. pt i. 28-33.\n10 May 19, 1827, Spanish translation of Smith's letter, in Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., ii. 18-19. English version, in Randolph's Oration, 313-14; and other\nworks.   French version, in Frignet, La Cal., 58-60,\n FIRST CROSSING OF THE SIERRA IN 1827. 157\nhomeward with but two companions. This was the\nfirst crossing of the Sierra Nevada, and the traveller's\nnarrative, though brief and meagre, must be presented\nin his own words. \"On May 20, 1827,\" he writes,\n\"with two men, seven horses, and two mules laden\nwith hay and food, I started from the valley. In\neight days we crossed Mount Joseph, losing on this\npassage two horses and one mule. At the summit of\nthe mountain the snow was from four to eight feet\ndeep, and so hard that the horses sank only a few\ninches. After a march of twenty days eastward from\nMount Joseph, I reached the south-west corner of\nthe Great Salt Lake. The country separating it from\nthe mountains is arid and without game. Often we\nhad no water for two days at a time; we saw but a\nplain without the slightest trace of vegetation. Farther\non I found rocky hills with springs, then hordes of\nIndians, who seemed to us the most miserable beings\nimaginable. When we reached the^Great Salt Lake\nwe had left only one horse and one mule, so exhausted\nthat they could hardly carry our slight luggage. We\nhad been forced toeat the horses that had succumbed.\"11\nThere are no means of knowing anything about his\nroute; but I think he is as likely to have crossed the\nmountains near the present railroad line as elsewhere.12\nSmith returned from Salt Lake to California with\neight men, arriving probably in October 1827, but\n11 Smith, Excursion, 211-12. With the quotation given, the letter ends\nabruptly.\n12 Still it is not impossible or unlikely that in this trip or on the return\nSmith went through Walker Pass, as W^arner and others say, or followed the\nHumboldt or Mary, as Sprague tells us; but the gold discovery on the way as\nrelated by Sprague merits no consideration, in the absence of other evidence\nand the presence of evident absurdities. It is to be noticed that Warner describes this crossing of the sierra by Smith and two men accurately enough,\nexcept in date; and I think it probable that he has,reversed the order of the\ntwo entries to California, the first being by Mojave in 1826, and the second\nby Walker Pass in 1827. On Wilkes' map of 1841, reproduced in vol. iv. of\nthis work, Smith's route is indicated, on what authority is not stated, by a\nline extending s. w. from Salt Lake, and approaching the sierra on the 39th\nparallel, with a lake on the line in long. 119\u00b0, and three streams running n.\nbetween the lake and mountains. A peak in the sierra just n. of 39\u00b0 is called\nMt Smith; and Mt Joseph is at the northern end of the range in lat. 41\u00b0.\nThis may all rest on accurate reports.\n 158 OVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nabout the route followed or incidents of the trip nothing is known. The Californians apparently knew\nnothing of the leader's separation from his company,\nthough the record of what occurred during his absence\nis meagre. On May 23d Echeandia issued instructions, by virtue of which the fur-hunter was to be\ninformed that his actions had become suspicious, and\nthat he must either start homeward at once, come to\nSan Jose to enjoy the hospitality of California under\nsurveillance until the supreme government could decide, or sail on the first vessel that could carry him\nbeyond latitude 42\u00b0.13 According to fragmentary\nrecords in the archives, it was supposed early in\nAugust that the strangers had gone. In September\nit was known that they were still present, and in\nOctober several orders were issued that they be\nbrought to San Jose. It is not clear that any were\nthus brought in,14 but it would seem that on Smith's\nreturn from the east late in October, he soon came,\nvoluntarily or otherwise, to San Jose and Monterey\nwith seventeen or eighteen companions.15\nThe 12th of November Captain Cooper at Monterey signed a bond in favor of his countryman. As\nthe agent of Steel, Park, and others, and in the name\nof the United States, Cooper became responsible with\nhis person and property for the good behavior of Jed-\n13 May 23, 1827, Echeandia to Martinez. Dept. Rec, MS., v. 48.\nuGov.'s orders of Aug. 3d, Sept. 14th, Oct. 1st, 16th, in Dept. Rec, MS.,\nv. 73, 88, 94, 102. Bojorges, Recuerdos, MS., 12-14, the only one of my Californian writers who mentions this affair at all, says that Soto was sent out\nwith 40 men to the Rio Estanislao, and brought in all the trappers to S.\nFrancisco. As such orders had been issued, this is likely enough to be true,\nthough perhaps it took place after Smith's return. Oct. 8th, Isaac Galbraith\nasks for an interview with Echeandia, wishing a license cither to remain in\nthe country or to rejoin his leader. He also corrects an impression that Smith\nis a captain of troops, stating that he is but a hunter of the company of Smith,\nJackson, and Sublette. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 36-7.\n15 The Spanish records make the number 17, which is probably accurate,\nthough records of a later event in Oregon speak of 18. Morineau, Notice, MS.,\n153-4, says that in October 1827 a caravan of 17 voyageurs arrived at S.\nFrancisco from New Orleans. They sold some furs to a Russian vessel,\nbought horses, and returned by the same way they came. Carrillo, Exposi-\ncion, MS., 9, says that in 1827 one of the hunters passed through the country\nwith 60 men, reached the house of the comandante general, made plans, etc.,\nand went away unmolested!\n DEPARTURE OF THE TRAPPERS. 159\nediah Smith in all that concerned his return to Salt\nLake. In the document it was set forth that Smith\nand his men, as honorable citizens of the United States,\nwere to be treated as friends, and furnished at fair\nprices with the aid in arms, horses, and provisions\nnecessary for the return march by way of Mission San\nJose\\ Strait of Carquines, and Bodega; but there was\nto be no unnecessary delay en route, and in future they\nmust not visit the coast south of latitude 42\u00b0, nor extend their inland operations farther than specifically\nallowed by the latest treaties. To this bond Echeandia attached his written permission for Smith and his\ncompany to return, with one hundred mules, one hundred and fifty horses, a gun for each man, and divers\nbales of provisions and other effects which are named.16\nEcheandia issued orders for a guard of ten men to\nescort the trappers to a point a little beyond San\nFrancisco Solano, starting from San Jose;17 but a\nslight change must have been made in the plan, for\non the 18th the whole company arrived at San Francisco on the Franklin from Monterey.18 This is really\nthe last that is known of Smith in California, where\nfour and perhaps five men of his party remained, besides Turner who came back later. I have accredited\nthese men to the year 1826, though some of them\nprobably came in the second party of 1827. The\nparty doubtless left San Francisco at the end of the\nyear or early in 1828, and proceeded somewhat lei-\n* surely northward, probably by a coast route as intended,19 and not without some new misconduct, or\nwhat was vaguely alluded to as such by the authori-\n161 have, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 171, the orginal of this interesting\ndocument kept by Cooper. Three copies were made, one sent to Mexico, one\nkept in the archives, and one given to Smith. It is written on paper provisionally j habilitated' by the autographs of Herrera and Echeandia. bears a\ncertificate of Jose\" Estrada, is signed John Ba R. Cooper. Then follows the\nautograph of the hunter. 'I acknowledge this bond, Jedediah S. Smith,'\nand closes with Echeandia's pass.\n\"Nov. 15th, E. to com. of S. Francisco. Dept. Rec,MS. v. 107. Louis\nPombert, a French Canadian, left Smith's party about this time and remained\nin the country. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xix. 25-8.\n18 Arguello to gov. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 45.\n19Bojorges, Recuerdos, MS., 14, says he left S. Francisco by water on an\n 160 OVERLAND\u2014SMTTH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nties.20 While attempting to ford the Umpqua River\nhe was attacked by Indians, who killed fifteen of the\ncompany and took all their property. Smith, Turner, and two others21 escaped to Fort Vancouver.\nMcLoughlin of the Hudson's Bay Company sent back\na party with one of the survivors to recover the lost\neffects, in which they are said to have been successful. Jedediah Smith returned .eastward by a northern route in 1829, and two years later he was killed\nby the Indians in New Mexico. I append part of a\nmap of 1826 purporting to show 'all the recent geographical discoveries' to that date.\nAn important topic, perhaps connected indirectly\nwith Jedediah Smith's visit, is the first operations of\nthe Hudson's Bay Company's trappers in California.\nRespecting these operations before 1830, I have no\noriginal and definite information, except that contained in the statement of J. J. Warner, himself an old\ntrapper, still living in 1884, and an excellent authority\non all connected with the earliest American pioneers,\nalthough he did not himself reach California until\nthe beginning of the next decade.22   Warner states\nAmerican vessel. It is possible, but not I think probable, that such was the\ncase, one of the vessels being chartered to take him up the coast to or beyond\nBodega. Warner says Smith started up the interior valley, but-on account of difficulties in the way, turned to the coast 200 miles above Ross.\nThe men who remained, besides Galbraith and Bowman, were Bolbeda, Pom-\nbert, and probably Wilson.\n20 Feb. 1, 1828, gov. to Martinez. Alludes to the abuses committed by\nSmith. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 178. Probably he had stopped on the way to\nhunt and trap. June 26th, Cooper was thanked by J. Lennox Kennedy, U.\nS. consul at Mazatlan, for his services in Smith's behalf; will send documents\nto U. S. min. at Mexico. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 250. But May 6, 1829, he\nwas ordered as bondsman by gov. to pay $176 due from Smith. Dept. Rec,\nMS., vii. 148. June 25,1829, E. reports to the min. of rel. a rumor that the\nAmericans intend to take S. Francisco, a plan which he ascribes to the advent\nof Smith. Id., vii. 25.\nn There is a discrepancy of one man in totals, but there is also a compensating uncertainty about one of the men who remained in Cal. Cronise,\nNat. Wealth of Cal., 42, erroneously names two of the three survivors\nLaughlin and Prior. Victor, River of the West, 35-6, names Turner and Black.\nThe particulars of the Umpqua fight belong to other parts of this series.\nSee Hist. Or. and Hist. Northwest Coast. The map given herewith is copied\nfrom one in Warren*s Mem. In Pac. R. R. Repts, xi. pi. iii., being a redaction\nfrom A. Finley's map of N. America published at Philadelphia in 1826.\n32 Warner's Reminiscences of Early California, MS., 27-33.   The author\n McLEOD'S TRAPPERS.\n161\nthat the party sent back from Fort Vancouver to\navenge Smith's disasters was under the command of\nMcLeod, and after recovering the stolen furs, traps,\nand horses, was guided by Turner down into the Sacramento Valley in 1828, where he made a successful\nhunt. Returning northward, however, he was overtaken by a snow-storm in the Pit River country, which\nhe was the first to traverse.23 He lost his animals,\nand was compelled to leave his furs, which were\nspoiled by melting snow before they could be moved.\nMap of 1826.\nMcLeod was discharged for his imprudence or for his\nbad luck. Meanwhile the company had hastened to\ndespatch Ogden with another party of hunters up the\nColumbia and Snake, to proceed thence southward\nto Smith's trail,24 by which he was to enter Califor-\nrepresents the manager of the company as having driven a shrewd bargain\nwith Smith, and derived much profit from his disaster.\n23 The McLeod River, generally written McCloud, was named by or in\nhonor of this hunter.\n2i That is one of Smith's trails, probably the most northerly, though Warner makes it the earliest.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   11\n 162 OVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nnia, and thus get the start of any American trappers\nthat might be sent as a result of Smith's reports.\nOgden was successful in this movement, and entered\nthe great valley about the same time that McLeod\nleft it.25 He also obtained a rich harvest of skins\nduring his stay of eight months, and carried his furs\nto the north by McLeod's trail. These were the\nonly visits of  Hudson Bay trappers  before 1832.23\nThe visit of the Patties to California in 1828-30\nis the topic next demanding attention. Sylvester\nPattie, a Kentuckian, lieutenant of rangers against\nthe Indians in 1812\u201413, and later a lumberman in\nMissouri, joined a trapping and trading expedition to\nNew Mexico in 1824, with his son James Ohio Pattie. The father was about forty years of age, and\nthe son a school-boy of perhaps fifteen. With their\nadventures in New Mexico and Arizona for the next\nthree years I am not concerned here. More than\nonce they visited the Gila, and in September 1827\nthe elder Pattie was made captain of a company of\nthirty trappers, organized at Santa F6 to operate on\nthe Colorado.27 They reached the Colorado and Gila\njunction December 1st, or at least the Patties and\nsix men did so, the rest having left the Gila, striking\nnorthward some two weeks earlier. The eight of\nPattie's party were in a desperate strait. They understood from the Yumas that there were Christians\ndown the river, and started to find them, floating on\ncanoe rafts, trapping successfully as they went, and\n25 It seems rather unlikely that this could have been accomplished so soon\nas the autumn of 1828. Either it was in 1829, or Smith had reached Fort\nVancouver early in 1828, instead of in the autumn as has been supposed.\n20 Similar versions of McLeod's and Ogden's expeditions, originating prob?-\nably indirectly from Warner, but perhaps also from the recollections of other\nold trappers, arc given in the county histories, newspaper articles, and other\nrecent publications. See also Hist. N. W. Coast, i., this series. Cronise, Nat.\nWealth, 41, says that French Camp, near Stockton, was located by a party of\nthese trappers who encamped here from 1829 to 1S38. In Humphreys* Letter\nto Gwin', 1858, p. 5, it is stated that Richard Campbell of Sta Fe\" .came with\npack-mules from N. Orleans to S. Diego in 1827. I find nothing more on the\nsubject.\n27 Pattie, Narr., 133, translates the passport given them.\n PATTIE'S VISIT.\nreaching tide-water the 18th of January,\nThey soon started back up the river, making little\nprogress, and February 16th, having buried their\nfurs and traps, they started westward across the\ndesert. After terrible suffering they reached Santa\nCatalina Mission in Lower California the 12th of\nMarch. Ten days later, by Echeandia's order,23 they\nstarted under a guard for San Diego, where they\narrived the 27th. The company included, besides the\nPatties, Nathaniel Pry or, Richard Laughlin, William Pope, Isaac Slover, Jesse Ferguson, and James\nPuter,23 most of whom sooner or later became permanent residents of California.\nThe narrative of James O. Pattie was subsequently\nprinted; from it I have drawn the preceding resume,\nand I have now to present in substance that part of\nit relating to California, introducing occasional notes\nfrom other sources, and reserving comment until the\nend.3\nOn arrival at San Diego the strangers were\n28 March 22, 1828, E. to com. of S. Diego. Eight armed men have appeared at a frontier post with a guia of the N. Mex. custom-house, as a\npassport. Arrest tl: jm and seize their arms. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 194; Pattie's\nNarr., 170.\n2S> All the names appear in the archives, in one place or another, though\nFerguson is not clearly stated to have belonged to this company. Joseph\nYorgens is named, perhaps a corruption of Ferguson's \u00abame, since Warner speaks of Ferguson, whom he must have known. Puter is mentioned\nonly once, and there may be some error about his name. Pattie himself\nstrangely names only Slover in his narrative, speaking also of a Dutchman;\nand on the other hand, Pattie's own name appears only once in the archives.\n30 Pattie, The Personcd Narrative of James O. Pattie, of Kentucky, during\nan expeditionfrom St Louis through the vast regions between that place and the\nPacific Ocean, and thence back through the city of Mexico to Vera Cruz, during\njourneyings of six years; in which he and his father, who accompanied him, suffered unheard-of hardships and dangers, had various conflicts with the Indians,\nand were ma.de captives, in which captivity his father died;' together with a description of the country, and the various nations through which they passed. Edited by Timothy Fvnt. Cincinnati, 1833. 8vo. 300 pp. The editor, a somewhat voluminous writer of works largely fictitious, claims not to have drawn\non his imagination, but to have changed the author's statement\u2014apparently\nwritten\u2014only in orthography and by an occasional abridgment.\nThe Hunters of Kentucky; or the trials and toils of traders and trappers,\nduring an expedition to the Rocky Mountains, New Mexico, and California, by\nB. Bilson, New York, 1847, 8vo, 100 pp., is called by T. W. Field, sec Sabin's\nDictionary, viii. 5G9-70, 'a reproduction of Pattie's narrative, which the\npenury of the thieving writer's imagination has not empowered him to\nclothe with new language, or interleave with new incidents;' yet this reprint\nis much less rare than the original, and has been much more widely read.\nFrom it at the time of publication many people formed their ideas about the\n 164\nOVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nbrought before Echeandia and questioned, the younger\nPattie, who had learned a little Spanish in New\nMexico, serving as spokesman, and expressing hi^ ideas\nwith great freedom on this as on every other occasion when he came into contact with the Spaniards.\nThe governor believed nothing of their story, accused\nthem of being spies for Spain\u2014worse than thieves and\nmurderers\u2014tore up their passport as a forgery, cut\nshort their explanations, and remanded them to prison.\nOn the way they resolved to redress their wrongs by\nforce or die in the attempt; but their arms had been\nremoved,31 and they were locked up in separate cells.\nThe father was cruelly torn from the son, and died a\nmonth later without being permitted again to see him.\nThe cells were eight or ten feet square, with iron\ndoors, and walls and floor of stone. Young Pattie's\nexperience alone is recorded, as no communication\nwas allowed. Nauseating food and continued insults\nand taunts were added to the horrors of solitary confinement. From his grated door Pattie could see\nEcheandia at his house opposite. \"Ah! that I had\nhad but my trusty rifle well charged to my face!\nCould I but have had the pleasure of that single shot,\nSpanish Californians. In Harper's Magazine, xxi. 80-94, J. T. Headley\ntells the story of Pattie's sufferings, taken from one of the preceding works,\nand erroneously called the first overland expedition to California. Cronise,\nNat. Wealth of Cal, .45, says, 'the particulars of Pattie's journey were published with President Jackson's message to congress in 1836.' The subject is\nvaguely and incorrectly mentioned in Greenhow's Hist. Ogn, 366; and Capron's\nHist. Cal, 37. Warner, who knew personally most of Pattie's companions,\ngives a valuable account in his Reminiscences, MS., 33-7. The archive records are much less satisfactory than in the case of Jedediah Smith; but I\nshall have occasion to refer to them on special points.\n31 Dr Marsh, Letter to Com. Jone*, MS., 1842, p. 3, says they came to S.\nDiego on a friendly visit, 'were well received at iirst, and shown into comfortable lodgings, where they deposited their arms and baggage. They were\nshortly after invited into another apartment to partake of some refreshment,\naud when they returned found that their arms had been removed, and that\nthey were prisoners. I mention this incident, trivial a3 it is, because I consider it as a characteristic trait of the whole Mexican people. Gen. Echeandia in his own capital, with all his troops, could not take five American hunters without resorting to an artifice which would have been disdained by the\nmost barbarous tribe cf Indians on the whole continent. These poor men\nwere ]iopt in close confinement a long time.. .Two or three of the number are\nstill in the country.' Where Marsh got this version, which leaves even Pattie\nin the shade, does not appear.\n THE HUNTER'S TALE.\n165\nI think I would have been willing to have purchased\nit with my life,\" writes the captive, and this before\nhis father died alone. No attention was paid to pleas\nfor justice or pity. Yet a sergeant showed much\nkindness, and his beautiful sister came often to the\ncell with sympathy and food, and even enabled the\nprisoner to get a glimpse of his father's coffin as it\nwas hastily covered with earth.32\nCaptain Bradshaw of the Franklin soon got Pattie\nout of jail for a day by the 'innocent stratagem' of\npretending to need his services as an interpreter; and\nwith an eye to business, he made an effort to get permission for the hunters to go to the Colorado and\nbring the buried furs, but in vain. In the proceedings against Bradshaw for smuggling, Pattie served\nas interpreter; and later, by reporting certain orders\nwhich he had overheard, he claims to have prevented\nBradshaw's arrest, and thus to have contributed to\nthe escape of the Franklin.2* Seth Rogers, A. W.\nWilliams, and W. H. Cunningham are named as\nother American masters of vessels who befriended the\nyoung prisoner, and gave him money.\nEcheandia himself also employed Pattie as an interpreter, and at times assumed a friendly tone. The\ncaptive took advantage of this to plead his cause anew,\nto discuss questions of international law, and to suggest that there was money to be made by sending\nafter the buried furs. At the first he had knowm that\nevery word of kindness pronounced by Echeandia\n\"was a vile and deceitful lie,\" and after repeated interviews he perceived \"that, like most arbitrary and\ncruel men, he was fickle and infirm of purpose,\" and\n82 He calls the young lady Miss Peaks, and the couple may have been\nSergt Pico and his sister. A certain capitan de armas is also mentioned as\nof a friendly disposition, though he did not dare to brave the tyrant's rage.\nThe reference may be to Portiila or Ruiz. It is remarkable that Pattie came\nso often into contact with the governor, and not at all with the comandante.\n83 See preceding chapter for affair, of the Franklin. Pattie's statements\nthat Bradshaw's trial was concluded July 28th, that the Franklin ran out of\nthe harbor in Sept., and that she fired a broadside at the fort, are so positive,\nso erroneous, aha yet so closely connected with details of his own affairs, as\nto leave a doubt as to the accuracy of those details.\n 166 OVERLAND-SMITH AND PATTIE-FOREIGNERS.\nthereupon proceeded to \" tease him w7ith importunities;\" but under this treatment the general became\nsurly. \"How earnestly I wished that he and I had\nbeen together in the wild woods, and I armed with\nmy rifle!\" writes Pattie. This# could not be, but he\nrefused to translate any more letters, and the governor, striking him on the head with the flat of his\nsword, had him dragged again to prison to lie and rot.\nThe suggestion of profit from the furs had, however,\ntaken root; and early in September the prisoners were\nreleased, allowed once more to see each other, and\npromised permission to go to the Colorado, greatly to\ntheir delight. \"I was convinced that Mexico could\nnot array force enough to bring us back alive. I foresaw that the general would send no more than ten or\ntwelve soldiers with\\s. I knew that it would be no\nmore than an amusement to rise upon them, take their\nhorses for our own riding, flea some of them of their\nskins to show that we knew how to inflict torture,\nand send the rest back to the general on foot.\" Pattie\nwas allowed to go to the mission to hire horses for\nthe trip; but at the last moment Echeandia remarked\nthat he could spare no soldiers to go with them. It\ndid not matter, they said, though it spoiled their plan\nof vengeance. But the governor added that one must\nremain as a hostage for the return of the rest, and\nPattie was the man selected. \"At this horrible sentence, breaking upon us in the sanguine rapture of\nconfidence, we all gazed at each other in the consternation of despair;\" but Pattie urged them to go and\nfollow their inclinations about coming back. They\ncame back at the end of September. The furs had\nall been spoiled by the overflow of the river, and the\ntraps were sold to pay the mule-hire. Two of the six,\nhowever, failed to return, having left their companions on the Colorado and started for New Mexico.34\n84 These two were probably Slover and Pope, since these are the only ones not\nrecorded as being in California in 1829. Warner says Slover and Pope (with\nGeo. C. Yount, whom nobody else connects with this expedition at all) started\n SAVED BY SMALLPOX.\n167\nIn the absence of his companions, Pattie, by advice\nof Bradshaw and Perkins,35 had written a letter to\nJones, consul of the United States at the Sandwich\nIslands, imploring intervention in his own behalf, and\nthen he lay in his cell, harassed by continual threats\nof being shot at as a target, hanged, or burned alive.\nSoon came news from the north that the small-pox was\nraging in the missions. Fortunately Pattie had a\nsmall quantity of vaccine matter, and he resolved to\nmake the best possible use of his advantage. Negotiations followed, which gave the young trapper many\nopportunities to show what could be done by the\ntongue of a free American citizen. In return for the\nliberty of himself and companions, he offered to vaccinate everybody in the territory; refusing his own liberty, refusing to vaccinate the governor himself,\nthough trembling in fear of death, refusing even to\noperate on the arm of his beautiful guardian angel, the\nSenorita Pico, unless his proposition were accepted.\nThere were many stormy scenes, and Pattie was often\nremanded to prison with a curse from Echeandia, who\ntold him he might die for his obstinacy. But at last\nthe governor had to yield. Certain old black papers\nin possession of the trappers, as interpreted by Pattie,\nwere accepted as certificates of American citizenship,\nand in December all were freed for a week as an experiment.38\nfrom New Mexico with the company, but returned from the Colorado without\ncoming to Cal. There must be an error in Pattie's version of the departure\nof these two men; for I find that on Nov. 11, 1828, Echeandia informed the\ncom. at Altar that he has issued passports to Pope and Slover, who started\nfrom N. Mexico for Sonora, but lost their way and entered Cal. Dept. Rec,\nMS., vi. 13. Pope came back some years later, and has left his name to Pope\nValley, Napa county, where he lived and died. May 1, 1828, E. had written\nto the com. of Altar about the 8 Americans detained at S. Diego, whom he\nthought it expedient to send back to the Colorado under a guard, that they\nmight go to Sonora according to their custom-house permit. Dept. Rec, MS.,\nvi. 9. July 5th, the gov. of Sonora writes to the alcalde of Altar on the subject, and presumes that the com. gen. has already issued the proper instructions. The captives are alluded to as suspicious characters. Pinart, Col. Doc,\nSon., MS., 43.\n85 Bradshaw had really been gone over a month at the time when these interviews are said to have taken place.\n80 It is implied by the writer that vaccination was a great mystery to the\nCalifornians, and even to the Russians, which is absurdly inaccurate, and\n 168\nOVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nIt was deemed best to take no risks. By a false\npromise to their friend, the capitan de armas, they got\ntheir rifles and pistols on pretence of cleaning them,\nand refused to return the weapons, which were concealed in the thicket. Charles Lang, the smuggler,\nnow made his appearance secretly,37 and the trappers\ndetermined to join him. Pattie with one companion\nleft San Diego Christmas night, and went down to\nTodos Santos; but learning that Lang had been arrested, they returned. Their comrades were still at\nliberty; no trouble was made by Echeandia about\ntheir absence or the recovery of their arms; and in\nJanuary and February 1829, Pattie vaccinated everybody at the presidio and mission. On February 28th\na paper was issued to each, granting liberty for a year\non parole;38 and Pattie obtained also a letter to the\npadres, who were instructed to furnish supplies and\nhorses for the journey, and \/'indemnify me for my\nservices as far as they thought proper.\"\nPattie started immediately on his trip northward,\ncalled at mission, presidio, and pueblo, and arrived at\nSan Francisco the 20th of June.    He had vaccinated\nforms a weak point in the narrative. It is not certain, however, that they\nhad any vaccine matter in their possession in 1828, nor is it evident that Pat-\ntic could have kept that which ho had from being taken. I suppose that all is\nexaggerated for effect, but that Pattie may have been really employed to vaccinate. Early in 1829 a Russian vessel brought vaccine matter, and W. A.\nRichardson was employed that year to vaccinate at the missions; and in 1821\nthe Russians had vaccinated 54 persons at Monterey.\n37 See p. 1S9, this volume, for Lang's adventures.\n88 Pattie's carta de scguridad of Feb. 28th is preserved in Dept. Rec, MS.,\nvii. 89. It is as follows: 'Whereas, Santiago Ohio Pattie, who came into this\nterritory hunting beaver in company with other foreigners, without any\nlicense whatever, in March of the past year, appears to be a North American\naccording to a custom-house permit given in New Mexico; and whereas, the\ncomandante of, this place reports him not to be vicious but of regular conduct,\nin the petition presented by Pattie on the 27th of this month for permission\nto travel and remain in the country, there being no consul nor mercantile\nagent of his nation, nor any Mexican bondsman, therefore I have determined\nto grant him provisionally this letter of security, that he may remain and travel\nin this territory for one year,' in accordance, so far as possible, with the laws\nof May 1 and Mar. 12, 1828.\nI have not found the papers of the other men under this date, but in a list\nof Feb. 14th, Dept. St. Pap., MS., xix. 44, Pryor, Puter, and Yorgens are\nnamed, Pryor being already at S. Luis Rey. He received a carta deseguridad\nApril 52th. Id., xix. 18-19. It is doubtful if any of them were kept in prison\nafter their return from the Colorado.\n A TOUR OF VACCINATION.\n169\nin all 22,000 persons,33 receiving from the padres certificates by which the value of his services was to be\nfinally estimated by a 'high dignitary' in the north.\nAfter a week's visit to Ross, where everything pleased\nthe American, and where he received $100 for his\nmedical services,40 he returned and presented his certificates to the padre at^ San Francisco. On July\n8th John Cabortes, presumably Padre Juan Cabot,\npresented the amateur physician a paper, by which\nhe gave him 500 cattle and 500 mules, with land on\nwhich to pasture the same\u2014to be delivered when he\nhad become a Catholic and a Mexican citizen. \"When\nI had read this,\" says Pattie, \"I was struck dumb.\nMy anger choked me.\" But he soon recovered his\nspeech sufficiently to give the padre his opinion in\nthe matter, to say that he came from a country where\nthe laws compelled a man to pay another what he\njustly owed him without condition of submission to\n\"any of his whimsical desires;\" that as a protestant\nhe would not change his opinions for all the money\nthe mission was worth, and that as an American,\n\"rather than consent to be adopted into the society and\ncompanionship of such a band of murderers and robbers,\" he would suffer death. For this \"honest and\nplain utterance\" of his feelings, he was ordered to\nleave the house; and, keeping his rifle ready for any\none the priest might send after him, he bought a\nhorse for three dollars, and started for Monte El Rey!\nAt the capital Pattie shipped on an American vessel, and- for several months ploughed the Pacific,\ntouching at various ports. He does not name the\nvessel, and he gives no particulars of his voyage, save\n39 Strangely enough there is no record in the archives respecting the ravages\nof small-pox or Pattie's professional tour; yet his statement is confirmed by\nthe fact that the statistical tables show an extraordinary number of deaths\nthis year among the Indians of all the northern missions. (See note 36.) Sta\nCruz, S. Jose\", and Sta Clara do not appear to have been visited at all. Here\nin the extreme north only the few who had not had the small-pox were vaccinated.\n40 He had seen Don Sereldo, as he calls the Russian manager, at S. Diego,\nand had been implored to come to Bodega and administer his remedy.\n 170\nCfVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nof the first week's terrible sea-sickness. Back at Monterey,41 he took a more or less active part, on both\nsides, in the Solis revolt, to which event considerable\nspace is devoted in his narrative.42 At first the trapper had contributed in a small way to the rebellion fund,\nand had with difficulty been dissuaded from joining\nthe army of Solis in the hope of getting a shot at\nEcheandia; but in the end he had become an ally of\nhis old foe, who on his coming to Monterey received\nPattie affably, and even listened with some patience\nto a repetition of his long-winded arguments and complaints. Yet notwithstanding the portentous aspect\nof a document which Pattie had prepared by the advice of the Hawaiian 6onsul, Jones,43 for presentation\nto the American minister at Mexico, Echeandia ventured to doubt that his wrongs would be redressed,\nthough he granted a passport that he might go to\nMexico- and try. Spending three days de fiesta at San\nCarlos in company with Captain William Hinckley,\nhunting otter profitably for ten days on the coast,\npresenting his rifle to Captain Cooper, and writing a\nletter of farewell to his former companions in the\nsouth, Pattie sailed on the Volunteer May 9th, in\ncompany with Solis and his fellow-prisoners, for San\nBias. At Mexico in June, at the office of JButler,\nAmerican charge' d'affaires, he saw a communication\nof President Andrew Jackson in his behalf. He was\nhonored by an interview with President Guerrero,\nand had the pleasure of learning that Echeandia had\nbeen recalled. I have his original letter of June 14,\n1830, to friends in California, naming Lothlin (Laugh-\n41 He says it was Jan. 6, 1830; but if there is any foundation of truth in\nthat part of the narrative which follows, it must have been about 2 months\nearlier.\n*2See chapter iii., this volume, on the Solis revolt, and especially Pattie's\nversion of that affair. His dates are all wrong; there are many absurd inaccuracies built on a substratum of truth; and there is apparently deliberate\nfalsehood respecting his personal exploits in the capture oi Solis.\n43 Pattie says that this consul, John W. Jones, to whom he had written\nfrom S. Diego, arrived at Monterey April 29th in his own brig from the\nIslands. The reference is to John C Jones, Jr., owner of the Volunteer^\nwhich arrived at about this time.\n PATTIE'S BOOK. 171\nlin), Pryor, and Cooper, in which he explains that\n'Kernal' Butler had been able to give no satisfaction,\nbut had advised him to seek redress from the President of the United States. The adventurer reached\nNew Orleans in August, and proceeding up the Mississippi, was soon introduced to Rev. Timothy Flint,\nwho was to make his name and fame more or less immortal.44\nI have thus presented, with fairness I think, the substance and spirit of Pattie's narrative, though obliged\nto omit many details, making no pretension to point\nout minor errors, and perhaps failing to give a full idea\nof the writer's bitter feelings toward his oppressors.\nThe subject is entitled to the space I have given it, on\naccount of the extraordinary nature of the adventures\nrecounted, the early date of the visit to California, the\nextent of the author's travels in the territory, the fame\nof his book, and the accuracy of many of his statements.\nYet from the spirit of the narrative, from the numerous erroneous statements, and from my knowledge of\nEcheandia's character, I have no hesitation in pronouncing Pattie's complaints of ill treatment grossly\nexaggerated. This opinion is confirmed by those of\nthe company who remained in the country. Entering the territory without passports, the hunters were,\naccording to the unwise policy of Mexican laws, liable\nto arrest. Presidio fare, and especially prison fare,\nin California at that time, was even less congenial to\nAmerican hunters than was the narrow spirit of Spanish policy. Naturally they were disappointed at their\nreception, and disgusted with their situation, but they\nwere not probably made the victims of any special\noppression. James 0. Pattie was, however, a self-\nconceited and quick-tempered boy, with a freedom of\n\"Letter in Vallejo, Doc, xxx. 85. In 1883 a man whose name I cannot\nrecall, apparently trustworthy, while visiting my Library, stated that his wife\nwas a niece of Pattie, and that the latter had spent some time at her residence\nin San Diego in late years, or at least since 1850. The man promised to obtain from his wife a more definite statement on the subject, but I have not\nreceived it\n 172 OVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nspeech often amounting to insolence, and unlimited\nability to make himself disagreeable. How far these\npeculiarities, and the young man's connection with\nthe smuggling operations of Bradshaw and Lang,\nmay have provoked Echeandia to the infliction of\nspecial penalties, I cannot say.\nThomas L. Smith, commonly called 'Peg-leg' Smith\n\u2014a well known character in many parts of California,\nbut chiefly in later times, who died in a San Francisco\nhospital in 1866\u2014was one of the famous trappers and\nIndian-fighters of this early epoch. He was at times\na companion of Jedediah Smith, and was the hero of\nmany wild adventures in various parts of the great\ninterior; but very few of his early exploits have ever\nbeen recorded with even approximate accuracy of time\nor place. He owes his position on this page to a report that he came to California in 1829, a report that\nI have not been able to trace to any reliable source.45\nEngaged in trapping in the Utah regions, he came to\nCalifornia to dispose of his furs. He was ordered out\nof the country, and departed, he and his companion\ntaking with them, however, a band of three or four\nhundred horses, in spite of efforts of the Californians\nto prevent the act. Some accounts say that be visited\nthe country repeatedly in those earry years, and we\nshall find archive evidence of his presence a little later,\nacting with the horse-thieves of the Tulares, and\nknown as 'El Cojo Smit.'46\nIn the spring of 1828 the Mexican government\ngranted to Richard Exter and Julian Wilson47 a pro-\n45 The story is told in many newspaper biographical sketches published at\nthe time of Smith's death. I have before me the S. F. Bulletin, Oct. 20, 1S66;\nNevada Daily Gazette, Oct. 25, 1866; and others in Hayes' Scraps, Cal. Notes,\nii. 309-12.\n46 As an item which I am unable to connect with any of the expeditions\nparticularly accredited to this period, I may notice a record of Nov. 0, 1829,\nthat five deserters from Upper California were captured on the frontier of the\npeninsula, one of whom, an Englishman, stabbed a neophvte, and was shot by\nanother. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xiv. 10-11.\n47 Exter, of Exter, Graves, & Co., Mexico, was connected with the General\n EXTER AND WILSON. 173\nvisional license to hunt and trap in New Mexico and\nCalifornia, as well as on the coasts for sea-otter. They\nhad asked for an exclusive privilege, which proposition\nwas reserved for consideration by congress. The object in view was to derive a revenue from the territorial wealth of furs, and by a contract with these foreigners to prevent the constantly increasing clandestine\noperations of other foreigners, whom no revenue laws\ncould control. The idea was a good one. Such a contract with a responsible and powerful company was\nperhaps the only means by which Mexico could partially protect her interests in this direction; but there\nmay be some doubt whether Exter and Wilson possessed the requisite qualifications, since little is known\nabout them. It does not appear that the exclusive\nprivilege was ever conceded,43 and nothing was ever\ndone under the provisional permit. Vallejo and Alvarado say that there was a strong feeling in California\nagainst the scheme, and that when the two men came\nto the country in 1829, strutting up and down as if\nthey owned it, Echeandia refused to recognize their\nauthority, and they went away in disgust.49\nIn January 1830 a small party\u2014of Mexicans apparently\u2014came from New Mexico to Los Angeles\nunder* the leadership of Jose' Antonio Vaca; but of\ntheir purposes and adventures we know nothing from\nthe fragmentary records.50  A somewhat better known\nPearl and Coral Fishing Association of London, and there are several letters\nfrom him to Hartnell, dated 1827, and not referring to the fur business, in\nVallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 153-4, 163. \u2022\n48 April 28, 1828, provisional license granted. Hunting parties must be\nmade up of at least two thirds Mexican citizens. Mexico, Mem. Rel, 1829, p.\n22. Aug. 7th, the comisario communicates the concession to Herrera. Exact\naccounts must be kept of number, size, and quality of skins. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Com. and Treas., MS., i. 106. Dec. 23, 1828. gov. announces the license\nin Cal., and says that the parties will be allowed to catch otter. Dept. Rec,\nMS., vi. 162.\n49 Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 124-5; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 128-9.\nFernandez, Cosas de Cal, MS., 58-9, mentions their failure to get an exclusive\nprivilege, but says nothing of their having come to Cal.\n\u2122Dcpt. Rec, MS., viii. 14, 18, 69; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg.,\nMS., i. 31.\n 174\nOVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nexpedition is that of Ewing Young, the Tennesseean,\nor Joaquin Joven as he was often called, who entered\nthe territory later in the same year from New Mexico\nwith a company of beaver-hunters of various nationalities. Warner says this party came by Jedediah\nSmith's old trail, and found Ogden's Hudson Bay\ntrappers on the Sacramento.51 After trapping for a\nshort time in the Tulares, Young moved north and\nmet the Indian alcalde of San Jose mission out on a\nhunt for runaway neophytes by order of the padre.\nThe fugitives allied with the gentiles showed fight,\nbut eleven of the trappers aided the alcalde to defeat\nthe foe. Taking advantage of this service rendered,\nYoung, with three of' his men, came to the mission\nJuly 11th, showed his passports, explained his need\nof horses, and departed after promising to return in a\nweek with furs to sell or to exchange for supplies.52\nThere is no record that the hunters returned to\nSan Jose, though they may have done so; but at the\nend of July three Frenchmen came to Monterey,\nannouncing their intention to return to New Mexico,\nhaving left the company.53 In October the hunters\nwere in the vicinity of Los Angeles, where the leader\nhad great difficulty in controlling them, and where one\nman was killed.54 It had been the intention to return\nfrom the Colorado in December to sell furs and buy\n61 Warner's Reminis., MS., 37-9. In Dept. St. Pap., ii. 84, 113, is Young's\npassport of 1829 signed by Henry Clay.\n5*July 15, 1830, report of Jose Berreyesa. Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 135-9.\nOne of Young's passports was vis6d at Washington, March 20, 1828, by the\nMex. minister.    It permitted the bearer to go into the interior.\n'^Theso men were Francois Turcote, Jean Vaillant, and Anastase Curier.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS.,ii. 4-5. In a letter to Capt. Cooper of Oct.\n10th, Young says that the Frenchmen, who owed him money, had mutinied,\nand determined to stay in the country; but they had been forced to return\nwith tho party. He also speaks of the light with Indians, but indicates that\nit was,to recover stolen horses rather than to aid the neophytes. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xxx. 135. Dec. 23d, Echeandia to alcalde of S. Jose*. Speaks of 4\nAmericans who had come to tho rancho of S. Pablo and must depart at once.\nThere may be an error in this date. Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 134.\n51 Warner says that James Higgins killed an Irishman known as Big Jim.\nJose* Antonio Pico reports the killing on Oct. 7th. He had orders to detain\nYoung, but his force was too small. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. yJuzg., MS.,\ni. 97. Juan Higgins, probably the same, remained in Cal. for 5 or 0 years at\nleast. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 156, 159.\n FOREIGN RESIDENTS. 175\nmules; but Young had lost confidence in his men, and\nthought he would be fortunate to get safely home with\nhis company by the aid of the Americans. He intended, however, to come back the following year.55\nThere are several men named as being in California\nfrom New Mexico this year, some of whom may have\nbelonged to this party; but Young and Higgins are the\nonly ones known here later, unless Kit Carson may\nhave made his first visit at this time.\nOf the foreign residents who came to California before 1826, about fifty are mentioned in the records\nof 1826-30, a dozen or more having died or left\nthe country. Some of the more prominent, like Hartnell, Spence, Cooper, and Gale, have been noticed in\nconnection with commercial and maritime topics in\nthe preceding chapter. All, including new-comers,\nwere in this period as a class law-abiding citizens of\nconsiderable influence in their new home. Many were\nbaptized, married, and naturalized. Space does not\npermit the introduction of personal experiences and\nachievements here, but the reader is referred to the\nbiographic sketches presented elsewhere in this work.56\nIn respect of general policy toward foreigners,57\nthere was little or no tendency in California to exclu-\nsiveness or oppression in 1826, as has been seen from\nthe commercial record, and especially from the privileges allowed to Captain Beechey, in contrast with\nthe treatment of Vancouver at an earlier date and\nunder another regime. Yet the Mexican laws were\nstrict in requiring foreigners to show passports, and\nsubmit to surveillance; hence the precautions taken\nin the case of Jedediah Smith and his company;\nhence certain orders for the arrest of deserting sailors.\n65 Young to Cooper.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxx. 135.\n56 See alphabetical register of pioneers at end of vol. ii.-v. Also a list of pioneers who came before 1830, at the end of vol. ii. of this work.\n5TAug., Dec. 1826, orders of sup. govt against admission of foreigners\nwithout passports circulated by gov. and comandantes. S. Jos6, Arch., MS.,\nvi. 25; Dept. Rec, MS., iv. 25.\n 176 OVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nOf new-comers for 1826, about sixty are named. It is\nnot easy to decide exactly which of these are entitled\nto the name of pioneers, nor is it necessary, because I\nshall mention them all elsewhere. Here I name only\nsuch as remained in the country several years at least,\ntraders who came often during a series of years and\nbecame\" well known to the people, men who though\nvisitors now became permanent residents later, and\nmen who died in California. Such for this year\nnumber twenty-five.53 The most prominent names\nare those of Dana, Fitch, and Wilson; but ten or\ntwelve lived long in the country and were well\nknown.\nIn 1827 the general orders from Mexico promulgated by Echeandia, and more or less fully enforced,\nwere to insist on passports, to keep a strict watch,\nrender a monthly account of new arrivals, grant no\nlands to foreigners, and by no means to allow them to\nform settlements on coast or islands.59 On the intercession of the English charge d'affaires in Mexico, the\nlocal authorities were empowered to extend the passports of English residents for one year, while the\npapers of other foreigners might be extended so as to\nallow them time to make a regular application for renewal.63 My list of 'newly arrived pioneers for the\nyear contains twelve names, the total number, including visitors, being about thirty.61    John Temple and\n58 For complete lists see Pioneer Register at .end of these volumes. The\npioneers of 1826 were the following: Louis Bolbeda, Joaquin Bowman, Michael\nCharles, Wm H. Cunningham, Wm G. Dana, Henry D. Fitch, Guy F. Fling,\nBenj. Foxen, Isaac Galbraith, Cornelius A. Johnson, John Littleton, Wm\nLogan, Thomas B. Park, Joaquin Pereira, Louis Pombert, John Read (?), Geo.\nJ. Rice, James Scott, Joseph Steele, Wm Trevethan, John S. Turner, Geo.\nW. Vincent, John Wilson, John Wilson (trapper), and John H. Wilson the\nnegro.\n59Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., iv. 1; Dept. Rec, MS., v. 19, 53, 95; Dept.\nSt. Pap., S. Jose; MS., v. 12.\n00St. Pap., Sac, MS., xvi. 1-3; Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 175. Barron and\nForbes at Tepic were at this time pumping Bandini and Hartnell forinforma-*\ntion about California, and projecting a visit. Oct. 17, 1827, Eustacio Barron to Bandini. feandini, Doc, MS., 7.\ncx See Pioneer Register at end of these volumes. Pioneers of 1827: Miguel\nAllen (born in Cal.), John Bradshaw, Geo. Coleman, Nicolas Dodero, Robt J.\nElwSll, John A. C. Holmes, Giovanni Glande, Joseph Jackson, John B,\nLeandry, Jean B. Mutrel, William Smith, and John Temple.\n REGULATIONS OF 1828. 177\nRobert J. Elwell became most prominent in California;\nthough Bradshaw, Holmes, and Leandry were also\nwell known men. It was during this year that the\nCalifornians were excited at the presence and actions of\nJedediah Smith's trappers, their first American visitors by the overland route. As Smith arrived in December 1826, the names of his companions who settled in the country have been included in the list of\nthat year, though they left the company of hunters,\nand some of them arrived, in 1827.\nOrders of the Californian officials in 1828 respecting foreigners were of the same tenor as before; applications for naturalization were frequent; many\nstrangers wished to marry Californian wives. Bands\nof trappers on the frontiers round about excited some\napprehensions. A few immigrants of Mexican blood\nseem to have come in from Sonora, and all was faithfully reported to the minister of relations in Mexico.62\nIn accordance with the decree of March 12, 1828,\nwhich declared that no foreigner could remain in\nMexican territory without a passport, and regulated\nthe holding of property by naturalized citizens,63 a\nreglamento was issued by the president on May 1st\nprescribing in detail the methods to be observed in\nobtaining, granting, and using passports of various\nkinds. This document was doubtless forwarded to\nCalifornia later in the year.64    I find about sixty new\n62Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 21, 27, 177, 192, 194; vii. 25; St. Pap., Sac, MS.,\nx. 9S; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. passim. The Americans celebrated July 4th\nby burning much powder on the vessels at S. Diego.\nC3 Mexico, De.creto sobre Pasaportes y modo de adqidrir propisdades los\nEstrangeros, 12 de Marzo de 1828. 12 articles. In Schmidt's Civil Law of\nSpain and Mexico, 340-51, in Spanish and English; Hayes' Mex. Laws, 81-2.\n01 Mexico, Reglamento para el ramo de Pasaportes\u2014decretadopor el Presidente en 1 de Mayo 1828. Printed copy in Pinto, Doc, i. 3. 25 articles,\nnumbered as 22. Also in Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ix. 30-6; and part of\nit in Vallejo, Doc, MS. Omitting minor details, this regulation was in\nsubstance as follows: The master of a ship, on arrival, must furnish a report\nof his foreign passengers, and each passenger a report of his name, business,\netc., to the customs officer, who will grant a boleto de disembarco to such as\narc not Spaniards, and have a passport from tho general'government, or from\nduly accredited Mexican agents abroad, or a bond from the consul or agent\nof their nation at the port of landing, or of a Mexican citizen. The boleto,\nwithout which no foreigner could leave the vessel, must be presented within\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   12\n 178 OVERLAND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nnames of foreigners in this year's records, several belonging to men whose presence is noted in consequence\nof the regulations just mentioned, but about whom\nno more is known than that they were here in 1828-9.\nPioneers proper number eighteen, as,per appended\nlist.65 Several of these became in later times locally\nprominent; and one of the number, Henry A. Peirce,\nis still living in 1884, being in a sense the oldest living\npioneer within my knowledge, though he has by no\nmeans resided continuously in California. Two or\nthree detected attempts at smuggling, together with\nthe presence of Pattie and his trappers from New\nMexico, were the leading topics of interest for 18.28,\nas far as foreigners were concerned.\nIn 1829 Echeandia continued to circulate the passport regulations for the benefit of foreigners and of\nlocal officials. 'He still received numerous applications for permits to remain, to travel, to marry, or to\nbecome naturalized, and called for full reports of resident foreigners.66 It is from these reports, and the\nvarious certificates connected with the applications\nabove referred to, that I have obtained much of the\ninformation presented elsewhere respecting individuals; still the lists are incomplete, and have to be perfected from numerous scattered documents.67    Eche-\n24 hours to the civil authority of the port, who will vise the passport. To\ntravel in the interior a carta de seguridad for a year must be obtained.\nWhatever passports a'foreigner might have, he, must present himself to the\ncivil authorities of any place where he intended to remain over 8 days, and\non each change of residence. Due provision was made for renewal of licenses,\npenalties for failure to comply with the law, and for full reports to be sent to\nthe government.\n^Pioneers of 1828: Stephen Anderson, Louis Bouchet, John Brown (?),\nJohn Davis, Jesse Ferguson, Richard Laughlin, Timothy Murphy, Sylvester\nPattie, Henry A. Peirce, Wm Pope, Nathaniel Pryor, Isaac Slover, Wm\nTaylor, James Thompson, Wm Warren (?) the negro, Edward Watson, Wm\nWillis, and Julian Wilson. For biographical sketches, see Pioneer Register\nat the end of vol. ii.-v., this work.\n66Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 59, 86, 105, 176; Dept. St. Pap., MS., xix. 20-2;\nSt. Pap., Sac, MS., xi. 4;  Valhjo, Doc, MS., xxix. 310.\n67 Naturalization records in Dept. St. Pap., MS., xix. passim. List of 48\nnames dated Feb. 14th, in Id., xix. 44. List of 44 names in Monterey district Feb. 16th, in\/<*, ii. 115. List of 7 names in S. JosC, Feb. 5th. Id.,\nxix. 3. List of 7 at Los Angeles Feb. 14th, in Monterey, Arch., MS., vii.\n24-5. Apparently 2 foreigners at S. F. Dep*t. St. Pap., MS., ii. 97-8. There\nare no lists for Sta Barbara or S. Diego.\n PIONEERS OF 1829. 179\nandia heard this year and forwarded to the supreme\ngovernment a rumor that the Americans were plotting\nto seize the port of San Francisco; while on the other\nside of the continent we find a rumor from Mexico,\nby way of England, that California with Texas was\nto be made over to the United States for a term of\nyears, as security for a large sum of money to be spent\nin resisting Spanish invasion.68 The new arrivals of\nthe year, as named in an appended list, were seventeen,69 or about thirty-five including visitors, or men\nabout whom nothing more is known than their mention in lists of the year. Prominent names are those\nof Captain Hinckley, Alfred Robinson, and Abel\nStearns. Robinson still lives in 1884, with none to\ndispute his title as the oldest pioneer, unless it be\nPeirce of 1828, as already mentioned, or Michael\nWhite, perhaps still alive, but about whose arrival in\n1829 there is some doubt. The great excitement of\nthe year was the Solis revolt, in which, as we have\nseen, the foreigners, though at first somewhat inclined\nto sympathize with the movement as promising them\ncertain commercial advantages, later took a decided\nstand in favor of the regular authorities, and contributed largely to the restoration of the capital.\nIn February 1830 the Mexican government, in reply\nto reports respecting Abel Stearns and others in California who were seeking lands, directed Echeandia to\ndistribute the public lands in accordance with the laws\nto such foreigners as could comply with all the requirements, taking care, however, that the Russians and\n68June 25th, E. to min. of rel., in Dept. Rec, MS., vii. 25.   Niles' Reg.,\nxxxvii. 87.    The John Bull says: IThe proposition of America must not be\nquietly listened to or tamely permitted; while we are earnest in our endeavors *\nto put a stop to the power of Russia, we must not forget the necessity of\nchecking the aggrandizement of America.'\n69Pioneers of 1829\u2014the '(?)' indicates uncertainty about the exact date of\narrival: James D. Arther, Jas Breck, Walter Duckworth (?), James Flem-\nming, Wm S. Hinckley (?), Geo. Kinlock (?), Lawrence (born in Cal.), John\nMeek, Manuel D. Olivera, Jordan Pacheco, John Rainsford, Alfred Robinson, Thos L. (Peg-leg) Smith (?), Abel Stearns, Chas A. Swain (?), Michael\nWhite (?), and Geo. Williams. See biog. sketches of them and also of the\nyears' visitors in Pioneer Register at the end of these volumes.\n 180 OVERLx^ND\u2014SMITH AND PATTIE\u2014FOREIGNERS.\nAmericans should be the least numerous, and be located\nin the central parts.70 A little later, however, foreigners of adjacent countries were prohibited from colonization on the frontier.71 It is not certain that any\nresident foreigner had yet obtained his final and complete papers of naturalization; though a few may have\ndone so, and many had made application and complied\nwith all the preliminary requirements, receiving certificates which served all practical purposes.72 Newcomers of this final year of the decade were fifty, of\nwhom twenty-four named in a note may be regarded\nas pioneers proper.73 The arrival of Kit Carson this\nyear is doubtful. Bee, Jones, Nye, Snook, and Young\nwere the names best known in the annals of later years.\nSome details about all the men named in this chapter\nand many visitors not here named may be found in\nthe Pioneer Register appended to these volumes. That\nregister wTill also serve as an index through which may\nbe found all that is recorded of any early Californian\nin this work.\n70Feb. 2, 1830, Alaman to E. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., vi. 4.\n71 Law of April 6, 1830, in Hcdleck's Report, 121-2. Article 7 of the law\nof Aug. 18, 1824, was thereby repealed.\n72 The naturalization regulations, probably of 1828, are given in Schmidt's\nCivil Law of Spiin and Mexico, 353-9, in Spanish and English. The general\npurport had been circulated by Echeandia on June 4, 1S29. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., xix. 20-1. These rules prescribed in substance that any foreigner of two\nyears' residence might, one year after having announced his intention, obtain\na carta de naturaleza from the gov. by renouncing all allegiance to any foreign\npower, swearing to support the constitution and laws of Mexico, and presenting\nproof in due form of Catholic faith, means of support, and good conduct. See\nalso the Mex. passport regulations of Oct. 12, 1S30, in Arrillaga, Recop., 1830,\np. 474-99.\n73 Pioneers of 1830; Henry J. Bee, John Burns, Kit Carson (?), James Cook,\nPhil. H. Devoll, Juan Domingo, * William Duckworth, John Ebbetts, James\nHarris, John Higgins, John C. Jones, *Geo. D. Kinlock, Laure, Allen Lewis,\nGorhani H. Nye, *Juan Pombert, Sam. Prentice, John Rice, John Roach, Ed\nRobinson (?), Jos F. Snook, Sam. Thompson, *Francis \"Watson, and Ewing\nYoung. Those whose names are marked with a * were born in Cal., their\nfathers being foreigners.\n CHAPTER VII.\nRULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\n1831.\nAppointment of Victoria\u2014Arrival\u2014EcHEANDfa's Delay\u2014Command Sub-\nrendered\u2014Beginning of a Quarrel\u2014Golpe de Estado\u2014Schemes\nof Padres and Party\u2014Victoria's Address to the People\u2014Charges\nagainst the Governor\u2014Refusal to Convoke the Diputacion\u2014\nMemorials and Threats\u2014Victoria's Manifiesto\u2014Replies of Bandini and Pico\u2014Administration of Justice\u2014The Death Penalty\u2014\nCase of Atanasio\u2014The Robbers Aguilar and Sagarra\u2014Execution\nof Rubio\u2014Exile of Abel Stearns\u2014Victoria and Alcalde Duartb\nof San Jose\u2014Trouble at Los Angeles\u2014Exile of Jose A. Carrillo\u2014Jose M. Padres Banished\u2014Plots of Carrillo, Bandini, and\nPico\u2014Pronunciamiento of San Diego\u2014Echeandia in Command\u2014\nAngeles Revolts\u2014Fight near Cahuenga\u2014Death of Pacheco and\nAvila\u2014Victoria Sent to San Blas\u2014Rodrigo del Pliego\u2014Action\nin the North\u2014Carrillo's Efforts in Congress.\nLieutenant-colonel Manuel Victoria was appointed\nMarch 8, 1830, to succeed Jose Maria Echeandia as\ngefe politico of Alta California, and three days later\nofficial notice was sent to the incumbent.1 Victoria\nwas then at Loreto, where for several years he had\nbeen comandante principal of Lower California; but\nnothing is known of his career on the peninsula, nor\nof his previous life beyond the current and probably\naccurate belief in California that he was a native of\nAcapulco, and commandant there in 1825, who had\nwon his rank by personal bravery in the war of independence.2    Antonio  Garcia   had   previously been\n1Supt. Govt St. Pap., MS., vi. 6-7. Victoria's appointment and Minister Facio's communication of Mar. 11th to Echeandia.\n2Com. at Acapulco 1S25. Gac Mex.,Jnne 15, 1825. In June 1S25, when\nVictoria was about to leave Acapulco for Loreto, Enrique Virmond pro-\n(181)\n 182 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nnamed to succeed Echeandia, and the substitution of\nVictoria is believed to have been due to the success\nof Bustamante in Mexico, and to Franciscan influence on the new administration. While there is no\npositive proof of the Californian friars' intrigues in\nthe matter, yet Bustamante's revolution was widely\nregarded as a reactionary movement in favor of the old\nSpanish institutions. The padres were very bitterly\nopposed to the mission policy of Echeandia, or of the\nadministration that he represented, and they openly\nrejoiced at the new appointment as a glorious 'victory'\nfor their cause.3\nHaving notified Echeandia of his coming, and\nnamed a day for the transfer of office at San Diego,\nVictoria started northward from Loreto by land in\nthe autumn of 1830, arriving at San Diego in December, or possibly in November. He was disappointed\nat not finding either the governor or any message\nfrom him; but a despatch sent post-haste to the north\nelicited from Echeandia a reply, to the effect that the\ncommand would be turned over at Monterey, the\ncapital. A later despatch, however, named Santa\nBarbara as the place, and thither Victoria went,\narriving the 31st of December. Here he remained\nabout three weeks, engaging in a sharp correspondence with Echeandia, some of whose orders he countermanded, though not yet legally invested with\nauthority; but at last he came to Monterey, and dn\nJanuary 31, 1831, assumed the formal command, taking the oath in presence of the ayuntamiento, assembled for the purpose.4\nnounced him, in a letter to Guerra, * un sujeto de las mejores prendas.'\nGuerra, Doc, MS. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 160-2, says he failed to gain the\nconfidence and esteem of the people in L. Cal.; hut not much importance is\nto be attached to this statement.\n3 See p. 108 this vol., with quotations from the statements of President\nSanchez on this subject.\n4 Robinson, Life in Cal., 97, says V. arrived at Sta B. on Jan. 10th. The\nrather meagre official correspondence on V.'s arrival and assumption of the\ncommand is as follows: Jan. 14, 1831, V. to E., complaining of the delay in\nturning over the office, and of the secularization decree. St. Pap., Miss, and\nColon., MS., ii. 35-6; Jan, 19th, V. to min. of rel., narrating all that had\n A GOLPE DE ESTADO. 183\nIn explanation of the situation at the time of Victoria's arrival, of Echeandia's strange conduct in delaying the transfer of command, and of the bitter\ncontroversy that now began between the Californians\nand their new ruler, I must here refer briefly to a\nsubject which will require full treatment in a subsequent chapter, that of mission secularization. The\nreader is i familiar 5 with the Mexican policy on that\nmatter, with Echeandia's investigation, experiments,\nand difficulties in attempting to carry out his instructions, and with the action of the diputacion in the\nsummer of 1830 respecting a plan of secularization\nwhich was submitted to the national government for\napproval.    Thus  far  proceedings had  been  strictly\noccurred since his departure from Loreto, including the matter of secularization. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., viii. 8-10; Jan. 19th, E. to V., in reply to\n.letter of 14th, reserving full explanations for a personal interview, but con-\nplaining of V.'s conduct in opposing his acts without legal authority, and\nannouncing his intention to await his arrival at Mont, instead of marching to\nSta B. as he had been ready to do. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 76-8. Jan. 29th-\n31st, summons to ayuntamiento, and E.'s announcements of having given up\nthe command. Id., xiv. 25; Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 89; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii.\n5-6; Id., S. Jose, MS., iv. 94.\nOn the same topic a few extra-official statements may also be noted. Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 72-3, tells us that V. on his arrival impressed the people of S. Diego as a simple, unostentatious man with benevolent ideas\u2014but\nthey were soon undeceived. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 137-8; Osio, Hist.\nCal, MS., 160-2; Vallejo, Reminis., MS., Ill; and Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS., ii. 168, state that on his way V. called on P. Peyri, at San Luis Rey,\nby whom he was most hospitably entertained, from whom he borrowed.\n$5,000 more or less, to whom he promised all that the friars desired, and who\nat once wrote to his associates 'yalo tenemos en el manguillo.' No doubt\nrelations were most friendly between the two, but the authors named are\nbitterly prejudiced against V. and all his acts. Vallejo and Alvarado say he\ngot large slims also at S. Juan and S. Gabriel\u2014in fact, that avarice was one\nof his weak points, and that the padres were willing tc buy him. In his diary\nof Ocurrencias Curiosas, 1830-1, MS., Guerra notes the presence of V. at\nSta B. on Jan. 7th; declines to make predictions about his prospective rule;\nbut says he seems a great friend of Pacheco, has very judicious views on the\nsubject of missions; and in stature and flesh bears some resemblance to\nEcheandia. Carrillo (J.), Doc, MS., 33. Mrs Ord remembers that V., instead\nof lodging as was customary at the comandante's house, went straight to\nthe mission. Here Guerra went to call on the new governor, showing him\nevery attention, and presenting his daughter, the writer. Ord, Ocurrencias,\nMS., 38-41. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 162-4, says that V. arrived unexpectedly\nat Monterey, .dismounting before the gov.'s house, and demanding, in an\n. abrupt and offensive manner, an immediate surrender of the office. Echeandia promised the transfer for 9 a. m. next morning, and V. went to S. Carlos\nto sleep.\n5 See chap, iv., this volume.\nJ\n 184 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nlegal, and marked by no imprudent or hasty steps.\nThe friars, however strongly opposed to secularization on general principles, had no just cause for complaint against Echeandia. There was now, however,\na popular feeling in favor of the proposed changes far\nin advance of Echeandia's personal views, and largely\ndue to the influence cf Jose* Maria Padre's, the newly\narrived ayudante inspector. Padres was a man of\nconsiderable ability, personally magnetic, and moreover a most radical republican. He soon became a\nleading spirit among the young Californians just becoming prominent in public life, intensified their nascent republicanism, taught them to theorize eloquently\non the rights of man, the wrongs of the neophytes,\nand the tyranny of the missionaries; and if he also held\nup before the eyes of the Carrillos, Osios, Vallejos,\nPicos, Alvarados, Bandinis, and others bright visions\nof rich estates to be administered by them or their\nfriends, their young enthusiasm should by no means\nbe termed hypocrisy or a desire for plunder.\nBut events in Mexico seemed to favor the friars,\nand were not encouraging to the views of Padrds and\nhis disciples. It is not apparent whether or not the\nsuccess of Bustamante or its bearing on Californian\nmatters was known in July and August 1830, the\ndate of the diputacion's acts; but when the day of\nVictoria's arrival drew near, and no approval of the\nplan came from Mexico, Echeandia was persuaded,\nprobably without much difficulty, to essay a golpe de\nestado. Accordingly he issued, January G, 1831, a\ndecree of secularization, which he took immediate steps\nto carry into execution before turning over the command to his successor. Victoria was known to be\nmore a soldier than a politician, and it was hoped with\nthe aid of the diputacion in some way to sustain the\ndecree and reach a result favorable to the anti-mission\nparty. Echeandia's act was wholly illegal, uncalled\nfor, and unwise,    It was simply a trick, and an absurd\n THE GOVERNOR'S ADDEESS. 185\none. The opponents of Victoria were thus in the\nwrong at the beginning of the quarrel.0\nWhile at Santa B&rbara Victoria heard of the decree of January 6th and prevented its publication in\nthe south; while he reported the matter to the national\nauthorities, denouncing Padres, whom of course he\nhad known wTell in Baja California, as the real author\nof the trick and as a man wTho was very dangerous to\nthe best interests of the territory.7 In the north,\nwhere the decree had been already published, the new\nruler took immediate steps to prevent its execution.\nNothing more need be said here of secularization,8\nbut the wrath of the ayudante inspector and his\nparty may well be imagined by the reader, and will\nbe constantly apparent in the subsequent record.\nHaving assumed the command, Victoria issued the\n1st of February an address to the people, a brief\ndocument, in which the author made known to his\n* beloved fellow-citizens' his purpose to reform the\nevils that most afflicted the country, and his hope for\ncordial support from the inhabitants. \"The laws\nmust be executed, the government obeyed, and our\ninstitutions respected,\" he writes; \"I have to favor\nhonesty and to punish perversity, the first being in\naccord with my character, the second demanded by\nmy honor and conscience.\"9 All of this officer's communications, or at least all that have been preserved,\nwere brief and to the point, showing the writer to be\nmore of a soldier than politician, and lacking something of the usual Mexican bombast.    Of his personal\n6 In a letter to the padres dated Nov. 18, 1832, E. says that V. factiously\nremoved him from the command, and that he gave it up to save the country\nfrom disturbances (!), little thinking V. would 'audaciously prevaricate and\nbreak his oath.' St. Pap., Miss, and CoJon., MS., ii. 61. To Figueroa, on\nMar. 19, 1833, he says that V. treated him with the greatest contempt in\nmatters of government. Id., ii. 55. The only defence of E. and his friends\nis tlie justice of their general views on the mission question and the Indians'\nrights, which of course has no real bearing on the matter at issue.\n''Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., viii. 8-10.\n8 The subject is fully treated for the years 1831-5 in chap, xi.-xii., this\nvolume, q. v.\n9 Victoria, Manifestacion del Gefe Politico de la Alta California d sus Jtabi-\ntantes, 1S31, MS.\n 186 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nmovements during the nine months of his stay in the\nnorth, we know but little, except what can be gathered\nfrom the dates of successive official documents to be\nnoticed incidentally in the record about to be presented. He is said to have gone to San Francisco\nsoon after taking the command, and subsequently to\nhave spent some time on different occasions at Santa\nClara.10 In addition to his few letters on special\ntopics, the governor made in June a general report on\nthe industrial condition of California, a document\nwhich presents no matter for comment.11 Echeandia\nretired to San Diego a few days after turning over\nthe office, but did not yet leave the territory, as we\nshall see.\nThe annals of 1831, and of Victoria's rule, are confined to the revolutionary movement by which that rule\nwas brought to an end, there being nothing else worthy of notice in the records of the year, so far at least\nas general history, is concerned. The development of\nthe revolution may best be explained by presenting as\nsuccessive topics the several charges against the gov-\nenor, which may be regarded as in a certain sense the\ncauses of the popular feeling on the subject, though it\nis wTell to bear always in mind the chief cause, underlying all others as already shown. I begin with what\nwas in reality the most serious and best founded accusation.\n10Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 137-40, speaks of a party given in V.'s\nhonor at the house of Lieut Martinez, at which politics was more or less discussed. Amador, Mem., MS., 122, mentions a tour of inspection before\nsettling at the capital. Apr. 7th, Jose* J. Gomez writes to Juan Bandini that\nV. had arrived at Monterey (from the north?) the day before, and was talking\nof going south soon. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 18. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS.,\niii. 7-8, tells a story to the effect that V. attempted to prosecute himself and\nJose Castro for the part they had taken in publishing the secularization\ndecree, authorizing Pliego, their enemy, to commence criminal proceedings.\nBut when summoned\u2014so says A.\u2014they rode up before Pliego's office on\nhorseback, refused to hear the documents read, and dashed off to Sta Clara.\nV. subsequently treated them very well, however, giving them a profitable\nlicense to take otter at S. Francisco.\n11 Victoria, Informe General sobre California, 1880, MS., dated June 7th.\nA general report on government with recommendations of reform may also\nbe mentioned under date of Sept. 21st. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 146-9.\n REFUSAL TO CONVENE THE DIPUTACION. 187\nVictoria neglected to convene the diputacion, and\neven when urged to do so, flatly refused, greatly to\nthe disgust of the members and their friends, the most\ninfluential element of the population. His conduct\nin this respect was doubtless illegal as well as impolitic, and gave the Californians just cause for complaint*\nHe knew, however, that the vocales were for the most\npart the followers of Padre's and the promoters of\nEcheandia's golpe de estado, regarding their desire to\nassemble as merely a continuation of the trick, and\nsupposing with much reason that the sessions would\nbe largely devoted to schemes of interference with his\nown policy and measures. On January 29th, the day\nof Victoria's arrival at Monterey, Echeandia had summoned the vocales to assemble in the interests of public tranquillity.12 I have no doubt the plan was in\nsome manner to insist, with the aid of the diputacion,\non the carrying-out of the secularization scheme.\nEfforts to convene that body were continued all the\nspring and summer. At first the ayuntamiento of\nMonterey, aided to some extent by that of San Jose,\nwas the medium of appeal, though the governor in\nFebruary assembled that body to explain how inopportune had been the petitions of Alcalde Buelna,\nand warned the municipal authorities not to meddle\nwith matters that did not concern them.13 The 30th\nof July diputados Vallejo, Osio, Ortega, and Castro petitioned the governor directly to convoke the assembly,\nand apparently some of the southern members either\nsigned this petition or sent in another similar one;\nbut Victoria showed no signs of yielding.14\n12 Jan. 29,1831, E. at the request of the ayunt. of Monterey in extra session,\nto Jose\" Ortega, Tiburcio Castro, M. G. Vallejo, and suplente Francisco\nHaro in place of A. M. Osio. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 88; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i.\n216; Monterey, Actos del Ayunt., MS., 30-1. Probably a similar summons\nwas sent to other members.\n13MontereyI Actos del Ayunt., MS., 31-4, 38-40. Sessions Jan. 29th;\nFeb. 5th, 18th; Aug. 3d, 4th. Also vague allusions in the proceedings against\nDuarte, the alcalde of S. Jose*. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., 14-51. Of\nthe Duarte case I shall speak a little later.\nuThe petition is alluded to in. Leg. Rec, MS., i. 305-9, 332, but no details are given.    On Aug. 24th V. writes to Alcalde Sanchez of Los Angeles-\n 188 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nThe northern members repeated their petition September 11th, urging that the regular time for meeting was March 1st, claiming that urgent business\nrequired attention, and even threatening rather mysteriously, in case their request were denied, \" to proceed according to law.\"15 This brought out from\nVictoria on the 21st an address, or manifiesto, to the\npublic. In this document he defined in a very straightforward manner his position, alluding to the criminal\nmotives and seditious plans of the opposing faction,\n\"personal interests disguised in the habiliments of\nphilanthropy,\" declaring his intention to thwart the\nschemes of his predecessor, and reminding good citizens that the way to prosperity and happiness lay in\nthe direction of submission to law, and not of sedition.\nHe stated that a majority of the diputados had been\nillegally elected, that he had reported' everything to\nthe national authorities, without whose orders he\nwould not convoke the assembly, and that he counted\non resources unknown to his enemies.16 In a report\nbearing the same date Victoria announced his suspension of the diputacion, and earnestly recommended the\nabolishment of all elective ayuntamientos and the\nrestoration of military rule, except that certain judges\nmight be appointed for Los Angeles and San Jose.17\nThis radical overturning of all civil authority seemed\na simple and effective measure to this honest soldier,\nwho felt that he could preserve order more easily if\n'As you are probably on good terms with Pico, persuade him to withdraw\nhis petition for convoking the dip... It is my privilege to convene tho assembly when I find it necessary; and up to the present time ib has not been so;\nfor I have just reasons which require me to await the decision of the sup.\ngovt on my inquiries.' Id., i. 329-30. Sept. 7th, V. writes a very curt and\nplain letter to Juan Bandini in reply to his of Aug. 7th. The subject is ostensibly financial matters, but it is apparent that Bandini was reckoned among\nthe enemies of the new gov. on general principles.  Dept. Rec, ix. 43-5.\n15 Petition dated S. Francisco, in Leg. Rec, MS., i. 330-2.\n16 Victoria, Manifiesto d los llabitantes de Calfornin. 21 de Setiembre, 1881,\nMS.; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 24a; Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 3; Bandini, Doc, MS.,\n16. V. expressed like sentiments in a letter of Oct. 24th to the alcalde of\nLos Angeles, copied in. Leg. Rec, MS., i. 335-6.\n17 Sept. 21, 1831, V. to min. of justice, in Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 146-9. The\nwriter claimed that there were few if any persons fit for alcaldes, and that\nthe offices were sought mainly for purposes of personal gain or revenge.\n ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 189\nthe territory were made a mere military comandancia.\nSmall wonder, however, that the Californian republicans were unprepared for such a change! The four\ndiputados, Vallejo, Ortega, Osio, and Castro, sent,\nSeptember 18th, a representation to Mexico, complaining of the refusal to convoke the diputacion, of his\nevident hostility to the federal system, and of several\narbitrary acts to be noted later. The 7th of November they sent another memorial in reply to Victoria's\nmanifiesto, in which they called upon the supreme\ngovernment to protect the people against the governor's oppressive usurpations.18 Juan Bandini, substitute congressman from California, also wrote a reply\nto Victoria's proclamation, dated at San Diego October 10th, in which he refuted the charge of illegality\nin the elections, and argued very eloquently against\nthe governor's right to deprive the country of the\nservices of its diputacion on account of mere suspicions\nrespecting the members. Pio Pico, senior vocal of\nthe diputacion, issued a similar protest.19\nThe administration of justice was a subject which\nearly claimed the new ruler's attention. It had been\nmuch neglected by the easy-going Echeandia, and\ncrime had gone unpunished. Criminal proceedings\nhad been often instituted, as we have seen in the local\npresidial annals of the last six years, but penalties had\nbeen rarely inflicted with fitting severity. Victoria\nhad strict ideas of discipline, and no doubt of his\nability to enforce the laws. He is said to have boasted\nsoon after his arrival at Monterey that before long he\nwould make it safe for any man to leave his handkerchief or his watch lying in the plaza until he might\n\"Copies of these documents in Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 215, 238,241.\n19 Bandini. Contestacion d la Alocucion del Gefe Politico D. Manuel Victoria,\n1831, MS.; Pico, Protesta al Manifesto de Don Manuel Victoria, 1831, MS.,\ndated Oct. 15th. Oct. 17th, J. M. Padres in a private letter congratulates\nVallejo and the other deputies on their efforts to throw off the ugly epithet of\n'seditious' applied by the gefe politico. He thinks the southern deputies\nhave failed to do their whole duty.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 239.\n 190 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nchoose to come for it. How he carried out his ideas\nin this direction will be apparent from a few causas\ncelebres of the year.\nThe case of Atanasio was pending when Victoria\ncame. Atanasio was an Indian boy less than eighteen years of age, a servant in sub-comisario Jimeno's\noffice, who had in 1830 stolen from the warehouse\nproperty to the extent of something over $200. The\nprosecution was conducted by Fernandez del Campo,\nPadres, and Ibarra as fiscales; and the last-named\ndemanded, in consideration of the youth and ignorance\nof the culprit, as well as on account of the carelessness\nwith which the goods had been exposed, a sentence of\nonly two years in the public works. The asesor, Rafael Gomez, after having sent the case back to the\nfiscal for the correction of certain irregularities, rendered an opinion April 18th, in favor of the death\npenalty; and by order of the comandante general\nAtanasio was shot at 11 a. m. on the 26 th.20 Gomez\nwas an able lawyer, and I suppose was technically\ncorrect in his advice, though the penalty seems a\nsevere one. Naturally the Californians were shocked;\nand though an example of severity was doubtless\nneeded, Victoria was not fortunate in his selection.\nThe circumstance that led to the culprit's detection\nseems to have been his using some military buttons\nfor gambling with his comrades; and the popular version of the whole affair has been that an Indian boy\nwas shot by Victoria for stealing a few buttons.21\nIn May 1831 the warehouse at San Carlos was\nrobbed on three different occasions, perhaps entered\nthree times the same night, by Simon Aguilar, a Mex-\n20 Atanasio, Causa Criminal contra el Indio AtaTiasio y ejecucion del reo,\n1831, MS.\n21 Estevan de la Torre, Jose\" M. Amador, Jesus Pico, Inocencia Pico de\nAvila, Jose\" J. Vallejo, Juan B. Alvarado, and others give substantially this\nversion. I have no space for minor variations, most of which are absurdly\ninaccurate. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 165-6, says that Gomez sent a despatch to\nstay the execution an hour after the boy had. been shot; and Vallejo, Hist.\nCal., MS., ii. 143, that Atanasio was a servant of Pliego, caused to be condemned by his master without the proper legal forms, and without any specification of the crime.\n THE RUBIO CASE. 191\nican convict in the service of Gomez, and Eduardo\nSagarra, a native of Lima. A neophyte boy, Andres, furnished the keys, which he had managed to\nsteal from Padre Abella, the complainant in the case.\nThere was no doubt about the guilt of the accused,\nand the fiscal, Rodrigo del Pliego, demanded for the\ntwo men the death penalty, and for the boy, in consideration of his being only thirteen years old, two\nhundred blows. Gomez, the asesor, also decided that\nAguilar and Sagarra should be shot, and that Andres,\nafter witnessing the execution, should receive one\nhundred blows, and be sent to the mission to work\nfor six months, wearing a corma. The sentences\nwere approved by Victoria, and executed May 28th\nat the presidio of Monterey.22\nThe famous Rubio case dates back to 1828. On\nthe night of August 15th of that year, Ignacio Olivas\nand his wife, on returning from a fandango at San\nFrancisco, found their little daughter aged Hve years,\nand son of one year, dead in their beds, the former\nhaving been outraged and both brutally treated. The\nsoldier, Francisco Rubio, a vicious man who had been\nconvicted of serious crimes while serving in the mission escoltas of Santa Ines and Solano, was suspected\nand arrested. The case was prosecuted in August\nand September by Lieutenant Martinez, and the testimony has been preserved. It was in evidence that\nRubio had learned by inquiry that the parents were\nto^attend the fandango without the children; that he\nknew how to open the doors; that tracks about the\nhouse agreed with his boot;  that his clothing bore\n22Records of the case in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxiii. 8-11. Notice of the execution in Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 25; Guerra, Doc, MS., v. 102.\nNotices by P. Sarria of spiritual consolations and burial in the presidial cemetery of these two men, and also of Atanasio. Nos. 2784, 2892-3, in the\nregister of burials at Monterey, copied in Torre, Remin., MS., 25-6. Larios,\nConvulsiones, MS. ,11, witnessed the execution and the flogging administered to\nthe boy. So did Rafael Pinto, Apunt., MS., 6-8, who was a boy at the time,\nand who received a terrible flogging from his brother-in-law, in order that he\nmight never forget the day nor the solemn lesson taught by the event! Amador, Mem., MS., 122-6, tells us that one of the padres interceded most\nearnestly with Victoria for a pardon.\n 192 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nblood-stains at the time of his arrest; that he had\ntried to sell his shirt during the night; and that many\nof his actions had seemed strange and suspicious to\nhis companions. Beyond his own statements and\nprotestations of innocence, there was no evidence in\nhis favor, or against any other person. Though circumstantial, the proofs were strong; sufficiently so, I\nthink, to justify the severest penalty. The case, however, dragged its slow length along, with no perceptible progress, as was usual m California, through 1829\nand 1830. Rubio was nominally imprisoned, but\nduring much of the time seems to have worked as a\nservant about the presidio, with abundant opportunities for escape. When Victoria came he intrusted\nthe prosecution to Jose' Maria Padre's, who began\nactive operations in May 1831. Alferez Vallejo,\nwho had declined to serve as fiscal, now made some\nefforts in behalf of Rubio; but his testimony and\nthat of others called in to substantiate it tended\nmerely to show irregularity in one of the former proceedings, and that another man, having been charged\nwith similar crimes at San Francisco, might be guilty\nin this instance. No new evidence was adduced in\nRubio's favor. He was defended by Pliego, a friend\nof Victoria, who on account of technical irregularities, and because no one had seen his client commit the\ncrime, asked only that some other penalty than death\nshould be imposed. Padre's, an enemy of Victoria\nand friend of Vallejo, expressed no doubt of Rubio's\nguilt, but he also urged that imprisonment be substituted for death. Rafael Gomez reviewed the\ntestimony at some length, pronounced the accused to\nbe guilty, and recommended that he be shot behind\nthe house of Olivas. The sentence was finally approved by Victoria and executed August 1st, at 11.30\nA. M.23\nThe case of Rubio, as just related from the original\n23 Rubio, Causa Criminal par Asesinatos y Estupro, 1828-81, MS.\n A CAUSA CELEBRE. 193\nrecords, would seem to be a very clear one, respecting\nwdiich no blame could be imputed to Victoria; yet so\nbitter was the feeling against that official, that the\nexecution has been almost uniformly regarded by\nCalifornians as a judicial murder, stamping Victoria\nas a blood-thirsty monster. The only reason for this\nstrange belief, in addition to the popular feeling fostered by Vallejo and his friends, was the generally\ncredited rumor that after Rubio's death an Indian\nconfessed that he had committed the crime for which\nthe innocent soldier had suffered. I am unable to\nsay positively that this rumor, so confidently presented as truth by dozens of witnesses, was unfounded;\nbut it may be noted that most persons speak indefinitely of the guilty Indian; that the few who venture\non details of name, place, and date differ widely in\nsuch particulars; and finally that the later confession,\nif perfectly authentic, has no possible bearing on Victoria's action.24\nAbel Stearns, an American but a naturalized citizen  of  Mexico, who had been  in California  since\n24 Besides being a partisan of Padres in the general controversy, Vallejo\nhad a personal grievance, arising from the fact that Victoria had condemned\nhim to 8 days' arrest for insubordination in refusing to serve as fiscal in\nanother case. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 18-19. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 140-7,\nsays that he as prosecuting attorney informed Victoria that the signatures of\nthe witnesses against Rubio were forgeries; that he and Padres offered to aid\nRubio to escape, but he refused; that the execution was an outrage; and that\nthe real culprit confessed the crime in 1833. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii.\n171, 183, iv. 81, regards the prosecution as a conspiracy against Rubio; and\nboth he and Vallejo state that great reverses of fortune overtook Lieut Martinez at the time of Rubio's death, and were commonly regarded as divine\npunishments. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 165-72, gives some particulars, more\npathetic than probable, of the execution, and tells us that 6 or 7 years later\nVallejo at Sonoma learned that Roman, a neophyte of S. Rafael, had committed\nthe crime, and sent Sergt Piiia to shoot him. Gabriel Castro in 1876 gave\none of my agents a narrative in which I put no confidence, with minute details of the arrest and confession of Roman at S. Francisco, where he died in\nprison of syphilis. Ignacio Cibrian also gave a somewhat different version.\nIn the evidence it appeared that a little brother of the victims said that a\nfierce coyote had come and killed the children; and Amador, Mem., MS.,\n122-6, implies that Rubio's nickname of 'Coyote' was the main ground of his\naccusation. J. J. Vallejo, Remin., MS., 112, tells us that Victoria was\nmoved by the counsels of the padres and by his hatred of Padres, who protected Rubio. The versions of Pinto, Pico, Weeks, Torre, and Galindo need\nno special notice. None doubt that Rubio was the victim of Victoria's oppression.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   13\n 194\nRULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\n1829, was apparently a sympathizer with the party of\nPadre's and Vallejo; or at least he was so regarded by\nVictoria. He had a land grant in the San Joaquin\nValley which required confirmation by the diputacion,\nand he was therefore anxious for a meeting of that\nbody. This was his only offence, so far as I can ascertain; but for it Victoria ordered him to leave the\ncountry, refused to give or listen to any explanations,\nand merely bade him present his claims and complaints to the supreme government. The correspondence began in February. In July, Stearns was refused permission to visit San Francisco to attend to\nhis business affairs, and on September 23d his passport was issued. He soon sailed from Monterey,\nbut did not go farther than San Diego, or the frontier of Baja California.25 Nothing can be said in\ndefence of Victoria's arbitrary course in thus exiling\na Mexican citizen without trial or specification of\noffence; but the provocation was I have no doubt\nmuch stronger than it appears in the written record,\nsince Stearns was not a man disposed to submit quietly when his interests were threatened.\nAnother of Victoria's arbitrary proceedings was\nthat against Mariano Duarte, alcalde of San Jos6, in\nAugust and September. Duarte had, after consultation with Alcalde Buelna of Monterey, tried to induce the ayuntamiento to petition for the convoking\nof the diputacion. This was his chief offence, \"one\nwhich has a very strong bearing Upon the present\npolitical state of the territory,\" in Victoria's eyes; but\nthere were others, brought forward by the other\nmunicipal officers who disliked the alcalde, and included in the investigation.    Duarte had somewhat\nj a Correspondence between V. and Stearns in Leg. Rec, MS., i. 321-9; Dept.\nRec, MS., ix. 102, 106-7. S. had, however, since Oct. 1830, a quarrel on\nhand with Ex-alcalde Soberanes, for disrespect to whom he had been imprisoned, and justly as the asesor decided. Monterey Arch., MS., i. 26-7. Sept.\n14, 1831,' V. to min. of rel., accuses S. of pernicious conduct, of plotting with\nPadre's to have the dip. meet, of trying to go to S. Francisco to join the\nother plotters, and of Being a vagabond dependent on Capt. Cooper. Dept.\nRec, MS., ix. 145.\n AN AMOROUS ALCALDE. 195\nirregularly appointed certain regidores to fill vacancies, and had taken from the municipal funds compensation for teaching the pueblo school, whereas it had\nbeen the understanding that he was to teach for nothing\u2014the estimated value of his services. Worse yet,\nDuarte allowed himself to be inveigled into a trap\nby his foes. A woman with more patriotism than\nmodesty was induced to send the alcalde an amorous\ninvitation, and he wTas surprised at her house by the\nwatchful regidores. Rodrigo del Pliego was sent to\nSan Jose' to prosecute the case; and a little later\nDuarte was brought in irons to Monterey to be tried\nby a military court. There was no trouble in proving the truth of the only charge to which Victoria\nattached much importance, that of laboring to secure\na meeting of the diputacion, and all went well for the\ngovernor until the opinion of the asesor was rendered\nSeptember 30th. This opinion was to the effect that\nthe charges against Duarte had been substantiated,\nbut that in urging the ayuntamiento to cooperate\nwith others in demanding a convocation of the assembly he had done no criminal act, and that as to the\nother offences a military court had no jurisdiction,\nand they must be sent to the supreme court in Mexico. Victoria seems to have made no effort to continue the prosecution in defiance of law.26\nThere was trouble likewise at Los Angeles, though\nthe alcalde of that town, Vicente Sanchez, was a\npartisan and pro'tegd of Victoria, being a man moreover who always had a quarrel on hand with somebody. In January Echeandia, acting on the legal\nadvice of Gomez, had declared Sanchez as a diputado\nnot competent to hold the place of alcalde, ordering\nthat the first regidor take the place provisionally and a\n28 Duarte, Causa Criminal stguida contra el Alcalde de S. Jose', Mariano\nDuarte, 1831, MS. Lieut Ibarra was Duarte's defender, but his argument\nwas devoted to showing his client to be an ignoramus. There is nothing in\nthe narratives of Californians on this affair that deserves notice, though\nmany mention it in their charges against Victoria. The decision of Gomez\non the legality of the case was subsequently affirmed in Mexico.\n 196 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nnew alcalde be chosen.27 There is no record of immediate\naction on this order; but on April 18th the ayuntamiento deposed Sanchez, putting Regidor Juan Alvarado in his place. At first Victoria did not object to\nthe change, but a few days later, probably learning\nthat it had been in some way in the interest of Echeandia's party, he discovered that the movement had\nbeen a revolutionary and illegal one. So he wrote a\nsevere reprimand to Alvarado, ordered him to restore\nSanchez to office, and announced that he would soon\ncome down to Los Angeles to make an investigation.\nThe order was obeyed and Sanchez was reinstated.28\nIn June, for reasons that do not appear, Victoria saw\nfit to revive the matter by sending Lieutenant Arguello to make investigations and administer rebukes.\nThe 21st of July he sent back the sumario that had\nbeen formed by Arguello, and ordered that the regidores Alvarado and Perez, with six other citizens of\nLos Angeles, should be put in prison. They were\nnever released by Victoria's order.29\nOne of Alcalde Sanchez's quarrels was with Jose*\nAntonio Carrillo. The exact nature of the trouble is\nnot explained; but in March Carrillo was taken into\ncustody as a defrauder. He escaped, but gave himself\nup to the comandante of Santa Barbara on March 21st,\nand was kept in confinement there for some fifty days.\nAt the end of that time he was sent down to San\nDiego, and immediately banished to San Vicente on\nthe frontier by Victoria's order. How Carrillo had\noffended the governor is not recorded, but it is to be\n27Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 84-5.\n28 April 21st, 23d, V. to Alvarado. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 99-102. The com. of\nSta B. reports having felt some alarm when he first heard of Sanchez's removal,\nbut sopn learned that no harm was intended. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 9-10.\nApril 25th, Alvarado to V., saying that Sanchez had been reinstated. April\n26th, Sanchez to V., complaining of his wrongs at the hands of foes. Regidor Jose\" Perez was arrested, but let out on bail. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref\ny Juzg., MS., iii. 54-5.\n\u2122Leg. Rec, MS., i. 307-8, 349-50; Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 108-10. The six\ncitizens were Tomas Talaraantes, Francisco Sepulveda, Jose\" Maria Avila,\nMaximo Alanis, Demesio Dominguez, and Jose\" Maria Aguilar. Capt. Bar-\nroso took Arguello's place in August.\n EXILE OF J. M. PADRES. 197\npresumed that he had taken a prominent part in sending memorials from the south in the interest of the\ndiputacion. He protested earnestly against his exile\nin June and July, demanding an opportunity to return, under bonds, to vindicate his honor; but all he\ncould obtain was permission to move about from place\nto place on the frontier without returning to California while his case was pending. Nevertheless he did\nreturn, as we shall see.80\nFinally Jose\" Maria Padres, whom Victoria justly\nregarded as the leading spirit in the opposition to his\nmeasures, was summarily sent out of the territory\nwithout form of trial. In all his communications the\ngovernor had named Padres as the cause of the country's ills.31 Early in the summer he had been sent to\nSan Francisco, where it was thought he could do less\nharm than at the capital; but he continued his plot-\ntings\u2014so believed Victoria\u2014in connection with Vallejo and several young Californians who were living\nthere ostensibly engaged in hunting otter. In Octo- \u2022\nber the order for his banishment was issued, and early\nin November he was sent by sea to San Bias.32 ~Of\ncourse Victoria had no authority for such an act.\nI have thus catalogued the acts of Victoria's admin-\n30 Correspondence on Carrillo's case from March to August, in Valle, Doc.\nHist. Cal, MS., 17; Leg. Rec, MS., i. 302-3, 313-20; Dept. Rec, MS., ix.\n32; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 14-16, 18; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 43-4. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 169-70, erroneously says Bandini was banished\nwith Carrillo, and the two wrote a manifiesto, which was sent north. Some\none put a copy under Victoria's pillow, and a reward was offered for his detection.\n31 Particularly in his report to the min. of rel. of Sept. 21st, in Dept. Rec,\nMS., ix. 149-52.\n32 July 24th, Padres at S. Francisco writes to Stearns, advising him to go\nto Mex. with his complaints against V. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,i. 234. Sept.\n14th, V. to min. of war. Says that P. was sent to Bodega to make an inspection: but that he talked very freely to the Russians against the Mex. and Cal.\ngovt. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 144. Oct. 17th, P. congratulates Vallejo on his opposition to V. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 239. Oct. 19th, P. is to sail on the Catalina.\nNov. 8th, he is to sail on the schooner Margarita. Id.,\\. 242; Dept. Rec,MS.,\nix. 53, 61. Figueroa, Manifiesto, 3-4, speaks of P.'s influence in favor of revolt. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS-., ii. 174-5, says P. left Monterey Dec. 8th,\nand that V. before exiling him had tried to buy him off. Both this author and\nVallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 142-7, say that P. left Cal. vowing to oust V.,\nand in possession of news from Mex. that made him think it would not be\nvery difficult.\n 198 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nistration, and they leave no doubt as to what manner\nof man he was. Personally brave, honest, energetic,\nstraightforward, and devoted to what he deemed the\nbest interests of the territory, he was yet more a comandante general than a gefe politico. His idea of\nhis duty was to preserve order and administer justice\nby military methods, removing without regard to constitutional technicalities such obstacles as might stand\nin the wTay of success in carrying out his good intentions.\nAll the Californians in their narratives credit him with\npersonal courage, but with no other good quality, save\nthat a few admit he paid better attention to the comfort as wTell as the discipline of his soldiers than had\nhis predecessors. Nearly all, after mentioning more\nor less accurately some of the acts which I have chronicled, express the opinion that Victoria was a cruel,\nblood-thirsty monster, at whose hands the lives of all\nhonest citizens were in danger, some adding that he\nwas dishonest and avaricious as well, and others asserting that he was a full-blooded negro. So strong is\npopular prejudice, fostered by a few influential men.33\nThere is a notable lack of missionary correspondence\nin the records of 1831, and I find only one contemporary expression of the padres' opinion respecting Victoria's acts, except that of course they approved his\nabrogation of the secularization decree. Padre Duran,\nin the epilogue .of his comments upon that measure,\n331 shall give later references to all the Californian writers who have treated\nof Victoria's rule. Their sentiments are so uniform, that it is not necessary\nto cite individual opinions. In the memorial of the diputados to the Mex.\ngovt of Sept. 18th, Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 215, 238, the charges against V. are\nhis exile of Carrillo and Stearns, his arrest of Duarte, his refusal to convoke\nthe diputacion, his general opposition to the federal system, aud his insults\nto diputados and inhabitants. A very complete resume* of V. 's acts and troubles, made up from his despatches and those of Echeandia and others, is found\nin Alaman,' Sucesosde California en el aho de 1831, MS., the same being an\nappendix to the minister's instructions to Gov. Figueroa in 1832. The whole\nsubject is also fully treated in Vallejo and Arguello, Hxpediente sobre las Ar-\nbitrariedades de Victoria, MS., presented to the dip. on Feb. 17, 1832. To\nthe usual charges Bandini, Apuntes Politicos, 1882, MS., adds the sending of\nsome Angelinos far among the savages toward Sonora to drive stock for a\nfavorite padre of the governor's, tampering with the mails at Monterey, and\nabrogating the faculties of hacienda employees to the prejudice of the administration.\n PREJUDICE AGAINST THE GOVERNOR. 199\nafter affirming that the leading Californians aimed\nsolely at securing mission plunder and rejoicing at\nVictoria's opportune arrival and suspension of the law,\nwrote: IInterested parties, including some vocales of\nthe diputacion, sure of their prey, were disappointed,\nand disappointment turned into hatred for the equitable Victoria. Never had they pardoned this just\nchief for having rescued the booty already within\ntheir grasp. They began to intrigue and hold secret\nmeetings, and for ten months of 1831 symptoms of\nsedition have not ceased to keep the illustrious chief\nin constant trouble. They sought to force him to\nconvene the diputacion, in order that with a semblance\nof legality they might accomplish their desires,. . .ungrateful for the sacrifices of the poor Indians; but Victoria never consented; and in November they proclaimed a plan of attack.\" The foreign residents are\nequally silent,34 but I suspect that their views were\nmore favorable to the governor than they cared to\nadmit generally to the strong element opposing him.\nThe Californians have weakened their cause by their\nunfounded and exaggerated attacks on Victoria's personal character, for politically the cause was a strong\none. Victoria went far beyond the authority of his\noffice, in refusing to convoke the assembly, in trying\nan alcalde by court-martial, and in banishing Mexican\ncitizens without forms of trial. He was not in sympathy with constitutional government; and his acts\nwere not to be defended by reason of the reactionary\ncharacter of the administration that appointed him,\nthe trick that was attempted by Padres and Echeandia,\nthe formidable opposition which forced him to a more\narbitrary policy than he would otherwise have shown,\nor the promptness and frankness with which he submitted all to the national authorities. Perhaps his\nproceedings might even have justified revolt after a\n3iDuran, Notas y Com., MS., epilogue. Spence, Hist. Notes, MS., 15,\nmerely says that V. was energetic and made every one respect order and law,\nwhich did not please a certain class.\n 200\nRULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nfailure to obtain relief from Mexico. Under other\ncircumstances, Victoria might have been an excellent\nruler for California.\nThus far San Francisco in the extreme north had\nbeen the centre of opposition to Victoria, but the\nfinal revolt broke out in the extreme south at San\nDiego.35 Some prominent men of the north are of\nopinion that the abajenos should not have all the\nglory, but I fear there is hardly enough of it to bear\ndivision. Jos6 Antonio Carrillo, supposed to be in exile\non the frontier, but who came secretly to the vicinity of\nSan Diego in November, was the real instigator of the\nrevolt, seconded by Abel Stearns, another exile; but\nthe active and ostensible leaders were Juan Bandini,\ndiputado suplente to congress and sub-comisario of\nhacienda, and Pio Pico, senior vocal of the diputacion.\nBandini in his history gives but a general account of\nthe affair, but Pico enters into some detail, both of the\nactual revolt and of preliminary movements.36 After\nten or twelve days of preparatory plotting, Pico,\nBandini, and Carrillo, on November 29th, drew up and\nsigned a formal pronunciamiento, and that evening\n35 Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 142-7, and Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii.\n172-3, state that the former, a member of the diputacion, was urged in letters\nfrom leading men in the south to take the initiative in a revolution to overthrow the tyrant. Vallejo went to Monterey to consult with the other\nnorthern vocales, but found them timid about resorting to rebellion. On his\nway back to S. F. he met V. at Sta Clara, and was offered by him all kinds\nof official favors if he would abandon the party of Padres. This was just\nbefore the exile of the latter, and V. had received alarming news of growing\nuneasiness in the south.\n36Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 73-5; Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 24-34. Pico says\nthat in the middle of Nov. his brother-in-law, Jose\" J. Ortega, came down from\nMonterey with news that V. was preparing to come south, and that he intended to hang Pico and Bandini for their efforts in behalf of the diputacion.\nHe at once sent for J. A. Carrillo\u2014also his brother-in-law\u2014who came to his\nrancho of Jamul; both came to S. Diego in the night and had an interview\nwith Bandini, and the three resolved on a pronunciamiento as the Only means\nof thwarting V.'s plans. It took about two weeks to perfect their plans and\nto learn what men could be relied on. During this time Pico and Juan Lopez\nmade visits to Los Angeles to enlist the Angelinos in the cause. They found\nthat Alcalde Sanchez had about 70 (some others say 30 or 40) of the citizens\nin jail; but Avila and other leaders disapproved of any rising until V. should\nhave passed Angeles, when they would attack him in the rear, and the Die-\nguinos in front. Finally they heard from Stearns a confirmation of V.'s\nschemes as before reported.\n PRONUNCIAMIENTO OF SAN DIEGO. 201\nwith about a dozen companions started out to take\npossession of the presidio and garrison. Doubtless by\na previous understanding with the soldiers, no resistance was made, though the forms of a surprise were\ngone through, the arms and barracks secured, and the\nofficers placed under arrest.37\nNext day the soldiers gave in their adhesion to the\nplan readily enough, but the officers, especially captains\nPortilla and Arguello, showed considerable reluctance.\nThey shared the feelings of the rebels against Victoria\u2014so they said, Portilla perhaps not quite truthfully\u2014but they felt that for military men in their\nposition to engage in open rebellion against their\ncomandante general was a serious matter. At first\nthey declined to do more than remain neutral under\narrest; but finally they were induced to promise\nactive cooperation on condition that Echeandia would\naccept the command. What part Echeandia had\ntaken, if any, in the previous plottings cannot be\nknown; but after much hesitation, real or pretended,38\nhe consented to head the movement. The plan,\nslightly amended, was now made to embrace substantially the following points: the suspension of Victoria,\nthe vesting by the diputacion of the political and\nmilitary command in separate persons, and the provisional resumption by Echeandia of both commands\nuntil such act of the diputacion or the decision of\nthe national government.    This pronunciamiento was\n87 Bandini says there were 14 men in the first revolutionary party. Pico\nnames, besides the 3 signers, Ignacio, Juan, and Jos6 Lopez; Abel Stearns;\nJuan Maria Marron; Andres and Antonio Ibarra; Damaso and Gervasio Ali-\npas; Juan Osuna; Silverio Rios; another citizen, and a cholo to carry ammunition. Pico says he was deputed to arrest Capt. Arguello, whom he found\nat his house playing tresilo with his wife and Alf. Valle. He begged pardon\nfor the intrusion, presented his pistols, and marched the two officers away\nto join Capt. Portilla, who had been arrested by Bandini. Valle, Lo Pasado,\nMS., 3-5, like most of the California writers, mentions the arrest of himself\nand the rest, but gives no particulars.\n38 E. was a timid man, not inclined to revolutionary acts, and moreover\nnot in good health; therefore his reluctance to assume the responsibility of\nsuch a movement; yet I hardly credit the statement of the Vallejos and\nothers that he refused the command until forced by Carrillo's threats to\naccept it.\n 202\nRULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nfinally signed December 1st by Echeandia, the three\noriginal signers, and all the officials, wThose names I\ngive with a translation of the document.39  The reader\n89 Pronunciamiento de San Diego contra el Gefe Politico y Comandante General de California, Don Manuel Victoria, en 29 de Noviembre y 1 de Diciembre\nde 1831, MS. Translation: 'Mexican citizens residing in the upper territory\nof the Californias. If the enterprise we undertake were intended to violate\nthe provisions of the laws, if our acts in venturing to oppose the scandalous\nacts of the actual governor, D. Manuel Victoria, were guided by aims unworthy of patriotic sentiments, then should we not only fear but know the\nfatal results to which we must be condemned. Such, however, not being\nthe case, we, guided in the path of justice, animated by love of our soil, duly\nrespecting the laws dictated by our supreme legislature, and enthusiastic for\ntheir support, find ourselves obliged, on account of the criminal abuse noted\nin the said chief, to adopt the measures here made known. We know that\nwe proceed, not against the sup. govt or its magistrates, but, as we are deeply\nconvinced, against an individual who violates the fundamental bases of our\nsystem, or in truth against a 'tyrant who has hypocritically deceived the\nsupreme powers so as to reach the rank to which, without deserving it, he\nhas been raised. The supreme being, master of our hearts, knows the pure\nsentiments with which we set out: love to country, respect for the laws, to\nobey them and make them obeyed, to banish the abuses which with accelerated steps the actual ruler is committing against the liberal system. Such\nare the objects which we call pure sentiments and in accordance with public\nright. We will maintain this before the national sovereignty, and time will\nbear witness against what the breaker of laws chooses to call sedition. From\nthe sentiments indicated may be clearly deduced the patriotic spirit which\ndirects us to the proceeding this day begun; and at the thought that such\nsentiments are entertained by the people of Alta Calif ornia, there is. generated\nwithin us a complete conviction that our indispensable action will be supported and therefore sustained by all who live in this unfortunate country.\nAs for the military officers in actual service, opposition is naturally to be expected from them to our plan, and we must allow them at first this unfavorable opinion demanded by their profession; but not so later, when they shall\nhave fully learned the wise and beneficent intentions with which we act; for\nthey also, as Mexican citizens, are in duty bound to maintain inviolate the\ncode to which we have all \"sworn. We believe that your minds are'ever\ndecided in favor of the preservation of society, and your arms to be ready in -\nthe service of whoever may assure happiness, and in support of the laws\nwhich promulgate its representation. You are assured of the contrary spirit\nshown by the chief authority of this California, and we begin, in manifesting\nhis criminal acts, with the infraction committed against the territorial representation, which has been, suppressed on pretexts which confirm his absolutism, though you voted for the members to be the areas of your confidence;\nthe total suppression of the ayuntamiento of Sta Barbara; the shooting of\nseveral persons by his order at Monterey and S. Francisco, without the necessary precedent formalities prescribed by the laws; the expatriation suffered\nby the citizens Jose* Antonio Carrillo and Abel Stearns, without notification\nof the reasons demanding it; the scorn with which hejhas treated the most\njust demand which with legal proofs was presented by the very honorable\npueblo of Los Angeles, leaving unpunished the public crimes of the present\nalcalde; and, not to weary you with further reflections of this nature, please\nconsider the attributes which he has assumed in the department of revenues,\nmaking himself its chief, with grave injury to the public funds. We trust\nthat after you know our aims you will regard the removal of all these evils as\nthe duty of every citizen. We believe also that the public sentiment of the\nterritory will never attempt to violate our rights, or still less provoke us to\n ar\nA WORDY PLAN. 203\nwho may have the patience to examine this state paper, California's first pronunciamiento, if we except\nthat of the convict Solis in 1829, will find in it a good\nmake a defence foreign to our views (!). The said ruler has not only shown himself shameless in the violation of law, but has at the same time imperilled our\nsecurity and interests by reason of his despotism and incapacity. You yourselves are experiencing the misfortunes that have happened during the short\ntime of his management. For all these reasons, and with all obedience and\nsubjection to the laws, we have proposed: 1st, To suspend the exercise of D.\nManuel Victoria in all that relates to the command which he at' present holds\nin this territory as comandante general and gefe politico, for infraction and\nconspiracy against our sacred institutions, as we shall show by legal proofs.\n2d, That when at a fitting time the excelentisima diputacion territorial shall\nhave met, the military and political command shall fall to distinct persons as\nthe laws of both jurisdictions provide, until the supreme resolution. These\ntwo objects, so just for the reasons given, are those which demand attention\nfrom the true patriot. Then let the rights of the citizen be born anew; let\nliberty spring up from the ashes of oppression, and perish the despotism that\nhas suffocated our security. Yes, citizens; love to country and observance of\nthe laws prescribed and approved by our supreme powers are (he fundamental\nbasis on which we travel. Property is respected; likewise the duty of each\ncitizen. Our diputacion territorial will work, and will take all the steps conducive to the good of society; but we beg that body that it make no innovation whatever in the matter of the missions, respecting their communities\nand property, since our object is confined solely to the two articles as stated.\nTo the sup. govt belongs exclusively the power to dictate what it may deem\nproper on this subject, and it promises to the padres to observe respect,\ndecorum, and security of the property intrusted to their care. Thus we\nsign it, and we hope for indulgence in consideration of our rights and justice.\nPresidio of San Diego, Nov. 29, 1831. Pio Pico, Juan Bandini, Jose\" Antonio\nCarrillo.\n'We, Capt. Pablo de la Portilla, etc. [see names at end], acquainted with\nthe preceding plan signed by [names as before, with titles], according to which\nthe people of this place surprised the small garrison of this plaza on the night\nof Nov. 29th, consider it founded on our natural right, since it is known to us\nin all evidence that the gefe politico and comandante general of the territory, Don Manuel Victoria, has infringed our federal constitution and laws in\nthat part relating to individual security and popular representation; and we\nfind ourselves not in a position to be heard with the promptness our rights\ndemand by the supreme powers of the nation, which might order the suspension which is effected in the plan if they could see and prove the accusations\nwhich give rise to so many complaints. But at the same time, in order to secure in the enterprise the best order, and a path which may not lead us away\nfrom the onty object proposed, we choose and proclaim lieut-col. of engineers, citizen Jose' Maria de Echeandia, to re-assume the command, political\nand military, of the territory, which this very year he gave up to the said Sr\nVictoria\u2014this until the supreme government may resolve after the proper\ncorrespondence, or until, the diputacion being assembled, distinct persons\nmay in legal form take charge of the two commands. And the said chief\nhaving appeared at our invitation, and being informed on the subject, he decided to serve in both capacities as stated, protesting, however, that he does it\nsolely in support of public liberty according to the system which he has sworn,\ncooperation for the best order, and submission to the supreme powers of the\nnation. Thus, all being said publicly, and the proclamation in favor of Sr\nEcheandia being general, he beran immediately to discharge the duties of\nthe command. And in token thereof we sign together with said chief\u2014both\nthe promoters of the plan who signed, it and we who have seconded it\u2014to-\nJ\n 204 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nmany words. It was apparently the production of\nJuan Bandini.\nIn a day or two the pronunciados, with about fifty\nmen under Portilla, set out northward, Arguello being left behind in command of San Diego. The little army arrived at Los Angeles December 4th, learning now, or perhaps the day before, that Victoria was\napproaching from the north and was not far distant.\nOf occurrences at the pueblo since the imprisonment\nof eight citizens by Alcalde Sanchez at Victoria's order, as already related, we know very little; but it\nwould seem that there had been further trouble,\nand that more citizens, perhaps many more, had been\nadded to the eight in jail, Andres Pico being one\nof the new victims. The captives were at once set\nfree by the San Diegans, and the obnoxious alcalde, Vicente Sanchez, was in turn put in irons.\nThe Angelinos accepted the plan with great enthusiasm, and next morning the rebel army, probably numbering about one hundred and fifty, marched out to\nmeet Victoria, who at the same time started with\nabout thirty men from San Fernando.\nThe date of Victoria's departure from Monterey is\nunknown, as are his motives, and most details respecting his southward march. He must have started before the proceedings of November 29th could have\nbeen known at the capital; but he probably was\nwarned of prospective troubles by letters from southern friends.40    Full of confidence as usual in his abil-\nday between 11 and 12 o'clock, on Dec. 1, 1831. Jose\" Maria Echeandia, Pio\nPico, Juan Bandini, Jos6 Antonio Carrillo, Pablo de la Portilla, Santiago Arguello, Jos6 Maria Ramirez, Ignacio del Valle, Juan Jose' Rocha, and as comandante of the artillery detachment, Sergt Andres Cervantes.'\n40David Spence, Hist. Notes, MS., Robinson, Life in Cal, 118-2L and\nTuthill, Hist. Cal, 131-4, state that Portilla was the man who warned Victoria,\nurging him to come south, and promising the support of his company, but\ntreacherously joining the rebels and leading them against the man he had\nagreed to defend. I think there was some truth in this charge. That is,\nPortilla was a Mexican officer in command of a Mexican company, and naturally a partisan of Victoria rather than of the Californians. He had a perfect right to warn the comandante, and very likely did so, intending to support him; but it would have required much more strength than he ever\npossessed to withstand the movement .of Nov. 29th; and the indications are\n THE GOVERNOR MARCHES AGAINST THE REBELS.       205\nity to restore order, the governor set out with Alferez\nPliego and ten or twenty men, leaving Zamorano, his\nsecretary, in command at Monterey. Even on arriving\nat Santa Barbara he seems to have got no definite information of the San Diego movement; but he was with\nsome difficulty persuaded by Guerra to increase his\nlittle force before going to Los Angeles, and was accordingly joined by Captain Romualdo Pacheco and\nabout a dozen soldiers.41 His entire force was now\nnot over thirty men, nearly all I suppose of the\nSan Bias and Mazatlan companies. He expected no\nfight; but in case trouble should arise, he doubtless\ncounted on the aid of Portilla and his Mazatecos.\nBefore he reached San Fernando, however, messengers overtook him from Santa Barbara with definite\nnews of the open revolt at San Diego, in letters from\nthe rebel leaders to the Carrillo brothers, which by\nadvice of Guerra they had forwarded to put him on\nhis guard.42 At San Fernando on December 4th,\nPadre Ibarra had not heard of the revolt at San\nDiego, and a messenger sent in haste to the pueblo\nbrought back word from Alcalde Sanchez that at\nsunset there were no signs of revolution. Later in\nthe evening, however, when the revolutionists arrived\nfrom the south, releasing the prisoners and locking up\nSanchez, a brother of the latter is said to have escaped with the news to San Fernando. And thus next\nmorning the hostile armies marched out from the\nthat the captain was put in command on the march to Los Angeles mainly\nthat he might be watched. Several Californians state that it was only by the\nvigilance and threats of Jos6 Antonio Carrillo that Portilla was kept from\ngoing over to the foe at the last. A contemptible weakness, rather than deliberate treachery, was Portilla's fault; besides, as we shall see, the valiant\ncommander and his men did no fighting when the hour of battle arrived.\n41 The widow Avila, CosasdeCal, MS., 29-30, states that provisions were\nprepared at her house for Victoria's march, and that he left Monterey at dawn\nwith about 15 men. Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 29-30, and Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 48-9, speak from memory of Victoria's arrival at Sta Barbara.\nThe latter says Guerra warned Pacheco to be careful. 'Cuidado! que\naquellos son tercos; alii esta Jose* Antonio Carrillo.' Spence says Victoria\ntook 19 men from Monterey; Robinson, that he reached Sta Barbara with 20.\n42 Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 35-40. Pico's narrative of the whole affair is\nremarkably accurate in every case where its accuracy can be tested, and is\ntherefore worthy of some credit where no such test is possible.\n RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\npueblo and mission respectively, the smaller force\nstarting earlier or moving more rapidly than the other,\nsince they met only a few miles from Los Angeles in\nthe direction of Cahuenga.\nExactly what occurred at this unnamed battle-field\non the forenoon of the 5th, so far as details are\nconcerned, will never be known. The salient results\nwere that two men, Captain Pacheco on the one side\nand Jose* Maria Avila on the other, were killed.\nVictoria was severely wounded. Portilla's force retreated to Los Angeles and to Los Nietos, and the\ngovernor was carried by his men to San Gabriel.\nAfter a careful study of all the testimony extant, I\nventure to present s'ome additional particulars as\nworthy of credence. Portilla with his 150 men had\nhalted on high ground to await Victoria's approach.\nCarrillo of the leading rebels was with the army;\nbut Echeandia, Pico, and Bandini had remained behind. Victoria, approaching with his thirty soldiers,\nwas urged by Pacheco not to risk an attack without\nreinforcements and additional preparations; but he\npromptly, perhaps insultingly, disregarded the captain's counsels.43 He was brave and hot-headed, he\ndid not believe Portilla's Mazatecos would fight\nagainst their comrades, and he attached little importance to the citizen rebels. Riding up within\nspeaking distance, the governor was commanded by\nPortilla to halt, and in reply peremptorily ordered\nPortilla to come over with his soldiers to support his\ncommander and the legitimate authorities. Noting a\ndisposition to parley rather than to obey his order,\nVictoria ordered his men to fire; and some shots were\nfired, perhaps over the heads of the foe, since nobody\nwas hurt. Portilla and his men now ran away, perhaps after one discharge of their muskets, and the\nAngelinos followed them; but two or three of the\n43 Pio Pico, Osio, Mrs Ord, and others state that some sharp words\npassed between the two officers, Victoria implying that Pacheco was moved\nby fear, and the latter indignantly repelling the taunt.\n BATTLE NEAR LOS ANGELES. 207\nlatter\u2014who had been in the pueblo jail, had personal\ngrievance against Victoria, and were ashamed of\ntheir companions' cowardice\u2014made a dash against\nthe foe before retreating. Jose Maria Avila was at\nthe head of this party, and he first met Pacheco,\nwhom he shot in the back with a pistol as the two\nhorses were carried past each other by their impetus,\nafter mutually parried thrusts of sword and lance by\nthe respective riders. Pacheco fell dead with a bullet\nin his heart.44 Avila now rushed upon Victoria; To-\nm&s Talamantes was close behind him, and on the\nother side at least two soldiers defended the governor.\nOf the ensuing struggle, which probably did not\nlast three minutes, it is not strange that there are\nmany popular versions; but Victoria received several lance-wounds. A soldier was shot in the foot.\nAvila after a desperate resistance wTas unhorsed and\nkilled, shot perhaps by one of the soldiers,45 .and\nTalamantes, the only one of the pronunciados except\nAvila who came into contact with the foe, escaped\nunhurt. Victoria's men attempted no pursuit, but\nbore the wounded governor to San Gabriel. Had\nit not been for his wounds, Victoria would have re-\n44 For a biographical sketch of Romualdo Pacheco, see local annals of\nSta Barbara later in this volume.\n45 Jos6 Maria Avila was a native of Sinaloa, who came when a boy with\nhis parents, Cornelio Avila and Isabel Urquidcs, to Los Angeles. He was a\nwild and reckless fellow in his youth, but dashing and popular, noted for his\nskill in horsemanship. He amassed considerable property, and in 1825 was\nelected alcalde of Los Angeles, though suspended for a despotic exercise of\npower. On one occasion a citizen complained to Gov. Argiicllo that he had\nbeen arbitrarily imprisoned by the alcalde, who was called upon to explain,\nas he did in the following language: 'My motive for putting this person in\njail wa3 that I thought proper to do so; and because, besides that motive, I\nhad other grounds, in the stating of which a good deal of time would be consumed; and since the man's complaint is only intended to take up your worship's time and mine, I close by stating that this i3 all I have to say, repeating\nmyself obedient to your superior orders.' Carrll'o (<\/.), Doc, MS., 17-20.\nAvila's late imprisonment by Sanchez at Victoria'3 order was the cause of his\nspecial wrath against the latter. Dona Inocencia Pico do Avila, Cosas de\nCal, MS., 23-30, say3 that Jos6 Maria had a fight with one Nieto, and was\ncondemned in consequence to a long imprisonment. He came to Monterey,\nstaying at narrator's house, to induce Victoria to change the penalty to a\nfine; but the gov. refused, and Avila went back very angry, vowing vengeance. As there is in the archives some reference to the troubles of Avila\nand Nieto, Mm story may be accurate, though ii 12 not clear how the former\ncould have left the jail to visit Monterey on such business.\n 208 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\ntaken Los Angeles without difficulty; and it is by\nno means unlikely that he would have crushed the\nrebellion altogether. Avila and Talamantes had deposed the governor of California; and others had contributed nothing more potent than words.48\n46 It would serve no good purpose to present variations of testimony on\neach point of this affair, which would be pretty much equivalent to giving\nseven eighths of the narratives in full; but I append some items from various\nsources, interesting for one reason or another. The narrative of Juan Avila,\nnephew of Jos<\u00a7 Maria, is worthy of especial notice as the testimony of an eyewitness who is also a well known and respected man. He watched the conflict from a little distance, having been advised by his uncle to take no active\npart. He, like one or two others, thinks that V. had advanced to Cahuenga\nthe night before. He designates the battle-ground as the Lomitas de la\nCanada de Breita. His version of the fight agrees in general with that in my\ntext, except that he says nothing of Talamantes, and states that Portilla's\nmen fired first. His details after Pacheco's fall are as follows: Avila rushed\namong the soldiers in search of V., whom he gave a lance-thrust in the side,\nunhorsing him, but when about to repeat the blow was shot in the spine by\nthe Mazateco Leandro Morales, and was himself unhorsed. Pedro Guerrero\nrushed up to kill him, but A. shot him in the knee with his remaining pistol.\nV. was so, near that A., struggling on the ground, was able to grasp his foot\nand throw him; but he rose again and killed A. with his sword. Avila,\nNotas, MS., 11-15. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 178-89, gives a very full narrative.\nHis presentment of Portilla's grief at seeing the brave Mazatecos drawn up in\nbattle array against each other, of his fear that all V. 's men must inevitably be\nkilled in a bad cause, his orders to fire the first shot in the air, and the interposition of providence in the interest of an economia de sangre, is\u2014though\ngiven in sober earnest\u2014amusingly absurd. Osio's account of the fight agrees for\nthe most part with the preceding, but he says that V. got one of his wounds\nfrom Talamantes. He also mentions the absurd actions of a drunken man,\nFrancisco Sepulveda, who came up at the last moment. This writer gives the\nimpression that firing had continued, that the personal conflicts had taken\nplace in a shower of bullets, and that the rebels retreated only after the fall\nof Avila. He is very severe in his remarks on their cowardice. Pio Pico,\nHist. Cal, MS., 35-40, states that Jos6 Antonio Carrillo warded Off Pacheco's\nsword-thrust with his musket, and mentions Talamantes' services. Bandini,\nHist. Cal, MS., 75-6, gives no particulars, but states that V. opened the fire\nwithout consenting to give or receive explanations. In a letter written a few\ndays later, Echeandia says: On Dec. 5th the citizens of Los Angeles 'pronounced with their ayuntamiento for the said plan, promising gladly to\nsacrifice their lives and interests in its support. This promise they kept and\nare keeping, for that same day Victoria, whom we supposed in Monterey, presented himself in the vicinity of the pueblo, and, without accepting any\narrangement or even discussion, opened fire, thinking to subject them; but in\nvain, because, anxious for their liberty, they gave themselves up to death, and\nsucceeded in putting Victoria on the brink of death, since seriously wounded\nhe retired his force to this mission.' Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 245, xxx. 276.\nValle, Lo Pasado, MS., 3-5, says it was Guerrero who killed Avila. Mrs\nOrd, Ocurrencias, MS., 49-50, says the report brought to Sta Barbara was that-\nAvila was wounded by Pacheco, wounded Victoria, and was killed by Isidoro\nIbarra. Machado, Tiempos Pasados, MS., 27-8, calls the place of the fight\nArroyo Seco. Amador, Mem., MS., 135-6, had heard from Francisco Alviso, an\neye-witness, that it was Victoria who shot Avila,. Manuel Castro, Rel, MS.,\n25\u2014(t, tells us that Avila went out by permission of the rebel leaders to fight\nsingle-handed with Pacheco and Victoria!   Steven C. Foster, S. Jose Pioneer,\n SURRENDER OF VICTORIA. 209\nThere is little more to be said of the revolution or\nother events of 1831. Some citizens who took no\npart in the fight carried the bodies of Pacheco and\nAvila to the pueblo, where funeral services were performed next day. The fugitive residents had recovered from their fright and returned to their homes,\nwhile Echeandia with a part of Portilla's veterans had\nalso come to town from the camp at Los Nietos.\nThe wounded governor lay at San Gabriel, in danger\nof death, as was thought, tended by Joseph Chapman\nas amateur surgeon, and by Eulalia Perez as nurse, if\nwe may credit the old lady's statement.47 His men,\nwith two or three exceptions, had adhered to the plan\nor did so very soon; there was no possibility of further resistance; and this very day, December 6th, it is\nprobable that he entered into negotiations through\nmessengers with Echeandia, and made a formal surrender.43 On the 9th he had an interview with Echeandia at the mission, at which he asked to be sent to\nMexico, promising to interfere no more in the affairs\nof California. The general consented; and on the same\nday wrote and despatched to the north several letters,\nall of similar purport, in which he narrated all that\nhad occurred, explained his own connection with the\nrevolution, and summoned the diputacion to assemble\nimmediately at Los Angeles to decide according\nto the plan on the persons to be intrusted with the\npolitical and military command.49\nJuly 28, 1877, states that when the bodies were found, 'Avila still grasped\nthe lance-staff with a death-grip, while the point had been driven through\nPacheco's body,' giving other inaccurate particulars. Many of the Californians in their narratives simply state that there was a battle and Victoria was\nwounded, and others say there was only a personal combat between Avila,\nPacheco, and Victoria.\n47 Perez, Recuerdos, MS., 22. She says the most serious wound was in the\nhead, under the eye. Osio says that' Charles Anderson was summoned with\nmedicines from S. Pedro. From later letters of V. himself it appears that\nby the end of Dec. a troublesome discharge of blood from nose and mouth had\nceased, and all his wounds had healed except one in the chest, which caused\nhim much trouble even after his arrival in Mexico. He had also many contusions which were painful. Guerra, Doc, MS., iv. 180-3.\n48 Bandini and Pico say there was a surrender on that day.\n49 E. from S. Gabriel Dec. 9th to Vallejo, and to the ayunt. of S. Jose1 and\nMonterey, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 245; xxx. 276; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   14\n \u25a0\n210\nRULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nAbout December 20th, Victoria left San Gabriel.50\nOn his way south he spent some days at San Luis\nRey with Padre Antonio Peyri, who decided to leave\nCalifornia with the fallen governor. Meanwhile Juan\nBandini at San Diego made a contract with John\nBradshaw and Supercargo Thomas Shaw of the American ship Pocahontas to carry Victoria to Mazatlan\nfor $1,600 in silver, to be paid before setting sail;51\"\nand the exile, arriving on the 27th, went immediately\non board the ship* which did not sail, however, for\ntwenty days. I have before me an autograph letter\naddressed by Victoria to Captain Guerra on the 31st\nfrom on board the Pocahontas still in port,52 in which\nhe expresses confidence that his own acts will meet\nthe approval of the national government, and that relief for the ills that afflict California will not be long\ndelayed. His wounds were rapidly healing, and but\nfor grief at the fate of his compadre Pacheco and the\nbereavement of the widow, he would be a happy man.\nHe urged Guerra to keep his friends the Carrillos if\npossible from accepting the new plan. The vessel\nsailed on January 17, 1832, with Victoria and two\nservants, Padre Peyri and several neophyte boys, and\nAlferez Bodrigo del Pliego.53    On February 5th, hav-\n20-1; St. Pap., Sac, MS., xii. 9. He seems to propose also that the different\ncomandantes should select a comandante general to act temporarily.\n60 Dec. 21st, Echeandia from Los Angeles announces that V. has already\nstarted for S. Diego to embark. Dept. St. Pap., S. Jose, MS., iv. 94; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., i. 251.\n511 have the original contract approved by E. on Dec. 27th, with the correspondence of E., Bandini, and Stearns on the subject, in Bandini, Doc, MS.,\n18-24, 27-30. See also Leg. Rec, MS., i. 194, 211, 297-8. The money\u2014reduced to $1,500 by the fact that Pliego paid $100 for his own passage\u2014was\nborrowed from foreigners and other private individuals, except a small sum\nobtained from the Los Angeles municipal funds. Stearns acted as agent to\nobtain the money, and E. and Bandini became responsible for its re-payment.\nIt was paid over to Bradshaw on Jan. 11th. In February the dip. assumed\nthe debt, but asked for time, greatly to Bandini's annoyance. Of the final\nsettlement I know only that in Sept. 1834, Bandini acknowledged the receipt of $300 from the ayunt. of Angeles on this account. Dept. St. Pap.,\nAngeles, MS., i. 148.\n\u2122Doc Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 925-7.\n53 References to embarkation of the passengers and sailing of the Pocahontas in Bandini, Doc Hist. Cal, MS., 18-30; LI, Hist. Cal, MS., 7G-7;\nS. Jose Arch., MS., v. 40; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 254; xxx. 286, 290; Guerra,\nDoc, MS., iv. 180-1; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 21-2.    There was a report\n EXILE OF VICTORIA. 211\ning reached San Bias, Victoria wrote a letter to the\nMexican authorities, in which, having told over again\nthe events of the past year, he proceeded to explain the\nplans of Echeandia and the plotting diputacion. The\nresult must inevitably be the utter ruin, not only of\nthe missions, but of all the interests of California,\nand there was great danger of an attempt to separate\nthe territory from Mexico.54 July 10, 1832, he wrote\nagain from Mexico to Guerra, stating that the government had at first intended to send him back to\nCalifornia, but had changed that plan. The wound\nin his chest still made his life miserable. He spoke\nof his strict obedience, of his patriotism, and his sacrifices; and predicted that \"the wicked are not to\nprevail forever;\" but he admitted having \"committed\nthe fault of not knowing how to satisfy political passions or to act in accordance with party spirit.\"55\nAt the time of writing the letter just referred to,\nVictoria w^as about to start for Acapulco, where he\nwas on March 9, 1833; and that is the last I know of\nhim.    I append no biographical sketch, because all\ncurrent in Mexico that V. had been shipped on the schooner Sta Bdrbara,\nin the hope that she would be wrecked. Alaman, Sucesos de Cal. en 1831,\nMS. For a biographical sketch of Padre Antonio Peyri, see the local annals\nof S. Luis Rey in a later chapter of this volume. Rodrigo del Pliego came to\nCal. in 1825, his commission as alferez bearing date of Dec. 21,1824. He had\npreviously served in the Tulancingo dragoons, being retired as alferez of ur-\nbanos in Dec. 1821. He was attached to the Monterey company from the\ntime of his arrival until August 1827; and then transferred to the Sta Barbara company. He commanded a squad of the San Bias infantry company in\n1826-7; made two minor expeditions against the Indians while at Sta Bdrbara in 1828; and commanded 18 men of the S. Diego company in 1830 at the\ntime of the Solis revolt. He returned to Monterey with Victoria in Jan.\n1831, or a few months earlier; and served as prosecutor or defender in some\nof the celebrated cases under V.'s rule. Hoja de servicios, in Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, MS., lxxi. 18-20. In 1834 he seems to have been promoted in\nMexico to the command of the Sta Barbara company, but never returned to\nCal. Id., lxxix. 83. In 1828 he had been declared incompetent and ordered\nby the min. of war to return to Mex. Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 12. Pliego was\ndetested by the Californians, apparently without exception, as a cowardly\nsycophant. No one credits him with any good quality; the official records\nthrow no light on his personal character; and the only thing to be said in his\nfavor is that the Californians, being bitterly prejudiced against him and his\nfriends, may have exaggerated his faults.\nbi Alaman, Sucesos, MS.\n55 Guerra, Doc, MS., iv. 183-4. Tuthill, Hist. Cal, 131-2, tells us that\nVictoria retired to a cloister. Robinson implies the same. Alex. S. Taylor\nsomewhere says he died in 1868 or 1869.\n 212\nRULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nthat is knowij of him is contained in this chapter.\nThe Californians as a rule have nothing to say in his\nfavor; but the reader knows how far the popular prejudice was founded in justice. I have already expressed the opinion that under ordinary circumstances\nVictoria would have been one of California's best\nrulers.68\nOf political events in the south in 1831, after Victoria's abdication, there is nothing to be recorded,\nexcept that Echeandia held the command, both political and military, and all were waiting for the diputacion to assemble early in January. In the north the\nnews of the revolutionary success arrived about the\nmiddle of December. San Francisco on the 19th, San\nJose* on the 22d, and Monterey on the 26th, went\nthrough the forms of adhesion to the San Diego plan.57\n56 The narratives furnished me by Californians, touching more or less fully\non V.'s rule, overthrow, aiid character\u2014most of which I have already cited\non special points\u2014are as follows: Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 100-89; Pico, Hist.\nCal, MS., 24-40; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 136-59; Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS.,ii. 101-83; iii. 7-8,4S-50; iv.81; Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS.,72-7; Amador,\nMem.. MS., 122-8, 135-G; Avila, CosasdeCal, MS., 28-31; Id., Notas, 11-\n15; Bee, Recoil, MS., 2-3; Boronda, Notas, MS., 16-17; Castro, Re'., MS.,\n23-9; Fernandez, Cosas, MS., 64-6; Gonzalez, Exper., MS., 29-30; Galindo,\nApuntes, MS., 16-21; Larios, Convulsiones, MS., 11-13; Lugo, Vida, MS.,\n14-16; Machado, Tiempos, MS., 26-8; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 38-50; Perez,\nRecuerdos, MS., 22; Pico, Acont., MS., 18-23; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 6-9;\nRodriguez, Statement, MS., 7; Sanchez, Notas, MS., 7-8; Torre, Reminis.,\nMS., 22-30; ValdeS, Mem., MS., 21; Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 3-5; Vallejo,\nReminis., MS., 109-14; Weeks' Reminis., MS., 73-4.\nGeneral accounts narrating briefly the events of V. 's rule, in Marsh's Letter to Com. Jones, MS., 4-5; Robinson's Life in Cal, 118-21; Petit-Thouars,\nVoy., ii. 91; Wilkes' Narr., U. S. Explor. Ex., v. 174; Mofras, Exploration,\ni. 294; TuthilVs Hist. Cal, 131-4, and Los Angeles, Hist., 13. Mr Warner in\nthe last work makes the revolution a local event of Los Angeles annals.\nThese different writers speak favorably or unfavorably of V. according to the\nsources of their information, or to their bias for or against the padres and\nJose\" de la Guerra on one side and the Bandini-Pico-Vallejo faction on the\nother. Tuthill seems to have taken the versions of Spence and Stearns in\nabout equal parts. Mofras speaks very highly of Victoria, because of his dislike for the Vallejo party. The version of Robinson, a son-in-law of Guerra,\nhas been most widely followed.\nM Leg. Rec, MS., i. 348-9; Monterey, Actos del Ayunt., MS., 42-3. Vallejo,\nSanchez, and Pefia signed at S. F.; Leandro Flores for S. Jos6; and Buelna\nand Castro for the Monterey ayunt. Juan Higuera and Antonio Castro, of\nthe ayunt., declined on Dec. 25th to approve the plan; but Castro changed his\nmind next day, Higuera still needing more time to think it over. At Sta\nBarbara the plan was signed on Jan. 1, 1832, by Rafael Gonzalez, Miguel\nValencia, and Jose* Maria Garcia; and it was approved by the ayunt. of Los\n NORTHERN SENTIMENT.\n213\nAt least certain officials, civil and military, are made\nto appear in the legislative records of the next year\nas having signed the plan, with remarks of approbation on the dates mentioned. Bafael Gomez, the\nasesor, apprehensive of personal danger to himself as\na partisan of Victoria, went on board the Bussian\nbark Urup and tried to induce the captain to carry\nhim to Sitka; but as he had no passport, his request\nwas denied and he was set on shore at San Francisco.58\nThe northern members, Vallejo and others, with Secretary Alvarado, started late in December for the\nsouth in response to Echeandia's summons to be present at the meeting of the diputacion.\nMinor local events, with general remarks on such\ninstitutions and topics as are not very closely connected\nwith or necessary to a full understanding of. general\nannals, I propose to present once for all for the whole\nperiod of 1831-40, at the end of this volume. Another class of general topics, more purely historical in\ntheir nature, and more readily adapting themselves to\nchronological treatment, such as mission affairs, commerce, foreign relations, and Indian affairs, I shall\ngroup as before in chapters covering each a period of\nfive years,53 deeming this arrangement a much more\nsatisfactory and convenient one for the reader than\nwould be a more minute chronological subdivision. I\nshall of course refer to these topics as often and as\nfully as may be necessary to illustrate the annals of\nany particular year; but for 1831 I find no need for\nsuch reference, beyond what I have already said of\nAngeles on Jan. 7th. Id. The pronunciamiento of S. F., Dec. 19th, is given\nin Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 248. Next day the artillery company recognized\nEcheand.a. Id., i. 250. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 152-3, claims to have\nstarted for the south with a small force in response to a letter from J. A. Carrillo, before he heard of Victoria's downfall.\n58 Certificate dated Dec. 22d, and signed by Zarembo, Khlelmikof, and\nShelikof, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 310; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 181,\nimplies that there were others besides Gomez who attempted to escape.\n59For the period from 1831-5, see chapters xi.-xiv., this vol.; and ior\n1836-40, see vol. iv.\n 5\n214 RULE AND OVERTHROW OF VICTORIA.\nsecularization to show the cause of the popular feeling\nagainst Victoria.\nIn addition, however, to what I have written about\nthe occurrences of 1831 in California, there remains\nsomething to be said of what was being done in Mexico for California, that is, of the labors of Carlos Carrillo, who had been elected in October 1830 to represent the territory in congress.60 Don C&rlos reached\nMexico in April 1831, after a flattering reception at\nSan Bias and at other points on the way, and he was\nsomewhat active in behalf of his constituents, in comparison at least with his predecessors, so far as we\nmay judge from his own letters.61 He may be regarded as the representative rather of Captain Jose,\nde la Guerra than of the Californians, acting largely\non that gentleman's advice; but it would have been\ndifficult to choose a wiser counsellor. Carrillo complained to the national government of the arbitrary\nand unwise acts of the rulers sent to California, resulting to a great extent from the distance of the territory from Mexico. His proposed remedy was the\nseparation of the political and military power, which\nshould be vested in two persons, and his views on\nthis subject met with some encouragement from the\npresident and ministers, who even broached to Don\nCarlos the expediency of accepting for himself the\ncivil command. California's urgent need for an organic law was presented, as also the necessity of establishing courts of justice, and regulating the administration of finance. It was complained, moreover, that\na great injustice had been done in the promotion of\nMexican officers like Zamorano and Pacheco to captaincies over the heads of Californians who had grown\ngray in the service. Carrillo requested the territorial\ndiputacion to petition congress for the reforms for\n60 See p. 50, this vol., for his election.\n61 Carrillo, Cartas del Diputado de la Alta California, 1831-2, MS. There\nare 14 letters in this interesting collection, besides several of other years, all\nto his brother-in-law, Guerra.\n CARRILLO IN CONGRESS. 215\nwhich he was working, including the appointment, or\nrather paying, of two competent teachers.62\nCarrillo was a stanch partisan of the missionaries\nin these days, reflecting in that respect as others the\nsentiments of his brother-in-law, and therefore a large\npart of his correspondence was devoted to topics elsewhere treated. To the missions also was devoted, or\nto a closely allied matter, his exposition on the pious\nfund;63 but this document merits at least a mention\nhere, not only as containing a somewhat fair presentment of the country's general condition and needs,\nbut as the first production of a Californian writer which\nwas ever printed in form of book or pamphlet. Don\nCarlos was an enthusiastic admirer of his native province, with great ideas of its destiny under proper\nmanagement. He thought he was rapidly communicating his enthusiasm to the Mexican authorities, and\non the point of success with his proposed reforms.\nPerhaps he was disposed to exaggerate his success;\nfor the only evidences I find of Mexican attention to\nCalifornia at this time are a few slight mentions of\nstatistical or financial matters in the regular reports\nof the departments.61\nC2Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 169. |g\nc3 Carrillo, Exposicion dirigida d la Cdmara de Diputados del Congreso de\nla Union por El Sr J). Cdrljos A utonio Carrdlo, Dipidado por la A Ita California.\nSobre. Arreglo y Adminui. avion del Fondo Piadoso. Mexico, 1831. 8vo. 16 p.\nDated Sept. 15, 1831. Tins copy of a very rare pamphlet, the only copy I\nhave ever seen, was presented to me in 1878 by Dona Dolores Dominguez,\nwidow of Jos<S Carrillo, a son of the author. It has some sh0nt corrections in\nink, probably by the author or by Guerra.\nCi Mexico. Mem. Relaciones, 1832, p. 25, and annex, i. p. 11; Id., Hacienda\n1832, annex. M,\n CHAPTEB VIII.\nAN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\n1832.\nThe Diputacion at Los Angeles\u2014Action against Victoria\u2014Attempts\nto Make Pico Governor\u2014Echeandia's Opposition\u2014A Foreign\nCompany at Monterey\u2014Zamorano's Revolt\u2014A Junta at the Capital\u2014The News at San Diego\u2014Sessions op the Diputacion\u2014Los\nAngeles Deserts Echeandia\u2014Warlike Preparations\u2014Ibarra at\nAngeles\u2014Barroso at Paso de Bartolo\u2014Indians Armed\u2014Compact\nbetween Echeandia and Zamorano\u2014The Territory Divided\u2014\nFinal Sessions of the Diputacion\u2014The Avila Sedition\u2014Who is\nGovernor ?\u2014Affairs in Mexico\u2014Carrillo's Efforts and Letters\u2014\nChoice of a Governor\u2014Jose Figueroa Appointed\u2014Instructions\u2014\nMishaps of a Journey\u2014Mutiny at Cape San Lucas\u2014Waiting for\na Ruler.\nThe diputacion met at Los Angeles January 10,\n1832.1 Two subjects demanded and obtained almost\nexclusively the attention of this body, the vocales\npresent being Pico, Vallejo, Osio, Ortega, and Ar-\ngiiello, with Yorba later and Alvarado as secretary.\nThe first duty was a proper presentment of charges\nagainst Ex-governor Victoria, as a defence of the late\nrevolutionary movement; and the second was to name\na gefe politico ad interim in accordance writh the plan\nindorsed by the leaders of that movement. I append\nan abstract of proceedings at the meetings held in\nJanuary and February.2    So far as the action against\n1 Echeandia had on Jan. 5th sent out copies of the pronunciamiento of S.\nDiego, with remarks in defence of that document, concluding by asking the\ncomandantes* opinion on the provisional command. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i.\n2S4.\n2 Session of Jan. 10th, dip. met in the casa consistorial; the oath was\nadministered by Alcalde Dominguez; and Pio Pico, assuming the presidency\n(216)   x\n DIPUTACION IN SESSION. 217\nVictoria is concerned, I need add nothing to the abstract, because the whole matter has been exhausted\nin the preceding chapter.\nIn the matter of choosing a political chief trouble\narose unexpectedly. The action of the diputacion in\nthis respect had been very clearly marked out in the\nas senior vocal, made a brief and modest address, congratulating the members on their meeting to act for the country's interests after having been for a\nyear prevented from exercising their rights by the tyranny of Victoria. He\nmade the customary admission of his own unworthiness, etc., and asked the\naid of his associates in behalf of Cal. Pico's views having been approved,\ncommittees were appointed, credentials examined, etc. In the afternoon,\nEcheandia's summons to the members, dated Dec. 9th, was read. (p. 173-8.)\nJan. 11th, after long discussion, in which the various charges were specified,\nit was unanimously voted to confirm, or approve, the suspension of Victoria;\nand Vallejo and Arguello were named as a committee to prepare a formal\nexpediente on the subject for the sup. govt. Then on motion of Vallejo the\ndiputacion proceeded in accordance with E.'s summons to choose a temporary gefe politico, and it was decided according to the law of May 6,\n1822, that Pico as senior vocal was entitled to the office. This action was to\nbe sent to E. for circulation. Voted, that according to the Mex. law, the sub-\ncomisario, Juan Bandini, was entitled to a seat. Voted to continue the sessions at Angeles and not at S. Diego; but E. was to be invited to be present.\nVoted, as to the military command, that E. should notify the different officers to choose a temporary comandante general, (p. 178-83.) Jan. 12th, 13th,\n14th, 17th, 18th, routine progress by the committee on charges against\nVictoria; Suplente Yorba takes the oath and his seat; Ortega and Osio named\nas a committee to prepare a manifestacion to the public; Vallejo granted\nleave of absence for ten days to visit S. Diego, (p. 183-5.) Los Angeles\nmunicipal accounts also considered in extra sessions of Jan. 14th, 17th, 23d,\n27th. (p. 352-4.) Yorba's oath also in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 4G-7.\nJan. 17th, Ortega and Osio to Echeandia! Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 26.\nJan. 23d, three letters received from the gefe politico provisional, Echeandia,\nin which he announced Victoria's departure; asked for records of the earlier\nsessions; and declared it impossible to leave his troops and come to Los\nAngeles. Jan. 26th-27th, on the 20th, Vallejo proposed that the oath be\nadministered at once to Pico according to the law of Sept. 30, 1823; and as\nall approved, ' without waiting for a discourse offered by Echeandia' (?), the\noath was administered by Vallejo, and Pico was formally declared gefe politico interino, the corresponding report being sent to E. and all territorial\nauthorities. Arguello thereupon made a speech, congratulating all on the\narrival of the happy day when Cal. was ruled by one of her native sons; and\nPico replied in fitting terms, (p. 18G-9.) Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 41-2, states\nthat when the oath was administered the necessary church utensils were\nlacking, and the padre refused the keys of the church, whereupon J. B. Alvarado entered the church by a skylight for the missing articles, and the oath\nwas administered at the church door. Jan. 31st and Feb. 1st, E. writes to\nPico acknowledging receipt of a etas of Jan. 10th and 26th-27th, giving some\nadvice respecting the policy of the new gefe, and expressing some dissatisfaction with Pico's appointment. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 27-38. Feb. 3d,\na letter was received from Bandini, and the matter of his taking a seat it\nwas decided to refer to the sup. govt. Letters from Echeandia were introduced (those referred to above), in which, with some suggestions on policy,\npowers, etc., he complains of having been 'violently,' or hastily, deprived of\nthe office of ,gefe politico. Osio and Yorba were named as a committee to\nreport on the suggestions, relating among other things to pay of a secretary,\n 218      AJST INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nplan of San Diego and in Echeandia's summons to the\nmembers, and accordingly on January 11th Pio Pico,\nthe senior vocal, was chosen to fill the position.\nEcheandia was duly notified, and at first expressed no\ndissatisfaction, though he seems to have wished -the\ndiputacion to adjourn to meet in the south, while that\netc.; and as to the complaints, it was decided that action had not been at all\nhasty or irregular, nor had it been necessary to wait for the presence of E.\nbefore swearing hi Pico. Ortega wras named to report on efforts to obtain\nfrom Mexico a constitution or organic law for California. Communications\nwere also received from Bandini about the cost of Victoria's passage to S.\nBias. This debt of $1,500 was assumed in the session of Feb. 4th. (p. 189-\n95.) In extra or secret sessions of Jan. 24th, 30th, Feb. 3d, 6th, the date\nand place of annual meetings were discussed without any definite conclusion.\nThere was also some\" slight clashing between Pico and the rest, P. declaring\nthat it was his place to direct the junta and not to be directed by it. (p.\n352-5.) Feb. 10th, on motion of Ortega, Echeandia was again requested to\nproclaim^ as soon as possible, the accession of Pico to the office of gefe, and\nto cease exercising political power himself; it was also ordered that the new\nife should have jurisdiction at once in those places where the civil authority\nwas established, except at S. Francisco, Sta Barbara, and S. Diego, which\nplaces were to be within the jurisdiction of the comandante general, until\nsuch time as the civil authority might be regularly organized and the necessity for military rule removed, (p. 196-7.) It seems that on Feb. 3d E. had\nobjected to P. 's appointment in a communication, either to the dip. or to the\nayuntamiento, to which latter body he writes on Feb. 6th. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 41. Feb. 11th, E. to P., in reply to note of 10th, asks by what right\nhe has taken the oath, the law of Sept. 30, 1823, being anulled by art. 163 of\nthe constitution. Id., iii. 39. Feb. 12th, the ayunt. and citizens of Los Angeles held a meeting and formally declared that they would obey no other gefe\npolitico than Echeandia. This action was confirmed on Feb. 19th, J. A.\nCarrillo and Jos6 Perez dissenting. Los Ange'es, Arch., MS., iv. 50-3, 50-8;\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 39-40. Feb. 13th, the action of the ayunt. against\nP. was received through E. P. made rather a bitter speech, and proposed\nthat E. himself be invited to go before the ayunt. to explain why P. had been\nappointed according to the laws and to the plan of S. Diego; and also how\ninsulting had been the action of the municipal body to the dip. and the laws.\nAll but Yorba favored this, and the sending of a committee to reason with the\nayunt. (p. 197-202.) Feb. lGth, a letter from E. was read, refusing to comply with the request of the dip. E. now declared the appointment illegal,\nbecause the military and political command could not be separated; there had\nnot been 7 vocales present; some of them were related to Pico; and finally, P.\nwas incompetent to perform the duties of the office. Still, rather than use\nforce, he will give up the political command and hold the dip. responsible.\nP. in a very able speech refuted E.'s arguments, and claimed that, whatever\nhis lack of talent, the people had chosen him as a vocal; but he refused to\nattend any more meetings or accept the office of gefe politico until the dip..\nshould vindicate its honor and freedom, and refuse to recognize E., who had\nevidently intrigued with the ayunt. against the territorial government. Vallejo followed with an argument against E.'s position, which he regarded as\nvirtually a new pronunciamiento made with a view to keep for himself the\npolitical povvci\\ The speaker was, however, in favor of offering no resistance,\nbut of suspending the sessions and leaving the responsibility of the new\nrevolution with E. and his friends. All except Yorba approved this view,\nand it was decided to adjourn next day, reporting this action an^l the reasons\nto E. and to the national govt. (p. 202-9.)   E.'s protest against P.'s appoint-\n PICO DEFRAUDED OF THE GOVERNORSHIP. 219\nbody desired him to come to Los Angeles. Each declined to yield, and the controversy may have been\nmore bitter than is indicated in the records. At last,\nafter waiting fifteen days, it was decided that the\npresence of the gefe provisional could be dispensed\nwith, and on the 27th the oath of office was taken by\nPico. Echeandia made no open opposition, but neglected to proclaim the change; and later, when the\nayuntamiento of Los Angeles, doubtless at his instigation, refused on February 12th to recognize any\ngefe but Echeandia, the latter openly declared Pico\nincompetent, his election illegal, and the action of the\ndiputacion a wrong to himself. Rather than resort\nto force, however, he proposed on the 16th to surrender the gefatura, holding the diputacion responsible\nfor all disorders that might ensue. Echeandia's course\ncan hardly be regarded otherwise than as contemptible and treacherous. Led by motives of personal\nambition and personal resentment, he made use of his\nmilitary power against the cause he had pretended to\nsupport. He may have been technically right in declaring the action of the diputacion illegal; for it is\ndoubtful if in a frontier territory like California the\ncivil and military power could be even temporarily\nseparated by the people, but he knew.this perfectly\nwhen he signed the plan, which was the only law under which the revolutionists could pretend to act.\nPico and his associates acted in a moderate and\ndignified manner at this juncture. The former dement, also in Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 42-3. Feb. 17th, Vallejo and Arguello presented their expediente against Victoria, a long presentment of all the\ncharges, with copies of many documents on the subject, all of which has been\nutilized in the preceding chapter. Some slight routine business was transacted, and then the dip. adjourned for the reasons stated in the session of\n'Feb. 16th. (p. 209 11, 298-350.) On this subject I may note here that on\nFeb. 6th, E. had sent to Mexico a full statement of the charges against Victoria and the causes of the revolt. Alaman, Sucesos de Cal. en 1881, MS., p.\n23-9. Feb. 24th, at S. Diego the members of the dip., in forwarding to\nMexico the expediente above alluded to, prefaced that document with a long\nstatement of their late sessions at Los Angeles, of their efforts in behalf of\ntheir country, and of Echeandia's unexpected opposition and ambitious\nschemes to retain his political power. Their case as presented was a very\nstrong one. (p. 253-68.) Leg. Rec, MS., i. 173-355.\n AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nclined to retain the office in opposition to the will of\nthe general and the people of Los Angeles, and the\ndeputies, defenceless and averse to further civil dissensions, deemed it best to regard Echeandia's movement as a successful contra-pronunciamiento, which\nrelieved them of all further responsibility. They accordingly suspended their sessions on the 17th, rendering to the national government a full report of all\nthat had occurred, and holding themselves in readiness to meet again when the interests of the country\nshould demand it. Pico made no further claims to the\noffice of gefe politico, nor were any such claims made\nfor him. .By the five members of the diputacion he\nhad been recognized from January 27th to February\n16th, twenty days, and under the plan of revolt he\nwas entitled to the office. Such is the substance of\nDon Pio's title to be regarded as governor of California in 1832-3.3\nWhile Echeandia was thus occupied with a revolutionary movement against his own friends in the\nsouth, another Mexican officer was engaged in developing revolutionary schemes, equally selfish and ambitious, but far less treacherous, in the north. Captain\nAgustin V. Zamorano and others pronounced at\nMonterey against the plan of San Diego, and all who\nhad favored that movement. Zamorano had been\nVictoria's secretary and friend, but so far as can be\nknown had taken no part in the troubles of 1831, had\nmade no effort to defend his unpopular master in his\ntime of need, but had perhaps promised neutrality.\nNow that Victoria was out of the country, aware that\nthe popular feeling in favor of Echeandia was by no\nmeans so strong as had been that against Victoria,\nknowing that current disputes must be settled event-\n3 On the trouble between Pico and Echeandia, see, in addition to the records\nalready cited, Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 41-4; Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 189-92;\nVallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 159-64; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 134-90;\nOrd, Ocurrencias, MS.,50-1; Machado, Tiempos Pasados, MS., 28-9. There\nare no variations of statement requiring notice. P. says that E. subsequently\nrecognized him; but such does not appear to have been the fact.\n ZAMORANO'S REVOLT.\n221\nually in Mexico rather than in California, and being\nmoreover free from all charges of complicity in the\nlate revolt, the ambitious captain shrewdly saw his\nopportunity to gain favor with the national authorities, as well as temporary prominence in territorial\naffairs, and he acted accordingly.\nZamorano's first step was to secure the cooperation\nof the foreign residents of Monterey. These foreigners, though taking no decided stand, had been inclined\nto favor Victoria because of his strict preservation of\norder and administration of justice, caring very little\nfor his sins against the spirit of Mexican institutions.\nAs a rule, they disliked Echeandia, had no confidence\nin Pio Pico, were opposed to all revolutions not directly in the line of their own interests, and deemed\ntheir business prospects threatened by the rumored\ndissensions in the south. Therefore they were willing to act in defence of good order at the capital.\nThey were convened by Zamorano on January 24th,\nand proceeded to organize a compania extranjera for\nthe defence of Monterey, during the continuance of\n'existing circumstances,' against attack from the in-\nterior or from any other quarter. Nearly fifty joined\nthe company, and elected Hartnell as their leader.4\n* Compania Extrangera de Monterey, su organizacion en 1832, MS. The\ncompany was not to be required to leave the town under any circumstances.\nJuan B. Bonifacio was 2d officer, or lieutenant, with Luis Vignes as a substitute in case of his disability. Such men as had to leave their work for military service were to receive 50 cents per day. The following men attended\nthe meeting and signed the rolls of the company:\nAgustin V. Zamorano,     Juan B. Bonifacio, J. L. Vignes,\nWm E. Hartnell, Timothy Murphy, D. Douglas,\nThos Coulter, Wm Taylor, Nathan Spear,\nJuan B. Leandry, James Watson, Santiago McKinley,\nGeo. Kinlock, John Rainsford, Estevan Munras,\nJ. B. R. Cooper, John Gorman, Jos6 Iglesias,\nJose Amesti, Chas Roe, Walter Duckworth,\nLuis Pombert, Henry Bee, Thos Raymore,\nSamuel Mead, R. S. Barker, John Roach,\nWm McCarty, Edward Watson, Thos Doak,\nJohn Thompson, John Miles, David Littlejohn,\nJas Cook, Joseph Dixon, Win Garner,\nWm Johnson, John Roper, Pierre J. Chevrette,\nWmGralbatch, Guy F. Fling, Chas R. Smith,\nJuan D. Bravo, John Burns, Wm Webb.\nDaniel Ferguson,\nI have in my possession the original 'orderly book* of the company, kept\n 222       AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nHaving thus enlisted the services of the foreign\nresidents, the leaders of whom doubtless understood\nhis plans, Zamorano summoned Asesor Gomez, Lieutenant Ibarra, Hartnell, and half a dozen other men\nof some prominence to a meeting February 1st; and\nto this junta, after having stated that northern California from Santa Barbara to San Francisco did not\naccept the plan of San Diego, he submitted in substance the following questions: Are the acts of the\ndiputacion at Los Angeles legal or illegal? In the\nlatter case, in what person should be vested the civil\nand military command, Victoria having left the territory? Should a force be sent south for the defence\nof Santa Barbara, as had been requested? Ought\nthe sub-comisario of revenues at Monterey to obey\nthe orders of Juan Bandini, his superior officer, but a\nleader in the revolution ? After a thorough discussion,\nthat is, after the members had approved Zamorano's\nviews as previously agreed upon, the junta decided:\nFirst, that the acts of the diputacion must be considered illegal and null, since that body had been convened by an authority unknown to the laws and existing only by reason of revolution. Consequently\nno obedience or respect was due to rulers chosen by\nthat body. Second, no gefe politico should be chosen\nuntil the supreme government should appoint one,\nbut the comandancia general should be filled ad interim, according to the military regulations, by the\nofficer of highest rank and seniority who had taken no\npart in the rebellion, that is, by Zamorano, the two\nranking captains Portilla and Arguello having for-\nby its captain, from Feb. 8th, when active garrison duty was begun, to April\n12th, when the captain resigned. Hartnell, Cuaderno de Ordenes de la Compania Extrangera de Monterey, 183.2, MS. On Feb. 23d, Edward Watson\nwas dismissed for disrespect. March 25th, Hartnell, having to be absent,\nleft Bonifacio in command. April 12th, the alcalde having requested the\ncomandante of the post to dispense with Bonifacio's services, Hartnell took\nit as an insult to the company, and resigned. This was very likely the end\nof the organization. On Feb. 18, 1833, Hartnell informed the members that\nGov. Figueroa, in his communication to Zamorano on Feb. 15th, had thanked\nthe foreigners for their services, which he promised to make known to tho\nsup. govt.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii.  12.\n PRONUNCIAMIENTO OF MONTEREY. 223\nfeited their rights. Third, to remove anxiety, uphold\nlawful authority, and prevent catastrophe at Santa\nBdrbara, as large a force as can be spared should be\nsent there at once, but not to attempt operations\nagainst the rebels unless they should attack that place.\nIn case of such attack, the comandante may not only\nrepel the foe, but if circumstances permit, may advance\nto San Diego and capture the rebel leaders. He\nmust communicate the proceedings of this meeting to\nthe officer in command of the rebels, summoning them\nall to give up their arms, and suspending all from\noffice. Should they refuse, they are to be warned\nnot to advance beyond the points they now occupy.\nFourth, the comisario subalterno, Gomez, will not obey\nBandini, but communicate directly with the bomisario\ngeneral in Sonora. Fifth, the garrison at San Francisco having pronounced in favor of the legitimate\nauthority, and arrested their comandante, Sanchez,\nwrho had approved the San Diego plan, the retired\nlieutenant, Ignacio Martinez, shall be placed in command there. Sixth, the acting comandante general\nmust report these proceedings to the supreme government, with mention of the services rendered by foreigners, and lists of soldiers and civilians who have\nremained loyal.5\n5 Pronunciamiento de Monterey contra el Plan de San Diego, 6 sea Acta de la\nJunta de 1\u00b0 de Febrero 1832 en favor de la legitima autoridad y contra D. Jose\"\nMaria Echeandia, MS. Copy certified by Zamorano on Feb. 2d, and several\nother certified copies. The signers were Capt. Agustin V. Zamorano, comandante of Monterey; Lie. Rafael Gomez, asesor of the territory; Jose\" Joaquin Gomez, comisario subalterno of Monterey; Salvador Espinosa, alcalde;\nW. E. Hartnell and Juan B. Bonifacio, commanders of the foreign military\ncompany; Juan Maria Ibarra, lieut of the Mazatlan company; Juan Malarin,\nhonorary 2d lieut of national navy; Francisco Pacheco, brevet lieut; and.\nJose\" Maria Madrazo, sergt of artillery detachment. Feb. 1st. Zamarano\nreports the action of the junta to tho alcalde of S. Jose\\ S. Jose, Arch.,\nMS., iii. 9. Feb. 2d, sends copies to S. F., S. Joso, and Branciforte. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 289. Feb. 6th, Z. announces to comandantes and alcaldes that the garrison and citizens of Sta Barbara had \u2022'pronounced' in\nfavor of legitimate authority, deposing the comandante, Alf. Domingo Carrillo, who had adhered to the S. Diego plan. All accomplished in a most\nhappy manner. Id., i. 290. Feb. 12th, Z. to Echeandia. send*; copy of the\nproceedings of Feb. 1st, and the summons required by that document to\nsurrender, promising the clemency of the govt to him and his followers if\nhe accepts.   Id., i. 296.    April 2d, Alf. Sanchez, having repented, is restored\n 224      AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nThere are no records of a formal adhesion to Zam-\norano's plan at San Francisco, San Jose, Branciforte,\nand Santa Barbara, though there are allusions to such\nadhesion at some of those places, and there can be no\ndoubt that it took place at all during the month of\nFebruary. Ibarra started with a military force for\nSanta Barbara about February 9th; and in April, the\ndefence of Monterey having been intrusted to the\ncompania extrangera and to another company of citizens organized for the purpose, Zamorano himself\nmarched south with all the force he could raise, having learned that the so-called rebels were assuming a\nhostile attitude, and were not disposed to pay much\nattention to the autoridad legitima.\nSo far as the south is concerned, we know more of\nwhat was said than of what was done. The authors\nof my original narratives content themselves with the\ngeneral statement that Zamorano having refused to recognize Echeandia, the latter consented to rule in the\nsouth, while his rival held sway over the north.6 The\nearliest notice we have that a knowledge of the con-\ntra-pronunciamiento had reached the south is when on\nMarch 5th Echeandia reported to Pico the news of\ndisturbances at Santa Bdrbara, and proposed a meeting of the diputacion for consultation, offering to attend;7 and next day were communicated more complete\ndetails respecting the proceedings at Monterey. There\nwere informal meetings of officials for consultation at\nto the command of S. F. Id., i. 305. March 30th, Z. to alcalde of S. Jose.\nHas heard that the rebels of S. Diego have assumed a hostile attitude and\nare about to occupy Los Angeles, which at the beginning of the month had\ncome out in favor of the legitimate authority. This makes it necessary for\nhim to go to Sta Barbara and perhaps farther; and he calls on the alcalde for\n20 or 25 men, mounted and patriotic, to be sent at once, since by a rapid\nmovement he hopes to secure the tranquillity of the country. S. Jose\", Arch.,\nMS., ii. 60. Feb. 29th, Anastasio Carrillo in a private letter speaks of the\nforce which Lieut Ibarra has at Sta Barbara, with which he will force S.\nDiego to yield to the proposal of Feb. 28th (?). Valle, Doc. Hist. Cal, MS.,\n25. April 8th, Z. was at S. Antonio on his way to Sta Barbara. Guerra,\nDoc, MS., vi. 152. Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 30-1, alcalde at the time,\ngives a few vague particulars about the action at Sta Barbara.\n6 The names of authors and narratives are for the most part those given in\nnote 56 of chap. vii.\n''Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 44.\n RIVAL RULERS. 225\nSan Diego on March 7th, 8th, and 13th; and it was\nprobably at these meetings that Juan Bandini opened\nthe batteries of his wrathful eloquence on the leaders\nof the northern movement, uttering some truths, but\ntrusting largely to personal abuse to maintain his\nposition.8\nThe 14th of March Echeandia made a formal reply\nfrom San Luis Bey to Zamorano's communication of\nFebruary 12th. He accused the latter of having\nviolated his personal pledges of neutrality, at the\ninstigation of Bafael Gomez and his own personal\nambition. He alluded to the facts that Victoria had\nrecognized him as his successor in command, and that\nthe officials at San Diego in recent meetings had utterly refused to recognize Zamorano as comandante\ngeneral. Still Echeandia proposed a truce under conditions, which being observed, he would not use force\nto maintain his rights. Evidently nobody in California was thirsting for blood. The conditions were that\nZamorano should leave commercial and other communication free between different parts of the territory,\nwithdraw his forces from Santa Barbara, leave the\ndiputacion and ayuntamientos free to act as they\nmight deem best in civil affairs, and leave also the comisario and the former comandantes of Santa Barbara\nand San Francisco free in the exercise of their duties.\nOn these conditions, by taking the oath prescribed in\nthe constitution, he might regard himself as comandante general of the north until the decision from\nMexico; but as Ibarra was intriguing with Los\nAngeles, Zamorano must decide very promptly, or he\nwould  begin  hostile operations and make real the\n8Bandini, Apuntes Pollticos de 1832, MS., and another undated document\nin Id., Doc, 26-31. Zamorano is accused of bad faith in keeping quiet for 42\ndays after Victoria's defeat to pronounce for him after his departure; Rafael\nGomez was an intimate of Victoria, a prevaricator, an associate of unworthy\npersons, and a rum-seller; Jose\" J. Gomez was anxious for disorders in order\nto hide irregularities in his revenue accounts; Hartnell was a monarchist;\nBonifacio, an ignorant foreigner, not naturalized; Espinosa had no authority\noutside of his municipality; and the other signers were for the most part\nincapable of understanding the pronunciamiento. There were only one captain and one lieutenant, as against 11 officers in favor of the plan of S. Diego.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   15\n 226      AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nstreams of blood talked of, holding his opponents\nresponsible before God and the world.9\nThe diputacion, willing to forget for the time its\nown wrongs at the hands of Echeandia, assembled at\nhis call at San Diego to consider measures for checking\nthe disorders that must result from the new pronunciamiento, \"this duty devolving on the assembly for\nwant of a gefe politico.\" The members were unanimous in their condemnation of Zamorano's junta, especially of its attempt to suspend the diputacion, a\nbody with whose acts even the national government\nhad declared itself powerless to interfere, said Arguello, except after reference to congress. At a second\nmeeting, March 22d, Pico expressed sentiments very\nsimilar to those of Bandini already cited; and it was\nresolved to issue a circular to the ayuntamientos, inviting them to preserve order, to recognize the diputacion, and to proceed with their ordinary municipal\nduties without paying the slightest attention to the\njunta which was tempting them into danger. After\nthis rather mild action the assembly adjourned, apparently with the intention of meeting again at Los\nAngeles.10\nBut the legitimistas succeeded in their intrigues\nwith the fickle ayuntamiento of Los Angeles, which\nbody, on March 22d, laid before the people a communication from Zamorano, explaining the beauties of his\nsystem. To this system the assembled citizens \" manifested themselves addicted;\"31 and Ibarra came immediately from Santa Barbara with a part of his force\nand encamped in the pueblo of the Angels. At San\nLuis Rey the members of the diputacion en route for\n'March 15, 1832, Echeandia to Pico, transcribing his communication of\nthe 14th to Zamorano.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 303.\n10Leg. Rec, MS., i. 211-20. March 18th, Pico to Vallejo, inviting him to\nattend the meeting of next day. Vallejo, Doc Hist. Cal, MS., i. 306. March\n20th, Echeandia to Pico, reporting resolutions of the council of war at S. Diego\nMarch 7th, 8th, 13th, against Zamorano. Arguello and Vallejo had been\npresent. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 44-5. The circular to the ayuntamientos\nwas probably issued but intercepted by Zamorano's officials in the north.\n11 Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 59-60.\n PREPARING FOR WAR. 227\nLos Angeles heard of the defection of that town, and\nalso that Echeandia was engaged in active preparations for war. The most alarming symptom of approaching trouble was the attitude of the neophytes,\nwho, as devoted partisans of Echeandia, were coming\ninto camp from all directions and were being armed\nand drilled for offensive operations. The deputies\nnow held a meeting at San Luis and devoted all their\nenergies to the preservation of tranquillity and the\nprevention of bloodshed. It was voted to send a despatch to Ibarra, holding him responsible for any misfortunes that might result from an outbreak of hostilities, warning him of the inquietude of the Indians,\nand urging some arrangement to avoid a rupture.\nSimilar notes were to be sent to both Echeandia and\nZamorano.12\nEcheandia expressed his willingness to make an\narrangement for peace, but as no replies were received\nfrom Ibarra and Zamorano, he went on with his\npreparations, and an advance force of soldiers and Indians under Captain Barroso encamped at Paso de\nBartolo on the San Gabriel River.13 Ibarra deemed\nit best to retire to Santa Barbara, perhaps by the\norder of his chief, who was now\u2014early in April\u2014\nhastening south from Monterey with reinforcements.\nLos Angeles was in turn occupied by Barroso and\nEcheandia, who in a day or two removed their forces\nto San Gabriel.14\n12 Leg. Rec, MS., i. 220-2. It may be remarked that Ibarra's occupation\nof Los Angeles was in a sense a violation of Zamorano's plan of Feb. 1st, according to which his forces were not to advance beyond Sta Barbara unless\nthat place should be attacked.\n* 13 Alf. Ignacio del Valle, Lo Pasadode Cal, MS., 6-7, relates that he was\nwith Barroso at the Paso while his father, Lieut Antonio del Valle, was with\nIbarra at Los Angeles.\n14 Many Californians state that Echeandia had over 1,000 Indians at the\ncamp on the river; and Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 196-9, says that he entered Los\nAngeles at the head of 1,000 mounted Indiabs, whom, however, he dismissed\nwith presents after retiring to S. Gabriel. Tuthill, Hist. Cal., 134, following\nRobinson's^Life in Cal, 122, tells us that Echeandia gathered many Indians at\nS. Juan Capistrano, and inaugurated a series of robberies and murders. A\nstate of anarchy and confusion ensued. There is no foundation for such a\nstatement. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 161-77, narrates the particulars of a\npersonal quarrel that occurred about this time between Echeandia and San-\n 228       AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nZamorano, on arrival at Santa Barbara, was somewhat less warlike than at Monterey, and was induced\nto consider the propositions for a truce, to which he\nhad previously paid no attention. After some preliminary correspondence, not extant, between the two\ncomandantes and the diputacion, an arrangement was\nconcluded on the 8th or 9th of May; but Zamorano\nseems to have had very much his own way in dictating the conditions15 by which the military command\nwas divided between Echeandia in the south and\nZamorano in the north, while the diputacion was left\nwith no authority at all, except such as the southern\ntiago Arguello. The matter is also alluded to in Leg. Rec., MS., i. 229-30.\nVallejo also gives some details of the stay of the forces at S. Gabriel, where\n$20,C00 were 'borrowed' and supplies were exacted, not much to the satisfaction of the padres, who were warm adherents of the other party.\n15 Zamorano, Proclama que contiene los Artirulos de las Condiciones con-\nvenidas entre c'l y el Sr Echeandia en Mayo de 1832, MS. This original proclamation is dated May 9th. I have never seen the original agreement with\nsignatures of the parties, or any copy of it; and I suppose that no such document was ever signed. The articles were in substance as follows: 1. Until\nthe arrival of a ruler or of express orders from Mexico, California shall remain\ndivided into two parts\u2014one from S. Gabriel south, under command of Lieut-\ncol. Echeandia, and the other from, S. Fernando north, under Capt. Zamorano. The former could not advance any military force north of San Juan\nCapistrano; nor the latter south of S. Buenaventura;\u2014this, however, not to\naffect the ordinary mission escoltas of 5 or 7 men. 2, 4. Neither the dip. nor\nany gefe politico named by that body shall issue any orders to the northern\nayuntamientos; nor shall the dip. make any innovations in the southern missions. 3, 5. Trade and travel must not be interrupted; and in case of convulsions either party must afford prompt advice and aid. 6. Neither party can\nLave with Los Angeles any other relations than the military ones heretofore\nexisting between that town and the presidial comandantes. 7. Any armed\nadvance contrary to art. 1 to be repelled without incurring responsibility;\nother faults to be promptly settled by official correspondence. 8. Mails to\nleave Monterey on the 7th, and S. Diego on the 22d of each month. 9. In\nopening official despatches from Mexico great delicacy to be used, and the\nresponsibility to rest on the southern comandante. 10. Civilians who have\ntaken no part in the contention may live where they please; others where\nthey are (?). 11. Neophytes and gentiles are to be sent back unarmed to\ntheir respective homes. 12. For the sake of peace, these articles will remain\nin force until the chief named by the sup. govt shall have been recognized.\nCopy of this document also in S. Jose', Arch., MS., ii. 90. Alvarado, Hist.\nCal, MS., ii. 188-9, claims to have been largely instrumental, by his personal\nintimacy with both leaders, in securing the formation of this treaty. Echeandia did not admit that he had agreed to these articles except to Nos. 1, 5,\nand 8. This appears from his letter to Pico of May 22d. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 47-8, and from Zamorano's proclamation of July 7th. Vallejo,' Doc.\nHist. Cal, MS., i. 314. His claim was that the others were suggestions not\ndefinitely decided on, or perhaps in some cases not accurately stated in\nZamprano's proclamation. The diputacion, however, seems to have agreed\nwith Z.'s version of the articles relating to that body. Leg. Rec, MS., i.\n250-2.\n A TRUCE. 229\ncomandante might choose to give it in his district on\nmatters not involving innovations in the missions.\nThe military forces were promptly withdrawn to\nthe north and south by the respective generals, and\nthe members of the diputacion retired to San Diego,\nwhere on May 15th they held a meeting, and addressed to the president of the republic a full report\nof what they had done for the good of California\nsince February 24th, the date of their last representation. They declared that Zamorano's action had\nbeen wholly uncalled for, and that many of the statements in his pronunciamiento were false. They added\nto their report an argument in which they presented\nat some length their views on the causes of the evils\nafflicting California\u2014evils due largely to the detestable\nand anti-republican mission system, and to the presence and intrigues of the friars, who sousfht a restor-\nation of Spanish institutions. They more than hinted\nthat Zamorano's movement had been in the interests\nof Spain, and they reiterated their opinion that the\ncivil and military command should be vested in two\ndistinct persons.16 Again at the end of December\ndid the diputacion meet, this time at Los Angeles, to\ntake some final steps for vindicating the record of past\nacts and to adjourn, since the term of several members\nnow expired, and the comandante of the north had refused to take any steps for a new election.17\nOne more episode of the Zamorano-Echeandia controversy demands brief notice, namely, the exploits\n16Session of May 15, 1832. Leg. Rec, MS., i. 231-52.\n17 Leg. Rec, MS., i. 222-30. Dec. 30th-31st, it was voted to send a communication to the new chief in order to hasten, his arrival; to send a protest to\nZamorano, holding him responsible for violating the law by preventing an\nelection and abrogating the faculties of the gefe politico; to notify ayuntamientos of the dissolution of the dip., and call for acknowledgments of various\nexhortations to peace and good order sent to the municipal bodies; and finally\nto prepare a manifiesto to the people. The adjournment on Dec. 31st is recorded in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 76. Aug. 2d, Echeandia had sent a\ncommunication to Pico on the subject of holding elections, in which he gives\ndirections, proposes to preside, and speaks throughout as if he deemed nim-\nself still the gefe politico. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 70-1.\nJ\n 230      AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nof Antonio Avila, a convict whom the reader will remember in connection with the Solis revolt of 1829,\nand some of his companion presidiarios. It seems\nthat Vicente Sanchez came north as soon as released\nfrom the Los Angeles jail, and in his patriotic zeal enlisted Avila and fifteen or twenty convicts to march\nsouth and aid in restoring the 'legitimate government\/\npromising them, in addition to other emoluments,\ntheir liberty. In the south they abandoned Sanchez,\ndistrusting his promises and learning that he intended\nto use them for private rather than public service, and\nwandered about for a time in different parts of the\ncountry. The people naturally were alarmed when\nthey knew that such a band of desperadoes were at\nlarge with arms in .their hands, though it does not\nappear that they really committed any outrages. A\ncharge of a design to overthrow Zamorano's and not\nEcheandia's power was trumped up against Avila and\nhis men, and after several unsuccessful efforts they were\ncaptured at Pacheco's rancho, disarmed, and subjected\nto trial at Monterey in June. No proof of revolutionary designs was adduced, but the convicts were kept\nunder arrest until the new governor arrived, and were\nby him included in a general pardon to all combatants. Avila in 1833 recovered his arms, but failed\nto obtain permission to go to Mexico until his term\nshould have expired, notwithstanding his disposition\nto serve his country shown on at least two occasions.18\nFrom June to December 1832 all was quiet politically, both in the north and south, and California under its dual military rule was by no means a badly\n18 Avila, Papeles Tocantes d la Sedicion de Antonio Avila y otros Presidiarios\nen 1832, MS. Vicente Sanchez declined to testify, on the plea that he was a\ndiputado. June 13th, Zamorano to alcalde of S. Jose\\ Says Avila's party\nare near Monterey, ready to present themselves on his (Z. 's) order; but as it\nis impossible for him to have any official relations with such people, it has\nbeen determined to capture them'by force. He wants 9 or 10 men, who were\nlater sent back because there were no muskets for them. S. Jos6, Arch., MS.,\nii. 57. June 19th, 23d, Z. to com. of S. F., on the same subject. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., i. 311-12.\n WHO IS GOVERNOR IN 1832? 231\ngoverned territory, since we hear of neither disorders\non the part of the people nor of oppressive acts by\nthe rulers. Both parties, in fact, waiting for a new\ngovernor and a supreme decision on their past acts,\nwere on their good behavior, and disposed to cooperate in the preservation of order. It may be a matter\nof some interest to decide who was the governor, or\ngefe politico, of California this year. It has been customary to put Pio Pico's name in the list between\nthose of Victoria and Figueroa; but as I have already\nshown, he has no claim to the honor. For some twenty\ndays he claimed the place, which he ought to have had\nunder the plan of San Diego, and was recognized by\nthe four or five members of tlie body that elected him;\nbut after February 16th he made no claims and performed no acts. Nor did the diputacion make any\nclaims in his behalf. He refused on the date named\nto accept the office, and was never asked again to do\nso. There was no Mexican law making him gefe politico without regard to his own acts, or those of his\nassociate vocales, by virtue of his position as senior\nvocal. Zamorano, on the other hand, never made pretensions to be geie politico; in fact, one of the articles\nof his plan expressly declared that no such officer existed.\nEither there was a vacancy or Echeandia was the\ngovernor. Echeandia was declared gefe politico provisional in the plan of November 29th and December\n1st, until he should give up the office to a person\nnamed by the diputacion. That plan was successful,\nand on December Gth Victoria surrendered the office\nto him. The diputacion recognized his title, and nobody formally denied it till the 1st of February. Then\nZamorano's junta declared the office to be vacant;\nbut the plan of February 1st was never entirely successful, being accepted only in the north. After January 27th he ought, according to his own pledges, to\nhave surrendered the office, but he did not do so.\nOn February 12th the Los Angeles ayuntamiento,\n 232      AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nthe only civil organization in the south, recognized\nhim, and declared it would not recognize any other,\nand it never did recognize any other; though by approving Zamorano's plan it virtually assented to the\ndoctrine of a vacancy. The 16th of February Echeandia offered to surrender the office to avoid the\nuse of force; but his offer was not accepted. The\ncompact of May 8th-9th contained not a wrord against\nhis claims to the office, even according to Zamorano's\nversion of that compact; and Echeandia did not relinquish his claims, but on the contrary asserted them,\nand performed some few and slight acts, in the matter of elections and secularization, in his capacity of\ngefe politico.19 There was never any decision of the\nquestion by the Mexican authorities, nor in fact any\nnecessity for such decision. If I give a chronological list of rulers elsewhere in this work, I must\neither use Echeandia's name for 1832 or leave the\nplace blank. Meanwhile the reader may decide for\nhimself.\nNow Californian affairs in Mexico demand attention. Carlos Carrillo, the congressman, was bitterly\ndisappointed when he heard of the revolution against\nVictoria. The news seemed to weaken his eloquent\neulogies of the Californians as a law-abiding people.\nHe had flattered himself on having reached the brink\nof success in obtaining several advantageous measures\nfor his constituents. Probably he had made less progress than he supposed, but the late events afforded\nthe president and ministers a convenient excuse for\nrefusing to carry out certain partial promises. All\nhope for a separation of the military and civil commands, for an organic law, for courts, for a proper\n19 July 19th, Z. in a proclamation to the people refers to E.'s rejection of\ncertain articles of the compact and to his claim to be gefe politico as subjects\nrespecting which discussion had been voluntarily discontinued on account of\nthe expected arrival of a new gefe at an early date. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i.\n314. Castillo Negrete in 1835 alludes to Echeandia as 'el intruso gefe politico.' Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxviii. 53.\n CHOICE OF A NEW RULER. 233\ndistribution of lands\u2014and he might have added, \"for\nmy appointment as gefe politico\"\u2014\"has gone to the\ndevil,\" he complains to Guerra, \"and I am placed in\na most awkward position after having sung the praises\nof the Californians in congress.\"20 If we may credit\nCarrillo's own statements\u2014and I find no other evidence on the subject\u2014the Mexican authorities were\ndisposed to be severe in their treatment of the revolting Californians; and it was only by the most untiring efforts that he saved the leaders, first from death,\nthen from banishment, and finally had them included\nin an amnesty granted to the rebels of Vera Cruz.\nThe choice of a ruler to succeed Victoria now occupied, as far as the interests of so distant a territory\never did, the attention of Bustamante and his advisers.\nCircumstances seemed to require the appointment of\na strong military man. The idea of separating the\ncommands, if it had ever been entertained, was abandoned when the revolt was known, and at the same\ntime Carrillo's chances disappeared, if he ever had\nany. Victoria says the first idea of the government\nwas to send him back wTith a strong supporting force.21\nThen there was a thought of appointing Zamorano,\nas the ranking officer in California not involved in the\nrevolt. This was recommended by Virmond, and\nvery likely by Victoria and Padre Peyri, but Carrillo\n20 Carrillo, Cartas del Diputado, MS., 231-52. Jan. 20th, Carrillo called on\nthe vice-president, receiving from him the news of disturbances in Cal. Bustamante threatened to send an armed force to bring that rebellious territory to\norder. C told him it would be better to take away the Mazatlan company\nthan to send more troops, who without pay -would be sure to revolt. March\n15th, Virmond has arrived and given an ugly account of home affairs. Victoria and Peyri are expected; and Pliego will say no good of the Calif ornians.\nIt is said that all officers who took part in the revolt will be dismissed the\nservice. (Such an order seems to have been issued on Mar. 20th, sO far as\nartillery officers were concerned. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 45.) April 14th,\ntired of official life, of struggles against obstinate diputados, of official promises never kept. Does not desire re-election, which Victoria tells him is\ntalked of. Only by the most strenuous efforts, aided by four other deputies,\nhe has saved the Californian revolutionists from the death penalty, but not\nfrom that of banishment for 4 years from the republic. Letters of April 21st\nand May 11th on Figueroa's appointment. C. in later years (p. 254-7) claimed\nthat it was by his efforts that the Californian rebels were included in the\namnesty granted to those of Vera Cruz.\n21 Guerra, Doc, MS., iv. 183-4.\n 234      AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO.\nopposed it with all his might.22 The choice finally\nfell on Brevet Brigadier-general Josd Figueroa, an\nable and prominent man in Mexican affairs since 1820,\ncomandante'general of Sonora and Sinaloa for five or\nsix years, and by reason of that position, more or less\nacquainted with Californian affairs. Politically he\nwas not in sympathy with Bustamante's administration, having been a supporter and intimate personal\nfriend of Guerrero; and it is believed that his appointment was a measure dictated less by a consideration\nof his interests or those of California than by a desire\nto get rid of a troublesome foe.23\n22 Carrillo, Cartas, MS., 235-6. He says that Mexico was swarming with\nclaimants for command in the dtetant territories, impecunious nobodies at the\nnational capital, but ready to put on the airs of viceroys in Cal. Id., p. 241-5.\n23 The first mention I find of Figueroa in contemporary records is in a private letter of Iturbide to Guerrero, dated Jan. 10,1821, in which he urges the\npatriot chieftain to put himself on the side of Spain, and asks him to send a\nman of his entire confidence to treat with him on the subject, naming Figueroa\namong several other 'individuos masadictos a Vd.' Mexico, Cartas de Iturbide\ny Guerrero, p. 2. Antonio Ruiz de la Mota, one of Guerrero's men in the war\nof independence, a man to whom F. rendered many favors in Cal., said that\nF. a3 Guerrero's secretary took a prominent part in the negotiations by which\nthe two leaders were united and success insured; though at one time Guerrero\nsuspected his friend of treachery and proposed to have him shot. Torre, Remin.,\nMS., 51-3. In 1824 F. was appointed comandante general of Sonora, and\nspecially commissioned to organize an expedition at Arizpe to explore and secure the regions obstructed by savages; to inspect the mine3, especially the\nfamous 'planchas de plata;' and to facilitate communication by land with\nCal. In pursuance of these instructions, he marched in person to the junction\nof the Colorado and Gila in 1S25; but had to go back in haste to put down\nthe great Yaqui revolt, which lasted several years. Retes, Portentosas Rique-\nzas Minerales. His efforts to'open communication between. Son. and Cal. are\nmentioned in the account I have given of Romero's expedition of 1823-G in\nchap. xxii. vol. ii.; and several of his letters are included in Romero,\nDocumentos, MS. Elsewhere in my work in connection with the annals of\nSonora I have said something respecting this part of Figueroa's career; for\nparticular allusions to him, see Pinart, Col. Doc. Son., MS., nos. 48, 52-3;\nprint, nos. 107, 110, 180-2; Sonora, Actus del Primer Congreso Constltuclonal\ni. 74-5; Figueroa, Observaciones de un Ciudadano,,MS., 1-7; Opinion Publica\nde Occidente, July 30, 1829. On Sept. 5, 1S28, the name of Alitor was officially\nchanged to Villa de Figueroa, and the general was formally declared a ci&zen\nof Sonora. Though of unquestioned bravery, he earned the* cognomen of 'El\nPaciiico y Calmoso;' always used his influence against local revolutions; and\nwas sometimes blamed for his indulgence to conquered Indian foes. He left\nSonora in 1829, starting for the eastern coast to aid in repelling Spanish invasion, but not arriving apparently in time for that service. On Dec. 20,\n1829, he issued at Durango a proclamation calling upon the people to follow\nhim in support cf Guerrero and the federal government against the rebels of\nCampeche and Jalapa. Atleta, Jan. 7, 1830, p. 75. In March 1830 he was arrested with several others by orders of Gen. Bachiller in Mexico on charge of\nconspiracy, Id., Mar. 25, Apr. 2, 25, 1830, p. 385, 416, 507; but as he was too\npopular a man to be shot and too dangerous to be allowed to remain in Mex-\n FIGUEROA APPOINTED.\n235\nFigueroa received his appointment as comandante\ngeneral and inspector at a salary of $4,000 April 17,\n1832, and that of gefe superior politico on May 9th,\nwith instructions from the different ministries the 17th.\nHis general instructions took the form of supplementary articles to those formerly given to Echeandia, not\nliterally extant, as we have seen. Figueroa was to\nwork for the perfect restoration of tranquillity, and to\ninspire confidence in the national government by explaining the causes which had led to certain changes\nin the system of republican administration. He was\nto supply complete statistics about California and all\nits institutions and industries. He was to give much\nattention to the neophytes, with a view to improve\ntheir condition and fit them for a change in the mission system. To give an impulse to trade, he must\nfavor the exportation of surplus products and induce\nthe missions to build small vessels. Colonization and\nthe distribution of lands both to citizens and foreigners\nwere to be encouraged in accordance with the laws,\nseveral special grants being recommended, as were .\nactive efforts to extend settlement toward 42\u00b0 in the\nnorth. Indian policy toward the gentiles, movements\nand aims of the Russians and Americans, illegal operations of hunters and trappers, and abuses in connection\nwith the rearing of cattle were among the matters to\nwhich the new ruler's attention was directed.24 Special\ninstructions were given on the subject of secularizing\nico, he was soon released to be exiled to California as governor. He held the\nhonorary position of vice-governor of the state of Mexico until Dec. 7, 1833.\nSt. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 285, 293-4. He left Sonora in debt to the\nfondo de temporalidades to the amount of $3,000, which sum was ordered to\nbe collected in 1834. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxvii. 11. Carlos Carrillo, when the appointment was first made, was told by a deputy from Sonora\nthat Figueroa was a despotic fortune-hunter, and Virmond also spoke against\nhim; but Minister Alaman spoke in tho highest terms of the new appointee,\nand Carrillo himself after an interview formed a favorable opinion of him, freely\nexpressed in his letters to Guerra, whom he advised to conciliate Figueroa's\nfriendship by presenting him with a span of mules. On his appointment, see\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., ii. 18; Id., Angeles, xi. 2; Id., Monterey,\nii. 21.\n24 Figueroa, Instrucciones Generates para el Gobierno de California dados til\nGen. Don Jos6Figueroa, 1832, MS. .Dated May 7, 1832, and signed by the\nminister Ortiz Monasterio.\n 236      AN INTERREGNUM-ECHEANDf A AND ZAMORANO.\nthe missions, which in substance required the whole\nmatter to be put back where it was before Echeandia's\nact of January 1831; but at the same time called for\na continuance of investigation and reports with a view\nto an early change in the system.25 With reference\nto the late revolutionary troubles, Figueroa was furnished with full reports from Victoria, Echeandia,\nand the diputacion, of the quarrel as viewed from different standpoints, and was instructed, after a secret and\nimpartial investigation, to render a comprehensive report.26\nThe governor was provided not only with instructions on his duties, but with a force of some seventy-\nfive officers and men who were to aid him in performing those duties. The soldiers, however, were cholos\nof a not very desirable class, from the region of Acapulco, but lately released from prison and pardoned\nfor revolutionary attempts. Figueroa went to Acapulco in June to superintend the outfit of his company, and all sailed from that port July 17th in the\nbrig Catalina?1    The first landing was at Cape San\n25 May 17, 1832, Alaman to F. in St. Pap., Miss, and Colon, MS., ii. 33-5;\nArch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 102-6.\n26 Alaman, Sucesos de California en 1831, MS. Alaman also directs F. to\nobtain instructions from Victoria. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., viii. 8. Victoria's\ninfluence is also apparent in Alaman's instruction of same date, May 17th,\nthat Vallejo is not entitled to a seat in the dip. Id., v. 9. As for Echeandia,\na pardon was sent with orders to report at Mexico. Id., xiii. 40. The complaints of the dip. against Victoria were also furnished; and F. was instructed\nto see that the dip. was renewed according to the laws, and to communicate\nthis resolution to the complainants, as he did on July 7th. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\ni. 31G.\n27 July 1, 1832, F. at Acapulco appoints Lieut-col. Manuel Martinez temporary chief of the infantry embarked on the Morelos for California (?).\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 54. July 5th, he announces to his soldiers their\npardon, states that their imprisonment has not stained their honor, and\nexplains that great reliance is placed in them to protect Cal, from Spaniards,\nRussians, and Americans. Id., iii. 67-9. July 7th, to sec. of rel. Will attend\nto formation of a compania de fronteras, and the sending of mails via the\nColorado on arrival in Cal. Id., iii. 52-3. July 14th, arms and munitions\nshipped on the Catalina, including 100 muskets and bayonets, 20,000 cartridges, and2,000 flints, one G-pounder with 200 charges. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nMil, MS., lxxxviii. 7. July 17th, force that sailed on the Catalina with'F.:\nLieut-col. Manuel Martinez*and Lieut Jose\" Portu (who did not reach Cal.),\nCapt. Nicolas Gutierrez, Capt. Francisco Figueroa (brother of the general),\nSurgeon Manuel, de Alva, 41 cavalrymen with 8 musicians under Sergt\nEstrada,  5 artillerymen under Sergt JBuitron,  and 9 infantrymen under\n TROUBLE ON THE JOURNEY. 237\nLucas on the 30th. Remaining here with his troops,\nFigueroa sent the vessel to San Bias and Mazatlan\nfor money, additional troops, and a band of friars, all\nintended for California.28 The Catalina, after taking\non board ten Zacatecan friars\u2014of whose coming to\nCalifornia I shall have more to say in another chapter\u2014with Lieutenant Rafael Gonzalez and family,\nbesides other officers and men not specified, sailed\nfrom San Bias on August 13th, and in five days\nreached Mazatlan.29 Here, or at Rosario near by,\nGutierrez received from the comisario general $20,000,\nand perhaps the rest of the $34,000 which had been\npromised;30 and sailing on August 24th, the vessel\ntouched on the 28th at Cape San Lucas to take on\nboard the general and his company.\nThat same day, the Acapulco cholos under Sergeant Nunez revolted, and with the aid of the sailors\nseized the Catalina with everything on board, including the arms and money intended for California.\nThough thirty-eight men besides the friars were not\ninvolved in the mutiny, they were unarmed at the\nmoment of the outbreak and made no resistance.\nThe mutineers, after firing some shots at the party left\non shore, sailed at midnight and went to San Bias to\njoin in the revolutionary movement of Santa Anna\nagainst Bustamante. The reenforcement of men, munitions, and money was very acceptable; and it is not\nlikely that any troublesome questions were asked\nabout the manner in which they had been obtained.31\nSergt Nunez\u201476 persons in all, including 4 women. Id., lxxxviii. 6. The\nprice paid the vessel for transportation was $8,416. Id., lxxxviii. 7-8. May\n10th, order from Mexico to com. at Acapulco to place volunteers at F.'s disposal. They were to have the preference in the distribution of lands. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iii. 47-50.    Only 9 volunteers seem to have been secured.\n28 Aug. 4, 1832, F. to com. of La Paz. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 5G.\n29 Lieut Gonzalez had come from Mexico, starting July 26th, to take\ncharge of the sub-comisaria at Monterey. He kept a brief journal of his\njourney from day to day. Gonzalez, Diario de Mexico a California, 1832-3,\nMS., which, either original or a copy in the author's handwriting, was given\nme by his son Mauricio. Gonzalez, Memorias, MS., 55.\nf\u00b0Aug. 11th, receipt of Gutierrez for $20,000. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,\nlxxiv. 46. By this date it would appear that the Catalina had touched at\nMazatlan also on the way to S. Bias.\n31 Yet there was a report, or at least so F. stated to his men, that the\n 238       AN INTERREGNUM\u2014ECHEANDfA AND ZAMORANO.\nFigueroa and his men were now in a sad plight, with\nneither vessel, funds, arms, nor luggage. They went\nby land up to La Paz, where the last of the company\narrived about the middle of October. The general\nreported his dilemma to the administrator of customs\nat Guaymas, who was urged to raise $10,000 and to\nfurnish twenty-five' muskets, with other supplies of\nabsolute necessity.32 The officials at Guaymas and\nMazatlan seem to have exerted themselves in this\nemergency with some success; for on November 12th\nthe Catalina had returned to La Paz and was ready\nto carry the party northward to their destination.\nOn that date Figueroa delivered an address of encouragement to his men, reminding them of the evils\nthat had overtaken or would overtake their rebellious\ncompanions, and of the good things awaiting them in\nCalifornia, \"the land where the Aztecs lived before\nthey came to Mexico.\"33 They finally sailed from La\nPaz on December 13th, according to Gonzalez's diary,\ntouched at Mazatlan from the 14th to the 17th, and\narrived at Monterey on the 14th or 15th of January,\n1833.\nThe news of Figueroa's appointment had arrived as\nearly as July at least, and Echeandia on the 28th, in\nan address to the Californians,-spoke of his joy at the\napproach of a new ruler, urging the people to render\nimplicit obedience, but to be ready with the proofs of\ntheir loyalty and the reasons for having deposed Vic-\nmutineers had been overpowered at S. Bias, part of the money recovered, and\nRafael Nunez sent to Guadalajara to be shot. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 5S-61.\nForbes, Hist. Cal, 139-42, says that the party was well received by the revolutionists at S. Bias, and that $3,000 of the funds had been sent back to the\nfriars. Gonzalez in his diary mentions no firing, and I doubt that any occurred. Mention of the affair at San Lucas in Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii.\n104-5; Castro, Relacion, MS., 30; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 198-9; Robinson's L'fe in Cal, 138-9; Ryan's Judges and Criminals, 39.\n32 Sept. 24th, F. at La Paz to administrator at Guaymas. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Cust.-H., MS., i. 33-5. Oct. 17th, Luis Valle, com. at Guaymas, to F.\nWill send the aid required.\n33 Nov. 12, 1832, F.'s address to his troops. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 58-61.\nI suspect that the date should be Dec. 12th. There had been some previous\nnegotiations with the captain of the Facio to transport the troops. Id.,\niii. 62.\n READY FOR A NEW RULER. 239\ntoria. The 17th of October he wrote directly to Figueroa as his 'respected chief,' to express his submission\nto the national authority, and to explain that love of\nhis country alone had prompted him to take part in\nthe late pronunciamiento.34 The people generally,\nmany of whom knew something of Figueroa by reputation, were pleased at the prospect of seeing a regular\ngovernment established again iii the territory. The\ndiputacion, as we have seen, voted at the final session\nof the year to send to the new gefe politico an address\nof welcome and submission which should also be a defence of its own patriotic policy during the past two\nyears. Such a document, if actually prepared, is not\nextant. Zamorano was doubtless less pleased personally than the other parties at the news of Figueroa's\napproach, on account of the well known political affinities of the comandante general; but having been involved in no revolutionary acts, he was even more\nconfident of approval than the others. To Captain\nAntonio Munoz, who came to relieve Fernandez del\nCampo in command of the artillery, and who arrived\nbefore Figueroa, Zamorano offered to resign his position of 'comandante general accidental of the north;'\nbut Munoz declined.35 Evidently, though California\nwas technically in a ' state of anarchy,' the new ruler\nwas to encounter no opposition there.\n3iDept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 63-5, 73-4. E. takes advantage of the opportunity also to prepare for the defence of his late mission policy by dwelling\non the powerful and baneful influence of the missionaries, all of whom with\ntwo exceptions are denounced as apologistas of Spain and all that is Spanish.\n**Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 79-S2.\n CHAPTER IX.\nFIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014Hf JAR AND PADRES COLONY.\n1833-1834.\nArrival op Figueroa\u2014Primitive Printing\u2014Imaginary Difficulties\u2014\nAmnesty to Rebels\u2014Echeandia and Zamorano\u2014Biography op\nEcheandia\u2014Bandini Elected to Congress \u2014No Sessions of the Diputacion in 1833\u2014The Northern Frontier\u2014Ftgueroa Resigns\u2014A\nWarning\u2014Mutiny at San Francisco\u2014The Diputacion in 1834\u2014\nAddress by the Governor\u2014Legislative Affairs\u2014The First Book\nPrinted in California\u2014Reglamento\u2014Petaluma and Santa Rosa\u2014\nSanta Anna y Farias\u2014Conspiracy of Guerra and Duran\u2014New\nElection\u2014Events in Mexico\u2014Padres and his Schemes\u2014Colonization\u2014Hijar as Gefe Politico\u2014Colony Organized\u2014Compania Cos-\nmopolitana\u2014political schemes\u2014the march to tepic\u2014voyage of\nthe 'Natalia' and 'Morelos'\u2014Reception of the Colony at San\nDiego and Monterey\u2014Wreck of the 'Natalia'\u2014Authorities.\nThe new ruler arrived at Monterey by the Catalina January 14, 1833, landing and taking possession\nof his command the next day.1 With him came Captain Francisco Figueroa, his brother, Captain Nicolas\nGutierrez, lieutenants Bernardo Navarrete and Rafael\nGonzalez\u2014the latter to take charge of the customhouse\u2014Surgeon Manuel Alva, about thirty soldiers,\nand ten friars from the college of Zacatecas, who came\nto reenforce the Fernandinos.\nOn the day of arrival, and apparently before landing, Figueroa addressed communications to the various local authorities, announcing his appointment,\nand intention to devote all his energies to the welfare\n1 Figueroa's letter written in March. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 103. Rather\nstrangely, there is in the archives no more definite record of his formal assumption*^ the command on Jan. 15th than this and the announcement mentioned\nin my next note.\n(240)\n FIRST PRINTING IN CALIFORNIA- 241\nof the territory. He was naturally not quite sure\nwhat would be his reception from the different factions. Before leaving Mexico he had caused to be\nprinted a proclamation, which he now circulated, together with a brief notice of his arrival, also printed,\nand as it seems at Monterey. This was the first use\nof type in California.2 I suppose that he brought a\nsmall quantity of type with some kind of a hand-press,\nor stamp, for printing cards and brief notices, more\nas a curiosity perhaps than for actual use.\n2 The notice is as follows: 'El Supremo Gohierno Federal sehaservido con-\nfiar a mi insuficiencia el mando Politico y Militar del Territorio, de cuyos des-\ntinos he tornado posecion el dia de ayer que desembarque felizmente en este\nPuerto; y al tener el honor de comunicarlo a V. desfruto el de ofrecerme a su\ndisposicion, protestandole la mejorvoluntadpara servirlo y complacerlo, y su-\nplicandole acepte las seguridades de mi mas distinguido aprecio y considera-\ncion. Monterrey, 16 de Enero de 1833. Jose Figueroa.' The name has the governor's rubrica on the copy before me\u2014the only one I have seen\u2014Earliest\nPrinting in Cal.\u2014the one sent to M. G. Vallejo at S. Diego. The impression\nis bad, as if done by hand with imperfect apparatus. The 'a' (with grave\naccent) shows that the type was not the same used by Zamorano in later\nyears.\nThe proclamation printed in Mexico was as follows: ' The comandante\ngeneral, inspector, and gefe politico superior of Alta California, to the inhabitants of the territory. Compatriots; at my arrival on your coasts I consider\nmyself under obligation to address you to announce peace, order, and liberty. Boons so precious being assured, you will enjoy the abundant advantages with which nature enriched you. The contrary produces nothing but\ncountless evils, misfortunes, and desolation. If a fatal moment of excitement\nhas disturbed your repose, let peace return to occupy her seat in this delicious\ncountry, and with intrepid patriotism let us cast discord to barbarians who\nhave no country or rights to respect. Peace is the true happiness of mortals; and I restore to you a gift so precious in the name of the supreme federal government, which has seen fit to confide to me the arduous task. A\nperpetual forgetfulness will efface the memory of the political errors which\ngave rise to the startling occurrences of year before last. In the law\nof April 25th last [printed May, but April substituted in ink], you will find\nguaranties and security. To me it belongs to carry them into effect, and I\npromise it shall be done. Fear nothing, fellow-citizens; the government\nworks for your happiness. I, who come to execute its just desires, am resolved to overthrow whatever obstacles may impede the development of your\nprosperity. It remains for you, united and faithful, to present to the world\na testimony of concord, of respect for authority, and of obedience to law.\nThe laws will be my guide,\" and never shall an arbitrary policy or disorder\ndeprive you of the just and moderate liberty secured in the compact of our\ninstitutions. Fulfill, therefore, your \"social obligations, and doubt not that\nyour rights will be respected by your fellow-citizen and friend, Jos6 Figueroa.'\nIn Bandini, Doc, MS., 25; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 288; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., x. 2-3. Written communications of similar purport issued, Jan.\n14th-20th, to ayunt. of Monterey, with invitations to a thanksgiving mass at\nF.'s house Jan. 19th. Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., vi. 20; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 84-5. To ayunt. of S. Jose. Dept. St. Pap., S. JosC, MS., iv. 113.\nTo ayunt. of Branciforte. Sta. Cruz, Arch., MS., 43. To military comandantes, through Zamorano. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 1.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   16\n 242       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014HfJAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nIn all Figueroa's communications, from his arrival\nto his death, there are evidences of his belief that by\nunremitting effort and the exercise of diplomatic talent he had overcome the difficulties in his way, and\nhad succeeded in rescuing California from anarchy.\nThis view of the matter was partly real and honest,\nso natural is it to magnify the importance of one's\nown achievements, and partly a pretence designed for\neffect in Mexico. The difficulties in this case were\nfor the most part imaginary. There were no disorders; the factions vied with each other in their\nreadiness to submit, and nowhere was there the faintest ripple of opposition. Figueroa is entitled simply\nto the credit of having been a sensible, industrious,\nand above all a popular man, who committed no acts\nof folly to create troubles wrhere none existed. This\nat the first; for'later he overcame certain obstacles of\na somewhat more serious nature. Bandini is the only\nCalifornian who does not overestimate the importance of Figueroa's services in saving the country for\nMexico, and Don Juan, it must be confessed, had a\ngrievance against the governor, the nature of which\nwill shortly appear.8\nA Mexican decree granting an amnesty to all concerned in the irregularities of 1831-2, on the sole\ncondition of future loyalty, was circulated by Figueroa,\ntogether with the announcement of his arrival.*\nZamorano and his adherents affected a freedom from\nall need of amnesty, since their conspirings had been\n'Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 78, thinks any other man would have succeeded\nas well, as there was no opposition. Jan. 2Cth, the ayunt. of Los Angeles\nformally recognized Figueroa. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 88. Feb. 2d,\nAlcalde J. A. Carrillo congratulates him. Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., i.\n104. Feb. 10th, Carrillo will harangue the Indians and tranquillize them.\nArch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 76. J. A. Menendez at S. Gabriel tells F. that at\nthe missions his coming is regarded as the 'iris de paz que viene a disipar la\nespesanube de las diferenciasque tienen agitado el territorio.' Id., v. pt i. 71.\n*S. Jos4, Arch., MS., i. 48; Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 87. Jan. 19th, F. asks\nthe padres to publish the amnesty and aid in promoting tranquillity. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., iii. 85. Notwithstanding the amnesty of April 25, 1832, I find\nan order to the comisario general dated Aug. 1833, that officers in Sonora and\nCal. are to receive no pay until they prove trtiey have had nothing to do with\nrevolutionary plans. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., ii. 56.\n SUBMISSION OF ECHEANDIA AND ZAMORANO. 243\nin support of the government. Figueroa humored\nthis somewhat plausible whim, thanked the legitimists\nfor their loyal services, made Zamorano his secretary,\nand sent to Mexico a report altogether favorable to\nthe northern faction, according especial praise to the\ncompania extrangera of Monterey, and also mentioning Ibarra and Carrillo in terms of approval. If his\ncondemnation of the jusurpation' of Echeandia's\nparty wras more severe, and his praise for the 'loyalty' of Zamorano's party more flattering than was\ncalled for by exact regard for the truth, the reason\nmust be sought in the policy of the administration\nwhich this report was intended to please.5\nEcheandia was not less cheerful and prompt in\nhis submission to Figueroa, with whom his relations\nboth personal and political had been most friendly in\nMexico, than was Zamorano; but he ridiculed his\nrival's pretensions to be, more than himself, beyond\nthe need of amnesty, and in all his communications\nhe defended his past acts. What he desired was not\npardon, but justification, and recognition of the positions he had assumed,6 and he was annoyed at the\ntone Figueroa felt himself obliged to adopt on the\nsubject. On the day of his arrival Figueroa sent\nEcheandia both an official and a private letter, and a\nfriendly correspondence followed.7 Echeandia rendered valuable aid to the governor in his preliminary\ninvestigations on the subject of missions from February to April. Orders brought by Figueroa required\nhim to report at Mexico, and he accordingly left Cal-\n6Figueroa, Informe al Ministro de Guerra sobre los Acontecimientos de 1831-2,\ny Parte que tuvo en ellos el Capitan Agustin Zamorano, 1833, MS. Dated March\n23d, and accompanied by copies (not given) of 38 documents furnished by\nZamorano in support of his policy.\n6 The govt in Oct. 1833 ordered an investigation of his services, etc., in\norder to decide whether he should receive pay as governor or as lieut-colonel\nof engineers. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xxi. 8. I do not know what decision\nwas reached.\n7 Correspondence from Jan. 14th to Feb. 14th, with references to other\nletters not extant. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 23-6, 76-8, 83-7, 96-100; Arch.\nArzob., MS., v. pt i. 73. Other communications on missions will be noticed\nin another chapter, the latest from E. being dated March 19th.\n 244        FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014HIJAR AND PADRfiS COLONY.\nifornia never to return, sailing from San Diego May\n14 th, on the Catalina. There is no record that he\nsubsequently appeared in public life; but in 1856 he\nwas practising his profession as engineer in Mexico,\nand is reported to have died before 1871. With this\nofficer's record during his residence of eight years and\nmore in California, the reader of the preceding chapters is acquainted, and it is not necessary to indulge\nlargely in repetitions; nevertheless, I append a biographical resume.8    Echeandia we have found to be\n8 Of Jose\" Maria Echeandia before he came to California nothing is known\nbeyond the fact that he held the rank of lieut-colonel of engineers, and was\nprobably connected with a college of engineers in Mexico. He fairly represented Mexican republicans of the better class. His appointment was in\nJan. 1825. He sailed from S. Bias in June, remained at Loreto until Oct.,\narrived at S. Diego in Oct., and in Nov. received the command from Luis'\nArguello. See chap, i., this vol., on his arrival; chap. ii. on his political acts\nin 1826-30, including his visits to the north, his quarrel with Gonzalez, and\nhis complaints and offers of resignation; chap. iii. on his quarrels with\nHerrera; chap. iv. on his mission policy and controversies with the padres;\nand chap. vii.-viii. on his acts after giving up the command to Victoria on\nJan. 31, 1831. Also chap. xi. for additional particulars of his secularization\npolicy. Echeandia was probably under 40 years of age in 1825. In person\nhe was tall, slight, and well formed, with fair complexion, hair not quite\nblack, scanty beard\u2014some say his hair and eyes were light, among them\nIgnacio del Valle\u2014and a pleasing face and expression.. His health was very\ndelicate. In his speech lie affected the Castilian pronunciation, noticeably\nin giving the '11,' ' c,' and ' z' their proper sounds. The following items from\nvarious sources show something of his character. Gonzalez, Experiencias,\nMS., 27, notes his affability to private soldiers. Valle, Lo Pasado de Cal,\nMS., 7-8, says he was so absent-minded as sometimes to ask his secretary\nwhat his own name was before signing a document. J. J. Vallejo, R^minis-\ncewiaK, 103-10S, calls him a capricious despot, who would carry out a whim\nwithout regard to results. David Spence, Hist. Notes, M.S., 15, asserts that\nhe had no energy. Torre, Reminiscencias, MS., 22, speaks of him as popular\nbut over-indulgent and careless. Vallejo, Hint. Cal, MS., ii. 4G-7, 51, 110\u2014\n13, 116-17, and Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. Ill, 140, 143-7, KG, are inclined to praise Echeandia in extravagant terms, mainly on account of his\nsomewhat radical republicanism. Pio Pico, J list. Cal, MS., 21, pronounces\nhim affable but apathetic. Shea, Cafh. Missions, 109, quotes Alfred Robinson\nas calling him 'the scourge of California, and instigator of vice, who sowed\nseeds of dishonor not to be extirpated while a mission remains to be robbed.'\nTu thill, J list. (Jal, 130, says 'he was contracted in his views, despotic in the\nexercise of his powers, and selfish in his relations with foreigners.' Lieut\nRomualdo Pacheco alludes to him as his worst enemy, but incapable of injuring any one. Gale, writing to Cooper, Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 104, calls\nhim a man of undecided character, trying to please everybody.\nJune 6, 1832, orders for E. to report at Mexico. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS.,\nviii. 40. Oct. 30, 1833, orders to investigate his services in order to reach a\ndecision about his pay. hi, xxi. 8. In April 1828 he wrote to Guerra in\nMexico to pay his mother $100 without letting his wife know anything of\nit. March 13, 1833, the comisario general alludes to an alkrwance of $i<J0 to\nMaria Salcedo, Echeandia's wife. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS.,\nii. 65.    Sailed from S. Diego, May 14, 1833. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS.,\n LAST OF ECHEANDtA. 245\na man of considerable talent and good education,\naffable and kind-hearted, but weak, irresolute, and\nlacking energy. He was disposed to be upright and\nfaithful, but lacked strength of principle for emergencies. In the administration of justice and the enforcement of military discipline he was notably ineffective. He has been abused extensively by partisans\nof the friars, but no man could have escaped such\nabuse without a complete surrender to the mission\nmonopoly and a reckless disobedience to his instructions. He favored secularization, and his views were\nsound, but he wTas not hasty or radical in effecting\nthe change, but rather the contrary. True, at the\nvery end of his rule he was induced by Padrds to do\nan illegal and unwise act, but that act did not go into\neffect, and the padres had no good cause of offence.\nNo man in Echeandia's place, and faithfully representing the spirit of Mexican republicanism, could\nhave treated the friars better. His faults lay in another direction, as already indicated.\nFigueroa's early relations with the diputacion, the\nlast of the powers he had to conciliate, are not clearly\nrecorded, but were doubtless altogether friendly.9\nBefore Figueroa's arrival some steps were taken by\nthe ayuntamientos for holding primary elections, and\nlxxix. 23. Taylor, Odds and Ends, no. 14, says, with his usual inaccuracy,\nthat E. died in 1852. Mrs Ord, who knew him well in California, saw him\nfrequently in Mexico in 1855-6. He said that the allowance of half his pay\nas director of the college of military engineers, which he left for his wife, had\nnot been paid while he was in Cal., and that he never succeeded in getting\nit. He had some oil-mills and other property on which he with difficulty\nsupported himself until in 1835 providence sent an earthquake which so\ndamaged certain convents and dwellings of rich men as to render his profession of engineer very lucrative. In 1855 he was arrested for some opposition\nto Santa Anna, but soon released. In 1871 Mrs Ord made inquiries for him,\nand learned that he was dead, as were two step-daughters who had taken\ncare of him in his old age. Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 42-3.\n9 Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 46, says that F. sent a special communication to\neach of the members, announcing the amnesty. Pico replied with a defence\nof his acts. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 200-3, relates that Osio, Alvarado,\nand himself came at once to Monterey to offer their aid in maintaining order.\nA long conference took place, and a dinner followed, and cordial relations\nnever ceased between the parties. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 223, tells us thatE.\nissued orders for an election and hastened the meeting of the diputacion.\n FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014HiJAR AND PADRES COLONY.\non March 24th the electors met at Monterey and\nchose four new members for the assembly, also electing Juan Bandini as deputy to congress, with Jose\nAntonio Carrillo as substitute.10 There is no evidence that the body as now constituted ever held any\nsession, of that any session was held in 1833 at all.\nIt would seem that the election of March must\nhave been declared illegal, for October 15th Figueroa\nordered a new election to be held according to the\nMexican plan of Zavaleta. This election was held\nthe 1st and 2d of December, at Monterey, on the\nfirst of which days Bandini was again elected to congress, and on the second the diputacion was renewed\nby the election of all seven members.11 They did\nnot meet until May of the following year.\nWe have seen that a few years earlier orders had\ncome from Mexico to establish a strong garrison in\nthe region north of San Francisco Bay, with a view\nto protect that frontier from encroachments of foreigners; but nothing had really been effected beyond\na slight correspondence and investigation by Echeandia.72 Figueroa's instructions required him to pay\nparticular attention to   the same subject, it   being\n10 Jan. 3, 1833, ayunt. of Los Angeles resolves to invite others to hold\nprimary elections so that the new gefe may find everything ready. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 77-8. March 21st, 24th, meetings of the partido electors\nat Monterey. The vocales elected were: 4th, J. A. Carrillo, 5th, Manuel\nCrespo, 6th, Jose* Aguila, 7th, Tiburcio Tapia; Suplentes, Jose\" Perez, F. J.\nAlvarado, and J. J. Vallejo. Adas de Elecciones, MS., 12-16; Dept. St. Pap.,\nAng., MS., xi. 4-5. March 23d, J. J. de la Guerra writes to his father\nthat \u25a0 the enlightened'\u2014that is, the electors\u2014are living so scandalously\u2014\nexcept his uncle Anastasio Carrillo\u2014that ' even the English' are shocked.\nDoc. Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 961. This election left Vallejo, Ortega, and Osio as\nhold-over vocales in the 1st, 2d, and 3d places; but there was a decision\nfrom Mexico\u2014Victoria's work?\u2014dated May 17, 1832, that Vallejo as a military officer was not entitled to his seat. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., v. 9.\n11 Adas de Elecciones, MS., 16-19; Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 226-7. The 7\nvocales chosen were: 1. Carlos Carrillo, 2. Pio Pico, 3. Francisco de Haro, 4.\nJoaquin Ortega, 5. J. A. Carrillo, 6. J. A. Estudillo, 7. Jose Castro. Oct.\n15th, F.'s order for an election. Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., i. 134-6; x. 7-\n8. Dec. 6th, F. orders surplus municipal funds to be sent in for the dip.\nVallejo,-Doc Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 193. Bandini had left S. Diego for Mexico\non the Catalina with Echeandia. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., Ixxix. 23,\n25.\n12 Chap. iv. of this volume.\n NORTHERN FRONTIER. 247\ndeemed of the utmost importance that the northern\nfrontier up to latitude 42\u00b0 be occupied by Mexicans,\neither as settlers, soldiers, or missionaries, as soon\nas possible. Accordingly in April the governor\nannounced his purpose to found a presidio. He\nordered Alferez Vallejo to make an exploration, select\na site, and offer lands to settlers, appealed to the missions for aid, called in the convict laborers from private ranchos to work on the proposed fortifications,\nand reported his purposes to the government. The\nprefect of the northern missions, however, while fully\napproving the project, declared that no aid could be\ndepended on, and so far as I can learn, nothing was\naccomplished before the end of the year.13\nIn March the governor had deemed the country\npacified, and good order restored, and so reported;\nbut his health was so impaired by rheumatic and\napoplectic attacks that he asked to be relieved of his\ncommand.14 His health improved, however, and from\nJuly to September he made a tour of the south, occupied largely in studying the condition of the missions;\nbut while at San Diego on July 24th he addressed to\nthe minister of relations a confidential letter of warning against a \"clique of conceited and ignorant men\"\nwho were plotting to separate California from Mexico, and as a means to that end would do all in their\npower through their representative, Bandini, to secure a separation of the military and civil commands,\nand give the office of gefe politico to a Californian.\nHe declared himself strongly opposed to any such\nchange, which would be \"the germ of eternal discord,\"\nas there was not a single Californian even tolerably\nqualified for the office. His warning has every appearance of being prompted by personal ambition,\nthough he disavowed any desire to retain the office\n13 Apr. 10th, 12th, F.'s letters to Garcia Diego, and Apr. 15th, reply of\nthe latter. St. Pap., Mis*, and Colon., MS., ii. 299-308, Apr. 25th. P. Gutierrez to F. from Solano. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 116.\nu March 25th, F. to min. of war. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 103.\n 248       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014Hf JAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nhimself. He knew that the charge of a plan to secede\nfrom Mexico was false, and his language was severe\nand uncomplimentary, in marked contrast with that\nhe was wont to use in California; but there was in\nFigueroa's character an observable element of policy\nclosely verging on hypocrisy.15\nHaving returned to the capital, the governor had\nhis attention engaged to some extent in October by a\nminor revolt at San Francisco, wdiere a few soldiers,\nincluding the escolta at Santa Clara, attempted by\nirregular and unmilitary methods\u2014though no force\nseems to have been used\u2014to get rid of their comandante, Vallejo, whom they accused of ill treatment,\nchiefly in the matter of furnishing food and clothing.\nVallejo was angry, and demanded the infliction of severe penalties; but a court-martial merely ordered a\ntransfer of eight men to other presidios.16\nIn addition to what has been presented in this chapter, beyond the routine of official correspondence,\nmuch of which relating to missions, commerce, finance,\nand other general subjects will receive some attention\nelsewhere, there is nothing more to be said of events\nin California during 1833; but I deem it best to go\non with the annals of the following year, before calling\nthe attention of readers to certain important developments in Mexico.\nThe diputacion, whose acts form a prominent element in the annals of 1834, assembled at the governor's house17 in Monterey May 1st, with Figueroa\nin the chair as president, and all the seven vocales in\n15 July 24, 1833, F. to min. of rel. in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS.,\nlxxxviii. 11-12. We shall see later that Bandini at this very time was working in congress for a separation of the commands. On Sept. 21st F. was at Loa\nAngeles. Currillo (D.), Doc, MS., 79.\n\u2122St. Pap., Sac, MS., xi. 49-54; Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 119, 178, 195.\n17 Jan. 2, 1834, Figueroa to Sec. Alvarado about furnishing a room for the\nmeetings. Carpets, curtains, wall-paper, seats, etc., all deemed indispensable\nfor the dignity of the body, but the most necessary articles are to be obtained\nfirst. An appropriation will be asked for to cover the expense. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, lxxxviii. 19. Alvarado gives a list of needed furniture to the value\nof $299; only $10 in the box.  Id., 10.\n THE DIPUTACION IN 1834. 249\nattendance except Pio Pico. I append a resume of\nproceedings at the successive sessions, as compact as\nit can be intelligibly made.18    The president opened\n18 Sessions of the diputacion territorial of Cal. in 1834. Recorded in Legislative Records, MS., ii. May 1st, the oath was administered by the president; the members took their seats; and Figueroa delivered an address.\nCommittees appointed: ways and means, J. A. Carrillo, Haro, and Estudillo;\ngovernment and police, C A. Carrillo, Pico, and Ortega; public works, Haro,\nJ. A. Carrillo, and Castro; public instruction, 0. A. Carrillo, J. A. Carrillo,\nand Estudillo; industry and agriculture, Ortega, Pico, and Castro; statistics,\nJ. A. Carrillo, Haro, and Pico; colonization, Ortega, Castro, and Estudillo;\nvacant lands, C A. Carrillo, Pico, and Ortega; municipal regulations, J. A.\nCarrillo, C A. Carrillo, and Haro; roads and highways, Ortega, Castro, and\nEstudillo. Adjourned to 10 a. m. of next day. Alvarado, sec. Secret session. Information from Mex. that the European cabinets had agreed to make\nthe Infante D. Francisco de Paula emperor of Mexico, with recommendations\nof Zealand vigilance. Passed to committee on govt. (p. 34-50.) May 2d,\n6 despatches from the gov., of this and the past year, some enclosing orders from Mex. on secularization, duty on otter-skins, municipal regulations\nof Monterey, and furnishing of a hall for meetings, referred to com. On motion of Figueroa, the formation of regulations for proceedings of the dip. was\nmade a subject of preference, and meanwhile Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday were to be the days of meeting. J. A. Carrillo moved to fully organize\nthe ayuntamiento of Sta Barbara, and was told by the president to put his\nproposition in due form and let it take its course, (p. 51-4.) May 3d,\n25 expedientes on land grants submitted for approval and referred to com.\nA letter of C A. Carrillo, dated in Mex. 1831, was read asking the dip. to petition the govt for schools, and organic law, and the separation of the commands. Carrillo spoke on what he had accomplished in Mex., and the 1st and\n2d points were referred. Communication from the ayunt. on expense of a\nroad. Resignation of secretary offered on account of illness. Proposed that\nsessions begin at 10 a. m. and last 3 hours. Prop, that the comandante of\nSta B. be deprived of judicial powers, and that 2 regidores be added to the\nayunt., the place having 940 inhabitants\u2014to be read three times. May Oth,\npetition of S. Diego for an ayuntamiento. Public buildings for Monterey.\nProp, to have the mission lands surveyed, and to require inventories of mission property. May 10th, minor municipal matters of Monterey andBranci-\nforte. Prop, to fix bounds of S. F. mission. Hours of meeting not settled.\nThe Monterey road must be 'paralyzed' for the present for want of funds;\ncasas consistoriales and jails should have the.preference\u2014so reports the com.\nReport in favor of accepting Alvarado's resignation. Also in favor of asking\nMex. for $2,500 per year for schools, and for an organic law. Many land\ngrants approved by the com. 2d reading of various propositions, (p. 55-68.)\nMay 13th, foreign lumbermen. Artillery militia. Days fixed for discussion\nof certain matters. Haro's proposition to survey mission lands discussed and\ndefeated. May 15th, Mex. secularization law of Aug. 17, 1833, referred to\ncom. on missions (?). Regulation of weights and measures, also of brands, considered. Funds of Branciforte. Many minor measures postponed as belonging to general subjects to be treated as a whole. Further discussion on the\nMonterey calzada. Ortega complained of the imperfections of municipal\ngovt and proposed the early formation of ordenanzas for the ayunt. Carrillo\nand Castro appointed to visit prisons, (p. 68-79.) May 17th, many land grants\nsubmitted, and approved. Sec. Alvarado agrees to serve a month longer.\nMay 20th, petition for fixing mission boundaries sent back to await the arrival\nof Hijar, who was coming with a special commission to regulate secularization,\n(p. 80-6.) May 22d, duties of foreigners as citizens. Land grants. More\ndiscussion on mission bounds. Report on the Monterey calzada. Mission inventories.    Proposition to assign lands and to stop the slaughter of mission\n 250       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014Hf JAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nthe sessions with an address, in which he reviewed the\ncondition of the country, and the character of the\nlegislation needed. In high-flown language the speaker\npredicted great prosperity, now that Spanish tyranny\nwas a thing of the past, and the diputacion was at\ncattle, (p. 86-93.) Figueroa absent on account of illness. May 24th, report of com. on missions on law of secularization. The national govt to be\nasked for instructions. May 26th, secret session called to consider the reports of a conspiracy formed by P. Duran and Capt. Guerra. Jose- Maria\nMaldonado, sec. (p. 2-10.) May 27th, ayunt. of Sta B. Dip. declines to\ncall in suplente Estrada to take Pico's place, (p. 93-6.) May 30th, unimportant. Figueroa very busy in preparing correspondence for Mex. by the\nDorotea. June 3d, further discussion on secularization as per prop, of\nMay 24. (p. 97-103.) June 12th, convicts. Pico's absence excused, as he was\nill. Minor communications answered. Petitions of individuals asking privileges or redress of grievances. Land grants. Mission lands again, and slaughter\nof cattle, (p. 104-12.) June 16th, municipal funds. Land grants. Resignation\nof Alvarado again postponed. June 17th, foreign citizens. Wild stock. First\nreading of report on municipal and legislative regulations. June 19th, land\ngrants. First reading of several reports on topics already mentioned, (p.\n113-21.) June 21st, Branciforte affairs. Land grants. Discussion on livestock regulations. Discussion on reglamento postponed until the absent members should arrive, (p. 121-9.) June 26th, much unfinished business. Sec.\nAlvarado again, it not being quite clear what he wanted, but he was ' exonerated'from his place. His accounts and his position as contador were in\nsome way involved. Long discussion on some articles of a reglamento for\nlegislative proceedings, (p. 129-37.) June 28th, land grants. Discussion\nof various matters relating to municipal govt. (p. 138-41.) July 1st, Maldonado elected sec. in Alvarado's place, and sworn in. Land grants. Munic.\ngovt continued. July 3d, land grants. Munic. govt. Com. on ways\nand means instructed to hurry, as the dip. lacks funds, (p. 142-6.) July\n5th, 8th, land grants. A moderate slaughter of mission cattle allowed, (p.\n146-8.) Secret session of July 8th to consider charges of malversacion of mission property against P. Anzar. (p. 10\u201411.) July 10th, slaughter of mission\ncattle at S. Luis Rey. Land grants. Minor reports read and days set for\ndiscussion. Long discussion of reports on munic. revenues, (p. 149-63.) July\n12th-15th, 19th, 22d, some land grants and unimportant matters, (p.\n161-5.) On July 19th there was a secret (?) session, at which a prop, relating\nto administrators of missions was considered; and on July 22d, when the\nsame subject was continued, (p. 11-13.) July 24th, munic. regul. and revenues, (p. 165-7.) July 26th, discussion on lands (not given). July 29th,\narticles 8-53, titles 3-6, of a reglamento for the dip. discussed and approved,\n(p. 168-80.) July 30th, land grants. Liquor tax. Completion of the reglamento. Tit. 8-14, art. 54-74. (p. 181-8.) July 31st, unimportant. Extra\nsessions on administrators of missions, July 29th; on provisional regulation\nfor secularization, July 30th, 31st. 23 articles approved, (p. 13-28.) Aug.\n1st, 2d, land grants and prop, to form an ayunt. for S. Diego and one for\nSta B., increasing that of Los Angeles, (p. 189, 28.) Oct. 17th-18th, extra\nsession to consider Hi jar's claims as gefe politico and director of colonization,\n(p. 190-6.) Pico sworn in. Oct. 22d, secret session on the same subject.\nReport of com. 13 articles approved, (p. 29-34.) Oct. 23d, 25th, 28th,\n30th, 31st, minor local matters. Few details, (p. 196-9.) Nov. 3d, discussion and approval on first reading on account of approaching end of the sessions, of several prop, relating to the colony and to secularization. Extra\nsession in evening, action on preservation of timber. Members authorized to\nretire to their homes, (p. 199-212.) The sessions of May lst-20th are also\nrecorded in Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., ii. 45-96.\n ACTS OF THE DIPUTACION. 251\nliberty to resume its deliberations. There was much\nto be done. All was yet in embryo; but the speaker\nhad faith that by patient effort California, if she could\nnot aspire to absolute perfection, might one day figure\nat the side of Jalisco and Zacatecas! One great obstacle had been the tendency of his predecessors to\nassume too many powers and duties for the political\nrule, as if representing an absolute government. A\nproper division of power according to the constitution\nshould be effected, and the people must learn not to\ntrouble the gefe politico with every petty affair. Municipal government was in a sad state of disorganization;\nlocal officers incompetent, and the people lacking in\nrespect for the authorities. Schools were neglected;\nand there were no jails nor other public buildings\nworthy of the national honor. Municipal revenues\nwere far from sufficient for necessary expenses; he\nhad been obliged to borrow money to fit up a room\nfor this meeting. Agricultural and stock-raising regulations and restrictions had been oppressive. He reviewed the evils of the monastic despotism, and the\nmeasures taken and required to raise the neophytes\nfrom degradation, noted the necessity of certain public\nworks at Monterey, and the importance of a fort on\nthe northern frontier. His discourse was warmly approved by the vocales, and he took a very prominent\npart in subsequent proceedings.19\nThe labors of the diputacion were very largely devoted to the consideration of matters connected with\nthe secularization of the missions, and in this respect\nwill be more fully noticed in another chapter.20 Another prominent matter was that of finance and revenue, of which I shall also have something to say\n\"separately.21    Grants of public lands made by the\n19Besides the copies of the speech in Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 34-49; Dept. St.\nPap., Ben., MS., ii. 45-50, I have also, Figueroa, Discurso de Apertura de\nla Diputacion Territorial en 1\u00b0 de Mayo, 1834, MS., the author's original\nblotter copy.\n20 See chap. xi. of this volume.\n21 The reports of the com. of ways and means on July 10th, 12th, 24th,\n26th, 30th, on revenue and taxation, are given in St. Pap., Miss, and Colon.,\n 252       FIGUEROA'S RULE-HlJAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nnew governor in accordance with the laws were presented for investigation and approval at nearly every\nsession. To these grants attention will be given in\nthe proper place. The Hijar and Padres colony, to\nbe treated fully later in this chapter and in the next,\nfurnished the assembly matter for discussion in the\nlater sessions of the year. Action on municipal government, and many minor items of legislation, will\nnaturally come up more or loss fully in connection\nwith local annals; here it need only be stated, that\nnot only were the older pueblo governments perfected,\nbut ayuntamientos, or town councils, were organized\nat San Diego and San Francisco, where- they had\nnever existed before.22 With the abstract of proceedings already given, the references of this paragraph,\nand the mention of a grand ball given on November\n1st, at the capital, in honor of this body,23 I dismiss the legislative doings of 1834; but append at\nsome length the reglamento of the diputacion en\nresume, not only as a document of some interest and\nimportance, but as the first book ever printed in California.24\nMS., ii. 238-53, much more fully than in the Leg. Rec. proper; and the\nresults were printed in the edict of Aug. 6th. Plan, de Propios y Arbitrios\npara fondos Municipales, 1834, iQ Earliest Printing in Cal. I shall speak of\nfinancial topics for 1831-5 in chap. xiii.\n22Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 188-9, 244-5. Figueroa's edict of Aug. 6th. Dept. St.\nPap., Mont., MS., vi. 33. F.'s orders on boundaries. St. Pap., Miss, and\nColon., MS., ii. 217-20; Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 316; xxxi. 133, 137, 140. S.\nDiego, Arch., MS., 30, 36, 56, 63. There is some dispute respecting S. F.,\nbut of that more elsewhere.\n23 Printed invitation to this ball hi Earliest Printing in Cal.\n24 Reglamento Provisional para el Gobierno interior de la Ecma Diputacion\nTerritorial de la Alta California, aprobada por la misma Corporacion en\nsesion de 31 de Julio del presente ano. Monterrey, 1834- Imprentade A. V.\nZamorano y Ca- 16mo. 16 p. I have never seen any other copy of this rare\nlittle work than that in my possession. It was presented to me by Carlos\nOlvera, son of Agustin Olvera.\nTit. i.\u2014Installation.\u2014Art. 1. Regular sessions will open May 1st, new\nmembers taking the oath before the president. 2. Sessions to close on Aug.\n31st; but the dip. will meet in extra sessions whenever convoked by the gefe\npolitico. 3. Form of oath. 4. Then the pres. shall say aloud: 'The dip., etc.,\nis declared legitimately constituted.' 5. One more than half the members must\nbe present for an ordinary session.\nTit. ii.\u2014Presidency.\u2014Art. 6. Duties of the pres.: (1) to open and close\nthe sessions; (2) to see that all observe '6rden, compostura, y silencio;' (3)\nto present all communications; (4) to determine what subj ects shall be discussed,\n TOPICS OF 1834. 253\nThere yet remain to be noticed in the annals of 1834\na few detached topics before I take up the most\nprominent of all, the colony.    The  negotiations  of\ngiving preference to those of common utility except by agreement on motion of\nsome vocal; (5) to give the floor alternately to the members for and against;\n(6) to call members to order; (7) to sign the records as soon as approved, and\ncorrespondence tothe govt and to ayuntamientos; (8) to convoke extra sessions\nfor serious motives. 7. If his ruling is objected to, one shall speak for and\none against, and the majority shall decide. 8. In performing his regular\nduties, he may remain seated; but in discussion, he must ask for the floor and\nbe subject to the same rules as others.\nTit. iii.\u2014Secretary.\u2014Art. 9. Sec. appointed by the dip. according to law\nof June 23, 1813, receiving for the present $50 per month. 10. Duties: (1)\nto keep a record of proceedings 'laconic and clear,' without criticising\nspeeches or reports; (2) to write and sign communications from the dip.; (3)\nto insert in the acta of 1st day of each month a list of expedientes in various\nstages of advancement; (4) to lay before the dip. different subjects in the\nfollowing order: 1st, the acta of preceding session; 2d, official communications; 3d, private communications; 4th, propositions of members; 5th, reports\nfixed for discussion; 6th, reports for 1st reading.\nTit. iv.\u2014Sessions.\u2014Art. 11. Sessions public, lasting 3 hours from 10\na. m., and longer at the request of any member. 12. Sessions on Tuesday,\nThursday, and Saturday, except holidays religious and secular. 13. Secret\nsession following the public one whenever the subject may demand reserve.\n14. Any member may ask for a secret session, and the pres. will call it. 15.\nIn a secret session will be presented: (1) confidential communications to the\ndip.; (2) ecclesiastical and religious matters; (3) other subjects which the\npres. may deem to demand reserve. 16. Secret sessions to begin by a discussion whether the subject requires such a session, and to close by asking if the\nproceedings are to be kept strictly secret. 17. Members must be present\nfrom beginning to end, decently dressed; be seated without preference; and\nobserve the silence, decorum, and deportment corresponding to their position. 18. A member unable to attend for serious cause must notify the pres.;\nbut a recorded permission of the dip. is necessary for more than 3 days' absence.    19. Such licenses cannot be granted to more than 2 members.\nTit. v.\u2014Motions.\u2014Art. 20. Motions must be presented in writing, signed\nby the author, tothe sec, worded like the resolution which is desired. 21.\nEvery motion to be discussed as soon v\\ made; tho author will explain his\nmotives, and 2 members may speak f~r and against; then it goes to the proper\ncommittee. 22. No prop, can Le approved without first passing to the com.,\nexcept by express consent of the dip.\nTit. vi.\u2014Committees.\u2014Art. 23. To facilitate business, committees, both\npermanent and special, will be appointed to examine matters and put them\nin shape for final action. 24. The permanent committees will be on ways\nand means, colonization, vacant lands, missions, government and police,\nmunicipal regulations, public works, industry, public instruction, and statistics. The number may be increased or diminished by the dip. 25. The dip.\nwill also classify special com. according to nature of business. 26. The pres.\nmust name permanent committees on the day of installation after administering the oath. 27. A com. will consist of 2 or 3 members, but may be increased by consent of the dip. 28. No member shall refuse a place assigned\nhim on a com. 29. On granting leave of absence, the dip. will name members to replace the absentees on com. 30. The same must be done when\nmembers of a com. have a personal interest in the matter considered; neither\ncan such interested parties vote. 31. The gefe politico, or the senior vocal\nwhen acting as pres., cannot serve on com 32. Com. must render their\nreports in writing, and conclude them with simple propositions to be voted\n 254       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014Hf JAR AND PADRfiS COLONY.\n1833 respecting the fortification and settlement of the\nnorthern frontier have been mentioned. I may add\nthat in the spring of that year, Vallejo had made a\non. 33. A com. report must be signed by a majority; the dissenting member\nto give his opinion in writing. 34. Com. may call for any doc. or instructions from territorial archives or offices, except where secrecy is required.\n35. A receipt must be given for such doc, and they must be promptly returned. 36. A com. may suspend action on a subject by reporting the reasons, and it will be considered in secret session. 37. A com. keeping an\nexpediente in hand over 15 days must report to the pres. 38. Any member\nmay be present and speak in com. meetings, but without a vote. 39. The\nchairman of a com., the one first named, will be responsible for all expedientes\ndelivered to him.\nTit. vii.\u2014Discussions.\u2014Art. 40. Every report will have a 1st and 2d\nreading in different sessions, and discussion will immediately follow the 2d\nreading. 41. At the hour of discussion there must be read the original motion, the communication that gave rise to it, the com. report,, and dissenting\nvote, if any. 42. The pres. will give the floor to members who ask it en pro\n6 en contra. 43. A com. report must first be discussed as a whole, and later\neach article separately. 44. Members to. speak alternately for and against\nin order of asking the floor. 45. Members of the com. and the author of the\nprop, may speak three times, others only twice. 46. No one can be called to\norder except through the pres.: (1) when an article of this reg. is infringed;\n(2) when some person or corporation is insulted. 47. Speaking of faults committed by subordinate functionaries of the dip. is not cause for calling to\norder; but in case of calumny, the injured party retains his right to do so.\n48. No discussion to be suspended except (1) for adjournment; (2) when the\ndip. may agree to give the preference to another more important subject; (3)\nfor some suspensive motion approved by the dip. 49. Any member may call\nfor the reading of any law or doc to illustrate the matter under discussion,\nbut not otherwise. 50. After the speeches according to this regl., the pres.\nwill direct the sec. to ask if the question has been sufficiently discussed; if so\na vote will be taken; if not, after one member has spoken on each side, the\nquestion will be repeated. 51. Discussion being declared sufficient, it shall\nbe asked if the report shall be voted on as a whole; if yes, being approved in\ngeneral, a discussion of the articles separately will follow; but if it be not\napproved as a whole, the question shall be to return it to the com. for amendment or not; and if the decision be in the negative, the proposition is to be\nconsidered defeated. 52. The discussion on any article being closed, it will\nbe approved by vote, or returned to the com. 53. A report being rejected as\na whole or in any of its articles, the dissenting report, if any, is to be discussed.\n54. A measure having been approved may be amended by any member in\nwriting before it is entered in the minutes; and the amendment being admitted shall be passed to the com.; otherwise it is to be considered as defeated.\nTit. viii.\u2014 Voting.\u2014Art. 55. Voting to be done in one of two ways: (1)\nby the rising of those who approve, while opponents remain seated; (2) by\ncalling of names. 56. All voting to be decided by an absolute plurality of\nvotes. 57. In case of a tie, a new vote is to be taken after discussion; if there\nbe still a tie, the matter is to be postponed until the next session; and if there\nbe still no decision, it is to be settled by lot. 58. No member can be excused\nfrom voting on matters subject to his deliberation.\nTit. ix.\u2014Resolutions.\u2014Art. 59. The resolutions of the dip. shall be officially communicated to the gefe politico when absent.\nTit. x.\u2014Ceremonial.\u2014Art. 60. Neither pres. nor members may wear arms\nat the sess. 61. Members presenting themselves to take the oath after the\nsess. are opened must be received at the inner door of the hall by two members named by the pres. 62. The dip. when in sess. will attend as a body\nat religious and political ceremonies.\n PETALUMA AND SANTA ROSA. 255\ntour of inspection to Bodega and Ross;25 and that in\nthe autumn the same officer had endeavored to begin\nin a small way settlements at Petaluma and Santa\nRosa. Ten heads of families, fifty persons in all,\nagreed to settle at the former place, hitherto unoccupied; but the padre at San Francisco Solano, hearing\nof the project, sent a few men to build a hut and\nplace a band of horses at that point in order to establish a claim to the land as mission property. Two or\nthree of the settlers remained and put in crops at\nPetaluma, Vallejo himself having ten bushels of wheat\nsown on his own account. The padre's representatives\nalso remained, and the respective claims were left to\nbe settled in the future. Much the same thing seems\nto have occurred at Santa Rosa, where a few settlers\nwent, and to which point the padre sent two neophytes\nwith some hogs as the nucleus of a mission claim.\nAll this before January 8, 1834.28    In his speech of\nTit. xi.\u2014Guard.\u2014Art. 63. The dip. will have a military guard whenever\nit may be deemed necessary. 64. The guard will be subject only to the orders\nof the pres., who shall demand it from the proper authorities. 65. The pres.\nis to arrange the number of sentinels and report to the dip. 66. The guard\nshall form in line at the entrance and exit of the pres.; and the sentinel must\nshoulder arms at the arrival or departure of a member.\nTit. xii.\u2014Treasury.\u2014Art. 67. The surplus of municipal funds, and revenue from branches which the dip. and govt may designate, will constitute a\nfund for general expenses of the territory and the ordinary expenses of the\ndip. 68. To administer the fund, a person outside of the corporation shall be\nchosen, who, besides being of 'notorious integrity,' shall give bonds. Salary\nto be fixed by the dip. 69. The distribution of funds shall be made by the\ntreasurer as he may be ordered; and he must render a monthly cash account.\nTit. xiii.\u2014Audience.\u2014Art. 70. Spectators must wear no arms, show respect and silence, and take no part in discussions by any demonstrations.\n71. Any person disturbing order will be ordered sent out by the pres.; or if\nthe offense be grave, arrested and delivered within 24 hours to the proper\njudge. 72. When such means do not suffice to prevent disorders, the pres.\nwill adjourn the public session and continue a secret one. 73. The same\ncourse to be adopted when prudent measures fail to restore order when disturbed by members.\nTit. xiv.\u2014Observance of the Reglamento.\u2014Art. 74. This regl. is to be observed by the dip. provisionally. 75. Its observance will be absolute when\nit shall have been approved by the federal congress. 76. The dip. may resolve doubts respecting the articles, in accordance with art. 74-5, and may\nadd to or amend them, reporting to congress.\n25 Vallejo's report was dated May 5, 1833. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 140. All\nthat remains to be said of the Russians in California, from 1831 to 1846, will\nbe found in chap. vi., vol. iv., Hist. Cal.\n26 All that is known of this earliest occupation is contained in three letters\nof Vallejo to Figueroa, the first dated Oct. 3, 1833, in St. Pap. Miss, and\n 256       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014HIJAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nMay 1st to the diputacion, Figueroa mentioned the\nplan for northern settlement, but said nothing to indicate that any actual progress had been made.27 The\n14th of May, however, he sentenced a criminal to\nserve out his term of punishment \"at the new establishment about to be founded at Santa Rosa.\"28 In\nJune the rancho of Petaluma was granted by the\ngovernor to Vallejo, and the grant approved by the\ndiputacion, this being virtually an end of the mission\nclaim.29 Respecting subsequent developments of\n1834-5 in the Santa Rosa Valley, the records are not\nsatisfactory; but Figueroa, hearing of the approach of\na colony from Mexico, resolved to make some preparations for its reception, and naturally thought of the\nnorthern establishment, which he resolved to visit in\nperson. All that we know positively of the trip is\nthat he started late in August, extended his tour to\nRoss, examined the country, selected a site, and having left a small force on the frontier, returned to Monterey the 12th of September.80    To these facts there\nColon., MS., ii. 316-17; the second, of Jan. 8, 1834, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii.\n211; and the third, merely stating that the padre had consented to the settlers'\nremaining temporarily, of Jan. 13th, in Id., ii. 218. It is in the latter letter\nthat I find the name Sta Rosa applied to the region for the first time, though\nthe valley had been certainly once and probably several times traversed by\nthe Spaniards. There is a newspaper story to the effect that in 1829 Friar\nAniaras (Amor6s?) with a single companion wandering northward from S.\nRafael, went up the Chocoalami stream to Lucas Point, where they baptized\nan Indian girl on the day of Sta Rosa, being driven away immediately after\nthe ceremony by hostile gentiles. Gilroy Leader, March 19, 1875, and other\npapers. Fernandez, Cosas de Cal., MS., 87-8, also speaks vaguely of attempts\nin 1829 to found an establishment at Sta Rosa. It is very probable that the\npadres from S. Rafael or Solano reached this region on several occasions, and\nthat the name Sta Rosa was applied from the day, during one of these visits,\nwhen some particular locality was explored or some notable event occurred;\nbut I have found no original record of these occurrences.\n27 Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 48. He alludes, however, rather to the foundation of\na fort than to settlement.\n\u2122Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxviii. 23.\n29Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 118-22. Vallejo's claim to Petaluma as finally confirmed by the U. S. authorities rested on a later grant by Gov. MiGheltorena.\n80 This is Figueroa's own statement in his Manifesto, p. 7, except the time\nof starting, about which I know only that F. was still at Monterey on Aug.\n21st. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 172. I find not a single document in any archive bearing on the subject. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 22-7; Alvarado,\nHist. Cal, MS., iii. 33-4; and Fernandez, Cosas de Cal, MS., 91-5, give long\nand circumstantial narratives, the last taken, as is claimed, from F.'s report to\nthe min. of war, of F.'s expedition to the north, which they represent as\n PLOTS OF GUERRA, DURAN, AND PICO.\n257\nmay be added, as probably accurate, the statements of\nseveral Californians, to the effect that the site selected\nwas where Vallejo's settlers and the Solano neophytes\nhad already erected some rude buildings, that the new\nplace was named Santa Anna y Farias, in honor of\nthe president and vice-president of Mexico, and that\nthe settlement was abandoned next year, because the\ncolonists refused to venture into a country of hostile\nIndians.31\nAn amusing episode of this year's history was a\ncharge of conspiracy against \"those irreconcilable foes\nof our country, Captain Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega, Fr. Narciso Duran, Fr. Tom^s Estenega, and Sergeant Jose Antonio Pico.\" The revelation reached the\ncapital May 26th by a special messenger, who brought\nletters from Angel Ramirez, Antonio M. Lugo, and\nPadre Bias Ordaz, to the effect that Duran and Guerra\nhad ridiculed often the federal system, that mysterious\npapers had been signed, that money had been transferred from San Gabriel to Santa Barbara, and that\nthe soldier Romero had been made to sign a paper by\nPico without, knowing its purport. Figueroa hastened to convene the diputacion in secret session to\nconsider the momentous news.    All the members were\nan Indian campaign. Vallejo at the new settlement had some trouble with\nthe Satiyomes umler Sucarra, and a series of bloody battles ensued. The\nIndians were defeated, losing hundreds in killed and captives; but many\nsoldiers were also killed; and finally Vallejo sent to F. for aid, and he came\nin person with a large force. The Indians were frightened and made a treaty.\nThis is but a bare skeleton of the story, because, in the absence of any original evidence, I deem it either wholly unfounded or a gross exaggeration of\nsome very trifling hostilities. If the expedition be considered a distinct and\nsubsequent one from that mentioned by Figueroa, the improbabilities of the\nstatements are increased rather than diminished. Richardson, Hist. Vallejo,\nMS., and in the New Age, and Napa Reporter, Oct. 17, 1874, tells a similar\ntale.\n31 In a letter of June 24, 1835, Figueroa alludes to a town which had been\noutlined and begun\u2014but apparently abandoned\u2014at Sta Rosa; but no name is\nmentioned. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS.,ii. 406. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS.,\niii. 10-11, says Zamorano surveyed the site, and F. struck the first blow.\nJuarez, Narracion, MS., 1-2, says the site of Santa Anna y Farias was on Mark\nWest Creek. An article in the S. Jos4 Pioneer, July 20, 1878, affirms that it\nwas on the land of the late Henry Mizer, just where Mark West Creek debouches into the Sta Rosa plain, near a large redwood tree! Several Californians state that F. was at the new town in the spring of 1835, but this was\nhardly possible.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   17\n 258       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014Hf JAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nin favor of decisive measures; Jose* Antonio and Carlos Carrillo, believing their personal influence would\ncheck any outbreak that might result from \" ignorance\nand blind confidence in the Spanish friars,\" were instructed to proceed to the south at once; and a committee favored the arrest of the accused, and granted\nthe governor all needed powers to act. That same\nday numerous orders were despatched southward to\nmilitary officers. Troops were ordered from place to\nplace; the general prepared to maintain at any cost\nthe republican integrity of California, and Captain\nGutierrez was intructed to arrest the conspirators and\nbring them to an immediate trial. In five days Jos6\nAntonio Carrillo reported the charges unfounded. In\nAugust Gutierrez reported to the same effect; and\nFigueroa decided accordingly that the good fame of\nthe parties involved was unimpaired. Alfred Robinson gives probably the key of the mystery, when he\nstates that Guerra* was negotiating for the purchase\nof a rancho, an operation requiring a search of the\narchives at San Gabriel, long conferences, and the signatures of several witnesses. It was the remark of\none of the latter, an ignorant fellow, distorted by the\npersonal enmity of certain persons, which created such\ncommotion at the territorial capital.32\nI may note in passing that the junta of partido\nelectors met at Monterey October 16th-19th,and chose\nJos6 Antonio Carrillo as deputy to congress for 1835-\n6, to succeed Bandini, who, as we shall see a little later,\nhad already returned to California. Mariano G. Vallejo was elected as substitute.83 I may further allude\nto the fact that Figueroa sent to the supreme government a comprehensive report on revenues and their\nadministration,84 and the kindred fact that complaints\n32 Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 2-10. Communications of May 26th, 27th, 31st, Aug.\n2d, 6th, in Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 149-56; 170-1; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil,\nMS., lxxviii. 23-39.   Robinson's Life in Cal, 157-9.\n33 Actos de Elecciones, MS., 19-21; Guerra, Doc, MS., vii. 159-63; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS.,ii.313, 340.\n34Figueroa, Cosas Mnancieras de Cal, 1834, MS. Dated Nov. 28th. The\ndocument will be noticed later.\n THE COLONY PLANNED.\nof destitution among the troops came in frequently,\nespecially from the south. Figueroa, even, could not\nfeed and clothe troops to their satisfaction with fine\nwords and loyal purposes. As of old, the missions\nwere often called upon for supplies.\nLet us turn backward to 1833, and southward to the\ncapital of the republic, where Californian affairs were\nattracting more attention perhaps than ever before.\nThis was largely due to the influence of Jose* Maria\nPadres, whose schemes of a few years before are fresh\nin the mind of the reader, and were by no means abandoned when their author was sent out of the country\nby Victoria in 1831. He left behind a party of ardent supporters in the far north, and went away vowing to return with full powers to carry out his proposed reforms. Of his influence and actions during\n1832, and of his relations with Congressman Carrillo,\nnothing is known; but, not being politically in sympathy with the administration, he probably kept somewhat quiet in public and awaited his time. Privately,\nhowever, he was loud and enthusiastic in his praises\nof California, and labored earnestly to interest his\nfriends in that country as a field for colonization.\nMany were led to regard his plans with favor, the most\nprominent of the number being Jose Maria Hijar, a\ngentleman of property, influence, and reputation. By\nthe spring of 1833, the two had devised a project of\ntaking a colony to California, and had made some\nprogress toward its realization.\nNow fortune began to smile on the empresarios\nmost remarkably. In April Valentin Gomez Farias,\na warm personal and political friend of Padres, and\nperhaps already interested in his scheme, was elected\nvice-president, and became acting president on the\nretirement of Santa Anna. Soon, perhaps in June,\nthere came the news that Figueroa was ill and desired to be relieved of office, which would throw the\nmilitary command into the hands of Padre's himself, he\n 260       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014HfjAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nas ayudante inspector being already second in rank.35\nBetter still, he succeeded through his influence with\nthe president in obtaining for his associate Hijar on\nJuly 15th the appointment of gefe politico.36 Next\nday the same man was appointed director of colonization, or of the colony in process of organization, and of\nthe new establishments to be founded in California.\nHe was to receive a salary of $1,000, in addition to\nthat of $3,000 for his services as political chief, and he\nmight name a secretary to receive $1,500.37 Padres\nhimself, by the minister of relations, at what date does\nnot appear, was made sub-director. About this time\nthere appeared on the scene to represent California\nin congress a new deputy to take the place of Carrillo\u2014none other than Juan Bandini, who as luck\nwould have it was one of Padres' northern disciples,\nand who lost no time in identifying himself with the\nnew schemes.88 Largely by influence of the combination, the law of August   17,  1833, wras  passed,\n35 July 12, 1833, Padres ordered to assume the command if his chief should\ncontinue disabled on his arrival. St. Pap., 3Iiss. and Colon., MS., ii. 2S8; Figueroa, Manifesto, 4. Sept. 12th, Com. gen. announces that P. is ordered to\nCal. to take command if F. 's illness continues. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and\nTreas., MS., ii. 57. The order was answered by F. on July 18, 1834, by a\nstatement that his health was restored.\n30 July 15, 1832, Garcia to Figueroa, who was at his own request relieved\nwith thanks for his faithful services. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii.\n206-7; Figueroa, Manifesto, 5-6. This was received in February, and answered\non May 18, 1834, of course with a promise to deliver the office to Hijar on his\narrival.\n37July 16, 1833, Garcia to Hijar. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii.\n207-9. Sept. 17th, Com. gen. Mendoza at Arizpe to Sub-corn. Herrera, announcing Hijar's appointments and salary.\n38 Bandini. it will be remembered, had been elected in March. May 7th, administrator of customs at Monterey could giveB. only $100 of $400 due him as\ndietas. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-II., MS., ii. 13. He had sailed from S. Diego\nin May 1833. July 29th, a bill by Bandini in 10 articles on the favorite subject of dividing the commands and granting an organic law received its first\nreading in congress. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xviii. 51-3. It will be remembered\nthat this same month, at S. Diego, Figueroa wrote an argument against the\nmeasure and a warning against B.'s revolutionary schemes. Aug. 6th, Bandini\nannounces to the Californians that he has assumed his functions and will do\nall hi his power for their interests, the national authorities being well disposed. Dipt. St. Pap., Aug., MS., x. 5. The announcement took the form\nof a printed address to his constituents, preserved also in the Pioneer Soc.\nLibrary, S. Francisco. Of Carrillo I hear nothing in 1833, except that on Jan.\n27th, perhaps as he was starting homeward, the comisario was ordered to pay\nhim $3,000 for vidticos. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., ii. 64;\nand in 1834, $500 was paid him on the account. Id., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi. 4.\n GOOD FORTUNE AT THE BEGINNING. 261\nrequiring immediate secularization of the missions;\nand a supplementary decree of November 26th authorized the adoption of such measures as might be\nnecessary to assure colonization and carry secularization into effect, using \"in the most convenient manner the revenues of the pious fund to furnish resources\nfor the commission and the families now in this capital bound for that territory.\"39 I may add that besides the vice-president, the diputado from California,\nthe territorial gefe politico, and the prospective comandante general, Padres numbered among the adherents of his plan our old friends Jose Maria Herrera, now re-appointed sub-comisario of revenues, and\nAngel Ramirez, who was sent to take charge of the\nMonterey custom-house. Truly, the ayudante inspector's star was in the ascendant, all obstacles to the\nsuccess of his schemes, whatever those schemes were,\nbeing apparently removed.\nRespecting the organization' of the colony itself,\nwe have but little of original record. The terms offered were $10 to each family at the start, transportation by land to San Bias, three reals per day to each\nperson for rations during the march, free passage by sea\nfrom San Bias to California, a farm from the public\nlands for each man, rations to the amount of four reals\nper day to each adult and two reals to each child for a\nyear, and a certain amount of live-stock and tools\u2014all\nthe aid received after arrival, apparently in the nature\nof an advance, to be repaid by the colonists later. The\nsystem did not differ materially from that under\nwhich earlier colonists had come to California.40   The\n89 Copies of the secularization decrees of Aug. 17th and Nov. 26th will\nbe given in chap. xi. Figueroa's regulations of Aug. 9, 1834, were in accordance with the former.\ni0 The $10 advance, 37.5 cents for travelling, and free passage by sea, are\nmentioned in Hi jar's original appointment. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS.,\nii. 207-8. Most of the colonists in their statements say that the allowance\nfor food, etc., on the march was 50 and 25 cents. Accounts rendered in Nov.\n1834 show the ration in Cal. to have been 50 cents, and 25 cents to children\nunder 4 years; and the advance of live-stock to have been 4 cows, 2 yoke of\noxen, 10 horses, and 4 sheep to each man. Implements included 2 ploughs and\na variety of shovels, axes, hoes, crow-bars, etc. Id., ii. 274-80. See also\nHijar's instructions, to be mentioned later.\n 262       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014Hf JAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nresult was, that more than 250 persons were enlisted,\nof whom 204\u201499 men, 55 women, and 50 children\u2014\nwere entitled to rations and other aid after their arrival in the promised land.\nHijar and Padres, like other colonization agents\nin all times and countries, painted the attractions\nof the country in bright colors. Then, as in much,\nlater times, California was represented, in respect of\nclimate and other natural advantages, as an earthly\nparadise. There is little evidence, however, that these\nmen made false promises, or went far beyond the\nlimits of honest enthusiasm. Some of the Californians speak of promises to distribute the mission wealth,\nincluding the neophytes as servants; of promised opportunities to gain an easy fortune by employing native otter-hunters and pearl-seekers, or to live luxuriously in idleness; and of other inducements equally\nabsurd and false; but the testimony of respectable\ncitizens who were members of the colony does not confirm these theories. Again, it has been the fashion\nto ridicule the material of which the colony was composed,41 as having been altogether unfit for colonists.\nThe truth is, that the men were of a class far superior\nto any that had before been sent as settlers to California. Many were educated, some had property, and\n,all had a trade or profession. There was a notable\nabsence of the low and criminal classes of Mexicans;\nand the subsequent record of those who remained in\nthe country was favorable. True, they came mostly\nfrom the city, and the number of artisans was somewhat too predominant over that of agriculturists; yet\nsuch farm laborers as could have been obtained from\n41 The colony contained 19 farmers, 11 painters, 12 seamstresses, 8 carpenters, 8 tailors, 5 shoemakers, 5 tinners, 5 silversmiths, 2 hatters, 2 physicians, 2 barbers, 2 saddlers, 2 blacksmiths, 2 printers, 2 goldsmiths, and also\na mathematician, gardener, surgeon, machinist, ribbon-maker, rebozo-maker,\nmidwife, distiller, candy-maker, vermicelli-maker, navigator, founder, pork-\nman, musician, vintager, apothecary, boatman, and carriage-maker, St. Pap.,\nMiss and Colon., MS., ii. 275-6, besides 6 teachers and the officers. Forbes,\nHist. Cal., 142-3, says they were of every class except that which would\nhave been useful\u2014artisans and idlers, but not a single farmer\u2014< goldsmiths\nproceeding to a country where no gold or silver existed,' etc.\n COMPANfA COSMOPOLITANA. 263\nthe Mexican provinces would not have done so well\nby far, either for themselves or for California.42\nIn connection with the colonization project, a commercial company was formed, with the colony leaders\nand other prominent men as partners, about which\nlittle is known, except that it was called the Compania Cosmopolitana, and that its object was to purchase a vessel and engage in the exportation of Californian products. Of course it was only by some\nsuch commercial scheme that the empresarios could\nlegitimately hope for profit beyond the salaries of a\nfew officials; and it is very certain that a patriotic\ndesire to develop the resources of California was not\ntheir sole motive. General Anaya is said to have\nbeen president, and Juan Bandini vice-president, of\nthe company. Agents were sent to Acapulco to purchase a vessel, securing the brig Natalia, to be paid for\nin tallow.43 A considerable sum was to be received\nfrom the government for transportation; effects to\na certain amount could be smuggled on the first trip;\n42 Among those who came with the colony and have been more or less well\nknown and prominent as citizens may be mentioned Ignacio Coronel and family, Agustin Olvera, Jos6 Abrego, Victor Prudon, Francisco Guerrero, Jesus\nNoe, Mariano Bonilla, Zenon Fernandez, Auguste Janssens, Florencio Serrano, Jose\" Ma Covarrubias, Jose de la Rosa, Gumesindo Flores, Francisco\nCastillo Negrete, Fran. Ocampo, Nicanor Estrada, Juan N. Ayala, Simon\nO'Donojii, and Chas. Baric.\n43 The brig Natalia was sold on June 21, 1834, by Miguel Palacios at Acapulco, to Bandini and other agents of the company for 7,200 arrobas of tallow\npayable in Cal.; and Jose Noriega was sent in her as supercargo to represent\nPalacios and receive the purchase value. He was to receive from the co. $50\nper month and his expenses until his return to Acapulco. The vessel, as. we\nshall see, was wrecked at Monterey; and as late as 1841 Noriega, who lived\nand afterwards died in Cal., had received neither his salary nor any part of\nthe promised tallow, though there had been some legal proceedings in the\nmatter. Letters of Noriega to Guerra, in Doc Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 1003-4,\n1107-9. Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 64-6, says Anaya, afterwards president of\nMexico, was president and himself vice-president; and he states that besides\nHijar and Padres, Judge Castillo Negrete and Sub-comisario Herrera were partners, as were several respectable Mexican merchants. He says the vessel ' was\npaid for, and that without any mission tallow' (?). Ministers Lombardo and\nGarcia, Vice-president Farias, and other prominent officials are named as\npartners by some Californians, perhaps without any authority. According to\nJose\" Abrego\u2014letters in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 132; and in Garcia, Apunte,\nMS., (appendix)\u2014shares in the co. were $100 each; himself with Bandini\nand Oliver (Olvera?) were sent to Acapulco to receive the Natalia; and the\nprice was to be $14,000. Bandini says that the doings of the company were\npublished in the daily Fenix early in 1834.\n 264       FIGUEROA'S RULE^-HIJAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nit was not doubted that the Natalia could be made to\npay for herself; and it was hoped that such a monopoly of a growing California trade might be secured\nas to justify the purchase of other vessels and enrich\nthe partners. So far as is apparent, the paid-up\ncapital of the Compania Cosmopolitana was nothing.\nIt has been supposed that there were also connected with the colony certain mysterious schemes of\na political nature, by which Gomez Farias hoped, in\ncase his administration should be overthrown, to find\nin California a refuge for himself and his political\nfriends, a stronghold from which as a centre to work\nfor a restoration of his power in Mexico, or at the last,\na rich province where he and his partisans might live\nin affluence and security. There is some slight evidence, as we shall see, that suspicions of this kind\nwere entertained in Mexico; but I deem them for\nthe most part unfounded; though the vice-president\nmay very likely have deemed it desirable to put even\nso distant a territory as California under the control\nof his political friends.44\nVallejo, Osio, Alvarado, and other Californians who\nmore or less fully reflect their views, denounce the\nwhole colonization plan of Hijar and Padre's as a deliberately concocted plot to plunder the missions under\nthe protection of the highest political and military authorities, who were themselves to share the spoils.\nThis is to go much further than is justified by the\nevidence. The enterprise of Hijar and Padres was\non its face a legitimate one. Colonization had long\nbeen regarded by intelligent men as a measure of absolute necessity for California's welfare, and the impolicy and impossibility of attempting to continue the\nold monastico-missionary regime was equally apparent.    The objects ostensibly were praiseworthy; the\n44 Antonio Coronel, Cosas de Cal., MS., 13, says he has never been able to\ntrace the rumors of political plots to any reliable source; though Florencio\nSerrano, Apuntes, MS., 24-5, thinks there were circumstances that indicated\nan intention to declare Cal. independent of Mexico in certain contingencies.\n MERITS OF THE SCHEME.\nmethods lawful, and the good fortune of Padres in securing the aid of the government was not in itself an\nevidence of corruption. As a matter of course, the\nempresarios intended to make money; it was certainly\nnot wise to intrust to them such unlimited powers,\nand it is quite likely that such powers would have\nbeen abused by them had they been able to carry out\ntheir plans. It is perhaps well for their reputation\nthat they were not submitted to the temptation; but\nthey are entitled to the benefit of the doubt; and in\nview of subsequent developments charges of contemplated robbery do not altogether become the party\nwhich largely controlled the final disposition of the\nmission estates.45\nThe rendezvous of the colonists at the capital was\nat the abandoned convent of San Camilo, where a\ngrand ball wxas given just before the departure, in\nApril 1834. Among the lower classes of the Mexican\npopulation\u2014the leperos\u2014there seems to have prevailed an idea that California was a land inhabited\nexclusively by savage Indians and Mexican convicts,\nand that families from the capital were being in some\nway deceived or exiled to that dangerous country\nagainst their will. Janssens, Coronel, Abrego, Hijar,\nand others agree that hostile demonstrations were made\nby the mob, which attempted to prevent the departure\nof the colonists. I think this action was one not likely\nto have originated with the leperos, but that it must\nhave been prompted by persons, possibly the friars,\n45 Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 223-30, is particularly violent in his denunciation and ridicule, giving full credence to every rumored accusation\nagainst Hijar and Padre's of deception towards the colonists, of schemes of\nplunder, and of political plots. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 224-30; and Vallejo,\nHist. Cal, MS., ii. 300-10, 349-50, take substantially the same view. The\nanimus of these writers on tho subject will be more apparent later. By writers\ngenerally who have mentioned the colony the scheme has been more or less\nemphatically condemned, by most on account of the supposed worthless character of the colonists, by some on account of its connection with secularization, and by others because of the personal and political aims of the promoters.\nNaturally Juan Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 59-GO, is an earnest defender of the\nproject. Valle, Lo Pasado de Cal, MS., 40-1; and Machado, Tiempos Pasa-\ndos, MS., 31, state that Bandini was commonly regarded in southern California as the author of the scheme.\n 266       FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014HfjAR AND PADRES COLONY.\nwho were interested in opposing the enterprise. A\ncompany of mounted policemen was furnished by\nthe government to restrain the hostile element, and\nthe emigrants started in April 1834 on their long\njourney\u2014the men on horseback and the women and\nchildren in large covered carts drawn by mules\u2014and\nproceeded the first day to Tecpantla.46\nThe march to the sea, as remembered by members\nof the expedition, was attended by no special hardships or incidents requiring mention, the travellers\nbeing hospitably received everywhere along the route,\nat some towns even with public demonstrations of welcome and good-will. There was a delay of some\nweeks at Guadalajara,'and a still longer stay at Tepic.\nIt is said that on account of difficulties in obtaining\nprompt payment of government funds, Hijar was\ncompelled to raise money by mortgaging his estates in\nJalisco;47 but there is a notable lack in the archives\nof all information respecting the finances of the colony.\nOn July 20th the company left Tepic for San Bias,\nwhere two or three days later a part went on board\nthe Natalia, to avoid the mosquitoes, as Janssens says.\nNine days later the Morelos arrived and the rest of\nthe colonists embarked. There had been some desertions, as well as a few enlistments, en route,, and at\ntheir first sight of the ocean still others lost heart\nand turned back; but some 250 proceeded on the\nvoyage.\nOn the 1st of August, probably, the two vessels set\nsail. The Cosmopolitan Company's brig Natalia had\non board Hijar, Bandini, and the naval officer Buenaventura Araujo, and her commander was Juan Gomez.\n46Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, MS., ix. 4-6, says they started, 400 in\nnumber, April 14th, after committing many excesses. Hijar's instructions,\nto be noticed later, were dated April 23d, which was probably very nearly the\ndate of departure.\n47 The salaries of Hijar and Padres had been paid in Mexico down to the\ntime of departure. Dept. St Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxix. 64, 77. July 20,\n1833 (4?), an estimate of expenses for surveying instruments and travelling expenses for two commissioners and six teachers, with their families, to amount\nof $6,985, was approved and sent to sub-comisario of California. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Com. and Treas.. ii. 47-50.\n ARRIVAL OF THE COLONISTS. 267\nOn the national corvette-of-war Morelos, Captain\nLucas Manso, were Padre's, Judge Castillo Negrete,\nthe new asesor, Cosme Pena, and Sub-comisario Herrera. A day or two 6ut of port the vessels were\nseparated. The Natalia, the faster sailer of the two,\nwas struck by a squall off Cape San Lucas and had\na somewhat narrow escape. There was also much\nsickness, resulting in several deaths.48 The brig was\nbound for Monterey, but in view of the sickness on\nboard the commander was induced by Bandini, and\nby Hijar who was himself very sea-sick, to put in at\nSan Diego, where she anchored the 1st of September.49\nThe new-comers were hospitably received at San\nDiego, the officers and prominent individuals being the\nguests of Bandini and his friends, while the rest were\ndistributed at various private houses or lodged in\ntents and warehouses. In a few days a vessel in port\ntook about half the number up to San Pedro, whence\nthey went inland to San Gabriel. Most of the rest\nsoon went up to San Luis Rey. At these two missions\nthey remained for a month and more, and then\u2014except those who established themselves permanently in\ndifferent parts of the south\u2014started toward the northern frontier, passing in small detachments from mission to mission, and receiving nothing but kind treatment from padres, administrators, settlers, and neophytes.50    The Natalia, after having perhaps been\n48 Hijar, nephew of Jose\" Maria, California en 1836, MS., p. 110-12, speaks\nof troubles between Gomez and Araujo on the voyage, in connection with\nwhich the latter at one time forcibly assumed the command. Janssens gives\nsome details of the gale.\n49Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 172-3; iv. 72-5. One record makes the number of passengers 129 and another 140. Martin Cabello came on the Natalia,\nto be receptor of customs at S. Diego. Hijar speaks of a banquet at the\nhouse of Bandini. Serrano says that for two days the families were sheltered\nin the hide-houses on the beach and fed by the foreign owners of those houses.\nMachado thinks that they were detained in quarantine for fear of the measles,\nat a spot called Huisache, for a time. Several died and were buried at the\nmission. Janssens, notes the kindness of the San Diegans, who would take\nno pay from the colonists for entertainment.\n50 Janssens is the only one who mentions the sea-trip to S. Pedro. Hijar\nnotes a long stay at Sta Barbara; a division at S. Luis Obispo, one party\nbeing bound for Monterey and the other to Sonoma, and the fact that many\nremained at the different missions, including himself and seven companions at\n FIGUEROA'S RULE\u2014HlJAR AND PADRES COLONY.\naground for a time at San Diego, sailed north with\nthe effects of the colony. Lying at anchor in Monterey, she broke her cables in a gale on the afternoon\nof December 21st, and was driven on the beach about\ntwo miles above the town, where she soon went to\npieces.    Three men lost their lives.51\nThere is a popular tradition that the Natalia was\nthe same vessel on which Napoleon had escaped from\nElba, in 1815. This statement is repeated by almost\nevery writer who has mentioned the colony. No\none presents any evidence in its support, but I am\nnot able to prove its inaccuracy.52\nThe Morelos, with Padres and the rest of the colonists, 120 in number, also had a narrow escape from\nshipwreck in a gale off Point Concepcion, according\nto the statement of Antonio Coronel; but she arrived\nsafely at Monterey on September 25th, and the newcomers were as warmly welcomed at the capital as\nS. Juan Bautista. Serrano says some of the colonists endured great hardships on the way north, and that he and others determined to quit the colony\nand look out for themselves. Hijar also tells us that the colonists made firm\nfriends of the neophytes as they passed along, by kind treatment and by\nsympathy for their sufferings under missionary tyranny. Moreover, Araujo,\nin a letter of Sept. 18th to Hijar, the director, says: fI have already\npredisposed them [the neophytes] in our favor, explaining to them as well as I\ncould how philosophically we are armed,' etc. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 154.\nPico, Acontecimientos, MS., 25, recalls the arrival at Purisima, whence he\nhelped convey them to S. Luis. Oct. 20th, Lieut-col. Gutierrez informs\nFigueroa that some of the colonists had done good service in quelling Indian\ndisturbances. They were thanked in the name of the govt. St. Pap., Miss, and\nColon., MS., ii. 281.\n51 Record of day, hour, and place in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxix.\n73-4. Janssens, Vida, MS., 41-4, gives a vivid description of the disaster\nand the efforts of the Montereyans to rescue the officers and crew. In these\nefforts a negro servant of Joaquin Gomez particularly distinguished himself,\nsaving several lives by his own exertions. A part of the cargo was washed\nashore, and much of it was stolen despite the efforts of a guard. The cook\nand two sailors were drowned, and the mate Cuevas was badly hurt. Hijar,\nCal en 1836, MS., 123-8, also gives some details. Many newspaper writers,\nperhaps following Taylor in Pacifc Monthly, xi. 648-9, have stated since\n1860 that parts of the wreck were still visible, having furnished building-\nmaterial for over 30 years to the people of Monterey. One piece of newspaper eloquence, in 1878, when the timbers were still visible, merits quotation. I The company, like the brig Natalia which brought them here, was\nwrecked, and the ribs of its records, like those of the old brig, can only be\nseen in the ebb of the tide of the present back to the beginning of the history\nof Sonoma County.' Sac Record-Union, June 25, 1878.\n52 Hijar says that a French captain who visited the coast in 1846 declared\nthe identity, and I think it likely that the tradition has no better foundation.\n RECEPTION OF THE MEXICANS, 269\ntheir companions had been at San Diego.53 They\nalso started northward before the end of the year,\ntheir destination being San Francisco Solano, though\nwe have but little information respecting their exact\nmovements at this time. Of the reception accorded\nto the directors, of the obstacles encountered by Hijar\nand Padre's, and of some rather interesting political\ncomplications, I shall speak in the following chapter.64\n63 The date of arrival is given in Figueroa, Manifesto, 8. Sept. 26th,\nPadres announced his arrival with 120 colonists, who intended to settle north\nof S. Francisco Bay. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., iii. 43-4.\nOn Sept. 12th, a demand for grain had been sent to Sta Cruz in expectation\nthat the vessels would arrive in a few days. Sta Cruz Rec, MS., 22. Coro-\nnel, Cosas, MS., 9-10, says that the inhabitants vied with each other in their\nkindness and hospitality to the strangers. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii.\n230-2, tells us that Padres, ] factotum, monopolizador general, y consejero\nsupremo,' was at first warmly welcomed by his old friends and partisans, of\nwhom the writer was one. He tells also an absurd story of a mortifying\nincident that occurred. Two ladies came off in the boat with Padres, expecting to see nobody in Cal. except soldiers, friars, convicts closely guarded, and\nIndians ready to become their servants. As they drew near the shore, they\nbeheld two beautiful and well-clad ladies of Monterey in the crowd awaiting\nthem, and said, ' Sr Padres, how is it possible that these girls can be our servants? We look as much like servants as they.' Padres bit his lip, and the\nladies insisted on returning to the ship to 'dress up' before landing. Nov. 1st,\na ball was given, partly in honor of the colonists, and partly of the diputacion.\nEarliest Printing in Cal. Dec. 13th the Morelos was still in port. Manso\nin command; Lieutenants Valle, Anaya, and Azcona; 2 'aspirantes,'3 mates,\n2 mechanics, 7 gunners, and 7 boys. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxix.\n85.\n64 My statements of Californians on the Hijar and Padres colony, in addition to documentary authorities, are the following, the same being cited on\nparticular phases of the subject only for special reasons: Janssens, Vida, MS.,\n7-59; Coronet, Cosas, MS., 1-17; Hijar, Cal. en 1836, MS., 2-11, 59-62, 108-\n12; Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 1-12, 24-7; Abrego, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi.\n132, and in Garcia, Apunte, append., MS.; Vega, Vida, MS., 8-17; Bandini,\nHist., MS,, 59-66, 76. The preceding were all written by men who came\nwith the colony; the following by men who with a few exceptions had personal knowledge of the subject: Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 225-40; Alvarado,\nHist. Cal, MS., ii. 223-45; iii. 1-5, 27-33; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 222-3,\n272-4, 306, 309-10, 349-51; Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 43-56; Fernandez, Cosas,\nMS., 71-86; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 3-6; Pico, Acont., MS., 25-6; Machado,\nTiempos Pasados, MS., 30-1; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 2S-31; Botello, Anales,\nMS., 15-17, 176; Or I, Ocurrencias, MS., 63-8; Gomez, Lo que Sabe, MS.,\n375-9; Larios, Convulsiones, MS., 13-14; Avila, Notas, MS., 10-11; Pico,\nHist. Cal, MS., 49-55; Espinosa, Apuntes,MS., 1-2; Torre, Remin., MS., 48;\nAmador, Mem., MS., 138-42; Gonzalez, Revol, MS., 4-6; Valle, Lo Pasado,\nMS., 11-14; Castro, Rel, MS., 31\u00ab^5; Arce, Mem., MS., 3-5: Marsh's Letter,\nMS., 5-6; Brown's Statement, MS., 9-10; Green's Life and Adven., MS., 29.\nThe printed mentions of the subject are found in Figueroa, Manifesto;\nForbes, Hist., 142-5; Wilkes' Narr., v. 174; Petit-Thouars, Voy., ii. 89; Mofras, Explor., i. 295-6; San Miguel, La, Repub. Mex., Parte Ecles.,*18-21;\nRosa, Ensayo, 30-J; Randolph's Oration; Payno in Revista Cientifica, i. 83;\nRobinson's Life in Cal, 161-7; Tuthill's Hist. Cal, 136-9; Ferry, Calif ornie,\n18-19; Mora, Otras Sueltas, i. eclviii.-ix.\n CHAPTER X.\nFIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\n1834-1835.\nSanta Anna Orders Figueroa not to Give up the Command to Hi jar\u2014\nQuick Time from Mexico\u2014Hi jar Demands the Mission Property\u2014\nHis Instructions\u2014Action of the Diputacion\u2014Lost Prestige of\nPadres\u2014Bando\u2014Controversy\u2014Bribery\u2014Submission of the Directors\u2014Aid to the Colonists\u2014At Solano\u2014New Quarrel\u2014Rumored\nPlots\u2014Revolt of Apalategui and Torres\u2014Pronunciamiento of the\nSonorans\u2014Surrender\u2014Legal Proceedings\u2014Figueroa's Orders\u2014\nSeizure of Arms at Sonoma\u2014Arrest of Verduzco and Lara\u2014Exile\nof Hijar and Padres\u2014Figueroa's Manifiesto\u2014Sessions of the\nDiputacion\u2014Carrillo in Congress\u2014Los Angeles Made Capital\u2014\nFoundation of Sonoma\u2014Death of Figueroa\u2014Life and Character\u2014\nCastro Gefe Polvtico\u2014Gutierrez Comandante General\u2014Estu-\ndillo's Claims.\nThus far all had gone well with the empresarios,\nbut obstacles were now encountered that were destined\nto prove insurmountable. The first and most serious\nhad its origin in Mexico. On the 25th of July, 1834,\nsome six days before the colony sailed, President\nSanta Anna, having taken the reins of government\ninto his own hands in place of Vice-president Gomez\nFarias, issued an order to Figueroa not to give up the\noffice of gefe politico to Hijar on his arrival in California, as he had been ordered, and had' promised to\ndo.1 We have no official information respecting the\nmotive .that prompted this countermand; but there\ncan be no doubt that Santa Anna regarded as excess-\n1 Figueroa, Manifiesto, 7-8. Order transcribed to com. of S. Francisco on\nOct. 21st. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 314. The order is: In answer to yours of\nMay 18th, 'hadispuestoS. E. conteste a V. S. que no entregue el citado mando\ny continue desempenando la Gefatura.'   Lombardo.\n(270)\n COUNTERMAND FROM MEXICO. 271\nive the powers conceded to the empresarios, and that\nhe was actuated by a suspicion, not so well founded\nbut perhaps even more potent than the former motive,\nthat political and revolutionary plans in the interest\nof Gomez Farias were involved in the scheme. There\nwas no lack of persons in Mexico whose policy it was\nto foment this suspicion, without regard to its accuracy. Abrego and Osio affirm that the directors sailed\nfrom . San Bias in defiance of orders from Mexico to\ndelay the departure of the colony; but I believe this\nto be an error.2\nThe countermand of July 25th was sent to California in all. haste overland by a special courier, who\nplaced-it in Figueroa's hands near Monterey the 11th\nof September, and with it another despatch from\nHijar at San Diego, announcing his arrival at that\nport on the 1st. The trip was much the quickest on\nrecord between the national and territorial capitals,\nand the fame of that courier who braved the terrors\nof Indians, deserts, and starvation, coming alone by\nway of the Colorado, has never ceased to be talked of\nin Californian families.3    Governor Figueroa had re-\n2Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 229-30; Abrego, Cartas, MS. Bandini, Hist. Cal,\nMS., 61-4, denounces it as a strange and arbitrary act to annul the appointment without giving reasons, and thus to create confusion in the important\nmatter of colonization. Vallejo (J. J.), Remin., MS., 46-8, understands that\nSanta Anna's order was prompted by the friars. After the order was issued, on\nSept. 30th, the com. gen. of Jalisco sent to Mexico the statement of the surveyor Lobato left at Tepic, that Padre's had repeatedly threatened in case of\nany change in Mexico to make Cal. independent or annex it to the U. S.\nSup. Govt St. Pap., MS., x. 4-5.\n3 Figueroa, Manifesto, 7-8, mentions the receipt of the despatches on Sept.\n11th. Most state that the time made was 40 instead of 48 days. Osio says\nthe man was detained by the Indians at the Colorado, who threatened to kill\nhim, but at last built him a balsa to cross the river in exchange for his horse,\nequipments, and most of his clothing. He nearly perished on the way to\nS. Luis Rey, being 3 days without water. His reward was $3,000. Serrano\nrelates that Lieut Araujo by an ambush captured the courier near S. Gabriel,\nand took him to Hijar, who was urged to hurry to Monterey and secure his\noffice; but he refused to resort to such expedients, and released the captive.\nAmador says the man was Rafael Amador, his cousin. Torre states that the\ncourier arrived about 11 p. m. at Monterey, and was welcomed by the firing\nof cannon. Espinosa was one of the escort furnished by Lieut Valle to guard\nthe man northward from Monterey to meet Figueroa. He describes his\ndress, notes the feasts given in his honor, and says Figueroa gave him 4 mules\non his departure. Valle also mentions having furnished the escort for the\ntrip towards Sta Rosa.    Vega was told the man had at first mistaken his des-\n 272    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nceived no official notice respecting the colonists, but he\nhad deemed it best to make preparations for their arrival, and with that object in view had visited the Santa\nRosa Valley, as already related, and there selected a\nsite for the new town. It was on his return, one\nday's journey before reaching the capital, that he\nreceived the countermand from Mexico. He sent to\nSanta Cruz and other places for such supplies as could\nbe furnished, and awaited the arrival of the colonists.\nIt may be here stated that secularization had been\nalready begun in accordance with the lawT of 1833 and\nregulations of 1834; and several of the missions were\nin charge of administrators.\nThe Morelos entered the harbor on September 25th,\nand the immigrants, as we have seen, were made as\ncomfortable as possible. Padres at first claimed the\nposition of comandante general, but of course in vain,\nsince his claim was conditional on Figueroa's illness;4\nthen he presented his appointment as sub-director of\ncolonization and officially demanded aid for his colonists. The situation was embarrassing. In the absence of instructions to the contrary from the war\ndepartment, Padre's as ayudante inspector was Figueroa's subordinate officer, notwithstanding his appointment of sub-director from the minister of relations;\nand there was no legal authority for expending public\nfunds for the support of the colony. So confident had\nbeen the directors in the success of their plan in\nevery detail, that they had made no provision for the\nslightest contretemps. There was, however, as yet no\ncontroversy.\nThe 14th of October Hijar arrived by land from\nSan Diego, and after the customary courtesies of re-\ntination and gone to Monterey in N. Leon. Gonzalez recalls the meeting of\nthe courier and Figueroa at the writer's rancho of Lenadero. Galindo thinks *\nthe man was to receive $1 per hour, if successful. Hijar affirms that the man\nwas sick and had to stop at S. Juan Bautista, where the writer was, another\nman being sent on in his place, J. J. Vallejo calls him Hidalgo. I may perhaps safely suggest that some of the items cited are not quite accurate.\n*St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 285-6, 290-1. An order of Dec. 7th\n(1833 ?) is alluded to as countermanding that of July 12th. \u2022\n Hf JAR AND FIGUEROA.\nception, was shown by Figueroa the order forbidding\na transfer of the civil authority. Though bitterly\ndisappointed, Hijar could make no objection, and fell\nback on his commission as director of colonization,\nwhich Figueroa consented to recognize. At an interview on the 15th Hijar presented the instructions\naddressed to him in his double capacity as gefe politico\nand director, instructions to which Figueroa assented,\nand which I append in a note.5 Next morning the\nlatter received a demand from the director to be put in\npossession of the mission property according to article\n1 of the instructions, the governor being asked to issue\nthe necessary orders to administrators and comandantes. Figueroa, rather strangely as it would seem,\npromised compliance, but proposed to consult the\ndiputacion. The reply on the 17th was simply a plea\nfor haste on account of disorders at the missions, the\napproach of planting-time, the neglect of the friars,\nthe sufferings of the neophytes, and the needs of the\ncolony. The comandante general was to be held responsible for damages caused by delay. Accordingly\nthe diputacion was convened the same day, and before\nthat body was laid a full statement. Figueroa had,\nhe said, no desire to retain the gefatura.    He would\n6 Hijar, Instrucciones d que Deberd Arreglar su Conducta D. Jos6 Maria\nHijar, Gefe Politico de la alta California y Director de Colonizacion de esta y de la\nbaja, in Figueroa, Manifiesto, 11-14; St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 270-3;\nJones' Report, no. 12. Art. 1. He will begin by occupying all the property\nbelonging to the missions; the military comandante to furnish all necessary\naid required. 2. For a year from arrival each colonist is to receive 50 cents\nper day, or 25 cents' if under 4 years of age. 3. Travelling expenses to be\npaid by govt, and the colonists to receive the monturas bought for their transportation. 4. Selection of favorable sites for settlements. 5. The frontiers\nto be settled as soon as possible. 6. Plan of the new towns. 7. Native settlers to be mixed with the Mexicans, but no town to be inhabited exclusively\nby Indians. 8. House lots. 9-10. Farming lands to be granted in full ownership. 11. The movable property of the missions having been distributed\n(according to law of secularization?) one half of what is left is to be sold to\nthe best advantage. 12. Not over 200 head of stock of the same kind to be\nsold to one family. 13. The remaining half of movable property to be kept\non govt account and to be devoted to expenses of worship, support of missionaries, education, and purchase of implements for the colonists. 14. The\ngefe pol. and director to report in detail at first and annually on the disposition and condition of the property after the distribution as above. 15. He is\nalso to report at least once a year on the condition and needs of the colonists.\nDated April 23, 1834, and signed Lombardo.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   18\n 274    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\ngladly give it up to the senior vocal, or to any person\nwho might legally receive it. He had no desire to\noppose the colonization project, but had some doubt\nwhether it was as director or as gefe politico that\nHijar wa.s to receive the mission property, and he\ndesired advice as to the proper course for him to pursue. Of course this humble tone was all assumed, yet\nit was rather neatly done.6\nThus the tide of fortune for Padres and his associate\nhad begun to ebb. Instead of finding themselves invested with the civil and military authority, they were\nsimply directors of colonization, and their powers even\nin that capacity were left to the tender mercies of the\ndiputacion. The members of that body, it is true, had\nbeen a few years earlier admirers and partisans of\nPadres, or at least were largely under the influence of\nthose partisans,* such as Bandini, Vallejo, and Osio;\nbut though we may be sure the ayudante inspector\nexerted all his eloquence and influence to retain the\nfavor of his old friends, his power over them seems to\nhave been lost. Vallejo and Alvarado admit candidly\nthat the chief reason for this defection was the fact that\nPadres had brought with him twenty-one Mexicans\nto become administrators of the missions; whereas,\nunder the old plans, the Californians were to have\nthose places. I have no doubt this was, to a certain\nextent, the true state of the case, though I do not\nsuppose that all the places had been promised to\nMexicans. Figueroa's mission policy was substantially identical with that of Echeandia and Padres in\nthe past, to which the Californians had committed\nthemselves. He had actually made a beginning of\nsecularization; all was going well, and the Californians\nwere filling the desirable places. Why should they\nfavor a change in favor of strangers?\nWhatever their motives\u2014and they were not altogether selfish\u2014the vocales had the soundest of legal\n6Figueroa, Manifiesto, 14-22; St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 209-10.\n ACTION OF THE DIPUTACION. 275\nreasons for refusing to accede to Hfjar's demands. To\nsuppose that the government in depriving him of the\noffice of gefe politico had intended to leave intact all\nthe powers given to him in his double capacity was an\nabsurdity; nor was it credible that the whole matter\nof secularization and disposition of mission property\nwas to be intrusted to a mere director of colonization,\ndeemed unfit for the civil rule. Doubtless the administration in its haste had been led into carelessness\nin not specifying what powers if any were to be left\nto Director Hijar. The diputacion met on the 17th\nof October, and listened to a speech from Figueroa, receiving documents illustrating the subject-matter. The\nmatter was referred to the committee on government.\nIt was decided to reserve discussion for secret sessions,\nand next day Hijar was called upon to show his\ninstructions. At the secret session of the 21st the\ncommittee, consisting of Jose* Antonio Carrillo, Pio\nPico, and Joaquin Ortega, rendered its report, which\nwas discussed and approved article by article without\nopposition. On the same day it was published by\nFigueroa in a ponderous bando.7\nIn a preamble to their report, Carrillo and his associates made an able and even eloquent presentment of\nthe case. Considerable attention was paid to national aspects, for it seems that an effort had been made to show\nthat Santa Anna's revocation of Hijar's commission\nwas in some way a threat to federal institutions, and a\nwarning was uttered against the folly of taking part\nin the strife that was agitating the republic, so long\nas the rights of California wrere not attacked, and\nespecially so long as the territory was under the\nguidance of so wise and popular a ruler as Figueroa.\n^Legis. Rec, MS., ii. 190-6, 29-34; Figueroa, Manifiesto, 22-33. Of the\ndocument as finally published I have an original\u2014Figueroa, Bando en que\npublica la Resolution de la Diputacion Territorial contra las Pretcnsiones de Don\nJos6 Maria Hijar, Director de Colonizacion, 21 de Oct. de 1834, MS., sheet\n12x50 inches. Oct. 19th, Figueroa demands from H. his instructions for the\ndip. They were sent the same day. St. Pap., Colon, and Miss., MS., ii. 211.\nOct. 21st-22d, F. sends to the alcalde of Los Angeles his address to the dip.,\nand the action of that body. Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., xi. 23-6.\n 276    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nOrders of the government were for the most part\nclear, and should be obeyed. The innocent colonists\nwere, however, in no way to blame for the failure of\nthe directors to provide for their welfare, nor for the\ncarelessness of the government in issuing indefinite\norders; and for them the territorial authorities should\nprovide in every possible way. The Indians, moreover, ought not to be despoiled of their property\u2014\ntheir only reward for a century of slavery\u2014as would\nbe the case if Hijar's original instructions were carried out; and on this point the government should be\nfully informed. The decision of the committee, approved by the diputacion, and published- in the governor's bando, was in substance as in the appended\nnote.8 Figueroa was to remain gefe politico; Hijar\nwas to be recognized as director of the colony, but\nmust not interfere with the missions, and all possible\naid was to be afforded to the colonists. The course\ndecided upon was an eminently just and proper one.\nHijar addressed to Figueroa, October 23d, a communication, in which he attempted to refute successively all the positions assumed by the diputacion.\nThis letter, with Figueroa's arguments against each\npoint interpolated between its disjointed paragraphs,\nfills fifty-four pages of print.9    Both disputants dis-\n81. The order of July 25th must be obeyed, and Figueroa will continue\nto act as gefe politico. 2. Hijar may fulfil his special commission of director\nof colonization, subject to the territorial government and the regulations\nwhich may be adopted by the diputacion. 3. H. is to have nothing to do\nwith secularization, and is not to receive the mission property. 4. Until the\nsup. govt may decide, the secularization regulations of the dip. will be carried\nout, and the Indians will be put in possession of their property. 5. (a) The\ngov. will cause to be given to the colonists on arrival the tools and other aid\ncalled for in the instructions, the same to be taken prorata from the different\nmissions; (b) he Will also furnish necessary food on account of the allowance\nto each person; (c) the director will be subject to the gefe, and will report to\nhim, giving estimates of expenses, etc.; (d) the mission lands belong to the\nIndians, and no colony shall be established on them.. 6. The gefe will retain\nH. 's instructions, giving him a certified copy if desired. 7. (a) This document\nis to be reported to the sup. govt, which (b) is to be asked to revoke the\ninstructions so far as they despoil the Indians of their property; to approve\nthe regl. of the dip.; and (c) to separate the political and military command.\n8. This action of the dip. shall be circulated for the information of the\npublic.\n9 Figueroa, Manifiesto, 35-89.\n FAILURE OF THE COLONY. 277\nplayed ability in their written arguments, besides\nusing some severe language; but they went, much\nfurther than was necessary or than I have space to\nfollow them, beyond the feal question at issue into\nthe rights of the Indians, the equities of secularization, and the constitutional powers of national and territorial authorities. A private conference of leading\nmen was held the 25th, at which Hijar's letter was\nread, and arguments in support of Figueroa's position\nwere made by the lawyers Luis del Castillo Negrete\nand Rafael Gomez. Another conference was to be\nheld the next day; but. meanwhile Hijar invited\nFigueroa to breakfast, and tried to bribe him\u2014so says\nthe governor\u2014to deliver the mission property, offering to enrich him, not only with that very property,\nbut with credit and influence in Mexico and $20,000\nor more from Jalisco.10 Figueroa does not appear to\nhave deemed that his honor required anything more\nthan a refusal of the offer; and after a long argument,\noffered not to oppose, if the diputacion would consent,\nthe delivery of the mission property, on condition\nthat no part of it should be disposed of until a decision could be obtained from Mexico. This proposition\nwas not accepted at the conference that followed, at\nwmich Hijar and Padres are said to have finally given\nup the contest, admitted the justice of all that the diputacion had done, and announced their purpose to take\nthe colony to Baja California. All protested against\nthis project as ruinous to the colonists, and begged\nthe directors to remain, which they finally consented\nto do, some slight modifications in the resolutions of\nthe 21st being agreed upon, which modifications, with\nHijar's letter of the 23d, were submitted by Figueroa\nto the diputacion on the 29th.\nThe diputacion on November 3d, while administering to Hijar a severe reprimand for his \"jumble of erroneous ideas, unfounded imputations, and gratuitous\n10 Figueroa, Manifiesto, 92.\n 278   FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\ncriminations,\" agreed to the changes proposed, and\nrequired of the director a written acquiescence; which\naction was communicated to him on the 4th by Figueroa.11 Hijar replied two Mays later with a protest\nand more arguments instead of the desired agreement;\nbut he announced his purpose, for the welfare of the\ncolonists and the good name of Mexico, to disregard\nfor the present his own wrongs of outraged honor,\nand remain with the colony wherever it might be\nsent, earning his living with a spade if necessary.\nAccordingly preparations were made for the settlement of the colonists on the northern frontier. Padre's was call upon to decide whether he would assume\nthe duties of ayudante inspector or of sub-director;\nand he replied by resigning the former position.12\nFigueroa addressed to the minister of relations on the\n9th two communications.in defence of the policy that\nhad been pursued with the directors. On the 20th,\nand again on December 8th, he wrote to the secretary\nof war, explaining his course with Padre's, who it seems\nafter resigning his military position once had tried\nunsuccessfully to obtain command of the northern\nfrontier. He declared that Padres was already plotting mischief, and that the territory would never be safe\nuntil that officer should be removed. He also offered\nhis own resignation of the comandancia general.13\nI have already noticed the arriv.al of- the colony in\ntwo divisions at San Diego and Monterey in September 1834, the stay of the southern division for a month\n11 Figueroa, Manifiesto, 93-106; Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 205-7. The changes\nwere as follows: (1) In art. 2, the words 'laws and regulations on the subject' were to be substituted for 'regulations which may be adopted by the\ndip.' (2) Hijar was to have his original instructions returned. (3) If\nHijar would agree in writing to the resolutions as amended, he was to receive\nhis full salary of $4,000. (4) The gefe politico was authorized to settle any\nfurther questions of detail without reference to the dip. Nov. 4th, F. informs the min. of rel. that H. is to remain as director, subject to the civil\ngovernment, and to receive $4,000; but after the colonists are once located\nunder municipal govt, it is thought no director will be needed, and the salary\nmay be saved. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 213. H..'s reply of Nov. 6th\nis also in Id., ii. 213-17.\n12Nov. 8th, 9th, St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 270, 279, 287-8.\n13St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 283-92; Figueroa, Manifiesto, 48-55.\n ON THE NORTHERN FRONTIER. 279\nor more at San Luis Rey and San Gabriel, and their\ngradual progress northward. Immediately after the\nagreement with Hijar, particularly on November 12th,\norders were issued for a pro rata furnishing by the\nmissions of necessary supplies. There are also some\nfragmentary items of record respecting transportation\nin November and December;14 but all that can be\ndefinitely learned is that during the winter a majority\nof the whole company, the rest being scattered throughout the territory, were gradually brought together at\nSan Francisco Solano, which mission was already in\ncharge of Mariano G. Vallejo as comisionado for secularization. Padres was with them, and Hijar made\nsome visits to Solano. The intention was to found a\nsettlement on the northern frontier, perhaps at Santa\nRosa, though it does not clearly appear that any of\nthe colony actually went there, or indeed that any\nhad lands assigned them at San Francisco Solano.\nEarly in March 1835 a new correspondence took\nplace between Hijar and Figueroa. Supplies had\ncome in slowly, barely in quantities sufficient to keep\nthe colonists alive. Hijar now desired to make a beginning of the new town, and called on the governor\nto state definitely whether he could furnish the required aid. Figueroa admitted that he could not furnish all that was required by the instructions, though\nhe would do, as he had done, all that was in his power.\n14 Nov,\/-5, 1834, Ramirez notifies receptor at S. Francisco that the brig\nTrammare will bring the colonists' luggage north and may land it on Angel\nIsland. Pinto, Doc, MS., i. 125-6. Nov. 8th-9th, Hijar's estimates of livestock, tools, supplies, etc., for the colony, amounting to $45,000 for a year.\nSt. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 274-8, 280. Nov. 12th, miscellaneous\norders to missions with some details of supplies to be furnished. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 188; St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS,, ii. 279-82; Valljo, Doc, MS.,\n325-8. Dec. 19th, the gov. says to the comisionado of S. F. that if the colo-\nmists have not yet gone to the other side, they are to be detained until the rains\nare over* St. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 61. Coronel speaks of the journey in oxcarts or on horseback, of crossing the strait of Carquines in boats managed\nby S. Jose neophytes, and' of being lodged in such of the mission buildings\nas were not occupied by Vallejo and his troops. Cosas de Cal, MS., 12.\nMost Californian writers give no information beyond the bare fact that most\nof tho colonists went to Sonoma. Some state that there was now considerable ill feeling between them and the native inhabitants, arising largely from\nthe troubles of the leaders.\n 280    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nHe advised, however, that on account of scanty means\nand the general unfitness of the men for frontier settlers, the idea of a new town be abandoned, and the\ncolonists be allowed to select, each for himself, their\nown residence and employment. Hijar protested\nagainst this plan, as opposed to the views of the Mexican government; but Figueroa insisted, and issued\nthe corresponding orders. The colony was thus disorganized, but there are records of aid furnished to\nfamilies at different points throughout 1835. There is\nno more to be said of the colonists as a body. Most\nof them remained in the country to constitute a very\nrespectable element of the population.15\nIn a defence of his own course, written later, Figueroa, presenting the documents in the case chronologically, interspersed among them his own comments.\nFrom his remarks it would appear that almost from\nthe day of arrival, in September 1834, to the outbreak in March 1835, soon to be noticed, certain\nmembers of the colony under the leadership of Padres\nwere engaged in plots to secure the territorial government by force, Hijar being meanwhile an indifferent\nspectator, if not an active participant in these intrigues.16 I suspect that Figueroa's fears at the time\nwere to a considerable extent unfounded, and that his\nsubsequent presentment of them was much exaggerated in detail to suit his own purposes.    The colonists\n5 Correspondence of Hijar and Figueroa, March 1-4, 1835, in Figueroa,\nnifiesto, 117-28; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 8-9. Orders and correspondence\nof March 5th to April, on transfer of the families from Solano to the homes\nthey might select, and on supplies furnished. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 14-16;\nxxiii. 5; St. Pap., Miss., MS., vii. 72-4; Dept. St. Pap, Ben., MS., v. 377-9.\nAccount by Padres April 12th of amounts paid to colonists, aggregating\n$2,604. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v. 371-2; Id., Cust.-H, MS., vii. 662-4.\nFragmentary records of supplies furnished to families, June to August. Dept.\nSt. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxx. 11; lxxxi. 46; Id,, Ben., v. 372-5; Id., Ben.\nCom. and Treas., iv. 9; St. Pap., Miss., MS., vi. 15; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxiii.\n12.\n16Figueroa, Manifiesto, passim. In Oct., before the action of the dip.,\nthey are said to have worked hard to alarm the public with charges of centralism and oppression, p. 22-3. After that action of Oct. 21st, some in their\nanger talked loudly and recklessly of their original plans, p. 33-5.    About\n REVOLT AT LOS ANGELES. 281\nwere of course bitterly disappointed at the failure of\nthe directors to keep their promises, and many of them\nwere disposed to throw the blame on Figueroa and\nthe Californians. It is the nature of disappointed\nMexicans to conspire; there were some reckless fellows like Araujo who were perfectly willing to make\ntrouble; and it is not likely that Padres, or even Hijar perhaps, would have regretted or opposed any\nrevolutionary movement offering chances of success.\nBut such chances, against a popular ruler, the leading\nCalifornians, and the friars, were known to be but\nslight. Therefore I doubt that Hijar and Padres\nmade any definite plans to overthrow the territorial\ngovernment, and especially that Figueroa, as he claims,\nwas acquainted from the first with the details of such\nplots.\nThere was, however, an attempted revolt at Los\nAngeles March 7, 1835. The night before, about\nfifty Sonorans, who had lately come to California, and\nthe time of settlement with Hijar, or in Nov., Araujo instigated two attacks\nof the Cahuilla Indians on the S. Bernardino rancho. Verduzco at the same\ntime tried to induce the neophytes of S. Luis Rey to revolt against the escolta;\nbut his plot was discovered and frustrated. Lara on his way north tried to\n\u2022enlist the neophytes of different missions in support of his plots, as was proven\nby his diary, which fell into Figueroa's hands, p. 106-7. Padres concealed\nthe 200 rifles and ammunition he had brought, advised the colonists to have\nnothing to do with Figueroa, and daily harangued them at Sonoma on their\nwrongs at the gefe's hands, p. 108-114 (also F.'s reports to Mex. on Padrds\nalready cited). In February two persons from S. Antonio reported a plot;\nand several members of the colony revealed the revolutionary plans. Hijar\nmeanwhile was intimate with the conspirators, and must have Imown their\nschemes, p. 110-11. The desire in March to unite the colony was for the\npurpose of revolution; and to defeat this movement was F. 's chief reason for\nallowing it to be scattered, p. 116-17. When the news came of trouble in the\nsouth, F. was investigating the matter at Sta Clara and S. Juan. p. 128-9.\nOct. 15, 1834, Capt. Portilla from S. Luis Rey. Has discovered that Verduzco\nsought to surprise the guard and seize the arms. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii.\n174--5. Oct. 21st-22d, F. to Gutierrez and to 8 comisionados to investigate the\ndisturbances, arrest the leaders, and assure the Ind. that the charges of the\nrevolutionists were false. Id., iii. 175-6. Araujo, on Sept. 18th, says, 'I have\nalready predisposed the neophytes in our favor,' this being perhaps the purport of the 'diary' referred to by F. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 154. Oct. 22d,\nF. warns alcalde of Angeles to look out for revolutionary movements. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iii. 177; Id., Aug., xi. 28. Oct.2Sth, Carrillo at Sta Barbara has taken steps to prevent Araujo from seducing the neophytes. St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS., ix. 29. Jan. 27, 1835, president has heard of Araujo's plots and\norders him to be sent out of the country. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xi. 1.\n 282    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nwho were living in the town or the adjoining ranchos,\nassembled at Los Nietos, and at daybreak entered Los\nAngeles armed with lances and muskets, under the\nleadership of Juan Gallardo, a cobbler, and Felipe\nCastillo, a cigar-maker. They seem to have seized\ncertain weapons at the houses of foreign residents as\nthey came in. Marching to the town hall, and using\nforce to obtain the keys, they took a cannon and a\nquantity of ammunition stored there temporarily, or\nin a private house near by, in anticipation of an Indian\ncampaign. Without committing further acts of violence, the Sonorans stationed themselves near the\nentrance of the hall, while the leaders took steps to\nsummon the alcalde. That official, Francisco J. Alvarado, at once convened the members of the ayuntamiento by tap of the drum, and the citizens generally\nleft their beds to attend the meeting. Gallardo then\nsubmitted, with a respectful letter for the approval of\nthe illustrious corporation, a plan which explained the\npresence of himself and followers, and by which it was\nproposed to restore California to the splendid prosperity of former times by simply removing Figueroa\nfrom the command.17\n17 Pronunciamiento de Apaldtegui en Los Angeles, contra Don Jos6 Figueroa,\n7 de Marzo de 1835, in Figueroa, Manifiesto, 131-3; Los Angeles, Arch., MS.,\niv. 155-9; Bandini, Doc Hist. Cal, MS., 39. 'A multitude of citizens having assembled to devise means to save California from the evils which she\nhas suffered and is suffering under the administration of Gen. D. Jose Figueroa,\nand considering\u20141. That this chief has not complied with divers orders given\nhim by the sup. govt of the Union to improve the condition of the inhabitants of this country; that, abusing their docility, he has exceeded the powers\ngranted him by the laws, by unduly assuming the political and military commands against the federal system and against express laws which forbid this\nunion of the commands; that with the law of secularization he has made a\nscandalous monopoly, reducing the mission products to an exclusive commerce,,\nand treacherously inducing the dip. to regulate a general law according to his\nwhim; that, in infringement of the treasury regulations, he disposes of the\nsoldiers' pay at his own will without the knowledge of the chief of revenue,\nand without the formalities prescribed by law; 2. That the dip. has no\npower to regulate or make additions to a general law, as it has done in the\ncase of that on the secularization; 3. That as the missions are advancing\nwith giant strides to total ruin, through the measures dictated for the shutting-out of the natives and the distribution of their property; and, 4. That\nsome commissioners, either by gross ignorance in the management of this class\nof business or by their own malicious conduct, have proposed to advance\ntheir private wealth by ruining that of the missions, with notable injury to\nthe natives who have acquired that property by their personal toil\u2014have re-\n APALAtEGUTS REVOLT. 283\nThe ayuntamiento in session with tho citizens discussed the propositions of the plan, referred them to\na committee, and finally decided by a plurality of votes\nthat it had no authority to act in such a matter, and\nthat Gallardo must apply elsewhere for support\u2014in\nfact, according to one record the ayuntamiento went\nso far as to disapprove the plan, though having no army\nwith which to enforce its disapproval. A committee\nconsisting of Guirado, Osio, and Ossa was sent to communicate the decision and to request the pronunciados\nto remove their force across the river. This they declined to do, but promised to preserve the peace, and\nheld their position until about four o'clock in the afternoon. Pio Pico and Antonio M. Osio, both of whom\nwere in town on this eventful day, assert that the\nrebels wera waiting for money that had been promised\nbut was not forthcoming.18 However this may have\nbeen, at about the hour mentioned Gallardo and Castillo respectfully informed the ayuntamiento that as\nsolved as follows: Art. 1. Gen. Jose1 Figueroa is declared unworthy of public\nconfidence; and therefore the first alcalde of the capital will take charge\nprovisionally of the political power; and Capt. Pablo de la Portilla of the\nmilitary command as the ranking officer in accordance with army regulations.\nArt. 2. The resolutions of the dip. on regulations for the administration of\nmissions are declared null and void. Art. 3. The very rev. missionary\nfathers will take exclusive charge of the temporalities of their respective\nmissions as they have done until now, and the comisionados will deliver the\ndocuments relating to their administration to the friars, who will make the\nproper observations. Art. 4. By the preceding article the powers of the director\nof colonization to act according to his instructions from the sup. govt are not\ninterfered with. Art. 5. This plan is in every respect subject to the approval\nof the gen* govt. Art. 6. The forces that have pronounced will not lay down\ntheir arms until they see the preceding articles realized, and they constitute\nthemselves protectors of an upright administration of justice and of the respective authorities.' It nowhere appears who were the signers of the plan,\nif any, in addition to Gallardo and Castillo. All the copies close with the\nnote ' here the signatures.' Figueroa devotes p. 134-46 of his Manifiesto to ,a\nseries of arguments in reply to the successive articles of th^e plan, exhibiting\nvery much more of skill and satire and anger than the subject deserved.\nlsOsio, Hist. Cal., MS., 236-8; Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 50-5. Robinson,\nLife in Cal, 164-7, gives a full narrative with a translation of the pronunciamiento. Other accounts in Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 1-5; Fernandez,\nCosas de Cal, MS., 80-2; Vallejo, Remin., MS., 55-6; Botello, Anales, MS.,\n15-16; Avila, Notas, MS., 10-11; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 66; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 30; TuthilVs Hist. Cal, 138-9. Nearly all represent this as a\nrevolt in the interests of the colony or its directors. In Los Angeles, Hist., 14,\nit is spoken of as a revolt of Torres and Apalatey to place Ijar at the head of\naffairs.\n \"\n284    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nthe plan had not been approved by that body, after the\nexercise of what was doubtless better judgment than\nthey themselves had brought to bear on it, they had\ndecided to give up the instigators of the movement,\nand to throw themselves, if any wrong had been unwittingly done, on the indulgence of the legal authorities. Accordingly they gave up two men, and disbanded their force.\nThe two men given up, locked in jail, and sent next\nday to Lieutenant-colonel Gutierrez at San Gabriel for\nsafe keeping, were Antonio Apalategui, a Spanish es-\ncribiente, or clerk, and Francisco Torres, a Mexican\ndoctor, or apothecary, who had come with the colony,\nand who lately had left Monterey with despatches from\nHijar to the authorities in Mexico. All the Sonorans\nagreed that these men had instigated .the revolt,\nApalategui being the active agent. The ayuntamiento\non the evening of the 7th issued an address to the people, in which the events of the day were narrated, and\na similar report-respecting the doings of 'una reunion\nacefala de Sonorenses' was forwarded the same night to\nFigueroa. Unconditional pardon was granted to the\nSonorans, and some twenty of the number started immediately for Sonora, where many of them were arrested\nand submitted to a close examination respecting their\ndeeds in California. The taking of evidence and other\nroutine formalities of the case against Apal&tegui and\nTorres occupied two months, and in May they were sent\noff to Mexico as disturbers of the public peace and conspirators against the legitimate authority.\nThe testimony and correspondence respecting the\nApalategui revolt as preserved in the archives form a\nvery voluminous record, of which I offer a partial resume in the accompanying note.19    From the whole\n19 March 3d, Lieut-col. Gutierrez to Figueroa, that he suspected Torres and\nis watching him. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 7-8. March 7th, record of events\nat Angeles\u2014including ayunt. session; two letters of Gallardo to the ayunt.;\nGutierrez to the ayunt. and to F.; and ayunt. to F. and to the people, in\nLos Angeles Arch., MS., i. 36-8, 41-3; iv. 152-64; Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS.,\nii. 17-25; v. 185-96; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., i. 174-5; Figueroa, Manifiesto, 130-1,  146-7.    March 8th,  10th,' 11th,  14th, corresp. on subsequent\n CAUSES OF THE RISING. 285\nit appears that the Sonorans had no special grievance\nto redress, but were easily induced to join what they\nwere led to regard as a general and popular movement, which they abandoned as soon as they learned\nits unpopularity; that the immediate motives of the\nleaders Gallardo and Castillo are  not known; that\nalarms and rumors. One or two arrests were made, and the Sonorans feared\npunishment and sent a committee, including Wm A. Richardson, to plead for\nthem with Gutierrez. On March 19th, F. sent a full pardon and permission to\nreturn to Sonora. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., ii. 25-7; v. 191-6; Dept. St.\nPap., MS., iv. 23. March 11th to May 6th. Apaldtegui and Torres, Causa\nseguida contra ellos por Conspiradores, 1835, MS., 100 p. Testimony and legal\nproceedings, with some additional papers, in Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 21-3;\nDept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 12-13. Fragmentary testimony of Hidalgo\nand others at Monterey in Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., liii. 77-86. Gallardo and Castillo testified that A. and T.'had seduced the Sonorans, assuring them that the happiness of Cal. depended on the movement, and that all\nthe settlers and the ayunt. were in favor of it, and had given the pronunci-\nados $2 each. T. they said had furnished $60 to buy lead, etc. A. deposed\nthat T. and Gallardo had led -him into the affair; but admitted that he himself had written the plan and lent $200 for distribution. He said that Gallardo was the leader, and had secured the re-payment of the $200 by pledging\nhis horses. He thought that many citizens of Los Angeles and some foreigners of Sta Barbara knew of the plot in advance. T. swore that he had made\nmany objections to the plan shown him by A. and Gallardo after they had\n'pronounced;' that he had loaned a little money without knowing for what it\nwastobeused; and that he had never favored nor instigated the movement.\nMiguel Hidalgo testified at Monterey that T. at Los Angeles had tried to induce him and others to join a plot, though speaking very guardedly. All efforts to prove by this witness an understanding with Hijar or others failed\ncompletely. Several foreigners, including Dr Wm Reid, Hugo Reid, and\nSantiago Johnson, testified that they knew nothing of the revolt except by\nrumors; but they said some arms had been taken from them or other foreigners.\nThere was some evidence respecting the manufacture of lances and the payment of various sums of money, implicating none but Gallardo. A. 's defender\nwas Julian Padilla, Osio declining; and T. was defended by Regina de la\nMora. The fiscal was Manuel Requena. There is nothing in the legal routine that requires notice. The defence was confined mainly to protests, complaints of irregularities in the proceedings, and declarations of the ease with\nwhich the innocence of the accused was to be shown before the sup. court in\nMexico. On June 13th, the asesor, Cosme Pefia, reviewed the case; and June\n30th the alcalde rectified certain errors. April 10 to May 6, 1835, Apalategui and Torres, Averiguacion en Sonora del Tumulto Iw.ho en Los Angeles por\nvarios Sonorenses d Instigacion de los dichos Gefes, MS., 50 p. About a dozen men\nwere examined in this Sonora investigation, and the general purport of their\ntestimony was that the Sonorans had joined what they were led by Apalategui to regard as a general movement of Los Angeles, the prominent citizens\nof the south, and the foreign residents, made with a view to restore the missions to the padres, and that they had abandoned the scheme as soon as its\ntrue nature was known. The record is a fragment, and the result not known.\nMarch 13th, Figueroa at S. Juan Bautista to ayunt. of Angeles on the events\nof March 7th. Original in Coronet, Doc. Hist. Cal, MS., 23-34; Figueroa,\nManifiesto, 147-51. Same to alcalde of Monterey. Original in Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xxxi. 175. Same to alcalde of S. Diego. Hayes, Miss. Book, i. 228.\nSame to Gutierrez in Dept. St. Pap.,M.S., iv. 9-10. Replies of Arguello and\nPortilla.    March 21st, all right at S. Diego and S. Luis Rey.    Id., iv. 13-14,\n 286    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nAntonio ApaKtegui, who may have had a personal\ngrievance against Figueroa, was the active instigator,\nthough hardly more prominent than Gallardo; that\nTorres probably encouraged the plot, though acting\nwith much caution and secrecy; and finally that there\nis no evidence to connect either the colony or its directors with the movement in any way. There is\nroom, however, for a plausible conjecture that Torres,\nin behalf of himself and his associates, was disposed\nto test by experiment the strength of Figueroa's\npopularity in the south.\nFigueroa was at San Juan Bautista on March 13th\nwhen he heard of the affair at Los Angeles. His\ntheory was that that revolt was part of a deliberate plan\non the part of Padres and Hijar to overthrow him and\nseize the mission property. That same day, in addition to the despatches which he sent south, as already\nnoticed, he sent to Hijar an order suspending him\nand Padres from their positions as directors, directing\nthem to give up all arms and munitions to Vallejo,\nand to start at once for Mexico to answer before the\nsupreme government for their conduct in California.20\nAt the same time he ordered Vallejo at Solano to\nreceive the surrender of Hijar and Padres, to seize\nall the arms and ammunition in possession of the colonists, to arrest Francisco Verduzco and Romualdo\nLara, and to embark all on board the Rosa, a Sardinian bark then in the port of San Francisco, to the\ncaptain of which vessel the corresponding instructions, or request rather, were forwarded at the same\nMarch 19th, ayunt. of Angeles receives written thanks from F. Los Angeles,\nArch., MS., iv. 165. March 30th, thanks expressed by F. verbally. Id., iv.\n166. In April Mariano Bonilla, a teacher of the colony, was removed from his\nschool at Monterey and ordered to be sent away for complicity in this affair;\nbut he did not leave Cal. St. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 28. May 7th, A. and T.\ntaken to S. Pedro. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 13. The date of sailing\non the Loriot is not known.\ni0i-igueroa, Manifiesto, 157-8; Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., ii. 27-9. F.\nclaims to have been fully aware of the plots that were being formed, and of\nthe purposes with which Torres had been sent to Los Angeles, but had calmly awaited the outbreak before taking any definite action. It is true that on\nMar. 4th he had warned Vallejo to look out for any attempt at revolt,\nVallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 13.\n ARREST OF THE COLONISTS. 287\ndate.21 Vallejo received the order on the 14th,\n\"watched the colonists until their preparations called\nfor prompt action, and then suddenly fell upon them\non the 16th at 4 p. m., arresting Verduzco, Lara, and\nothers,\" who the next day were taken on board the\nRosa at San Francisco.22 On the 15th; several sessions of the Monterey ayuntamiento were held to\napprove all the governor had done and proposed to\ndo; though the latter seems not to have made known\nhis orders to Vallejo, and the ayuntamiento declined\nto name the persons who ought to be sent away.\nNext day Figueroa issued a printed address to the\npeople, announcing that \"the genius of evil has\nappeared among you, scattering the deadly poison of\ndiscord,\" declaiming in the most bitter terms against\nHijar and Padres, congratulating all that he has been\nable to save his beloved country, and promising a\nmore complete vindication of his policy later.23 On the\n17th, Hijar, still at Solano, replied to Figueroa's order\nof the 13th with a protest against the insult offered\nhim, a declaration of his belief that the revolt was\npurely imaginary, a denial of the governor's right\nto suspend him, an expression of his determination\nto drag his prosecutor before competent tribunals,\na complaint of unnecessary outrage at the hands\nof Vallejo, but at the same time an announcement of\nhis disposition to yield to force and obey the order to\n21 March 13, 1835, F. to Vallejo in Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 11-12; Id.,\nBen., ii. 29-31. Private note of same tenor and date, in Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\niii. 18. Ignacio Coronel, Rafael Padre's, and other suspected persons were\nalso to be sent on board the Rosa. Request to capt. of the Rosa, who was\ndesired to tcke the prisoners to S. Bias if possible\u2014the same being also communicated to the captain of the port at Monterev, in Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nMil, MS., lxxxvii. 69.    F. to Alf. Valle.   Valle, Doc, MS., 40.\n22 Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 25. 37 rifles were seized besides other munitions. Id., xxiii. 4. Mar. 19th, Verduzco to Padre's from the Rosa, Id., iii.\n21. March 20th, Vallejo certifies that before the rifles were taken 2 parties of\nthe colonists had departed to other parts of the territory. Also that no\nresistance was made. Id., iii. 22. Vallejo went back on the 18th to Solano\nafter putting his prisoners on the bark.\n23 Monterei), Actos del Ayunt., MS., 73-80. Figueroa, el Comandante Gen.\ny Gefe Politico de la Alta Cal d los Habitantes del territorio. Monterrey, 1835,\n1 sheet, in Earliest Printing in Cal; Castro, Doc, MS., i. 22; Figueroa, Manifiesto, 151-4.\n 288    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\ndepart.24 Neither Hijar nor Padre's was arrested\nat Solano, but at San Francisco on March 26th they\nwent on board the Rosa in obedience to Figueroa's\norders as exhibited by Vallejo, and the vessel sailed\nfor Monterey.25\nThe Rosa, after lying at anchor in the port of Monterey for a week or more, carried the prisoners down\nto Santa Barbara, wrhere\u2014numbering with their families twenty-four persons\u2014they arrived on April 16th,\nand three days later were transferred to the American\nbrig Loriot, with the supercargo of which vessel Figueroa had made a contract for transporting them with\nTorres and ApaMtegui to San Bias.26 On May 8th-\n9th the Loriot was at San Pedro, but the exact date\nof sailing for San Bias does not appear in the record.\nBefore his departure, Padres addressed to Figueroa\na formal and indignant protest against the summary\nand illegal treatment which he had received, accusing\nthe governor of having been influenced from the first\nby hostility to the colony.27    With the exiles were\n24Figueroa, Manifiesto, 158-62; Guerra, Doc Hist. Cal, MS., v. 106-9.\n25 March 26th-27th, Vallejo to Figueroa, Id. to Etijar, H. to V. in Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., iii. 24, 26; vi. 349. Coronel had not been arrested. H. and P.\nhad started for Monterey by land when ordered to return and embark on the\nRosa. March 30th, some fears of trouble at Monterey reported to F. in the\nsouth, who orders watchfulness, and arrests if disorder occurs but not otherwise. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 15-16. March 31st, F. at Angeles to Vallejo,\nordering him to form a representation on the acts of H., P., and the rest, their\nrevolutionary projects, seduction of Indians, etc. Id., iv. 17. April 4th, F. to\nV. Has heard of the sailing of the prisoners; V. must keep the effects seized\nfor the present, and try to discover where the rest of the rifles were that had\nbeen brought by Padres. Id., iv. 19-20. Passage money, etc., to capt. of the\nRosa. Id., iv. 17-19; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi. 6.\n26 Figueroa had tried to engage the Mexican brig Catalina, Capt. Frederico\nBecher, for the -service. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 20-1. Contract with A. B.\nThompson of the Loriot, dated Apr. 11th, to sail aiter Apr. 30th; to carry to\nS. Bias and maintain on the voyage Hijar and Padr6s with their families,\nTorres, Apalategui, Verduzco, Lara, Bonilla, Araujo, and some others, with\nfamilies and luggage; and to receive on return of the vessel $4,000. Id., iv.\n24-6. Duties due from Thompson and Robinson were to be deducted from\nthe amount. Apr. 17th, Padres to F.; is ready to continue his voyage as ordered. Apr. 30th, F. instructs captain not to touch at any other port than\nS. Bias. Id., iv. 27-9. Same date, H. to Guerra, asserting his innocence,\nthough it cannot be proven ' in this unhappy country, where the laws are\ntrampled on.' Guerra, Doc, MS., v. 109-10. 24persons landed on Apr. 19th.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi. 6-7.\n27 May 8th, Padre's, Protesta queDirigeD. Jos6 Maria Padre's alGefe Politico,\n1835, MS. May 9th, Gutierrez is at S. Pedro guarding the prisoners and\nforming a sumario. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 38.\n END OF THE COLONIZATION SCHEME. 289\nsent reports of the gefe politico explaining his action\nin the matter, together with the indictments more or\nless legally substantiated in each case. The documentary process against Apalategui and Torres was\nquite elaborate and has been sufficiently noticed; that\nagainst the parties arrested in the north is not extant,\nif it ever existed in any more definite form than the\nsomewhat vague accusations of Figueroa and Vallejo.28\nOn the sailing of the Loriot from San Pedro, in\nMay 1835, the famous colonization scheme of Hijar\nand Padres, with its attendant controversies, may be\nregarded as having come to an end, though over two\nhundred of the colonists remained to swell the population of California. Figueroa devoted the remaining\nfew months of his life to the preparation of an elabo-\n28 Mar. 31st, F. to sec. of the interior, reporting the plots of H. and P. and\nhis own policy, without mention of the arrests in the north\u2014also some accompanying correspondence. \"Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 182-3, 185, 198. May 5th,\nF. to sec. of state. Reports his later proceedings. H. and P. go to Mex. to\nanswer to the sup. govt, whose employees they are; Torres and Apalategui go\nas prisoners at the disposal of the sup. court; Verduzco, Lara, and Rafael\nPadres are also implicated in the revolt, and are to await the result of their\ntrial (that is, probably the sumario in a complete form was not sent with\nthem); and Lieut Araujo goes because he is of no use in Cal., is sick, and has\nasked to be removed, besides being being an adherent of Hijar. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., iv. 29-31. April 15th, Vallejo at Solano sends to F. the proceedings or investigations against the colonists. The documents are not\ngiven; but in his letter V. states that the coming of Hijar, Verduzco, and\nLara caused great excitement; that they openly talked of surprising the garrison; that he overheard them plan to capture him, first occupying the church;\nthat he was on the watch for 9 days until the order came from F.; that he\nseized and disarmed them on the. 16th, as they were cleaning their weapons;\nand that the wife of Padres exclaimed on that occasion, 'I am glad they have\nbeen headed off for being so slow.' Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 28. May 21st,\nF. sends V. 27 pages of proceedings against Padres and associates, instructing him to continue them as fiscal. Other allusions to these papers. Id., iii.\n23, 50, 52. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 39-42, says that the colonists at\nSolano instead of going to work spent their time in plotting and gaining the\ngood will of the Indians, Lara and Verduzco spending in presents for the Indians the $2,000 that F. had paid for the support of the colony. They told\nhim he was lucky in making the arrest just when he did, for half an hour\nlater they would have seized him. They accused Pepe de la Rosa of having betrayed their plots, but unjustly, since Rosa's interviews with Vallejo were as\na printer and not as a politician. Brown, Statement, MS., 9-10, who was at\nSolano at the time of the arrests, thinks Rosa did give the information. Alf.\nIgnacio del Valle took a prominent part in protecting the country from imaginary plots, as is shown by the records and by his own statement. Valle,\nLo Pasado de Cal, MSi, 13-14. Coronel, Cosas de Cal, MS., 12-14, is sure\nthere were no thoughts of revolt at Sonoma. Janssens, Vida y Aven., MS.,\n51-7, also regards the charges as having been invented by F. and V. to get\nrid of H. and P.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   19\n 290    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nrate defence of his own policy, which was a very complete history of the whole affair, and has been fully\nutilized with other documents in the preceding pages.\nIt was besides one of the earliest specimens of California printing\u2014in fact, the second book printed in the\nterritory.29 As a defence, the production is somewhat too elaborate and earnest. The governor's action at the beginning in refusing to give up the command and the mission property, as later in banishing\nApalategui and Torres, were so manifestly just and\nproper as to require no justification. His acts in other\nphases of the controversy, not perhaps without a certain foundation of justice and policy, would show to\nbetter advantage without the declamatory arguments\nin their support with which the volume is largely\nfilled. The author's very earnestness and violence at\ntimes betray the weakness of his cause. The charge\nof bribery against Hijar should have been made sooner\nor not at all. I have elsewhere expressed my belief\nthat the revolutionary plots of Hijar and Padre's were\nlargely imaginary.\nOf the men exiled from California at this time, Hijar will re-appear in the history of a later period; but\nof the rest I know nothing. I have found no record\nbearing upon their reception and treatment in Mexico,\nnor any evidence that the directors ever published a\nreply to Figueroa's manifiesto, or took any other steps\nto vindicate their conduct in California. For them\nthe colony and the Compania Cosmopolitana were disastrous failures. Of Padres I would gladly append a\nbiographical sketch, as I have done of other promi-\n29Figueroa, Manifiesto a la Republica Mejicana que hace el General de Bri-\ngada Jos6 Figueroa, Comandante General y Gefe Politico de la Alta California,\nsobre su conductay lade los Senores D. Jos6 Maria de Hijar, y D. Jos4 Maria\nPadre's, como Directores de Colonizacion en 1834 y 1835. Monterrey, 1835.\nLmprenta del C Agustin V. Zamorano, 12mo. 184 p. This book was being\nprinted when the author died, and contains some obituary matter to be noticed later. An English translation was printed in S. Francisco in 1855. Figueroa, The Manifesto which the. General of Brigade, etc., S. F. 1855, 8vo, 104 p.,\nthe title on the cover being Missions of California. As has been seen, the originals of most documents published in the Manifiesto are extant, either in my\ncollection or in some of the archives.\n SESSIONS OF THE DIPUTACION. 291\nnent men; but beyond his first coming in 1830 as ayudante inspector, his influence with Echeandia and the\nCalifornians in behalf of radical republicanism and secularization, his exile by Victoria in 1831, his connection with the colony as just related, and something of\nhis character which the reader has learned in these\nchapters, I have no information to offer.\nAt the election of October 1834, four or five men\nwere chosen to replace the outgoing vocales of the\ndiputacion;30 but that corporation did not assemble,\nchiefly because three of the members were ill, until\nAugust 25, 1835, the sessions continuing, according\nto the records, until October 12th. I append a brief\nresume of the business transacted.31 President Figueroa's opening address was short, being a congratulation\non the escape of the country from dangers that had\n30 The election record, Adas de Elecciones, MS., 19-21, does not show who\nwere elected. The hold-over members were J. A. Carrillo, Estudillo, and\nCastro; and the new diputacion seems to have been composed as follows: 1st\nvocal, Jos6 Antonio Carrillo, absent as congressman; 2d, Jose Maria Estudillo,\nexcused on account of sickness. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., ii. 17; 3d, Jose\nCastro; 4th, Juan B. Alvarado (though it is not clear whether he was 4th or\n5th or 6th, and in one record, Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 42-3, Figueroa summons\nhim as a suplente); 5th, Manuel Jimeno Casarin; 6th, Antonio Buelna; 7th,\nabsent and unknown (perhaps J. A. de la Guerra); suplente, present, Salvio\nPacheco; secretary, Jose Maria Maldonado. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 212-15.\n31 Aug. 25, 1835, examination of credentials; appointment of committees;\nand address by the pres. Buelna granted leave of absence on account of illness, (p. 212-16.) Aug. 27th, Sec. Maldonado offered his resignation, and\nasked to be paid $120 due him. Aug. 29th, land grants submitted for approval. Sept. 1st, ditto; Maldonado submitted an index of documents in the\narchives, and retired, his place being taken by Alvarado. Sept. 3d, land\ngrants; and wild cattle, (p. 217-18.) Sept. 5th, commun. from Los Angeles\non cutting timber; from the alcalde of Monterey on boundaries of the capital.\nSept. 10th, petition of inhabitants of S. Francisco to be attached to the\njurisdiction of S. Jos6 for convenience of all concerned. Sept. 12th, 15th,\n21st, land grants, (p. 219-21.) Sept. 26th, commun. from J. M. J. Gonzalez\non appointment as police commissioner at Sta Ines. Oct. 10th, teacher at Sta\nClara resigns; and Ignacio Coronel Wants an appointment as teacher at S.\nBuenaventura. Oct. 12th, land grants. Prop, to place the portrait of the late\nGen. Figueroa in the hall of sessions, (p. 221-2.) Oct. 14th, land grants. Oct.\n15th, claim of Estudillo to be gefe politico ad interim, backed by the ayunt.\nof S. Diego, referred to com., but no action. Acting gefe pol. Castro authorized to collect his salary. Munic. fund of Monterey. Land grants. Oct.\n16th, Salvio Pacheco granted leave of absence for sickness. No formal adjournment. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 212-26. On p. 262-9 are found also many\ncbmniunications of no available importance connected with the acts of the\ndip.\n 292    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nlately threatened; and the routine of business at\nsuccessive sessions was for the most part unimportant,\nthough I shall have occasion to notice elsewhere a\nfew of the topics treated. The president was occupied with other matters, and the chief aim of the\nlegislators was apparently to devise acceptable excuses\nfor obtaining leave of absence. It is remarkable that\nFigueroa did not bring. before the diputacion his\npolicy and acts toward Hijar and Padre's with a view\nto strengthen his record with the approval of that\nbody; but for some reason this was not deemed necessary.\nAt the election of October 1834, Jose' Antonio\nCarrillo had been chosen diputado to congress, with\nMariano G. Vallejo as substitute.32 Carrillo seems to\nhave been at his post early in 1835, and his influence\nis apparent in an order of President Barragan dated\nMay 23d, publishing the following decree of congress:\n\"The pueblo of Los Angeles in Alta California is\nerected into a city, and it will be in future the capital\nof that territory.\" So well pleased was Don Jose*\nAntonio with this achievement in behalf of his town,\nthat he secured an impression from the type on white\nsatin, which, tastefully bordered in blue, perhaps by\nSenora Carrillo, is in my collection.33 The order was\nnot officially published in California until December;\nbut the news came that such a change was contemplated, and the effect at Monterey may be imagined.\n32 See chap. ix. of this volume.\n33Pico, Doc, MS., i. 1. The satin copy is mentioned by several Californians. Decree also given in Dept. St. Pap., S. Jos6, MS., ii. 135; Id., Mont.,\niii. 47; Arrillaga, Rccop., 1835, 189-90, where it is said to have been published\non June 10th; Dublan and Lozano, Leg. Mex., iii. 51. Decrees of congress\ndated March 21 and October 26, 1835, that diputados from Cal. are to\nhave voice and vote in forming laws and decrees. Id., iii. 91; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMont., MS., iii. 56; Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xi. 1-2. June 13th, order\nconcerning payment of dietas and vidticos. Arrillaga, Recop., 1835, 223-6.\nOct. 15th, min. of war to gov., diputados ordered to proceed to Mex. without\nexcuse. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xvi. 14. Dana, Two Years before the Mast, 196,\nsays inaccurately that the form of sending representatives to congress was\ngone through; but there was little communication with the national capital,\nso a member usually stayed permanently, knowing there would be revolutions\nat home, and if another member should be sent, he had only to challenge him\nand thus decide the contested election.\n CHANGE OF CAPITAL. 293\nA meeting of the ayuntamiento was called October\n12th, before which body reasons most unanswerable\nand convincing\u2014to the people of Monterey\u2014were\nadduced why the proposed change of capital would be\na measure outrageously detrimental if not fatal to all\nthe best interests of the territory.34 A report of\nHartnell and j Pacheco as a committee was approved,\nsustaining objections to the change, and recommending a protest. This action was passed immediately\nto the diputacion, which body on the 14th confirmed\nit, resolved that the reports of the territorial congressmen were based on selfish interests, decided to remain\nwith the gefe politico \"at this capital\" until further\naction; and sent the whole expediente to Mexico by\nthe Catalina on the 15th.35\nFigueroa still bore in mind the importance to Mexican interests of founding a frontier settlement and\ngarrison north of San Francisco Bay. In fact, he had\ntemporarily suspended the enterprise only from fear\nof what he chose to regard as the revolutionary plans\n34 Of these reasons I note the following: Monterey has been the capital for\nmore than 70 years; both Californians and foreigners have learned to regard\nit as the capital; interests have been developed which should not be ignored;\nand a change would engender dangerous rivalries. The capital of a maritime\ncountry should be a port, and not an inland place. Monterey is a secure,\nwell known, and frequented port, well provided with wood, water, and provisions; where a navy-yard and dock may be constructed. Monterey has a\nlarger population than Los Angeles; the people are more moral and cultured (!); and the prospects for advancement are superior. Monterey has\ndecent buildings for govt uses, to build which at Los Angeles will cost $30,-\n000; and besides, some documents may be lost in moving the archives.\nMonterey has central position, mild climate, fertile soil, developed agriculture; here women, plants, and useful animals are very productive! Monterey\nis nearer the northern frontier, and therefore better fitted for defence. It\nwould be unjust to compel the majority to go so far on government business.\nIt would be impossible to assemble a quorum of the dip. at Los Angeles.\nThe sensible people, even of the south, acknowledge the advantages of Monterey. Monterey had done no wrong to be deprived of its honor, though\nunrepresented in congress; while the last three deputies have had personal\nand selfish interests in favor of the south.\n35 Monterey, Acuerdo del ^Ayuntamiento y de la Diputacion contra el pro-\npuesto Cambio de Capital en favor de Los Angeles, 1835, MS. In Monterey,\nActos de Ayunt., MS., 118-20, the matter was first brought up on the 10th\nand the report approved on the 13th. Carrillo's letter with the decree was\nreceived Dec. 31st. Id., 146. This action of the diputacion, as we have seen,\nis not given in the legislative records.\n 294    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nof Hijar and Padre's. As soon as these bStes noirs\nwere fairly out of the country, therefore, he instructed\nVallejo to establish at once garrison, town, and colony.\nHis letters accompanying the instructions to Vallejo\nwere dated June 24, 1835, and the site was to be in\nSonoma Valley, instead of that formerly chosen at\nSanta Rosa. The chief motive announced was a desire to check the possible advance of Russian settlement from Bodega and Ross. Vallejo was authorized\nto issue grants of lands, which would be confirmed,\nand the only precaution urged was that the Mexican\npopulation should always be in excess of the foreign;\nthat is, that the granting of lands should be made\nan obstacle rather than an aid to foreign encroachment. The young alferez was praised and flattered\nwithout stint, and urged to strive for \"that reward\nto which all men aspire, posthumous fame,\" even if he\nshould be called upon to make personally some advances of necessary supplies for the colony. The\ntruth is, that Figueroa wTas not quite easy respecting\nthe view that would be taken in Mexico of that part\nof his policy toward Hijar and Padres which had\ncaused the abandonment of the northern settlement;\nbut with such a settlement actually established he\nwould have no fears; hence his zeal.36 The instructions that accompanied these letters are not extant,\nnor have we any, official record respecting the founding\nof the town. We know only that at the ex-mission\nof San Francisco Solano, where he had spent much of\nthe time for nearly a year as comisionado of secularization, Vallejo established himself with a small force\nin the summer of 1835, and laid out a pueblo to which\nwas given the original name of the locality, Sonoma,\nValley of the Moon, a name that for ten years and\nmore had been familiar to the Californians.   Vallejo\n86 June 24, 1835, confidential letters of Figueroa to Vallejo\u2014or what\npurport to be and probably are copies of such letters\u2014furnished by Vallejo\nto Gen. Kearny in 1847, in St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 406-8; also\nprinted with English translation in Californian, Apr. 13, 1847; Calif Star,\nMarch 13, 1847; Jones' Report, no. 24.\n SONOMA\u2014DEATH OF FIGUEROA, 295\nsoon gained, by the aid of his military force, and especially by alliance with Solano, the Suisun chief, a\ncontrol over the more distant tribes which had never\nbeen equalled by the missionary and his escolta, a\nfunctionary who, however, still remained as curate.\nQuite a number of families, both Californians and\nmembers of the famous colony, settled at Sonoma.37\nJos6 Figueroa died at Monterey September 29th,\nat 5.30 p. m., from the effects of an apoplectic attack,\nafter about a month's illness. The funeral ceremonies,\nwith firing of guns and other military honors, took\nplace at the capital October 2d, being attended by all\nthe people of the vicinity, and by prominent men\nfrom all parts of the territory. The body was embalmed rudely and taken to Santa Barbara by the\nAvon, which sailed the 17th, to be deposited in a\nvault of the mission church on the 29 th. There the\nremains were to lie, according to Figueroa's request,\nuntil the Mexican government should send for them\nto render fitting honors to the memory of a warrior\nwho had distinguished himself in the struggle for\nindependence. Mexico never did anything of the\nkind, and the Californians were not much more zealous in perpetuating his memory. The diputacion, on\nmotion of Juan B. Alvarado, passed some very eulogistic resolutions in the sessions of October 10th-14th,\nproviding for the hanging of Figueroa's portrait in\n37Details given by Vallejo, Hist. Cal. MS., iii. 11-22, and less fully by\nAlvarado, Hist. Cal. MS., ii. 199-202, the same having been reproduced in\ndifferent combinations by several newspaper writers are so manifestly inaccurate in so far as they can be tested as to be of no value. The general idea\nconveyed is that of an expedition into a new frontier country, including battles, maritime adventures, and treaties with thousands of hitherto hostile Indians; the past 10 years of peaceful occupation and Vallejo's own past\nresidence at Sonoma being substantially ignored. The foundation of the town\nis also made to precede the expulsion of Hijar and Padres. Vallejo mentions the following names on his way to Sonoma: Pt Novato; Embarcadero\nof P. Ventura, orLakeville; Pt Tolai, on Midshipman's Creek; and Pulpula,\nor Pope's Landing. Vallejo also states that W. A. Richardson assisted him\nin making the survey. In 1861 Santiago Arguello assured Judge Hayes,\nEmig. Notes, 454, that he was the founder of Sonoma, having made the map,\netc. 500 soldiers is a favorite newspaper statement of Vallejo's force. 25\nwould perhaps be a more accurate estimate.\n 296    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\nthe legislative hall, with the inscription \"Benefactor\nof the Territory of Alta California;\" for a suitable monument to be erected at Monterey; and for the printing\nof the resolutions in the manifiesto about to be published. The monument was intrusted to the ayuntamiento, which body before the end of 1835 had gone\nso far as to devise an appropriate inscription in Latin\nand Spanish, and to ask officially how the cost was to\nbe paid.    Here the matter ended for all time.38\nA biographical sketch of Figueroa, as in the case\nof his predecessor Victoria, is not required here,\nbecause all that is known of his life has been told in\nthis and the two preceding chapters. In person, he\nwas a little below medium height, thick set, with a\nswarthy complexion, black and abundant hair, scanty\n38 Sept. 29th, Zamorano to comandantes, and private letters to Vallejo and\nValle announcing the death. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 74-5. Record of the\ndeath also in S. Diego, Arch., MS., 59; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 56. On Sept.\n26th the American medico Stokes had joined the council of doctors to consider the governor's case. Dept. St. Pap., Prefi y Juzg., MS., v. 53. Sept.\n3d, F. had been at S. Rafael. Id., Ben. Mil, lxxviii. 8. Military\nhonors ordered, including a gun each half hour for about a week, besides\nspecial artillery evolutions on the day of funeral. Id., Ben. Mil, lxxx. 20-1.\nValle, Lo Pasado de Cal, MS., 15, speaks of having been at Sta Cruz where\nhe heard the first guns without knowing the occasion. Figueroa had ordered\na grand celebration of the national fiesta on Sept. 16th. Id., 19-20. Transfer of the remains to the south on the Avon, and ceremonies at Sta Barbara.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 58-9; Id., Ben. Mil, lxxx. 23. The mission books\nof Sta B. contain no record on the subject, probably because the deposit in\nthe vault was not intended a^ a permanent one. Accounts of the embalming\nof the body by Drs Alva, Stokes, Cooper, and others, in Gonzalez, Memorias,\nMS., 17-18; Dye's Recol, MS., 3; Gomez, Lo que Sabe, MS., 178-9;, Pinto,\nApunt., MS., 12-13. It is stated by Gonzalez and Gomez that the remains\nwere removed from the vault in 1845, at which time the coffin was opened\nand found to contain nothing of the body but dust; and it was thought this effect was due to the arsenic used in the embalming process. From Mexico there\ncame in time an order dated Feb. 8, 1836, that the remains should be placed\nwhere Figueroa had desired. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xii. 1. Action of the\ndip. and ayunt., in Figueroa, Manifiesto, 177-84; Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 222, 268-9;\nMonterey, Actos de Ayunt., MS., 122, 134-5; Robinson's Life in Cal, 168-72;\nVallejo, Hist. Cal., iii. 60-7. The inscription to be put on the monument\nwas as follows in substance: 'To the Eternal Memory | of General Jos6 Figueroa I Political and Military Chief | of Alta California | Father of the Country I dedicate this monument | the Provincial Diputacion | and the Ayuntamiento of Monterrey | at public expense | as a mark of gratitude. | Died in this\ncapital | Sept. 29,1835 j at the age of 43.' General mentions of F.'s death, with\nmore or less eulogy, in nearly every case, in Pico, Acont., MS., 26-7; Ord,\nOcurrencias, MS., 68-9; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 31; Castro, Rel, MS. 35-6;\nAmador, Mem., MS., 142; Fernandez, Cosas, MS., 70-2, 84-5; Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 116; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 238-9; iii. 37-40; Vallejo,\nHist. Cal, MS., iii. 55-9; TuthiWs Hist. Cal., 139-40.\n FIGUEROA'S CHARACTER. 297\nbeard, piercing eyes, protruding lip, and large prominent teeth. He is believed to have had a large\nadmixture of Indian blood. In manner, he was\nextremely affable and fascinating, especially in his\nintercourse with inferiors. His favorite vice was\ngambling; and. though there is some evidence that he\nhad a family in Mexico, he kept a mistress, and left a\nnatural daughter in California. He brought to the\ncountry a military reputation, considerable experience,\ngood administrative abilities, and great skill in the\narts by which personal popularity is acquired. His\nterm of office in California was brief, and the circumstances of his rule were favorable. His enemies were for\nthe most part men of straw; his partisans were then and\nlater the controlling element of the population. Even\nthe padres were forced by circumstances into a partial\nand negative support of his policy. Moreover, he did\nsome really good work in organizing territorial and\nlocal government, and he made no serious errors. He\nwas liberal in the matter of land grants and in his\npolicy toward foreigners. He antagonized no class,\nbut flattered all. Hence an enviable reputation, for\nthe Californians have nothing but praise for the\ncharacter and acts of Figueroa. He has been fortunate in his fame. Eulogy has been exaggerated; I\nthink the man's acts and correspondence .show traits\nof character that under less favorable circumstances\nwould have given him a much less favorable record.\nNevertheless, he is probably entitled to his position\nin history as the best Mexican governor ever sent to\nrule California.39*   In  several following chapters I\n39 Some miscellaneous items about Figueroa: Bandini is the only prominent Californian who did not share the enthusiasm for F., and even he in\nhis History and correspondence did not deem it expedient to speak very decidedly against the popular sentiment. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 240-8, narrates\nthat F. was silent partner with Angel Ramirez in a monte game at the capital, which was broke up by the alcalde, tells of his giving a banquet in\nhonor of a newly married Indian couple, and himself leading the dance with\nthe bride, and states that his sympathy for the natives made him too lenient\nin punishing their crimes. F. 's physical appearance is spoken of particularly\nin Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 56-7; Botello, Anales, MS., 13-17; Avila, Notas\nMS.,  16;   Valde's, Mem., MS.,  23;   Vega,   Vida Cal,  MS.,   13;  Serrano,\n 298   FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ-THE COLONY.\nshall have occasion to speak frequently of Figueroa,\nthough in this I leave him in his tomb.\nIn May 1835 the gefe politico had notified the supreme government that he should be obliged to surrender the office temporarily to the senior vocal of the\ndiputacion and seek relief for his illness away from the\ncapital. He then intended to make the change in\nJune, but did not do so until after the diputacion had\nassembled. On August 29th he issued an order to\nJose Castro as senior vocal to assume the office as acting gefe politico during his necessary absence. Corresponding circular-orders were sent the same day to\nthe different alcaldes.*0 It is not known what part\nof the time in September Figueroa was absent from\nMonterey, nor what duties if any Jose Castro performed as acting gefe in that month. He doubtless\npresided at several sessions of the diputacion at any\nrate. Just before his death, however, in accordance\nwith the national law of May* 6, 1822, and with the\nstrong popular feeling in favor of a separation of the\ncommands, Figueroa disposed that Castro should succeed him as gefe politico ad interim, while Lieutenant-\ncolonel Nicolas Gutierrez, as the ranking officer in California, was to assume the position of comandante general. Gutierrez had been summoned to the capital by\nletter of September 22d, and arriyed a few days after\nFigueroa's death. After urging various excuses\u2014ill\nhealth, want of ability, aversion from stepping into\nApuntes, MS., 28-30; Torre, Reminis., MS.', 32, 36-7, 51-2. All speak in\npraise of his character, as in Arce, Memorias, MS., 5-6; Pico, Acont., MS.,\n24, 27; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 12-14; Marsh's Letter, MS., 5-7; Spence's Notes,\nMS., 16-17; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 54, 61, 68. Alvarado and Vallejo, Hist.\nCal., MS., passim, are very enthusiastic in their praise of the man and all\nhis acts. Requena, in Hayes* Miscellany, 29, says that F. bought the Alami-\ntos rancho in 1835 for $500. Mention of a family in Mexico and heirs to t*he\nCalifornia estate. This in 1854 in connection with a suit of Stearns about\nAlamitos. Doc. Hist. CaL, MS., i. 518. The idea expressed byTufchilland\nothers that F. was harassed to death by his enemies, or worn out by his labors\nin behalf of Cal., has little foundation in fact.\n40 Aug. 29, 1835, F. to C. to alcaldes, and to prefect of missions. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., iv. 48; Id., Aug., xi. 37-9; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 50. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 11-12. In Monterey, Actos Ayunt., MS., 125-7, the date\nis Aug. 27th, when F. announced the change to dip. and ayunt.\n CASTRO AS GOVERNOR.\nthe place of a deceased friend, and his Spanish birth\u2014\nfor declining the command, he at last yielded to the\ndecision of a council of war and accepted the office on\nthe 8th of October.41\nCastro was in reality third vocal in rank of seniority, though the oldest who had been present in the\nsessions of this year. Jose\" Antonio Carrillo was in\nMexico, but Jose* Antonio Estudillo was at San Diego,\nbeing excused on account of illness. To him doubtless the gefatura belonged, unless so ill as to be unable to perform the duties. The ayuntamiento of San\nDiego took this view of the matter at the session of\nSeptember 21st, held on receipt of the circular of\nAugust 29th, and sent a corresponding protest. This\nwould seem an excellent foundation for a quarrel; but\nthe records are vague respecting subsequent developments. Estudillo's claims were never allowed, apparently never even considered at the capital, and\nwere abandoned soon by himself and friends. Possibly he was really too ill to take the office; and it is\nalso possible that, as Bandini states, Castro turned\nover the office to the comandante general without\nmuch objection early the next year to avoid turning\nit over to Estudillo.42   Castro at any rate assumed the\n41 Oct. 8, 1835, Gutierrez to Castro, to comandantes, and to ayuntamientos.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 56-8; Id., Ben. Com. and Treas., iii. 70-81;\nId., S. JosC, v. 1-2; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 56-8; Hayes' Doc Hist. Cal,\nMS., 31. Oct. 9th, order in the garrison order-book for Gutierrez to be recognized, signed by Capt. Munoz. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxx. 22.\n42 Sept. 21, 1831, action of ayuntamiento in favor of Estudillo. S. Diego,\nArch., MS., 56-7; Hayes' Doc, MS., 29; Dept. St. Pap., Prefi y Juzg., MS.,\niii. 34; Oct. 10th, Castro to alcalde of S. Diego, complaining that no answer\nhad been received, to the circular of Aug. 29th, which had conveyed the information of his appointment 'on account of the absence and sickness of the vocal\nto whom it belonged.' (There had been nothing of the kind in the circular.)\nHe had heard that there was some difficulty at S. Diego about recognizing\nhim (he must naturally have seen the protest of Sept. 21st, sent to Figueroa),\nand .asks for information without delay. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 61. In S.\nDiego, Index, MS., 15, allusion is made to a reply of the ayunt. sustaining\nE.'s claims. Oct. 15th, communications from E. and from the ayunt. were\nreceived by the dip. and referred to a committee; but there is no record of\ndiscussion or of results. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 222-4. la Savage, Doc, MS.,\n42-4, is an undated record or argument on the subject, apparently emanating\nfrom Bandini, in which Castro's arguments are referred to, thus implying that\nthere had been a correspondence and refusal by Castro. At the same session\nthe payment of Castro's salary was authorized at $3,000 per year.   Jan. 22,\n 300    FIGUEROA, CASTRO, AND GUTIERREZ\u2014THE COLONY.\noffice, was supported by the diputacion, and recognized by all the local authorities of the territory,\nmeeting no opposition except that alluded to in San\nDiego. He ruled until January 1836; but during\nhis term there was nothing in connection with political annals which calls for notice here. Castro\ncarried out as nearly as possible his predecessor's\nplans, performed faithfully the few routine duties required of him, and if he had no opportunity to make\nhimself famous, he at the least committed no serious\nor disgraceful errors.43\n1836, Capt. Portilla to Gutierrez. Says that Pio Pico did not recognize Castro's right to be gefe politico. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi. 31. In\na complaint of the alcalde to the gefe politico in April 1836, the sindico is\ncharged with having presented in the name of the people a paper inviting\nother ayuntamientos not to recognize Castro. He also went about inciting\nthe Indians to a campaign against Monterey, affirming that Capt. Portilla\nwould take command of the movement. All this in Dec. 1835. S. Diego,\nArch., MS., 98. Whether this 'plan' had anything in common with that\naccredited to Bandini and investigated by Gov. Chico's orders the next year, I\nam not quite certain. Id., 104, 116. Bandini's statement is in his Hist. Cal,\nMS., 79-80, but he gives no particulars. Jose\" Maria Estudillo, Datos, MS.,\n7, says that his father was invited by Figueroa to take the gefatura, but declined.    Botello, Anales, MS., 17-18, gives the same version.\n43 General mention of Castro's succession and rule, including in most cases\nthe transfer to Gutierrez in Jan. 1836: Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 41-5,\nstating that Zamorano worked hard to induce Figueroa to give both commands to Gutierrez at the first; Larios, Convulsions, MS., 15-16; Pinto,\nApunt., MS., 14-15; Pico, Acont., MS., 27-8, saying C. expected opposition\nfrom G., and gathered some of his friends and relatives about him; Valle, Lo\nPasado, MS.; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 69-74, mentioning some troubles\nwith P. Mercado; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 31-2, characterizing the hesitation\nof G. to accept the command as mere pretence; Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 30;\nVallejo (J. J.), Reminis., MS., 117, complimenting C. for having kept the\ncountry free from the strife of factions; Juarez, Narr., MS., 7, offsetting C's\ngood record at this time against his bad one of later years; Botello, Anales,\nMS., 18-19; TuthilVs Hist. Cal, 141; Ord. Ocurrencias, MS., 84-5; Mofras,\nExplor., i. 298; Marsh's Letter, MS., 7. The last two omit all mention of\nC's rule, and make G. succeed Figueroa.\n CHAPTER XL-\nmissions AND SECULARIZATION.\n1831-1833.\nEcheandIa's Plan op 1830\u2014Decree of 1831\u2014The Comisionados\u2014Views\nof the Padres\u2014Carrillo's Efforts in Mexico\u2014The Pious Fund\u2014\nEvents of 1832\u2014Diputacion and Friars\u2014EcheandIa's Reglamento\u2014Notes of Padre Sanchez\u2014Bachelot and Short\u2014Exiles from\nthe Hawaiian Islands\u2014New Missionaries in 1833\u2014The Zacate-\ncanos\u2014Division of the Missions\u2014Troubles in the North\u2014Flogging Neophytes\u2014Supplies for San Francisco\u2014Misconduct of Padre\nMercado at San Rafael\u2014Massacre of Gentiles\u2014Figueroa's Instructions on Secularization\u2014Echeandia's Regulations\u2014Figueroa's Policy\u2014Experiments in the South\u2014Provisional Rules\u2014\nEmancipation in Practice\u2014Projects of President Doran\u2014Figueroa's Report against Secularization\u2014Mexican Decrees of 1833\u2014\nPresident and Prefect.\nMost important of general matters for the half-\ndecade, after or even before political events and annals of the colony, is the affairs of the missions,\nespecially in the phase of secularization. So closely\nis this subject connected with the general history of\nthe territory, that I have been obliged frequently to\ngive it more than mere passing mention in the last\nfour chapters; yet it is absolutely necessary, at the\ncost of some slight repetition, to treat the matter separately and fully. As a fitting introduction, I refer\nthe reader to what I have written on secularization\nfor the preceding period of 1826-30, including Echeandia's instructions, policy, and efforts.1 I also append\nin a note the substance of Echeandia's plan, as ap-\n1See chap, iv., this volume.\n(801)\n 302 MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nproved by the diputacion in July and August 1830,\nand sent to the supreme government in September\nfor approval.2    The padres made little opposition to\n2 Echeandia, Plan para convertir en Pueblos las Misiones, 1829-80, MS. 1.\nThe missions shall be converted into pueblos one by one as the territorial govt\nmay determine, in view of the reports of the missionaries and president, and\nin conformity with the dip. In case the dip. opposes the views of the gefe,\nthe matter is to be referred to the sup. govt. 2. Beginning at once without\ndistinction as may be convenient with the 4 (7 ?) nearest the presidios, pueblos,\nand villa; then following also without distinction with S. Buenaventura, S.\nJuan Capistrano, S. Luis Obispo, and S. Antonio; then the rest in succession\n\u25a0\u2014but the change is not to be effected the first year in more than two missions, in order to observe what is to be done later with the rest. 3. The ranchos\njoined to each mission will continue to recognize it as head town, being ruled\nby an auxiliary alcalde or by an ayuntamiento, as may seem best to the govt\nin accordance with the laws. 4. The new ayunt. will recognize as head\ntown of the partido the presidio or pueblo recognized in their last elections\nfor diputados. 5. Farming and grazing lands, which by constant use down\nto the date of swearing to independence or by approval of the ter. govt they\nhave cultivated and occupied with their property, are to remain the property\nof these pueblos\u2014which will be composed of their neophytes and of such\nother Mexicans as may wish to settle in them according to the terms of\nfollowing articles on the distribution of lands: 6. To neophytes, including\nthose absent with leave, and to other servants of the mission wishing to remain, will be distributed by lot, to each family a house-lot 75 varas square\nand a field 200 v. sq.\u2014the lots in blocks of four, 150 v. sq. with suitable streets\nand plazas. Some details respecting equitable division of lands with regard\nto quality. 7. To each pueblo will be assigned an egido of 1 sq. league for\neach 500 head of live-stock\u2014of good grazing land near the settlement. 8.\nWifchin 6 months of the publication of the change of any mission into a pueblo, there shall be given to each family 3 cows, 3 horses, 3 sheep, a yoke of\noxen, a mule or an ass; various implements named, both to families and for\ncommon use; and they are also to receive for a year rations proportioned to\nthe preceding crop. 9. Other families, not neophytes or with leave of absence, will have lots and fields from those that remain. No one may pasture\nin the egido over 50 cattle and 25 horses. 10. All property thus distributed\nto be indivisible and inalienable for 5 years; neither can the settlers or their\nheirs encumber this property with any mortgage, lien, etc. 11. The settlers\nmust be governed by the general, territorial, and local laws and regulations,\nin like manner as at S. Jose* and Los Angeles at the beginning, all paying\ntithes of course. 12. Of similar purport, each individual to obey the laws\nof Mex. and Cal. 13. Details respecting later distribution of stallions, bulls,\netc. 14. Names of all individuals to be recorded with the distribution of\nproperty. 15. The pueblos to keep the names of the missions, but the settlers may propose any other name, 'of laudable origin' to the dip. and to congress. 16. The ehurch and the rooms used for service and residence of tho\nchaplain or curate are to be those now occupied and sudh as may be built\nlater. The rest of the mission buildings will be devoted to uses of the ayunt.,\nprisons, barracks, schools, hospital, etc., and the present dwellings of the\nneophytes will serve at present for the pueblo officials. 17. The live-stock\nand other property remaining after the distribution will remain in charge of\nan administrator subject to the inspection of the ayunt. and of the dip. Remaining lands, to the extent of 4 sq. leagues for 1,000 head of large stock, and\n3 sq. leagues for small stock, to serve for the support of the flocks and herds;\nand expenses of labor, etc., to be paid from the product of the capital. 18.\nFrom the remainder of said capital, rent of surplus lands, yield of vineyards,\netc., will be paid the wages of a school-master, hospital expenses, and other\n ECHEANDIA'S PLAN. 303\nthis plan in California, trusting rather to efforts in\nMexico, and especially to the change in national administration, which was to furnish for the territory\na new governor and a new policy.\nThere had been no avowed intention on the part of\ngovernor or diputacion to carry into practical effect\nthe provisions of the plan without the consent of the\nsuperior authorities, and in forming the plan Echeandia\nhad but obeyed after long delay his instructions from\nMexico. It became, however, more and more probable as the months passed \\)y that a new governor\nwould arrive in advance of the desired ratification;\nhence a strong temptation to act without that ratification.3 In a letter written in 1833 Echeandia defended his action substantially as follows. \"At the\nbeginning of 1831 I found myself,\" by reason of improved organization of territorial and municipal government, the aid of an asesor and ayudante inspector,\nthe separation of Baja California, and other favorable\ncircumstances, \"in a condition to attend to mission\nreforms. Knowing that Guadalupan missionaries\nwere coming, and that it was as important to prevent\ntheir succession to the temporal administration as to\nsecure their succession%to the spiritual; considering\nthat on account of continual wars in Mexico my plans\ncould not have received attention, and had perhaps\nbeen lost on the way; having the presidial companies\ninstitutions of asylum, correction, and instruction, deemed necessary.' 19.\nThe curates will continue to receive, as the missionaries do now, $400 from\nthe pious fund; which will be increased to $700, $800, $900, or $1,000, according to the size of the pueblo, from the product of the funds in charge of\nthe administrator. If these funds be insufficient, the sum may be made up\nby a pro-rata tax on the funds of other pueblos; or in extreme cases by a contribution in the interested pueblo. 20. The ter. govt, with approval of the\ngen. govt, will provide in detail for whatever may seem best for the progress and well-being of each pueblo, acting provisionally as circumstances\nmay demand. 21. The missionaries may remain in charge of the spiritual administration, receiving the allowance of art. 19; or they may go\nto form new missions in the ranchos not to be converted into pueblos, or\nat any other points in the interior. Leg. Rec, MS., i. 134-58; Guerra, Doc,\nMS., i. 5-14; Dept. Rec, MS., viii. 79.\n* The plan was favorably reported to congress by the minister. Mexico,\nMem. Relaciones, 1831, p. 33; Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., vii. 1; and it was\nonly Echeandia's later action that was disapproved.\n 304\nMISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nto support on home resources; being in constant trouble on account of the soldiers of the escoltas, often\nfavorites and servants of the padres and corrupters of\nthe neophytes; knowing well that to insure the integrity of the nation and tranquillity and prosperity at\nhome, it was best to abolish once for all the oppression\nof the\" neophytes .by establishing a secular government, since once converted from slaves to proprietors\nthey would become enthusiastic supporters of the federal system, a means of defence against foreign\nschemes, and of support to the territorial government\nand troops; desiring to release the missionaries for\nthe founding of new missions; therefore I proposed to\nconsolidate the security and good order of the territory by converting into free men and proprietors the\n18,000 forzados, indigentes reducidos in the old missions, in order to advance rapidly to the civilization\nof the multitude of gentiles who also with their lands\nbelong to our nation, thus avoiding the necessity of\nforeign colonization. Therefore I repeat, at the beginning of 1831, all being ready for the regeneration\nintrusted to me, and for which I had striven so hard,\nmindful of the laws and of the benefits to result, taking advantage of the most fitting occasion to develop\nthe power of right by which was to be restrained the\ncolossal arbitrary power of the missionaries\u2014I took\nsteps to put the neophytes under the civil authorities,\ndeeming this the fullest possible compliance with the\nlaws and superior orders.\"4\nThe special pleading quoted, or condensed from the\nauthor's original verbosity, was of course all beside\nthe true question at issue. The territorial government, as Echeandia well knew, had no power to\nsecularize the missions. Nevertheless, a decree of\nsecularization was issued January 6, 1831. It was.\nan illegal ai}d even revolutionary measure, devised by\n* Echeandia, Carta que dirige d Don Jos6 Figueroa, 1833, MS., p. 44-50.\nThotlgh put in quotation-marks, what I have given is but a brief resume of\nthe author's endless and complicated words^and phrases.\n DECREE OF JANUARY, 1831. 305\nJose Maria. Padre's in supposed furtherance of his\nown interests or radical theories, and those of a few\nfriends. I have already had something to say of this\ngolpe de estado.5 Had it been accomplished some\nmonths earlier, there might have been a plausible\nhope on the part of Padres and his party for success;\nbut now when Victoria was already in California, it\nwas a most absurd and aimless scheme, unless indeed\nit was intended to have the effect it did have; that is,\nto drive Victoria to the commission of arbitrary acts\nand thus lay the foundation for a revolution. The\nresults politically have been related.\nThe decree of January 6, 1831, was for the most\npart in accordance with the plan of 1830. From the\noriginal in my possession I form the appended resume.6   San Carlos and San Gabriel were to be organ -\n5 See chap, vii., this vol. The views of Padres in this connection, already\nwell known to the reader, are given at some length in Osio, Hist. Cal, MS.,\n155-64; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 254-62; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii.\n160-1; Guerra, in Carrillo (J.), Doc, MS., 31-2; Robinson's Life in Cal, 97;\nFigueroa, Manifiesto, 2-3.\n6 Echeandia, Decreto de Secularization de Misiones, 6 de Enero, 1831,\nMS. Also in Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 65-77; Arch. Sta B., MS., ix. 435-70.\nThe document is signed at Monterey on Jan. 6th, by E. and, in the secretary's absence, by Jose* Maria Padres.\nPreamble.\u2014Whereas, 1. All Mexicans enjoy the rights granted by the\norganic law except the mission Indians; 2. The law of Sept. 13, 1813, expressly provides that the missions be formed into towns; 3. Grave evils will\nresult from the continued granting of licenses as heretofore; 4. The dip.\u2014being convinced that the neophytes live in a state of discontent, that most of\nthe friars have declared themselves opposed to independence and the national\ngovt, and that the decay of the missions must follow\u2014decreed in August\nlast in accord with my propositions the manner of distributing lands and\nproperty; therefore I have deemed it proper to decree for the present as\nfollows: 1. S. Gabriel and S. Carlos are to be organized as towns, the latter\nretaining the name of Carmelo. 2. At S. Gabriel 4 comisarios to be elected,\ndependent on the ayunt. of Los Angeles until the population be determined,\nand to be elected under the direction of a trustworthy person selected by\nthat ayunt. 3. Same at S. Carlos, dependent on ayunt. of Monterey. Elections to take place on 3d and 4th Sundays of Jan.; officers to enter upon the\ndischarge of their duties on Feb. 1st.. 4. The ranchos of each mission to continue subject to it, and to have a sub-comisario if the number of inhabitants\nbe considerable. 5, 6. Identical with art. 5, 6, of the plan of 1830. 7. All\ninhab. of the two missions 25 years old, or 18 years if married, are entitled\nto grants of land in fee simple; but the lands cannot be subjected to entail Or\nmortmain. 8, 9, ]0. Correspond with 8, 7,12, of the plan. 11. Unmarried\nneophytes of 25 years or more to have only half the house lot granted by art.\n6; and to have a smaller share of live-stock, tools, etc., than the others.\n12-17.. Correspond in substance to art. 10, 14, 11-13, 16, 17, 18, of the plan.\n18. An administrator is to be appointed for each town; and for this purpose\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   20\n 306\nMISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nized at once into towns, the surplus property after\ndistribution to neophytes passing under the control of\nsecular administrators. A similar change was to be\neffected at most of the other missions as rapidly as\nthe comisionados appointed to superintend the distribution could attend to their duties. Suitable provision was made for the support of the ministers,\nand for the education of Indian children.\nGovernor Victoria had arrived at Santa Barbara\non his way to assume the command, the transfer of\nwhich Echeandia purposely delayed for the advancement of the secularization scheme, and he took steps\nto prevent the official publication of the bando of January 6th in the south.7    His exact instructions from\nheads of families are to choose three men to be named to the ayunt., which\nbody will forward the names to the gov. with a report on qualifications. 19,\nThe administrator to have charge of all property remaining after the distri\u00ab\nbution, the same to be delivered to him by inventory. 20. The citizens interested will appoint the necessary majordomos, who will be under the\nadministrator's direction. 21. They will also propose to the comisario the\nproper salaries of administrator and majordomos, to be laid before the\nayunt. and gov. 22. Corresponds to art. 17-18 of plan. 23. The minister\nwill be allowed $1,000 at S. Gabriel and $600 at Carmelo, including the\nsinodo of $400. 24. At S. F., S. Jose, Sta Clara, S. Juan Bautista, Soledad,\nS. Antonio, S. Miguel, Sta Ines, S. Buenaventura, S. Fernando, S. Juan\nCapistrano, and S. Diego, comisarios, administrators, and majordomos will\nbe chosen as provided in art. 2-4, 18, 20; but in .other respects they will continue under the community system until the comisionados for the distribution of lands, etc., shall have concluded their labors at S. Gabriel and S.\nCarlos, when they will attend to these. 25. The ministers of these missions\nwill be furnished by the administrators with support and servants in addition\nto their sinodos until a proper allowance for their spiritual services is determined on. 26. At Sta Cruz, S. Luis Obispo, Purisima, Sta Barbara, and S.\nLuis Rey only comisariDs and majordomos are to be chosen, the administration remaining for the present in the hands of the padres. 27. In the future,\nfor the purposes indicated, S. F. will belong to the port of the same name; S.\nJose and. Sta Clara to the ayunt. of S. Jose; Sta Cruz, S. Juan, Soledad, S.\nAntonio, S. Miguel, and S. Luis Obispo to that of Monterey; Purisima, Sta\nInes, Sta Barbara, and S. Buenaventura to the comandancia of Sta Barbara;\nS. Fernando and S. Juan Capistrano to the ayunt. of Los Angeles; and S.\nLuis Rey and S. Diego to the comandancia of S. Diego. 28. With all possible haste a school is to be establised at S. Gabriel and at Carmelo, in which\nreading, writing, and arithmetic will be taught as well as the best morals\nand politics. 29. Each of the southern missions up to Sta Ines will send 4\nclear-headed pupils over 18 years of age to the school at Monterey. 30.\nEach of the northern missions will send 4 Indian pupils to Carmelo. 31.\nThe pupils to be chosen by the comisarios and administrators. , 32. Teachers\nto have $40 or $50 according to skill; and to have also $15 for each proficient\npupil produced in 0 months, or $5 for each at the end of a year. 33. Persons deeming themselves competent to teach will make application to local\nauthorities.\n7 Jan.  7, 1831, Guerra says the new mandarin expresses very sensible\n ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THE PLAN. 307\nMexico are not known, but the spirit of the administration which he represented was favorable to the\nfriars; and he understood perfectly not only the illegality of Echeandia's act, but its motive and the influence of Padres in the matter. In the north the bando\nwas more or less fully published in January. The\ndocument with the proper instructions and requests\nwas sent not only to local officials, but to the padre\nprefect and bishop, who were urged to instruct and\nprepare the friars for the change.8 The ayuntamiento\nof Monterey on the 8th chose a comisionado for each\nof the seven missions of the district.9 Jose Castro\nand Juan B. Alvarado were sent to San Miguel and\nSan Luis Obispo respectively, where they read the\ndecree and made speeches to the assembled neophytes.\nAt San Luis, and probably at all the missions of the\ndistrict, the comisarios were elected; but at San Miguel, after listening to the orators, the neophytes expressed a very decided preference for the padre and\nviews in regard to the missions\u2014that is, of course his views were favorable\nto the padres. Carrillo (J.), Doc, MS., 33. Jan. 14th, V. to E. Has just\nseen 'by a lucky accident' the edict, which contains provisions entirely contrary to superior instructions and orders. He has taken steps to counteract\nthe evil results, but holds E. responsible if any occur. St. Pap., Miss, and\nColon., MS., ii. 35-6. Jan. 19th, V. to sup. govt, denouncing the decree as\na scheme for plundering the missions, instigated by Padres. It was published\nat Monterey and probably at S. Francisco; but elsewhere it was deemed too\nrisky. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., viii. 8-10. Yet the decree was known in\nthe south; for on Jan. 21st, Com. Arguello at S. Diego directs to the com.\ngen. an argument against making the proposed change at S. Gabriel, chiefly\nbecause the troops could not get along without the supplies furnished by\nthat mission. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 1-3. Echeandia in 1832 stated that\nthe devil had prompted Victoria to prevent the publication in the south and\nafterwards to nullify the decree in the north, giving no reasons for such\nshameful conduct! St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 61. On the general\nfact of V.'s nullification of the decree, see Tuthill's Hist. Cal., 131; Halleck's\nReport, 125; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 38-9; Amador, Memorias, MS., 126-8.\n8 Jan. 6, 1831, E. to bishop of Sonora. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS.,\nlxxiii. 52. Same to prefect. Id., lxxi. 6-7; Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 77. Same to\ncomandantes and ayuntaminentos. Id., viii. 136. Jan. 12th, same to Zamorano, recommendations on distribution of land at S. Gabriel. Zamorano may\nhave been appointed comisionado for that mission. Id., ix. 78. Jan. 12th,\nsame to com. of Escoltas, who are to aid Alcalde Buelna in publishing the\ndecree, and to obey not the padres' orders but those of the comisarios, after\nsuch have been chosen.   Id., ix. 79.\n9 Monterey, Adas del Ayuntamiento, 1831-5, MS., 25. The comisionados\nwere Juan B. Alvarado for S. Luis Obispo, Jose Castro for S. Miguel, Antonio\nCastro for S. Antonio, Tiburcio Castro for Soledad, Juan Higuera for S. Juan\nBautista, Sebastian Rodriguez for Sta Cruz, and Manuel Crespo for S. Carlos.\n 308 MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nthe old system.10 On account of Victoria's arrival the matter went no further than the election of\ncomisarios; nor is there any record that it went so\nfar in the districts of San Jose and San Francisco.\nFor the rest of 1831, during the exciting epoch of\nthe revolt against Victoria, there is little to be said of\nmission history, and the project of secularization was\nat a stand-still. There is a notable absence in the\narchives of missionary correspondence for the year;\nand the padres have thus evaded\u2014whether to any\nextent voluntarily or through accidental loss of papers I am not quite sure\u2014a definite record of their\nattitude in the quarrel that distracted the territory;\nthough there can be no doubt that their sympathies\nwere strongly in Victoria's favor. The bishop replied\nin March, by stating briefly that he had no curates at\nhis disposal, and by requesting information upon all\nthat concerned the welfare of California.11 It would\nseem that even Victoria had some instructions not altogether opposed to secularization, for in August\nPresident Duran issued a circular, in which he asked\nof the padres, apparently by the governor's order,\ntheir opinions of a scheme for emancipating the neophytes and distributing the estates on a basis including the maintenance of religious service, the support of\nthe padres, and the retention of community property\n10Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 3-5; Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 85. The Indians\nsaid they respected the government and the decree, but by reason of their\npoverty and ignorance they desired no change. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS.,\niii. 6-7, narrates his efforts at S. Miguel, where from a cart in the mission\ncourtyard he vividly pictured the advantages of freedom to the Indians; then\nrequested those who wished to remain under the padre to stand on the left\nand those preferring freedom on the right. Nearly all went to the left at\nfirst, where they were soon joined by the small minority who had not the\ncourage of their convictions. Alvarado says the Indians of S. Luis and\nS. Antonio expressed the same views. Jan. 21st, E. to alcalde of Monterey.\nThe election of comisarios at S. Carlos was illegal and void; and a new one\nmust.be held. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 84. Jan. 25th, alcalde of Monterey to\nSebastian Rodriguez. Will introduce the new system (at Sta Cruz) after Feb.\n1st.  Monterey, Arch., MS., xvi. 9.\n\"March 22, 1831, bishop at Fuerte to gov. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon.,\nMS., ii. 58. Echeandia interpreted this as an acceptance of the change, but\nsays that later, when he heard of Victoria's acts, the bishop began to throw\nobstacles in the way. Id., ii. 53.\n DURAN'S COMMENTS. 309\nto a certain amount with which to found new missions.\nThere are extant the replies of only three friars, two\nof whom opposed and one approved the proposition.12\nAt the end of December Duran prepared\u2014probably\nfor use in Mexico, with a view to prevent a renewal of\nEcheandia's original scheme, now that Victoria had\nfallen\u2014a series of commentaries on the decree of January. It was one of the ablest documents that was\never written by a friar in California, but one which\ncannot be presented en resume^ and much too long for\nliteral reproduction. On the decree, article by article,\nPadre Narciso expends the full force of his talent and\nlearning, with not infrequent, volleys of wit, sarcasm,\nridicule, and bitter denunciation. Not a weak spot,\nand there were many, is overlooked, and not a weapon\nis neglected. In the paper there is much of sound argument, shrewd special pleading, evasion of real issues,\nand Franciscan prejudice, but little misrepresentation\nof facts. The standard position of all missionaries,\nthat the Indians were absolute owners of the soil and\nall the mission property, but that they were still children requiring parental control, and that the friars\nalone were qualified to exercise that control, was presented over and over in a great variety of ingenious\nforms. Echeandia's lack of authority to make the\nchanges wTas insisted on, as were many legal discrep-\n12 The circular was dated Aug. 13th, and is not extant, its contents being\nknown only from the three replies. P. Juan Cabot writes from S. Miguel\nAug. 24th, that while he would be glad to be freed from his cares, he can see\nno way of distributing the estates without producing ruin. The Indians of\nhis mission would have to be scattered at long distances in order to get a living, and he could not be responsible for their spiritual care. P. Jose Sanchez\ndeemed the execution of the project probably inevitable, but sure to result, as\nit was intended to, in total destruction to the missions. Taking into consideration what had happened in Baja California and Sonora, he could see no\npossibility of good results here. 'So far as it concerns me personally,'he\nwrites, ' would that it might be to-morrow, that I might retire between the\nfour walls of a cell to weep over the time I have wasted in behalf of these\nmiserables!' P. Jose Joaquin Jimenez of Sta Cruz wrote in October that in\n-view of the reasons urged by the government, and of the fact that the burden\nwas becoming insupportable to the friars, it would be wisest to free the Indians and distribute the property on the basis proposed; but also that the\nIndians should be obliged to keep their share and to work. Arch. Sta B.,\nMS., viii. 13-19.\n 310 MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nancies between the decree and the law of 1813 on\nwhich it purported to rest, and strong points were\nmade by ridiculing the pretended desire to civilize and\neducate the Indians in view of what the gente de razon\nhad accomplished in that direction for themselves.\nIn a note I give some brief quotations from Padre\nDuran's epilogo.15\nThere was no trouble about the furnishing of supplies in 1831. Naturally the padres were disposed to\ndo their best, and the only records in the matter are\none or two orders from Victoria to comandantes, intended to prevent excessive demands on the missionaries.14 At the beginning of the year, and probably\nin consequence of the secularization movement, a\npassport for Habana was tendered to Duran as soon as\na successor at San Jose could be procured. He apparently had asked license to retire.15 Three missionaries died at their posts, padres Boscana, Barona, and\nSutler, while no Franciscans came to fill up the de-\n15 Duran, Notas y Comentarios al Bando de Echeandia sobre las Misiones,\n1831, MS. Dated Dec. 31, 1831. 'It would be better, with less bluster about\nthe Indians, to begin with the gente de razon. Let the latter begin to work,\nto found establishments and schools, and to practise arts and industries ; then\nwill be time to lead the Indians to follow a good example. Are they, but yesterday savages, to go ahead and teach the way to civilized men? To form\nsuch projects of giving freedom to Indians after having taken a million dollars\nof their hard earnings for the troops, and to leave in their endemic sloth the\nothers, who as a rule know nothing but to ride on horseback ? Truly, I know\nnot from what spirit can pr )ceed such a policy, or rather I know too well.\nWhy not write what all say ? Why say d medias palabras what all say A voca\nllena ? What all believe is that, under the specious pretext of this plan, there\nwas a secret plan for a general sack of the mission property, the leaders in the\nplot intending to convert as much as possible of the booty into money, to be\nenjoyed in foreign lands. But God willed that Victoria should arrive,'etc.\n' The interested parties, including certain members of the diputacion, who\ncounted on the spoils, were disappointed, and their disappointment changed\ninto hatred for Victoria, whom they have never pardoned for having rescued\nthe prey which they deemed already within their clutches.' Then follows an\naccount of the revolution down to Victoria's overthrow. I suppose a copy of\nthis document may have been carried to Mexico by P. Peyri, who accompanied\nVictoria.\nuDept. Rec, MS., ix. 5; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 6-7.\n15 Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 86. Mofras, Explor., i. 272-3, tells us that in 1831,\nP. Sanchez having, died of grief at the invasions of the civil powers, most of\nthe other friars being subjected to indignities, determined to retire; and thus\nthese venerable men, who had devoted 30 or 40 years of their life to civilizing\nIndians, were driven from a country 'qu'ils avaient arrosee de leurs sueurs\net f\u00a3condee par la parole apostolique,' taking nothing with them but a coarse\nwoollen robe\u2014all of which is very pathetic and inaccurate.\n EFFORTS OF CARRILLO. 311\npleted ranks. Padres Jesus Maria Martinez and\nFrancisco Cuculla, Dominicans from Baja California,\nseem however to have spent a considerable portion of\nthe year in the territory.\nMeanwhile in the Mexican congress Cdrlos Carrillo\nwas exerting all his influence and eloquence in opposition to any change. He was a partisan of the friars,\nand foresaw nothing but ruin in secularization. He\nexpressed his views at considerable length in letters\nto Captain Guerra, which may be taken as copies for\nthe most part of his private and public arguments at\nthe capital.16 A branch of the same subject, and one\nof more urgent importance at the time than secularization proper, was the disposition to be made of the\npious fund, a topic under discussion in congress. The\nestates of the fund had been for twenty years neglected, and for the most part unproductive; the question was how to make them again productive, and\nhow to apply the revenues. Hitherto the estates had\nbeen administered in one way or another by the government; the revenues over and above the expenses of\nadministration had been constantly dwindling; and\nfor a long time no aid had been given to the missions.\nNow it was proposed to dispose of the property, in\nperpetuity or for a long period, by emphyteutic sale,\nwhich of course would involve a great sacrifice of\nactual value, and would yield a very slight revenue,\nbut which would put into the hands of the government alarge amount of ready money. The friends of\nthe missions favored a renting of the estates on the\nmost advantageous terms possible for short periods,\nand were assisted by many who cared nothing for the\nmissions, but were opposed to a wanton sacrifice of\nproperty.\nDon Carlos prepared an elaborate argument against\nthe proposed sale, and intrusted it to a fellow-mem-\n16 Carrillo, Cartas del Diputado, MS., passim. Especially letter of April\n25, 1831. p. 200-9. Oct. 19, 1831, the min. of justice and eccl. aff. replies to\nthe sindico of Cal. missions that the mission property cannot be regarded as belonging to the public treasury. S. Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 11.\n 312\nMISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nber to be delivered in the hall of congress; but the\n'gran picaro\/ when he got the floor, made a speech\non the other side.17 Fortunately, others took up the\ndefence of Carillo's views and gained a victory, temporarily, over his opponents. Moreover, his argument, a strong presentment of the subject, under\ndate of September 15th, was made public in print.18\nThe author said but little about religion, or justice to\nIndians or friars. He admitted that the missions\nwere not accomplishing much for civilization, but he\nconsidered the whole matter from the standpoint of\nMexican interests. He extolled California as a most\nvaluable possession, the occupation and retention of\nwThich were due solely to the missionaries. Faulty as\nthe system might be, it had subdued Indians and\ngained northern territory for Spain and Mexico.\nDuring the troubles of the past twenty years, the\nmissions had not only been self-supporting, but had\ncontributed over half a million dollars to the support of the troops, besides offering the only encouragement to a growing and profitable commerce. In\nother words, California had been supported and saved\nfor Mexico by the earnings of the Indians, under the\nmission system. But for the missions the territory\nto-day would be in possession of savages or of a foreign power. Only by maintaining the missions, and\nespecially by founding new ones in the north, could\nthe country be saved from foreign aggression in the\nnear future. Moreover, this method involved no expense to the national treasury. A rich property existed which could be legitimately applied in this way\nto national defence. The duty and policy of Mexico\nwere clearly to make that property as productive as\npossible, and to apply the revenues solely to the support and extension of the California missions.19    Don\n\"Carrillo, Cartas del Diputado, 1831, MS., p. 214-15.\n18Carrillo, Exposicion dirigida d la Cdmara.. .sobre Arreglo y Administracion\ndelFondo Piadoso.    Mexico, 1831.\n19 If there was any weakness in Carrillo's argument, it was in his exaggeration of the unanimity of sentiment in Cal. in favor of the friars and his own\n THEORIES OF 1832. 313\nCarlos won the victory, for his propositions, attached\nin thirteen articles to the exposicion, were almost literally adopted in the law of May 25, 1832,20 by which\nthe estates were to be rented for terms not exceeding\nseven years, and the product was to be devoted exclusively to the missions. True, the victory was a\nbarren one, for the missions derived little or no benefit from it; but neither had they profited by the fund\nin the past since the revolution against Spain began.\nNor could they under any system have got their dues\nwhile the Mexican revolutionary troubles continued.21\nNaturally little was done or even attempted in the\nmatter of secularization during the political and military interregnum of 1832, yet some theorizing was indulged in, which it is well to notice. The diputacion,\nin addition to defending its past acts toward Victoria,\nor rather as a part of that task, spoke very bitterly\nagainst the friars in their reports of February and\nMay. By means of their wealth, it w^as charged, and\nthrough the fanaticism of the people, the padres had\ninfluence, and used it unscrupulously to disseminate\nSpanish ideas, and plot against the federal system,\nbreaking the laws, corrupting officials, and making\nthemselves abhorred by intelligent citizens\u2014that is,\nby the writers and their friends. Some had fled to\nSpain with gold and silver belonging to the missions.\nTheir commercial frauds were well known. Why\nshould they be allowed to profane our institutions,\nand propagate among the young and ignprant their\nsentiments in favor of Fernando VII. ? Why had not\nthe laws against them been enforced in California as\nviews, and in his fears of a revolution if this public sentiment should be disregarded.\n20 Arrillaga, Recopilacion, 1832, p. 114-16; Fondo, Piadoso de Californias,\nLey y Reglamento. Mex., 1833. 12mo. 20 p. Gleeson, Hist. Cath. Church, ii.\n136, says that the fathers were by this act deprived of $50,000 per year.\n21 The padres entered into an agreement with Enrique Virmond to fur-\n.. nish goods or money and take drafts on the govt to the amount of their stipends; and this was approved by the govt May 9th, 12th. Espinosa to guardian\nand to gov. Arch. St. B., MS., x. 271-2; Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., viii. 12.\n 314 MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nelsewhere? By them the neophytes were cruelly\nbeaten, forced to work, treated as slaves,, without\nhaving obtained the slightest benefit from sixty years\nof mission training. Truly Pico, Vallejo, and Osio\nwere becoming very radical republicans and ardent\npatriots, according to the Mexican ideal.22 However,\nthey were angry at the time, and were declaiming for\neffect in Mexico, as was Carrillo in a more temperate\nway at the capital.\nActing as comandante general in the south, according to the terms of the treaty with Zamorano, Echeandia had the assurance to meditate the enforcement\nof his decree by preparing on November r8th a supplementary reglamento, as if the events of the past\nmonths had been but a mere temporary interruption\nof his plans.    The document, appended in a note,23\n22Reports of Feb. 24 and May 15,1832, in Leg. Rec, MS., i. 244-9, 265-6.\nAlferez Jose* Sanchez about this time, as prosecuting officer in a criminal case,\nmade use of some very violent and sweeping denunciations of the friars\nfor their cruelty to the Indians. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxiii. 6-7.\nIn his circular of Nov. 18th, Echeandia represented the Indians as complaining bitterly of their oppression by the padres. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon.,\nMS., ii. 63-4.\n23 Echeandia, Reglamento de Secularizacion, 18 de Nov. 1832, MS. The\ndoc. was sent on Nov. 18th to Padre Sanchez, to each of the southern\nmissions, probably to local authorities in the south, and to Pres. Duran in\nthe north. On Jan. 13, 1833, it was sent to the min. of rel. in Mexico; and\non Feb. 7th, to Figueroa. The copy sent to F. is in my possession, and to it\nare joined several responses from the friars. Reglamento.\u2014Art. 1. Pursuant\nto edict of Jan. 6th, after a record of population and property is made, the\nproperty for pobladores is to be distributed to neophytes of ten years' standing, if married or widowers with minor children\u2014except those who may wish\nto continue in community, those incapacitated for work, and those who\nneglect their families. 2. The distribution to be made at the mission or ranchos not far distant, and having a settled population, to such as reside there,\nor were born there, and have the preceding qualifications. 3. The assignment of egidos and distribution of community property, etc., that cannot be\neffected at once will await the first opportunity. 4. All thus detaching\nthemselves from the community shall pay from their private property parish\ndues according to their circumstances, and in due time tithes. 5. The heads\nof families will choose from their own number the necessary alcaldes and police officers; and this govt will appoint a comisionado to direct and correct\nthem, and to do all that is conducive to the best Christian and civil order.\n6. Other neophytes will continue to work in community; but this govt will*\nregulate all relating to their food, raiment, wages, labor, and punishments.\n7. The community service will terminate as the neoyhytes may fulfil the conditions prescribed for detachment, or as it is seen that the detached maintain\ngood order and progress in their town. 8. Out of the community property will\nbe paid tithes and parish dues, support of aged and sick, expenses of divine\nworship, schools, jails, and others conducive to public welfare; and it is mv\n THE GOVERNOR'S EFFORTS. 315\nwas intended to apply only to the four southernmost\nmissions. It did not go so far in some respects as\nwas provided by the decree of January, and introduced some new features not authorized by that decree. It was not apparently published in regular\nform as a bando, but was rather submitted for approval\nto the friars. It was prefaced with an argument on\nthe necessity of secularization under superior laws\nand instructions, a statement of the enthusiasm with\nwhich the Indians had welcomed the author's efforts,\na presentment of their complaints of injustice and a\ngeneral discontent under the padres' management\nwhich threatened serious consequences, a mention\nof good results at San Juan Capistrano, where the\npadres were said to have voluntarily given up the\ntemporalities, and a plea to the missionaries to accept\ntheir duties as parish priests.\nPadre Sanchez replied in a long series of critical\nnotes on both preface and reglamento.24 This criticism is one to which it is impossible to do justice\nderstood that at the proper time a part will be used for the foundation of new\nmissions among neighboring gentiles. In order to a beginning of regular administration, the branch of vineyards will be separated at once so that all\nlabor in them may be done for wages, deducting expenses from the product.\n9. The missionaries now in charge will be treated as parish priests and as depositaries of the community property, signing the account to be rendered annually by the chief steward, who on recommendation of heads of families will\nbe appointed from their number by this govt. The curate is to have all parochial dues besides his sinodo until the sup. authority may decide.\n24Sanchez, Notas al Reglamento deSecularizacion, 1832, MS. The document\nhas no date. The concluding note is as follows: 'It seems to me that I have\ngiven some convincing proofs, not perhaps of absurdities\u2014I do not venture to\nsay that\u2014but of inconvenientes as they appear to me at first reading. I do not\nwish to engage\"in a prolonged dispute with Echeandia; let him do what may\nseem best. I have expressed my views, not so much for him, as for an instruction to the padres that they are by no means to lend themselves to any\nsuch cooperation as is demanded by that gentleman; since to do so would be\nto subscribe to the ruin of their missions, and- to the ignominy of all the insults, suspicions, and distrust expressed in the plan, which were by no means\nhecessary if only the welfare of the Indians were sought. Let Sr Echeandia\nthen do what he pleases about the missions, but let him not count on the cooperation of the padres, which he himself must know to be absurd. The missionaries will serve as such and in no other capacity, until the curia eclesias-\ntica, in accord with the sup. govt communicating with us through our\nprelate, may see fit to order a competent change\u2014and so long as they are given\nthe necessary food to support life, which failing they have the natural and\ndivine right to shake off the dust of their shoes and go to other labors where-\never they may be found.'\n 516 MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nhere, and to which may be applied much of what I\nhave said about Duran's notes on the original decree.\nSanchez, giving his attention chiefly to the preamble,\nbegins by suggesting that precepts on obedience to\nlaw would come with better grace from one who had\ngiven a better example than Echeandia. His pretensions to teach the padres their obligations and rights,\nor to change their status, are met with protest and\nridicule. If the laws and his instructions required\nhim to secularize the missions, why had he waited\nsix years, until the arrival of his successor, before\nacting? If the Indians of the south, as was certainly .\ntrue, were assuming a threatening attitude, -i^ was due\nto the license they had enjoyed under Echeandia, and\nto his unwise act in having put arms in their hands\nagainst Zamorano, being thus a reason for a return to\nthe old restraint rather than for additional license.\nAs to the enthusiasm of the Indians for Echeandia,\nthe padre has little to say beyond reminding him that\nthere are several ways of winning popularity among\nschool-boys, one of the most successful being to let\nthem do as they please. Of course he dwells on the\ntheory that the Indians were children and 'savages\nof yesterday;' and of course he fails to recognize the\nfact that this theory in itself was a condemnation of\nthe mission system in all but missionary eyes. In the\nreglamento itself the padre easily found no end of\nfaults and inconsistencies; yet in one of his notes he\nexpressed a degree of favor for an experimental emancipation and distribution of property at a few of the\noldest missions. President Duran also issued at his\nmission of San Jose' a series of notes so similar in argument and expression to those of Sanchez as to require\nno further notice.25 The answers from the padres of\nSan Diego, San Luis, and San Juan, that from San\nGabriel not being extant, were to the effect that they\nleft  the matter entirely with the  prelate.    Martin\n25 Duran, Notas d una Circular 6 Bando intimado por El Sr D. Jose' Maria\nEcheandia d las cuatro Misiones, 1832, MS.    20 p.    Original.\n FATHERS BACHELOT AND SHORT. 317\nsaid that since May 20th the neophytes at San Diego\nhad managed temporal affairs for themselves\u2014except\nthe wine-cellars. Anzar said he was a Mexican, and\nwould cheerfully cooperate with the governor if permitted. Zalvidea would be glad personally to be relieved of the burden. He had toiled over twenty years\nand had not saved a medio real.26 There is no record\nthat Echeandia took any further steps before the end\nof 1832.\nPadre Antonio Peyri left California at the beginning of the year with Victoria; and Padre Antonio\nMenendez, a Dominican who for some six years had\nserved as chaplain at different places, died in August.\nThere may be noted here also as an interesting item,\nthe arrival of two priests who remained about five\nyears in the country; They were Jean Alexis Au-\nguste Bachelot, apostolic prefect of the Sandwich\nIslands, and Patrick Short. The two, with a companion, had arrived at the Islands in July 1827 from\nFrance, to establish Catholic missions; but prejudice\nwas aroused against their teachings, largely, it is believed, through the intrigues of protestant missionaries, and in December 1831 they were banished,\n\"because their doings are different from ours, and because we cannot agree,\" as King Kaahuamanu stated\nit. They sailed on the Waverly, Sumner, master,\nwhich landed them at San Pedro on January 21, 1832,\nwhence they were taken to San Gabriel and kindly\ntreated. There is not much to be said of their stay\nin California. Bachelot remained at San Gabriel as\nassistant minister, his name appearing often in the\nmission registers. Short soon came north, and he\nwas engaged with Hartnell in an educational enterprise at Monterey in 1834. An order came from\nMexico to expel them as Jesuits and as having no\npapers; but the governor did not enforce it. In 1837,\nhowever, although the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles\n26 Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 25, copies of the letters attached to the reglamento.\n 318 MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nmade an effort to retain him as curate, Bachelot, accompanied by Short, sailed on the Clementina, and\nlanded at the Islands in April. Persecutions were\nrenewed, from which they were relieved by the French\nand English navigators Petit-Thouars and Belcher.\nShort sailed in October for Valparaiso, and Bachelot\nsoon departed for the South Sea Islands, dying on\nthe voyage in 1838.27\nWith Governor Figueroa, at the beginning of 1833,\nthere came to California a missionary reenforcement\nof ten friars. They were Franciscans, all Mexicans\nby birth, and belonged to the college of Nuestra\nSeflora de Guadalupe de Zacatecas, being called\nGuadalupanos, or more commonly, Zacatecanos, as the\nearlier friars had been known as Fernandinos from\nthe name of their college. Immediately after their\narrival, that is in February, they were put in charge\nof the seven missions from San Carlos northward,\ntheir prefect, Francisco Garcia Diego, going to reside\nat Santa Clara. The Fernandinos of these missions\nretired to the southern establishments.28\n27 See full and interesting accounts in Petit-Thouars, Voy., ii. 325-48; Hon.\nPolynesian, ii. 31, 81, from N. Amer. Review, Oct. 1840. I have obtained\nmuch information from an obituary of Bachelot and a collection of documents\npublished by Capt. Sumner in his own defence against the charge of cruelty\nto the priests en voyage, in Honolulu, S. Isl. Gazette, Oct. 6, Nov. 29, 1838.\nAutograph letter of P. Short, Mar. 19, 1834. S. Antonio, Doc. Sueltos, MS.,\n118. Corresp. on the order of expulsion from California. Dept. St. Pap.,\nAug., MS., xi. 16, 34. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 269. Bachelot's services\ndesired as curate. Id., iv. 289. Short at Purisima March 1837. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xxxii. 77. Proposition to found a school at Monterey\u2014mentioned also\nby several Californians. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 131-2; Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nxxxi. 9. Short at S. Gabriel on April 16, 1832. Bachelot on various dates\nfrom 1832-7. S. Gabriel, Lib. Mision, MS., 16, 39, 59. Short at S. Juan\nOct. 1832, and called a member of the ' Sacred Congregation of the Perpetual\nWorship of the Most Holy Sacrament.' S. Juan B., Lib. Mision, MS., 15.\nArrival at Honolulu Apr. 17th; and departure of Short Oct. 30th. Hon., S.\nI. Gazette, Apr. 22, 1837; Peirce's Rough St., MS., 2. Robinson, Life in Cal,\n122, and Mofras, Explor., i. 294-5, mention the arrival of the French priests.\nAlvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 191-3, tells us that Pres. Duran made their\narrival an excuse to call for contributions for the cause of propaganda fide in\nChina and Japan, and that $2,000 were collected.\n28 The new-comers were Francisco Garcia Diego, prefect, who went to Sta\nClara, succeeding Viader, who left Cal.; Jose\" Maria ae Jesus Gonzalez Rubio,\nS. Jose, succeeding Duran who went to Sta Barbara; Jose Maria de Jesus\nGutierrez, Solano, in place of Fortuni, who went to S. Luis Rey; Rafael de\n THE ZACATECANOS. 319\nConsidering the importance of the subject, there is\na remarkable absence of original records respecting\nthe coming of the Zacatecanos and the division of the\nmissions; though it cannot be doubted that much was\nwritten at the time which is no longer extant, as is\nthe case respecting many important topics of mission\nhistory during these last years. It will be remembered\nthat in 1817 the southern missions were ceded by the\ncollege of San Fernando to that of Orizaba; but on\naccount of troubles in Mexico and of the dissatisfaction of Californian friars\u2014who were, however, willing\nto give up the northern, deemed the poorest establishments\u2014the change was not consummated.29 The\nnecessity for a reenforcement continued more and\nmore urgent, and San Fernando was in a state of\ndisorganization so complete that it could do nothing\nof itself; but of the negotiations of that college with\nothers I know nothing until letters of 1832 announced\nfrom Tepic that the Zacatecanos were coming.30 The\ncession of the northern missions was evidently agreed\nupon in Mexico; but there is nothing to show to\ni Moreno, with Garcia Diego at Sta Clara; Jose Lorenzo de la Concep-\ncion Quijas, S. Francisco, succeeding Estenega, who went to S. Gabriel, but;\nsoon Q. was transferred to Solano; Antonio Suarez del Real, who succeeded\nJimeno at Sta Cruz, the latter going to Sta In6s; Jose Maria del Refugio\nSagrado Suarez del Real, brother of Antonio, at S. Carlos, freeing Abella for\nthe ministry of S. Luis Obispo; Jesus Maria Vasquez del Mercado, S. Rafael,\nin place of Amor6s, who had died the year before; Jose\" Bernardino Perez,\nwho served for a time as secretary to Prefect Garcia Diego; and finally, Francisco de Jesus Sanchez, of whom we know nothing in Cal. for 8 or 9 years,\nand who possibly was left in Baja California to arrive later. The preceding\nis derived from the registers of the different missions, showing merely the\npresence of a padre at a mission on a given date; for there is no record of the\nassignments and transfers, with a single exception, that of Gonzalez to S.\nJose\" on Feb. 13th. Corresp. de Misiones, MS., 39-41.\n29 See vol. ii. p. 407, of this work.\n30 Jan. .24, 1831, Martiarenaat Tepic says to Capt. Guerra, in announcing\nhis appointment as sindico, that Fr. Bernardino Pacheco is going to Cal. as a\nfriar of S. Fernando college, which 'according to the agreement is to. furnish\n10 friars and the college of Zacatecas 11; the latter will be able to comply,\nbut not the former, which has not more than 7 friars? Guerra, Doc, MS., vi.\n130. April 21, 1832, Carlos Carrillo, in Mex., says 10 friars from Zacatecas\nare going, as he is told by the min. of eccl. aff. and by the guardian, who have\nhad great difficulty in obtaining so many. At S. Fernando there are only 4.\nId., iv. 242-3. July 18th, Martiarena says the 10 friars are at Tepic and are to\nsail on the Catalina, to take charge of the ceded northern missions. Id.,\nvi. 129.\n 320\nMISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nwhat extent the Fernandinos in California knew or\napproved what was being done. Beyond the presence\nof the ten in Baja California, at the time Figueroa's\nsoldiers revolted,81 there is no account of their journey,\nno official record of their arrival, and no list of their\nnames. President Duran in a circular to the padres,\nJanuary 23d, devoted to several general matters, but\nespecially to the urgent calls of the college for aid,\nalluded to the cession as a matter in which he should\nlose no time, having already permitted the Zacatecan\nprelate to station his friars so as to learn the routine\nand prepare for a formal delivery of the missions.\nHe hoped the change would enable some of their\nnumber to go to the relief of the mother college, and\ndeclared that no one might hope for a license from him\nto retire to any other destination.82 In assigning his\npadres to their different stations on and about February 13th, Prefect Garcia Diego used the following formula: \"Inasmuch as the supreme government of the Mexican republic has intrusted to our\ncollege some of the missions of Alta California,\nwhich hitherto the wTorthy sons of the college of San\nFernando have administered with such honor; and it\nhaving been agreed between the venerable discretories\nof both colleges that there should be delivered to us\nthe missions of the north as appears from orders\nwhich I have shown to the Very Rev. Padre President Fr. Narciso Duran; therefore,\" etc.33 Soon\na concordat funeral was concluded between the two\nbands of missionaries, by which each agreed to say\ntwenty masses for the soul of any member of the\nother band who might die; and thus the new order of\nthings was permanently established.34\n81 Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., i. 35.\n32 Duran, Cordillera d los Padres en Enero de 1833, MS.\n38 This in the appointment of Gonzalez to S. Jos& Corresp. de Misiones,\nMS., 39-41. Garcia assumed formal charge of Sta Clara on March 6th. Sta\nClara, Paroquia, MS., 19.\n^S.JosC, Patentes, MS., 190-1; Coronet, Doc, MS., 11-12; Arch. Obis-\npado, MS., 52. General mention of the transfer in Mofras, Explor., i. 274,\nwho states that the division was made in Cal. to avoid disputes, the old\n TROUBLES OF THE NEW FRIARS. 321\nThe Zacatecanos were as a class by no means equal\nmorally or intellectually to their predecessors, as will\nbe apparent from their actions in later years; and besides this inferiority, there were naturally many difficulties to be encountered by them at the first, arising\nfrom their inexperience and a certain degree of prejudice felt against them by neophytes and others. It\ndid not take them long to learn that their lines had\nnot fallen to them in places altogether pleasant; and\nin September we find their prefect begging for a certificate of the miserably sad condition in which he\nand his associates found themselves, for exhibition to\nthe government on returning to his college; for \"we\ncannot subsist here longer, because the climate is destroying our health.\"35\nTheir troubles in 1833, to say nothing of the climate, were of a threefold nature, arising from the\nunmanageable character of the neophytes, from the\ndifficulty of furnishing supplies to the presidio, and\nfrom Padre Mercado's conduct at San Rafael. The\nIndians did not behave in a manner at all satisfactory\nto their new masters, who resorted freely to the use\nof the lash. Vallejo, comandante of the San Francisco district, made complaint to Figueroa on the subject, and the latter to Prefect Garcia Diego, wTith a\nnotification that flogging was forbidden by the laws.\nThe prefect seems to have made an earnest effort to\nremedy the evil; and though some of the padres were\ndisposed to be obstinate, no special complaint is recorded after the issuance of a pastoral letter on the\nsubject on the 4th of July.36\nSpanish .friars not being able to tolerate the lax morals of the Mexicans.\nAlvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 205, 209-10, says the Zacatecanos wanted all\nthe missions; but the Fernandinos refused, and finally succeeded in convincing\nthe stupid Mexicans that, as there were 21 missions and only 10 friars, a\ndivision was necessary! Wilkes, Narrative, v. 173, states that the new\nfriars were in every way inferior to the old ones, and totally unfit for missionaries. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 197-8; Robinson's Statement, MS., 8; Ord,\nOcurrencias, MS., 55-6.\n35 Sept. 5, 1833, Garcia Diego to Figueroa.  Arch. Azob., MS., v. pt i. 41.\n3(3 May 5th, 31st, Vallejo to Figueroa. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 41, 52. The\ncomplaint is of flogging at the 4 missions, nothing being said of S. Jose\\\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   21\n 322 MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nThroughout the year at frequent intervals Vallejo\ncomplained that the soldiers of his company at San\nFrancisco were in great destitution, and that the missions did not furnish sufficient food for the garrison,\nor even for the escoltas. He gave many details of\nthe privations endured and of his personal efforts to\nobtain relief, and he expressed rather freely the belief\nthat the Fernandinos would not have permitted the\nsoldiers to suffer so.37 The complaints were forwarded\nby Figueroa to the prefect, who professed the best\npossible intentions, but pleaded poverty, and could not\nunderstand \"why Don Guadalupe was making so much\ntrouble about the matter.\" Figueroa issued an order\nDecember 1st, fixing the yearly amount of supplies to\nbe furnished by the missions of Monterey and San\nFrancisco jurisdictions, including live-stock with which\nto replenish the national ranchos.38\nVallejo was also prominently concerned as complain-\nVallejo had an interview with the minister of S. Francisco, who said * it would\nnot be expedient at any time to discontinue flogging the Indians; for his part\nhe would perpetuate this paternal correctional mode of punishment so fitting\nfor that class of people. If he were forced to act otherwise, he knew the\nroad by which he had come,' that is, he would leave the country. On being\nshown the law he replied, ' Lashes, lashes, and more lashes for these people\nso devoid of honor!' Vallejo admitted that at Sta Clara, Garcia Diego had\ngood intentions, yet he allowed the majordomo, Alviso, to flog. May 13th,\nJune 14th, F. to Garcia Diego. Id., ii. 142, 153; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i.\n80. June 16th, P. Gutierrez toF., claiming that the Indians, having no\nshame or honor, could be controlled only by fear; and that the law was intended for more advanced people in Mexico. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., ii.\n12-14. June 30th, Garcia Diego to F. Id., ii. 15; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt\ni. 80-1. He declares his intention to abolish flogging. 'Mi genio, mis ideas,\nmi sensibilidad, todo junto se opone a esta costumbre que jamas aprobareV\nYet he has to work slowly. July 4th, Garcia Diego, Carta Pastoral a los padres Zacatecanos contra la costumbre de azotar a los indios, 1833, MS.\n37Letters of V. and F. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 15, 45, 47, 99-101, 107, 116,\n128, 148,152,179. Feb. 21st, F. toG. D. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxix.\n4. Apr. 15th, G. D. to F., explaining his difficulties, the poverty of the missions, his efforts, and hopes of better success. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS.,\nii. 308-9. May 25th, June 15th, same to same. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i.\n77-8.\n\u2122Dept. St. Pap, Ben: Mil, MS., lxxiv. 47-8; Id., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., ii.\n78-81. The requisition was for 1,458 fanegas of wheat, 318 fan. beans, 936\narrobas of lard, 50 cargas of flour, $1,632 worth of soap, 834 pairs of shoes,\n139 blankets, 80 shields, 80 cueras, 80 cananas, 80 musket-cases, 8 saddles,\n200 broken horses, 34 pack-mules, 1,690 cows and heifers, 810 steers and bulls,\n200 mares and foals, 20 oxen, 20 ploughshares, 12 axes, shovels, hoes, pickaxes,\ncrowbars, 4 adzes, chisels, saws. To be contributed pro rata. The cattle for\nthe ranchos were to be a loan to be repaid in 6 years.\n PADRE MERCADO'S MISCONDUCT. 323\nant in the troubles with Padre Mercado at San Rafael.\nIn May a controversy arose on the subject of mission\ndiscipline, the padre demanding the surrender of an\noffender arrested by the corporal of the escolta, who\nrefused, by Vallejo's order, as he claimed. Mercado\nin an arrogant and threatening manner defended his\nauthority to punish the neophytes as he pleased, while,\nthe comandante, though ordering the neophyte in this\ncase given up, denied the padre's right to interfere in\nany but minor offences.89 In August, Corporal Igna-\ncio Pacheco of the escolta, asking for meat for his\nmen, was told by Mercado that \"he did not furnish\nmeat to feed wolves,\" whereupon Pacheco caused a\nsheep of the mission flock to be killed, and the padre\nwas furious. In the resulting correspondence Mercado\nused very intemperate and insulting language both to\nVallejo and to the soldiers, whom he repeatedly designated as a pack of thieves. In turn he was charged\nby Vallejo with falsehood.40 Finally on November\n16th a body of gentiles belonging to the rancherias of\nPulia approached San Rafael, as they had been encouraged to do by Figueroa through Vallejo, with a\nview to encourage friendly relations. Fifteen Indians\nof the party came under Toribio to speak, with the padre, who put off the interview until next day. During the night a robbery was committed, which was attributed by Mercado to the guests, and they were\ntherefore seized and sent as prisoners to San Francisco.\nOn the morning of the 20th, the warlike missionary,\nfearing as he claimed that the gentiles would attack\nthe mission to liberate their companions, sent out\nhis majordomo Molina with thirty-seven armed neophytes, who surprised the strangers, killed twenty-\none, wounded many more, and captured twenty men,\n89 Letter of Vallejo May 9th, and of Mercado May 9th, 17th, in Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., ii. 43, 141, 149.\n40 Letters of Pacheco and Mercado Aug. 22d, and of Vallejo Aug. 23d,\nOct. 18th, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 84, J10, 167-8. Vallejo advises Pacheco\nto act very carefully, to avoid all disputes, and to take no supplies without\npolitely asking the missionary first.\n MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nwomen, and children, having on their side five\nwounded, one of the number mortally. This achievement was coolly reported by Mercado to Figueroa in\na letter of the 25th, with a request for reinforcements\nto aid in pacifying the rancherias. The governor\nwas naturally indignant that his promises to the\nIndians had been thus shamefully violated, and with\nthe advice of Asesor Gomez, sent the case to Prefect Garcia Diego, the competent ecclesiastical judge.\nThe prefect suspended Mercado from his ministry,\nsummoned him to Santa Clara, and announced his\nintention to send him to his college for trial. Meanwhile Vallejo, by Figueroa's orders, liberated Toribio\nand his companions at San Francisco; went to San\nRafael with a military force and freed the captives\nthere; and then made a tour through the rancherias\nto Solano, pacifying the excited Indians, and explaining to them Figueroa's kind intentions and the\nwickedness of Padre Mercado, dilating on the latter\ntopic very reluctantly\u2014perhaps. In the middle of\nthe next year, Mercado was freed from arrest and restored to San Rafael, two friars having been sent to\nmake an investigation, and having learned from fourteen witnesses that the padre had nothing to do with\nthe outrage!41\nReturning to the topic of secularization, or to\nprogress in that direction during 1833, I have first to\nnotice Figueroa's instructions on this point from the\nMexican government \u2014 instructions that emanated\nfrom the same administration which had appointed Victoria, and similar in spirit probably to those given that\nofficer, and certainly to those under which Echeandia\n41 Mercado, Expediente depapeles tocantes a la matanza de Indios hecha por\ndrdcndel P. Ministro de S. Rafael, 1833, MS., in Monterey, Arch., i. 32-7;\nVallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 200; xxxi. 58; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 3; Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iii. 137-8; Id., Ben., ii. 9-10; being communications of Mercado, Figueroa, Vallejo, Gomez, Sanchez, and Garcia Diego, some of them\nduplicated in the different archives referred to. The affair is also briefly\nmentioned in Vallejo, Hist. CaL, MS., iii. 74-5; Alvarado,. Hist. Cal., MS.,\nii. 211.\n FIGUEROA'S POLICY.\n325\nhad acted. The necessity for a change was recognized,\nand the duty of the new ruler, as of his predecessors,\nwas to ascertain and report the best practical methods.\nMinister Alaman disapproved in the vice-president's\nname Echeandia's decree of 1831: both because he\nhad gone far beyond his authority in issuing such a\ndecree, and because some of its provisions were not\nin accord, as pointed out, with the law of 1813, on\nwhich it purported to be founded; and he ordered\nFigueroa, if Echeandia's order had to any extent been\nobeyed, to restore the missions to the position they\nheld before its publication. Yet he was to study the\nquestion closely, to ascertain what missions were in a\ncondition to be secularized according to the law of\n1813, and to report such a plan as he might deem\nmost expedient.42\nFigueroa's general instructions from Minister Ortiz\nMonasterio, also bearing the date of May 17th, authorized him to go practically much further toward\nsecularization than did the document just mentioned.\nArticled was as follows: \"It being a matter of the\ngreatest necessity that the neophytes rise from the\nstate of abasement to which they find themselves reduced, you will cause to be distributed to such as are\nfitted for it such fields of the mission lands as they\nmay be capable of cultivating, in order that they may\nthus become fond of labor and may go on acquiring\nproperty; but there must be kept undistributed the\nlands necessary for the support of divine worship,\nschools, and other objects of common utility. By\nthis means, for the mission system may be gradually\n\"May 17, 1832, Alaman to F., in St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 33-\n5; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pti. 102-6. Carlos Carrillo wrote from Mex. in 1S32\nthat no change would at present be made in the mission system. Carrillo,\nCartas, MS., 231. As an evidence of F.'s feeling on the mission system, I\ncite a recommendation in favor of a neophyte of S. Juan Capistrano, directed\nto Echeandia in 1826, from Sonora, in which he doubts not that E. 'will\nprotect those unfortunates who from necessity have to bear all the rigor of\nthose friars.' Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., Ivii. 21. F., in his Manifiesto,\n2-3, notes his instructions, or their general purport. July 7, 1832, from Acapulco he promises the min. of rel. to obey his instructions on arrival. St. Pap.,\nMiss, and Colon., MS., ii. 36-7.\n 326\nMISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nsubstituted another more adapted to the interests of\nthe territory, the influence of the missionaries may be\nlessened until they retain only the spiritual administration, and thus in fact the missions may be secularized. Yet for all this, it is necessary to act with\nprudence and tact, so as to cause no discontent among\nthe missionaries, with whom care is to be taken to\npreserve the greatest harmony; and to that end are\nenclosed private letters written by the vice-president\nto some of the most influential friars.\"48\nBefore Figueroa's arrival in the middle of January\n1833, I find no record that Echeandia had taken any\nsteps to carry into effect his regulations beyond the\nappointment of comisionados;44 but on January 29th,\npossibly before he knew of Figueroa's arrival, he issued\na new regulation for officers of justice and police in\nthe missions of San Diego district. The order dealt\nchiefly with the penalties for various minor offences and\nthe routine duties of the local officers who were to\ninflict them. It was probably never enforced, and\nrequires only a mention, with the remark that it was\nintended to relieve the Indians from arbitrary and\nexcessive punishments.45 Echeandia informed Figueroa that he had been about to commence the distribution of lands at San Diego, but had suspended\noperations on hearing of the new governor's arrival.\nIn the same communication he denounced the policy\nand acts of the friars, and urged Figueroa to adopt\n43 Figueroa, Instrucciones Generales, MS., p. 33-4. In art. 5, Indian youths\nare required to be selected and sent to Mexico for education, with a view to\nmake ministers of them later.\nu These were Capt. Portilla at S. Luis Rey, Alf. Ramirez at S. Diego, Alf.\nRocha at S. Juan Capistrano, and Alf. Valle at S. Gabriel. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 87, 89. Feb. 10th, the comandante of S. Luis calls for reinforcements to check disorders among the Indians arising from the distribution of\nlands. Id., Ben. Pref yJuzg.,v. 76.\n45 Echeandia, Reglamento para los encargados de justicia y policia en las mis-\ntones del departamento de S. Diego, 1833, MS. An annexed note says: 'This\nregulation was ordered to be observed to restrain the arbitrary way in which\nmissionaries, majordomos, and corporals of escolta caused the neophytes to be\nflogged, imprisoned, and outraged in other ways for any fault in the community labors or in other precepts which they were tyranically forced to observe.\nEcheandia.'\n PROTECTION OF THE INDIANS. 327\nstrict measures in favor of the Indians.46 Finally,\non March 19th, Echeandia directed to Figueroa the\nlong letter, already often cited, in which he fully\nreported and defended his past policy. In this communication, besides the arguments already noticed, he\nattempted, in a manner satisfactory to himself, to\noverthrow the reasoning of Minister Alaman against\nhis famous decree, and he also proposed a scheme of\nconverting gentiles on the frontiers, through the\nagency of old neophytes and military guards.47\nMeanwhile Figueroa prepared to make the investigations required by his instructions. His views were\nfor the most part identical with those of Echeandia,\nbut he had of course to encounter the same obstacles\nwhich had prevented that officer during the earlier\nyears of his rule from carrying out his instructions.\nHe announced February 18th to Echeandia his policy\nand his general approval of the latter's views, stating\nthat he hoped to begin the distribution of lands at\nSan Diego in April. This was to be made known to\nthe Indians, who were to be informed of the gov-,\nernor's purpose to protect their liberties but at the\nsame time to allow no license.48 After some delay on\naccount of illness, Figueroa went south at the end of\n46Feb. 7, 1833, E. to F., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 25, enclosing documents to prove the abuses committed by the friars of the south, and the\nmalicious exaggeration of all they say against the proposed reforms. Each\npadre does as he pleases, on the excuse that to do otherwise he must have his\nprelate's orders, which are not given. The prelate is Duran, a Spaniard and\npronounced royalist, only saved from expulsion by his intimate friendship\nwith Victoria. The gente de razon pay no parochial tax, are entertained\ngratis by the friars, and receive loans and gifts from the missions; therefore\nthe magistrate who attempts to protect the Indians is a shining mark for\npopular attack. Still he has been regaining little by little the civil authority\nusurped by the friars, and urges Figueroa to continue the same policy. On\nthe same date were sent the complaints of a S. Diego Indian, Tomas Tajochi,\nagainst Arguello particularly, whom Echeandia thought it best to replace with\nsome officer less obnoxious to the Indians. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 74-6,\n107-9.\n^Echeandia, Carta que dirige d D. JosC Figueroa, 1833, MS., p. 38-41,\n56-7.\n48Feb. 18, 1833, F. to E., and also to Santiago Arguello. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xxxi. 26-7. F. evidently feared a revolt of the Indians. Feb. 10th,\nJ. A. Carrillo writes that he has complied with orders as to sustaining the\ngov.'s authority; and will go to S. Gabriel with the sindico of the ayunt. to\nharangue the Ind. and tranquillize them. Arch. Arzob., MS., V. pt i. 76.\n 328 MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nJune. The result of his investigations was to convince\nhim that any general measure of secularization would\nbe ruinous, and that a change of system, though\nnecessary, must be very gradually effected. So he\nreported to the Mexican government, and to President Duran and Prefect Garcia Diego in July.49 To\nthe secretary of the interior he described the charac:\nter and circumstances of the neophytes, representing\nthem as totally unfit by nature and training for sudden emancipation. To the prelates he stated that\nthe partition of lands at San Diego would be only\npartial and provisional, though insisting that all qualified neophytes must be freed from missionary control,\nand calling for their views on the general subject.\nHe also issued a series of regulations on gradual\nemancipation, to go into effect provisionally until approved by the diputacion and by the supreme government.60\n49 July 15, 1833, F. to Duran; July 20th, to sec. of int.; July 27th, to\nGarcia Diego. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 27, 33, 29. F. describes the neophytes as children, with a natural predilection for the customs of their ancestors, and for a savage life without work. During their reduction they had\nlearned, perforce, only to cultivate the soil imperfectly, to practise some\nrude industries, and to manage horses, besides receiving a slight and superficial religious instruction. They had been kept intentionally in the most\nabject ignorance, the padres having always opposed their education. If freed\nat once from their degrading servitude, they would soon from proprietors\nbecome beggars, having bartered their possessions for liquor and gewgaws.\nThey would return to the wilderness and join the wild Indians in stealing\ncattle and horses for sale to New Mexicans and foreigners.\n60 Figueroa, Prevenciones provisionales para la emancipacion de Indios redu-\ncidos, 15 de Julio, 1833, MS.\n1. The gefe politico will determine the number to be emancipated in each\nmission and the time at which it is to be done, appointing the comisionados\ndeemed necessary to carry out these prevenciones. 2. Those emancipated will\nbe those who have been more than 12 years Christians, married or widowers\nwith children, knowing how to cultivate the soil or having some trade, and\nhaving 'application to work.' The selection is to be made by the comisionados in conjunction with the ministers of each mission. 3. The emancipated\nare to remain subordinate to the respective authorities, and to the padres of\nthe mission who will exercise over them the functions of parish priest in all\nthat concerns the spiritual administration. 4. The emancipated will receive\nseed for their first sowing, and for a year the customary mission rations; but\nduring that time they must assist the mission during planting and harvest,\nand at other times as they may be summoned\u2014not all at a time\u2014by the minister and the alcalde acting in concert and so arranging the tasks that neither\nthe mission work nor that of private individuals shall suffer. 5. The comisionados in accord with the ministers will select a fitting spot as near the\ncoast as possible, and between the missions on the high road, where the\n REGULATIONS OF 1833.\n329\nShortly before the prevenciones de emancipacion\nwere issued, President Duran had written to Figueroa\na strong letter on the subject, basing his opposition\nto emancipation on the state of things which he had\nfound to exist at Los Angeles, and by which he\nclaimed to have been undeceived and surprised.    The\nemancipated may form a pueblo if there be a sufficient number of families.\nThere they will be given lots of a size corresponding to the amount of land\nat the place, where they may build their houses so as to form streets and\nplaza symmetrically as provided by ancient and modern laws. Lands will\nlikewise be assigned for egidos of the pueblo. 6. The newly founded pueblos\u2014\naccording to decree of May 23, 1812\u2014will remain for the present attached to\nthe nearest municipality or military command, which, in accordance with laws\nand regulations in force and with these prevenciones, will care for the police,\nembellishment, order, and other objects of economical government in the\npueblos intrusted to their care. 7. As the emancipated cease to be minors\nand enter upon the enjoyment of citizens' rights, the authorities will see that\nthey are considered on terms of equality with others in elections and hold\nmunicipal offices according to fitness and. good conduct. Still in order that\nthey may be accustomed and taught to govern according to the federal system, there are to be appointed annually from their number an alcalde, 2 regidores, and a sindico procurador, to be intrusted with the economical government of their pueblo, but to remain subject in the administration of justice,\ncivil and criminal, to the judges of first instance and other superior tribunals.\n8. They must immediately build houses in regular order on their lots, which\nthey must enclose with fruit trees or other useful trees. 9. The minister and\ncomisionado will assign the best land nearest the pueblo, where there will be\ngiven to each family a field, and to the pueblo grazing lands and 2 caballerias\nof land for propios, all in the name of the Mexican nation. 10. Fields to be\n200 varas square, and common grazing lands in proportion to the amount of\nlive-stock up to 2 sitios or a little more. 11. Products of land and property\nof the propios to be applied to expense of worship, church, public buildings,\nschools, etc. Such property to be administered by a majordomo, elected for\n4 years from the emancipated and watched by the alcalde and priest, who\nmay remove him for cause, and who are to use the product of the property\nfor the purposes specified, with the approval of the gefe politico. Routine of\nannual reports and accounts. 12. The comisionado and priest to render full\nreport with lists, etc., of the new foundations. 13. The gefe politico to give\ntitles to lands, and license to use a mark for cattle. 14, 15. Each family to\nreceive from the mission property 2 mares, 2 cows, 2 ewes, with implements,\netc., but all subject to variation according to the circumstances of the\nmission and judgment of comisionado and priest. 16. 100 cattle and 25\nhorses to be given for the propios if the mission has sufficient to do so; otherwise, what it can give. 17. Each individual will mark his animals; but for\ntwo years they are to be tended in common by persons appointed alternately\nby the alcalde for the purpose. For one year no animal can be killed or sold;\nnor afterwards all the stock of any individual. Penalty, a return to mission\nlife. 18. They will enjoy in common the use of water, grass, wopd, etc., on\nthe lands assigned for egidos and pasturage. 19. The land to be the property\nof the individual to whom it is assigned, and of his heirs; but it cannot be\ndivided nor transferred. 20. No mortgage, lien, or mortmain title can be\nimposed on the land, under penalty of confiscation. 21. The emancipated\nmust aid in the common work of the pueblo on ditches, dams, corrals, rodeos, constructing church and other public buildings. They must mark the\nboundaries of their fields with useful trees. 22. Land left vacant by the\ndeath of the owner without heirs reverts to the nation.   23. The emancipated\n MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\ntwo or three hundred Indian vecinos of that town\nwere beyond all comparison more unfortunate and\noppressed than any in the missions. Not one had a\ngarden, a yoke of oxen, a horse, or a house fit for a\nrational being. Instead of the equality so much\ntalked about, the Indians swept the streets and did\nall the menial work. For offences scarcely noticed\nin others, they were bound naked over a cannon to\nreceive 100 blows. They w7ere in reality slaves, being bound for a whole year by an advance of some\ntrifle, since no Indian ever looked beyond the present.\nThey had no ambition for liberty except for savage\nliberty and vicious license, which they would purchase\nat the cost of a thousand oppressions. Duran was\nconvinced by experience and from conversation with\npractical men that emancipation would result in slavery\nor savagism to the Indians and' in destruction to all\ntheir property; and he begged the governor to consider well the results before deciding a subject \"worthy\nthe wisdom of a whole congress.\"61 Yet on receipt\nof the regulations Duran offered no general .opposition to the plan, limiting his criticism to the recommendation of here and there a minor change in some\nof the articles, calling for no special attention. His\nclosing suggestion wTas as follows: \"If after three or\nfour years it shall be noted that the emancipados\ndepend on wild fruits for subsistence, that they\nallow their live-stock to decrease, that they neglect\ntheir planting and other labors in a spirit of vagabondage, or that they manifest no zeal or liking for a\nrational and civilized life, and if, being several times\nwarned, they do not mend, then they shall be returned\nwho may neglect their work and stock, or dissipate them, or abandon their\nhomes to give themselves up to vagabondage, idleness, and vice, will be submitted anew to the mission by decision of the alcalde and priest, who must,\nhowever, give two previous warnings, with time to reform. 24. The authorities will attend to the exact enforcement of these regulations, and will be\nresponsible for infractions if known and not prevented.\n51 July 3, 1833, D. to F., in Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 88-91. On June\n17th, D. had written on the unsatisfactory condition of the Indians at S.\nDiego and S. Luis, made worse by the pernicious example of Portilla's soldiers. Id., v. pt i. 78-9.    Also to same effect on July 19th. Id., 101.\n PARTIAL EMANCIPATION.\n331\nto their missions,\" the author having of course little\ndoubt that they would eventually be thus returned.52\nWhile Figueroa's plan was not so radical as to\ngreatly excite the opposition even of friars, yet when\nhe attempted its execution he encountered obstacles\nand found no popular enthusiasm in its favor. It\nwas tolerated by the padres as an experiment not\nseriously interfering with the mission system, nor\nvery destructive to their interest in the mission property, but sure to result in proving the utter incapacity of the Indians for self-government. But, for the\nsame reasons largely, it was only passively approved\nby the gente de razon, who saw in it no direct avenue\nto the mission lands and herds and servants, while\nthe neophytes themselves were ambitious only to\nhave the property to dispose of as they pleased, and\ncould see little that was attractive in pueblo life\nunder authority, in a living that was to be earned, in\nhaving fields that must be tilled, and cattle that could\nnot be bartered. The governor, however, made an\nearnest effort to give the Indians the civil liberty so\nlittle prized by them, but so valuable in the eyes of\nMexican theorists. He visited the southern missions\nin person, exhorting the assembled neophytes and explaining to them the advantages of the proffered\nfreedom. Of one hundred and sixty families at San\nDiego and San Luis, qualified according to the standard established, only ten cduld be induced to accept\nemancipation before Figueroa started on his return\nto the north.53 He persevered in his efforts nevertheless, appointing captains Arguello and Portilla\nas comisionados. The results cannot be exactly\nknown. Some families were emancipated at San\nDiego and San Luis, but not enough apparently to\nform a new pueblo; though they received lands,\nmanaged their own property, and became citizens.\n62 Duran,  Critica sobre las Prevenciones  de Emancipation, 1833, MS.\nDated at S. Diego July 16th.\n68 Oct. 5th, F. at Sta B.   St. Pap, Miss, and Colon., MS., ii 72.\n 332\nMISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nAt San Juan Capistrano the experiment was tried\non a larger scale. All seem to have been emancipated, and lands were assigned at the mission, which\nthus became virtually a pueblo in October, under the\nprevenciones of July, and certain special supplementary rules issued at this time. I find no evidence\nthat any neophytes at all were emancipated this year\nnorth of San Juan.54\nIn addition to his efforts in the direction of experimental and partial emancipation, Figueroa also kept\nin view his obligation to report on a plan for formal\nsecularization. In August he called upon the diputacion, and on the prelates of the two missionary\n64 July 19, 1883, F. appoints Arguello comisionado for S. Diego, notifying\nalso Duran. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 31-2. Sept. 21st, Portilla to F. On\nthe 23d he will begin the distribution to the neophytes of San Juan Capistrano of their lands at S. Mateo, the best site on the mission tract. The\nInd. of S. Luis will build their houses at once (where it is not stated), while\nthe women harvest the melons. In another letter of the same date P. says\nthe Ind. of S. Juan are not willing to go to S. Mateo, not understanding why\ntheir lands should not be assigned at the mission, where they have already\nwell watered lots on which they are supporting themselves without aid from\nthe mission. F. at first ordered a temporary suspension of the distribution at\nS. Mateo, and on Oct. 13th granted the petition of the Ind., ordered lands\nto be assigned at the mission under the rules, and issued some supplementary\nrules for their guidance. Id., xxxi. 38. On Oct. 5th, he had announced his\nintention in a report to Mexico to emancipate all the neophytes of S. Juan,\nwho seemed more civilized than others. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii.\n72. It may therefore be supposed that these regulations were put in force.\nSept. 27th, Arguello to F. Reports progress, or lack of it, at S. Diego and\nS. Luis. He says that of 59 heads of families at S. Diego only two wished\nfor emancipation, unless they could have their property to do what they\npleased with it; but there were 14 families of 33 persons from S. Dieguito\nwho wished to join the two and form a pueblo, and he had granted their\npetition and was going to assign their lands. (It is not stated where, nor is\nthere any evidence that he did so.) At S. Luis Rey he was even less successful; for out of 108 families none desired emancipation, though 4 married\nmen were somewhat non-committal on the subject. Id., xxxi. 36-7. Oct.\n3d, M. G. Vallejo to F. Thanks God that the true owners of the missions\nbegin to enjoy their rights. ' I have rejoiced from the bottom of my heart\nat the liberation of these poor people from the clutches of the missionaries.\nThe great supply of men and dollars the padres have hitherto had will now,\nthough rather late, come to an end!' St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 318.\nOct.-15th, in a decree on elections F. declares that the neophytes are not\ncitizens, but the emancipados can vote. Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., xi. 12;\nId., S. Jose', MS., iv. 131. Nov. 26th, F. directs Portilla to warn the 'townsmen' of S. Juan that they must do nothing but what is allowed in the reglamento, and must obey orders sent to Portilla.. The ayunt. of Los Angeles\nhas nothing to do with the management of their property\u2014only having\njurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. P. is to instruct them in their\nrights and duties, and bid them pay ho heed to idle rumors. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, MS., lxxix. 12.\n VIEWS OF PREFECT AND PRESIDENT. 333\nbands, to state what missions were in a condition to\nbe secularized under the law of 1813; what objections\nto secularization existed; and what would be the best\nmeans to be employed.55 The diputacion held no\nsession this year, or at least has left no record of its\nreply; but both Duran and Garcia Diego gave their\nviews on the subject, the former in several communications, the latter in a single one dated September\n24th. There was nothing: in the argument of the\nZacatecan prefect that demands extended notice.\nHe admitted that all the missions under his charge\u2014\nexcept Solano, which lacked some weeks of the required ten years\u2014were subject to secularization according to the law of 1813; but he believed that law\ncould not be applied to California without inevitable\nruin to the missions and to the neophytes.56\nPresident Duran of course opposed the change, and\nused to some extent the old arguments, with which,\ncoming from him and others, the reader is familiar;\nbut he also seems to have put himself as fully as possible in the governor's place, and admitting for the\ntime that a change was inevitable, to have given in\ngood faith his views respecting the best means to be\nemployed. He noted two great obstacles to be overcome: first, the natural apathy, indolence, and incompetency of the neophytes, acknowledged by every\nintelligent man who had any experience in the matter;\nand second, the burdens imposed on the missions by\ncircumstances, chiefly that of supporting the troops\n65 Aug. 2, 1833. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 96; Arch. Arzob.,\nMS., v. pti. 106.\n56 Garcia Diego, Parecer del Padre Prefecto sobre Proyecto de Secularizacion,\n1833, MS. The law, he claims, was made 2,000 leagues away by men who had\nno knowledge of the character and needs of Californian Indians. Emancipated,\nthe Ind. would return to nakedness and savagism. Good men would not be\nchosen for alcaldes. The govt had never secularized the missions of Tarahu-\nmara and Sonora, though older than those of Cal. The padres would content\nthemselves with saying mass and confessing applicants. It is only by force\nthat Ind. can be made to attend to religious duties; The bishop has no\ncurates, and the friars would not serve as such, etc. It would seem that F.\nalso addressed his inquiries to others; for Oct. 19th, Alf. Jose Sanchez reports S. F., S. Jos6, and Solano as in a condition to be secularized, the Indians being altogether competent. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 96.\n MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nas they had done for over twenty years. Of course\nthe Indians would do nothing for the support of the\ntroops after secularization, and if any of their property were taken by force, they would find means to do\naway with the rest and escape to the wilderness and\nsavagism. Therefore, before effecting any radical\nchange, the government must be sure respecting resources for the future. The padre disclaimed any\nopposition by himself or his associates from motives\nof interest to their college or to themselves. The law\nof 1813 was altogether inadequate, having been\nframed by men who knew nothing of the subject in\nits Californian phases. The ten-year rule should be\nignored, and some other adopted, if the results of\nhalf a century's work were to be saved.\nThree plans were suggested by Duran. The first\nwras to establish a new line of missions and presidios\neast of the old line, secularize the old establishments\ninto Indian pueblos, and give the neophytes their\nchoice betwTeen remaining in the pueblos or being attached to the new missions. This would effectually prevent them from escaping from civilization, and would\nalso free the territory from. the danger of attack and\noutrage at the hands of renegade neophytes, hostile gentiles, and ambitious foreigners. This plan, though the\nbest, was probably impracticable, because the national\ngovernment could not be induced to bear the expense.\nThe second plan, though not so expeditious, was sure,\nand would lead to the same result. It was to have\na bishop appointed for California, a live man, not bent\non leading a life of ease, and to give him the exclusive\ncontrol of all tithes under the protection but not\ndirection of the governor. With the means placed at\nhis disposal, the bishop could in a few years have in\noperation a seminary of ecclesiastical education, a college of missionaries, a cathedral, and all the necessary\nagencies for converting gentiles and furnishing curates.\nThen the missions might be secularized without risk.\nThe third expedient, less desirable than the others,\n DURAN'S PLAN.\n335\nwas a partial and experimental secularization of certain old missions, eight of which are named, where\nthere have been no new conversions for many years.\nA portion of the property might be distributed, and\nthe rest kept as a community fund, administered by\nstewards of their own choice, free from tithes, and devoted to the support of the spiritual administration.\nThe missionary should have for a time a fatherly\ncontrol, and the alcaldes and majordomos should be\nresponsible for losses and evils resulting from a failure\nto follow his advice. The neophytes should be made\nto understand that if they neglect their privileges\nthey will be again put under the padres. With these\nprecautions, if also the government will see that the\ngente de razon are obliged to set a better example,\nthe evils of secularization may be reduced to a minimum.57\nFigueroa had now become convinced that any\ngeneral measure of secularization would be productive\nof great injury to the interests of California. In his\nreport of July 20th, he had advocated a gradual\nemancipation, in which he thought the friars might\nbe induced to cooperate.58 Now, having heard-that a\nbill for secularization had been introduced in congress,\nhe made haste to lay before the government, in his\nreport of October 5th, the results of his own experience and the views of Duran and Garcia Diego,\nwith whom he agreed to the extent of opposing any\nsudden and radical change in the mission system, as\ninvolving total destruction of all the property with\npossible danger to the security of the territory. He\nwas inclined to favor Duran's plan of a partial and\nexperimental  change  at  the  oldest  missions.59    It\n67 Duran, Proyectos de Secularizacion de Misiones, 1833, MS. On Oct.\n10th Duran asks earnestly that Gov. F. use his influence to have the padres\nrelieved of the mission temporalities, promising to serve en lo espiritual- until\nministers can be sent to replace them. No reason is given except that the\npadres are old and worn out.\n68 Vallejo, Doc. Hist. Cal, MS., xxxi. 33.\n\u2122 Figueroa, In forme en que se opone al Proyecto de Sccidarizacion, 1833, MS.\nThe 8 missions mentioned by Duran were: S. Juan Capistrano, S. Buenaventura, Sta Barbara, Purisima, S. Antonio, S. Carlos, Sta Cruz, and S, Francisco.\n MISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION\nmust be noticed that Figueroa had reported in favor\nof expelling Padres Duran and Sarria from the territory. Their conduct in private and religious matters\nwas praiseworthy; but politically they were opposed\nto the national interests, and they had not scrupled\nto use their official position, influence, and wealth to\nspread \"their opinions, opposing the distribution of\nlands, freedom of the press, and popular sovereignty,\nand desiring the reestablishment of the inquisition.60\nFigueroa's advice, whatever might otherwise have\nbeen its effect, came too late. The national congress,\nwithout waiting for the governor's report, and largely\nthrough the influence of the Hijar and Padre's party,\nas we have seen, had not only discussed a bill for\nsecularization, but had passed it on the 17th of August.61    This law simply provided that the missions\n60 Aug. 17, 1833, F. to sup. govt, in answer to an order referring to him\nEcheandia's complaints against the friars and Victoria's defense of their conduct. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 139-40.\n61 Decreto del Congreso Mejicano secularizando las Misiones, 17 de Agosto de\nIn Arrillaga, Recopilacion, 1833, p. 19-21; Dublan and Lozano, Leg.\nMex., ii. 548, iii. 96; Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 165; Hallech's Report, 125,148-9;\nDwinelle's Colon. Hist., add., 26-7; Jones' Report, 59; \/. Rockwell, 455;\nWheeler's Land Titles, 9-10; Bandini, Doc, MS., 36; Hayes*Mission Boole, i.\n218; Lassepas, Baja Cal, 206-7; Muhlenpfordt, Mejico, ii. 450. Art. 1. The\ngovt will proceed to secularize the missions of Upper and Lower California.\n2. In each mission shall be established a parish under a priest of the secular\nclergy, with a salary of from $2,000 to $2,500, as the govt may determine.\n3. These curates can collect no fee for marriages, baptisms, burials, or any\nother service. As to fees of pomp, they may receive such as may be expressly\nallowed in the tariff to be formed with the least possible delay for that purpose by the bishop of the diocese and approved by the gup. govt. 4. To the\nparishes are given the churches of each mission, with the sacred vessels, vestments, and other appurtenances now possessed by each; and also such rooms\nadjoining the church as in the judgment of the govt may be deemed necessary for the most fitting service of the parish. 5. For each parish the govt\nwill provide a burial-ground outside the settlement. 6. $500 per year are\nassigned as an endowment for public worship and for servitors in each parish.\n7. Of the buildings belonging to each mission, there shall be assigned the\nmost appropriate as a dwelling for the curate, with land not exceeding 200\nvaras square; and the other buildings shall be used as an ayuntamiento-\nhouse, primary schools, public establishments, and work-shops. 8. In order\nto provide promptly and effectually for the spiritual needs of the Californias,\nthere is to be established a vicar-generalship at the capital of Alta Cal., with\njurisdiction over both territories; and the diocesan will confer the corresponding powers, as complete as possible. 9. As an endowment of this vicarship\n$3,000 are assigned, from which all expenses of the office must be paid, no fees\nbeing allowed on any pretext. 10. If for any reason the curate of the capital or of any other parish shall hold the vicarship, he will receive $1,500 in\naddition to his allowance as curate.    11.  No custom can be introduced oblig-\n MEXICAN LAW OF 1833. 337\nshould be converted into parishes, under the management of the ordinary ecclesiastical authorities, and\nregulated some details of that management. Respecting the real difficulties of secularization, the disposition\nto be made of mission property, and the obstacles\nexisting in California,.it was silent. Supplementary\nregulations were apparently contemplated, though\nnot mentioned; and such regulations, or what may in\na certain sense be construed as such, will be noticed a\nlittle later in the instructions to Jose' Maria Hijar.\nBy the law of August 17th, the expense of putting\ncurates and a vicar in charge of the missions, and also\nas it appears of supporting them in their new positions\u2014that is, all the expense arising from the execution of the law\u2014was to be paid from the jpious fund.\nBy a later decree of November 26th, the government\nwas authorized \"to adopt all measures to insure the\ncolonization, and make effective the secularization of\nthe missions, of Alta and Baja California, using for\nthat purpose in the most convenient manner the\nestates of the pious fund of those territories, in order\nto furnish resources to the commission and families\nnow in this capital and intending to go there.\"62\nWe have seen that ten new padres had come to\nCalifornia in 1833 to reenforce the missionary band;\nbut two of the Fernandinos died this year, Jose Bernardo Sanchez, ex-president, and Luis GilyTaboada;\ning the inhabitants of Cal. to make oblations, however pious they may be or\nnecessary they may be declared; and neither time nor consent of the citizens\ncan give them any force or virtue. 12. The govt will see to it that the\ndiocesan do his part in carrying out the objects of this law. 13. When the\nnew curates have been named, the govt will gratuitously furnish a passage for\nthem and their families by sea; and besides may give to each for the journey\nby land from $400 to $800, according to the distance and number of family.\n14. The govt will pay the passage of returning missionaries; and in order\nthat they may return comfortably by land to their college or convent, may\ngive to each from $200 to $300, and at discretion whatever may be necessary\nin order that those who have not sworn the independence may leave the\nrepublic. 15. The sup. govt will meet the expenses authorized by this law\nfrom the product of the estates, capital, and revenues at present recognized\nas the pious fund of Cal. missions.\n62 Decree of Nov. 26, 1833, circulated by the secretary on the same date,\nand published in a bando of Dec. 2d. Arrillaga, Recop., 1833, p. 311-12; Sup.\nGovt St. Pap., MS., ix. 1; Hayes' Mission Booh, i. 218.\nHist. Cal., Vol. HI.   22\n 338\nMISSIONS AND SECULARIZATION.\nand one, Jose Viader, left the country. If we add to\nthese losses the five padres who had died, and one\nwho had left California in 1831-2, we have a gain of\nonly one during the three years covered by this chapter, notwithstanding the coming of the Zacatecanos.\nNarciso Duran succeeded Sanchez as president of\nthe missions in June 1831, being also prelate, vicar,\necclesiastical judge, and apparently vice-prefecto,63*\nthere being no change in 1834\u20145 or the period included in the following chapter. Duran's authority\nwas confined to the missions south of San Antonio\nafter the coming of the Zacatecanos in March 1833.\nPadre Sarria, as already noted, had held the office of\ncomisario prefecto down to 1830; but while there is\nno record of his ceasing to hold that office or that a\nsuccessor was appointed, neither is there any evidence\nthat he or any* other friar performed any duties of\nthe position after 1830, and he is spoken of in 1833\nas ex-prefect.64 Therefore we must conclude that the\noffice of prefect was abolished during these years so\nfar as the Fernandinos were concerned. It is to be\nnoted that Padre Sanchez issued several papers after\nhe left the presidency in 1831, which by their tone\nwould indicate that he still held some authority over\nthe friars, but there is no other evidence that such was\nthe case. In the north, Garcia Diego was comisario\nprefecto of the Zacatecanos during the period covered\nby this chapter' and the next, Rafael Moreno being\npresident and vice-prefect from the beginning of 1834.65\n^Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 43; S. Gabriel, Lib. Mision, MS., 41; Arch.\nSta B., MS., vii. 7; Arch., Obispado, MS., 23. He is in a few documents addressed, as prefect, but this was probably an error.\n6iArch., Misiones, MS., ii. 678. Li Id., 702, Duran is addressed by\nFigueroa as presidente prefecto.\n65 S. Jos6, Patentes, MS., 190-213. Both were re-elected in 1835. P.\nGonzalez was made prefect provisionally in 1835.\n CHAPTER XII.\nMISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\n1834-1835.\nEmancipation\u2014Indian Pueblos\u2014The Diputacion\u2014Figureoa's Policy\u2014\nMexican Law of Apbil 1834\u2014Provisional Regulations of August\n9th\u2014Hijar's Instructions\u2014Their .Meaning\u2014The Reglamento in\nPractice\u2014Local Results\u2014Ten Missions Secularized\u2014Views op the\nPadres\u2014Supplementary Regulations of Nov. 4th\u2014Destruction of\nMission Property by the Friars\u2014Slaughter of Cattle\u2014Stipends\nin 1835\u2014Mission Supplies\u2014Mission Ranchos\u2014GarcIa Diego's Suggestions\u2014Local Items of 1835\u2014Six Missions Secularized\u2014The Fernandinos Content\u2014Mexican Decree of Nov. 9th\u2014Mission Statistics, 1831-5\u2014Seasons\u2014Pestilence\u2014Indian Affairs, 1831-5.\nThere is no positive record that Figueroa's emancipatory experiments had led to the foundation of any\nother Indian pueblo than that at San Juan Capistrano\nbefore the end of 1833. It is possible, however, that\ntwo others were founded before that date, San Dieguito'\nby the ex-neophytes of San Diego, and Las Flores by\nthose of San Luis Rey. At any rate, Figueroa in\nhis opening address before the diputacion, May 1,\n1834, stated that the three pueblos had not only been\nestablished, but were flourishing, the difference between the condition of the townsmen and of the neophytes being already noticeable.1 And this is all\nthat is known of secularization in the first quarter of\nthe year.\nIn his discourse the governor recapitulated his past\nefforts, and announced that the results of his plan of\ngradual emancipation, though impeded by his other\n1 Figueroa, Discurso de Apertura, 1834, MS.\n(339)\n MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nonerous duties and by lack of competent subordinates,\nhad been most encouraging until interrupted by the\narrival of the secularization law of August 17th, which\ncompelled him to await further instructions. The\nlaw was submitted to the diputacion with a request\nfor advice as to its enforcement. The deliberations of\nthat body on mission management in May and June\nwere extensive, but barren of results. Various propositions, relating to the measurement or assignment\nof mission lands, to the prevention of unnecessary\nslaughter of mission cattle, to the enforced rendering of inventories by the padres pending secularization, were introduced, referred to committees, reported back, and discussed; but practically nothing\nwas accomplished. In view of the Mexican law of\nAugust 1833, and of the knowledge that Hijar had\nbeen appointed commissioner of colonization, Figueroa\nfelt doubtful about his powers to take any action, and\nthe vocales were easily induced to adopt his views. It\nwas resolved June 3d that the gefe politico had no\nauthority to execute the law, though some steps\nmight be taken should circumstances require it; that\nthe diputacion should recommend the assignment of\ncertain property to the municipal funds of the new\npueblos, and that the government should also be\nurged not to delay secularization even in the absence\nof regular curates, since the friars could act as such\ntemporarily.2\nThough still doubtful, or at least affecting doubt,\nas to his powers in the matter, Figueroa was induced\nto change his mind so far as to admit that the ' cir-\n2Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 44-6, 51, 6(M, 67-8, 70-2, 83-6, 88-9, 92-5, 98^103,\n108-11. The mission property recommended for-the fondo de propios included\n1,000 head of cattle and horses, the gardens and vineyards, land for tillage\nand for the stock, and the surplus buildings after secularization was provided\nfor. May 2d, the governor's old inquiry of Aug. 2,1833, as to what missions\nwere in a condition to be secularized under the law of 1813, was received,\nwhich is another proof that there had been no session in 1833. By the action\nof May 22d and June 15th the unnecessary slaughter of mission cattle was pro-\n\u00bb hibited. But more on this elsewhere. It was ordered that vacant mission\nlands should be granted according to the colonization law. This was published in a bando. Arch. Obispado, MS., 90; Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 11.\n FIGUEROA'S POSITION 1834. 341\ncumstances' required action as provided for in the\nprevious resolutions, without awaiting special instructions from the government or the arrival of its commissioner. The reason alleged was that in the long\ninterval between the passage and enforcement of the\nsecularization law, the mission property was in danger\nof being wasted by maladministration\u2014a reason not\nwholly without force. In reality, however, the position of Figueroa in 1834 did not differ much from that\nof Echeandia in 1831. Each desired to advance the\nscheme of secularization, each had instructions to that\neffect, each founded his action on a national law\u2014of\nSpain in one case and of Mexico in the other\u2014each\nexpected the early arrival of a successor, each preferred\nfrom motives of personal pride and for the personal\ninterests of friends and supporters that'the change\nshould be inaugurated by himself rather than by his\nsuccessor, and each had the support of the diputacion.\nBoth knew perfectly well that they had strictly no\nlegal right to act in the matter, and that the motives\nalleged, though of some weight, were not urgent for\nimmediate action; yet both chose to assume the responsibility of such action. Figueroa's act, if somewhat less arbitrary and uncalled for than that of\nEcheandia, was none the less a trick. Unlike Echeandia's, but largely from accidental causes, it proved\nto a certain extent successful. It is by no means impossible that more was known in California of the instructions to Hijar and the plans of Padres than was\nadmitted in public discussions and correspondence.3\n3 April 16, 1834, congress passed a decree, published by bando on April\n19th, as follows: '1. All the missions of the republic shall be secularized. 2.\nThe missions shall be converted into curacies, the limits of which shall be designated by the governors of the states where said missions exist. 3. This decree is to go into full effect within four months from the date of its publication.' Arrillaga, Recop.j, 1834, p. 134-5; Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., vii.\n6; Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., x. 1; Hayes' Mission Booh, i. 220; Id., Legal Hist.\nS. Diego, i. 57; Jones' Report, no. 13. This law seems never to have been\nmentioned in Californian discussions, and was probably not understood to apply to Cal., as very likely\u2014from the use of the terms 'governors' and 'states,'\nand the existence of a special law\u2014it was not intended to apply; yet had F.\nknown of this decree, he might have used it somewhat plausibly in defence\nof his course.   In Figueroa, Manifiesto, passim, there is much argument for.\n 342 MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS>\nProvisional regulations for the secularization and\nadministration of the missions were proposed to the\ndiputacion July 19th by the Carrillos. Don Carlos\nwas for some reason, doubtless satisfactory to himself,\nless radically opposed to secularization than he had\nbeen a few years earlier. After full discussion, Figueroa still maintaining a slight pretence of opposition, they were approved article by article in the\nsecret sessions of July 30th and 31st, re-read and\nfinally approved August 2d, and officially promulgated\nin a printed bando by the governor August 9th.4\nand against his action. In Mexico, Mem. Justicia, 1834, p. 30, it is stated\nthat the execution of the laws of Aug. 1833 and April 1834 has been prevented by lack of priests, largely due to the ravages of cholera.\n4Figueroa, Reglamento Provisional para la secularizacion de las Misiones de\nla Alta California, 9-de Agosto, 1834. Printed document in Earliest Printing in Cal. Al?o in St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 253-62; Bandini,\nDoc, MS., 37; Arch. StaB., MS., viii. 264-75; x. 254-65; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMont., MS., iii. 30-42; and with something of the discussions in Leg. Rec,\nMS., ii. 12-28. English translations in Halleck's Report, 147-53; Jones' Report, 65; Dwindle's Colon.m Hist. S. F'co, append., 31; \/. Rockwell, 456;\nHayes'Mission Booh, i. 220? 1. The gefe politico, according to the spirit of\nthe law of Aug. 17, 1833, and to his instr. from the sup. govt, acting in\naccord with the prelates of the friars, will partially convert into pueblos the\nmissions of this territory; beginning in Aug. (erroneously printed 'next\nAugust,' it having been discussed in July) with 10 missions and continuing\nwith the others successively. (In the original proposition the last clause was\n'so far as his duties may allow,' the definite date and the specification of\nmissions being substituted after much debate.) 2. The friars will be relieved\nfr6m the administration of temporalities, and will exercise only the functions\nof their ministry in spiritual matters until the formal division of parishes be\nmade and curates provided by the govt and bishop. 3. The ter. govt will re-\nassume the admin, of temporalities, directively, on the following plan. 4.\nThe approval of this regl. will be solicited from the sup. govt by the quickest\nroute.\n\u2022Distribution of property and lands.\u20145. To each head of a family, and to\nall over 20 years old, will he given from the mission lands a lot not over 400\nnor less than 100 varas square. In common, will be given them enough land\nto pasture their stock. Egidos shall be assigned for each pueblo, and at the\nproper time propios also. 6. Among the same individuals there shall be distributed pro rata, according to the judgment of the gefe pol., one half of the\nlive-stock, taking as a basis the latest inventories rendered by the missionaries. 7. There will also be distributed to them, proportionally, half or less\nof existing chattels, tools, and seed indispensable for the cultivation of the\nground. 8. All the remaining lands and property of every kind will remain\nunder the charge and responsibility of the majordomo or employee named by\nthe gefe pol., at the disposal of the sup. govt. 9. From the common mass of\nthis property provision shall be made for the subsistence of the padres, pay\nof majordomo and other servants, expenses of worship, schools, and other\nobjects'of public order and improvement. 10. The gefe pol., intrusted with\nthe direction of temporalities, will determine and regulate after proper investigation, the expenses which it may be necessary to incur, both for the execution\nof this plan and for the preservation and increase of the property.    11.  The\n BANDO OF AUGUST 1834. 343\nThese regulations, which I give nearly in full, were\ncertainly, whatever may have been the legality of\ntheir issue, much more wisely and carefully prepared\nthan any that had preceded them, resembling in many\npoints the prevenciones on gradual emancipation,\nleaving  much  to  the judgment of the friars, and\nmissionary will choose that one of the mission buildings which suits him best\nfor his dwelling and that of his attendants; and he will be provided with the\nnecessary furniture and utensils. 12. The library, sacred vessels, church\nfurniture, etc., shall be in charge of the padre, under the responsibility of a\nsacristan chosen by him and paid a fair salary. 13. General inventories\nshall be made of all mission property duly classified, account books, documents of every class, debts, and credits\u2014all to be reported to the sup. govt.\nPolitical government of the pueblos.\u201414. The political govt shall be organized in conformity with existing laws; and the gefe pol. will give the\nproper rules for the establishment of ayuntamientos and holding of elections.\n15. The economical management of the pueblos shall belong to the ayunt.;\nbut in the admin, of justice they will be subject to the judges of 1st instance\nconstitutionally established in the nearest places. 16. The emancipated will\nbe obliged to aid in the common work which in the judgment of the gefe pol.\nmay be deemed necessary for the cultivation of the vineyards, gardens, and\nfields remaining for. the present undistributed. 17. They will render to the\npadre the necessary personal service.\nRestrictions.\u201418. They may not sell, burden, nor convey the lands given\nthem; nor may they sell their stock. Contracts made against these orders\nshall be void; the govt will reclaim the property and the buyers will lose\ntheir money. 19. Lands, the owners of which die without heirs, shall revert\nto the nation.\nGeneral rules.\u201420. The gefe pol. will appoint the comisionados whom he\nmay deem necessary for the execution of this plan. 21. The gefe pol. is authorized to settle whatever doubt or matter may arise in connection with the\nexecution of this regulation. 22. Until this regul. is put in force the missionaries are prohibited from slaughtering cattle in considerable quantities, except the usual slaughter for the subsistence of neophytes, without waste.\n23. The debts of the missions shall be paid in preference out of the common\nproperty, on such terms as the gefe may determine. And for exact compliance there shall be observed the following rules: 1. The comisionados as soon\nas appointed will go to their respective missions to carry into effect the plan,\npresenting their credentials to the friar, with whom they are to preserve harmony, politeness, and due respect. 2. At first the com. will receive all accounts and documents relating to property; then the general inventories will\nbe formed in the order given, an estimate of two intelligent persons sufficing\nfor the live-stock. As entered in the inventory, all passes from the control of\nthe friar to that of the com.; but no innovation is to be made in the system\nof work, etc., until experience proves it to be necessary. 3. The com. and\nmajordomo are to:see that all superfluous expenses cease. 4. Before making\nan inventory of field property the com. must explain to the Indians this regulation and the change it is to effect in their condition. Their lots are to be\nimmediately distributed. The com., padre, and majordomo will select the\nplace, give to each what he can cultivate within the fixed limits, and allow\neach to mark his land in the most convenient way. 5. The com. must pay\nno debts of the mission without an express order from the govt, to which a\nreport must be made in order that the number of cattle to be distributed may\nbe determined. 6. Implements will be distributed for individual or common\nnse as the com. and padre may decide; but grain is to remain undistributed,\nand the neophytes will receive the usual rations.    7. What is known as t&e.\n MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nevidently intended to conciliate as far as possible the\ngood-will of the missionaries and to use all possible\nprecautions against the evils to be feared from a sudden and radical change.\nIn ihe middle of October, after some progress had\nbeen made in carrying into effect the law under Figueroa's regulations, Hijar appeared on the scene wTith\ninstructions dated April 23d which contained certain\narticles regulating the law of August 1833, or at least\nwere the only regulations on the subject that the\nMexican government had deigned to issue. I append\nthose articles in a note.5 Their exact meaning is\nnot quite clear, since, literally interpreted; they contain not a word to authorize the distribution of any\nportion of the mission property to neophytes. This\nfact enabled Figueroa and his friends to denounce\nwith much plausibility the whole scheme as one of deliberate plunder. I suppose, however, that the failure\nof the government to define specifically the Indians'\nrights was but a part of the general carelessness observable in all official transactions relating to the col\nli nunnery' is to be abolished at once. The girls and boys are to be given to\ntheir parents, to whom their parental duties are to be explained. 8. The\ncom., after investigation, will propose as soon as possible one or more persons\ndeemed fit for majordomos, with the salary that should be paid them. 9.\nRancherias at a distance having 25 families may form a separate pueblo if\nthey wish to do so, otherwise they will form a barrio or ward of the main\npueblo. 10. The com. will report the population, in order to prepare for elections, which so far as possibie are to conform to the law of June 12, 1830.\n11. The com. will take all necessary executive steps demanded by the state\nof business, reporting to the govt and consulting it in serious or doubtful\ncases. 12. In all else the com., padre, majordomo, and Indians will act as\nprescribed in the reglamento.\u2014Monterey, Aug. 9, 1834. Jose Figueroa;\nAgustin V. Zamorano, secretary.\n5Hijar, Instrucciones. Art. 1. He will begin by taking possession of all\nthe property belonging to the missions of both Californias. Art. 7. Special\ncare shall be taken to attach the Indians to the settlements, mixing them\nwith the other inhabitants, but not permitting any settlement composed of\nthem only. Art. 9. Each family of colonists to receive certain land, livestock, and implements (of course from the mission property). Art. 11. The\ndistribution of movable property belonging to the missions having been made\n(was this merely the distribution to the colonists as per art. 9? or did it include also a distribution to neophytes as a part of secularization?), one half\nof what is left shall be sold in the most advantageous manner. Art. 13. The\nremaining half is to be kept on account of the govt, to pay expenses of worship, education, etc. Art. 14. An annual report on the mission property required from the director of colonization.\n HIJAR'S INSTRUCTIONS. 345\nony. Secularization included as an essential element,\nby the whole spirit of Spanish laws, the distribution\nof mission lands and property to the Indians. Hijar\nand Padre's always claimed to be advocates and defenders of aboriginal rights; and while their strongest\nmotives, as in the case of all men in a like situation,\nwere personal rather than humanitarian, I deem it\nunlikely that there was any intention of perpetrating\nso gross an outrage as was implied in a literal interpretation of the instructions considered independently\nof other laws. I suppose rather that the plan was to\nput the neophytes, at least in theory, on equal terms\nwith the colonists in the distribution of property. It\ncan serve no useful purpose to speculate upon wrhat\nmight have been the results if Hijar's instructions\nhad been carried out. The revocation of his commission as gefe politico enabled Figueroa very justly to\nannul those instructions; else he would have found\nhimself with his reglamento very much in the position\nof Echeandia with his decree of January 1831. The\ncontroversy has been fully treated elsewhere; and the\narguments of the two rivals on their respective systems and authority for regulating secularization,\nthough lengthy and interesting, do not call for further\nnotice.6 The Hijar and Padre's colony as planned\nseemed destined to exert a radical and controlling influence on the fate of the California missions; but in\nreality it had no effect beyond the imposition of a\nheavy tax for a year or two to support the families,\nand a diminution of the opposition which Figueroa\nmight otherwise have expected from the friars.7\nThe records of what was actually accomplished this\nyear under Figueroa's provisional regulations are\nmeagre, as we shall find the annals of secularization\n6 See Figueroa, Manifiesto, 44-80.\n7 Janssens, Hijar, and other members of the colony are inclined to insist\nthat the opposition to the directors arose largely from their efforts in behalf\nof the Indians, whose property the other party wished to control.\n 346\nMISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nin all years. There are in the archives vague local\nitems indicating the presence of a comisionado and\nthe introduction of the new system in nine missions.\nSuch fragmentary information as can be derived from\nthese items, I give in a note.8 The tenth mission was\nperhaps San Cdrlos, which would naturally have been\none of the first, though there is no evidence on the\nsubject. Most of the items bear date of November,\nand in but few missions was much progress made before December.\nThe padres have not left themselves on the record\non either side of the contest between Figueroa and Hijar; nor do they appear to have made any-attempt to\ninterfere seriously with the enforcement of the provisional regulations. Before their publication, President Duran had written a letter of general discontent\nto the governor, complaining of the uncertain prospects in the matter of secularization, of the scarcity\nand illness of friars, of the refusal of the Zacatecanos\nto take charge  of more than eight missions, of the\n8 There is nothing in relation to S. Diego. At S. Luis Rey, Capt. Portilla\nwas comisionado in Nov., and the accounts turned over by P. Fortuni showed\nassets of $46,613 and liabilities of $14,429. In Dec. the Ind. refused to work,\nand. ran away, taking most of the horses and killing many cattle; but in Jan.\nthey began to come back and behave better. St. Pap., Miss., MS., xi. 49-53;\nHayes'Mission Booh, i. 223, 227. No record for S. Juan Capistrano, excep that\nJuan Jose Rocha, probably the comisionado, acknowledges on Nov. 22d receipt of resolution to secularize the mission. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS.,\nlxxxviii. 18. At S. Gabriel an inventory was made in Nov. 1834.. St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS., vi. 12-14; and Lieut-col. Gutierrez was doubtless the com., being\nin charge early the next year. Lieut Antonio del Valle was the com. at S.\nFernando, and was engaged in Oct. in making inventories. Guerra, Doc,\nMS., vi. 150; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 134. At Sta Barbara Alf. Anastasio\nCarrillo was com. from Sept., with Jose\" Maria Garcia as majordomo from Oct.\nSt. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 24-31; xi. 1. Domingo Carrillo was com. of Purisima in Nov. Id., xi. 23. There is no record for Si Luis, S. Miguel, S. Antonio, S. Carlos, S. Juan, or Soledad. Santa Cruz was delivered to Alf. Ignacio\ndel Valle as com. on Aug. 24th; and Juan Gonzalez was majordomo from Oct.\nThis establishment was now known as Pueblo de Figueroa; and the Ind. were\nreported to behave admirably under the new system; though there was a little trouble with the padre about the rooms to be occupied by him. St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS.,ix. 66-71; x. 6; Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 12, 23; Valle, Lo Pasado,\nMS., 9-10. There is no record of secularization this year at Sta Clara or S\u201e\nJose\\ At S. F. de Asis, Joaquin Estudillo took charge as com. in Sept.\nSt. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 62. At S. Rafael an inventory was taken in Sept.;\nthe pueblo was marked out in Oct. by Ignacio Martinez, who was probably the\ncom.; and stock was distributed in Dec. Id., v. 58-9; x. 11. S. F. Solano\nwas perhaps not fully secularized until next year.\n RULES OF SECULARIZATION. 347\naction of some troops who had sustained the Indians\nrather than the padres, and of new troubles, not explained, which had come upon himself. \"The Indians\nshould not be entirely subjected nor entirely free,\"\nyet he saw no practicable middle course, and begged\nFigueroa to take counsel of unprejudiced persons such\nas foreigners.9 Prefect Garcia Diego received in May\nfrom the guardian of his college a copy of the secularization law, with orders to obey its provisions and\ninstructions on the methods of surrender to curates.\nHe congratulated the Zacatecanos on the adoption of a\nmeasure which would enable them to retire. About\nthe same time he received and circulated an order forbidding the padres to take any part in politics, or to\ncriticise the policy of the government.10\nDuran seems to have made a report on the plan\nembodied in the provisional reglamento, which is not\nextant, but which, on being presented to the diputacion, was referred to a committee, and resulted in a\nseries of supplementary regulations adopted in the\nextra session of November 3d and issued in a bando\nby Figueroa on the 4th. No radical changes were\nintroduced by this document, which seems to indicate\nthat Duran and the other friars were inclined to look\nsomewhat favorably on the new system as administered by the governor, or at least, that it was more\nfavorable to their interests than any substitute likely\nto be obtained.11\n'July 22, 1834, D. to F.  Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 4-5.\n10May 22, 1834, F. to Casarin. Dept. St. Pap., Mont, MS., vi. 30. June\n20th, Garcia Diego to padres. Arch. Obispado, MS., 90. May 23d, same to\nsame. U Josi, Patentes, MS., 203-8. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 217-23,\ntells us, that the Zacatecans were in a fury.\" They prepared a protest to the\npres. against the plundering policy, calling for F. 's trial and removal. Backed\nby Zamorano and Sanchez, they sent the protest south for the signatures of\n'the Fernandinos, not One of whom would sign the document, and some of\nwhom talked very warmly in favor of the regl., mainly to annoy the Zacatecanos, whom they despised as intruders. I believe, however, there is no\nreason to credit Alvarado's statements on this and like subjects.\n11 Reglamento de Misiones secularizadas, aprobadopor la Diputacion en 3 de\nNov. 1834, MS., in Vallejo, Doc, xxxi. 131; Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 199-205;\ntranslation in Hallech's Report, 153-4; Jones' Report, 60; Dwinelle's Colon.\nHist., S. F'co, add., 34; Hayes' Legal Hist. S. Diego, i. 57. Art. 1. Conformably to the law of Aug. 17,1833, salaries of $1,500 are assigned to curates.\n 348 MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nA special matter that may best be noticed here is\nthe slaughter of mission cattle by the friars in 1834\nand the following years, together with a wanton neglect and destruction of other property. Many of the\nmissionaries regarded secularization as an outrage\nupon themselves, their college, and their neophytes;\nand when they became convinced that the disaster\ncould not be averted, at different times, but chiefly\nin 1834, they ceased to care for the buildings, vineyards, and gardens as in former times, and attempted\nto realize in ready money as large an amount as possible, which of course could best be done by a slaughter of cattle for their hides and tallow. Accordingly\nsuch a slaughter was effected, to some extent in all\nthe missions, but notably at San Luis Key, San Ga-\nof first-class parishes, and $1,000 to those of the second class. 2. Parishes of\nthe first class shall be, S. Diego and S. Dieguito; S. Luis Rey, Las Flores,\nand annexed settlements; S. Gabriel and Los Angeles; Sta Barbara mission\nand presidio; S. Carlos and Monterey; Sta Clara and Jose de S. Guadalupe;\nand S. Jose, S. Francisco Solano, S. Rafael, and the colony (7 in all, incorrectly grouped in Halleck's and other translations). Parishes of the second\nclass, S. Juan Capistrano, S. Fernando, S. Buenaventura, Sta Ines and Purisima, S. Luis Obispo, S. Miguel, S. Antonio and Soledad, S. Juan Bautista\nand Sta Cruz, S. Francisco mission and presidio. In parishes of more than\none place, the curate will reside at that first named. 3. The comisario prefecto Garcia Diego will reside at this capital. The gefe pol. will ask from the\nbishop in his behalf the faculties of vicario foraneo. His salary shall be $3,000.\n4. In all other respects the vicar and curates are to conform to the law of\nAug. 17th. 5. Until the govt shall provide regular curates, the prelates will\ndo so (from the friars) provisionally, by consent of the gefe pol. 6. $500 per\nannum shall be paid in each parish for church expenses and servants. 7. All\nthese salaries and expenses of worship shall be paid from the common property of the extinguished missions, in money if there be any, or in produce at\ncurrent rates\u2014the gefe pol. to give the necessary orders. 8. Art. 17 of the\nregl., requiring the Ind. to render personal service to the friars, is abrogated.\n9. The gefe will cause to be assigned buildings for the residence of curates,\nayuntamientos, schools, etc., according to art. 7 of the law. 10. Other\npoints of Duran's recommendations may be attended to by the gefe pol. under\nart. 17 of the regl. 11. All to be communicated to the prelates and by them\nto their subordinates.\nMy original is the one sent by Figueroa to Comisionado Valle at S. Fernando, whom he directs to assign the curate's dwelling at once. Salaries are\nto commence on Dec. 1st, after which date it will not be necessary to supply\nthe padre with subsistence or service, except on salary account. On Oct*30th\nF. had issued a resolution of the dip. that although the Ind. towns still bore\nthe name of missions, they were not lawfully so, since they ought to have been\nsecularized ere this, and should therefore be considered as towns of the republic, subject to the same laws as other towns, being under the civil authorities\nof the head towns of the respective districts. St. Pap.,Miss, and Colon., MS.,\nii. 263-4.\n SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE. 349\nbriel, and Purisima, by outsiders who contracted to\nkill the cattle and deliver half the hides to the padres.\nSuch is the charge, and though exaggerated in detail,\nI have no doubt it is well founded; indeed, so far as\nI know, the padres have left in the records no denial\nof its truth. Naturally the documentary evidence\non this subject is slight; but we have seen that in\nJune the diputacion forbade the slaughter of cattle\nexcept in the usual quantities, and by members of the\ncommunity; and a similar prohibition was deemed\nnecessary in the reglamento of August. I append a.\nfew notes from the archives and something of what\nhas been said on the subject.12\n12 July 16, 1834, F. to alcaldes, publishing the act of the dip. of the 12th.\nIt is stated that the slaughter was then going on at Purisima, S. Luis, and S.\nGabriel, Pico, Doc Hist. Cal, MS., i. 9-10; Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS.,\nxi. 21-2; Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 10-11; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 95-6. June\n20th, Prefect Garcia Diego circulates the order to the Zacatecanos. Arch.\nObispado, MS., 90. July 8th, 10th, 12th, permission asked by S. Carlos and\nS. Luis to slaughter cattle for payment of debts. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 148-51,\n163. From May to July 5,700 cattle were killed, leaving 2,850 hides for the\nmission, the rest belonging to the ' porcioneros.' St. Pap., Miss., MS., x. 4.\nOsio, Hist. Cal, MS., 2U3-6, attributes the slaughter largely to the feeling\nof the Fernandinos against the Zacatecanos. The padre of S. Luis Obispo was\nordered by his prelate to convert the mission wealth as rapidly as possible;\nand he bought $20,000 worth of cotton, woollen, and silk goods which he distributed among the neophytes. Over 5,000 hides from S. Gabriel were\nshipped at S. Pedro. When P. Estenega came to that mission he found all\nthe cattle destroyed, so that he had to appeal to the Yorba rancho for meat,\nfat, and milk. Gov. Chico in 1836 said the friars 'annihilated the best part of\nthe funds to allay the covetousness that they deemed to be the primary cause\nof secularization,'executing 'matanzas espantosas de ganado,'and abandoning 'toda clase de arbitrios de su progreso.' Earliest Printing in Cal. Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 51-3, tells us that 2,000 cattle were killed in a single\nday at one mission, the meat and fat being left in the fields. F.'s government only pretended to interfere, to save a portion of the stock for a particular purpose indicated in a letter to friends in Mexico, which the author saw,\nbut which he takes good care not to quote or explain. J. J. Vallejo, Reminis.,\nMS., 54-5, though a friend of the padres, admits the destruction, and thinks\nit was justified by circumstances. Pio Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 157, says he\nhad a contract at S. Gabriel, employing 10 vaqueros and 30 Indians, and\nkilling over 5,000 cattle. Pico, Acont., MS., 24, speaks of a very extensive\nslaughter at Purisima under Domingo Carrillo, the administrator. Estudillo,\nDatos, MS., 33-4, tells us that after a time nothing but the hides was saved.\nSome 20,000 head were killed at the S. Jacinto ranch of S. Luis Rey.\nRobinson, Life in Cal, 159-61, says the ruin was more preceptible at S.\nGabriel than elsewhere. The contractors really took two hides for every\none they gave the padres. Hayes, Emig. Notes, 486, thinks the slaughter\nbegan in 1832. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 70-3, is inclined to doubt that\nany wanton slaughter was effected at most missions; but she understood that\n30,000 cattle were killed at S. Gabriel, and remembers that there were fears\nof a pestilence from the rotting carcasses.   Truman, in the Castroville Argus,\n 350\nMISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nThe venerable ex-prefect Padre Francisco Vicente\nSarria, of the Fernandinos, died in 1835; and his associate, Francisco Javier Uria, had died the year\nbefore. These are the only changes to be noted in\nthe missionary personnel, except that Padre Perez of\nthe Zacatecanos disappears from the records after\n1835.    I do not know what became of him. ..\nBy submitting to heavy discounts, certain friars\nseem to have succeeded in collecting a portion of the\nsums due them on account of sinodos this year. This\nwas accomplished through the agency of Virmond,\nwho for approved missionary drafts on the pious fund\nobtained others on the national treasury which were\npaid in custom-house orders negotiable at 25 or 30\nper cent discount for cash. As usual, the accounts are\nincomplete, and it is impossible to state exactly what\nsums were obtained;' but at one time $7fi00 were paid\nto the padres of six missions; and the college of San\nFernando seems to have got a bill accepted for the\nsinodos of nine friars from the beginning of 1830 down\nto the respective dates of their decease. Meanwhile\nthe pious-fund estates remained, not yet rented according to the law, in the hands of a directive junta.\nOf the revenue from June 1832 to March 1834,\namounting to $56,250, the sum of $25,691 had been\nexpended on the colony; $23,567 had been taken as a\nloan by the government; $4,713 paid out in miscellaneous expenses; and $1,523 paid over in missionary\nstipends.13\nSept. 23, 1871, gives a very exaggerated account of the destruction and shipment to Spain of all the property at S. Juan Capistrano by P. Zalvidea;\nand Taylor, Cal. Farmer, Feb. 1, 1861, tells us that the padre of S. Gabriel\nunroofed the buildings, used the timbers for firewood, had the cattle killed\non halves, and distributed the utensils to the neophytes, who were ordered to\ncut down the vineyards, but refused.\n13 Mexico, Mem. Relaciones, 1835, p. 36-7, no. 10. May 2, 1835, F. to the\ngovt says that Deppe, Virmond's agent, had paid $7,200 to padres of S. Antonio, Sta Ines, Purisima, S. Miguel, S. Juan Capistrano, and S. Francisco,\nfor 1831-2-3. He advises a suspension of such allowances, or of such payments, on the ground that the padres manage the missions in their own way\nand have plenty of resources. In cases of actual necessity, the sinodos could\nbe paid from the mission products, and the whole considered as a loan to the\ngovt.    (In view of the secularization laws already enforced or to be enforced\n PROGRESS IN 1835. 351\nDemands for supplies from the missions were often\nrefused in 1835, both by the padres and by the comisionados, but always on the plea of absolute want of\nmeans. The changes of the last few years had left\nmany of the establishments in such a condition that\nthey could barely feed and clothe the Indians, who\nwere not disposed to look at all favorably on any sharing of their earnings with the troops. To what extent, if any, the community cattle and other property\nwere sacrificed in aid of the troops or for the furtherance of private interests I have no means of knowing;\nbut I suppose that the swindling operations charged\nupon the government and the administrators, with\nmuch probability of truth, did not commence until\nlater, and that in 1834-5 the authorities contented\nthemselves for the most part with the legitimate taxes\non mission products.\nIn respect to general regulations and progress of\nsecularization, there is little to be noted in the annals\nof 1835. No approval of the reglamento came from\nMexico, nor disapproval for that matter, and in California little or nothing was changed in the current\nsystem. Figueroa devised a plan for establishing separate ranchos at each mission for the support of the\npadre and of public worship; and even made a beginning at San C&rlos and Santa Cruz. Garcia Diego\napproved the measure warmly in May, perhaps had\nimmediately, the meaning and force of F. 's argument are not apparent.) June\n17th, F. certifies the drafts of 6 padres, 4 of them for stipends of 1834 and 2\nfor 1831-4, aggregating $4,800. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 294-8.\nOct. 7th, Virmond to Guerra. On the discounts necessary to obtain money.\nCalls for a full power of attorney, and will do his best. Guerra, Doc, MS.,\nvi. 147-8. Dec. 23d, same. Speaks of the draft in favor of the college in\nfavor of PP. Catala, Suner, Boscana, Barona, Amor6s, Sanchez, Gil, Uria,\nand Sarria; and calls for doc. to prove their claims. Id., vi. 146-7. Dec.\n16th, there is no way to recover the losses of two or more of the missions by\nthe death of the insolvent Sindico Martiarena at Tepic. Id., vi. 130. A list\nof padres showing sums due to each from 1811 to Dec. 1, 1834. The total\nsum is $248,000; and tho amount received from 1811 to 1830 by the padres\nstill living in 1834 was $19,200 out of $85,600 that should have been paid.\nFondo Piadoso de Cal, Demostracion de los Sinodos que adeuda a los Religi-\nosos del Colegio de S. Fernando, 1811-34, MS. Oct. 14th, directors of pious\nfund to pres. of missions, calling for certified accounts of sums due. Doc Hist,\nCal, MS., iv. 994-5.\n MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nsuggested it first himself, but in August, after reflection, changed his opinion, basing his opposition\non the governor's lack of authority to make such an\ninnovation on the Mexican laws against the foundation\nof any obras piadosas whatever, on the animosity that\nwould be felt against the padres so long as they administered any property, on the insufficiency of the\nmeans proposed, and on the injustice of freeing the\ngente de razon from all responsibility for the support\nof religion.1* On account of this opposition or of Figueroa's early death, the scheme was carried no further.\nFrom the Fernandinos we hear nothing; and their silence may indicate that in the south secularization was\nproving more or less satisfactory. In the north, however there were complaints of demoralization among\nthe Indians, and of other difficulties, which prompted\nPrefect Garcia Diego to suggest certain modifications\nof the rules, not adopted so far as can be known.15\n14 May 29, Aug. 3, 1835, G. D. to F. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii.\n333, 336-9. June 15th, guardian of the col. at Zacatecas wrote to prefect that\nthe missions must not be considered nor called parishes, nor the missionaries\ncurates, since no legal and formal transfer had been effected. And the transfer could be made lawfully to only priests able to show all their papers in due\nform. Corresp. de Misiones, MS., 45-7. Aug. 15th, G. D. to the padres. The\nguardian requires statistical information about the missions. S. Jos6, Patentes,\nMS., 211-12.\n15 Garcia Diego, Reglas que propone el P. Prefecto para gobierno interior de\nlas ex-misiones, 1835, MS. His suggestions were: 1. Total separation of the\nquarters chosen by the padre for himself and servants and those of the comisionado and majordomo. 2. That the Ind. be compelled to render personal\nservice to the padre, whose servants should not only be supported by him, but\ncontrolled and corrected in a parental way, independently of all interference\nfrom the com. 3. That in view of disorders that have resulted among the\nsingle women since they were set free, they should be returned to the padre's\nexclusive control, aided by an alcalde of his own choice. 4. That the allowance of $500 per year for expenses of religious worship should be paid to the\npadre at the beginning of the year, he to keep a book of accounts which was\nto be inspected by his prelate. 5. That the padres should be authorized to\nenforce attendance on religious duties by the same means used in the case of\nchildren. 6. That com. be instructed to aid the prelate with animals and\nvaqueros when travelling, or the friars travelling by order of their prelate. 7.\nThe com. and majordomos also to furnish carriers of correspondence between\nthe prelate and friars.\nDana, Two Years before the Mast, 199, speaks of the prevalent immorality\namong the Indian Women in 1835-6. May 21st, F. orders com. not to make\nloans of mission effects which may prejudice the establishment. St. Pap., Miss:,\nMS., ix. 27. Oct. 12th, Vallejo to F., expressing the opinion that not all the\nneophytes are fit to be intrusted with the management of their own property;\nand advising that a part be made to live in community, the property being\n LOCAL ITEMS OF SECULARIZATION. 353\nLocally we have a series of items in continuation\nof those presented for 1834. These show that six additional missions were secularized this year, San\nDiego, San Luis Obispo, San Antonio, Soledad, San\nJuan Bautista, and San Francisco Solano. No\nchange had yet been made so far as the records show\nat San Buenaventura, Santa Ines, San Miguel, Santa\nClara, and San Jose\\ Thus in sixteen missions the\nfriars had been deprived of the temporal management;\ncomisionados had at first taken charge, and at several\nof the establishments had completed their labors; inventories of all mission property had been made; a\nportion of the lands and other property had been\ndistributed to the neophytes; the padres had become temporarily curates; and majordomos, often unofficially called administrators, had succeeded the\ncomisionados, or were managing the estates under\ntheir supervision. Figueroa's provisional reglamento\nwas practically in force, though the author was\ndead, and, so far as can be determined from meagre\nrecords, the result at many missions was not unsatisfactory.16    It is unfortunate that we may know\nmanaged by majordomos. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 43. Dec. 27th, F. says that\nthe sum of $500 for church expenses is excessive; and orders that payment be\nmade only for what is actually needed. St. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 10.\n16 At S. Diego Joaquin Ortega became majordomo in April. St. Pap.,\nMiss., vi. 38-9. There is no record of any com. having served since 1833.\nIn Nov. the Ind. pueblo of San Pascual was in existence with 34 families.\nDocument in Hayes' Mission Booh, i. 230; Id., Emig. Notes, 497. No record\nof S. Dieguito. At S. Luis Rey Portilla as com. had troubles of a not important nature with Ortega of S. Diego, and with the padre, who was not\npleased with the rooms assigned him. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 3-7; St. Pap.,\nMiss, and Colon., MS., ii. 340-1. Early in the summer he transferred the charge\nof the property to Pio Pico, as majordomo, against whom in Nov. the Ind.\nmade loud complaints. Hayes' Mission Booh, i. 229; Julio-Ce'sar, Cosas de Indios,\nMS., 4-5. Inventory of August, assets, $203,737; debts, $9,300. St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS., vi. 10-11. An inventory of S. Juan Capistrano makes the assets\n$54,456; debts $1,420. Id., v. 48-9. At S. Gabriel there is no record of the\nappointment of a majordomo, Gutierrez being still in charge in Jan. Dept.\nSt. Pap., Aug., MS., ii. 3. Antonio del Valle became majordomo of S.\nFernando on June 1st; and to him the Ind. complained of P. Ibarra's removal of money and goods. St. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 8; xi. 3. In Id., xi. 3-4, is\na record that Carlos Carrillo was sent to secularize S. Fernando, but the Ind.\nrefused to recognize him. This is unintelligible, unless the name should be S.\nBuenaventura. For Sta Barbara there are several inventories for the year;\nand in May Jose\" Maria Garcia took charge as maj. Id., ix. 24-5\u201e At Puri-\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   23\n MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nso little about the practical working and immediate\nresults of the new system; and especially that the\npadres' views are not extant. Here and there a friar\nhad a personal quarrel with the new administration\nabout the assignment of rooms or servants, or presented a complaint that the ex-neophytes were ill\ntreated, but for the most part they were silent.\nThey seem, more particularly the Fernandinos in the\nsima Joaquin Carrillo as maj. was put in charge in Aug. by his brother Domingo.    Assets were $29,981. Id., vi. 16.\nManuel Jimeno was ordered by the gov. in Oct. to secularize S. Luis\nObispo; and Santiago Moreno was made maj. the same month. Id., ix. 14-15,\nNo record for S. Miguel. Manuel Crespo was the com. to secularize S. Antonio; and Mariano Soberanes was maj. until Sept. 10th, when he was succeeded\nby Jose Ramirez. The inventory at the transfer showed assets of only $7,883.\nId., vi. 16; xi. 30. P. Mercado made very bitter complaints in Dec. of the\ntreatment of the Indians by Ramirez, and of the deplorable results, the regulations being flagrantly disregarded, and the prosperity of the mission ruined.\nLeg. Rec, MS., iii. 3-6; S. Antonio, Doc. Sueltos, MS., 120-1. At S. Carlos,\nTorre, Reminiscencias, MS., 37-9, tells us that Joaquin Gomez was the com.\n(probably in 1834), and Jose Antonio Romero the first majordomo. Figueroa,\nas I have said elsewhere, issued some orders for the formation of a rancho for\nthe support of the church. jSt. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 334-5. For\nSta Cruz there are full inventories in 1835. Total, $84,334. Sta Cruz, Lib.\nMision, MS., 1-3; St. Pap., Miss., MS., v. 54. Secularization was deemed complete on Dec. 1st, at which time $10,576 had been distributed in effects to the\nInd. Id., ix. 66-7. Ignacio del Valle was to receive a gratuity of $300 for\nhis services as com. Id., ix. 69; Sta Cruz, Parroquia, MS., 20. Juan Gonzalez was the maj. of this Pueblo de Figueroa. Savage, Doc, MS., i. 20.\nNicolas Alviso was the first maj. in charge of Soledad, where he had perhaps\nbeen com. as well. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxx. 10. The inventory\nof Aug. showed a total of $47,297. St. Pap., Miss., MS., v. 57. At S. Juan\nBautista the aggregate value was put down as $138,973, after $8,439 had been\ndistrib. to the Ind.; and the debt was only $250. Id., vi. 17-18. Tiburcio\nCastro was the maj. and apparently the com., there being some trouble both\nwith the Ind. and the padre. Id., x. 15-16; St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS.,\nii. 342-3.\nNo secularization was yet attempted at Sta Clara, though many neophytes\nwere given licenses of emancipation. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 14; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., iii. 17. Neither is there any record of secularization at S. Jose.\nIn the inventories of July the San Francisco property was valued at $67,227,\nthe buildings being $33,969; and there was $7,222 of debt. St. Pap., Miss.,\nMS., vi. 19-20; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 220. The inventory is very complete\nin detail. Com. Estudillo, having trouble with P. Gutierrez, was replaced for\na while by Ignacio del Valle; and Gumesindo Flores took charge in July\nas maj. Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 74; St. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 63; vi. 19;\nValle, Lo Pasado, MS., 10. There is nothing about S. Rafael in 1835 except\na grant of lands at Nicasio to ex-neophytes. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 29. M.\nG. Vallejo was the com. who secularized S. F. Solano, and appointed\nAntonio Ortega as maj. There was a quarrel with P. Quijas, who went in his\nwrath to live at S. Rafael; and the Ind. were also somewhat troublesome on\naccount 'of their desire to live in their old rancherfas. Vallejo resigned in\nDec. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 11-12, 40, 45, 47, 57; St. Pap., Miss, and Colon.,\nMS., ii. 345; Pinto, Doc, MS., i. 51. The foundation of Sonoma, really a\npart of the secularization of this mission, is noticed elsewhere.\n STATISTICS. 355\nsouth, to have accepted the new system as the least\nunfavorable that could be hoped for; and to have devoted themselves in good faith to the performance of\ntheir new duties. Their cause was lost; but they had\nmade a long fight, and were personally glad to be relieved of onerous duties; and their prospects were not\nunfavorable for passing their last years in comfort.\nIt was unfortunate for the country that the system\nwras to be disturbed, and the old controversies were\nto be to some extent revived.\nThe disturbance was to.come from Mexico, where\nradical changes in the form of government were effected in 1835, centralism as interpreted by the ambitious dictator, Santa Anna, gaining a victory over\nfederalism. This change, requiring but mere mention for my present purpose, was in its general aspects\nfavorable to the church and to the friars; and one of\nits immediate results was the passage by the congreso\nconstituyente on November 7th, of the following decree: \"Until the curates mentioned in article 2 of the\nlaw of August 17, 1833, shall have taken possession,\nthe government will suspend the execution of the\nother articles, and will maintain things in the state in\nwhich they were before the said law was made.\"17\nThis decree, practically repealing the secularization\nlaw, and sure if enforced to create greater confusion\nin the management of the missions than had ever existed before, was not known in California until after\nthe end of 1835, and therefore a presentation of its\neffects belongs to the next half-decade of mission annals.\nRegular mission statistics cease almost entirely with\nthe secularization in 1834, even for the establishments\nthat were not secularized until some years later. Nothing but occasional, special, and fragmentary reports\nare extant for the period from 1835 to 1846, all ob-\n17 Decree of Nov. 7, 1835, in Arrillaga, Recop. 1835, p. 583-4; Hallech's\nReport, 154; Jones' Report, 63; Hayes' Mission Booh, i. 232-3.\n 356 MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\ntainable data from which reports I shall give from\ntime to time as occasion may require. Therefore I\ndeem it best to present here for the period of four\nyears a statistical statement like that which I have\nbefore appended to the annals of each decade. It is\nnot, however, likely that the reports were as carefully\nmade during the last few years as for earlier periods.\nMost of the padres were careless in the matter, and a\nfew probably misrepresented the condition of their\nmissions in respect of agriculture and live-stock.\nIn 1830 there had been 26 missionaries in charge\nof the 21 missions. In 1835 there were still 26, since\n10 Zacatecanos had come to take the place of the 8\nFernandinos who died and the two who left the country. Only one, Padre Abella, was left of those who\ncame before 1800.\nThe neophyte population decreased from 18,000 to\n15,000, only one mission, San Luis Rey, showing a\ngain. San Luis had still the largest population, and\nas to the smallest there was close rivalry between\nSan Carlos and San Francisco. San Rafael showed\nthe largest percentage of loss, but the figures in this\ncase are not reliable, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz\ncoming next. Baptisms numbered 3,500, an average\nof 875 against 1,300 for the past decade. Solano had\nthe largest number, 555, followed by San Jose* with\n414 and San Luis Rey with 385; while Santa Cruz\nhad only 23, and San Francisco perhaps less. Deaths\nnumbered 4,250, an average of 1,062 against 1,445\nfor the past decade, San Jose' having the largest number, 659, and San Francisco the smallest, 36.\nIn cattle there was a loss of 16,000 head, from 156,-\n000 to 140,000; though 10 missions showed a gain,\nchiefly in the north. Horses decreased from 16,600\nto 12,000;* though 8 missions gained. Sheep decreased from 150,000 to 130,000, there being a gain\nin 8 missions. San Luis Rey still led in cattle and\nsheQp, closely followed by San Jose* and Santa Clara.\nThe average yield of grain crops decreased from 57,\n SEASONS\u2014PESTILENCE. 357\n500 fanegas to 32,700 fanegas per year, or more than\n40 per cent. Solano and San Jose* were the only\nmissions that gained in their average; while the largest loss was 73 per cent at San Juan Capistrano.\nThe best total crop was 40,000 fanegas in 1831, and\nthe worst was 25,000 fanegas in 1833.\nFor this period of four years I may say, as I have\nsaid of the last decade, that the losses in the different\nbranches represented in the statistics obtainable are\nmuch less than would be expected from what is known\nof the current mission history; but, as I have already\nwarned the reader, these statistics are much less reliable than those of former years.\nI find no evidence that there occurred in the years\n1831-5 any noticeable season of flood or drought;\nthough both have been rather vaguely ascribed to\nthat period by newspaper writers, who founded their\nstatements ostensibly on the recollections of old residents. As there is no agreement on the subject, the\nstatements are not worth particular reference, one of\nthe most widely circulated being that of a flood in\n1832\u2014though a terrible drought is also ascribed to\nthe same year\u2014in support of the theory of decennially\noccurring inundations. Memoranda of Thomas O. Lar-\nkin at Monterey show light rains in the autumn of\n1833, heavy rains in February and April 1834, a dry\nspring, with three days' rain after the middle of May,\nand no heavy rains until the last half of December in\n1835.18 A terrible pestilence, an intermittent fever\noften prevalent in that region, is reported as having\nalmost depopulated the whole valleys of the Sacramento and San Joaquin in 1833. Warner, with Ew-\ning Young and a party of trappers, passed up the valleys in the autumn of 1832, noting a dense Indian\npopulation; but in the following summer when the\nparty returned the country was strewn with the remains of the dead wherever a village had stood, and\nl8Larkin in S. F. Chronicle, March 25, 1856, in VaUejo,Doe,t xxavI. 214.\n 358\nMISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nfrom the head waters of the Sacramento to Kings River only five living Indians were seen. The trappers\nthemselves were attacked by the fever, and some of\ntheir servants died. There may be something of exaggeration in this narrative; but there is no reason to\nquestion the general accuracy of Warner's statement;\nespecially as Vallejo wrote in May of the same year,\nthat a pestilence, which he supposed to be the smallpox, was causing fearful ravages on the northern\nfrontiers; and as Edwards in 1837 found on every\nhand abundant and revolting signs of the pestilence,\nwhich was described to him by Ewing Young from\npersonal observation. Young said he saw hundreds\nlying dead in a single rancheria.19\nThe topic of Indian affairs, as distinguished from mission annals, or relating mainly to the hostile acts of the\nnative gentiles or refugees, assumes no special importance in 1831-5, and may be noticed as appropriately\nhere as anywhere. Local alarms of minor importance\nand generally unfounded need not be mentioned at all\nin this connection, nor the constant but petty depredations of prowling thieves on live-stock from one end\nof the territory to the other. In 1833, from February to June, there was an excitement in the San\nJ)icgo district consequent \"upon the reported plan of\nthe neophytes to unite with the gentiles and seize the\nmission property. There was some evidence that invitations had been sent to the different missions; and\nthat El Cajon \u00abwas the rendezvous from which the attack was to be made the 20th of June. It was also\nrumored that the movement had a political significance,\nbeing intended to support Echeandia's views respect-\n19 Warner in Los Angeles Star, 1874; Hayes1 Legal Hist. S. Diego, i. 34-7;\nYuba Co., Hist., 24. Day in Hesperian, ii. 2; May 18th, Vallejo to comandantes, etc., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 32; Edwards' Diary, MS., 27. Vallejo\nsays the contagion came first from the northern English settlements and later\nfrom Ross. He recommends vaccination and other precautions. The traveller from whom the account in the Hesperian was taken va&y have been Warner or another of his party,\n INDIAN HOSTILITIES.\ning the distribution of mission lands. After much\ncorrespondence between the governor and local authorities, including calls upon the comandantes and\nalcaldes for aid, a small force was sent to El Cajon\nunder corporal Gonzalez to seize Tajochi and other\nringleaders. No resistance was made, the Yuma allies, if there had been any such, having run away.\nTajochi was sentenced after trial to two years of public work, and three of his associates received shorter\nterms of punishment. The political element was perhaps imaginary; and it is not impossible that the plot\nfor a general revolt was equally so.20 Palomares and\nBojorges, old Indian-fighters, mention rather vaguely\nsome expeditions from San Jose* out into the valleys\nthe same year, in one of which the name Calaveras\nwas applied to a battle-field on which thirty unburied\nbodies of the foe were left. This is partially confirmed\nby a report in the archives of an expedition by Regi-\ndor Peralta from San Jose\\ in which he killed twenty-\ntwo Moquelumnes in November.21\nComplaints were frequent of depredations committed near each of the southern missions in 1834, and\nespecially at San Gabriel. The Indians went so far\nas to steal the holy vessels used at the rancho of San\nBernardino, and to hold Padre Estenega as prisoner\nfor a while when he went there to protest. Lieutenant Araujo and others connected with the Hfjar col-\nonly were supposed to be in some way implicated in\nthe troubles here, referred to in current correspondence as a 'revolt,' in which four or five Indians seem\nto have been killed.22 This was in October, and at\nthe end of December San Bernardino was attacked\n\u2122Dept. St. Pap, MS., iii. 89, 117-23; Id., Ben. Mil, lxxv. 5-8; lxxix.\n13-14; Id., Ben. Pref y Juzg., v. 39; Id., Aug., i. 99-100; xi. 3, 9.\n21 Palomares, Mem., MS., 32-8; Bojorges, Recuerdos, MS., 9-11; Dept.\nSt. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., i. 15, v. 45; S. Jose', Arch., MS., v. 27.\nPeralta met Joaquin Joven (Ewing Young) and his cattle-thieves, also a party\nof Frenchmen.\n22Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii, 175-205; Id., Ben. Mil, lxxxviii. 14-17. An\nexpedition against the Navajos by citizens of Los Angeles is mentioned in\nJanuary. Id., Ang., i. 139, 141,\n 360\nMISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\nagain, the buildings were sacked and burned, and several persons killed, wounded, or captured, the survivors taking refuge at San Gabriel or the other ranchos.\nThe excitement was great in January and February;\nbut the records afford but slight information about\ndetails or results.23 The campaigns of Vallejo and\nFigueroa in the north, and their bloody battles with\nthe fierce Satiyomes near Santa Rosa, which must\nhave occurred in 1834 if at all, I have noticed elsewhere, expressing my opinion that, if not purely imaginary, these events as related by several writers\nwere grossly exaggerated.24 I may also allude to the\nhostilities said to have accompanied the founding of\nSonoma with like incredulity.\nIn 1835 Vallejo seems to have marched northward\nfrom Sonoma to aid the chief, Solano, in reducing the\nrebellious Yolos.25 He had in view also an expedition\nto the Tulares in July; but it was given up.26 Robbers from the Tulares gave great trouble at San Jose'\nand the adjoining region; and it appears that the\ncitizens became somewhat too fond of making raids in\nthat direction, and were apt to make no distinction\nbetween horse-thieves and inoffensive women and\nchildren. Figueroa was obliged to issue strict orders\nto prevent outrages.27 The native inhabitants of San\nNicolds Island in the Santa Barbara Channel are said\n28 Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 1-3; St. Pap., Sac, MS., xii. 6-8, being reports\nto Figueroa with calls for aid. This and other similar events will be noticed\nsomewhat more fully in local annals.\n24 See chap. ix. of this vol. The writers who narrate this affair are there\nnamed. I may be in error; but I do not believe that such an event, especially as it involved the death of a dozen soldiers, could have occurred without\nleaving some slight trace in the archives. The killing of even a single soldier\nin an Indian fight of those days was a very startling event.\n25 Vallejo, Report on County Names, 1850, p. 532, in Cal., Journal of Senate,\n1850. Charles Brown claims to have accompanied an expedition apparently\nidentical with this. He says the force consisted of 60 Californians, 22 foreigners, and 200 Indians, lasting nearly three weeks in the rainy season. 100\ncaptives were taken, and some acts of fiendish barbarity were committed by\nSolano and his men.    Narrator was wounded.\n36 Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 55, 59.    Letter of Vallejo and Figueroa.\n21 Dept. St. Pap., S. Jos6, MS., iv. 164-5. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 244-6,\nis disposed to blame Figueroa for his leniency toward Indians, which to some\nextent accounted for their depredations.\n &\nNATIVE MARAUDERS. 361\nto have been removed in 1835 to the main, with the\nexception of one woman, who was found and brought\nover eighteen years later.28 At San Luis Rey a plot\nwas revealed to capture no less a personage than the\ngovernor when he should arrive from the north. An\nexamination of arrested plotters in April indicated,\nhowever, nothing more serious than a design to protest\nagainst the granting of Tem6cula rancho, which the\nIndians claimed as their own property.29\nWhile Indian hostilities were thus for the most\npart trifling as recorded, yet in one phase of the subject they were much more serious than could be made\nto appear from a series of petty local items, even if all\nthose items were extant, which is far from being the\ncase. The constant depredations of renegade neophytes, in alliance with gentile bands, and instigated\nby New Mexican vagabond traders and foreign hunters, kept the country in a state of chronic disquietude\nin these and later years, being the most serious obstacle to progress and prosperity. Murders of gente de\nrazon were of comparatively rare occurrence, but in\nother respects the scourge was similar to that of the\nApache ravages in Sonora and Chihuahua. Over a\nlarge extent of country the Indians lived mainly on\nthe flesh of stolen horses, and cattle were killed for\ntheir hides when money to buy liquor could not be\nless laboriously obtained by the sale of other stolen\narticles. The presence of the neophytes and their\nintimate relations with other inhabitants doubtless\ntended to prevent general attacks and bloody massacres, as any plot was sure to be revealed by somebody; but they also rendered it wellnigh impossible\nto break up the complicated and destructive system\nof robbery. Far be it from me to blame the Indians for their conduct; for there was little in their\n28 Nidever>8 Life and Adventures, MS., 68-72. Sparks and Williams were\namong the men who removed the Indians in 1835, as they stated to Nidever4\nwho himself found the woman in 1853.\n29 Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxx. 13-19.\n 362 MISSION AND INDIAN AFFAIRS.\npast training or present treatment by white men to\nencourage honest industry.80\n30 Davis', Glimpses of the Past, MS., 282-9, relates at some length the exploits of Estanislao and Yoscolo, two ex-neophyte chiefs. Yoscolo made a\nrevolt at Sta Clara, seized 200 Indian girls from the nunnery, took large numbers of cattle, and went to the Mariposa region to join Estanislao, who had\nrun away before. Vallejo made an expedition against them, but was outgen-\neralled by the Indians. Later Yoscolo made another successful raid on the\nmissions, and retired with his force to the Sta Cruz mountains, where he was\nsoon defeated after a hard battle, and his head exhibited on a pole at Sta\nClara. There is much confusion evidently in the events thus outlined; but\nthere is probably some foundation of fact besides what is recorded in a previous chapter about Estanislao and Valleio's campaign.\n CHAPTER XIII.\nMARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\n1831-1835.\nAnnual Lists op Vessels on the Coast\u2014Revenue Statistics\u2014Smuggling Items\u2014Seizure of the 'Loriot'\u2014Commercial Regulations\u2014\nVictoria and Bandini\u2014Contraband\u2014Ports\u2014Bandini and Angel\nRamirez\u2014A Disappointed Inspector of Customs\u2014Fur Trade\u2014Salt\n\u2014Abel Stearns' Operations at San Pedro\u2014Treasury Officials\u2014\nComisarios\u2014Bandini, Gomez, Gonzalez, Estrada, and Herrera\u2014\nMinor Revenue Officers\u2014Local Items\u2014Financial Correspondence\u2014Statistics\u2014Municipal Funds\u2014Taxation\u2014Tithes\u2014Plan of\nWays and Means\u2014Alphabetical List of Vessels.\nNineteen vessels were on the coast in 1831, including one launched this year from a California port,\njnost of them laden with goods from different lands,\nchiefly from Boston, to be exchanged in the regular\nway for hides and tallow.1 Respecting the fleet of\nthis year, as to a great extent of most others at this\nperiod, we have to content ourselves with the vessels'\nnames, those of their officers in most cases, and various\nitems of destination, nationality, tonnage, cargo, and\ndates, collected from many sources and embodied as\n1 See list for 1831-5 in this chapter. Vessels of 1831: Ayacucho, Baikal,\nCalifornia, Catalina, Convoy, Dryad, Eliza, Fanny, Fibian, Globe (?), Guadalupe, Harriet, Leonor, Louisa, Marcus, Margarita, Pocahontas, tlrup, Volunteer, Whalehound (?), and Wm Little. The Guadalupe was a schooner of 6\ntons, framed by Joseph Chapman at S. Gabriel, hauled in carts to S. Pedro,\nwhere she was put together and launched. Robinson, Life in Cal, 100, was\npresent at the launching, and describes her as the second vessel built in Cal.\nWarner, Remin., MS., 63-7, says she was built in 1831-2 for Wolfskill,\nYount, and other otter-hunters.    He calls her the Refugio.\nCustoms revenue at S. Francisco for 8 months in 1831, $2,419. Unzueta,\nInforme, doc. 9. Revenue at S. Diego, June 1830 to June 1831, $389.\nMexico, Mem, Hacienda, 1832, doc, -3; Prieto, Rentas, 204, doc. 2.\n(363)\n 364    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\nbefore in a list note. What adventures the traders\nhad, if any; what obstacles they encountered; what\ngoods they smuggled; what duties they paid; what\nprofits they gained\u2014must be left to the imagination.\nThere is nothing to indicate that they had any especial difficulty in obtaining cargoes on account of the\ncurrent political disturbances, or that controversies on\ncommercial topics arose with Victoria.\nThe fleet of 1832 numbered twenty-four vessels, of\nwhich four were old acquaintances, seven were whalers,\nand five doubtful names from the lists of Spence and\nHayes.2 In several respects available items about\nthese vessels are even less complete than before; but\na few of these items, in the absence of maritime topics more exciting, may be noticed as follows: The\nPocahontas carried away the exiled governor, Victoria,\nwith some companions in misfortune, including Padre\nPeyri. The Waverly brought padres Bachelot and\nShort, who had been exiled by protestant influence\nfrom the Hawaiian Islands, and who spent several\nyears in California as already related. Captain Sumner on touching at Santa Barbara for water was arrested with his officers, and his vessel put under a\nguard; but investigation revealing no cause, of suspicion, he was permitted to sail after a few days. The\nNewcastle brought Thomas O. Larkin as a passenger,\nand from this year a resident. The whaler Wm\nThompson, after obtaining fresh supplies at San Francisco, came back into port a few days after sailing with\na part of her crew in a state of mutiny. By order\nof General Zamorano, aid was rendered to restore\nobedience; the mutineers were put in irons; and four\ndeserters from another vessel were added tothecr.ew;\nbut the territorial treasury could not bear the expense\n8 Vessels of 1832: American, Anchorite, Ayacucho, Balance, Bolivar, California, Chalcedony, Crusader, Don Quixote (?), Friend, Josephine (?), Jdvcn\nVictoriano, Newcastle, Plant, Phoebe (?), Pocahontas, Roxana, Singapartan,\nSpy{1), Tranquilina, Urup, Victoria (?), Waverly, and Wm Thompson.\nCustoms revenue at S. Francisco for the year ending June 30,1\u00a782, $30 (?).\nPrieto Rentas, 204, doc, %\n FLEET OF 1833. 365\nof sending the criminals to San Bias, as was desired\nby the captain. Finally the Bolivar, under a permit\nto purchase horses for coin at San Francisco by paying tonnage dues, managed to smuggle goods to the\namount of $10,000, Padre Viader of Santa Clara being the purchaser, if we may credit the charges of\nAlfdrez Vallejo,\nThere were thirty-one vessels in the fleet of 1833,\nincluding six whalers and five doubtful names.3 The\nCatalina, a Mexican brig, brought from Cape San Lucas in January Figueroa, the new governor, and the\nten padres Zacatecanos, carrying away in May Ex-\ngovernor Echeandia, Congressman Juan Bandini, and\nCaptain Barroso. The Facio brought Don Juan Fors-\nter on his first visit to California, and also brought\nthe news that Gomez Pedraza had occupied the presidential chair. The Volunteer on approaching San\nFrancisco defeated in a race the Ayacucho, thought\nto be the fastest sailer on the coast. So states Davis,\nwho was on the Volunteer; and the same writer records the festivities attending the marriage of Thomas\nO. Larkin on board the same vessel at Santa Barbara,\nThis bark also brought reports of a privateer on the\ncoast with hostile intent, but nothing came of it.\nThe only other vessel requiring special mention was\nthe Loriot, which, by reason of alleged otter-catching\nand other smuggling operations, was seized at San\nFrancisco in September by Alferez Sanchez. The\nsails were put on shore to prevent flight,.but the rudder could not be removed. The cargo was transferred\nby water from the Yerba Buena anchorage to the\npresidio landing, and thence, as rapidly as one small\ncart could carry it, to Vallejo's house, where Supercargo Thompson was at first confined. Soon he was\nreleased on bail, with John Read on the bond, and in\n'Vessels of 1833: Alert (?), Ayacucho, Baikal, Barnstable (?), Bolivar (?),\nCalifornia, Catalina, Chalcedony, Charles Eyes, Crusader, Don Quixote, Dryad,\nEnriquela (?), Facio, Faheja, Friends, General Jackson, Harriet Blanchard,\nHelvetius, Isabel, Kitty, Lagoda, Leonidas (?), Leonor, Loriot, Margarita,\nNorth America, Polifemo, Roxana, Sta Bdrbara, Volunteer.\n 366    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\nNovember, after Judge Jose* Antonio Carrillo at Los\nAngeles had considered the case, both captain and\nvessel were permitted to depart, John C. Jones having given bonds for submission to the results of a subsequent trial. Of final results nothing is known.\nJones, owner of several of the vessels trading at this\ntime from Honolulu, was United States consul for\nthe Hawaiian Islands.\nThirty-two vessels are named as being in California ports in 1834,* a year in which the hide-and-\ntallow trade was more brisk than usual, in consequence\nperhaps of the unwanted slaughter of mission cattle.\nItems of revenue as given in my note are somewhat\nless incomplete than iii previous years;5 and for many\nof the vessels there are records of the number of\nhides and the botas of tallow taken away from different ports, indicating that there was but little difficulty\nin obtaining cargoes this year. The coming of the\ncolony on the Natalia and Morelos has been noted\nelsewhere; as have the wreck of the former vessel at\nMonterey, and the tradition of her identity with the\ncraft that took Napoleon from .Elba; and I find no\ncircumstances connected with the presence of other\nvessels of the year that call for special notice.\nThe fleet of 1835 consisted of twenty-three vessels,\nbesides nine doubtfully recorded, most of them in\nDavid Spence's list.6    Custom-house records are com-\n| * Vessels of 1834: Avon, Ayacucho, Bonanza (1), By Chance, California,\nClarita (?), Crusader, Don Quixote, Europe (?), Facio (?), Feighton (?), Jdven\nDorotea, Lagoda, Leonor, Llama, Loriot, Magruder, Margarita, Martha,\nMorelos, Natalia, Pacifco, Peor es Nada, Polifemia, Pulga (?), Refugio,\nRosa, South Carolina, Sterilon, Tansuero (?), Urup, Wm Sye.\n6 Miscellaneous items of revenue not belonging to particular vessels: Receipts at the Monterey custom-house, July-Dec. 1834, $28,531; expenses,\n$2,270; balance paid to comisaria. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., vii.\n[399-67]. Receipts June 30, 1833, to June 30, 1834, $50,109. Prieto, Rentas,\np. 204, doc. 2-3. About 1834 the exports from S. Pedro were over 100,000\nhides and 2,500 quintals of tallow. Mofras, Explor., i. 362.\n6 Vessels of 1835\u2014see list of 1831-5 at end of this chapter: Alert, Avon, Ayacucho, Bolivar, California, Catalina, Clementina, Clementine, Diana, Facio,\nFramen (?), Gauge, Garrafilia, Iolani, Juan Jos6 (?), Lagoda, Leon{1), Leonor,\nLiverpool Packet, Loriot, Margarita, Mariquita, Maria Teresa (?), Matador(?),\nPeor es Nada, Pilgrim, Polifemia, Primavera (?), Rosa, Sitka, Trinidad (?),\nWilmington.    Revenue statistics for 1835: Receipts at Monterey custom-\n COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS.\n367\nparatively complete, showing the total revenue from\nduties to have been about $50,000 for the year. Of the\nvessels, the Rosa and the Loriot were employed by the\nterritorial government for the exile of the colony\nrevolutionists; while the Pilgrim and Alert were the\nBoston ships on which Richard H. Dana had his\nexperience of 'Two Years before the Mast,' resulting\nin one of the most fascinating and widely read books\never written about California. T refer ithe reader to\na list at the end of this chapter for more particulars\nabout the vessels of 1831-5.\nI have now to notice commercial regulations and\nother general phases of the subject\u2014briefly, for modifications were neither frequent nor radical. Governor\nVictoria issued an order a few days after assuming his\noffice, by which he required a strict enforcement of\nthe Mexican revenue laws. Declaring Monterey the\nonly legal port, at which exclusively foreign vessels\nmust discharge their cargoes and pay duties, he forbade\nthe introduction of prohibited goods, the continuance\nof retail trade by the vessels, and the payment of\nduties in kind. Bandini, then in charge of the comisaria, not only denied Victoria's right to interfere at\nall in matters of revenue, but defended the abuses\ncomplained of, on the ground that they had arisen\nchiefly from the peculiar circumstances and necessities\nof California, and that they had the tacit sanction of\nthe government.7    It does not appear that Victoria's\nhouse for the year, $48,125, though there is a variation of a few thousand\ndollars in different accounts; salaries and other expenses, $6,991; balance paid\ninto the comisaria.\n7 Feb. 9, 1831, V. to B. and Gomez. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., vii. 1; Leg.\nRec, MS., i. 268-9. Mar. 7th, B.'s reply. Id., i. 269-73. April 13th, V.\nproposed the imposition of tonnage dues on whalers and the abatement of the\nduties exacted from Russian vessels. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 123. Echeandia\nrepresented that trade with foreign vessels had been well regulated at the beginning of 1831. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 43, 45. June 27th, Mexican regulations. Arrillaga, fiecop., 1831, p. 324-46. May 17, 1832, instructions to Figueroa. Commerce to be fostered and exports of surplus products,\nto which end the missions should be induced to build small vessels for the\ncoasting trade; Californians should be encouraged to engage in commercial\npursuits, especially in otter-hunting, with a view to drive out foreigners; and\n 368    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\norder had any real effect, though for the next four\nyears the law requiring each vessel to come first to\nMonterey for a settlement of duties was more strictly\nenforced than before. After an understanding had been\nreached with the customs officers by means of statements, exhibition of papers, inspection and appraisal\nof cargo, the vessel became at once a movable salesroom, opened successively at each port up and down\nthe coast until the cargo had been disposed of and the\nhides received in payment had been stored at San\nDiego\u2014a process generally requiring two years of\ntime and several visits to each port. The aim of the\ntraders was to make the agreement at Monterey as\nfavorable as possible; and so entirely dependent on\ncustoms receipts was the government, that the supercargoes could often dictate terms. By the connivance\nor carelessness of officials, the way was often left open\nfor a transfer of cargo at sea or at the islands, so that\nseveral cargoes could be sold under one permit. This\nmethod of smuggling was more common among the\nSandwich-Island than the Boston ships; and many\ncargoes were thus transferred without the vessel that\nbrought them ever entering California ports. Whalers\nin quest of fresh supplies smuggled large quantities of\ngoods, and the Russians engaged to less extent in\nsimilar operations, both these classes being favored on\naccount of the fact that their coming afforded the inhabitants a market for vegetables and grain. So far as the\nrecords indicate, there was very little smuggling carried on by vessels that touched on the coast without\na permit of some sort.\nUnder Figueroa's political administration during\n1833-5, no evidence appears that changes were effected\nin the commercial system,8 though there were frequent\ncomplete reports on commercial topics should be rendered. Sup. Govt St.'\nPap., MS., viii. 13, 35, 38-9. Oct. 26th, Zamorano approved of exempting\nwhalers from all'charges, as the sale of supplies to them was a direct benefit\nto the inhabitants; but he required them, like other vessels, to come first to\nMonterey.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 327.\n^Jan.-Feb. 1833, Pa von, director general de rentas, to officers in Cal.\nabout the taking of govt drafts for past loans in payment of \u2022duties.    The last\n CALIFORNIAN PORTS. 369\nsuggestions of needed reforms. In October 1833\nBandini introduced in congress a proposition to open\nSan Diego and San Francisco to foreign trade, making Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Pedro minor\nports for coasting trade in national vessels; but he\nwTas unable to carry the point, and Monterey still reorder was that they, might be taken to the extent of 40 per cent if the balance\nwas in money. Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., vii. 1-2. Feb. 5th, heavy tonnage dues have driven away the whalers to the Sandwich Islands, greatly to\nthe injury of Cal. The rate should be reduced to 1 real per ton. Id., Ben.\nCust.-H., ii. 8. Feb. 16th, allow no discharge of cargo without a certificate\nfrom Monterey. Let no ships enter mission harbors. Id., ii. 17. March 4th,\nforeign vessels mock the laws. Having paid a small duty, they manage to\nmake several trips. Id., ii. 9. May 7th, S. Francisco and Sta Barbara are\nthe hot-beds of smuggling. Additional guards required. Id., ii. 13-14. May\n31st, introduction of prohibited goods stdl continued. Any attempts of the\nrevenue officers to enforce the laws meet with a storm of popular discontent\nand threats. National vessels afford no relief, selling at high prices and\navoiding payment of duties on the claim of having paid in Mexico. Id., ii.\n14-15. June 5th, gov. not in favor of export duties. Id., ii. 23-4. July 27th,\nsub-comisario favors granting permit to a Russian vessel to get salt and to\nsalt meat without paying tonnage. Id., ii. 19-20. Sept. 19th, a full list of\nvessels with details must be sent to Mex. by each mail. Id., Mont, vii. 2-3.\nOct. 15th, Bandini's proposition in congress. St. Pap., Sac, MS., xviii. 54.\nOct. 22d, seizure of $3,711 in gold-dust at S. Diego, from Guaymas. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxix. 38-9. Oct. 24th, depree of congress. Foreign\ngoods brought in Mex. vessels will enjoy a discount of 20 per cent in duties.\nId., Mont., vii. 3-4. Nov. 2d, order respecting manifests. Arrillaga, Recop.,\n1833, p. 134-9; Pinto, Doc, MS., i. 61-2; Dept. M Pap., Mont., MS., vii.\n4-5. Nov. 18th, all trade with gentiles forbidden; and all traders in such\ncases to be treated as smugglers. Id., ii. 28; Id., Ben. Mil, lxxix. 16; Sta\nCruz, Arch., MS., 96. Nov. 18th, order from Mex. that whalers pay $10.50\neach for the building of piers. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H, MS., ii. 28.\nDec. 27th, govt orders to be received in part payment of duties. Id., Com.\nand Treas., iii. 20. Aug. 21, 1834, administrator of customs to the receptor\nat S. F. He must go on board of any foreign vessel arriving and demand a\ncertificate that duties have been paid at Monterey. If she has no certificate,\nno part of her cargo can be landed and no trade allowed; but she must proceed to Monterey. A Mexican vessel with national goods may discharge all\nher cargo and trade on paying duties or giving bonds for such payment; but\nif from a foreign port or laden with foreign goods she must proceed to Monterey like a foreign vessel. Lighters and boats from Ross or Bodega need not\nbe sent to Monterey; but may trade by submitting to inspection and appraisal\nand paying duties. Any attempt to abuse this privilege to be punished with\nconfiscation. Pinto, Doc. Hist. Cal, MS., i. 115-19; Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nCust.-H., MS., ii. 1-3. Foreigners seem to have paid $5 per month for use of\nshanties and salting-places at S. Diego. Id., Pref. y Juzg., vi. 69. Aug. 6th,\nFigueroa's decree on duties imposed for municipal revenues. Dwindle*s Colon.\nHist. S. F'co, add., 29-30; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 54. March 15, 1835, 2 per\ncent 'derecho de circulacion' paid on money sent from Cal. to S. Bias. S.\nDiego, Arch., MS., 3. July, Aug., no sailor from a Mex. vessel shall be\nallowed to land in Cal. without special cause. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 47-8;\nSt. Pap., Miss., MS., xiv. 43. Sept. 5th, Mex. custom-house regulations.\nArrillaga, Recop., 1835, p. 452-5. Bandini's report on the administration of\nrevenues in 1824-35, dated May 1835. Bandini, Information del Visitador\nde Aduanas, 1835, MS.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   24\n 370    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\nmained the puerto habilitado of California in the eyes\nof everybody but Don Juan and his San Diego friends.\nBandini's troubles, and especially his controversy\nwith Angel Ramirez, constitute a prominent feature\nof commercial history at this period, even if they were\nnot, as Don Juan was disposed to believe, the grand\nturning-point of Californian destinies. Bandini was,'\nas we have seen, a leading spirit in the grand scheme\nof Hijar and Padres, and in the Compania Cosmopol-\nitana. Though not able to close the port of Monterey in favor of San Diego as he wished, he did obtain\nan appointment as visitador, or inspector of the California custom-houses. He started for home with the\ncolony in 1834, filled with the most enthusiastic hopes.\nMember of a great commercial company without in-\ninvesting a cent of capital, in a sense the representative of the company in California, having at his disposal a stanch vessel, Hijar and Padres in full possession of the political and military power, the mission\nwealth virtually under the control of his associates,\nand last, but far from least, himself provided with a\ncommission by virtue of which he could remove such\nobstacles to his interests as might arise in the revenue\ndepartment, the road to a princely fortune seemed\nbroad and open before the ambitious ex-congressman.\nThe failure of the general scheme, in its political,\nmilitary, and even commercial aspects, has been sufficiently noticed, and it is only of Bandini's experience\nas visitador that I have now to speak. He was not\nmore successful than Hijar in securing recognition of\nhis authority. In the autumn of 1834, soon after his\narrival, he presented his credentials to Ramirez, the\nadministrator, and announced his purpose to begin by\ninspecting the Monterey custom-house. Ramirez, of\nwhom I shall have something to say later, was a man\nalways disposed to lookout for his own interests; and\nthough supposed to be a partisan of the colony clique,\nhe foresaw the triumph of Figueroa, and deemed it\n 1\nBANDINI AND RAMIREZ. 371\nwiser to save something from the general wreck for\nhimself than for Bandini. He accordingly declined to\npermit any interference in his office until orders to\nthat effect should come from his superior officer, the\ndirector de rentas in Mexico. In vain did Don Juan\nentreat and argue and protest; Don Angel had the advantage, being doubtless supported by Figueroa. He\ndeclined to yield or to enter into any controversy, and\nreported the state of affairs to his superior. He also\nordered subordinate officials at other ports not to submit to Bandini's interference, though the latter had\nthings very much his own way for a time at San\nDiego, which he persisted in regarding as the open\nport of California.9\nWhether Ramirez ever received any order from the\ndirector does not appear. Bandini afterward declared\nthat such an order was received and disregarded.\nHowever this may have been, Don Angel soon found\na more effective weapon against his opponent, in an\naccusation of smuggling. Bandini had brought from\nAcapulco on the Natalia, of which he was the supercargo, various effects, exceeding $2,000 in value, for\nhis own use and for sale on his own account. These\ngoods were landed at San Diego free of duties, on\nthe assurance of the visitador that all was en regie,,\nexcept a small quantity lost in the wreck at Monterey.\n9 Sept. 13, 1834, Figueroa congratulates Bandini on his appointment. Bandini, Doc, MS., 38. Dec. 7, 1834, B. to Ramirez, with his appointment of\nMarch 17th. B.'s salary was to be $3,000, and he had received $1,000 in advance. Reply of R. same date. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., vii. 1-4;\nadditional correspondence between the two at Monterey, Dec. 9th-llth. Id.\nvii. 4-5, 7-8; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 25-6. Dec. 12th, R. to dir. gen., enclosing correspondence with B. Dept. St. Pap , Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., iii.\n6-8. Dec. 13th, B. to the sup. govt. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 27. March .16\n-17, May 6, 1835. R. to receptores of S. Diego, S. Pedro, and S. F.,\nwith orders that no interference by B. be permitted. Pinto, Doc, MS., i.\n141-2, 147; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., vii. 14-15. April 5th, R. to\ndir. gen., accusing B. of a well understood plan to use his appointment as visitador for the making of a fortune at the expense of the treasury; he explains\nthe steps he has taken, his determination not to recognize B.'s authority without special orders, and also alludes to complaints of smuggling to be investigated. Id., Ben. Com. and Treas., iii. 8-10. May 5th, B. to min. of hacienda,\na full report on administration of customs in past and present. Bandini, Information, MS.\n 372    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\nAn investigation was made by Judge Castillo Negrete.\nThe facts were clear enough. Bandini himself confessed the introduction of the goods, with no explanation so far as can be known. Indeed, in his later\nravings he never deigned to deny the charge, nor to\nexplain his action, but simply affected to regard it as\nan absurdity that he could have been engaged in contraband trade. The judge accordingly suspended him\nfrom office, declaring the goods confiscated, together\nwith the sum of $700 due the accused from the territorial treasury.10\nBandini's disappointment and indignation at this\ndisastrous ending of all his brilliant hopes for wealth\nand power may be more adequately imagined than\ndescribed.11 He lost no opportunity during the next\nfew years of reporting in writing upon his wrongs,\n10 Investig. of the charge of smuggling, comprising a dozen documents, in\nS. Diego, Arch., MS., 44-6; Dept. ,St. Pap., MS., iv. 71-87; II, Ben. Pref y\nJuzg., ii. 154-5; Id., Ben. Cust.-H., vii. 12; Pinto, Doc, MS., i. 145-6. The\ntemporary suspension was dated May 7, 1835, and tho permanent suspension May 14, 1830. The goods smuggled in by B. included G bales of sugar,\n25 cases of table oil, 1 barrel of tobacco, some wine, ribbons, and jewelry,\nand 0 or 8 bales of unknown effects. Santiago Arguello wa3 reprimanded for\nnegligenco in tho matter. Lawsuits begun respectively by Ramirez and Bandini wero left unaffected by the decision; but wo hear no more of them.\n11 Richard H. Dana, Two Years before the Mast, 270-7, speaks of B. as follows: 'Among our passengers [from Monterey to Sta Barbara on the A lert, Jan.\n1836] was a young man who was a good representation of a decayed gentleman.\nHe w minded me much cf some of the characters in 0 il Bias. lie was of the aristocracy of tho country, his family being of puro Spanish blood, and once of\nconsiderable importance in Mexico. His father had been governor of the\nprovince [all these items are erroneous], and having amassed a large property, settled at San Diego, where ho built a largo house with a court-yard\nin front, kept a retinue of Indians, and set up for tho grandee of that part of\nthe country. His son was sent to Mexico, where ho roceived an education,\nand went into the first society of the capital. Misfortune, extravagance, and\ntho want of any manner of getting interest on money soon ate the estate up,\nand Don Juan Bandini returned from Mexico accomplished, poor, and proud,\nand without any office or occupation, to lead the life of most young men of\nthe better families\u2014dissipated and extravagant when tho means are at hand;\nambitious at heart, and impotent in act; often pinched for bread; keeping up\nan appearance of style, when their poverty is known to each half-naked Indian boy in the street, and standing in dread of every small trader and shopkeeper in the place. Ho had a slight and elegant figure, moved gracefully,\ndanced and waltzed beautifully, spoke good Castilian, with a pleasant and\nrefined voice and accent, and had throughout the bearing of a man of birth\nand figure. Yet here he was, with his passage given him, for he had no\nmeans of paying for it, and living on the charity of our agent. He was polite to every one, spoke to the sailors, and gave four reals\u2014I dare say the last\nhe had in his pocket\u2014to the steward who waited upon him' 1\n BANDINI'S WRATH. 373\nand even tried to collect his salary; but he received\nno attention whatever from the Mexican authorities,\nand was exasperated the more on that account. His\ntreatment at .the hands of Ramirez and Figueroa\u2014\nfor he blamed the governor hardly less than the administrator\u2014was in his view not only the greatest\noutrage of modern times, but the cause from which\nsprung all of California's subsequent evils. His writings on the subject are but wordy and declamatory protestations of his own patriotism and the baseness of\nhis foes, always in general terms, for he avoided specification both in defence and attack. Once, however,\nhe determined after much hesitation to produce evidence that could but prove Ramirez's revenue frauds\nand triumphantly justify his own acts. The evidence\nturned out to be a statement of Jose* Antonio Carrillo\nthat Don Angel was an 'apostate friar'!12 The truth\nis, that while Angel Ramirez was a scoundrel in\ncomparison with Juan Bandini, the latter allowed\nhis disappointment to run away with his judgment\nin this quarrel, and did not leave a dignified or flattering record. Subsequently he retrieved his fortunes\nto some extent, and regained his temper. He also\nhad the pleasure of knowing thai) his foe had died in\ndisgrace and poverty.\nIn 1834 Figueroa made a report to the Mexican\ngovernment on the condition and past history of commercial industries, including something also of financial management. He explained his own efforts to\nintroduce order and compliance with the national laws;\nbut admitted that in some respect such compliance\nwas impracticable under the circumstances. His concluding suggestions were that Monterey should be\nopened to foreign trade, and the other ports to the\ncoasting trade; that foreign vessels be allowed to engage for five years more in the coasting trade; and\n12 Bandini, Acusaciones contra Angel Ramirez, 1834-7, MS. Directed. to,\nthe min. of hac., pres. of Mex., director de rentas, and Gov. Chico*\n t\n374    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS,\nthat a regular custom-house be established at Monterey.\nThe fur trade is a branch of Californian commerce\nrespecting which we have but little information for\nthe period covered by this chapter. Foreigners secured most of the otter skins by contraband methods;\nthe Indians killed a few animals as in former years;\nand in several instances Californians were regularly\nlicensed by the territorial authorities to engage in\notter-hunting on the coast. Hardly a vessel sailed\nwithout carrying away more or less skins, which all\ntraders were eager to obtain. The authorities, both of\nnation and territory, understood the importance of this\nexport, and made some weak and unsuccessful efforts\nto develop it, or at least to secure the legal revenue\nwhich even as carried on at the time it should yield.13\nA slight controversy about the obtaining of salt\nfrom the salinas near Los Angeles in 1834 brought\nthe general subjecfbefore the authorities. The pueblo\nclaimed the salinas and refused the request of San\nFernando and San Gabriel to use them. The decision locally is not known, but from communications\nbetween Ramirez, Herrera, and Figueroa, it appears\nthat the estanco on salt had not been very strictly en-\nlsFigueroa, Cosas Financieras, 183J\/., MS. March, 1831, Victoria permits\notter-hunting on condition that two thirds of the crews be Californians; that\nS. Francisco be the northern limit of hunting; and that duties be paid on the\nskins taken by the Aleuts for their share. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 94; April,\nthe Kadiaks offered to give instruction in the art of taking otter. Vallejo,\nDoc., MS., xxx. 200. April, Pacheco at Sta Barbara denies having permitted\notter-hunting. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS,, ii. 5. Aug., hunting free to Californians, so long as there is no intercourse with foreigners or abuse of gentiles.\nDept. Rec, MS., ix. 41. In 1832 Estrada, Castro, Ortega, and Alvarado were\nlicensed to take otter in S. Francisco Bay; hired Aleuts and bidarkas from\nthe Russians; obtained the services of mission Indians from S. Jos6; and did\nquite a prosperous business for a time. Alvarado, Hist. Vol., MS., ii. 39-40;\niii. 8; Vallejo, Notas, MS., 36-8. Sept. 8th, Zamorano to com. of S. Francisco. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 323. Subject mentioned in the instructions to\nFigueroa. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 221-2. Feb. 16, 1833, Figueroa permits Teodoro Gonzalez to hunt otters from Monterey to Sta Barbara.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 92-5. May 2, 1834, proposition to impose a tax on\nskins exported considered in the dip. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 51. Robinson,\nStatement, MS., 19, says he collected about 3,000 otter skins in one year,\nwhUh he sent to China.   The best were worth $60.\n STEARNS AS A SMUGGLER. 375\nforced, and that even foreign vessels had taken away\nloads without paying duties.14\nIn 1835 Abel Stearns was suspected of carrying on\nextensive contraband operations at San Pedro. He\nhad a warehouse near the shore never inspected by\nany revenue officers, and used, as was believed, for the\nstoring of hides purchased of settlers who paid no\nslaughter tax, and goods illegally landed from vessels.\nThe pueblo was so far away that on the arrival of a\nship there was plenty of time for smuggling goods\nashore at San Pedro or Sta Catalina before Receptor\nOsio could arrive on the spot. In March the citizens\nof Los Angeles complained to the governor, and asked\nthat Stearns' establishment be suppressed. An investigation was ordered, but all we know of the result is\nthat a committee reported in September against the\nspoliation of Stearns1 property and the blotting-out of\nSan Pedro as a prospective settlement. It was recommended rather that guards be established to prevent\nsmuggling, and that the complainants present some\nproof of Don Abel's guilt if they had such proof.15\nFinancial topics are not very distinct from those of\ncommerce, and the personnel of treasury and revenue\nofficials may be taken as a connecting link. Their\nnames may be presented with a greater approximation\nto accuracy than their exact titles and powers, to say\nnothing of their accounts. Juan Bandini had received\nin 1830 the appointment of comisario principal ad interim, virtually the same position that Herrera had\nheld; but he in reality exercised no authority, and,\nas he himself confessed, was prevented \"by many circumstances\" from carrying out superior orders or organizing his department. Victoria refused to recognize Bandini's authority except locally at San Diego,\nuDept. St. Pap., MS., iv, 88-97.\n15 Steams, Expediente de Contrabando, S. Pedro, 1835, MS., in Los Angeles,\nArch., MS., i. 44-59; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., vii. 11-12; Id.,\nAngeles, ii. * 2. Being communications of Gov. Figueroa, Administrator i^ami-\nrez, Receptor Osio, and the complaint of citizens.\n F\n376    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\nand refused to be moved by his arguments and protests.\nDon Juan succeeded in having his resignation accepted\nbefore the end of 1832. Victoria at the beginning of\n1831 seems to have found Joaquin Gomez, administrator of customs, in charge at Monterey, Antonio Maria\nOsio, contador and perhaps sub-comisario under Bandini, being temporarily in charge at San Francisco.\nNo change was made, except that Gomez was regarded\nas sub-comisario and Osio was not allowed to return,\nthough ordered to do so by Bandini. At the same\ntime Jose Maria Padres held the office of visitador of\ncustoms by Echeandia's appointment dated January\n15th.16\nThe nominal control of Bandini ceased at an unknown date in 1832. In October, Jose* Mariano Estrada, by Zamorano's appointment, succeeded Joaquin\nGomez as sub-comisario at Monterey, the latter\nhaving resigned after many complaints of irregularities on his part; and Figueroa, who re-appointed him\nin February, states that on his arrival in January\n1833 Estrada was the only treasury official in California.17 With Figueroa came Rafael Gonzalez with\nan appointment as administrator of customs, assuming\n16 Bandini, Manifesto d la Diputacion sobre Ramos de Hacienda Territorial, 1832, MS. Correspondence of Bandini and Victoria in Id., i. 273-80;\nDept. Rec, MS., ix. 112-13. Sept. 18, 1831, V. to min. of war on treasury\nand revenue abuses. He alludes to Bandini as a 'mercenary employee,' with\nwhom traders make illegal arrangements, and who believes himself dependent\nonly on the com. gen. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 143-4. May 21st, law governing\nthe offices of comisarios and subalterns. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxx. 215. It is\npossible that Gomez was put in office at Monterey by Victoria and not before\nhis arrival, though Figueroa says he took charge in January. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 210; and he is spoken of as comisario on Jan. 14th. S. Jose\", Arch.,\nMS., v. 39. April 7th, Gomez writes to Bandini that his place\u2014'so good a\nthing' in most countries\u2014is full of hardships in this; and he is anxious to get\nout of it to eat his frijoles in peace. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 18. Appointment of Padres. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. .80. It seems that Francisco Pacheco\nwas acting as guarda without pay. Id., ix. 63. Osio at S. Francisco. Dept.\nSt. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxiii. 54;  Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxi. 14.\n17 Dec. 6,1834, F. in Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 210. Estrada succeeds Gomez\nOct. 18th. S. JosC, Arch., MS., v. '23; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 326. Reports of\nthe matter by Zamorano and Estrada; also the appointment by F. Feb. 16th.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Gvjst.-M., MS., viii. 307-8, 312, 316-22. There is iaDept.\nSt. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., ii. 94, what seems to be a resignation,\nof the comisaria by Bandini on March 20, 1833; though in his Information\nhe says his resignation was accepted in 1832.\n REVENUE OFFICERS. 377\nthe office in January; and in May, Estrada resigning,\nGonzalez became also sub-comisario ad interim. He\nheld the former position until succeeded by Angel\nRamirez in July 1834, and the latter until October of\nthat year, when our old friend Jose* Maria Herrera\nreturned from Mexico with the colony to resume his\nformer position.18 Bandini came back as visitador de\naduanas in 1834; but his troubles in that connection\nhave been already noticed.\nFrom 1833 a few subordinate revenue officers were\nappointed, not only for Monterey, but for the other\nports. Pedro del Castillo wTas made receptor at San\nFrancisco. Santiago E. Arguello held the same position at San Diego until October 1834, when he was\nsucceeded by Martin S. Cabello, who came with an\nappointment from Mexico. Jose Maria Maldonado\nhad charge of the customs at Santa Barbara until\nJuly 1835, and later Benito Diaz. Antonio Maria\nOsio was receptor at Los Angeles, having jurisdiction\nover San Pedro, and having also to watch over the\ninland trade with Sonora.    At the capital four sub-\n18 Gonzalez appointed Aug. 6,1832. Salary, $1,000. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nCom. and Treas., MS., ii. 24. Took possession Jan. 14 (?). Id., Cust.-H., ii. 5-\n.6; S. Jose\", Arch., MS., ii. 53. Becomes comisario May 14, 1833. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., ii. 16-17. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 357-9, ridicules\nGonzalez, alias 'Pintito,' as a very stupid fellow, appointed by favor of Director-gen. Pavon. He once pompously objected to the large quantity of\nidem imported according to the invoices. Also noted by Robinson, Life in\nCal, 140. Angel Raminez appointed admin. Sept. 12, 1833. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Com. and Treas., MS., ii. 58. Took possession Julyl, 1834. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., iii. 211; Id., Ben. Cust.-H., ii. 1. Furnishes bonds in $2,000 (or\n$4,000) June 23, 1835. Id., iii. 89, 86; but is also said to have been in possession in May. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 152; Id., Ben. Mil, lxxviii. 24; Leg.\nRec, MS., ii. 2-3. Herrera's appointment Jan. 12, 1833, or Dec. 24, 1832.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., ii. 66; Id., Ben. Mil, lxxix. 51,\n81. Receives the office from Gonzalez Oct. 7th or 11th. Id., iii. 46; Id., Ben.\nMil, lxxviii.; St. Pap., Sac, MS., xii. 14; or as Figueroa says on Oct.\n1st. Dept. St. Pap:, MS., iii. 211. Feb. 1, 1833, Admin. Gonzalez complains of\nlack of a suitable pier and buildings, boats, furniture, scales, etc., for want of\nwhich two thirds of the revenue is lost; also of calumnies against himself as\nagainst all who came from Mexico. He recommends 9 employees at Monterey,\nand a receptor at. each of the other ports. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H.,\nMS., ii. 6-7, 12. July 1, 1834, Admin. Raminez to dir. gen., explaining\ndifficulties and recommending additional officers. 7c?., Com. and Treas.,\niii. 2-4. Dec. 6, 1834, Figueroa to the sec. de estado on the past succession of\nofficials and their failure to leave any records. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii.\n209-11.\n 378    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\nordinate officials were appointed in July 1834, by the\nrecommendation of Ramirez: Francisco Figueroa as\ncontador, Juan B. Alvarado as vista, Francisco P.\nPacheco as comandante of the guard, and Eugenio\nMontenegro as corporal of the guard. The two\nformer had a salary of $600, and the latter of $400.\nLieutenant Araujo, who came and departed with Hijar and Padre's, was a naval officer who was sent, with\nperhaps a few subordinates, to command the Cah-\nfornia marine service.19\nThere was no lack of official correspondence respecting the theory and practice of financial management\nin this as in other periods; but much of what was\nwritten related to petty routine details, none of it\nhad any apparent effect in the way of reform, and\npart was clearly not intended to have any other effect\nthan the throwing of responsibility for existing evils\nupon other shoulders than those of the writers. The\nreceipts at the custom-house were far from sufficient\nto meet the expenditures of the civil and military\nbudgets; and the complaints from all quarters of\nhard times were constant, as were also contentions\nrespecting the division of revenues, each official and\nclass of officials fearing with much reason that some\nother would gain an advantage. In the absence of\ncomplete statistical data, we may only conjecture that\nmutual jealousy and precautions secured a comparatively just distribution among military, political, and\ntreasury employees.20\n19 Authorities on local revenue officers. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 109; Id.,\nAngeles, xi. 8; Id., Mont., vii. 5; Id., S. Jos6, v. 122; Id., Ben. Cust.-H., ii.\n1, 10, 16-17, 23, 25; iv. 5; vii. 8-14; viii. 14; Id., Com. and Treas., ii. 58;\niii. 4-5, 59, 67-8; Id., Pref. y Juzg., ii. 156; Id., Mil, lxxv. 1-3; lxxvi. 30;\nlxxvii. 14-20; lxxviii. 1; lxxx. 3; Monterey, Arch., MS., vii. 61; St. Pap., Sac,\nMS., xvi. 13-14; S. Diego, Arch., MS.,'33, 44; S. Jose1, Arch., MS., ii. 50;\nPinto, Doc, MS., i. 25-G;  Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 72; xxiii. 1.\n20 July 20, 1831, a general reglamento for treasury officers in all parts of\nthe republic. Mexico, Regl. Tesoreria Gen., p. 14, 28. June 5, 1832, Gervasio\nArguello is ordered to conclude his duties as habilitado general at Guadalajara and return to California. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., viii. 41. Arguello\nhad for a long time performed no duties; whether he had succeeded in drawing any part of his pay as lieutenant of the S. Diego company does not\n TAXATION. 379\nThe Californians were not much troubled by taxation\nin these days, having in 1831-3 to pay only a tax on the\nsale of liquors, which was rather a duty than a tax, to\nprovide for municipal expenses. A high official having in 1832 refused to pay the duty on divers barrels\nof brandy, the merchants also declined payment until\nhe should be forced to comply with the law; and in\nconsequence the public schools had to be closed for a\ntime. A timber and wood impost was also collected\nat Monterey. Expenses of the diputacion had to be\npaid from the surplus of local funds, a surplus usually\nnot existing, as Figueroa learned by repeated applications for money with which to fit up a legislative hall.\nNo tax was ever collected in California for national\npurposes, though there were occasional vague refer-\nappear. He did not return. April 1833, complaints of habilitados' hardships\nby Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 34. A visitador to go to Cal. from Mexico\nto restore order in the treasury departments and put the presidial companies\non their old footing. Mexico, Mem. Guerra, 1833, p. 5; Id., Mem. Hac, 1831,\np. 28; Arrillaga, Recop., 1832-3, p. 110. Of course nothing of the kind was\ndone. Dec. 1833, for many years retired officers and men have not been paid.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., ii. 46. Jan. 1834, Figueroa had to borrow\n$300 to fit up a room for the dip. Id., Ben. Mil, lxxxviii. Feb., etc., confusion as to whether Cal. belonged to the comisaria of Sinaloa or Sonora, orders\ncoming from both with complaints. The com. gen. of Sonora had the real\ncommand. Id., Ben. Com. and Treas., iii. 20-7, 57-66. Officers may have\ncertificates so as to negotiate for their pay. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xxi. 10.\nApril, Figueroa appeals to missions for relief. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 2.\nSept., troops to be paid in preference to others. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., x.\n3; xi. 1. Regulations of Sept. 21, 1834, for comisarios, etc., in Arrillaga,\nRecop., 1833, p. 386-536. Dec. 8th, gov. to min. of war on his financial\ntroubles and the urgent necessity for aid from Mexico. St. Pap., Miss, and\nColon., MS., ii. 289. Nov. 1835, Com. Gen. Gutierrez to Gov. Castro, complaining that the troops are not getting half rations. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.\nMil, MS.\/lxxxviii. Complaints that the civil employees do not get their\nproper share of the revenues. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 69. Items of fin.\nstatistics 1831-5. 1831, receipts for Jan., $2,132, including $500 in goods\non hand Jan. 1st, and $201 in supplies from missions; expenditures, $1297.\nVallejo, Doc. MS., xxi. 1, 15. Revenue of the year, $32,000; expenses,\n$131,000. Soule'sAn. S. Fran., 80. 1832, Aug. 11th, Capt. Gutierrez received\nfrom com. gen. of Sinaloa $20,000 at Rosario to bring to Cal. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. Mil, MS., lxxiv. 46. 1833, estimates for the 6 presidial companies of the\n-Californias, $128,440. Mexico, Mem. Hacienda, 1832, doc. 0. Payments from\nsub-eomisaria July to Dec, $22,954. Dept. St. Pap., Ben: Com. and Treas.,\nMS., ii. 39. Net proceeds, July 1833 to June 1834, $47,768, expenses being\n$2,342. 1834, total payments from sub-comisaria, $70,587. Loans from missions are among the receipts. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., iii.\n39-48. Due to officers and men June 30th, as per adjustments, dating chiefly\nfrom 1833, but 7 from earlier dates, $53,835. Id., Ben. Mil, lxxvii. 15-16.\n1835, total payments from sub-comisaria, $46,394. Id., Com. and Treas.,\niii. 75, 83-5; iv. 1-2.\n 380    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS,\nences to the matter in communications from Mexico;\nand no tax was ever assessed upon property according\nto its value, all exactions being in the nature of duties on articles changing owners, or \u00a9f licenses. By\na law of October 1833 all citizens were relieved from\nthe civil obligation to pay tithes, and most citizens\ntook advantage of the privilege, some officers settling\nwith their conscience by offering in payment claims\nof the government for back pay. What tithes may\nhave been collected before the law was published in\nCalifornia in May 1834, there are no means of knowing. Deliberations on ways and means for municipal\nfunds were frequent in meetings of ayuntamiento and\ndiputacion from November 1833, and the result was\na taw or plan published by the governor on August\n6, 1834, and appended substantially in a note.*\nI append also an alphabetical list of all the Teasels\nthat touched at Californian ports in 1831-5. The\nnames number ninety-nine, but more than twenty\n91 Plan de Propios y Arbitrios para fondon mtndcipales de los Aywstamientm\ndel territorio de la Alta California, 1834. Printed bando signed by Figueroa\nand Zamorano, in Earliest Printing; also in Dept. St. Pap., Mont., iiL 25-30;\nLos Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 23-30; Dicinelle's Colon. Hist., add., 29-33. The\nsubstance is also given several times over in proceedings of dip. and\nayunt., with reports of committees, discussion, articles not finally embodied\nin the plan, etc., in St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 222-53; Leg. Rec,\nMS., ii. 154-67, 181-2. Art. 1. Ayunt. to apply for assignment of egidos\nand. propios lands. Art. 2. The propios in small tracts may be leased at auction; and present holders will pay as required by the ayunt. Art. 3. Grantees of town lots for building, of 100 varas square, will pay $6.25, and 25 cents\nper front vara for a smaller lot or for the excess in a larger one. Art. 4, 5.\nFor the grant and registration of a brand for cattle, $1.50. Art. 6. For killing cattle or sheep for market, 6.25 cents per head; hogs, 25 cents. Art. 7.\nShops for sale of dry goods are to pay $1 per month; grocery and other shops,\nand bar-rooms, 50 cents. Art. 8. Each weight and measure, sealed by the fid\nejecutor, 12.5 cents. Art. 9. Circuses and other shows, $2 for each performance. Art. 10. Billiard-rooms, $1 per month. Art. 11. At the 5 ports, including S. Pedro, 12.5 cents for each parcel landed from foreign vessels, and 6.25\ncents from national vessels. Art. 12. The 25 cents per ton on foreign vessels to\nbe asked for in behalf of the treasuary of the dip. Art. 13. Hunters are to\npay 50 cents each on large otter and beaver skins. Art. 14. Fines for minor\noffences, imposed by alcalde or gefe, to go into the munic. fund. Art. 15,16.\nLiquor taxes are reduced as follows: National brandy to $3, Angelica, $2,\nand wine $1.50, per barrel; foreign brandy to $1, gin $1, wine and beer 50\ncents, per gallon. Art. 17. A voluntary contribution to be requested from\neach vessel anchoring at Monterey, for the building of a wharf. Art. 18.\nTax of $3 on each auction sale. Art. 19-21. Provisions for execution of the\nlaw.\n VESSELS OF 1831-5. 381\nrest on doubtful records. Eleven had visited the\ncoast in the preceding half-decade. Twenty-two\nwere whalers in quest of supplies. Of the rest,\ntwenty-three were under United States colors; thirteen carried the Mexican flag, seven the English,\nfour the Russian, three the Hawaiian, and one the\nItalian. One was a government vessel; twTo came\nfrom the Columbia River for supplies; and the rest\ncame to trade for Californian products\u2014seventeen\nfrom Honolulu, fourteen from South American and\nMexican ports, and nine from Boston.22\n22 Alphabetical list of vessels in Californian ports in the years 1831-5:\nAlert, Amer. ship, 342 tons; Faucon, master, transferring command on\narrival to Thompson; Bryant & Sturgis, owners; Alf. Robinson, resident\nsupercargo; arrived from Boston in June 1835. Davis thinks she was also on\nthe coast in 1833 under Penhallow.\nAmerican, whaler; at S. Fran, in Nov. 1832.\nAnchorite, whaler; at S. Fran, in Nov. 1832.\nAvon, Amer. hermaph. brig, 88 tons, 16 men; Wm S. Hinckley, master;\nJohn C. Jones, owner; two or three trips from Honolulu in 1834-5; duties,\n$2,101, $1,719, and $2,374. According to Dana, she also engaged in smuggling. Jones was on board in 1835. She carried Gov. Figueroa's remains to\nSta B. from Monterey.\nAyacucho, Engl, brig, 204 or 160 tons, 13-25 men; John Wilson, master;\nStephen Anderson, and later Jas Scott, supercargo; on the coast from Callao\neach year 1831-5 for hides and tallow; duties, $4,721 in 1S32; $4,416 in 1834;\n$4,020 in 1S35.    She was regarded as the fastest sailer on the coast.\nBaikal, Russ. brig, 202 tons; Livovich Iliasovich (?), master; at S. Fran,\nspring of 1831 and autumn of 1S33.\nBalance, whaler; Ed Daggett, master; at S. Fran. Nov. 1832; 21 men,\nmost of them ill with scurvy.\nBarnstalde, Jas B. Hatch, master; Henry Melius, sup. Probably erroneous record in Hayes' list for 1S33.\nBolivar, Amer. brig, 212 tons; from Honolulu to buy horses 1832; $400\ntonnage; accused of smuggling; perhaps in 1833; Nye, master; also at end\nof 1835; Domini8, master.\nBonanza, Engl, schr, doubtful record of 1834.\nBy C\/tance, Amer. schr; 84 tons; Hiram Covell, master; at Mont. 1834,\nfrom Panama; duties, $1,907.\nCalifornia, Amer. ship, 379 tons; Bryant & Sturgis, owners; arr. from\nBoston in 1831, and left in April 1S33; 4C ,' master; Wm A. Gale, sup.,\nwho remained at her departure; came back in 1834, remaining until 1836;\nJas Arther, master.\nCatalina, Mex. brig, 160 or 138 tons, 13 men; brought govt stores in 1831;\nJohn C. Holmes, master. Brought Gov. Figueroa in Jan. 1833, and made another trip to Mazatlan and back in 1833. Jos Snook (called Esnuco), master.\nAlso on the coast in 1834-5; Fred. Becher, sup. (E. Marshall, master; and E.\nCelis, sup., according to Spence). Under U. S. flag, according to Dana.\nCargo, $12,555; duties, $1,550.\nChalcedony, Amer. brig; Jos Steel, master; on the coast in 1832-3.\nCharles Eys, Engl, bark, 255 or 219 tons, 14 men; Thos Chapman, master;\non the coast 1833 from Callao.\nClarila, doubtful record of 1834.\n 382    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\nClementina, Mex. schr; doubtful record of 1835.\nClementine, Engl, brig; Jas Hanly, master; from Honolulu 1835, consigned to Nathan Spear; duties, $3,261; carried away horses and hides in\nDec.\nConvoy, Amer. brig, 137 tons, 13 men; Pickens, master; from Honolulu\nin 1831.\nCrusader, Amer. brig, (later perhaps Mexican), 160 or 110 tons; from\nSandw. Isl. 1832-3; Thos Hinckley or Thos Sturgis, master or sup.; duties,\n$2,273; from Callao in 1834; Wm A. Richardson, master.\nDiana, Amer. brig, 170 tons; from Honolulu via Sitka in 1835; duties,\n$363.\nDon Quixote, Amer. bark; John Meek, master; Wm S. Hinckley, sup.,\nfrom Honolulu 1833-4; duties, $475. Complaint of unlawful privileges\ngranted her.    Spence puts her in his list for 1832, also with Smith as master.\nDryad, Engl, brig; from Columbia River; paid duties, $1,416, in Jan. 1831,\nbut had arrived in Dec. 1830. Touched at S. Fran, again in Nov. 1833, for\nHonolulu, with David Douglas, the scientist, and Chief Factor Finiayson on\nboard. Douglas had also come to Cal. on the first trip, remaining some time\nin the country.\nEliza, at Sta Barbara Oct. 1831.\nEnriqueta, Amer. schr., 62 tons; Lewis (or Levi) Young, master; on the\ncoast 1833.    Perhaps same as the Harriet, q. v.\nEurope, 1834.    See Urup.\nFacio, Mex. brig, 11 men; Santiago Johnson, master; Johnson & Aguirre,\nowners; from Guaymas in 1833. John Forster took her back. Perhaps on\nthe coast in 1834. In 1835 she was grounded at S. Pedro, and was rescued\nby the Pilgrim.\nFakeja (Fakir ?), whaler, 339 tons; R. Smith, master; at Mont, in Dec.\n1833.\nFanny, whaler; at S. Fran. Oct. 1831.\nFibian (Phozbe Ann?), on the coast to trade in 1831.\nFramen, doubtful name of 1835.\nFriend, Amer. whaler, 404 tons; L. B. Blindenburg, master, 1832-3. Also\n2 whalers not named at S. Fran. Oct. 1832.\nGauge, French whaler; H. Chaudiere, master; Mont. Sept. 1835.\nGarrafilia, Amer. brig, 170 tons;  at Mont. 1835; duties, $361.\nGeneral Jackson, Amer. whaler; at Mont. Nov. 1833.\nGlobe, mentioned on doubtful authority 1831.\nGuadalupe, Cal. schr, 60 tons; built by Jos Chapman, and launched at S.\nPedro in 1831. Robinson's Life in Cal, 100.\nHarriet, whaler, 417 tons, 34 men; atS. Fran. Oct. 1831.\nHarrietBlanchard, Amer. schr, 62or GQ tons; Carter, master; Shaw,.sup.;\nJones, owner; took 30 horses for Honolulu in 1833.\nHelvetius, Amer. whaler; at S. Fran. Oct.-Nov. 1833. Possibly on the\ncoast before; as Chas Brown always claimed to have come on her in 1829.\nIolani, Hawaiian schr, 48 tons, 6 men; Jas Rogers, master; Nic. Garcia,\nconsignee; at Mont, in spring of 1835; duties, $776.\nIsabel, Amer. whaler, 242 tons; J. C. Albert, master; S. Fran, and Mont.\n1833.\nJosephine, schr under Wm A. Richardson, lost at Sta Catalina Isl. in 1832,\nace. to Hayes' list.\nJdven Dorotea, Mex. schr; Benito Machado, master; at Mont. May 1834.\nJdven Victoriano, brig; at S. Fran. Sept. 1832.\nJuan Jose\", Mex. brig; consigned to Pedrorena in 1835, ace. to Spence's\nlist.\nKitty, whaler; at S. Fran, in Nov. 1833.\nLagoda, Amer. ship, 292 tons; John Bradshaw, master; Bryant & Sturgis,\nowners; Robinson, owner's agent; on the coast from autumn of 1833 to spring\nof 1835.\nLeon, French ship; Bonnet, master.   Mentioned on uncertain authority\n MARINE LIST. 383\nas having come to the coast in 1835 for cattle and hay for French troops in\nthe Pacific; probably later.\nLeonidas, Mex. brig; formerly the U. S. Dolphin', Malarin, master; named\nby Davis for 1833.\nLeonor, Mex. ship, 207 tons; Henry D. Fitch, master; on the coast from\nS. Bias in 1831; came back in ] 833-4, and also in 1835, under Chas Wolter;\nFred. Becher, sup.; duties, $1,419.\nLiverpool Packet (?), whaler of 1835.\nLlama, Engl, brig, 140 tons; Wm M. Neill, master; from Columbia River\nin 1834 for supplies; duties, $874.\nLoriot, Amer. schr, 70 tons; Gorham H. Nye and A. B. Thompson, master and sup.; on the coast 1833-4. See text for her seizure at S. Fran.\nBack again in 1835 and carried Hijar and Padres to S. Bias in May, returning\nin Aug.; duties, $4,024.    More smuggling.\nLouisa, Amer. bark, 174 tons, 16 men; Geo. Wood, master; J. C. Jones,\nowner and sup.; from Honolulu via Sitka in 1831; took hides and horses.\nWm H. Davis, since well known in Cal., was on board as a boy 9 years of\nage.\nMagruder, Amer. schr, 15 tons, 4 men; Wm Taylor, or Faiton, master;\nfrom Honolulu in 1834 for sale.\nMarcus, whaler, 286 tons, 23 men; N. S. Bassett, master; at S. Fran. Oct.\n1831.\nMargarita, Mex. schr.; carried J. M. Padres from Mont. 1831; back on\nthe coast 1834-5; duties, $547, $479.\nMaria Teresa, Mex. brig; Spence's list 1835.\nMariquita, Mex. sloop; Agustin PoncabarS, master (or J. Chaseagre);\nfrom S. Bias 1833, and again 1835; duties, $171.\nMartha, whaler, 359 tons, 31 men; Tim. W. Riddell, master; at Mont. Oct.-\nNov. 1834.\nMatador, Mex. brig; cons, to J. Parrott in 1835, ace. to Spence's list.\nMorelos, Mex. sloop of war; Lieut L. F. Manso, com.; Luis Valle,\nmaster. Brought part of the colony and, several officers to Cal. in Sept.\n1834.\nNatalia, Mex. brig, 185 tons, 13 men; Juan Gomez, master; Comp. Cos-\nmop., owner; Juan Bandini, sup. Brought part of the colony to Cal., and\nwas wrecked at Mont, in Dec. 1834.\nNewcastle, Amer. brig; Stephen Hersey, master; from Boston via Honolulu\nin 1832.\nNorth America, Amer. whaler, 388 tons; Nathaniel Richards, master; at\nMont. Nov. 1833.\nPacifico, Mex. brig; from Guaymas, cons, to Aguirre, in 1834; duties, $280.\nSome trouble about 1,156 marks of silver bullion.\nPeor es Nada, Mex. schr, 20 tons; built at Mont, by Joaquin Gomez and\nlaunched Aug. 30, 1834; sailed for south in Oct. under Chas Hubbard, under\ncharter to Isaac V. Sparks and others for otter-hunting; returned Mar. 1835\nunder John Coffin, making a second trip to south in the autumn.\nPhoibe (?), whaler of 1832.\nPilgrim, Amer. brig, 155 tons, 14 men; Frank A. Thompson, master, succeeded by Ed H. Faucon; Bryant & Sturgis, owners; Robinson, agent; on\nthe coast from Jan. 1835, having perhaps arrived in 1834; cargo, $12,000.\nPlant, Amer. brig; B. & S., owners; sailed from Boston with the California, but had to put in at Rio de Janeiro for repairs; arr. in 1832 and soon sailed\nfor home via Honolulu.\nPocahontas, Amer. ship, 300 tons; Bradshaw, master; Shaw, sup.; remained on the coast from 1830 to Jan. 1832, carrying away Gov. Victoria and\nPadre Peyri.\nPolifemia, Russ. brig, 180 tons; N. Rosenberg, master; on the coast in\n1833-4-5; duties, $383; accused of smuggling.\nPrimavera; Mex. brig; C. Bane, master; in Spence's list for 1835.\nPulga, at Mont. Sept. 1834; doubtful.\n 384    MARITIME, COMMERCIAL, AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.\nRefugio, Mex. schr; at S. Fran. 1834; duties on salt, $15. Said by\nWarner to have been built at S. Pedro in 1831-2. Perhaps same as the\nGuadalupe, or confounded with that vessel.\nRosa, Sardinian ship, 425 tons, 24 men; Nic. Bianchi, master; A. A. Cot,\nconsignee. *A large, clumsy ship, with her top-masts stayed forward and high\npoop-deck, looking like an old woman with a crippled back,' says Dana.\nArr. in 1834, and in 1835 carried the colony conspirators from S. Fran.' to\nStaB.\nRoxana, Amer. brig; Frank Thompson, master; B. & S., owners; on the\ncoast in 1832-3; Gale & Robinson, agents. The Riojana, Cal. schr; Wm\nAyala, master; probably the same craft.\nS. Feighton, whaler, 351 tons, 25 men; Benj. H. Lawton, master; at Mont.\nOct. 1834.\nSanta Barbara, Mex. schr, 40 tons, 5 men; Thos Robbins, master; at Sta\nB. June 1833 from Mazatlan with 6 passengers; built in Cal.   See list 1829.\nSingapdrtan (Seringapatan of 1830?), Engl, whaler; at S. Fran. 1832.\nSitka, Russ. bark, 202 tons; Basilio Waccodzy (?), master; at S. Fran, and\nMont. 1835.\nSoidh Carolina, Amer. ship; Jos Steel, master; at Mont. Aug. 1834; duties, $10,631.\nSpy, doubtful mention, 1832.\nSteriton, whaler; at Mont. Sept. 1834.\nTansuero (or Traumare), Engl, brig, 215 tons; L. Amist, master; from\nSandw. Isl. in 1834.\nTranquilina, whaler, 309 tons, 22 men; Geo. Prince, master; at S. Fran.\nNov. 1832.\nTrinidad, Mex. brig of Spence's list for 1835.\nUrup, Russ. brig; Dionisio Zarembo, master; wintered 1831-2; duties,\n$1,107; also 1834; Basilio Idirbe (?), master; duties, $1,953.\nVolunteer, Amer. bark, 226 or 150 tons, 11 men; Jos O. Carter, master;\nJohn Ebbetts, sup.; on the coast 1829-31; also in 1833; Shaw, master; Jones,\nowner and sup.; Sherman Peck, asst sup. Carter took her back, Jones and\nShaw returning on the II. Blanchard to Honolulu.\nVictoria, Brewer, master; in Spence's list for 1832.\nWaverly, Hawaiian brig; Wm Sumner, master; arr. S. Pedro Jan. 1832,\nbringing the exiled priests Bachelot and Short from Honolulu. Remained\nbut a few days.\nWhalehound, doubtfully recorded whaler 1831.\nWilliam Little {Guillermo Chiquito), sloop, 36 tons, 7 men; Little or Henry\nCarter, master; from Honolulu for produce and horses in 1831.\nWilliam Lye (or Syne), whaler, 389 tons, 30 men; D. A. Riddell (or Rey-\nder), master; at Mont. Oct.  1834.\nWilliam Thompson, whaler; Stephen Potter, master; at S. Fran. Nov.\n1832; crew mutinous.\nWilmington, whaler; at Sta B. Nov. 1835; 1,900 bbls oil.\n CHAPTER XIV.\nPIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\n1831-1835.\nOverland Immigration\u2014New Mexican Route\u2014Wolfskill's Party\u2014\nYount and Burton\u2014Jackson's Company\u2014Warner\u2014Ewino Younq'i\nSecond Visit\u2014Carson, Williams, Sparks, and Dye\u2014-Graham and\nLeese\u2014Across the Sierra\u2014Captain Joe Walker\u2014Nidever\u2014Boh-\nneville's Narrative\u2014Hudson's Bay Company Trappers\u2014Otter-\nhunting in California\u2014New Mexican Horse-thieves\u2014Chino Pando\n\u2014Foreign Policy\u2014Fears\u2014Offer of Purchase by U. S.\u2014Spaniards\n\u2014Pioneer Names\u2014Those Who Came before 1830\u2014New-comers of\nEach Year\u2014Alphabetical Lists\u2014Douglas the Botanist\u2014Thomas\nCoulter's Visit\u2014Morineau's Memoir\u2014Visit of Hall J. Kelley\u2014\nJohn Coulter's Lies\u2014Dana's 'Two Years before the Mast.'\nOverland immigration of trappers and traders into\nCalifornia continued to some extent during 1831-5.\nSeveral parties came in by the Gila routes from New\nMexico, and at least one crossed the mountains farther\nnorth, as the companies of James O. Pattie and Ew-\ning Young and Jedediah Smith had done at an earlier date.1 The subject retains all its fascination and\nimportance of the preceding period, and also, unfortunately, its meagreness of record. Warner and Nidever furnished me in their personal recollections\nmost interesting and valuable information, as have\nother immigrants of that epoch in greater or less degree. Bonneville and Joe Meek have had their recollections recorded by the pens of Irving and Victor.\nStatements of Joe Walker and other path-finding\npioneers have found their way more or less fully and\n1See chap. vi. of this vol. on overland expeditions of 1826-30.\nHist. Cal., Vol. in.   25 (385)\n 386 PIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\n\u2022accurately into newspaper print; and the archives indicate from time to time the presence of trapper bands\nat the coast settlements or in the interior valleys.\nWith all this, the record is neither complete nor satisfactory in all respects, and there is little likelihood\nthat it can ever be much improved.\nIn the autumn of 1830, William Wolfskill fitted\nout a company in New Mexico to trap in the great\nvalleys of California. He was a Kentuckian by birth,\nthirty-two years of age, with some eight years' experience of trapping and trading in the broad territories surrounding Santa Fe from the north to the\nsouth-wrest. He had been a partner of Ewing Young,\nthen absent in California, and he was assisted pecuniarily in this enterprise by Hook, a Santa Fe trader.\nThere is extant neither list of the company nor diary\nof the trip; but the expedition took a route considerably north of that usually followed, left Taos in September, crossed the Colorado into the great basin,\nand pressed on north-westwardly across the Grande,\nGreen, and Sevier rivers, then southward to the Rio\nVirgen, trapping as they went. It seems to have\nbeen the intention to cross the mountains between\nlatitudes 36\u00b0 and 37\u00b0; but cold weather, with symptoms of disorganization in the company, compelled\nthe leader to turn southward to Mojave. Thence he\ncrossed the desert westward, and arrived at Los\nAngeles early in February 1831. Here the party was\nbroken up, some of its members returning to New\nMexico a few months after their arrival, and others\nremaining in California. Of the latter those subsequently best known as residents were, besides Wolfskill, George C. Yount and Lewis Burton. Of the\nindividuals of this and other companies I shall have\nmore to say later.2\n2The authorities on Wolfskill's company are Warner's Remin., MS., 39-\n41, 63-7; and the Story of an Old Pioneer written by f B.'for the Wilmington\nJournal, '1866; also in substance in the S. F. Bulletin of Dec. 17, 1858.\nOther newspaper sketches are either taken from these, or are inaccurate.\nOther members of the party, remaining for a time or permanently in Califor-\n JACKSON AND YOUNG. 387\nThe next expedition to be noticed came also from\nSanta Fe under the command of David E. Jackson,\nformerly a partner of Sublette, but now associated\nwith Young and Waldo. He left Santa Fe in September 1831, with nine hired men and a negro slave.\nHis purpose was to purchase mules in California for\nthe Louisiana market, and he brought, besides letters\nfrom Young and Hook to Cooper, a large amount of\nsilver for that purpose. Coming by way of Santa\nRita, Tucson, and the Gila, he reached San Diego in\nNovember, starting on his return in February 1832.\nI have several of his letters to Captain Cooper. The\nonly member of Jackson's party who is known to\nhave remained in California was J. J. Warner.3 It\nshould be noted that some members of all these early\nparties, after returning to New Mexico, came back to\nlive in California in later years; and these men are\naccustomed to date their pioneership from the year\nof their first visit, as I would gladly do if it were possible to ascertain the names and dates.\nEwing Young started on his second trip to California from Taos in September 1831, but as he trapped\nthe Gila and other streams on the way, he did not\nreach Los Angeles until April 1832. He had with\nhim thirty men, most of whom, with Jackson's party,\nwere soon sent back to New Mexico in charge of the\nmules and horses purchased, not so many as the partners had hoped to obtain, and part of which were lost\nin fording the Colorado. Owing to defective traps,\nYoung's beaver catch had not been large, and he resolved to retrieve his fortunes by a hunt in California,\nnia, were Samuel Shields, Francis Z. Branch, John Rhea, Zacarias Ham,\nFrancois le Fourri, Baptiste St Germain, Bautista Guerra, and Juan Lobar.\nEight of the 11 are mentioned under date of April 1831, in Dept. Rec, MS.,\nix. 95. A Mr Cooper is named in the Story, etc, as one of the company.\nWhich of the Coopers is not apparent.\n8 Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxx. 237, 241, 280; xxxi. 4; Warner's Remin., MS.,\n11-15, 42-r3. There are 2 or 3 men in the arrivals of 1831, not otherwise\naccounted for, who may have come with Jackson or Wolf skill. Such are\nBraun, Gibson, Cebet, Romero, and Pardo. There are many newspaper items\nin which Warner's arrival this year is mentioned, with no details. Dye,\nRecollections, MS., also relates from memory the fitting-out of Jackson's party.\n 388 PIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nwhere he spent several years before going to Oregon.\nEight or ten of his men also remained, prominent\namong whom were Moses Carson, Isaac Williams,\nIsaac Sparks, and Job F. Dye.*\nIn the winter of 1832-3 another party arrived from\nNew Mexico, under circumstances nowhere recorded,\nso far as I have been able to learn. This party, the\nexact date of whose arrival is not known, included\nJoseph Paulding\/''Samuel Carpenter, William Chard,\nand Daniel Sill.5 There are half a dozen other men\nof some prominence whose arrival is accredited to this\nperiod, and some of whom may have come with this\ncompany. Such were Cyrus Alexander of 1832;\nLawrence Carmichael, Isaac Graham, and Jacob P.\nLeese of 1833; and Joseph L. Majors of 1834.6 Most\nof these men were well known in California a little\nlater; but of their coming there is nothing more to\nbe said. The way from the south-east, notwithstanding the natural perils of the desert and the ever imminent danger of Apache hostilities, was in a certain\nsense an open one, and was often traversed by parties\nof two or three persons.    It may be noted in this\n4Dye, in his Recollections of Cal., a MS. written for me, and Recollections\nof a Pioneer, published in the Sta Cruz Sentinel, May 1, June 19, 1809, gives\na complete narrative of this expedition, with many interesting details of personal adventure. Other authorities are Warner's Remin., MS., 11-21, 43-51;\nLos Angeles Hist., 19; Nidever's Life and Adven., MS., 36-7. Warner names\nas those who remained in Cal., Carson, Williams, Sparks, Ambrose Tomlinson,\nJoseph Dougherty, Wm Emerson, and Denton. Dye names as members of\nthe company, Moses Carson, Sparks, Williams, Dye, Wm Day, Benj. Day,\nSidney Cooper, Jos Gale, Jos Dofit, John Higgins, James Green, Cambridge\nGreen, James Anderson, Thomas Low, Julian Vargas, Jose Teforia, and John\nPrice. He also names as members of his original company from Arkansas,\nwhom Nidever represents as having left that company and joined Young,\nPleasant Austin, Powell Weaver, James Bacey, and James Wilkinson. Hace\nis added by Nidever. Some of these names are doubtless erroneous. Most\nof the men returned to N. Mexico, and some came back again. The two Days\nand Price at any rate were in Cal. a few years later, and may possibly have\nremained on this trip. Both Dye and Nidever mention the murder of Anderson by Cambridge Green in Arizona, for which Green was delivered to the\nauthorities at Los Angeles.    He escaped from prison some time later.\n5Los Angeles List., 19, Warner being the authority.\n6 Warner's Remin., MS., 58-61; and miscellaneous records of individual\narrivals. Wm Ware and James Craig should perhaps be named in this connection.\n BONNEVILLE'S TRAPPERS. 389\nconnection that John Forster came up from Guaymas\nto Los Angeles by land in 1833, guided by a native7\nStill one more detachment from the army of trappers in the great basin came into California before\n1835, and this time by a northern route over the Sierra. The general operations of this army in the\nbroad interior, and the summer rendezvous of 1832-3\nin the Green River Valley, have been described by\nIrving in his narrative of Bonneville's adventures.\nThe same author records the formation of a company\nsent by Captain Bonneville under Joseph Walker\nto make explorations west of Great Salt Lake, and\ndevotes a chapter to the adventures of that company.8\nThe aim, as given by this authority, was to explore\nthe region surrounding the lake, the extent of which\nbody of water was greatly exaggerated by Bonneville.\nThe company consisted of about forty men, some fifteen of whom were free trappers.9 The start from\nGreen River was in July 1833, and after hunting a\nfew days on Bear River, they went on to the region\njust north of the lake. Whatever may have been\nWalker's original intentions or instructions, his men\ncould not live in the desert, and they went westward\nin search of water, which was found in the head\nstreams of the Mary or Ogden river, since called the\nHumboldt. I suppose their destination from the first\nhad been California, though Bonneville may perhaps\nhave had different views; at any rate Walker's men\n7Forster*s Pioneer Data, MS., 10.\nB Irving's Adventures of Bonneville, 184-8, 324-42; also given in substance\nin Warren's Memoir, in Pac R. R. Repts., xi. pfc i. p. 31-4. The first published narrative of this expedition was in the Jonesborough, Tenn., Sentinel,\nof March 8, 1837, a brief account from the statement of Stephen Meek, who\nhad returned to Tennessee, and reprinted in Niles' Register, of March 25th,\nvol. Iii. p. 50.\n9 Geo. Nidever, Life and Adven., MS., was one of these. The original\ncompany of about 40 under Robert Bean had left Ft Smith in May 1830. It\nincluded Graham, Naile, Williams, Price, Leese, and Dye. It was divided\nin N. Mex. in the spring of 1831. Both Nidever and Dye give many details\ndown to this division, and N. later. He says nothing of any instruction to\nexplore the lake, but states that Walker when joined by the writer was\nbound for Cal.\n 390 PIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nfollowed the Humboldt down to its sink. There was\ntrouble with the Indians along the way, respecting\nwhich the exact truth can hardly be known, except\nthat the trappers' conduct was dastardly, though their\noutrages were exaggerated by Bonneville and others.10*\nFrom the Humboldt sink Walker's men crossed\nthe desert and the Sierra into California by a route\nabout which there is much uncertainty. Said Bonneville to Irving: \"They struck directly westward,\nacross the great chain of Californian mountains.\nFor three and twenty days they were entangled\namong these mountains, the peaks and ridges of\nwhich are in many places covered with perpetual\nsnow. For a part of the time they were nearly\nstarved; at length they made their way through\nthem, and came down upon the plains of New California. They how turned toward the south, and\narrived at the Spanish village and post of Monterey.\"\nStephen Meek tells us \"they travelled now four days\nacross the salt plains, when they struck the Californian mountains, crossing which took fifteen days, and\nin fourteen days more they reached the two Laries\"\u2014\nTulares\u2014\"killed a horse, and subsisting on the same\neleven days, came to the Spanish settlements.\" Joseph\nMeek is represented as giving the route somewhat\ndefinitely westward to Pyramid Lake, up the Truckee\nRiver, and across the mountains\u2014by the present railroad line very nearly\u2014into the Sacramento Valley,\nand thence southward. This authority also states\nthat they met a company of soldiers out hunting for\ncattle-thieves in the San Jose* Valley, and were taken\nas prisoners to Monterey.11 Finally a newspaper\nversion, founded on Walker's own statements, and\ncorroborated to some extent by that of Nidever, gives\nwhat I suppose to have been the correct route from\nthe sink, south-westward by what are now Carson\n10 For some details, see Hist. Utah, chap, ii., this series.\n11 Victor's Riv. West. And Sebastian Peralta with a party of vecinos\nfrom S. Jos6 did meet early in Nov. a company of so-called French trappers\nbound to Monterey. S. Jose\", Arch. MS., v. 27.\n WALKER'S VISIT.\n391\nLake and Walker lake and river, over the Sierra near\nthe head waters of the Merced, and down into the\nSan Joaquin Valley.12\nWhatever the route, they reached Monterey in November 1833; and all authorities agree that with fandangos and aguardiente they passed a gay winter at\nthe capital; though somewhat strangely their presence\nthere has left but slight traces in the archives.1*\nGeorge Nidever and John Price are the only members\nof the company known to have remained in California,\nthough Frazer and Moz were probably of this party.\nSeveral other men known to have arrived in 1833\nmay have belonged to it.1* In the spring Walker with\nmost of his men started to return, skirting the Sierra\nsouthward and discovering Walker Pass. Thence\nthey kept to the north-east, and by a route not exactly\nknown, rejoined Bonneville on Bear River in June\n1834.16    That officer was altogether  disgusted with\n12 Biographical sketches of Capt. Jos R. Walker in Sonoma Democrat,\nNov. 25, 1876; and in S. Josi Pioneer, Sept. 1, 1877. Thompson of the\nDemocrat was well acquainted with Walker; and the article in the Pioneer\nwas founded on an interview. One account says he saw Mono Lake, and the\nother that he discovered Yosemite. On Walker's tombstone is an inscription: 'Camped at Yosemite Nov. 13, 1833.' According to the Pioneer, 'his\nfirst attempt to descend to the west was near the head waters of the Tuolumne, which he found impossible; but working a little to the south-west he\nstruck the waters of the Merced.' Nidever states that they came down\nbetween the Merced and Tuolumne, and soon arrived at Gilroy's rancho.\n13 The only allusions to Walker's party that I have found are, 1st, a letter\nof Wm L. Saunders to Walker of June (Jan.?) 1, 1834, in relation to a bill\nagainst S. left with Capt. Cooper for collection. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 91;\nand, 2d, John Price's petition for a permit to remain, in which he is said to\nhave come with WTalker late in 1834. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS.,\nvii. [201].\ng A writer in the Sta Cruz Sentinel, June 14, 1873, names John Nidever*\nJohn Hoarde, Thos Bond, Daily, Capt. Merritt, Wm Ware, and Francois\nLajeunesse as having come with Walker.\n15 Irving says 'they passed round their southern extremity [of the mountains], and crossing a range of low hills, found -themselves in the sandy plains\nsouth of Ogden's River; in traversing which they again suffered grievously for\nwant of water.' Two Mexicans had joined the trappers on their return, and\ngladly aided in their atrocities. . Stephen Meek says they * left on April 1st,\nand in 10 days struck the snow bank on the south side of the Salt or California mountain. Before reaching the plains on the north side of the mountain, they had to leave 30 horses, 9 mules, and 25 cattle in the snow. In the\nfore part of May, reabhed St. Mary's River,'and July 4th the Bear River.\nWarren says the return route was nearly that of Fremont in 1842, known as\nthe Sta F6 trail to California. Finally Joseph Meek carries his party to the\nColorado, down to the Gila, back to Bill Williams Fork, across to the Colo-\n PIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nsuch details of \"this most disgraceful expedition\" as\nhe had patience to hear. \"Had he exerted a little of\nthe lynch law of the wilderness,\" says Irving, \"and\nhanged these dexterous horsemen in their own lazos,\nit would but have been a well merited and salutary act\nof retributive justice. The failure of this expedition\nwas a blow to his pride, and a still greater blow to his\npurse. The Great Salt Lake still remained unexplored ; at the same time the means furnished so liberally to fit out this favorite expedition had all been\nsquandered at Monterey\"\u2014so infinitely more important was it to explore the desert lake than to cross the\ncontinent I\nI have thus mentioned all the parties of trappers\nknown to have entered California in this period, except those of the Hudson's Bay Company from the\nnorth, respecting whose presence I find only a few\nvague allusions. Warner tells us that Young, in the\nautumn of 1832, found the San Joaquin already\nhunted, and on American Fork met Michel with a\nlarge force of Hudson's Bay Company trappers. In\nMarch 1833 John Work applied to Figueroa for a\npermit to get supplies for his trappers, and in April\nPadre Gutierrez at Solano complained of the presence\nof forty men at Suisun calling themselves hunters,\nbut willing to buy stolen cattle, and otherwise disposed to corrupt the neophytes.16 Kelley on his way\nto Oregon in the autumn of 1834 was overtaken by\nLaframboise and party coming from the south. In\nJune 1835 it was reported that the trappers had\ntheir headquarters upon an island formed by the\nSacramento and Jesus Maria rivers; and in Novem-\nrado Chiquito and Moqui towns, and thence north to the starting-point, accompanied most of the way by a large party of hunters under Frapp and Jervais!\n16 March 18, 1833, Work to Figueroa. March 20th, 6 beaver-hunters at\nSolano desiring leave to visit S. F. Dept. St. Pop., MS., iii. 101-2. Apr. 7th,\nP. Gutierrez to F. Id., iii. 111. Warner, Bemm., MS., 47, says that between 1832 and 1840 Frapp, Breager, and Fitzpatrick of the Rocky Mountain\nFur Co. each came to Cal. with a party of trappers. See Hist. Northwest\nCoast, this series.\n THE BEAVER-HUNTERS.\nber, Laframboise, the leader of the beaver-hunters,\nwas warned by Comandante Vallejo at Sonoma to\nsuspend his operations.17\nOver thirty hunters had been added to the population of California by the expeditions that have been\nmentioned, and most of them resorted to hunting and\ntrapping as a means of living, for some years at least.\nThis they did with and without license, with their\nown license or with that of another, separately or in\nbands of\\ foreign comrades or in partnership with\nCalifornians and Mexicans, and paying taxes when\nthey could not avoid it.18 Wolfskill on his arrival\nassociated himself, as did Yount, with the earlier\ncomers, Prentice, Pryor, and Laughlin. He built a\nschooner at San Pedro, and in her hunted otter up\nand down the coast in 1832. Being a Mexican\ncitizen, with a passport from the governor of New\nMexico, he was able to get a license, but he soon\nabandoned the business to become a settler. Ewing\nYoung, with Warner and others, also engaged in otter-\nhunting for a time in 1832, building two canoes at San\nPedro with the aid of a ship-carpenter; and with these\n17 Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 55,81. The Columbia-river trappers and traders\nusually retired in summer northward, to return in Sept. Vallejo speaks of\norders of the govt made known to Laframboise the year before against taking\nbeaver; but in a spirit of hospitality he offered to permit a temporary encampment at Sonoma, otherwise the Frenchman must retire within 24 hours\nor be treated as a smuggler.\n18 In his report to the min. of rel. on June 7, 1831, Victoria complains that\nhe is unable to prevent foreigners from reaping all the profits of the fur trade.\nFor want of a vessel he could not prevent fraudulent hunting at the islands,\nand the interior was overrun by foreigners who cared nothing for law.\nDept. Rec, MS., ix. 135-6. A. B. Thompson's arrest and the seizure of his\nvessel at S. F. have been already noticed. Pryor, Prentice, Lewis, and\nWhite were accused of complicity with Thompson, and the confiscation of\ntheir boat and goods was ordered in Sept. 1833. Monterey, Arch., MS'., i. 29-\n30; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., iii. 24-5. In July 1833 Figae\nroa says that vessels have taken otter in notorious violation of law of nations,\nand such craft must be seized. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 2. 1834, a legal argument citing authorities on eminent domain in the matter of taking otter. Doc\nHist. Cal, MS., i. 184, 134. April 10, 1834, the Russian colonial gov,\nreported that sea-otter and beaver would soon be exterminated by Americans,\nwith the aid of Indians, in violation of Mexican laws. Zavalishin, Delo o\nKoloniy Ross, 9. Alfred Robinson, Statement, MS., 18-20, gives some details'\nabout otter-hunting during this period. So does Wm H. Davis, Glimpses,\nMS., passim.\n 394\nPIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\ncanoes, a yawl, and two kanakas, they visited Point\nConcepcioh and the channel islands. Soon, however, they started inland with a larger party to\ntrap on Kings River in October. In 1833 Young\ntrapped up to Klamath Lake and back, then made a\nshort trip to the Gila and Colorado, and went to\nOregon with horses in 1834. He lived and died in\nOregon, making several visits to California to buy\nlive-stock in later years. The presence of 'Joaquin\nJ6ven' and his hunters is noted in the archives.19\nGeorge Nidever with Yount at first hunted on the\nnorth side of San Francisco Bay and at the mouth\nof the San Joaquin, and later with Sill and others\non the southern coa^t and Santa Barbara islands\nunder Captain Dana's license.20 This hunting under\nanother's license was a common method of evading the\nspirit of the laws, and avoiding inconvenient delays;\nand it was profitable to the holder of the document,\nwho exacted a large percentage of the skins taken,\nhaving it in his power to effect a confiscation of all in\ncase of non-compliance with his demands. Job Dye\nrepresents himself as having lost iive months' time\nand all the skins he had taken; by venturing to\nquestion Don Roberto Pardo's system of dividing the\nspoils.21 He later hunted in partnership with the\npadre of San Luis \u2022 Obispo, and then made a  trip\n19 Elsewhere in this chapter I notice Young's departure for Oregon, with\nHall J. Kelley. Oct.-Nov. 1833, a party of S. Jose vecinos out in search of\nstolen horses met Jdven's party in the valley, and recovered 27 animals,\nthough there were many more which he would not give up. Young also\nvisited S. Jose with 4 of his men. The S. Jose party, under Sebastian Peralta,\nkilled 22 Moquelumnes on this expedition. S. Jose1, Arch., v. 27; Dept. St.\nPap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., v. 43-6. In June 1835 Vallejo writes that- 7\nforeign fugitives from Monterey had passed on toward the Columbia with\nstolen horses. One named Oliver was found sick at Suisun, and said his companions had gone on to join Joaquin J6ven.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 55.\na0 Brown, Narrative, MS., 27-8, mentions the operations of Yount and\nNidever in S. F. Bay. Capt. Cooper and other foreigners got licenses to\nhunt in 1833-4, on condition that not over one third of their crews should be\nforeigners; but on one occasion Castro and Estrada were authorized to complete their crews with foreign sailors. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 76, 144-5,\n157-8, 167, 187r9; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 3, 18.\n21 In 1831 Victoria revoked Ortega's license because he allowed foreigners\nto hunt under it. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 1, 42, 80-1.\n NEW MEXICAN TRADERS. 395\ndown the coast with Mcintosh. Meanwhile Burton,\nSparks, and others made a not very successful trip to\nthe peninsular coasts in the Peor es Nada.\nAnother phase of overland communication demands\npassing notice. New Mexicans of Spanish blood\ncame like the foreigners by the Colorado routes to\nCalifornia, where as a rule they had a bad reputation.\nThey came ostensibly for purposes of trade, bartering\nsarapes and blankets for mules and horses;22 but they\nwere suspected with much reason of driving away\nstolen as well as purchased animals, of inciting the\nneophytes to steal,, and even of being in league with\ngentile bands of the Tulares. Complaints were frequent during 1831-5, but it was in 1833 that the\ngreatest excitement was felt, as indicated by contemporary correspondence. Early in January, the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles passed strong resolutions on\nthe subject, and forbade the purchase of any animal\nwithout the intervention of some local juez;23 and an\nattempt was made to enforce the rule and punish offenders, with Figueroa's authority and support. Parties of armed vecinos, under various jueces del campo,\n22 There were of course legitimate traders, and a few New Mexicans became permanent and respectable citizens of California. On the overland trade\nI quote from the Los Angeles, Hist., 18: ' With Mr Wolf skill's party there\nwere a number of New Mexicans, some of whom had taken sarapes and\nfrazadas with them for the purpose of trading them to the Indians in exchange\n\u201e for beaver skins. On their arrival in Cal. they advantageously disposed of\ntheir blankets to the rancheros in exchange for mules. The appearance of\nthese mules in New Mexico, owing to their large size compared with those at\nthat time used in the Missouri and Sta Fe* trade, and their very fine form, as\nwell as the price at which they had been bought in barter for blankets, caused\nquite a sensation, out of which sprung up a trade carried on by means of caravans or pack-animals, which flourished for some 10 or 12 years. These caravans reached Cal. yearly. They brought the woollen fabrics of New Mexico,\nand carried back mules, silk, and other Chinese goods. Los Angeles was the\ncentral point in Cal. of this trade. Coming by the northern, or Green and\nVirgen river routes, the caravans came through the Cajon Pass and reached\nLos Angeles. From thence they scattered themselves over the country from\nS. Diego to S. Jose\" and across the bay to Sonoma and S. Rafael. Having\nbartered and disposed of the goods brought, and procured such as they wished\nto carry back and what mules they could drive, they concentrated at Los\nAngeles for their yearly return.'\n'idLos Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 86-7.\n 396 Pioneers and foreign relations.\nscoured the country to seize all animals for which no\nproper bills of sale could be shown, at the same time\narresting offenders; and though the main success was\nin covering much paper with ink, yet Antonio Avila\nsucceeded in restoring a large band of mules stolen\nfrom San Luis Obispo mission, and in arresting one\nor two parties of New Mexicans, including Juan de\nJesus Villapando, or f Chino Pando,' the leading culprit, who soon broke jail and escaped to New Mexico. Other parties were pursued unsuccessfully, but\nall had the effect to open the eyes of the authorities\nto the extensive thieving operations going on. An\nappeal was sent to the governor of New Mexico, who\nwas informed by Figueroa that, so general had become\nthe outrages committed, \"every man coming from\nthat territory is believed to be an adventurer and a\nthief.\" Legal proceedings were instituted against\nVillapando at Santa Fe, and against the parties arrested in California, most of whom escaped from the\njail, and a grand military expedition was sent out under\nAlferez Damaso Rodriguez against the robbers. The\nexact result is not known, for little appears on the\nsubject after 1833. It is probable that the archive\nrecord is incomplete, but also that this New Mexican\nbranch of industry was subsequently conducted on a\nsmaller scale and with more caution.24\nu March 10, 1831, gov. to com. of Sta Barbara on the complaints he has\nreceived. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 5-6. April, arrival at Angeles of a caravan\nof 30under Antonio San Estevan. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS.,\niii. 52. Avila and Lugo sent out after thieves. Id., Angeles, i. 102-4,112-13;\nAvila, Notas, MS., 9-10. Affairs of Jan.-March 1833, including complaints\nof padres and vecinos, official correspondence, results of expeditions, and legal\nproceedings. Nuevo Mexico, Expediente de Abigeato, 1833, MS. Similar\npapers in Los Angeles, Arch., iv. 73; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS-^i. 109; xi.\n3-4. Jan. 21, 1834, a party arrives from N. Mexico with 1,645 sarapes, 341\nblankets, 171 coverlets, and 4 tirutas\u2014claiming exemption from taxes under\na decree of 1830. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., ii. 16. Feb. 4th, Elwell writes\nHartnell that 125 New Mexicans have come to buy mules; and will probably\nsteal what they can not buy. ,Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 64. Feb. 21st. gov.\nof N. Mexico is proceeding against Villapando. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS.,\nxi. 15. April 3d, part of Jos6 Antonio Aveita's company bound for the Tulares and must be arrested. Id., Ben. Mil, lxxxviii 17-18. July 30th, P.\nAbella complains of the N. Mexicans staying'at his mission and selling liquor\nto the Indians. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 6.\n TREATMENT OF STRANGERS. 397\nOverland immigration being thus disposed of, I\nhave to notice briefly several general topics of foreign\nrelations. Californians were as a rule favorably disposed toward foreigners in these years, there being\ndoubtless less prejudice against them in the minds of\ncitizens than against the Mexicans. The benefits they\nhad conferred in past years, and were still conferring\ncommercially, were appreciated both by citizens and\nauthorities, while the harm they were doing and likely\nto do troubled the latter much more than the former,\nand not even them very seriously. Notwithstanding\nthe irregularities committed by the trappers and deserters, foreigners were not discouraged by illiberal\nregulations and restrictions from settling in the country; while citizenship, wives, and lands wTere easily\nobtained by those whose conduct was regular. Newcomers had to comply with certain formalities, and\nthey were occasionally reminded that they were under\nsurveillance, but no cases of oppression are recorded.25\n23 April 9, 1831, gov. to alcalde of Angeles. The 8 persons just arrived\nmust make the declarations required by law of May 1, 1828, and give bonds\nfor good conduct, after which cartas de seguridad will be granted. Dept.\nRec, MS., ix. 95-6. In Forster's Pioneer Data, MS., appen., is a carta de\nseguridad issued to Juan Forster by the vice-president to travel for one year\nin the republic. It is a printed blank filled out with name, dated April 4,\n1832, and numbered 1031. Sept. 23, 1831, form of oath required from a\nPortuguese for naturalization. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 114. Nov. 8, 1832, six\nforeigners from whale-ships are on their way to S. Jose\". They must be arrested and sent to Monterey. S. Jos6, Arch., MS., ii. 59. Jan. 1833, art. 9\nof Monterey municipal laws. Foreigners on entering or leaving town must\nshow their passports. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 1G0. April 1833, Figueroa is\nrequested to remove from Solano to Monterey 3 turbulent and anti-catholic\nforeigners. Id., iii. 116. Nov. 18, 1833, F. issues strict orders prohibiting\nforeigners from hunting. Patrols must be sent out monthly, and all offenders\narrested and treated as smugglers. Hunters who are Mex. citizens must\nhave a license. Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 95; Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., ii.\n82; Id., Ben. Mil, lxxix. 10-17. May 17, 1834, F. submits to asesor\nGarcia Diego's question if foreigners wishing to marry Cal. girls must have\nthe gefe's permission, as required by Victoria. Id., iii. 14S. June 21st,\ndip. considers the question if married and land-owning foreigners must\naid in community work of the pueblos. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 127-8. July\n25th, none of the foreigners at Sta B. have cartas or certificates. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., xix. 33. Nov. 9th, all foreigners on ranchos must appear\nbefore alcalde. Foreigners without passes and fugitive sailors to be arrested. Id., Ben. Pref y Juzg., iv. 33-4; Id., Cust.-ll., iii. 14. Nov. 22d,\nAmericans at Los Angeles protest against being obliged to do military service,\nexcept in case of an emergency, being protected by treaty between U. S.\nand Mexico. Id., Los Angeles, MS., i. 154-G. July 12, 1835, F. instructs the\nalcalde of S. Diego about the steps to be taken by Thos Ridington or any\n 398 PIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nThe danger of territorial encroachment by foreigners was not in these years regarded as very threatening in California. True, it was sometimes alluded to\nby governor and congressmen, but less often and less\nearnestly than might be accounted for by the fact that\nit was the strongest argument that could be urged in\npleas for attention, aid, and protection from the supreme government. Thus Cdrlos Carrillo, in his argument for mission occupation of the north in 18 31,26\nurged that the natural wealth of California was becoming w7ell known to the world; and there were\npowers that recognized no right of domain not founded\non actual possession\u2014a threatening circumstance for\nthat part of California north of San Francisco Bay.\nVictoria in the same year announced a doubtful rumor\nthat the Americans were trying to found an establishment in the Tulares, informing the minister of war\nthat he would prevent the entry of these foreigners\nwithout compromising the national dignity.27 Figueroa's instructions of 1832 required that no obstacles be\nput in the way of foreigners desiring to settle in accordance with the colonization laws, and especially\nthat a projected colonization scheme of .Henry Virmond at Sonoma\u2014about which nothing more is known\n\u2014be aided; yet the government also recommended\nespecial care that not more than one third of the inhabitants of any settlement should be foreigners, and\nattached great importance to the foundation of frontier posts, and the strict maintenance of Mexican supremacy up to latitude 42\u00b0, the limit fixed by treaty\nwith the United States.28 Figueroa's efforts in this\ndirection have already been noted; but in his report of\nother foreigner desiring naturalization. 1. He must prove that he came legally to Cal. 2. Apply to the ayunt., his original application being retained\nin the archives and he receiving a certified copy. 3. He must appear before\nthe district judge and prove that he is a catholic, a good citizen, and has a\ntrade by which to gain a living. 4. An expediente of all these steps and\ndocuments must be presented to the gefe pol. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 49, 56;\nHayes, Doc, MS., 22.\n26 Carrillo, Exposicion, 8.\n27 May 6, 1831, V. to min. of war. Dept. fiec, MS., ix. 129-30.\n28Figueroa, Instrucciones, MS., p. 35-6.\n SCHEMES OF ENCROACHMENT. 399\nApril 1833 he made some very serious charges against\nforeign residents. Not only did these adventurers\nhunt and trap in defiance of the laws, but they took\nadvantage of their hunting expeditions as a pretext\nto explore the whole country and conciliate the gentiles, giving at the same time bad advice to citizens,\nand all with the intention, or under the guidance of\nmen who had the intention, of eventually seizing this\npart of the republic.29 The Russians and Americans\nwere chiefly feared; and the former were somewhat\nmore alarmed about the ambitious views of the Yankees\nthan were the Californians themselves, being in fact\nthe parties most directly interested; though, as we\nhave seen, Californian ambition on the part of Russia\nwas confined to a very few individuals. Zavalishin\nstates that repeated warnings were given in Russian\nreports.30\nVoyagers to California had frequently spoken and\nwritten of its natural advantages and its great prospective value as a national possession, and they had\nalso pointed out clearly the ease with which it might\nbe wrested from Spain or Mexico. But while indi-.\nvidual foreigners probably\u2014Americans and Russians\ncertainly\u2014thought and spoke of the time when California might belong to their respective countrymen,31\nI doubt if any scheme of encroachment had yet taken\ndefinite form in the councils of any nation. There was,\nhowever, a proposition for the purchase of northern\n29 April 12, 1833, F. to min of war. St. Pap, Miss, and Colon., MS., ii.\n303-4. In March P. Gutierrez of Solano had complained of dangers to be apprehended from foreign settlers on lands in that region, but this was with a\nview to local mission interests rather than those of the nation. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 101-2. June 5, 1834, F. sends to Mex. an account of the foreigners in Cal.\u2014document not extant\u2014but believes the number to be really much\ngreater than appear3, since many are not registered. Id., iii. 139.\n80 Zavalishin, Delo o Koloniy Ross, 13-14. The Russian American governor\nin April 1834 mentioned the coming of 1G3 armed Americans with their\nfamilies to settle, and Baron Wrangell, in a report of his mission to Mexico,\nstated that the U. S. minister had openly said, 'Oh, this part of California\nwe will not lose sight of. We have parties there who gather and forward all\npossible information; and the time is not far off when northern California\nwill come into our confederation.'\n81 Morrell, in his Narrative, published in 1832, draws in print a glowing\npicture of Cal. as it would be under the rule of the U. S.\n 400\nPIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nCalifornia by the United States during the administration of General Jackson. August 6,1835, Forsyth,\nsecretary of state, wrote to Butler, charge\" d'affaires\nin Mexico, \"it having been represented to the president\nthat the port of St Francisco, on the western coast of\nthe United Mexican States, would be a most desirable\nplace of resort for. our numerous vessels engaged in\nthe whaling business in the Pacific, far preferable to\nany to which they now have access, he has directed\nthat an addition should be made to your instructions\nrelative to the negotiations for Texas. The main object is to secure within our limits the whole bay of St\nFrancisco. If you can induce the Mexican government\nto agree to any line which will effect this, you are authorized to offer a sum of in addition to the sum you\nwere directed to offer, etc. You are to endeavor first\nto obtain the following boundary, which is considered\nthe most eligible: Beginning at the gulf of Mexico,\nproceed along the eastern bank of the Rio Bravo del\nNorte to the 37th parallel of latitude, and thence along\nthat parallel to the Pacific. This line may probably\nbe supposed to approach too near, if not to include, the\nMexican settlement of Monterey. If this objection\nshould be urged, you can obviate it by explaining that\nwe have no desire to interfere with the actual settlements of Mexico on that coast, and you may agree to\nany provision effecting the great object of securing the\nbay of St Francisco, and excluding Monterey and the\nterritory in its immediate neighborhood.\"32 The sum\noffered is given by some authorities as $5,000,000. The\nreply of the Mexican government has eluded my search,\nbut Dwindle tells us that the proposition was favorably received, and would have been accepted had it\nnot been for the efforts of British diplomates.33\n32 U. S. Govt. Doc, 25th cong., 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc. No. 42; Congressional Debates, xiv., append., p. 131; South. Quart. Rev., xv. 93-4.\n33 Dwinelle's Address before Pioneers, p. 19. In tho South. Quart. Rev., viii.\n197, it is stated that Forsyth offered $3,000,000 'for the whole country of\nCalifornia.' In Niks' Register, lxviii. 211 (1845), is quoted from the London\nTimes the statement that $5,000,000 was offered 'for the portof San Francisco,\n SPANIARDS AS FOREIGNERS. 401\nForbes has a chapter on 'Upper California considered as a field for foreign colonization\/ written as\nearly as 1835, though published later. He is enthusiastic in praise of the natural advantages of the\ncountry; but while he deprecates the Mexican restrictive policy and lack of energy, and indulges in\nbrilliant dreams of what California would be under\nthe rule of such a power as England, he evidently\nbelieves that there was no immediate danger of encroachment by any foreign power. He believes, however, that Russian policy on the Pacific coast should\nreceive some attention from the American and European powers.34\nSpaniards were still regarded as foreigners; but\nthe attempts to enforce Mexican restrictions on the\nsubject in California were so few and slight as hardly\nto merit mention. Victoria brought instructions to\nexpel the Spaniards not legally entitled to remain,\nand he issued a circular on the subject in October\n1831, a document not intended to apply to the padres,\nand not enforced at all, except that C&ceres, the only\nSpaniard in the San Francisco district, was ordered\nby Vallejo to leave the republic. Moreover, a citizen\ngranted a license to take otter was forbidden to employ a Spaniard in his crew. That Victoria had failed\nto carry out his orders in this respect was one of the\ncharges presented against him by the diputacion in\n1832; but Figueroa adopted no more radical policy,\nthough for political reasons he recommended the expulsion of padres Sarria and Duran, and his orders\nfrom Mexico seem not to have required any greater\nprecautions in the case of Spaniards than other foreigners.35\none of the finest naval positions of the world,'and the editor thinks the Times\nmistaken about the date, and that the proposition was made earlier by President Adams, the price including Texas. He says: 'At that time Mexico was\nrevelling in an unlimited credit with English capitalists, and for the sake of\na few millions would not entertain a project for dismembering her empire.'\n34 Forbes' Hist. Cal, 146-9, 309-25.\n85 Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 60, 113; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 278; Leg. Rec, MS.,\ni. 250; Dept. St. Pap., MS., vi. 24.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   26\n 402 PIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nExclusive of transient visitors and of men about\nwhom the records show only their presence in California at one date, the number of foreign residents,\nproperly called pioneers, who came to the country before 1830 was 180, as per lists that have been already\ngiven.36 Of this number 140 are known to have been\nin the country after 1835. Meanwhile in 1831-5, as\nnamed in the annual lists given later in this chapter,\nthere came 170 more of the same class, of whom 160\nleft records of their presence after 1835. Therefore\nwe may take 300 as a near approximation to the\nforeign male population in 1835, including sons but\nnot daughters of pioneers by native wives. The\nnumber includes visitors who did not become residents\nuntil later; but there were doubtless a few whose\npresence after the year mentioned has left no trace\nin the records. | It was the new-comers who a little\nlater were to cause the authorities so much trouble\nrather than the older foreign residents. The latter\nwere for the most part well-behaving citizens, many\nwith Californian families, and all with Californian\nhabits of life more or less deeply rooted. Now, as\nbefore and later, the trade of the country was largely\nin their hands, and as yet they meddled but slightly\nin territorial or local politics. They were as a rule\nwell liked by the Californians; and though ttaking life\neasy\/ they still exhibited a degree of energy that excited admiration, if not. imitation. There are no\nstartling adventures or great achievements to be\nnoted in connection with any name in the list; neither\ndid, any fall into especial disgrace or misfortune.\nSome were married, and others baptized; a few obtained naturalization papers, and many got passports;\nseveral received land grants, the foundation of future\nfortunes; of many we have nothing at this time be-\n86 See list at end of vol. ii., this work; also annual lists for 1825-30 in\nchap, i., vi. of this volume. See also, for brief biographic notices of\nforeign residents and visitors, the Pioneer Register at end of vol. ii.-v., this\nwork, which will serve also as index, includiBg references to all that is written\nof any early Californian in any part of the work.\n DOUGLAS THE BOTANIST. 403\nyond the bare record of their presence; and some are\nnot mentioned at all, though known to have been in\nthe country earlier and later.\nUnder date of 1831 may be noticed the visit of\nDavid Douglas, the famous Scotch botanist. He had\nspent five or six years in the north in an earnest and\nadventurous search for botanical specimens, as elsewhere related,37 and he came down from the Columbia\non the Dryad to investigate the flora of California,\narriving at Monterey in December 1830. He brought\nletters from Captain Beechey to Hartnell, with whose\nfamily he became very intimate, and by whose aid he\neasily obtained in April a carta de seguridad to prosecute his researches for six months.33 He remained in\nthe country twenty months. His name appears on\nthe rolls of the compania extrangera in January 1832;\nand in a table of latitudes and longitudes promised to\nGovernor Victoria and subsequently furnished to\nFigueroa, the variation of the compass at Monterey is\ndated August 1832.39 Parry quotes a letter to Hooker,\nwritten at Monterey November 23, 1831, in which is\ngiven a slight description of the country and of the\nwriter's botanical discoveries, but nothing of his personal adventures. He hoped to secure a passage to\nthe Columbia River direct, but was obliged to wait\nuntil August 1832, and sail on an American schooner\nfor Honolulu, and thence to Vancouver in October.\nThere was a current rumor in later years that he had\n37 See Hist. Northwest Coast. Douglas' journal was published by Hooker\nin the Companion to the Botanical Magazine, ii. 79, etc., which I have not\nseen. An account of his adventures was published by Somerville in the Overland Monthly, vii. 105-13; and more briefly by Stillman in Id., ii. 262.\nWhether the journal was seen by those writers I do not know; if so, it can\nhave contained but very meagre details of Douglas' experience in California.\nA more complete account, quoting some of Douglas' letters to Hooker and\nreferring to others, taken I suppose from the Bot. Mag. as above, is found in\nParry's Early Botanical Explorers of the Pac Coast, in the Overland, 2d ser.,\ni. 409-14.\n38Dryad at Monterey in Jan. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxi. 15. Carta, dated\nApril 20, 1831, in Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 97. Sept. 1, 1829, Beechey to Hartnell, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxix. 407. He writes from London, and speaks of\nhaving met Guerra at Tepic.\n89Nov. 25, 1833, Douglas to Figueroa, in Vallejo, Doc, xxxi. 52, with the\ntable of geographical positions on the same sheet, as follows:\n 404\nPIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nfound on the roots of his California plants gold enough\nto make a watch-seal I40 In November 1833 a vessel\nen route from the Columbia to Honolulu with Douglas and Chief Factor Finlayson on board touched at\nSan Francisco in distress; and the botanist from his\n'tent on the hill at Yerba Buena' wrote to Hartnell,\nrecounting some of his later hair-breadth escapes in\nthe far north, sending warm regards for friends at\nMonterey, and expressing his hope of meeting them\nagain\u2014\"though not, God willing, before I see the\n'land o' cakes.'\"41 He never saw either Scotland or\nCalifornia again; for in July 1834, during one of his\nsolitary excursions at the Islands, he fell into a pit\nLatitude. Longitude.\nSta Barbara (landing) 34\u00b0 23' 41\"       119\u00b0 14'   0\"\nSta Barbara (Noriega's house) 34\u00b0 25'   0\"       119\u00b0 14' 30\"\nStaines. 34\u00b0 36'   4\"       119\u00b0 52' 57\"\nPurisima 34\u00b0 40' 14\"       120\u00b0   8' 54\"\nS. Luis Obispo 35\u00b0 16' 20\"       120\u00b0 22* 21\"\nS. Luis Obispo (anchorage) 35\u00b0 10' 56\"       120\u00b0 19'   0\"\nS. Miguel 35\u00b0 45'   5\"       120\u00b0 29' 47\"\nS. Antonio 36\u00b0   0' 18\"       121\u00b0   5'   1\"\nSta Lucia (summit) 36\u00b0 11' 49\"       121\u00b0 W 14\"\nSoledad 36\u00b0 24' 19\"       121\u00b0 11' 30\"\nMonterey (anchoragef 36\u00b0 36'   0\"       121* 44'   0\"\nMonterey (Hartnell's house) 36\u00b0 35' 43\"       121\u00b0 44' 21\"\nMonterey (Pt Pinos)   36\u00b0 38' 30\"       121\u00b0 46' 37\"\nMonterey (Pt Carmelo) 36\u00b0 31' 40\"       121\u00b0 48' 42\"\nMonterey (North Pt Carmelo) 36\u00b0 33' 23\"       121\u00b0 45' 42\"\nMonterey (Cipres Pt)  36\u00b0 34' 47\"       121\u00b0 46'   9\"\nMonterey (S. Carlos) 36\u00b0 32' 19\"       121\u00b0 45' 33\"\nCerro de Buenaventura (top.) 36\u00b0 31' 32\"       121\u00b0 25' 39\"\nSta Cruz 36\u00b0 58' 14\"       121\u00b0 40*   2\"\nSta Cruz (mouth of river) 36\u00b0 57' 33\"       121\u00b0 40'   0\"\nSta Cruz (Pt Ano Nuevo) 37\u00b0   0' 52\"       121\u00b0 41' 21\"\nS. Juan 36\u00b0 507 55\"       121\u00b0 18'   4\"\nCerro del Gavilan(top.) 36\u00b0 31'32\"       121\u00b0 20'   0\"\nSta Clara 37\u00b0 21'   4\"       121\u00b0 45'53\"\nS. Jose 37\u00b0 31' 47\"       121\u00b0 48'   2\"\nS. Francisco (Yerba Buena) 37\u00b0 48' 15\"       122\u00b0 20' 27\"\nS, Rafael 37\u00b0 58' 26\"       122\u00b0 38' 27\"\nS. Francisco Solano 38\u00b0 17'   9\"       122\u00b0 18' 26\"\n40 Roberts' Recollections, MS., p. 10, the writer being personally acquainted\nwith Douglas, but not claiming to have heard the story from him. A similar\nrumor seems to have reached England, where it was reported after the gold\ndiscovery that flakes 6f gold were found on the roots of pines sent home by\nDouglas and others, who were blamed for not having found the gold or announced the discovery. Quart. Review, 1850, no. 87, p. 416.\n41 Douglas's Letter to Hartnell, 1833, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 49. The\nletter was dated Nov. 11th, and on Nov. 25th, as we have seen, another was\nsent to Figueroa. Parry notes also from his letters that he anchored in Drake\nBay, and landed at Whalers Bay, or Sauzalito.\n PIONEERS OF 1831. 405\nand was trampled to death by a wild bull that had\nfallen in before him.. The botanical results of his trip\nin California, that is, descriptions of the specimens\nsent to England, were published by Sir William\nHooker in 1841.42\nNew-comers in 1831, as named in various records,\nnumber fifty-four, and half of them, or twenty-seven,\nas named in the appended list, are entitled to be considered pioneer residents.43. Many spent the rest of\ntheir years in California, and were locally well known,\nbut the most prominent names in later annals were\nthose of Burton, Davis, . Forbes, Vignes, Warner,\nWolfskill, and Yount. Three of the whole number,\nDavis, Warner, and Weeks, were living in 1884, all\nof whom contributed their reminiscences for my use.\nIn that part of this chapter devoted to the overland\nimmigration from New Mexico, and of a former\nchapter to the maritime annals of the year, all has\nbeen said that is known respecting the actions of foreigners in 1831. As a class, they took no part in\nthe political disturbances of that year, though Abel\nStearns was one victim of Victoria's wrath who conspired for his overthrow; and Captain Bradshaw of\nthe Pocahontas was employed to carry away the fallen\ngovernor.\nIn the spring of 1832 the foreign residents of Monterey were induced to take part in politics, so far as\n42 Hooker and Arnott's Botany of Capt. Beechey's Voyage, California Supplement, p. 316-409. Robinson, Life in Cal, 107, who met Douglas at Monterey, says: 'I was told he would frequently go off, attended by his little dog,\nand with rifle in hand search the wildest thicket in hope of meeting a bear;\nyet the sight of a bullock grazing in an open field was more dreadful than all\nthe terrors of the forest. He once told me that this was his only fear, little\nthinking what a fate was in reserve for him.'\n43 Pioneers of 1831: Wm Bale, Francis Z. Branch, Lewis T. Burton, Jos\n0. Carter, Cooper (died), Wm H. Davis, Geo. A. Ferguson, James A. Forbes,\nThos Fuller, Jos Gibson, John Gorman, Wm L. Hill, Henry Kelley, James\n-Kennedy, Wm McMichael (?), John Matthews, Wm Matthews, John Rhea,\nPierre Romero, Sam. Shields, Smith (died), Wm Stenner, Louis Vignes, John\nJ. Warner, James W. Weeks, Wm Wolfskill, and Geo. C. Yount. For some\nparticulars about these men and others who visited Cal., see the Pioneer\nRegister at end of vol. ii.-v., this work.\n 406 PIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nto band themselves as the Compania Extranjera,\nunder command of Hartnell, in support of Zamorano's\nmovement against Echeandia and the diputacion, so\nfar as the defence of the capital was concerned.\nEnough has been said elsewhere of this matter;44 and\nits only interest in this connection lies in the fact that\n.the rolls of the company furnish the names of forty-\none foreigners, about half of them new-comers.\nThe second name on the list was that of Thomas\nCoulter. He was an English scientist, who after extensive travels in Mexico had arrived in California in\nNovember 1831, by what route or conveyance I have\nbeen unable to learn, but probably by sea.45 Of Dr\nCoulter's travels in California, not extending north of\nSan Francisco Bay nor east of the Tule lakes, we\nknow only what may be learned from a paper communicated to the London Geographical Society in\n1835, which is, that from March to July of 1832 he\nmade a trip from Monterey via San Gabriel to the\nRio Colorado and back.46 Hi& notes are for the most\npart geographical in their nature, and are sufficiently\nindicated on his map, which I here reproduce.    One\n44 See chap. viii. of this vol.\n48 Stillman, in Overland Monthly, ii. 262, quotes a letter written at Monterey in 1831, in which Douglas speaks of having met Coulter. He had been\nin Sonora in the winter of 1829-30. Parry, Early Bot. Expl, 413, also quotes\nthe letter, and says C. returned to England in 1833.\n46 Coulter's Notes on Upper California. Communicated by Dr Thomas Coulter. Read 9th March 1835, in Lond. Geog. Soc Jour., v. 59-70, with a map.\nAlso extract in Nouv. An. Voy., lxxv. 30-52. The author corrects the \u2022 great\npopular error' respecting the Tule lakes which has ' raised these comparatively insignificant ponds to the rank of a great inland sea.' He was unable to\nexplore the eastern regions, but questioned the hunters about them. Some\ngeographical positions are given by the use of the chronometer, based on\nBeechey's longitude of Monterey. The remains of one of the two Colorado\nmissions were found * on a point of rock projecting a little into the river, and\nconstituting the extreme southern point of the Rocky Mountains.' The region from S. Pedro to S. Bernardino is described as ' the only point of either\nCalifornias, south of S. Francisco, capable of sustaining a large population.'\n'Any efforts for the purpose of colonizing Upper California should be directed\ntowards the portion north and east of S. Francisco and east of the Tule lakes,\nwhich is fertile, well wooded and watered, and of sufficient extent to make\nits colonization worth while as a speculation.' The white population is estimated at 6,000; while the author notes the rapid decrease and approaching\nannihilation of the Indians. The neighborhood of S. F. Bay is declared to be\nthe | only part of the country likely ever to become of much interest to Europeans.'\n CALIFORNIA IN 1832.\n407\nCoulter's Map.\n 408\nPIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nother item in the bibliographical annals of California,\nand not a very important one from any point of view,\nmay be accredited to this year, namely, the publication of Morrell's Narrative of a visit made in 1825,\nas described in an earlier chapter.\nMy pioneer list for 1832 contains forty-five names,\na number that would be increased to eighty by the\naddition of transient visitors.47 Seven or eight, however, are doubtful names so far as the exact date of\narrival is concerned. Among the best known Californians who came this year, were Alexander, Carson,\nBlack, Chard, Dye, Larkin, Sparks, Spear, West, and\nWilliams. Carson and Dye were the only survivors\nin 1880, and the former still lived, I think,, in 1884.\nLarkin wTas destined to be most prominent of all, and\nwith him on the Newcastle came Mrs Rachel Holmes\nfrom Boston, whom Larkin married the next year,\nthe first American woman who came to live in California.\nForeign residents had a good friend in Figueroa, who\ncame in January 1833, and was liberal in his policy.\nThanks were rendered for the services of the Compania\nExtrangera, and the so-called loyalty of its members to\nthe legitimate government; and this is all that is to be\nsaid of the foreigners in politics or as a class. A bibliographical item for the year may perhaps be supplied by\nthe work of the Frenchman, M. P. de Morineau, who\nseems to have spent some time in California about 1833,\nand who published a memoir on the results the next\nyear.48 Nothing more is known of his visit; nor does the\n17 Pioneers of 1832: Cyrus Alexander, Allen (?), Alexis Bachelot, Robt S.\nBarker, James Black, Wm Blake (?), C. T. Briggs (?), Lemuel Carpenter, Moses\nCarson, W7m G. Chard, James Craig (?), Benj. Day, Wm Day, Denton, Ferd.\nDeppe, Wm Dickey, J oseph Dixon, Sant. Duckworth (born in Cal.), Job F.\nDye, Hazel Fuller, Jose Garner (born in Cal.), Geo. Gay, Thos Grant, Chas\nHall, Arch. Johnson (?), Michel Laframboise (?), Thos O. Larkin, J. 0. E. Ma-\ncondray, John D. Meyer, Joseph Paulding, Dan. Rice, Wm B. Richardson,\nPatrick Short, Dan. Sill, Phil. O. Slade, Isaac J. Sparks, Nathan Spear, John\nThompson, Ambrose Tomlinson, Phil. J. Walter, John Ward (?), Wm Ware(?),\nMark West, Geo. Williams, and Isaac Williams. See Pioneer Register at\nend of these volumes.\n48 Morineau, Notice sur laNouvelle California, in Nouv. Ann. des Voy., lxi.\n VISIT OF HALL J. KELLEY. 409\nresulting memoir require special attention here. It was\na brief but tolerably accurate presentation en resume\nof Californian history, statistics, people, institutions,\nmanners and customs, closing with a recommendation\nof the country as a field for French commerce. I\nhave occasion to cite it elsewhere on several points.\nI append the names of forty-seven pioneer^ who came\nin 1833, though in a few cases the year of arrival is\nnot quite certain.49 There were some thirty-five more\nwho came, but did not stay or return. The leading\nnames according to subsequent prominence as citizens\nare Forster, Graham, Johnson, Leese, and Walker.\nFour of all the list, Forster, Leese, Nidever, and\nMeek, were living in 1880; Meek and Leese I think\nalso in 1884.\nAn interesting incident of 1834 is the visit of Hall\nJ. Kelley. He was a Yankee school-master, an intelligent and energetic young man, an enthusiast on\nthe subject of Pacific-coast settlement, whose eccentricities finally developed into insanity, and whose\nprojects and writings are noticed fully in my History\nof Oregon. Kelley crossed the continent from Vera\nCruz to San Bias in 1833. On his way he had interviews with prominent Mexicans, and wrote a letter to\npresident Santa Anna on his project of settling California after he should have effected his purpose in\nOregon.    From San Bias he took passage by water\n137-57; also in Soc Geog., Bulletin, xvi. In the United Service Journal, 183^,\npt i. p. 94, it is stated that Morineau wrote his memoir for Humboldt. He\nprobably made his visit earlier than 1833, and perhaps with Duhaut-Cilly in\n1827-8.\n49Pioneers of 1833: Jose Allen (born in Cal.), Arch. Banks, Wm Bran-\nder, Chas Brown, Sam. Campbell (?), Lawrence Carmichael, Thos Cole, John\nB. Cooper, Cecilio Doak (born in Cal.), James G. Dove, Chas Fippard, Jos\nFlorin (?), John Forbes, John Forster, Foster (? died), Wm J. Foxen (born\nin Cal.), Eph. Frawell, Geo. Frazer, Isaac Graham, Wm GulnaCj Elias Hayes,\nHarry Hicks, Jos Hicks, Fran. Higares, Wm M. Hooper, James Johnson,\nWm Keith, Jacob P. Leese, Thos Lewis, Louis Mathurin, Steph. H. L. Meek,\nGeo. Nidever, Sherman Peck, Thos Pepper (?), Wm Place, John Price, Thos Rid-\nington, Francis L. Ripley (?), Jame3 Scott, Pierre J. Sicard, John F. Smith, Peter\nStorm (?), Wm Thompson (?), Jos R. Walker, James Whitmarsh, Chas Wol-\nter, and Henry Wood.    See Pioneer Register at end of voL ii.-v., this work..\n 410 PIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nto La Paz, and thence with much toil and hardship\nfound his way by land to San Diego, where he arrived\nApril 14, 1834. Thomas Shaw of the Lagoda gave\nhim a passage to San Pedro, and after a visit to Los\nAngeles he arrived at Monterey in June, also visiting\nSan Francisco. Here he broached to Governor Figue-\nroa his scheme for surveying, mapping, and eventually settling the interior valleys, receiving in reply a\nletter of June 26th, in which Figueroa approved his\nplans without being able to authorize or pay for their\nexecution until he could consult his superiors. At\nLos Angeles Kelley had met Ewing Young and his\ntrappers, whose presence and operations have been\nnoted in this chapter, and had urged them to make a\ntrip to*Oregon. Near Monterey he met Young again,\nand succeeded in enlisting him with seven companions\nfor the journey. They started by way of San Jose* in\nJuly with about a hundred horses and mules; and were\nsoon joined by seven more hunters\u2014a rough party\nof 'marauders,' as Kelley calls them, including two\nof Walker's men\u2014with some sixty more animals.\nMarching up the great valley, suffering from fever,\nthreatened by the Indians on account of outrages committed by the 'marauders\/ and overtaken on the way\nby Laframboise and his Hudson's Bay Company trappers, the party arrived at Vancouver in October. A\ncharge from Figueroa of having stolen horses caused\nYoung much trouble, and imbittered all his life in\nOregon. He claimed to have purchased all his horses,\nand that if any had been stolen they wrere those\nof the 'marauders;' and I have no proof that such\nwas not the case, though obviously the Californians\nhad no means of drawing fine distinctions between the\ndifferent parties roving through the valleys. Kelley\nmade a map of the Sacramento Valley, and he wrote a\nmemoir in 1839, containing an excellent description\nof California, which was published by congress. He\ncontinued to write for some forty years, at first to\novercome obstacles and carry out his projects of settle-\n JOHN COULTER'S EXPLOITS. 411\nment in the far west; and later to make known his\nearly efforts, to seek a reward, and particularly to complain of the gross wrongs of which he had been the\nvictim. He honestly believed himself to have been\nthe first and most efficient promoter of American\ncolonization on the Pacific coast, and that he had been\nrobbed of the honor and profit that should have resulted from his services.50\n.Another visit of the year was probably apocryphal.\nDr John Coulter, in a narrative of adventures in the\nPacific published in London, devoted seven chapters\nto his experience in California, covering a larger part\nof the year 1834, so far as can be judged from the\nsingle date given in the book.61 The author's knowledge of Californian geography was perhaps derived\nfrom earlier books, with a general idea of institutions;\nbut all the rest was evidently evolved from his imagination, since, if he ever saw the country at all, his\nnarrative shows no trace of that fact. It is for the\nmost part an account of absurdly impossible personal\nadventures, with allusions to magnificent ruins and\nrelics of antiquity: Indians clad in doeskin, decked\nwith gay feathers and paint and silk scarfs and silver\nbracelets and coronets, and armed with tomahawk\nand rifle; canoes floating on stream and lake; robbers\nwith their deadly lassos infesting every trail; with\nlofty pines, shady magnolias, cochineal-feeding prickly pears, and broad ranges of hazel-nut!\n60Kelley's Memoir; Id., History; Id., Narrative, etc., passim. I have\nformed my narrative from disconnected statements in these and other writings\nof the author. There is no reason to question its accuracy. Kelley claimed\nthat Sutter's occupation of the Sacramento Valley was suggested by his reports.\n51 Coulter, Adventures on the Western Coast of South America, and the interior of California.. .By John Coulter, M. D., author of 'Adventures in the\nPacific' London, 1847. 12mo. 2 vol. The matter on California is found in\nvol. i. p. 127-88. Dr Stillman, in Overland Monthly, ii. p. 263, has justly\ncharacterized the book as a tissue of lies. Coulter claims to have been left\nat S. F. sick with rheumatism from the whaler Stratford, Capt. Lock, and to\nhave sailed later in the Hound, Capt. Trainer, to rejoin his vessel at Tahiti.\nHis time after his malady had been cured by the temescal was spent in visits\nto all the northern missions, and with hunters and trappers in the broad interior.\n 412\nPIONEERS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.\nBesides the ordinary sources of information, we\nhave for 1834 two formal lists of foreigners in the\nMonterey district, and a similar list for the Angeles\ndistrict, so that probably few names have been missed.\nOf the ninety foreigners who appear in the records,\nhowever, many besides those known to be visitors do\nnot reappear after 1834-5; and the pioneers proper\nas named in my list are thirty-six.52 Prudon, Reid,\nand Stokes were perhaps those best known in California; and so far as I know, Janssens was the only\nsurvivor in 1884. The coming of the Mexican colony\nadded several to the number of foreign residents, as\nhad the New Mexican caravans of 1831-2 and Walker's overland expedition of 1833.\nIn 1835 also California had its visit, resulting in a\nbook, both of a very different class from Coulter's of\nthe preceding year, being Richard H. Dana's Two\nYears before the Mast, a work that requires but brief\nnotice at this date, as no other about California has\nhad more readers. The author, since a prominent\nlawyer and lecturer as well as writer of well known\nbooks, was then a boy in Harvard College, who\nshipped as a common sailor on the Pilgrim, with a\nview to cure a weakness of the eyes that interfered\nwith his studies. He arrived at Santa Barbara in\nJanuary 1835, and left San Diego to return in May\n1836 on the Alert, having visited repeatedly every\nport on the coast, and spent four months at the hide-\nhouses of San Diego. His book was a connected\nnarrative of his experience and observations during\nthe two years' absence from Boston, and was first\npublished  in   1840.53     Notwithstanding   its   truth,\n62 Pioneers of 1834: Wm J. Bailey, Chas Baric, Thos G. Bowen, John Colbert, Dav. Cooper, Luther Cooper, J. M. Covarrubias, Nathan Daly, Wm\nDaly, Wm Game, Horatio N. Hartnell, Henry Herd, Jos H. Hill, Gerard\nHope, Chas Hubbard, Aug. Janssens, Chas Johnstone, Robert King, Wm\nLumsden, John C McLeod (?), Jos L. Majors, Misteril, Albert F. Morris,\nPierre Olivier, Matt. Pelham, Dav. Philips, Victor Prudon, Hugo Reid,\nJames Rogers, Thos Russell, Matias Sabici, John Smith, James Stokes, Wm\nTaylor, Andrew Watson, .Ezekiel Whitton.\n58 [Dana] Two Years before the Mast.   A Personal Narrative qf L\\fe at\n DANA'S VISIT AND BOOK. 413\nDana's narrative had all the fascination of Cooper's\nand Marryatt's sea-stories, and it was doubtless this\ncharm mainly that caused its immense popularity;\nyet it was instructive no less than fascinating, as it\ncontained the most realistic picture extant of sailors'\nlife and treatment in American trading vessels, with\nintelligent observations on the countries visited. Of\nthe Californian hide trade, in all its details, Dana\npresented a view which has never been surpassed.\nHis opportunities were small for studying the history\nand institutions of the country; but his remarks on\nthe places and men and customs that came under his\npersonal observation were not only interesting, but\nwith some exceptions accurate. The current popular\nidea of California from 1841 to 1848 was founded\nlargely on this book, with those of Forbes and Robinson. The author's appreciation of the western\nland is summed up in the remark, 'In the hands of\nan enterprising people, what a country this might\nbe!\" but he adds, \"Yet how long would a people remain so, in such a country? If the 'California fever,'\nlaziness, spares the first generation, it is likely to\nattack the second.\" An addition to the late editions,\n\"Twenty-four Years After,\" is second in fascination to\nno part of the original.\nI have but sixteen names to record in my list of\npioneers for 1835, and six of these are doubtful in\nrespect of date. Including visitors, the total number\nof new-comers is but thirty-six. None acquired any\nspecial prominence, unless it may be Henry Melius;\nand none but Watson, I think, survived in 1884.54\nSea. N. Y., 1840, 16mo, 483 p.; Id., 1847; Id., 1857; ed. of London, 1841,\n8vo, 124 p.; Dutch translation: lTwee jarenvvor den mast.' Deventer, 1842,\n8vo, 2 vol.; 'New edition, with subsequent matter by the author,' Boston,\n1869, 12mo, 470 p.; Id., 1873. In the original edition the author's name\ndid not appear on the title-page. The additional matter in the author's edition is a narrative of a second visit to California in 1859.\n54 Pioneers of 1835: Fred. Becher (?), James Bridger (?), Martin Cooper,\nJohn Coppinger (?), Wm H. Crowell (?), Wm Daylor, Wm Forbes, Manuel\nKing, Allen Light (?), Henry Melius, Henry Plummer, John O'Brien, L. V.\nPrudon (?), Robt Robinson, Stephen Simmonds, Thos Watson (born in Cal.)\nSee for biographical sketches of pioneers, natives, and visitors, the Pioneer\n* $ter at end of vol. ii.-v., this work.\n CHAPTER XV.\nRULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\n1836.\nCastro Transfers the Gefatura to Gutierrez\u2014A Quiet Rule\u2014Centralist Precautions\u2014The Capital\u2014Vigilance Committee at Los Angeles\u2014Shooting of a Man and Woman\u2014Bandini's Plan at San Diego\n\u2014Appointment and Arrival of Governor Chico\u2014Inaugural Address\u2014Swearing of the Bases\u2014Chico's Orders\u2014Address\u2014Sessions\nof the Junta Departamental\u2014Agent for Mexico\u2014Chico in the\nSouth\u2014Beginning of Troubles\u2014Californian Views of Chico's\nCharacter\u2014Dona Cruz, the Governor's Mistress\u2014Feeling of Foreigners\u2014Chico and Stearns\u2014Revolution Planned\u2014Results of the\nVigilants\u2014Chico and Duran\u2014Amours of Castanares and Dona\nIldefonsa\u2014Chico and Estrada\u2014Excitement at the Capital\u2014Chico\nLeaves the Country.\nI take up again the thread of political annals\ndropped at the end of 1835.1 In accordance with a\nprevalent desire of the Californians, Figueroa at his\ndeath had separated the political and military commands, intrusting the latter, according to army regulations, to the ranking officer Lieutenant-colonel\nNicoMs Gutierrez, and the former, according to a\nMexican law of somewhat doubtful application to a\nterritory, to Jose* Castro, as senior vocal of the diputacion. The only objection had come from the south\nin behalf of Jose* Antonio Estudillo of San Diego,\nwho was really the senior vocal, but was absent from\nthe capital on account of illness. Estudillo was\ndoubtless entitled to the position of gefe politico ad\ninterim,, and the prospective honor may have done\nlSee chap. x. of this volume.\n TRANSFER OF THE GEFATURA. 415\nmuch to restore his health; but for some reason that\nthe records fail to make apparent, the efforts in his\nfavor were ineffectual.\nOn January 2, 1836, Castro transferred the gefatura to Gutierrez, as both announced to local authorities in letters of that date.2 The alleged motive of\nthe transfer was an order of the supreme government,\ndated January 21, 1835, that for the national good\nthe civil and military commands should be vested in\none person. This order was probably in reply to\nsome of Figueroa's past suggestions and the efforts of\nCalifornians in congress; but it is strange that(it did\nnot arrive sooner. The lawyers, Cosme Pefia and\nCastillo Negrete, the diputacion, and the ayuntamiento of Monterey approved the union of the two commands, which Gutierrez himself affected to oppose at\nfirst.3 It is remarkable that the change should have\nbeen so quietly effected, and given rise to so little\ncorrespondence, that Castro and his Californian friends\nshould have surrendered the power to a Mexican\nwithout at least a wrar of words. True, the rule of\nGutierrez was accidental, prospectively brief, and\nhardly worth a contest; true also, that the current\ncorrespondence may possibly have disappeared in great\npart from the archives; yet enough of mystery remains to indicate an understanding between Castro\nand Gutierrez, and to give some plausibility to Juan\nBandini's theory that the former surrendered the\ncommand to the latter in order to keep it from Estudillo\u2014that personal and local prejudices were more potent than the popular feeling against Mexican rulers.*\n2 Jan. 2, 1836, C. and G. to ayunt. of Los Angeles, S. Diego, and Monterey. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 43; Id., Mont., iv. 80; S. Diego, Arch.,'\nMS., 69, 71. Bando of G., same date. Dept. St. Pap., S. Jose', MS., v. 9.\nG. to com. of Sonoma. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 144. All these communications are nearly in the same words, some of them in print. March 7th, he\nsigns his name and rank as ' Nicolas Gutierrez, Teniente Coronel de Caballe-\nria Permanente, Comandante General, Inspector, y Gefe Politico de California.' Doc. Hist. Cal,  MS., i. 232.\n3 Dec. 15-19, 1835. Monterey, Adas del ayunt., MS., 141, 143-4; Dept.\nSt. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., iii. 46.\n4Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 79-80. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 75-8,\nasserts that there was much discontent, and even vague talk of revolt, at the\n RULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nThe rule of Gutierrez lasted four months, and I find\nno indication of opposition, discontent, or controversy\nduring that period. Like his predecessor, he confined\nhis efforts to the performance of routine duties, giving little or no offence to either people or politicians,\nthough there must have been a constantly growing\nfeeling against Mexican rulers, fomented to a certain\nextent by those who chose to style themselves federalists. The establishment of centralism in Mexico\nwas not yet officially proclaimed in this far north, but\nthe tendency was known and discussed. A communication from the minister of relations, dated June 5,\n1835, and circulated by the governor on January 10th,\ncalled attention to the possibility of future changes in\nthe form of government, and to various petitions on\nthe subject already made public in the newspapers, at\nthe same time urging upon territorial authorities the\nnecessity of the strictest precautions against such disorders as might arise from popular feeling founded on\nvague rumors and utilized by revolutionary leaders.5\nNational affairs received no further public attention\nduring this brief rule; but two or three topics of a\nlocal nature merit brief notice here, both on account\nof their importance and of their results.\nBy a national decree of May 23, 1835, Los Angeles\nwas wade a city and capital of California. I have\nnoticed this fact elsewhere, and also the burst of indignation with which the news was received at Monterey.6    Two days after his accession, Gutierrez gave\nnorth in Castro's favor, and in the south for Estudillo; hut in March there\ncame an earthquake that led people to forget politics in favor of prayer.\nSeveral Californians, as Pinto, Apunt., MS., 14-15; Estudillo, Datos, MS., 7~\n8; and Castro, Relacion, MS., 36-7, imply that while there was dissatisfaction, Castro yielded to Gutierrez's demand to prevent disorders and promote\npeace. Robinson, Life in Cal, 173, followed by Tuthill, Hist. Cal., 141, states\nthat Gutierrez succeeded in accordance^ with the will of Figueroa, implying\nthat Castro's temporary rule was simply in consequence of Gutierrez's absence\nin the south; but this is an error.\n6 Jan. 10, 1836, Gutierrez to alcaldes, forwarding communication of June\n5, 1835. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 72.\n6 See chap. x. of this volume.\n FIRST COMMITTEE OF VIGILANCE.\n417\nofficial publication to the decree, thus honoring the\ncity of the Angels, and in February some efforts were\nmade to secure proper buildings for temporary public\nuse in the new capital; but the Angelinos were so\nlacking in public spirit that no citizen would furnish a\nbuilding rent free, as the governor required, and the\nmatter dropped out of sight for more than a year.7\nAll the same, Los Angeles soon distinguished itself\nby producing the first Californian vigilance committee.\nDomingo Felix, who lived on the rancho bearing his\nname, near the town, was married to Maria del Rosa-\nrio Villa, who had abandoned her husband to become\nthe mistress of a Sonoran vaquero, named Gervasio\nAlipas. After two- years of frequent efforts to reclaim\nthe erring woman, met wTith insults from her paramour whom he once wounded in a personal encounter,\nFelix invoked the aid of the authorities, and the wife\nwas arrested at San Gabriel, and brought to town on\nMarch 24, 1836. Through the efforts of the alcalde\nand of friends, it was hoped that a reconciliation had\nbeen effected, though Alipas and his brother threatened vengeance. Two days later the couple started,\nboth on one horse, for their rancho; but on the way\nthe husband was stabbed by the paramour, and his\nbody was dragged by the man and woman with areata\nto a ravine, where it was partly covered with earth\nand leaves.\nBy March 29th the body had been found and both\nmurderers arrested. There was great excitement in\nthe city, and on April 1st the ayuntamiento, summoned in extra session to take precautions, resolved\nto organize a force of citizens in aid of the authorities\nto preserve the peace.8    The danger was real, but no\n7 Jan. 4, 1836, gov. to alcaldes. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 40; S.\nDiego, Arch., MS., 70-1. Jan. 21st, receipt of the decree by ayunt. of Los\nAngeles. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 183. Feb. 6th, demand for buildings.\nVignes would rent a hall for $400 and contribute $75 of that sum. Stearns\nand Sanchez-had also halls to rent, but none for free use until a suitable edifice could be erected. Id., i. 70-3.\n*Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 189-92. A. M. Osio was invited to be pres-\nHist. Cal., Vol. HI.   27\n RULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\ngood citizens could be induced to aid the officers of the\nlaw, for they had resolved on a summary infliction of\nthe penalties which justice demanded, but which, as\nthey well knew, were not to be expected from the\nordinary course of law in California, where there was\nno tribunal authorized to inflict the death penalty on\na civilian. At dawn on April 7th about fifty of the\nmost prominent citizens met at the house of John\nTemple and organized a ijunta defensora de la seguridad publica,' of which Victor Prudon was chosen\npresident, making an eloquent address, the original\ndraft of which is in my possession. Manuel Arzaga\nwas made secretary, and Francisco Araujo wTas put in\ncommand of the armed force. During the forenoon,\nwhile the organization was being perfected, two messengers were sent in succession to Padre Cabot at San\nFernando, whose presence was required on the pretext that a dying Indian needed his spiritual care;\nbut the weather was bad and the padre refused to\ncome.\nAbout two o'clock p. m. a copy of the popular acta,\nwith a demand for the prisoners to be delivered up\nfor execution within an hour, was sent to the alcalde,\nManuel Requena.9     Half an hour later the junta\nent and take part in the deliberations, and did so, but he says nothing of the\naffair in his Hist. Cal.    See Popular Tribunals, this series.\n'This document is preserved in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 81-91, with\nother records bearing on the same affair. I quote as follows: .*Salus populi\nsuprema lex est. The subscribing citizens, at the invitation of the rest,\njustly indignant at the horrible crime committed against Domingo Felix,\nbearing in mind the frequency of similar crimes in this city, and deeming\nthe principal cause thereof to be the delay in criminal cases through having\nto await the confirmation of sentences from Mexico, fearing for this unhappy\ncountry a state of anarchy where the right of the strongest shall be the only\nlaw, and finally believing that immorality has reached such an extreme that\npublic security is menaced and will be lost if the dike of a solemn example is\nnot opposed to the torrent of atrocious perfidy\u2014demand the execution or the\ndelivery to us for immediate execution of the assassin Gervasio Alipas and\nthe faithless Maria del R. Villa, that abominable monster who cruelly immolated her importunate husband in order to give herself up without fear to her\nfrantic passions, and to pluck by homicide from the slime of turpitude the\nfilthy laurel of her execrable treason (!)...Let the infernal couple perish.\nSuch is the vow of the people, and we protest in the face of heaven that we\nwill not lay down the arms with which we support the justice of our demand\nuntil the assassins have expiated their foul crimes. ..Public vengeance demands a prompt example, and it must be given.    Still reeks the blood of the\n CRIMINALS SHOT. 419\nmarched out to* the parsonage near the court and jail,\nand at three p. m. the alcalde was notified that the\nhour had expired. The ayuntamiento in session had\nreceived and considered the demand, which it was decided to refuse after two committees had been sent\nout to reason with the crowd.10 Narciso Botello, the\nsecretary, having refused to give up the keys, they\nwere taken, the guard was arrested, and the criminals were taken from the jail to be shot\u2014the man at\n4:30 p. M. and the woman half an hour later. It was\ndiscovered that Alipas had his shackles nearly filed\noff. The bodies were exposed at the jail door for two\nhours, and then placed at the disposal of the authorities. The alcalde fearing further disturbances, the\njunta volunteered to serve for a few days as a guard\nto aid the authorities in preserving order,11 and was\nthen disbanded.12 About the results of this affair, I\nshall have to say something a little later.\nAbout the time of these events at Los Angeles,\nthere were current rumors of prospective revolutionary troubles of a nature not clearly defined at San\nDiego,- The only foundation for such rumors perhaps was a memorial presented by Bandini and others,\nin which they deplored the ravages of Indian raiders,\nAlvarez, of the Potinon, of the Jenkins, and of other unhappy victims of\nthe fury and passions of their impious murderers. ..The world shall know that\nif in the city of Los Angeles judges tolerate assassination, there are virtuous\ncitizens who know how to sacrifice their lives in order to save that of their\ncompatriots. ..Death to the homicide!' There follow 55 signatures, including 14 foreigners. Four other communications are given respecting the giv-\ning-up of the keys and return of the bodies.\n10 Los Angele*, Arch., MS., iv. 186-8.\n11 April 10th, a bando was published by the ayunt., providing for the volunteer organization for defence, and threatening prompt and severe punishment to all disturbers of the peace. Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., ii. 69-70.\nIt does not appear what danger was apprehended.\n12Prudon, Vigilantes de Los Angeles, 1836, MS., is an original narrative\nwritten at the time by the president of the junta, and is the most complete\nextant. To it is prefixed Prudon's address on accepting the presidency.\nI have cited several archive records; and may refer also to a report made on\nMay 4th by the ayunt. of Los Angeles to that of S. Diego, narrating events\nin some detail. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 103. Full accounts are given by Botello, Anales del Sur, MS., 20-5; Sanchez, Notas, MS., 9-11; and Alvarado,\nHist. Cal, MS., iii. 60-9. The affair is also mentioned by Day in Hesperian,\nii. 150-1; in Los Angeles, Hist., 14, and Hittell's Hist. S. F'co. 79-80.\n 420\nROLE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nthe decadence of the missions under the reglamento\nof secularization, the decline of agriculture and\ntrade, and the lack of tribunals of justice, proposing\nas a remedy the calling for a general assembly of\nmilitary, civil, and missionary representatives, which\nbody should proceed to reorganize the military, industrial, financial, and judicial system of California without awaiting approval from Mexico. On April 14th\nan extra session of the ayuntamiento was held, at\nwhich the news from Los Angeles was received and\nconsidered, together with the current rumors of\ntrouble nearer home. It was decided to send the\ngovernor a record of the meeting, with an assurance\nof San Diego's loyalty, the rumors being groundless.\nThey also forwarded the citizens' memorial.13 April\n23d, Gutierrez replied, accepting in good faith and\nwith gratitude the assurance of San Diegan patriotism, but declaring that the formation of the proposed\nassembly could not be carried out consistently with\nfidelity to the national government.14 There is no\nevidence that the occurrences at either Los Angeles\nor San Diego had any political or revolutionary meaning whatever, or that Gutierrez regarded them as\nhaving any such meaning.\nBut a new ruler was en route for California, sent\nto rule that country in accordance with the bases of\nOctober 1835, which overthrew the federal constitution and system of 1824, but which provided for no\nvery radical immediate changes in the. territory. The\npresident's choice fell upon Colonel Mariano Chico, a\nmember of-congress at the time from Guanajuato, who\n13 S. Diego, Arch., MS., 96-7. March 21st, Bandini to Vallejo. Bewails the sufferings of Cal. caused by the misdeeds of some of her sons and\nof others; but hopes for better days. Regrets that differences of political\nopinion should have produced a seeming coolness between the two. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., iii. 182. On Jan. 11th, a meeting of citizens had been called to\nconsult on steps to preserve order. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 71.\nuDept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 47-50; Hayes, Doc, MS., 49. On\nApril 22d, Gutierrez had written to Vallejo that attempts at revolt in S.\nDiego and Los Angeles would prevent him from sending an officer to the\nnorth as was desired.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 197.\n ARRIVAL OF CHICO. 421\nwas appointed December 16, 1835, to succeed Figueroa, apparently before that officer's death was known,\nand arrived at Santa Barbara on the Leonor, as I suppose, after the middle of April 1836, the exact date\nbeing unknown.15 Beyond the facts that Chico was\na diputado, and that members of his family in Guanajuato had taken a somewhat prominent part in the\nrevolutionary struggle, I know nothing of the man\nbefore his arrival in California. As we know, the\npeople had a strong feeling against Mexican officials\nas a class, and were opposed to centralism so far as\nthey had any political opinions; it is also stated that\nletters and newspapers from Mexico had given Chico\nan unfavorable reputation in respect of both political\nand private character;16 yet I do not think there was\nany prejudice against him or his politics that would\nhave proved a serious obstacle to a man skilled in the\nart of gaining popularity.\nHaving spent a few days at Santa Barbara at the\nhouse of C&rlos Carrillo, whom he had known in Mexico,17 Don Mariano started north by land, escorted by\nabout eighteen soldiers, and accompanied by Jacob P.\nLeese, the company also including, I presume, Dona\nCruz, a woman introduced by the governor as his niece,\nof whom more anon.    He arrived at the capital May\n15 Aug. 1, 1835, J. A. Carrillo wrote to his brother Carlos from Mex. that\nFigueroa's course was disapproved, and a successor\u2014name not given\u2014would\nsail on the Leonor. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 185. The date of appointment may have been Dec. 15th, as an order of minister Tornel to deliver the\ncommand to him seems to bear that date. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xi. 2-\n3. The date is given as Dec. 16th in Dept. St. Pap., S. Jos6, MS., iv. 109;\nand Id., Ben. Mil, lxxxi. 16. The permission of congress had to be asked\nfor his appointment on account of his being a congressman. Dec. 24th, $400\nhad been advanced 'for account of secret expenditures,'and $2,000 on account\nof his salary. Id., xxxi. 11-12, 16. I have ho date for the arrival of the\nLeonor, except that she anchored at S. F. on May 19th. Pinto, Doc, MS., i.\n30-1.    Several writers mention the fact that Chico landed at Sta Barbara.\n16 Osio, Hist Cal, MS., 249-51; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 47; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 78-80.\n17 Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 90, says that she\u2014then Mrs Jimeno\u2014was\nill of a fever when Chico called at the house of her father, Capt. Guerra. He\ninsisted on seeing the sick woman, and she was told later that in her delirium\nshe had made some rather queer remarks to the governor. Hittell, Hist. S.\nF., 81, on the authority of Leese, mentions Chico's stay at Carrillo's house and\nhis consultations with Guerra.\n 422 RULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\n1st, and was received by Gutierrez and the citizens\nwith the usual ceremonial welcome.18 On the 2d and\n3d the offices of comandante general and gefe politico\nwere formally turned over by Gutierrez to Chico, which\nevent\u2014celebrated at night by a grand fiesta and ball\n\u2014was duly communicated to 'local authorities the\nsame days,19 when he also issued a printed address announcing his appointment, arrival, and patriotic intentions, together with the death of President Barragan,\nlearned while en route.20\nHe issued another proclamation on the 20th, lauding\ncentralism extravagantly, denouncing federalism, and\ncongratulating the Californians with flattering words\non their glorious future under the new regime. \"The\nconstitution of 1824,\" wrote Don Mariano, \"child of\ninexperience and haste, was an abortion of blunders\nfruitful in disorders, which you endured for eleven\nyears; it was your idol while worthy; but the oracle\nonce proven false, and your forbearance wearied, you\ndecided with your brethren of the interior to melt\nthat false idol, though respecting still its relics until\nthe substitution of the new image which is being prepared to serve you as a deity.\"    \"The olive of peace\n\"Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 50-2, and Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii.\n80-3, tell us that officers and citizens marched out to meet the gov., all except the presidio officers wearing federal badges expressive of their political\nSentiments; and that when Chico made the remark that he was glad to meet\nso many good people, Alvarado replied that they had not come out to welcome him, but Domingo Carrillo, whom he had arrested at Sta Barbara for\nhis political opinions and had brought along as a prisoner. I have no reason\nto believe that Carrillo had been arrested at all, that any such badges were\nworn, or that any such insult was offered by Alvarado to. the new governor.\nThe exact date of Chico's arrival is given in Gomez, Diario de Cosas Notables\nen Monterey, 1836, MS. A brief but important original narrative by D. Rafael\nGomez.\n19 The comandancia was transferred on May 2d, a day before the gefatura,\nas appears from a communication of Chico to the com. at Sonoma. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., iii. 199; and Gomez, Diario, MS. May 3,. 1836, Chico and Gutierrez to\ndifferent ayunt. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 108; Id., Mont., vi. 37; Id., S. Josd, v.\n8; Id., Angeles, xi. 53; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 102; Id., Index, 25. Chico\nrecognized at Los Angeles May 10th. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 193-4. At\nS. Diego May 12th, being congratulated on the 14th by Alcalde Arguello.\nS. Diego, Arch., MS., 99. May 28th, congratulated by J. M. Estudillo at S.\nFrancisco. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 15.\n20 The only copy of this original print that I know of is preserved in the\nMercantile Library of S. F., in Taylor's Specimens of the Press, no. 5.\n THE GOVERNOR'S SPEECH. 423\nsprouts in this far north; let our fraternity fertilize\nits root, let our concord water it until it rises in majesty to touch the heavens.\" \"California was ever the\ncentre of discretion, an example of docility, a model\nof subordination and obedience to supreme authority.\nShe has preserved intact her customs, healthful and\nfree from the poison of revolution, and is ready to\nclimb the hill of fortune as a state; she may be the\nnursery to produce for the country citizens best fitted\nto advance its greatness.\"21 Something more of declamation than of argument is to be noted in this paper,\nthe contents of which were delivered as an address on\nthe day of taking the oath of adherence to the bases\nof the new constitution. The governor took immediate steps to have the oath taken in all parts of the\nterritory, as was done at some places\u2014probably at all\u2014\nbefore the end of July, without opposition apparently.22\nChico had sent an order to Comandante Vallejo\nthe 4th of May, at Sonoma, to come to Monterey for\nconsultation on important matters, and to bring with\nhim such forces as could be spared from the northern\nfrontier, an order which was repeated on the 17th.23\nOn the 6th he had sent a similar order through the\nalcalde of San Diego for Juan Bandini to come at\n21 Printed original in Earliest Printing. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS.,\nx. 19. Literally copied by Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 105-8, who quotes\nas follows from a letter of Pablo de la Guerra on the subject. 'The \"bear,\" to\ndeceive the Californians and prevent their detection of his falsehood, has spoken\nin mystic language; I would rather undertake to decipher the responses of\nthe Delphic oracle.'\n22 May 29, 1836, swearing of the bases at S. Diego with great rejoicings,\nfiring of guns, shouts, and ringing of bells, *un acto tan grato como lisonjero\na todo Mexicano,' as described by Capt. Portilla in a communication to his\ncom. gen. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi. 36; S. Diego, Arch., MS.,\n110, 115. June 1st, swearing of -the bases by .the military of the south at S.\nGabriel, as reported by Gutierrez. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 109-11; Id., Ben.\nMil, xxxi. 18. On or about June 11th, the oath was taken at Sta Barbara,\nP. Duran refusing to say mass. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 373-4.\nJune 19th, the oath administered at Los Angeles by Chico himself, who made\na speech on the beauties of centralism. ' This people heard the discussion\nwith pleasure.' Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 195-6. July 11th, Chico finds\nit strange that Vallejo has not reported the swearing of the bases by his troops.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 219.\n23 Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 200, 201, 205-6.\n 424 RULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nonce to the capital for a conference.24 On the 11th\nChico had issued another printed proclamation, or\nbando, this time on commercial topics, prohibiting the\nretail trade on board of foreign vessels which had so\nlong been practised on this coast, requiring a landing\nof all cargoes at Monterey, and imposing other restrictions more in accordance with Mexican laws than\nwith Californian usages.25 On the 16th he had issued\nan order that Abel Stearns must come to Monterey\nor leave the country;26 and finally he delivered on\nthe 27th an address at the opening of the sessions of\nthe diputacion\u2014a document also circulated in print.\nIn his discourse Chico spoke first of thegeneral\ndifficulties that had beset his path, and which he had\nhitherto been obliged to meet alone without the wise\ncounsels of the vocales now fortunately assembled.\nNext he referred at considerable length to the troubles\nat Los Angeles, but his views on this topic will be\nnoticed later. Thirdly he noticed the measure of\nMay 11th on the regulation of commerce, expressing\nhis belief that if not perfect it could not fail to prevent\nmany existing abuses. The constant ravages of thieves\namong the herds of horses and cattle were alluded to\nas one of California's greatest evils, which, however,\nhe had taken steps to check by the aid of the newly\narrived law of December 29th, which brought such\nmalefactors within the ordinary military jurisdiction.\nFifthly and chiefly, the subject of missions received\nattention; and in this respect the situation seemed to\nthe governor most critical. He declared himself at a\nloss, and in his perplexity \" awaited the counsel of\nyour excellency to lead the government like Ariadne's thread from so strange a labyrinth.\" What with\nan imperfect system of secularization partially carried\n24San Diego, Arch., MS., 104. The order reached Bandini June 8th or\n10th.\n25 May 11, 1836, Chico to the people. Earliest Printing. Also May 11th,\nhe issued an order for the formation of local cuerpos de seguridad y policia.\nS. Diego, Arch., MS., 106.\n26Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 52.\n JUNTA DEPARTAMENTAL. 425\nout by incompetent men, the destruction of property\nby the padres, the insubordination of the neophytes,\nand the new complications introduced by the national\ndecree of November 7th, he saw no way of advance or\nretreat by which to save the missions from total ruin,\nbut would do his best, and would thankfully receive\nsuggestions. Finally he asked indulgence for his errors, in consideration of his zeal for the country's w^ell-\nbeing. This discourse, if it displays no extraordinary\nwisdom on the part of the speaker, shows nothing of\nweakness, petulance, arrogance, or strong political\nprejudice, nor does it contain anything specially apt\nto displease the Californians.27\nAccording to the new bases, the republic was to be\ndivided into departments, each ruled by a governor\nand a junta departarnental; and though additional\nlegislation was required to create the departments,\nand though in reality no change had as yet been\nlegally made in the old names so far as California was\nconcerned, yet the old diputacion was now called a\njunta departarnental, and Chico, in his discourse, even\nspoke of California as a department. At an election\nheld at Monterey on the 25th\u2014for what reason or by\nwhat authority I do not knowT\u2014four new members\nwere chosen to complete the junta, and one of them\ntried to avoid serving on the plea that according\nto a Mexican law the body should have but five\nmembers; but Chico decided that there was no new\nlaw affecting the number or attributes of the vocales\nin a territory, and that only the name could properly\nbe considered as changed. The sessions opened, as I\nhave stated, on May 28th with a speech from Chico.\nHe made another speech on June 1st, in advocacy of\nhis proposition to send an agent to represent the interests of California in Mexico, in addition to the\ndiputado in congress.28    The plan was favorably con-\n27 Chico, Discursopronunciadopor el Sr Gefe Politico de la Alta California\n.. .al abrir sus sesiones la Ecsma Junta Departarnental el 27 de Mayo de 1836,\nin Earliest Printing; also in Bandini, Doc, MS., 40.\n28 Chico, Alocucion d la Junta Departarnental 1 de Junto, 1836, MS.\n 426\nRULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nsidered, and a trio of candidates was proposed for the\nposition; but nothing came of it. There is nothing\nelse in -the proceedings of the junta at this session\ndemanding further notice than is given in the appended\nrecord.29\nEarly in June Chico started for the south, and was\nabsent from the capital a month. This brings me to\nthe troubles encountered by this ruler, which were\ndestined to overwhelm him. It is not easy to fathom\nthese troubles entirely, or to determine with exactitude what manner of man Don Mariano was. The\nCalifornians in their recollections of olden times are\n29Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 1-3, 13-31. May 25th, election of 4 members, J.\nGomez, Spence, R. Gomez, and Crespo. May 28th, opening of the session.\nRafael Gomez desired to be excused, on the grounds that he had not been 7\nyears a resident and that the junta should legally have but 5 members\u2014both\noverruled later. The vocales in order of seniority seem to have been as follows: 1st, Jose\" Castro; 2d, J. B. Alvarado; 3d, Jose* Ant. de la Guerra; 4th,\nRafael Gomez; 5th, David Spence; 6th, Manuel Crespo; 7th, Joaquin Gomez.\nAlvarado presided\u2014though it is not apparent why he rather than Castro took\nthat position\u2014and J. M. Maldonado was secretary. The committees were,\nproprios y arbitrios, J. Gomez and Spence; colonization and vacant lands,\nJ. Gomez and Guerra; missions, Spence and R. Gomez; government and\npolice, Crespo and Castro; reglamento and municipal orders,' Alvarado and\nCastro; public works and industries, Spence and Guerra; instruction and statistics, Alvarado and Castro.\nMay 31st, June 2d, representation of P. Mercado against Jos6 Ramirez.\nNo details. June 1st, Chico's prop, to send an agent to Mex. Chico reported\nthat he had forbidden the appointment of an alcalde by the ayunt. of S. Francisco for the region north of the bay. June 4th, Chico's recommendation on\nsupervision of mission accounts, disapproved on Sept. 5th. June 16th,\nmeetings to be on two days of the week, as determined by the president, instead of on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. June 21st, prop, for an agent\nin Mex. approved. Trio named: Alvarado, F. J. Castillo Negrete, and Rafael Gomez. Com. appointed to form instructions. June 23d, sec. and his\nsalary. June 30th, secularization of Sta Ines and S. Buenaventura. Inventories of Sta Clara, S. Jose\", and S. Miguel. July lst-4th, -various minor matters; and more about the agency for Mex. July-6th, Joaquin Gomez refused\nleave of absence. July 7th, Gomez proposed to revoke the license granted by\nFigueroa to Kostromitinof to build a warehouse at S. Fran.', and to have the\nbuilding destroyed after the next shipment; no such permission to be given\nin future. Chico's order forbidding the appointment of an alcalde for the\nnorthern frontier approved. July 19th, Chico says it is customary for the\noldest vocal to preside in the absence of the gefe.- July 18th-26th, land grants,\npetition of Jas Burke, etc. July 29th, more about instructions to the agent.\nComplaints of Alvarado against Chico (addressed to minister of relations and\nnot really a part of the legislative record). Aug. 30th, approved that no permission be given foreigners to erect warehouses at the ports; but it was said\nthat Kostromitinof had not yet built any. The records are brief, vague,\nconfused, and probably very incomplete for the whole session.\n THE GOVERNOR'S CHARACTER. 427\nunanimous in denouncing him as a tyrant, a rascal,\nand a fool. He was the object not only of hatred\nas Victoria had been, but of ridicule.30 As in Victoria's case, the popular feeling was, to some extent at\nleast, unfounded; and it has doubtless been exaggerated in the telling, largely through the influence in\nlater years of men who had political reasons for magnifying the governor's faults. His public acts, as recorded in contemporary documents, could not have\nbeen specially offensive to any class of Californians,\nand many of the acts imputed to him by later narratives are so absurdly improbable as to cast serious\ndoubt on the accuracy of the rest. It is clear enough\nthat Chico was neither despot, villain, nor insane, but\n30 Choleric, respecting nothing when suffering from bile; revengeful; came\nto Cal. in the hope of bettering his fortunes. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 249-\n88. 'Militarate de mala ley, stubborn as a school-boy, destitute of all good\nbreeding, with no idea of the advantages to be gained by a conciliatory policy,\npompously ostentatious, believing himself a general, a statesman, and an\napothecary, insolent as Nero, religious and profane at the same time, cowardly, mad, and a corrupter of public minds.' Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii.\n45-140. This writer tells many stories of Chico, some of them too absurd\nfor notice. 'Scandalously avaricious.' Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 80-3. Mrs.\nOrd, Ocurrencias, MS., 82-98, says he was very unpopular; and relates that the\nIndian Juan Crist6bal at Sta Barbara pronounced him a rascal at first sight,\nrunning away in great fear, especially on account of his goggles; and when\nthe padre explained that he was a good man, etc., the Indian still insisted\u2014\n'wait a little and thou wilt see how he acts, and then tell me if he is good or\nbad; let us see who wins, thou or I.' Chico nicknamed 'Oso Chico' because\nof his crazy and lewd disposition; 'loco y impudico.' Hartnell, Narr., MS.,\n11. Had all the vices and no virtues\u2014all the attributes necessary to make\na man worthy of hatred. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 82-153. Haughty and\ndomineering. Fernandez, Cosas de Cal., MS., 97-9. A man fitted to strengthen\nthe provincial prejudice, of disagreeable manners, one with whom no one\ncould be on friendly terms. Botello, Anales, MS., 19-22. Despotic and arbitrary, the very opposite of Figueroa. Castro, Rel, MS., 37-8. Ill-tempered and quarrelsome; insolent and immoral. Pinto, Apunt., MS., 16-19.\nViolent, despotic, and hated by all. Pico, Acont., MS., 18-19, 28-31. No\ncommon sense; spent his time in inventing remedies and studying flowers.\nVallejo {J. J.), Remin., MS., 118-21. Impetuous and lacking in tact. Coronet,\nCosas, MS., 18. Irascible, imprudent, and -capricious. Serrano, Apuntes,\nMS., 31-6. Devoid of sense, quarrelling with everybody. Arce, Mem., MS.,\n7-8. Peevish and perhaps mad. Torre, Remin., MS., 57-61. Insolent and\nslovenly. Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 33-4. Treated with deserved contempt.\nLarios, Convulsiones, MS., 16. The worst ruler that could have been sent to\nCal. Valde's, Mem., MS., 23-5. As'quijote'as a Spaniard. Amador, Mem.,\nMS., 144. Soon lost every friend he chanced to make. Avila, Notas, MS., 18-19;\nand more to similar effect, in Janssens, Vida, MS., 63-72; Gonzalez, Exper.,\nMS., 32; Gonzalez, Revoluciones, MS., 9-10; Sanchez, Notas, MS., 11-12. The\nabove references are made to include all that the writers say of Chico's rule,\nand many of them will not require further mention.\n 428\nRULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nbeing unpopular, he might as well have been all three,\nso far as results are concerned.\nOn his arrival in California he had to encounter\nthe ordinary inherent difficulties of his position,\nwhich were by no means trifling, as had been discovered by all his predecessors. As a Mexican he had\nto meet a strong prejudice, and as a centralist a still\nstronger opposition, there being a party of young\nmen in the country who claimed to be ardent federalists, and for whom revolution, as a word, had no\nterrors. Chico succeeded Figueroa, a man distinguished for his arts of flattery and conciliation; having himself none of those arts, and no extraordinary\nability with which to overcome difficulties. He was\nperhaps personally petulant and disagreeable; at any\nrate, he made enemies and no friends, and the current\nwas started against him. His pretty ' niece,' Dona\nCruz, turned out to be his mistress; and the respectability of Monterey was easily persuaded to consider\nitself shocked by such immorality in high places.81\nThe restrictive bando of May 11th on commerce may\nhave displeased a powerful element among the foreigners, and his persecution of Abel Stearns, of which\nand its motives little is really known, tended in the\nsame direction, though there is very little in support\nof the charge that he was specially hostile  to for-\n81 Stories are told going to show that Dona Cruz was not altogether faithful to her lover, and gave the governor no end of trouble by her freaks of\ninconstancy.\n82 Chico's orders against Stearns are dated May 16th, June 26th, and July\n30th. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 120; Id., Ben. Pref y Juzg., vi. 5-6; Id.,\nAngeles, xi. 52. No motive is given; but by Stearns and others it is implied\nthat the cause was his connection with the movement against Victoria. From\nthe haste of both Victoria and Chico to proceed against Stearns on their\narrival, it is not unlikely that each had some secret instructions on the \u2022subject from Mexico. Stearns came to Monterey, and was allowed to go back,\nunder bonds, to settle his business in a month and leave the country. July\n8th, Stearns writes to Chico complaining of the injury done him, and threatening to hold the govt responsible. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS.,\nvi. 2-3. Eulogio Celis, a Spaniard, who seems to have been supercargo of\nthe vessel on which Cbico came, was also forbidden to re-enter Cal. 8. Diego,\nArch., MS., 114, 120.\nOsio, libit. CclI, MS., 254-6, narrates that Stearns, hurrying to obey the\norder, *came to Monterey and was at first politely received with others, not\n BEGINNINGS OF TROUBLE. 429\nIt should be remembered, however, that on account\nof Texan complications in 1835-6, the Mexican government and its representatives had no reason for\nfriendly feelings toward Anglo-American foreigners\nat least. I find no contemporary evidence of controversy before Chico's departure for the south; but it\nis not unlikely that the storm was raging in certain\ncircles not represented, naturally, in public records.\nAlvarado and Vallejo state that at this time, or\npossibly during Chico's absence, they with Castro and\nGabriel de la Torre planned a revolution at the house\nof Captain Cooper; but that Chico, by subsequently\nrevolting against himself, rendered the carrying-out of\ntheir plans unnecessary.33\nbeing known to the gov.; but on hearing his name, Chico sprung up, and\npointing his finger at him, cried out, 'Are you the rascal Abel Stearns whom\nI sent for to punish as his criminal acts deserve ? Are you the American\nscoundrel who rose against Gen. Victoria, and whom I shall hang to-morrow\nat the flagstaff? Are you the audacious foreigner, without honor, who has\ndared to cuter this room among honorable men? Be off, and await to-morrow\nthe result of your rascality!' Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 71-6, asserts\nthat at a secret meeting to consider Chico's opposition to foreigners he (A.)\nwas sent to interview the gov., whom he warned that if he persisted in his\nmeasures all foreign capital and vessels would be withdrawn, greatly to the\ninjury of Cal. Ciiico said the foreigners would not be allowed to withdraw\ntheir capital; and when A. said there was no law to prevent it, burst out\nlaughing, and remarked that his visitor had evidently not acquainted himself\nwith the modern Mexican system of politics and forced loans. A. explained\nthat the Californians would side with the foreigners if any such outrage\nwere attempted; and Chico, after storming a while, became more reasonable,\nsaid he would postpone violent measures for a time, and finally asked the\nyoung diputado to take a cup of chocolate with himself and Dona Cruz.\nHe was, however, sadly disappointed when he learned that A. could tell him\nnothing about the medical properties of California plants.\nOf the foreigners who have given their opinions about Chico, Spence,\nHist. Notes, MS., speaks of 'the despot general who was a fitter subject for\nthe lunatic asylum than for governor. He respected neither law nor justice,\nbut acted solely according to his own caprice and whims.' Dr Marsh, Letter, MS., p. 7, says 'he was the friend of Victoria, pursued the same outrageous course of conduct, and shared the same fate. He arrived fully determined to take vengeance on those who had been instrumental in expelling\nVictoria.' Alfred Robinson, Life in California, 173: ' Prejudiced against many\nCalifornians, and violently incensed at the foreign residents, Chico commenced\na tyranny that soon brought him into disgrace; and finally ended in his expulsion from the territory.' Petit-Thouars, Voyage, ii. 92, and Wilkes, Narrative, v. 174-5, attribute his downfall to his arbitrary conduct and a quarrel\nwith the judge of the district. Tuthill, Hist. Cal, 141, follows Robinson's\nversion.\nfcj 83 Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 126, 140, 48-9; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS.,\niii. 82-92, 100. Vallejo relates that on receipt, May L3th, of Chico's order\nof May 4th ( Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 200-1), he started for Monterey. At S.\nJose* he met Celis and Becher, who warned him against the \\ cold-blooded,\n 430\nRULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nThe doings of the junta defensora, or vigilance\ncommittee, at Los Angeles in April, were the current\ntopic of public attention when Chico landed at Santa\nBarbara. These \"scandalous events\u2014a tumultuous\nmeeting of citizens who allowed themselves to be seduced by four malicious and wayward men, putting\nthemselves above authority and law in despite of\nsound morals\"\u2014seemed to the new ruler matters of\nthe greatest moment and fraught with terrible peril\nto California. He saw a political significance in the\nmovement, believing that the alleged cause was not\nthe real one, but that \"a resolution meditated by\noccult anarchical spirits to overthrow the government\ninspired in the incautious Angelinos the fatal idea of\nrevolt under a pretext apparently sound, in order that\nfierce, brutal, hypocritical, insolent, centralist governor,' who had arrested\nCarrillo at Sta Barbara and many of the leading men at Monterey. Vallejo\nwent back to Sonoma and started again with a force of 22 soldiers, 10 citizen volunteers, and 14 Indians. At S. Jose Juan Alvires was told to be\nready for action if needed. One day was spent at Pajaro at the rancho of J.\nJ. Vallejo, who was ready to render aid against the centralist. At 11a. m.\non May 26th, having been admitted to the presidio by the corporal of the\nguard, Don Guadalupe formed his men in a line before the governor's house\nand knocked at the door. It was opened by an old man in a morning gown,\ngreen cap, and slippers, who said, 'I am the man you have come to see; are\nyou not Alferez Vallejo, who commands on the Sonoma frontier?' 'Yes, and\nI want to see Comandante General Chico,' was the reply, whereupon he went\nand put on his uniform', and returned, saying, 'Senor Alferez, here is the general of California.' A long interview ensued, minutely described. Chico\ncomplained of Vallejo's delay in coming, but after a long discussion, the latter, by the aid of a map drawn on the spot, succeeded in convincing Chico\nthat the trip from Sonoma could not have been made quicker! Then Chico\nquestioned his visitor closely about the northern frontier and his Indian policy. The Indians were also called in and questioned. Finally the governor\nexpressed great satisfaction and praised the young officer's conduct; asked\nhim to take a glass of wine brought by Doha Cruz, whose bright eyes almost\ncaused the alferez to forget the charms of his own young wife; and accompanied him to the door, telling him to stay at Monterey as long as he liked.\nVallejo then went out to meet his friends, who had gathered to defend him\nin case of need, and were much surprised to know that 'Guadalupe had tamed\nthe bear.' It was their opinion and the narrator's that Chico had intended\nto arrest Vallejo, but had been frightened by his resolute acts and by his military escort. (The interview, according to Vallejo's own version, would indicate rather that Chico was a quiet, gentlemanly officer, who had no hostility\nagainst the alferez, and was pleased by his independence and bluff manners.)\nIt was then that the plan of revolution was formed, to be carried out if Chico\nshould continue his arbitrary conduct, and a written agreement was made, of\nwhich each of the conspirators kept a copy. Alcalde Estrada so far assented\nto the plan as to agree not to endure from Chico any direct infringement of\nthe written laws.\n THE VIGILANTES.\n431\nlater they might be induced to serve the sinister aims\ninto which more than once the avowed and secret directors of this mutiny have been initiated, causing\nbitter days for this department.\" So urgent did. the\ndanger seem, that he wished to go in person to Los\nAngeles, but was dissuaded by friends, who told him\nthat as the command had not yet been transferred,\nhis authority would probably not be recognized at the\npueblo. Therefore he hastened to Monterey, and\nsoon sent Gutierrez south with a force to restore order.\nAll this, with something of results, and the fact that\nthe expedition had burdened the treasury with a loan\nof $2,000, was communicated at length to the junta\nand to the people in the governor's discourse of May\n27th.34 It was doubtless in connection with this\nexpedition that the order to Vallejo had been issued\nas already related.\nOn April 26th, in accordance with orders from Monterey, Alcalde Requena had commenced proceedings\nagainst members of the so-called mob of April 7th;\nbut as all declared there were no leaders, and that over\nfifty culprits must be punished if any, the alcalde\ncould only report to the governor enclosing a list of\nthe names.35 It was on May 4th that Chico issued\norders for Gutierrez to march south to quell the disorders at Los Angeles; but we know very little of the\nexpedition, save that it,cost $2,000, met no resistance,\nand according to Chico's discourse was successful in\n** Chico, Discurso, etc. Jacob P. Leese, as already stated, came north with\nChico; and according to the statement of Hittell, Hist. S. Francisco, 81,\nbased presumably on Leese's own account, 'on the way Chico asked him for\nan account of the affair at Los Angeles, of which Noriega at Sta Barbara had\ngiven him a very unfavorable opinion. Leese told the circumstances, and\nproduced the copy of the record, which entirely satisfied the governor, who\npromised that he should not be troubled about it. A desire to learn the particulars of the execution at Los Angeles was probably one of Chico's motives\nfor requesting Leese's company; and the conviction in his mind that the\npeople acted properly may have had some influence in inducing him to give a\nletter that assisted Leese in obtaining the order for laying out the town of\nYerba Buena.' Evidently there is a mistake about Chico's conviction, whatever may have been his course towards Leese personally.\n85Record of May 4th. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 103. Chico also mentions in\nhis Discurso the means adopted by the mob to shield the leaders.\n \"\n432\nRULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\noverawing the Angelinos to such an extent that they\n\"pointed out their deceivers, that justice might pursue them.\" Some arrests were made and arms were\nseized in the city and adjoining ranchos before and\nafter Chico's arrival.36\nWhy Chico went to the south at all is not clear;\nneither*is it possible to give any connected narrative\nof wThat he did there, except to make himself very unpopular. He reached Los Angeles about the middle\nof June, having a few days before presided at the\nswearing of the bases at Santa Barbara, as he did at\nthe city on the 19th. He granted some kind of an\namnesty to those concerned in the tumult of April,\nexcepting four men from the amnesty, by an order of\nJune 20th; and next day he issued a bando requiring the delivery of all arms that were yet in private\npossession, under severe penalties.37 Osio says that\nafter storming for a while, and terrifying the timid\nAngelinos with his threats of hanging and shooting,\nChico calmed down and astonished the prisoners by\ndismissing them with pardon, after a mild reprimand.\nThis writer says, however, that he subsequently lost\nhis temper again, and caused several arrests; but the\nprisoners were released after he left the country.\nSeveral Californians tell us that Prudon and Araujo\nwere banished, and that the latter never returned;\nbut I think that no one received any greater punishment than a brief arrest.\nThe governor, being called to Monterey by 'important affairs,' left  San Gabriel for the north  on\n36 May 4, 1836, Chico's order to Gutierrez, and to alcalde to give him aid.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 108. May 18th, Prudon and Arzaga arrested. Sepul-\nvedaand Juan Avila not yet. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 155. May 28th, arms\nseized from 24 persons, 13 of whom were foreigners. Los Angeles, Arch., MS.,\ni. 98-101. June 3d, Gutierrez to Chico. Is gathering in all the arms, and will\ngo to S. Diego, leaving Ibarra in command. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS.,\nlxxxi. 37. June 8th-18th, collection of arms by alcaldes at the ranchos. Id.,\nAngeles, ii. 50-2. Nov. 20th, arms collected at S. Gabriel, perhaps in connection with some other matter. Id., ii. 65-6.\n87 The 4 men not included in the amnesty were Jose\" Perez, Vicente\nSanchez, Jose Sepulveda, and Juan Ramirez, said to have headed a second\nmeeting of citizens. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. *y Juzg., MS., vi. 7. They\nmay have been the 4 'discolos maliciosos' of Chico's Discurso.\n CHICO IN THE SOUTH. 433\nJune 28th, and reached Monterey the 8th of July.\nBefore his departure, he gave to Gutierrez full authority to act in all matters pertaining to the civil\nor military command in the south. This officer was\nat San Diego, making investigations respecting the\n'plan' of Bandini and others, to which I have already\nreferred. The result was forwarded on July 13th for\nconsideration at the capital; but its nature is not revealed.38 There can be no dcfubt that Chico acted\nmost unwisely in assuming the position that he did\nrespecting the tumults in.the south. There was probably no political significance in them at all. Such\npopular uprisings for speedy justice, when supported\nby the best citizens, are nearly always for the best,\nwhatever may be the theoretical majesty of the law.\nChico was technically right in his adherence to law\nand order, but he should have seen that he could accomplish nothing against a whole town, as he did see\nafter going south, and have congratulated himself that\nthe trouble did not occur in his term of office. All\nhe effected was to make himself cordially hated by the\ncitizens of Los Angeles and San Diego.\nIn yet another affair, Chico while in the south laid\nthe foundations of a controversy that was destined to\nalienate from him whatever share he had in the patriotic good-will of even the staid and conservative Santa\nBarbara. On his way southward he came to Santa\nIne's the 10th of June, and the padres Jimeno not\nonly refused him animals and other aid for his journey, but failed to award him the ceremonial reception\ndue to his rank, or even the courtesies always shown\nto travellers at the missions. Such was Chico's own\nversion of the affair; that of the padres, confirmed by\nSenora Jimeno, their sister-in-law, who was present\nat Santa In\u00a3s, was that as much courtesy was shown\n88July 1st, 13th, Gutierrez from S. Luis and S. Diego to Chico, who oh\nJune 25th had announced his departure for the 26th. S. Diego, Arch., MS.,\n116; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil., MS., lxxxi. 25, 28.   June 27th, Chico at San\n., Gabriel, ready to start next day. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 216.    At Monterey\nJuly 8th. Gomez, Diario, MS.\nHist, Oax.., Vox., m.   28\n 434\nRULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nto the governor as was possible on short notice, his\ncoming not being known in advance at the mission.39\nArriving at Santa Barbara the same day, Chico presented a complaint on the subject to Prefect Duran,\nwho did not attempt to deny or justify the alleged\ndiscourtesy of the friars, paying very little attention\nto the charges,40 but offering a long argument to the\neffect that unsecularized missions were under no obligation to furnish aid \"to the government. This argument, and the resulting secularization of Santa Ine's\nand San Buenaventura, will receive attention in another chapter. Duran also flatly refused to celebrate\nmass at the swearing of the bases, on the ground of\nhis allegiance to Spain.\nIt does not appear that there was any controversy\nduring Chico's presence at Santa Barbara. If there\nwas. any exhibition of ill temper in the governor's in-\n89 June 23d, Chico to junta, including the substance of his letter of June\n11th to P. Duran. St Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 368-73. C. says that\nhis coming had been announced formally by a vaquero sent from Buenavista,\nthat Manuel Jimeno told him at Oso Flaco that he was expected that very day,\nand that all the people of the mission were on the qui vive for his arrival.\nTherefore he was surprised when P. Jose Jimeno came out to meet him, with\nthe remark that no facilities could be afforded since his coming had not been\nknown, and moreover that he and his brother were ' mere pilgrims in that\nJerusalem.' P. Victoria was courteous, but the Jimeno brothers showed such\nmarked disrespect and contempt for his office that he was compelled to decline\neven to take a seat proffered him on a bench in the ante-kitchen. At the\nfoot of the hill he was overtaken by the majordomo, who begged permission\nto bring animals for his service, an offer which was accepted. Sra Jimeno,\nOrd, Ocurrencias, MS., 87-97, says she was at Sta Ine's recovering from a\nserious illness, and P. Antonio Jimeno had come' there to celebrate her birthday on June 11th. They were at dinner when an Indian announced the general's coming. Chico came in a carriage; the three friars went out to meet\nhim; one opened the door of the carriage, another offered his hand, while P.\nJos^ Jimeno expressed regret that ignorance of the time of his arrival prevented a more ceremonial reception, though the^mission bells were now ringing. Chico was invited in to dinner, but declined, and reentering his carriage,\nwas driven to Huejote. To that place the padres and Sra Jimeno sent a fine\nrepast, which Chico refused, saying, I Vuelvale Vd. esa comida a esos frailes,\npues no quiero nada de ellos.'\n40 June 15th, Duran to C, will not treat of the occurrences at Sta Ine's,\nbecause he has already made verbal explanation, and will speak of them again.\n' For, after all, those padres are my brethren, and I cannot but insist on acting as peacemaker until I succeed in obtaining from you a complete indulgence\nin favor of those poor friars, whose offence I believe could have been none\nother than surprise and inadvertence; andT trust that you will entertain the\nsame opinion when you know them better.' St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS.,\nii. 374-5.\n TROUBLE WITH THE PADRE PREFECTO.      435\ntercourse with the padres, it has left no trace in his\nwritten communications, which are dignified in manner\nand matter. He reported the matter to the junta,\nand that body decided before his return to Monterey\nthat the missions were under obligations to aid the\ngovernment; and expressed much regret and surprise\nat the offensive conduct of the padres toward the\nchief magistrate of the territory, something that had\nnever been witnessed in the country before, even in\nthe case of a private traveller.41 After Chico's return\nit was decided by him and approved by the junta that\nDuran should be ordered to Monterey and expelled\nfrom California, for having refused to celebrate mass\nat the swearing of the bases, and for publicly maintaining that the national independence was illegal,\nunjust, and anti-Catholic. This action was consistent\nenough with the past policy of the diputacion, and,\nas will be remembered, had been recommended by\nFigueroa; yet it is not unlikely that the chief motive of this support of Chico by the junta was to\npromote, through Duran's well known popularity at\nSanta Barbara, the disaffection of that conservative\npeople, hitherto unmanageable in the interest of political agitators. The order was sent to the alcalde\nJuly 25th; and all that we know of the result by\ncontemporary records is that on August 4th, after\nChico's departure, Padre Duran announced to the\nalcalde that he could not go to Monterey by land, but\nmust await the Leonidas.43, It is stated, however, by\nseveral persons who must have known the facts, that\nwhen an attempt was made to put the padre prefecto\non board a vessel, the people of the town rose en\nmasse, women in the front ranks, and prevented the\n41 Report of com. on missions, June 29th-30th. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon.,\nMS., ii. 385. July 4th, Alvarado to Vallejo. The padres Jimeno and P. Duran\ntreated Chico with so much disrespect that he was obliged to take from them\nthe temporal management of Sta Ine's and S. Buenaventura. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., iii. 218.\n42 July 25, 1836, Chico to alcalde of Sta B. Aug. 4th, P. Duran to same.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 115-16, 122.\n 436 RULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nlocal authorities from executing Chico's orders.48 The\npopular version ascribes Chico's 'persecution' of\nDuran to the latter's refusal to punish the padres\nJimeno, and to his denunciation of the governor's\nvices; but the dates and tenor of the two original\ndocuments cited, will suggest to the reader very many\ndiscrepancies in all that is said by Californians about\nthis, like every other part of Chico's rule.\nThe governor's popularity at the capital had not\nincreased during his absence, and he soon became\ninvolved in the final troubles of his Californian experience. These troubles are stated with great unanimity by those wTho write from memory to have\ngrown out of a scandalous liaison between Jose*\nMaria Castanares, a clerk in the custom-house, and\nDona Ildefonsa, wife of the sub-comisario, Jose* Maria\nHerrera. This causa celebre is fully recorded in the\narchives, many of the original papers being in my possession.   The record is bulky, and most of the details,\n43 Valdes, Mem., MS., 24; Janssens, Vida, MS., 65; Gonzalez, Experiencias,\nMS., 32; Pinto, Apuntaciones, MS., 17. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 93-7,\nsays that two officers came to Sta B. from the north to arrest Duran, arriving in the night. Domingo Carrillo warned Capt. Guerra; and narrator with\na little brother was sent to warn P. Duran, who replied: 'Tell the patriarch\nto have no fear; blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice, for theirs\nis the kingdom of heaven.' The agents of Chico gave Duran some days for\npreparation, and then he went to the beach in a carriage. All the women of\nthe place crowded about the carriage, and declared that the padre should not\ngo on board the vessel. When a climax of cries and tears and general excitement had been reached, the men, hitherto concealed in a sauzalito near by, came\nup*to support the women; and Duran, against his own desire, real or pretended, was taken home. Sta Barbara for the first time was in open revolt\nagainst the govt. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 79-86, tells us that Capt. Guerra,\nknowing that Duran was to be exiled, and not being at liberty to divulge the secret, called his young son, and gave him money to go and buy all the eggs he\ncould get for P. Duran, who was to be sent away, but it was a great secret, and\nmust be told to nobody. Of course the youngster told everybody, as was his\ncustom with all secrets\u2014and also so as to get the eggs for nothing and pocket\nthe money\u2014and when the soldiers went to make the arrest, they found Duran\nsurrounded by a crowd of women, who declared they would defend him with\ntheir lives. The soldiers did not dare to make the attack, and Chico was notified that he must send Mexican soldiers to take the padre! Vallejo, Hist.\nCal., MS., iii. 120-4, states, as does Alvarado, that Duran's chief offence was\nhaving preached against the governor's immorality. Chico was furious, and\nprepared to send an armed force to make his authority respected at Sta B.;\nbut was dissuaded, or prevented by his other troubles, from carrying out his\nplan.\n AMOURS OF DOftA ILDEFONSA. 437\nfor obvious reasons, cannot be printed; indeed, I have\nneither space nor plausible pretext for presenting\nmore than the brief outline necessary for historical\npurposes.\nThe amours of Castanares and Ildefonsa, a daughter\nof Captain Miguel Gonzalez, were more or less notorious in Monterey for some time before the persons\nmore directly interested chose to make trouble. Dona\nAna, wife of Castanares and daughter of Rafael Gonzalez, administrator of customs, began to agitate the\nmatter in February 1836, and was prosecuted by\nHerrera for slander.44 Dona Ana wasted no sentimentality on such a subject as her husband's faults,\nand for a time had exerted herself to separate the\nguilty pair, and thus prevent scandal. She was more\nthan a match for all the others combined in energy\nand shrewdness, and had provided herself with abundant proofs, including the lovers' letters. She had even\npiloted no less a personage than Governor Gutierrez\nto a point where with her he overheard Ildefonsa's\nconfession of her guilt, together with the cheering\nadmission that when she had resisted on account of\nher friendship for Dona Ana, Castanares had threatened to remove that obstacle to their felicity by the\nuse of, poison. The case lasted from April to June,\nand was then dismissed by Herrera, who in May had\nbegun another prosecution against Castanares and\nIldefonsa for adultery.45 On May 28th, the guilty\ncouple were arrested. Castanares was locked up in\njail and Ildefonsa deposited, as was the custom, in the\nhouse of a respectable citizen. The 30th of July\nHerrera withdrew his suit and consented to the liberation of the prisoners, on condition that Castanares\n44 Castanares, Causa seguida contra Ana Gonzalez (Castanares) por haber\nhablado del adulterio de Alfonsa Gonzalez (Herrera) y de J. M. Castanares,\nAbril-Junio, 1836, MS. About 50 documents, of which the longest is Dona\nAna's defence of April 11th, including her charges.\n45 Castanares, Causa Criminal contra J. M. Castanares e Ildefonsa Gonzalez\npor adulterio, seguida d pedimento del csposo de esta, Jose\" Maria Herrera, Mayo-\nJulio, 1836, MS. This is a rather brief record, but many of the documents\nbearing on this case were also introduced in the next.   See note 46,\n 438 RULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nshould leave the place, and not come within twelve\nleagues of the sub-comisaria so long as he remained\nin California. Meanwhile another bitter controversy\nhad been raging between Dona Ana and Herrera, who\nhated each other much more heartily than they did\ntheir unfaithful spouses. Herrera had been so rash\nas to make in his previous slander suit some rather\nannoying charges against the lady's character; and\nnow Dona Ana brought suit to obtain certain documents needed for her own justification, but which, as\nher opponent declared, she intended to use 'extrajudicially' to his own detriment by keeping the scandal\nalive. I have the original records of this suit, which\nwas made to include pretty much all that pertained\nto the other two in the way of testimony, charges,\nletters, and pasquinades, many of the pieces being\nmore amusing than instructive. The end seems to\nhave been a reference to the supreme court on some\ntechnicality.46\nOne of Herrera's alleged reasons for suspending his\nprosecution of Castanares at the end of June was that\n\"the public tranquillity had been disturbed by events\ngrowing out of the matter, and harmony lost between\nthe authorities, so that very serious consequences were\nto be feared unless the cause of contention were removed.\" This is all I find in records of the time to\nconnect the Monterey scandal with Chico's troubles;47\nbut the Californians tell the story in substance as follows : While Castanares was in prison, and his paramour in enforced seclusion, a company of maromeros,\nor rope-dancers, gave a performance in one of the presidio buildings, at which, as usual on such rare occasions, everybody was present. The best place was\nreserved of course for the governor, who on entering\n48 Castanares vs Herrera en Asuntos de Calumnia, 1836, Junio-Julio. The\noriginal papers in Doc Hist. Cal, i. 257-380. Several hundred documents,\nbearing the autographs of nearly every prominent man in Monterey either aa\ncourt omcials or witnesses.\n47 Alvarado, however, in his charges of July 29th, accused Chico of having\nmeddled with the case of Castanares, which belonged to the ordinary jurisdiction,\n A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 439\nwas accompanied, not only by his mistress Dona Cruz,\nbut by her friend Don a Ildefonsa Herrera, who had\nbeen liberated for the occasion. There was much indignation and excitement at the appearance of this\nnotorious pair in the place of honor, and some ladies\nleft the room in disgust. Then Alcalde Ramon Estrada, who felt that his authority as a judge had been\ninsulted by Ildefonsa's presence, was induced to release Castanares from the jail and give him a prominent seat at the show, from which he is said to have\nostentatiously saluted his paramour at the governor's\naide. Chico was beside himself with rage, and perhaps had hot words with Estrada on the spot. At\nany rate, next day he marched with a military escort\nto the hall of the ayuntamiento, took away from Estrada his alcalde's vara, and subsequently placed him\nunder arrest in his own house\u2014some authorities speaking even of his being locked up in jail, of an attack\non his house, and of insults to his aged father. Don\nMariano.48\nThe exact date of the quarrel with Estrada is not\nknown, though his arrest would seem to have been on\nJune 27th; nor is it possible to determine the chronologic order of succeeding events. The popular excitement was great. Teodoro Gonzalez, the regidor, took\nthe position of alcalde, and seems to have incited the\ncitizens, to resist Chico's encroachments on the rights\nof the municipal authorities. The military force at\nMonterey was small, and most of the soldiers were\nin sympathy with Chico's enemies. The governor\nfeared that not only his authority but his life was in\ndanger. The cannon at the castillo were kept loaded\nand manned; and Chico remained for the most part\n48Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 31-5; Gonzalez, Revoluciones, MS., 7-10; Osio,\nHist. Cal, MS., 263-76; Torre, Remin., MS., 58-61; Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS., iii. 92-5; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 128-40; Pico, Acont, MS., 30-1;\nPinto, Apunt; MS., 18-19; Janssens, Vida, MS., 63-72; Vallejo (J. J.),\nRemin., MS., 118; Fernandez, Cosas de Cal, MS., 97-9. To go more closely\ninto details than I have done would be to give the different versions pretty\nnearly in full, for it must be confessed there is but a slight resemblance between them,\n 440\nRULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nin his own house under the protection of a guard.\nThis critical state of affairs lasted several days, perhaps more than a week.49 As early as July 15th,\norders were sent to the southern troops to come to\nMonterey; on the 23d came the Leonidas with news\nof Santa Anna's defeat and capture in Texas, on\nwhich topic a flamingly patriotic proclamation was\nissued next day to the Californians; and on the 27th\naffairs had apparently approached a crisis, since on\nthat day the governor suspended Cosme Pefia, a\nprominent counsellor of his foes, from his office of\nasesor, and sent new and urgent orders for the troops\nto come by forced marches to the capital.60-\nNo reinforcements made their appearance. Indian\nravages on the Sonoma frontier and at San Diego\nserved Vallejo and Portilla as convenient excuses for\nnot promptly obeying the orders of their chief. The\npopular feeling at Monterey was more turbulent than\never, or at least was made to appear so to the governor, by advisers who desired to increase his fears. At\nlast, on July 29th, he sent a communication to the diputacion, stating that as there was great popular excitement on account of his suspension of the alcalde and\nasesor, as bodies of men'were in arms near the town,\nand as he had no physical or moral support, he had\ndetermined to go to Mexico at once.51    The diputa-\n49 Janssens tells us that Jose Castro offered to raise a company of men to\nsupport Chico, but was induced by the people to change his plans; but I\nattach no importance to this statement.\n50 July 15, 1836, Chico to Gutierrez. Let Capt. Portilla march at once\nwith the Mazatecos and artillery. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 120; Hayes, Doc,\nMS., 61. July 23d, arrival of news from Texas. Gomez, Diario, MS. July\n27th, let the troops hasten by double marches. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 119;\nId., Index, 30. July 29th, G. to C. Portilla on one pretext or another will not\nstart. Id., 119, 122. July 31st, G. to C., in answer to letter of 27th. Portilla\nand Munoz will start at once and march rapidly. No danger in the south;\nbut fears serious troubles at Monterey, and warns him to be on his guard.\nRegrets the annoyances to C from Pefia's revolutionary promptings, etc.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxviii. 28-9. July 27th, Cosme Pefia suspended. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 29. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 124-6,\nsays Chico's order to him to march with his force was dated July 23d, and\nwas accompanied by another very flattering letter of thanks for past services\ndated July 10th, but really written on the same day as the order. A translation of Chico's proclamation of July 24th is given in the Honolulu, S. I., Gazette, Nov. 12, 1836.\n&1 The only original record of this consultation of the dip. is a report of tho\n FALL OF DON MARIANO.\n441\ncion, composed of men who had come to consider Chico\nas their enemy, and had been for some time plotting\nto drive him from the country, seems to have approved\nthe governor's plan, after some efforts to impose conditions respecting the succession, glad to have him go\nvoluntarily without the necessity of actual revolt, and\nnot believing that he would succeed in returning with\nreenforcements, as he threatened to do.52\nOn the same day, July 29th, Chico had chartered\na vessel for his voyage to Mazatlan, as he announced\nto Herrera.53 Also on that date, Alvarado, in behalf\nof the diputacion and of the people, wrote a series of\ncharges against the governor, addressed to the minister of relations, and designed to prevent Chico's return\nwith support from the supreme government.54 On\nthe 30th, Chico officially informed local authorities\nthat popular commotion, beyond his control from lack\nof troops, and by reason of disaffection in the ayuntamiento and diputacion, obliged him to go to Mexico\ncom. of govt and police, Crespo and Gomez, dated the same day, in Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxxii. 30. The com. recommends that to avoid public disorder,\nChico shall restore the. suspended officials; deliver the political command to\nthe presiding vocal (Alvarado), to be by him delivered to the 1st vocal, now\nabsent (Castro); and deliver the military command to the ranking officer. On\nthese conditions the dip. would take steps to protect his person until his departure! Alvarado and Vallejo narrate many particulars, more interesting\nthan accurate, I think, of interviews at this time between Alvarado as president of the dip. and Chico, particulars designed to prove that the latter was\ninsane. They also speak of an order given to Zamorano by Chico, in his\nwrath that he was not urged to stay, to attack the junta with a military force,\nthe attack being repelled by the people under Gonzalez. Alvarado states that\nthe junta was at first disposed to reject Chico's proposal to go for troops as\nan insult, but was persuaded by himself that he would get no troops and this\nwas the easiest way to get rid of him.\n52 Rafael Gomez in his Diario, MS., written at the time, expresses the be-\nbelief that Chico will not come back; and he also confirms the bad reputation\ngiven Chico by the Californians.\n63 July 29, 1836, Chico to Herrera. Offers to collect the $6,000 placed at\ndisposal of Cal. by the Guaymas comisaria. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 118-20.\n5iLeg. Rec, MS., iii. 28-9. California, the 'theatre of abomination, disorder, and desolation.' Chico, after disposing of Castanares, a criminal\nbelonging to the ordinary jurisdiction, has suspended and ordered the arrest\nof the alcalde; searched scandalously the house of an old and honored citizen;\ndisregarded the faculties of the ayunt. which tried to take steps for protecting the persons and property of this municipality; suspended the asesor,\nand insulted the members of the dip.; and finally, in a note to this body,\npromises to resign, although he has sent for troops from different points, to\nthe great danger of the territory, that they might come and foment the disorder.   He had also made dangerous concessions to the Russians.\n 442 RULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nin quest of aid by which to restore order. In his absence, Gutierrez would hold both commands from August 1st. Gutierrez was advised to adopt such a\npolicy as to check the conspiracy against the government.55 There is some evidence that Chico had promised at first to leave the gefatura in the hands of the\ndiputacion; and he is also said to have left orders to\ninstitute suits against Estrada and Cosme Pefia.56\nChico sailed from Monterey on the Clementine July\n31st, and from San Pedro on August 10th.57 Of his\ndeparture, as of his rule, many queer stories are told.\nHe presented Alvarado with a ' universal recipe' for\nthe cure of all maladies, and shouted to him as he\nstepped into the boat, \" Bring up crows to peck your\neyes out!\" He embraced an old Indian woman on\nthe beach, saying, \" Of all the men in this country thou\nart the best.\" He raved at Munoz and Portilla for\nnot coming up with reenforcements; declared he\nwould return with 5,000 men; and shouted, with one\nfoot in the boat, \"Me voy Chico, pero volvere Grande.\"\nHe left his gold watch to be regulated in' California,\ntransferred the command in a sealed packet not to be\nopened until midnight, and thanked a man for having\ncaught his hat when running in the street on the day\nof the mob. He was prevented by the people from\nlanding at Santa Barbara. At San Pedro he put on\nboard his vessel large quantities of tallow, stolen by\nthe aid of Gutierrez from San Gabriel and other missions, to be disposed of at Mazatlan in payment for\n65 July 30, 1836, Chico to comandantes, alcaldes, etc. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iv. 121; Hayes, Doc, MS., 65; S. Diego, Index, MS., 31; Vallejo, Doc,\nHist. Mex., MS., iii. 225; xxxii. 31. July 30th, Chico to Gutierrez. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iv. 119-20. The rebels have tried to seduce Guadalupe Vallejo, but the result is not known.\n56 Gomez, Diario de Cosas, Notables, MS. This should be excellent authority, the diary having been written at the time, by Rafael Gomez, an able\nlawyer and a Mexican.\n67Gomez, Diario, MS.; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 118-19; Hayes, Doc,\nMS., 65; S. Diego, Index, MS., 31. The Clementine was chartered from Wm\nHinckley. Her captain is said to have been Wm Hanley. She had come\nfrom Honolulu in March. According to S. Diego, Arch., MS., 119, it appears\nthat about July 22d Lieut Navarrete had been ordered to Mazatlan on business for Chico; but be did not go.\n THE LAST OF GOVERNOR CHICO. 443\ngoods which he had bought for the California market\non private speculation. These statements are made\nchiefly by Alvarado, Osio, Vallejo, and Bandini;, if\nany of them have a remote foundation in fact, I have\nnot discovered it.\nChico never came back, and of his efforts and reception in Mexico nothing is really known. There\nwere rumors, probably unfounded, of his having raised\n200 men at one time for a return, and others that he\nwas disgusted with the country, as was Dona Cruz,\nmaking no effort to regain his office, and contenting\nhimself with a few bitter speeches in congress, in which\nbody he took his old seat as diputado. He left property in California to the amount of several thousand\ndollars, which was confiscated by Vallejo and Alvarado\nthe next year for the benefit of their new government,\nand as an indemnity for the harm that Chico had done\nin the country.58 A Don Mariano Chico, whom I suppose to have been he of Californian fame, was governor\nof Aguas Calientes in 1844,59 and in 1846 he was comandante general of Guanajuato, still a radical centralist. He resigned in consequence of troubles with\nthe new governor, publishing a pamphlet in defence\nof his conduct and views.60\nIn exposing the exaggeration and absurdity of most\nof the charges made against Governor Chico, I have\n58 Aug. 20, 1836, Vallejo to Alvarado, private letter enumerating Chico's\nscandalous acts. He had plundered the treasury, not only taking all the money\nbut obtaining a draft on Mazatlan from Herrera. His real object in chartering\na vessel under pretence of sending for aid had been to run away with all the\nplunder he could get his hands on. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 228. Feb. 21st,\n1837, Vallejo to Malarin, ordering him to furnish an account of the effects left\nin his charge by Chico. Tells Alvarado that the amount is about $4,000, which\nis to be placed in deposit until an investigation is made about the amount carried\naway which belonged to the presidial companies. Id., iv. 71. Feb. 27th, the\namount proved to be $2,031, all that was left of $6,000 which had originally\n-been invested by Chico for mercantile transactions, It was to be paid over\nby Malarin to Hartnell. Id., iv. 76; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi.\n79-80. March 14th, the money to go into the state treasury to meet expenses\nof the govt. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 82. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 173-4,\nsays that the existence of the money was discovered through a letter from\nChico to Gutierrez which fell into Vallejo's hands.\n59 His report on the industrial condition of the department of Sept. 30th is\ngiven in Mexico, Mem. Agric, 1845, appen. 3-7.\n60 Chico, Dos Palabras del General.   Guanajuato, 1847.   !2mo, 15 p.\n 444 RULE OF GUTIERREZ AND CHICO.\nperhaps been led to say mbre in his defence than\nwas justified by the facts. He was assuredly not\nthe villain and fool that the Californians picture\nhim, but he had no special fitness for his position,\nlittle executive ability, and no qualities perhaps much\nabove the commonplace. He was an educated man,\nand his weaknesses were of the tongue rather than\nthe pen. That he was hot-tempered and personally\ndisagreeable can hardly be doubted, when no one has\na word to say in his favor; but his annoyances were\ngreat; his foes have had most to do in fixing his reputation, and there were divers political and personal\nmotives for reviling his memory during the next ten\nyears. He seems to have been a man of about forty-\nfive years, of medium height and slight form. His\ncomplexion was light, his black hair sprinkled with\ngray, and he generally wore spectacles. \" The troubles\nthat resulted in his departure must be regarded as\nrevolutionary, having been fomented by a clique who\ndesired to get rid of him, and rejoiced that circumstances enabled them to effect their purpose without\ncoming into open conflict with the national government, and thus to try their wings in easy flights.\n CHAPTER XVI.\nGUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO\u2014REVOLUTION.\n1836.\nSecond Rule of Gutierrez\u2014His Policy and Character\u2014Vague Charges\n\u2014Quarrel with the Diputacion\u2014Popular Feeling\u2014Causes of Revolt\u2014Juan B. Alvarado\u2014Revenue Quarrel\u2014Another Version\u2014\nPreparations at San Juan\u2014Californians in Arms\u2014Graham's Riflemen\u2014Siege of Monterey\u2014Documentary Record\u2014Surrender\u2014\nThe Mexicans Exiled\u2014Biography\u2014Gutierrez\u2014Castillo Negrete\n\u2014Herrera\u2014MuSoz\u2014Navarrete\u2014The Estradas\u2014Rule of Jose Castro\u2014Plan of Conditional Independence\u2014Lone-star Flag\u2014The\nDiputacion as a Constituent Congress\u2014Vallej6o as Comandante\nGeneral\u2014Revenue\u2014Civic Militia\u2014Alvarado as Governor,\u2014Division of the State\u2014Commerce\u2014The New Regime\u2014Affairs in the\nNorth.\nGovernor Chico, frightened away from California\nat the end of July, had left both civil and military\ncommands, in accordance with the laws though against\nthe wishes of the diputacion, to Nicolas Gutierrez,\nwho was at the time acting as military commandant of\nthe south, and who did not reach the capital for more\nthan a month. Meanwhile I suppose that Captain\nZamorano was acting as representative of the governor's authority at Monterey, being comandante of the\npost, at least until August 8th, when Captain Munoz\narrived from the south with the reinforcements ordered by Chico, and possibly assumed the command\nby virtue of his seniority in rank. I have, however,\nno record of any act of authority exercised by either of\nthose officers.  Gutierrez arrived the 6th of September.1\nf 1 Dates of arrival of Munoz and Gutierrez fixed by Gomez, Diario, MS. Aug.\n14th, alcalde of S. Diego reports that all is tranquil.    Aug. 17th, Gutierrez\n(445)\n 446 GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nThe second rule of Gutierrez, like the first, was a\nmost uneventful period, if we except the stirring\nevents that ended it. From contemporary records\nwe can learn but little of his acts or of his policy,\nrespecting which we must form our idea mainly from\nwhat preceded and what followed, from acquaintance\nwith attendant circumstances and men concerned, and\nfrom the testimony of certain Californians. This\ntestimony might be accepted with somewhat more implicit faith had it proved more accurate in respect of\nVictoria and Chico.\nIn recording the governor's arrival, Rafael Gomez\nwrote in his journal: \"It appears that his intention\nis to carry forward the arbitrary measures which his\npredecessor began and which were the cause of his\ndeparture. Would that this might prove not so, for\nsuch conduct brings disorder.\"2 Padre Abella complained of his interference in mission affairs and of\nhis apparent intention to cause the friars all possible\nannoyance.3 This is all I can find of contemporary\ncomplaint, and that of the friar grew7 out of special\nlocal troubles. On the other hand, I have a letter\nof Gutierrez, who wrote on October 7th: \"I have summoned Don Pablo de la Portilla to give up to him the\npolitical and military commands, because I observe it\nis not pleasing to some persons that I should retain\nthem. I do it most gladly, since I have no other aspiration than to separate myself from public affairs and\nto live in peace and quiet.    You and all sensible men\nfrom S. Gabriel as 'comandante militar de la demarcation del sur,' and not as\ncomandante general or gefe politico, acknowledges receipt. He was still at\nS. Gabriel on Aug. 20th. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 123-4. Sept. 17th, Portilla\nto G., announcing that the soldiers at S. Gabriel had refused to serve longer\nwithout pay or clothing. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi. 23-4. Sept.\n23d, G. orders an election for first Sunday in Oct., secondary election the following Sunday, and final meeting of electors at Monterey on Nov. 6th to\nchoose a dip. The primary and secondary elections .took place at S. Diego\non Oct. 9th, 16th. Andre's Pico was the elector de partido. S. Diego, Arch.,\nMS., 130-2, 134. I find no further records of this election in any part of\nCal.\n2 Gomez, Diario de Cosas Notables, MS.\n8 Carrillo (J.), Doc, MS., 35-8.\n A NEW GOVERNOR. 447\nknow the fatal consequences of political convulsions,\nand I will make any sacrifice to prevent them.\"*\nThe Californians are much less violent in their denunciations of Gutierrez than of Chico and Victoria,\ntheir charges against him being for the most part general and rather vague. There is, however, a general\nagreement that he was an immoral man, unduly addicted to wine and women; a few make special charges\nof minor importance; a few find no fault with his\nconduct, and many condemn him in general terms, as\nif such were their obligation, hardly knowing why.6\nJuan B. Alvarado and Mariano G. Vallejo, particu-\n*Oct. 7, 1836, G. to J. A. Estudillo, in Estudillo, Datos, MS., 57-8, 20-1.\nThe writer urges his friend to inform him of anything likely to disturb the\npublic peace, and regrets to learn that the 'torch of discord has extended\nits deadly train to S. Luis Rey, attracting with its flame the administrator\nof that property,' Pio Pico, at least so he has heard but can hardly believe.\nBotello, Anales, MS., 46, mentions the proposition to give the command to\nPortilla; so also does Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 142.\n5The widow Avila, Cosas de Cal, MS., 7-11, relates at considerable\nlength that her husband, Miguel Avila, sindico of Monterey, on account of\nhaving caught the wife of Capt. Munoz and two other ladies bathing in a pool\nof water which supplied the town, and,remonstrated with them for filling the\nwater with soap, was arbitrarily imprisoned by Gutierrez, who replied to his\nwife's entreaties with threats to shoot her husband. But he was finally so\nfrightened by the threatening attitude of the ayunt. and people, that Avila\nwas released. The lady attributes the governor's troubles largely to this\naffair. Pinto, Apuntaciones, MS., 20-1, also mentions Avila's arrest, and the\npopular indignation thereat. He says it was believed that Chico had left\ninstructions to G. to treat harshly all who opposed him. According to Bandini,\nHist. Cal, MS., 83, he took the advice and followed in the footsteps of Chico.\nOsio, Hist. Cal., MS., 277-301, says there was much satisfaction at the appointment of the popular G., the intimate friend of Figueroa; yet he showed\na strange melancholy on taking the command, supposed to arise from the necessity of obeying Chico's orders. Pio Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 100-1, speaks\nof his fondness for Indian girls in the south. David Spence, Hist. Notes, MS.,\n17, says he attempted to harass those suspected of having taken an active\npart against Chico; also was disposed to manage the revenues. Botello,\nAnales, MS., 22, tells us that the people merely sought a pretence to revolt\nagainst Gutierrez. J. J. Vallejo, Remin., MS., 117, 121-2, speaks of his concubines, and of his following the course marked out by Chico, whose return\nhe expected. Of courteous manners, but much addicted to drink. Arte,\nMem., MS., 8-9. Quarrelled with everybody. Threatened to put narrator in\njail because he asked to have his land grant confirmed. Pico, Acont., MS.,\n31-2. Did nothing to deserve hostility. Janssens, Vida, MS., 70-2. Affable, but kept a harem. Lugo, Vida, Cal, MS., 15. Vicious, corrupt, and\ngave a bad example; but this was not the cause of his overthrow. Coronel,\nCosas de Cal, MS., 19. Have seen him intoxicated. Avila, Notas, MS., 18.\nAddicted to scandalous vices; not arbitrary or despotic; wasted public funds.\nSerrano, Apuntes, MS., 36. Not a bad man, but fond of women. Many scandals were current about him in this respect. Gcdindo, Apuntes, MS., 32. Unpopular. Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 98.\n 448\nGUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nlarly the former, speak of the governor's immorality\nin establishing in his palacio a seraglio of Indian girls\nfrom San Gabriel; but their chief argument against\nhim is based on his treatment of the diputacion. Not\nonly, according to these gentlemen, did Gutierrez refuse to deliver the office of gefe politico to the senior\nvocal, as was desired and expected, but he insulted\nthat body through its president, sent to confer with\nhim; said he \"had no need of diputados of pen and\nvoice while he had plenty of diputados of sword and\ngun;\" and even gave orders to disperse the diputacion by force, so frightening the members that they\ndid not dare to reassemble at Monterey.6\nThe truth is, that Gutierrez, a Spaniard by birth\nthough serving on the insurgent side during the revolution, was an inoffensive, easy-going, unpretentious,\nand not unpopular man. He was a faithful officer, of\nmoderate ability, and of not very strict morals. He\nwas neither dishonest, arrogant, nor arbitrary in his\nconduct. As a Mexican officer he was loyal to his\nnational allegiance; he had no right according to the\nlaws and his predecessor's instructions to turn over\nthe civil-command to the diputacion; and as a Spaniard he had to be somewhat more cautious respecting\nhis conduct than if he had been born in Mexico.7\n6 Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii., 112-24. With many details of his own interviews with the gov., and also the efforts of Angel Ramirez, Alvarado's\nfriend, and having much influence over G. and all the Mexicans. Vallejo,\nHist. Cal, MS., iii. 154, etc., agrees in the main with Alvarado's statements,\nhe not having been at Monterey at the time.\n7 G. as remembered by the Californians was of medium height, rather stout,\nof light complexion, reddish hair, beard slightly sprinkled with gray, and\nwith a cast in the right eye which caused him to be nicknamed 'El Tuerto.'\nHe came to Mexico as a boy, and his first service was as a drummer. Torre,\nRemin., MS., 68-70, saw him give an exhibition of his skill as a drummer at\na serenade on Figueroa's birthday. Abrego, in Garcia, Apuntes, MS., ap-\npen., says that G. was one of 300 Spanish prisoners taken by Gen. Bravo, and\nwhom he offered to liberate to save his father's life. The father was shot,\nbut Bravo freed the men, most of whom, including the young drummer, remained in the insurgent ranks. He had served with Figueroa, was his intimate friend, and came to Cal. with him in Jan. 1833, as captain. His commission as lieut-colonel was dated July 18, 1833. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. MM.,\nMS., lxxix. 79. In 1834-5 he was comisionado for the secularization of S. Gabriel. All else of his life in Cal. is contained in this chapter and the preceding.    I know nothing of him after he left the country.\n REVOLUTIONARY FEELING. 449\nNeither his character, acts, nor policy had much influence in exciting the opposition that resulted in his\noverthrow. Pretence for a quarrel with him was\nsought by certain persons, wTas of course not difficult\nto find, and would have been found had the difficulty\nbeen much greater.\nFor some twenty-five years, since the memoria ships\nceased to come, there had been a feeling that California was neglected and wronged by the home government. The Mexican republic after the success of the\nrevolution did nothing to remove that feeling. The\npeople, though enthusiastic republicans in theory,\nwaited in vain for the benefits to be gained from republicanism. The influence of the missionaries, men\nof education and devoted to Spain, tended strongly to\nfoster the sentiment of aversion to all that was Mexican\u2014an influence that increased rather than diminished as the padres lost their temporal prestige and\nbecame prone to refer bitterly if somewhat secretly to\nthe olden times. The sending of convicts and cholo\nsoldiers from Mexico went far to intensify provincial\nprejudice. The Californians came to regard themselves proudly as superior in blood and morals to those\nde la otra banda. Mexicans of little experience or\nability were given commissions in the presidial companies and sent to command veterans who had grown\ngray in the service and believed themselves entitled\nto promotion. When commerce brought a degree of\nprosperity, it was in spite of Mexican revenue laws,\nand Mexican officers were sent to manage the revenues. Complications growing out of the colony scheme\nhad an effect to widen the breach. Foreigners, with\ninterested motives but sound arguments, labored to\nprove that California had received nothing but neglect and ill treatment from Mexico, Last but not\nleast, there were various personal interests and ambitions thrown as weights on the same side of the scale.\nThe result was in 1836 a strong popular feeling\namounting almost to hatred against the Mexicans \"of\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   29\n 450\nGUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nthe interior,\" and a belief that Mexico should furnish\nfor California something more or something less than\nrulers, and laws made with no reference to the country's needs. The popular feeling was not one of disloyalty to Mexico as a nation. The Californians were\nfar from entertaining as yet so radical an idea as that\nof absolute independence; but they beleived that territorial interest should be consulted by the nation, and\nthat no more Mexican officers should be sent to rule\nCalifornia. Alvarado, Carrillo, Castro, Pico, Vallejo,\nand other young Californians of the same class, the\nmen who had for the most part supplied the diputacion with members, the politicians of the country, not\nonly shared the popular sentiment, but were disposed\nto utilize it for their own as for their country's interests. They were willing to furnish from their own\nnumber men to rule California and handle its scanty\nrevenues. Even they w7ere not yet prepared to advocate entire separation from Mexico; but they were\nmen of some education, who had come much in contact with foreigners, and had imbibed to some extent\nliberal views. Some of them had become more than\nhalf convinced that Mexican ways of doing most\nthings were not the best ways. Yet they shrewdly\nfeared foreign influence, and were disposed to be cautious. Their present purpose was to gain control of\nthe country; later there would be time to determine\nwhat to do with the prize. Their success against Victoria had given them self-confidence, and made the\nword'revolt'less terrible in their ears. Later success\nin getting rid of Chico by other methods still further\nflattered their self-esteem. The rise of centralism\ngave to their schemes an aspect of national patriotism;\nwhile rumors that centralism was on its last legs augured comparative safety. Manifestly their time had\ncome. Hence the rising against Gutierrez, whose\ncharacter and acts, as I have said, were unimportant\nfactors in the problem.\nJuan B. Alvarado, second vocal and president of\n JUAN B. ALVARADO. 451\nthe diputacion, was thejeading spirit in this movement.\nHe was at this time twenty-seven years of age, and\nemployed as vista, or inspector, in the custom-house.\nHis public life had begun in 1827, when he was made\nsecretary of the diputacion, holding the place until\n1834. His father, Sergeant Jose* Francisco Alvarado,8 died in 1809, three months after the birth of\nhis. only son, and his mother, Maria Josefa, daughter\nof Sergeant Ignacio Vallejo, subsequently married\nRamon Estrada. Juan Bautista learned from his\nmother and from the soldier-schoolmasters of Monterey to read, write, and to cipher more or less, besides\nhis doctrina and the art of singing in the choir at mass.\nGovernor Sola took an interest in the boy, and gave\nhim a chance in his office to improve his penmanship\nand acquire some knowledge. He was observant and\nquick to learn. He and his companions, Jose' Castro\nand Guadalupe Vallejo, were fond of reading, especially when they could get contraband books and elude\nthe vigilance of the friars. He learned much by his\nassociation with foreigners, besides acquiring a smattering of English. He aided Padre Menendez, the\nchaplain, as secretary for a time, and was employed as\nclerk and collector by different foreign traders, who\ngave him a good reputation for intelligence and honesty.\nIn 1836 Alvarado was a young man of much practical ability, of good character, of tolerably steady\nhabits, though rapidly acquiring too great a fondness\nfor strong drink, and of great popularity and influence\nwith all classes, though he had been one of the first\nto resent Mexican insults to his countrymen, and had\nconsequently been involved in personal difficulties with\nRodrigo del Pliego and others de la oira banda. He\nwas perhaps better qualified than any other of the\nyounger Californians to become a popular and successful leader. He was not so dignified nor so rich as\nVallejo, and was perhaps not the superior of Jose*\n8 See biographical sketches.\n 452\nGUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nAntonio Carrillo in ability fpr intrigue. He had\nsomewhat less education from books than some members of the Guerra and Estudillo families, but in practical efficiency, as in personal popularity, he was above\nthem all. He was backed by the foreign residents\nand traders, who doubtless expected to control his\npolicy for their own private and commercial interests,\nand some of whom very likely hoped in the end to\ngain political advantages for their respective nations.\nOn the other hand, Alvarado was incited by a few\nMexicans, notably by the lawyer Cosme Pena and\nthe ex-friar Angel Ramirez, administrator of customs\nand the young vista's superior officer. Both were\ninfluenced by personal motives, and had no doubt of\ntheir ability to control the new administration.\nThere is much reason to believe that Ramirez had\nspecial need of a governor who would look with\nfriendly charity on the state of his official accounts.\nI come now to the final outbreak against Gutierrez,\nrespecting which no original documentary evidence\nexists.9    The ordinary version in narratives that have\n9 The earliest account of the revolution extant is one sent by a resident,\nwhose name is not given, and printed in the Honolulu, 8. I. Gazette of Dec.\n2, 1837. The author does not credit the report that the foreigners were largely\ninstrumental in causing the movement. The Frenchmen, Petit-Thouars, Voyage, ii. 92-100, Mofras, Exploration, i. 298-300, and Lafond, Voyages, i. 210,\nattribute the revolt mainly to the instigations and promises of the Americans;\nand Mofras thinks the. presence of the U. S. man-of-war Peacock a few days\nbefore had an influence. Wilkes, Narrative, v. 175-9, tells us that Alvarado\nwas acting under the direction of foreigners who intended to hoist a new flag,\nto banish all Mexicans, to declare Cal. an independent state, and to have themselves all declared citizens. These declarations were supposed to emanate\nfrom Ramirez and * PenneV who wished to make use of the foreigners for their\nown ends. Greenhow, Hist. Or., 367, attributes the movement to strong\npopular opposition to centralism. Gleeson, Hist. Cath. Church, 144-9, says\nthe conspirators acted ostensibly with a view of gaining their independence,\nbut really for purposes of plunder. Some general printed accounts of the revolution of 1836, to most of which I shall have no occasion to refer again, being mostly brief and more or less unimportant: Cal. Star, Feb. 26, 1848;\nHonolulu Polynesian, i. 6; ii. 86; Fdrnham's Life in Cal, 60-6, the same being printed in the Sta Cruz Sentinel, Feb. etc. 1869; Tuthill's Hist. Cal.,143-\n4; Randolph's Oral:on; Dwinelle's Address before Pioneers, 20; Niles' Register,\nIii. 85; Robinson's Cal Gold Region, 59-61; Pickett, in Shuck's Rep. Men, 227-\n8; Holinski, La Calif ornie, 196-7; Hartmann, Geog. Stat. Cal., i. 37; Ferry,\nCalifornie, 19-20; Ryan's Judges andCrim., 42-3, 51; Nouv. An. Voy., Ixxxv.\n251; Yolo Co. Hist., 10-12, and other county histories; also many newspaper\n THE CURRENT VERSION. 453\nbeen published, is to the effect that Gutierrez, in consequence of a quarrel with Ramirez and Alvarado\nabout some details of revenue precautions, such as the\nstationing of guards on a newly arrived vessel, ordered\nthe arrest of Alvarado, who escaped by flight, and at\nonce proceeded to incite a revolution. This was the\nversion sent at the time to the Sandwich Islands by\na resident foreigner, confirmed by Alfred Robinson,\nfrom whose narrative it has been taken by Tuthill\nand other writers. It is also partially confirmed by\nseveral Californians, and has, I think, a slight foundation in fact. At any rate, Alvarado and Jose* Castro\nleft the capital in October, and making San Juan\ntheir headquarters, began active preparations for a\nrising of the settlers, native and foreign.10\naccounts. Some of the preceding mentions and narratives are accurate so far\nas they go; and in others the errors are so petty and apparent as to merit no\npointing-out. Castanares, Col. Doc, 19, is the only Mexican who has done\nmore than mention the affair. He says the revolt was instigated and supported by the Americans. Foreigners who mention the revolution more or less\nfully in unpublished statements are Marsh, Letter, MS., 7-8; Bee, Recollections, MS., 6-21; Janssens, Vida, MS., 71-9? Brown, Statement, MS., 10-11;\nWeeks, Remin., MS., 99; Davis, Glimpses, MS., 120 et seq., and the U. S.\nconsul at Honolulu in a despatch of March 12, 1837, to the secretary of state,\nin Savage, Doc, MS., ii. 174-6. Spence and Munras published a card in the\nHonolulu Polynesian, i. 163, denying the truth of an article attributed to them\nin the S. Luis Potosi Gaceta. Manuscript narratives by Californias are: Osio,\nHist. Cal, MS., 303-18; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 202-3; iii. 125-85;\nVallejo, Hist. Cal, MS , iii. 154-207; Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 83-6; Castro,\nRel, MS., 39-42; Torre, Remin., MS., 62-70; Gomez, LoqueSabe, MS., 13-\n18, 44-5; Vallejo (J. J.), Remin., MS., 122-3; Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 27-41;\nArce, Mem., MS., 8-10; Avila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 8-13; Fernandez, Cosas\ndeCal, MS., 99-106; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 21-31; Valle, Lo Pasado, MS.,\n17; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 99; Pico, Acont, MS., 32-40; Garcia, Hechos,\nMS., 50-7; Coronet, Cosas de Cal, MS., 21; Galindo, Apuntes, 34-5\u2014and\nfollowing pages of each narrative for succeeding events in 1836-7.\n10 In the Honolulu, S. I. Gazette, Dec. 2, 1837, it is stated that Ramirez\nsent Alvarado to ask for a guard to prevent smuggling. Gutierrez assented,\nbut suggested that the guard must be stationed on board the vessels, and not\non shore. A. replied that R. simply wanted a guard, and could station it to\nsuit himself. The gov. was angry and threatened to arrest A. as a revolutionist, and A. thought it best to leave town the same night. Robinson, Life in\nCal, 173-4, affirms that the quarrel was one of etiquette in the matter of\nplacing guards. Tuthill, Mofras, Petit-Thouars, Wilkes, and Farnham give\nthe same version in substance, though the latter adds some fanciful embellishments, as is his custom when no absolute lies suggest themselves. Osio,\nHist. Cal, MS., 304-6, says that Ramirez was negotiating future customs\ndues to raise money for gambling, balls, etc. Gutierrez interfered to prevent\nthe abuse, Ramirez became insolent and talked of revolt, Alvarado joined in\nthe quarrel, and both were threatened with arrest. G. changed his mind\nand wished to conciliate A., but could not find him.    Avila, Cosas. de Cal.^\n *54\nGUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nThis version, while not altogether inaccurate, makes\nthe revolt the result of a quarrel between the governor and a revenue officer, ignoring entirely the political\naspects of the matter and the agency of the diputacion.\nAlvarado, on the other hand, ignores the revenue quarrel, and exaggerates perhaps the political element,\nchoosing naturally to look upon himself as president\nof the diputacion rather than as an officer of the custom-house. There can be no doubt that the diputacion was concerned in the movement, or that Alvarado,\nthe leading spirit, acted in its name, the quarrelabout\nrevenues being but a minor element in a complicated\nwhole. It is therefore proper to present the version\ngiven by Alvarado himself and supported by other\nCalifornians, though in the absence of contemporary\ndocuments I cannot vouch for its entire accuracy.\nFrom one of his stormy interviews with Gutierrez, Alvarado returned to the hall to find it empty,\nthe diputacion having adjourned in its fright to meet\nat San Juan, whither the president hastened to join\nhis fellow-vocales.11 A meeting was held at once, at\nwhich EsteVan Munrds and other prominent citizens\ntook part.    Vocal Antonio Buelna made a radical\nMS., 8-9, and Gomez, Lo que Sabe, MS., 44-5, state that A. was believed by\nG. to have been the writer of a pasquinade against him posted at a street-\ncorner. Janssens, Vida, MS., 71-2, says that meetings had been held beforehand, at which a pretext for the quarrel had been devised.\n11 There is a little mystery about this diputacion. A new election was\nto have been held on Nov. 6th, but now the body must have been constituted\nas in the sessions following the May election, recorded in the last chapter\u2014\nthat is, 1. Castro, 2. Alvarado, 3. Guerra, 4. R. Gomez, 5. Spence, 6.\nCrespo, 7. J. Gomez. Alvarado represents Crespo as having been a spy of\nthe gov., excluded when a secret session was held; and Spence is said to have\nmet with the body, though not a member; while nothing is said of the two\nGomez. Buelna, who took a prominent part, may have been a suplente called\nupon to act in the absence of one of these. There is no record whatever of\nthe October sessions. Estevan de la Torre, Reminis., MS., 62-4, says that one\nday Gutierrez entered the hall of the dip. when drunk, and had hot words\nwith Alvarado, whom he ordered under arrest after suspending the session.\nJ. M. de la Torre, narrator's father, furnished horses and accompanied Alvarado to S. Juan that night. J. J. Vallejo, Remin., MS., 122-3, has yet\nanother version. He says that Gutierrez sent out spies to mingle with the\npeople and learn who were prominent in fomenting discontent. Learning\nthat Alvarado and Castro were the leaders, he ordered the arrest and exile of\nthe former, who, being warned, was aided by Tia Boronda and Isaac Graham\nto escape.\n ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN BAUTISTA. 455\nspeech against Gutierrez as a centralist who disregarded the rights of the people as represented by the\ndiputacion, a body which he had repeatedly insulted\nand had even threatened to dissolve by force. He argued that Gutierrez had no right to hold both commands; and advocated a resort to force to rid the country of its oppressor. Spence and Munras, mindful\nof their commercial interests, opposed the use of force,\nbut favored a petition to the supreme government,\nleaving matters in statu quo for the present. This\npolicy, was not acceptable to the majority, who, on\nmotion of Castro, voted that if Gutierrez would\nnot give up the civil command he must be exiled.\nThis was signed by Castro, Buelna, Alvarado, and\nGuerra, Spence refused, but promised aid to the\ncause. Alvarado was appointed to solicit the cooperation of Vallejo at Sonoma, and Castro was ordered\nto take command of the citizens in arms. Meanwhile the governor learned wThat course affairs were\ntaking, and sent Crespo to San Juan to negotiate,\noffering to make some concessions; but the agent was\nnot received, and the answer sent back was to the effect that the diputacion, representing the people, had\nundertaken the preservation of federal institutions, and\nthe governor must prepare to defend himself.\nAlvarado went first to Monterey and had an interview with Angel Ramirez, who was somewhat alarmed\nat the plan of visiting Sonoma and making Vallejo\nprominent in the enterprise, fearing that Vallejo's\nfriendship for Bandini might interfere in the success\nof his own plans. Alvarado stopped at the house of\nTia Boronda, and there had a meeting with Isaac\nGraham, the hunter, upon whom he prevailed without\nmuch difficulty to arouse his countrymen and join the\nrevolutionary cause. During this interview, glancing\nout of the window, Alvarado saw Captain Munoz and\neight soldiers rapidly approaching the house, whereupon he rushed out, mounted Graham's horse which\n 456 GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nwas standing at the door, and dashed off at full speed,\nwith the bullets whistling about his head!\nNext Don Juan Bautista hastened to Sonoma,\nreceiving aid and encouragement along the way\nfrom the rancheros and others at San Jose\\ San\nFrancisco, San Pablo, and San Rafael, at which latter\nplace the padre invited him to take the benefit of\nchurch asylum. At Sonoma he found his uncle\nVallejo more cautious and less enthusiastic in the\ncause than he would have wished. The comandante\nwas very strong and independent, monarch of all he\nsurveyed on the northern frontier, and correspondingly timid about running unnecessary risks. While\npatriotically approving the views of Alvarado and his\nassociates, and ready in theory to shed his blood in\ndefence of popular rights, he counselled deliberation,\nremembered that the northern Indians were in a\nthreatening attitude, required, time to put his men in\na proper condition to leave their families, and after a\nceremonious introduction to the chief Solano and\nhis Indian braves at Napa, sent his nephew in a boat\nto San Jose*, with instructions to rouse the people and\nawait further developments.12\nAt San Jose* Alvarado found many citizens ready to\naid in the cause and eager for active operations. His\nassociates overruled his desire to wait for Don Guadalupe, though it was thought best to inspire confidence\nin the movement by using Vallejo's name as leader\nof the pronunciados even without his consent. Soon\nafter, Alvarado wrote to his uncle as follows: \"When\nI parted from you at Napa, my sentiments of patriotism and my personal situation both animated me all\n\"Both Alvarado and Vallejo, in their Hist. Cal., MS., very naturally\ntry to conceal the latter's hesitation at this time, stating that 200 men\nwere promised and great enthusiasm was shown for the cause. Osio, however, tells us that Alvarado got but little satisfaction from Vallejo, and came\nback very much discouraged, and Alvarado himself, in a letter written a few\ndays later and soon to be noticed, clearly implies that Vallejo had refused to\ntake a leading part in the movement. Chico, it will be remembered, had not\nbeen certain on his departure which side Vallejo would take. Chas Brown,\nStatement, MS., 10-11, remembers Alvarado's visit to Sonoma. He says no\ntroops went south.\n GRAHAM'S RIFLEMEN. 457\nthe more ardently to do a good deed for my country.\nI returned with regret at not having succeeded in\nobtaining your company in attaining an object of\npublic beneficence; and I was in great trouble. At\nSan Jose* I met Castro, Buelna, and Noriega; and\nwe agreed to make a pronunciamiento. We formed a\nplan, an* with thirteen men started for Monterey.\nImmediately we recognized the enthusiasm of the inhabitants in defence of a just cause.    On the way\nthey aided us with arms and supplies We called\nthe expedition the 'vanguard of the division of operations,' giving out that you were bringing up the rear\nwith the rest of the forces, and that you were the\nchief of the army.! It was necessary to employ this\nruse* for in this belief many people joined us.,\"13\nCastro at San Juan and among the rancheros of\nthe Salinas and Pajaro valleys had also been successful in organizing a little revolutionary army; and\nabout seventy-five mounted Californians,14 armed with\nlances and such old muskets\u2014for the most part unfit\nfor use\u2014as could be found on the ranchos, assembled\napparently at Jesus Vallejo's rancho on the Pajaro.\nThey had a Mexican flag and plenty of fifes and\ndrums obtained at the mission of San Juan. There\nare no narratives which throw any light on the details of these preparations.\nThe strongest part of the revolutionary force, from\na military point of view, was Graham's company of\nriflemen. Graham was a Tennesseean hunter who\nhad come from New Mexico three years before. He\nwas a wild and reckless fellow, a crack-shot, adesspiser\n\u2122\u00abU ^T^0' ?artfl ootoJMe\u2122*^ d D. Guadulupe Vallejo, 7 de Nov 1836\nMS. This is a document of the greatest historical importance, one of the\nvery few original records extant upon this revolution. It establishes Valleio's\nposition m the matter; and it raises grave doubts about the accuracy of\nAlvarado s statements on the formal meeting of the diputacion at S. Juan\nbefore his visit to Sonoma.\n\u2022 Jesus Pico, Acont., MS., 32-8, claims to Have captured all the govt\nhorses and brought them in for the use of the army. Inocente Garcia?\nHechos, MS., 50-6, was the standard-bearer. The number of the m?n fc\ngiven in different nanfctivea all the way from 60 to 400.\n GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nof all Mexican 'varmint,' who had opened a distillery\nnot far from San Juan. His place was a favorite\nloafing-place for foreigners; and having agreed to aid\nAlvarado, he had no difficulty, by a free use of aguardiente and eloquence, in raising a company of twenty-\nfive or thirty men of various nationalities, most of them\nsailors,, with perhaps half a dozen American hunters.\nGraham was aided in his wTork of recruiting by William R. Garner, and John Coppinger was made his\nlieutenant, both Englishmen; while Louis Pombert,\na Frenchman, as a kind of sergeant was next in command. There is no list of names extant. A good\ndeal of admiration has been expressed by different\nwriters following in the lead of Farnham, for the brave\nand noble Graham, cavalier of the wilderness, and his\ngallant band of Kentuckian riflemen, taking up arms\nfor Californian independence, not without a hope of\nbringing their adopted home under the stars and\nstripes! Their motives and their services have been\ngreatly exaggerated; yet the presence of a few real\nhunters, and the superiority of the guns carried by\nthe rest, made this company the-most formidable part\nof the revolutionary force. If the sailors were not\nvery expert marksmen, it was all the same to the\nMexicans, to whom all were rifleros Americanos.\nDoubtless the leaders were promised recompense in\nlands and privileges; and it is not unlikely that a few\nof the foreigners looked at the whole enterprise from\na political point of view; yet we may be very sure that\nthe Californian leaders were inclined to use their allies\nrather than be used by them.15    It must be\nremem-\n15 Farnham's remarks on the services of the 50 foreigners who, with 25\nCalifornians loitering in the rear, expelled the Mex. governor after insisting\non political conditions which were promised but were never fulfilled, are too\nabsurd to merit refutation. Other writers naturally exaggerate Graham's\nservices .and are somewhat over-enthusiastic about the American element in\nhis company\u2014the writers being Americans themselves, or foes of Alvarado\nfor various reasons, or, if French or English, writing before Cal. became a\npart of the U. S. Dr Marsh, Letter, MS., 7-8, gives the composition of the\ncompany substantially as in my text. The writer of the account in the Honolulu, S. I. Gazette, Dec. 2, 1837, says: 'It is true that many foreigners were\nhired by the govt to serve in the ranks, but they no doubt did it for the pay,\n REBELS ATTACK MONTEREY. 459\nbered, however, that there was a foreign influence in\nthe whole affair quite distinct from that exerted by\nthe members of Graham's company.\nIt was apparently on the evening of November 3d\nthat the revolutionary forces under Jose* Castro approached the capital   I quote from Alvarado's letter,\nas the best authority extant, the following account of\nwhat happened during the next few days: \"Finally\nwe arrived at Monterey with upwards of  100 men.\nThe place was fortified with over 50 men assembled\nin the plaza.    On the night of our arrival we passed\non with some strategy and took the castle, and the\nheight near the house of Linares, so that the plaza,\"\nthat is, the presidio within the walls of which Gutierrez had his garrison, \"was commanded.   With aid\nfrom the people of the town, from the merchants, and\nfrom the vessels, except that of Don Federico Becher,\nwe armed ourselves sufficiently and sent a flag of truce'\nwith a demand that Gutierrez should surrender the\nplaza at discretion.    In it were all the officers, including Portilla who had lately arrived, and a multitude of\nconvicts whom Gutierrez had armed.   The reply being\ndelayed, we fired a cannon-shot from the fort, and the\nball was so well directed that we put it into the zaguan\nof the comandante's house, while the officers were conversing in the court.    Such was their fright that they\nwere not to be seen for an hour.    Then Gutierrez replied that he would not surrender.    Such was the\nanger of the division that every man dismounted, arms\nin hand, to attack.    We had also a company of 25\nriflemen.    When the movement was seen from the\nplaza, they sent a messenger to stop it, and to suppli-\nknowing well the character of the revolution, and that there would not be\nmuch danger ' Vallejo, Hi*. Cal, MS., iii. 195, remarks that the Mexicans\nexaggerated the foreign influence for effect in Mexico. Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nm m iti\"2,,inits r,at th\u00ae foreign company was of the greatest use to\nhim, that the leaders did good service, and that he promised them lands.\nBee, Recoil, MS., 6-11, who was a member of the company, gives a not very\nclear account of its operations. He says Garner was chosen 1st lieutenant and\nCoppmger 2d, though the former did not serve.\n 460 GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\ncate that we should not attack; and in a few minutes\nGutierrez sent a communication offering to surrender\non condition that we would give guaranties to the\nmen of his party, without preventing such of them as\ndesired to do so from following him. We accepted\nthe conditions, and presented ^ourselves in Monterey\nin the most admirable order. The infantry marched\nto the sound of Mr Hinckley's music, and the cavalry\nwith trumpets. The officers retired from the plaza,\nexcept one who remained to deliver the post.\"16\nThe account just quoted, written at the time by\nAlvarado, the leader of the movement, in a private\nletter, intended to have no other effect than to inform\nVallejo of what had occurred, is doubtless a correct\none. Other records throw no doubt on its accuracy,\nexcept perhaps in the statement that the surrender\nwas made in consequence of evident preparations for\na charge. In later narratives written from memory,\nAlvarado, like other Californians, has introduced\nsome exaggerations and erroneous statements. It is\nno part of my duty to reproduce the errors of such\nstatements, but only to utilize the testimony which I\nhave gathered so far as it may reveal the truth. I\nappend a few details, the accuracy of which there is no\nspecial reason to question.17    There is a general agree-\n18Alvarado, Carta Confidential, MS.\n\"Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 142-59, says that Spence was sent by\nGutierrez to make a tour of inspection on the night the army arrived. They\nwere surprised to find the fort not guarded. J Their numbers were soon increased by the inhabitants, sailors, etc., to over 300. The fort might easily\nhave been defended. Jose* Abrego furnished the ball that was fired, and\nPefia aimed the gun, being allowed 15 minutes to 'read up ' artillery practice.\nTwo small cannon were landed from Hinckley's vessel. The foreigners were\nanxious to attack the presidio. Late in the evening Castillero and Crespo\ncame out with torches and a flag of truce to propose surrender. Terms were\nmade verbally at 1 a. m., and in writing next morning after the dip. had\nheld a meeting. Villavicencio was sent to receive the arms, which Mufioz\ngave up. Gutierrez went with his officers to the house of Joaquin Gomez.\nVallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 154-80, gives the same version in substance as\nAlvarado. He says half the force halted at the lagunita, while the rest went\nto take the castillo. Spence in his report exaggerated to Gutierrez the number of the attacking force. The prisoners were sent on board the Clementine\nthe same day of the surrender, though she did not sail for some days. According to Garcia, Hechos, MS., 50-6, Buelna commanded the S. Jose* division,\nand Garcia with his own party joined the rest at the lenadero. Graham\nwished at the first to besiege Monterey and shoot every man that presented\n SIEGE OP THE CAPITAL. 461\nment that the revolutionists on approaching the town\ndivided their forces, kindled fires, sounded their trumpets and drums, and did all in their power to make it\nappear that their force was large; that the fort was\ntaken on the night of arrival without the slightest\nresistance; that Gutierrez made no effort to defend\nhimself, and took no precautions to avert attack; that\nthe cannon-ball which hit the presidio was the only\none in the Castillo which a gun could be found to fit,\nthe gunners being Balbino Romero and Cosme Pena\nthe lawyer; that J. A: de la Guerra was at one time\nadmitted to the presidio blindfolded as a representative of Castro; that ammunition and other aid was\nobtained from the foreign vessels in port, Hinckley\nof the Don Quixote openly favoring the Californians,\nwhile Steele and French of the Caroline and Europe\nwere but little more cautious in their support; and\nfinally, that Castro's force had been much increased\nand that of the governor weakened by desertions from\nthe presidio. The force at the disposal of Gutierrez\nhas been greatly exaggerated. It could not have\nbeen over seventy-five men at the beginning of the\nsiege, only fifty of the number being soldiers. Castro\nhad at first about the same force, besides Graham's\nmen.\nhimself! At dawn Ramirez and Cosme Pefia came to the Castillo with a\npaper, on which was written, j Federation 6 muerte de California la suerte '\nJ. J. Pico, Acontecimientos, MS., 32-8, says that he was sent south with a party\nto intercept Portilla's 25 men who were approaching, which he accomplished (?).\nHe andPinto Apunt., MS., 21-7, think that two shots were fired, one of\nwhich struck the church. Harry Bee's whole narrative on this affair is nota-\nSno \u00b0?ry \u2022 lts, maccuracy- Recollections, MS., 6-21. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS ,\ndOb-lo, gives the hour at which different events occurred, but they are obviously incorrect Mofras, Exploc, i. 298-300, and Petit-Thouars, Voyage, ii.\n92-9, state that Gutierrez and his officers had been promised permission to re-\nmam i\u00b1 they chose, and were sent away in violation of this promise. Mofras\nsays Lanun and John C. Jones aided the revolutionists. Wilkes, Narrative, v. l\/o-9 tells us that the ball fired was an 13-pounder, and the firing\nat dawn Robinson Life in Cal., 174-5, says the ball weighed 4 lbs. Jans\nsens VidaMS., 72-6, by request of Escobar and Negrete, formed a\nS\u00b0 \u00b0f \\ citizens to preserve order during the siege. G omez, Lo que Sabe,\nMb. lo-17, and others state that Francisco Soto did good service bv eettins\ninto the presidio with divers bottles of brandy to promote desertion: Torre,\nKemm Mb., C4-5, gives a very good account of the whole affair, but in it,\nas m the statements of Bandini, Ord, Coronel, Avila, and Jesus Vallejo, there\nis nothing not already noticed. J '\n 462\nGUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nThe castillo was taken, and the siege of Monterey\nbegan in the night of November 3d.18 During the\nnext day several communications, some of them in\nwriting, passed between Castro and Gutierrez, but\nonly one of them is extant. It was written by\nthe governor to his foe after the cannon-shot was\nfired, the act being rather plausibly alluded to by the\nwriter as an 'act of violence.' In this document\nGutierrez points out the inconsistency of Castro's demand that the gefatura should be surrendered by the\nsame person to whom he himself had delivered it,\nwith pleasure as he said, earlier in the year in accordance with laws that had not been changed. Another\ninconsistency of the ' diputacion was in wishing to\nexercise in advance certain powers for which that\nbody had petitioned the supreme government. He\ndeclares that he has personally no desire to retain the\ncommand, which he would gladly have given up to\nPortilla, but the hostile movements of Castro and his\nassociates render it necessary that he should maintain\nhis own military honor as well as the dignity of the\nMexican republic. He has accordingly determined,\nafter consultation with his officers and the ayuntamiento, to fight to the last in defence of the laws, as\nis clearly his duty. Yet if Castro and his supporters\ndesire to prevent the shedding of blood, they are invited, in the name of the country, of law, and of\njustice, to a peaceful conference with representatives\nof the government in presence of the ayuntamiento,\nat a place to be named by that corporation. Hostilities are in the mean time to be suspended, and the\ngovernor promises to approve the decision of the conference if consistent with his own responsibilities and\nthe national honor. The tone of the letter is dignified,\nand shows an earnest desire to avoid further troubles.13\n18 Petit-Thouars, Mofras, Wilkes, and others say it was on Nov. 2d, and\nthere are no means of proving that it was not so; but one day and two nights\nare all I can find room for in the siege.\n19 Gutierrez, Carta Oficial del Gefe Politico d D. Jose\" Castro, proponiendo con-\nferencias, 4 de Nov. 1836, MS. Two letters had been received from Castro\nbefore this letter was written.\n SURRENDER OF THE GOVERNOR.        463\nThere is no evidence that Castro consented to the\nconference proposed; and at 9 p. m. a junta de guerra\nwas held in the presidio to consider what was to be\ndone.    There were present Comandante General Gutierrez; captains Portilla, Munoz, and Castillero; lieutenants Navarrete and Estrada;  alfe'reces Ramirez\nand Valle;  the surgeon Alva; Crespo, the phieboto-\nmist; the district judge, Luis del Castillo Negrete;\nthe governor's secretaries, BoniUaand Gonzalez; Romero, the teacher; and Zamorano, secretary of the\ncomandancia.    The officers were called on for reports.\nMunoz stated that the foreigners were about to mount\ntwo guns at the houses of Pacheco and Abrego, with\nwhich to destroy the presidio.    Others reported the\ndesertion of twenty soldiers and nine convicts.    It\nwas also made known that the artillery were disposed\nto surrender, and the infantry had left their post.\nSuch being the situation, it was decided after discussion to make an offer of surrender on condition that\nlife and property should be protected and no insults\nbe offered to the capitulating force.    The proposition\nwas sent to Castro, who agreed to it verbally, requiring, howTe ver, a delivery of arms.    This gave * rise to\na new debate.    But it was found necessary to yield,\nas the garrison was now reduced to thirty-five men,\nworn out by fatigue and hunger, in an exposed position\ncommanded by the artillery of the foe, while the enemy\nhad a strong position, the support of the people and\nof the ships, and a force of two hundred men, \"nearly\nall foreigners, and chiefly Americans.\"    Castro was\naccordingly notified that the garrison would march\nout and stack their arms at the artillery barracks.\nThese proceedings were signed by all members of the\njunta, each of whom retained a copy.20\nWe have no further record of the surrender; but\nknow that early on the next day, the 5th, the revo-\n20 Junta de Guerra y Rendition de Monterey, 4 de Nov. 1886, MS. This is\none of the original copies made at the time, in the handwriting of Mariano\nRomero,\n 464\nGUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nlutionist Californians took peaceful possession of the\npresidio. The Mexican officials, having given up their\narms, went to the house of a citizen to remain until\ntheir fate should be decided. The day was devoted\nmainly, like several following days, to festivities of triumph, in which everybody\u2014except the Mexican officials perhaps\u2014participated. I quote in continuation\nfrom the concluding portion of Alvarado's letter: \"All\nthe officers except Valle and Zamorano we have embarked to-day on the Clementine for Cape San Lucas,\nalso Herrera, Luis Castillo, a few soldiers, and some\nof the worst convicts... There are no forces in the\nterritory to resist us; on the contrary, they are waiting\nto join us. To-day Buelna and Villa start for Santa\nB&rbara to have sworn the bases of the new Californian\ngovernment. The federalists will win in Mexico, and\nwe shall remain, if fate be propitious, erected into a\nfree and sovereign state. The officers and Gutierrez,\nashamed of their aberrations and seeing liberty shine\nwith honor, wept bitterly. Gutierrez sent a letter,\nconfessing his faults, giving satisfaction, and expressing\nregret at leaving a country where he had intended to\nlive forever. It is wonderful, uncle, with what order\nour expedition has been conducted. Everybody shouts\nvivas, for California is free!\"21\nThe Clementine sailed from Monterey on November\n11th for Cape San Lucas with about seventy passengers\u2014enforced and voluntary exiles, including among\nthe latter many of the Hijar and Padres colony who\nwere not contented in their new home.22 Gutierrez,\nMunoz, Navarrete, and the two Estradas had been\nput on board the vessel four or five days before she\nsailed, and were the only officers who were really forced\nto leave the country. There was much feeling against\nSub-comisario Herrera and Judge Castillo Negrete,\nbut they would have been permitted to remain if they\n21 Alvarado, Carta Confidencial, MS.   The date of surrender is also given\nin Gomez, Diario, MS.\n23 Gomez, Diario de Cosas Notables, MS.'\n EXILE OF MEXICAN OFFICERS. 465\nwould have submitted to the new order of things.\nCastillo Negrete was very violent against the revolutionists. He vented in verse his spite against the men\nwhom he regarded as leaders, Pefia, Ramirez, and\nHinckley, before leaving Monterey, and having sailed\non the Leonidas, stopped at San Diego to incite the\nsoutherners to resistance. Don Luis never returned,\nbut was subsequently gefe politico of Baja California.23\nPortilla, Castillero, Valle, and Zamorano were permitted to remain in California, but the latter chose at\nfirst to depart, though he soon returned to the San\nDiego frontier, as we shall see, to promote southern\nresistance to Alvarado. The Clementine after landing\nher passengers at Cape San Lucas returned to Monterey in December.    The Californian leaders have been\n1 His verses were as follows:\nA California ha perdido\nLa turbulenta anarquia\nDe su gobierno escogido\nPor eso lo ha conducido\nA accion tan atroz y fea;\nY para que al mundo vea\n\u00a31 tal gobierno como anda\nDel triumvirato que manda\nTe voy a dar una idea.\nEl proto-libertador\nPrimer hombre del Estado\nEs un fraile renegado\nGran perjuro y gran traidor\nDe oficio administrador.\nEs de muy ancha conciencia\nDerrochador sin clemencia\nSagaz revolucionario\nJugador y perdulario\nSin Dios, ni patria, ni ciencia.\nOcupa el lugar segundo\nEn el Californio Estado\nUn filosofo relajado\nCibarrita e inmundo;\nQue quiere rejir el mundo\nBebiendo mescal sin taza\nY con alma bien escasa;\nPues de sabio es presumido\nCuando el pobre no ha podido\nSaber gobernar su casa.\nDel Estado es Almirante\nY privado consejero\nUn navegante extrangero\nContrabandista intrigante\nEstafador y bien pillo\nCon el cual cumplo el trecillo\nQuo gobierna torpemente\nY que abusa impunemente\nDel Californio sencillo 1\nr ullejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 186-7; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 159-68.\nThe charges embodied in this rhyming tirade were for the most part weli\nfounded, so far as the three victims were concerned; and the space devoted by\nAlvarado and Vallejo to their refutation shows that Don Luis chose well his\nweapon of annoyance.\nHist. Cal., Vox.. HI.   30\n 466 GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\naccused of having acted in bad faith when they exiled\nGutierrez and his companions. The charge has no\nfoundation; there was no stipulation that they might\nremain; and to have permitted it would have been\na very stupid proceeding. I add some brief notes respecting the men who went away at this time.24\n24 Of Nicolas Gutierrez, his life and character, all that is known has been\ntold in this and the preceding chapters, and in chap. x. of this volume. He\ncame to California as a captain with Figuoroa in Jan. 1833. His terms of\noffice as ruler ad interim of the territory were as follows: Comandante general\nfrom Sept. 29 (assumed office Oct. 8), 1835, to Jan. 2, 1836;\u2022 gefe .politico\nand comandante general, Jan. 2d to May 2d; and from Aug. 1 to Nov. 5,\n1836. He took away with him some trunks containing effects belonging to\nthe late Jose\" Figueroa. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi. 34. Nothing\nis known of him after he left California, except that on April 21, 1837, he\nwrote from Mazatlan to Joaquin Gomez that he would probably see him back\nagain soon in command of an expedition that was being prepared. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxxii. 83.\nLicenciado Don Luis del Castillo Negrete was a Spaniard, his father having been an attorney of the council of Indies. He was educated at Alcala,\nToledo, and Granada in philosophy, mathematics, and law, leaving Spain\nafter 1820. These facts appear from diplomas and certificates shown in\nMonterey. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 180-9, with samples of some of his\nliterary productions, one of which I have already presented. He arrived at\nMonterey Sept. 25, 1834, Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 77, with his family, having\nbeen appointed district judge of Cal., of which office he took possession on\nOct. 1st. He also acted as legal adviser to Gov. Gutierrez. After leaving\nCal. Don Luis was sub-gefe politico of Baja California from May 1837 to\nJune 1842. See Hist. N. Mex. States, ii. In March 1839 he was trying to\ncollect back pay due for his services in Cal. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v.\n344-5. He died Nov. 25, 1843. Moreno, Doc, MS., 21. He is represented\nas having been a very able lawyer, and a brilliant, accomplished gentleman.\nThe Californians say he was unscrupulous; but this may have been because\nhe was inclined to ridicule rather than sympathize with their political projects. Alvarado and his associates would have liked to secure his cooperation, but this was not consistent with his official position and his plans for the\nfuture; besides, he had a great dislike for Angel Ramirez and Cosme Pefia, the\nlatter being not only a rival lawyer but a rival poet. Don Luis had a brother\nwho was a general in the Mexican army; and a Liiis del Castillo Negrete, who\nin 1871 was a diputado in Sinaloa, Ures, Estrella del Occidente, Jan. 5, 1872,\nwas perhaps his son or nephew.\nFrancisco Javier del Castillo Negrete was a brother of Luis, who came to\nCal. with the judge; served as Gov. Chico's secretary; perhaps sent by Chico,\njust before his own departure, on a mission to Mexico. He was subsequently\ncomandante of the frontier in Baja California. In Aug. 1854 he was in San\nFrancisco in very destitute circumstances, as he wrote to Gen. Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xiii. 379. Francisco is'said to have had some of his brother's\nbrilliant qualities, being somewhat less reserved and more popular.\nJose\" Maria Herrera first came to Cal. in 1825 with Gov. Echeandia, as\ncomisario de hacienda for the territory. Of his early life, or any part of bis\nrecord outside of Cal., I know nothing. With his career here, his quarrel\nwith Echeandia dating from 1827, and his expulsion from the country in 1830\nfor complicity in the Solis revolt, the reader is already familiar. See chap,\niii. of this vol. Herrera came back in .1834, at the same time as Castillo\nNegrete, to resume his old position and manage the territorial finances. During this second term he engaged in no controversies officially, and so far as\n CASTRO AS GOVERNOR AND GENERAL. 467\nAs commander-in-chief of the victorious revolutionary army, Jose* Castro was comandante general of\nCalifornia from November 5th, the date of Gutierrez's\nsurrender, to the 29th, when his successor assumed\nthe office, and as president of the diputacion, he was\ngovernor for a still longer period, until December 7th.\nIt has been customary to date Alvarado's rule from\nthe fall of Gutierrez, and to ignore Castro altogether\nin the list of rulers for this period; but in reality,\nAlvarado at this time had no authority, whatever his\ninfluence may have been. Don Jose was a grandson\nof Sergeant Macario Castro,20 and a son of Corporal\nJose Tiburcio Castro, who had been alcalde of San\nJose.    His mother was an Alvarez.    He was  born\ncan be known, gave no cause for complaint. His name, however, became\nagain disagreeably prominent in connection with the troubles growing out of\nthe scandalous liaison between his wife, Dona Ildefonsa Gonzalez, daughter\nof Capt. Miguel Gonzalez, and Jose\" Maria Castanares, as fully narrated in\nchap. xv. Herrera is described as of medium height and inclined to corpulency, with fair complexion, black hair, and thick beard. He was affable in\nmanner, of much business ability, skilful in argument, and well educated.\nSome leading Californians have given him a very bad character, under circumstances known to the reader. I do not undertake to decide just to what extent the charges rest on prejudice. A man of the same name was contador\nof the custom-house at Guaymas in 1839. Pinart, Col. Doc. Son., MS.,\niii. 116.\nCapt. Juan Antonio Mufioz was appointed in 1830 to proceed to Cal. and\nsucceed Alf. Fernandez del Campo in command of the artillery. He arrived\nlate in 1832 and was offered by Zamorano the comandancia accidental, but declined, remaining inactive until Figueroa came, Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 79-\n82, and then took his proper command. There is nothing to be noticed in his\nCalifornian career of four years, except that he was very much disliked by\nthe people; and I find no record respecting him before his arrival or after his\ndeparture in exile in 1836.\nLieut Bernardo Navarrete came with Figueroa in 1833. In Aug. 1834 he\nwas commissioned captain of the Monterey company; but there is no record\nthat he received the commission before his banishment in 1836. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxix. 83. Chico proposed to 'send him on a commis-\nsion to Mexico, but Francisco Castillo Negrete seems to have gone in his\nplace. He commanded the cavalry during the final siege of Monterey. Like\nMunoz, he was disliked by the Californians, for reasons which, except his being a Mexican, are unknown.\nAlferez Patricio Estrada was also sufficiently under the ban of Californian\ndispleasure to be sent away in 1836. He had come with Echeandia in 1825;\ncommanding a detachment of the Piquete de Hidalgo.\nNicanor Estrada left the country in 1836, not in the Clementine, and\nperhaps voluntarily. He worked as a blacksmith. In Mexico he had been\na captain of cavalry, and came with the colony as a kind of political exile.\nIn Nov. 1835, notice was sent that his rank had been restored. Devt. St.\nPap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxxi. 1.\n25 See biographical sketches.\n 468 GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nabout 1810, and his early educational advantages had\nbeen substantially the same as those of his companions\nAlvarado and Vallejo, though he had profited by them\nsomewhat less than either of the others, being less\nobservant and ambitious. He had no experience as\na soldier or in clerical duties; but he had served several terms as vocal in the diputacion; had sometimes\npresided over that body, and had once, as its president, been gefe politico ad interim, from September\n1835 to January 1836.\nThe popular movement having proved successful,\nthe Mexican ruler having been deposed, and these\nvictories having been properly celebrated in fiestas at\nthe capital, it became necessary to organize the government under a new regime. The plan of the pronunciamiento, drawn up on November 3d, but not\nextant, would seem to have been rather vaguely\nworded, so as not to make it quite certain what the\nrevolution was to accomplish. The leaders have been\naccused of making it vague intentionally, or worse\nstill, of having promised to declare California entirely\nindependent of Mexico, in order to secure foreign\nsupport, subsequently breaking the promise. I have\nno reason to believe that any such pledge was made.\nAt any rate, Alvarado knew well that popular feeling\nwould not suppo^b such a step; and it is probable that\nfrom the first the intention had been merely to insist\non Californian rulers, under the pretence of a revolt\nagainst centralism. Doubtless a pressure was brought\nto bear by Americans, after success had been achieved,\nin favor of absolute independence. Indeed, it is said,,\nand I have heard Alvarado himself admit, that a lone-\nstar flag had been prepared; and the project of raising\nit over the presidio was discussed. Possibly Alvarado was not personally much opposed to the plan,\nbut he feared, while respecting, the influence of\nforeigners. His associates were yet more timid; opposition was feared from the south even to changes\nless radical; his Mexican supporters protested against\n THE NEW GOVERNMENT.\ndisloyalty to the federal constitution; and David\nSpence and other foreigners deemed it wise to curb\nAmerican ambition. The Californians hesitated, if at\nall, but for a moment; the Texan experiment was not\nto be tried in California, and the Mexican flag fetill\nwaved over the capital.26\nThe day after the surrender of Gutierrez, November 6th, the diputacion met, that is, four of its members did so. I am unable to explain why Spence,\nGomez, and Crespo took no part in this and subsequent\nmeetings, a Respecting the proceedings at this and\nother sessions, we have no other record than the\nprinted addresses and decrees issued from time to time.\nThe first of these, signed by Castro, Alvarado, Buelna, and Noriega, was an address of congratulation to\nthe people.27    The second production was a record of\n^Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 85-6, says the persons who favored independence were chiefly Mexicans. Mofras, Explor., i. 300, tells us that the\nAmericans had a lone-star flag all ready, which they wished to hoist, putting\nCal. under the protection of the U. S., and promising the aid of the Peacock\nwhich \u25a0 would soon return; but the Mexicans Pena and Ramirez, Spence,\nAmesti, Munras, and Deleisseques succeeded in preventing the movement.\nPetit-Thouars, Voyage, ii. 99, gives in substance the same version, and adds\nthat the Americans then withdrew in disgust, except a few riflemen who got\n$2 a day for their services. Wilkes, Narr., v. 178-9, says the courage of Alvarado and the diputacion failed them at the last moment, and they refused\nto keep then- promise of raising the flag\u2014adding some absurd details.\nGleeson, Hist. Cath. Church, i. 148-9, follows Mofras. Serrano, Apuntes,\nMS., 27, 38-9, insists that the lone-star flag was actually raised, and that\nCastro trampled the Mexican flag under foot. Inocente Garcia, the standard-\nbearer, claims to have prevented Capt. Hinckley and others from raising the\nnew flag on one occasion, and to have insisted on hoisting the national banner.\nRobinson mentions the Texan flag which was said to have been prepared.\nAlvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 199-204, admits that he thought favorably of\nputting Cal. under a European or American protectorate.\nRobinson, Life in Cal, 177, says that several Mexican vessels in the harbor were seized and afterward released. It is claimed by Alvarado, Vallejo,\nand others that they had some difficulty in preventing outrages on Mexicans,\ninstigated largely by Graham and his men. It was partly to save them from\ninjury and msult that Gutierrez and others were kept on board the vessel for\nsome days before she sailed.\nn ,^<T^e most excellent diputacion of Alta California, to its inhabitants:\nCalifornians: Heaven favors you; you are doubtless its chosen portion, and\ntherefore it is leading you with propitious hand to happiness. Until now you\nhave been the sad victim of servile factions, whose chiefs, content with a\npassing triumph, taxed to the utmost your long-suffering patience. As obedient sons of the mother country, and faithful defenders of your dear liberties, you swore solemnly before God and men to be free, and to die rather than\nbe slaves. In this spirit, you adopted forever, as a social compact to direct\nyou, the federal constitution of the year twenty-four; your government was\n 470 GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nproceedings at the extra session of November 7th,\nsigned by the same men and published as a circular. At\nthis meeting the plan of the original pronunciamiento\nwas submitted for revision and approval. This document in its original form is not given, and it is consequently impossible to state what changes were introduced. It had been somewhat vaguely worded, and\nperhaps intentionally so; but Alvarado explained that\nits informalities were due to the haste and confusion\nof the campaign, since the intention of the pronun-\nciados, as was well known, was simply to resist the\noppressions of the rulers sent from Mexico since the\nadoption of the new system; and he moved that the\nplan be drawn up as in the appended note.28    This\norganized at cost of immense sacrifices, which unnatural sons trampled on,\nignoring them in order to found upon your ruins their own fortune and criminal advancement; and when it seemed that you were already the sure patrimony of the aristocratic tyrant, you boldly waved the banner of the free:\n' \\ Federation or Death is the destiny of the Californian.\" Thus have you\nshouted, and a cry so sweet will be indelibly engraved upon your hearts, in\nwhom (sic) the sacred fire of love for the country is seen to burn incessantly.\nYou have tasted the sweet nectar of liberty; the bitter cup of oppression\nmay not be tendered you with impunity. California is free, and will sever\nher relations with Mexico until she ceases to be oppressed by the present dominant faction called central government. To accomplish so interesting, so\ngrand an object, it remains only that we, the inhabitants of this soil, united,\nform a single wish, a single opinion. Let us be united, Californians, and we\nshall be invincible, if we use all the resources on which we may count. Thus\nshall we make it clear to the universe that we are firm in our purpose, that\nwe are free and federalists! Jose\" Castro, Juan B. Alvarado, Antonio Buelna,\nJos 6 Antonio Noriega. Monterrey, Nov. 6,1836.' Government Press in charge\nof citizen Santiago Aguilar.   1 leaf.\nOriginal print in Earliest Printing. Also in Bandini, Doc, MS., 42;\nGuerra, Doc, MS., i. 151-2; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 195-6; and translation, somewhat less literal than mine, in Hopkins' Translations, 3-4, printed\nalso in the S. Francisco Alta. The Noriega who signs was Jose\" Antonio de\nla Guerra. It was a whim to sign his name Noriega, which he had no right\nto do. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 169-73, says that two copies of the\naddress were sent to every place to be posted in regular form on the doors of\nalcaldia and church.\n28 Plan de Independencia Californiana adoptada por la diputacion en 7 de\nNov. 1836. Original print, 1 leaf, with rubric of the four signers in Earliest\nPrinting. Also in Castro, Doc, MS., i. 33; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 41;\nBandini, Doc, MS., 41; Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 210-11; Dept, St. Pap.,\nAngeles, MS., x. 17. Translation in Hopkins' Translations, 4-5, in which one\nunfortunate error is to be noted, where debida a las fatigas de la campana is\nrendered | the result of the labors of the company.'\n1. Alta California is declared independent of Mexico until the federal\nsystem of 1824 shall be reestablished. 2. The said California is erected into\na free and sovereign state, establishing a congress which shall pass all the particular laws of the country, also the other necessary supreme powers, the pres-\n PATRIOTIC DECREES. 471\nplan was unanimously adopted by the diputacion, and\nbeing submitted on motion of Castro to the leaders\nof the pronunciados, was by them also approved, without much opposition, it may be supposed, since those\nleaders were Castro and Alvarado. Next day President Castro issued the first of a series of decrees emanating from the diputacion in its new capacity, in which\nthe people are duly informed \"that the said supreme\nlegislative body has decreed as follows: ' The constituent congress of the free and sovereign state of Alta California is hereby declared legitimately installed.'\"29 On\nthe^th, as ' commander of the vanguard of the division of operations,' Castro issued a printed proclamation\nto the people, congratulating them on their escape from\ntyranny, exhorting them not to falter in the good work,\nreminding them that death was preferable to servitude, and that federalism must become the system of\nthe nation. \"Viva la federacion! Viva la libertad!\nViva el estado libre y soberano de Alta California!\"30\nThe next record carries us forward to the time when\nVallejo, having arrived from Sonoma, assumed the\nmilitary command, tendered him, as we have seen, by\nthe diputacion on the 7th. Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo was a young man of about thirty years, who\nhad recently received a lieutenant's commission in the\nMexican army, and was comandante of the northern\nent most excellent diputacion declaring itself constituent. 3. The religion\nwill be the catholic apostolic Roman, without admitting the public worship of\nany other; but the government will molest no one for his private religious\nopinions. 4. A constitution shall regulate all branches of the administration provisionally, so far as possible in accordance with the said (federal ?)\nconstitution. 5. While the provisions of the preceding articles are being\ncarried out Don Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo will be called to the comandancia\ngeneral. 6. The necessary communications will be made to the municipalities of the territory by the president of the excelentisima diputacion.\n29 Castro, Decretos de la Exma Diputacion erigida en Congreso Constituyente,\npor su Preddente, no. 1-10, 1836, in Earliest Printing. Nos 1-4 are signed\nby Castro as diputado presidente, and by Juan B. Alvarado as diputado sec-\nretario; nos 5-9 by Castro and by J. A. de la Guerra as sec.; and no. 10 by\nAlvarado as gov. and Cosme Pena as sec. It is possible that this series was\ncontinued, but I have found no later numbers. Nov. 10th, Castro to comis-\nsario de policia atBranciforte, forwarding the bases adopted by the diputacion to be sworn at the villa.  Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 74.\n\"Dept, St, Pap., Angeles, MS., x, 14-16,\n GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\nfrontier, with headquarters at Sonoma. He was the\nson of the 'sargento distinguido' Ignacio Vallejo and\nof Maria Antonia Lugo, being, on the paternal side at\nleast, of pure Spanish blood, and being entitled by\nthe old rules to prefix the 'Don' to his name. In\nchildhood he had been the associate of Alvarado and\nCastro at Monterey, and his educational advantages,\nof which he made good use, were substantially the\nsame as theirs. Unlike his companions, he chose a\nmilitary career, entering the Monterey company in\n1823 as cadet, and being promoted to be alferez of\nthe San Francisco company in 1827. He served as\nhabilitado and as comandante of both companies, and\ntook part, as has been recorded in preceding chapters,\nin several campaigns against the Indians, besides acting as fiscal or defensor in various military trials. In\n1830 he was elected to the diputacion, and took a\nprominent part in the opposition of that body to Victoria. In 1832 he married Francisca Benicia, daughter of Joaquin Carrillo, and in 1834 was elected diputado suplente to congress. He was a favorite of\nFigueroa, who gave him large tracts of land north\nof the bay, choosing him as comisionado to secularize San Francisco Solano, to found the town of Sonoma, and to command the frontera del norte. In his\nnew position Vallejo was doubtless the most independent man in California. His past record was a good\none, and both in ability and experience he was probably better fitted to take the position as comandante\ngeneral than any other Californian. He was not personally so popular as either Alvarado or Castro, because chiefly of his reserved, haughty, aristocratic, military manner; yet it is evident that his name and his\nstrength carried great weight with the people, since\nthe revolutionists were forced to represent him as their\nleader, even without his consent. The reasons of his\nconservatism were well enough known, and little doubt\nwas felt that he would accept the command offered him.\nAccordingly Alvarado, in his letter of November 7th,\n VALLEJO AS GENERAL. 473\nalready cited, explained to his uncle the use that had\nbeen made of his name, declared the movement a success, and urged the importance of his presence at the\ncapital. Don Guadalupe obeyed, and came from Sonoma with a small force.31\nIt was on November 29th that Vallejo took the\noath of allegiance to the new government, assumed\nthe position of comandante general, and issued a proclamation to the Californians\u2014a document expressing\npatriotic purposes in the usual grandiloquent language\nof Spanish American officials.32 It was feared that\nsome objection might be made in certain quarters to\na general who held no higher military rank than that\nof lieutenant, and accordingly on the day the oath\nwas taken the constituent congress voted Vallejo a\n31 Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 197-202J tells us that he started from Sonoma with a large force before he knew what had taken place, but sent back\nall but 50 of his men when he heard at S. Jose* that Gutierrez had fallen.\nHe only knew of his appointment by the shout of viva el comandante gen-\nei al! by which he was greeted at Monterey. Nov. 7, 1836, Castro to Vallejo. Official notice of his appointment. 'The people expect of your patriotism a compliance with their wishes.' Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 264. Nov. 16th,\nVallejo from str. of Carquines to Castro. Will start at once for Sonoma, and\nthence for Monterey; though it is inconvenient, as he expects 62 Indian chiefs\nto make treaties.   Id., iv. 42.\nb2 Vallejo, Proclamadel C. Mariano G. Vallejo en el acto deprestar eljura-\nmento de las baces adoptadaspor la Ecs\u2122 Diputacion de la Alta California.\nMonterrey, 29 de Nov. de 1836. Imprenta del Sup. Gob., etc., 1 leaf, in Earliest\nPrinting; Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 269; Bandini, Doc, MS., 43; Dept. St. Pap.,\nAngeles, MS., x. 13; and with French translation in Petit-Thouars, Voyages,\nMS., iv. 1-3. 'Fellow-citizens: the sovereign legislative assembly of the\nfree state of Alta California calls me to its aid, and I obey its supreme determination, putting myself at the head of the brave men who surround me, and\naccepting the comandancia general for the public welfare, whose slave alone\nI am. Yes, fellow-citizens, I swear to you before God I would promise to\nsecure your happiness, if, as my soul abounds in love for the country, my\nknowledge were sufficient to second my good intentions and the purity of my\ndesires. Yet I will strive to that end, and I will succeed in showing that I\nam a citizen who loves the liberty of a country so often outraged with impunity. If I succeed, my reward will be the well-being of the sovereign people\nto which I have the honor to belong; but if it may not be so, my fitting recompense will be a cold stone, which, confounding me among insensible beings,\nshall publish \"Here lies a Californian who yielded to death rather than to\ntyranny!\"' etc. In translating this and other documents in my notes, I have\nthought it best to give the author's words as literally as possible, taking\npains, however, never to exaggerate in English any vagueness, inelegancy, or\nabsurdity of the original Spanish. On Nov. 28th, Alvarado wrote to Valentin Cota at Sta Barbara a friendly letter, declaring that prospects were very\nbright, though the leeches might yet make trouble.  Cota, Doc, MS., 5-6.\n 474 GUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\ncolonel of cavalry, the commission being issued in\nDecember.33\nOn December 4th the legislators brought their\nminds to bear on revenue management. It was decided to suppress all the old offices connected with\nthe custom-house, and to intrust all the business to a\ncollector at a salary of $1,000 and a clerk at $360.34\nAt the next session provision was made for the organization of a 'civic force to sustain the system of\ngovernment adopted,' for which purpose the ayuntamiento was required to prepare at once lists of inhabitants between fifteen and fifty years of age.\nThe staff of the squadron was to consist of a colonel,\nlieut-colonel, sergeant-major, and standard-bearer.\nThe government was also authorized to organize an\ninfantry company of riflemen. The leading commissions in the civic militia were subsequently given to\nAlvarado and Castro respectively, both commencing\ntheir military career with a rank that in Spanish times\ncould have been reached only by long years of service in the lower grades.35\nIt was now deemed necessary to choose a chief\nexecutive of the new government in place of Castro,\nwho had hitherto acted in that capacity as president\nof the diputacion. Accordingly, at the session of\nDecember 7th, Juan B. Alvarado was declared to be\ngovernor ad interim of the state, with a salary of\n33 Castro, Decretos de la Dip., no. 2, Nov. 29th. Commission Dec. Uth,\nin Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 11; Petit-Thouars, Voyage, iv. 20.\n34 Castro, Decretos, no. 3. Ramirez seems, however, to have remained in\ncharge of the custom-house until Dec. 21st at least; and Hartnell was the\nfirst recaudador.\n35 Castro, Decretos, no. 4, Dec. 5, 1836; also in Petit-Thouars, Voyage, iv.\n3-6. Alvarado's commission as colonel was issued Dec. 11th, by Castro as\npresident. Earliest Printing. As by decree no. 4 the colonel was to be\nappointed by the govt, and Alvarado had since become the chief executive,\nhe was freed from the duty of appointing himself, and the president authorized to issue the commission on Dec. 7th, by no. 6 of Castro, Decretos. Of\nCastro's own commission as lieut-col. I have no record, save that from about\nthis time that prefix was attached to his name. On Dec. 12th, Alvarado, as\ncol. and governor, commissioned Jose\" Jesus Vallejo as captain of artillery in\nthe civic militia, Earliest Printing; and also Valentin Cota of Sta Barbara to\nbe captain, Guerra, Doc, MS., v. 305; and Miguel Avila to be alferez.\nAvila, Doc Hist. Cal., MS., 253.\n ALVARADO MADE GOVERNOR. 475\n$1,500, the tratamiento of 'excellency' and a secretary at $1,000,36 to which position Cosme Pena was\nsoon appointed. Of Alvarado's inauguration, of the\nspeech that he may have made, and the proclamation\nhe may have issued, there is no record.\nThree important decrees were issued the 9th of\nDecember. By the first, each ayuntamiento wTas directed to choose at its next session a diputado to join\nthe members of the congress and aid in the formation\nof a constitution. A second divided the state temporarily into two cantons, or districts, the first that\nof Monterey, including the municipalities of San Francisco and San Jose; the second that of Los Angeles,\nincluding Santa Barbara and San Diego. Each canton was to have a gefe politico, to be the governor in\nthe first, and in the second a man subordinate to the\ngovernor and appointed by him from a trio to be\nelected at Los Angeles January 15th by comisionados\nnamed by the ayuntamientos. As no such election\nwas ever held, and as the system never went into effect for reasons that will appear later, it seems unnecessary to go further into details. By the third decree\nsome of the late restrictions on commerce were removed; duties were fixed at forty per cent on foreign\n36 Castro, Decretos de la Dip., no. 5, Dec. 7, 1836; Petit-Thouars, Voyage,\niv. 6-9. Art. 1. Alvarado to be gov. ad interim. Art. 2. To serve until\nthe appointment of another to serve 'constitutionally.' Art. 3. His attributes are: 1. To appoint officials in accordance with the bases and laws. 2.\nTo care for the security and tranquillity of the state. 3. To command the\nmilitia. 4>. To enforce the bases and laws, and issue the necessary decrees\nto that end. 5. To see that justice be promptly and fully executed. 6. To\nappoint and remove administrators of missions, take accounts through comisionados, and report to congress on mission matters requiring attention. 7.\nTo fine corporations, subordinate authorities, and private individuals to extent\nof $100 for disrespect to the govt, or $200 for failure to comply with duties;\nor to suspend officials, reporting at once to congress. Art. 4. To have the title\nof excellency. Art. 5. To have $1,500 per year. Art. 6. In case of disability, his duties to be performed by the pres. of the congress. Art. 7. To\ntake the oath of office before the pres. Art. 8. To have a secretary and a\nclerk, or more than one if necessary, appointed by himself. Art. 9. The\nsecretary's duty is to extend the minutes and sign all decrees and orders.\nArt. 10. Sec.'to have a salary of $1,G00, and clerk $375, without fees.\nArt. 11. The sec. to take the oath before the state govt. Art. 12. This\ndecree to be published, etc. Signed by Castro and by Guerra. Alvarado,\nHist. Cal, MS., iii. 184-5, tells us that there was much discussion about the\ntitle of the new ruler, between gefe politico, president, and governor.\n 476\nGUTIERREZ, CASTRO, AND ALVARADO.\ngoods, with tonnage dues at% eight reals per ton, and\ncoasting trade was permitted to foreign vessels under\na permit from the government. This was in appreciation of the aid rendered by foreigners to the cause\nof freedom.87\nThus far the Californians had been successful in\ntheir armed protest against centralism. They had\ngot rid of their Mexican ruler, and had made a start\nin the experiment of governing themselves. The machinery of government was working smoothly enough\nat the capital. The beginnings under the new regime\nhad been marked by no hasty or unwise steps. The\nleaders were among the best and the ablest of the\nCalifornians, abounding in patriotism, if somewhat\nlacking in experience. It would be going too far,\nperhaps, to say that the new administration had before\nit an open road to permanent success, for the inherent\ndifficulties of the situation were great. Possibly it is\nfortunate in a sense for Alvarado and his associates\nthat they can point to the opposition of their countrymen as an insurmountable obstacle in their way, for\nit is certain that such opposition removed every hope\nof a notable success. Yet I have much reason to believe that Alvarado would have effected a marked\nimprovement in the condition of California had ho\nbeen allowed to do so, and that the internal quarrels,\nwhich needlessly monopolized his attention and energy, were from every point of view a misfortune to the\ncountry.\nThe Ibases of the new system were of course forwarded, with the various proclamations and decrees\ntherewith connected, to every part of the state; and\nI suppose that they were approved with the usual\nforms and oath of allegiance everywhere in the northern districts, though strangely enough not a single record of such local proceeding has rewarded my search.\n87Castro, Decretos, nos 7, 8, 9, Dec. 9, 1836; Vallejo, Doc, MS., 51-3;\nPetit-Thouars, Voyage, iv. 12-20; Dept. St, Pap., S, Jost, MS., iii. 55-60.\n AFFAIRS IN THE NORTH. 477\nIn the south a strong opposition developed itself, to be\ntreated fully in the following chapter. Alvarado determined to visit the south in person. He obtained from\nthe congress a concession of extraordinary powers,38\ngave his civil authority as far as possible to General\nVallejo, whom all local authorities were ordered to\nobey,39 aftd started southward on Christmas, with some\nfifty soldiers and Graham's riflemen, a part of the force\nbeing sent by water on the Clementine, which had re-\nturned^ from Cape San Lucas. Vallejo at about the\nsame time was called away to Sonoma to settle some\ntrouble with the Indians, and Lieut-colonel Castro\nwas left in command. There is nothing more to be\nsaid of affairs at the north in 1836, except that Angel\nRamirez, having been removed from the administration\nof the revenues, and having been unable to control\nAlvarado as he had hoped to do, was perhaps already\nengaged in plotting future mischief.40 There is no indication that north of Santa B&rbara there was any\ndisaffection among Californians, though some of the\nmore timid looked forward with anxiety to the result of\nthe governor's campaign in the south, and still more\nanxiously to the time when their revolt should be\nknown in Mexico.\n38Castro, Decretos, no. 10, Dec. 20, 1836; Petit-Thouars, Voyage, iv. 21.\nThis, the final order of the series, is issued by 'The citizen Juan B. Alvarado,\ncolonel of the civic militia, superior gefe politico of the first canton, and governor of the free and sovereign state of Alta California.' Countersigned bv\nSecretary Pefia.\n89 Dec. 23, 1836, Alvarado to civil authorities and private persons. In Vallejo, Doc.f MS., iv. 45. Vallejo in return conceded his military authority to\nAlvarado so far as the south was concerned. His order to comandantes of\nthe south is dated Dec. 17th. Id., iv. 43.\n40 Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 190-4, and Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 241-\n3, tell us that the former on his way south found evidence tjjat Ramirez and\nP. Mercado were plotting at S. Antonio, and sent a note of warning to Vallejo.\nAlvarado thought of arresting Ramirez, but had some hope that he would\n9 jnspire with the south and thus drive Juan Bandini over to the governor's\nside.\n CHAPTER XVLL\nALVAHADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\n1836-1837.\nCauses of Southern Opposition\u2014Sectional, Local, and Personal Prejudice\u2014The News at Angeles\u2014San Diego Aroused\u2014Plan op November\u2014Counter-plan of Santa Barbara\u2014New Ayuntamientos and\nNew Plan\u2014Letters of Prominent Men\u2014Castillo Negrete\u2014Osio \u2014\nBandini\u2014Pio Pico\u2014Carlos Carrillo\u2014Alvarado in the South\u2014\nThe Barbarenos Submit\u2014Angelinos Obstinate\u2014Dieguinos Patriotic but not Warlike\u2014Defensive Measures\u2014Campaign and Treaty\nof San Fernando\u2014Alvarado at Los Angeles\u2014Castro's Arrival\u2014\nAnother Plan\u2014Speeches\u2014Fears of Attack from Sonora\u2014Castro\nat San Diego\u2014Diputacion Sustains Alvarado\u2014Plan de Gobierno\u2014\nIntrigues of Osio and Pico\u2014Los Angeles Submits\u2014Governor's\nManifiesto of May\u2014Return to Monterey\u2014Events in the North,\nJanuary to May.\nThat the changes effected at Monterey were not approved in the south was due almost entirely to sectional, local, and personal causes. The provincial prejudice was as strong in one part of California as in\nanother. The arribenos were not more radical federalists than were the abajenos, nor were they more\nunanimously opposed to Mexican rulers. The loyalty\nof the surenos and their natural shrinking from revolutionary measures were not notably more pronounced\nthan the same sentiments among the nortenos. It\nwas San Diego and Los Angeles, not Monterey and\nSan Jose, that had begun the revolt against Victoria\nin 1831. It was the south that sustained Echeandia,\nand the north that supported Zamorano's counter-\nrevolt in behalf of the supreme government. There\nwas not much opposition to Gutierrez personally in\n SOUTHERN DISAFFECTION. 479\neither section. Alvarado was personally popular in\nboth sections. The padres Fernandinos in charge of\nthe southern missions were disposed rather to favor\nthan oppose the change. El sur, as fully as el norte,\nhad felt the effects of Mexican oppression and neglect,\nreal or imaginary. The benefits, if any, to be derived\nfrom independence could be nowise sectional. Other\nreasons for southern opposition must be sought.\nA strong sectional feeling had been in process of development since 1825, when Echeandia, charmed with\nsouthern climate and southern ladies, had seriously\nwounded the pride of Monterey, by fixing his residence\nat San Diego. Most representatives to congress had\nbeen from the south, which was deemed a slight to\nnorthern talent; but on the other hand, Arguello and\nCastro had ruled as governors, while Pico and Estudillo had failed to secure recognition. Custom-house\nquarrels had waxed hot between San Diego and Monterey, to the advantage of the latter; but the southern pueblo had gone far ahead of San Jos6 in population, even gaining the rank of city. In the struggle\nfor the capital, Los Angeles had gained the victory,\non paper, which caused a burst of indignation in the\nnorth; bat Monterey had thus far evaded a delivery\nof the spoils, and the Angelinos were furious. A division of the missions between the friars of two colleges had a slight tendency to widen the breach.\nThe first feeling on hearing what had happened\nwas one of surprise and of timidity. Yet the people\nwere not more timid than the arriberios, but their\ncourage had not, like that of the others, been braced\nup by the excitement of personal participation in stirring events or by the eloquence of popular leaders.\nSoon, however, there was developed in the minds of\nthe southerners a still more potent sentiment, to the\neffect that the revolution had been the work of northern men, and that they would not only monopolize the\nglory and prestige arising from the achievement, putting on airs of superiority, but would probably claim\n 480\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nthe lion's share of the offices and other benefits of the\nnew system. Before the avowed policy of the new\nadministration was fully known, the most absurd rumors were current, but Los Angeles had much reason\nto believe that the change was at the least not favorable to its own possession of the capital, and this was\nample cause for the opposition of that city. San\nDiego entertained similar hopes and fears, though in\nless marked degree, respecting the custom-house.\nBut the opposition in the extreme south was due\nmainly to another cause, the influence of Juan Bandini.\nThis gentleman saw in the movement at Monterey\nbut one figure, that of his hated foe, Angel Ramirez.\nJudge Castillo Negrete on his way to Mexico\nspent a few weeks in the south, where he attacked\nwith argument, invective, and ridicule the revolutionary leaders, devoting all his energies to fanning the\nflame of popular discontent already kindled by local\nprejudice. The result was, that the most exaggerated\nideas of Alvarado's policy were instilled into the\npublic mind, so far as the people at large could be induced to think of the subject at all. The conditional\nelement of the plan of independence was ignored altogether; Mexico had been defied, and California,\ndefenceless, was exposed to the rapacity of foreign\nnations, if not indeed already virtually delivered to\nagents of the United States. All Mexicans had\nbeen or were to be banished, and their property confiscated, perhaps their very lives endangered. The\nsouth was to have no voice in the new administration.\nEven the catholic faith was dishonored, and protes-\ntant heresy was to be encouraged. Such were the\nfears which certain individuals deemed it for their interest to inculcate, and it is wonderful what unswerving loyalty and patriotism, what respect for the power\nof Mexico, what devotion to the true faith, and what\nardent zeal to put themselves right on the record and\navert the terrible consequences of Mexican wrath\nwere all at once developed in the southern mind and\n NEWS OF THE REVOLUTION. 481\nheart, as represented by the ayuntamientos of Los\nAngeles and San Diego. I proceed with the chronological narrative.\nIn his letter of November 7th, before cited, Alvarado stated that commissioners would start next day\nto submit the new plan for approval in the south.1\nThere are indications that such agents were despatched\nabout that time, but we have no record of their negotiations, and they do not appear to have gone beyond\nSanta Barbara. So far as I can learn, the first news\nof events at Monterey came on the Leonidas, which\ntouched at Santa Barbara about the 15th. The\ntidings spread to Los Angeles, where, on the 17th,\nAlcalde Requena called an extra session of the ayuntamiento. The rumor was that Gutierrez was prisoner,\nMexican officials had been banished, and an armed force\nwas en route for this city, to compel adhesion to a plan\nof unknown purport, but believed to involve a change\nin the existing order of things. The people were called\nin, and it was resolved not to recognize any authority\nnot legally established, and to send a committee, headed\nby Sindico A. M. Osio, to meet the approaching force\nand learn the objects of its coming.2 Next San Diego\nheard the news, from Rocha at San Gabriel, and assembled its ayuntamiento on the 22d. In the discussions great importance was attached to the part taken\n1 Alvarado, Carta Confidencial, MS. Buelna and VillavicenciO are named.\nIt would seem that the former at least could not have gone, yet some statements indicate that he did.\n*Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 197-200. The arrival of the Leonidas with\nthe district judge and Capt. Mufioz (?) on hoard was mentioned. Regidores\nValdes and Herrera were the other members of the committee. Nov. 19th,\nan account of the meeting was sent to J. J. Rocha, administrator of San\nGabriel, who acknowledged receipt on Nov. 20th. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles,\nMS., ii. 66. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 318-20, mentions the prominent part\ntaken by the sindico, not naming himself, now and later. Osio says the opposition of Los Angeles was, 1st, because it was ridiculous to form a state\nwith only 9,000 inhabitants, 300 of them educated; 2d, because of foreign\nand American cooperation, savoring too much of annexation; 3d, because\ngreater powers than those of the national congress had been assumed in\ngranting religious tolerance. These and 'other reasons' caused Angeles to\nhesitate in recognizing a govt whose elevated principles might very likely\nprove top-heavy.\nHist. Cal., Vol. ni.   SI\n 482 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nby foreigners in the northern outbreak. On the recommendation of Alcalde Arguello and Comandante\nSalazar, it was decided to send two comisionados to\nconsult with the authorities of Los Angeles and Santa\nBarbara on the course to be taken. \"The national\nhonor and integrity being at stake, not a moment\nshould be lost.\" Juan Bandini and Santiago E. Arguello were appointed for this commission,3and reached\nLos Angeles in time to take part in the meetings of\nthe ayuntamiento and people, November 25th-26th.\nAt the first of these meetings a plan was adopted to\nsave the country. By its terms the plan of Monterey\nwas rejected as an act of violence; other ayuntamientos\nwere invited to send each three persons to Los Angeles to elect a provisional gefe politico; the law\nmaking Los Angeles the capital was to be strictly\nenforced; military officers not engaged in the Monterey movement were to be invited by Comandante\nRocha to choose a temporary general; Los Angeles\nwas to await the cooperation of San Diego and Santa\nBarbara only, to carry out this plan; and these resolutions were to have effect until the national laws\nshould be again in full force. This was approved by\nthe people, and it was voted to place on file a list of\nadherents, to place under surveillance all who refused\nto sign it, and to arrest the emissaries said to be coming from the north. Next day, besides communications from Monterey, one was read from the alcalde of\nSanta Barbara, who represented his municipality as\ndeclining to approve the plan of Monterey until a provisional congress should meet in a central locality, and\n\u25a0Nov. 22, 1836, acta of the ayunt. Letter of Alcalde Arguello to Alcalde\nRequena, and instructions in 7 articles to the comisionados. S. Diego, Arch.,\nMS., 137-8. The agents were to have an interview with Gutierrez, if possible, to make known the perfect loyalty of S. Diego, and it was understood\nthat one of their duties would be to aid in devising means for the selection of\na legitimate temporary ruler. Nov. 22d, Alcalde Arguello orders mission administrators to furnish all needed aid to the comisionados on their journey,\nand he tells him of S. Diego mission, 'the national honor demands that you\nfurnish me two horses'! Id., 141.\n SAN DIEGO AND LOS ANGELES LOYAL. 483\nguaranties be offered of protection to lives and property of Mexicans.4\nBandini and Arguello returned home, and their report of what had taken place at Angeles was presented at the ayuntamiento meeting of the 29th, a\nreport which, like the speeches made, was full of loyalty and brave determination to avenge the insult to\nthe Mexican nation, with expressions of surprise and\nregret that selfish interests had prompted certain unprincipled men to \"abuse the candor of the Califor-\n> nians, and compromise them so shamefully.\" This\nwas simply 'Bandini versus Ramirez.' San Diego of\ncourse approved the plan of Los Angeles, and the\nthree electors named in accordance therewith were\nBandini, S. E. Arguello, and J. M. Marron, Pio Pico\nbeing substituted for Bandini a few days later on account of the latter's illness. Meanwhile the troops at\nSan Diego and San Luis became infected with a revolutionary spirit and refused to do duty\u2014that is, they\nj struck' for pay or supplies now that there might be\nurgent need of their services. This delayed the electors, and it is not quite certain that all of them reached\nLos Angeles at all.5\nAll seemed favorable now for the establishment of\na separate provisional government in the south, which\nshould either defeat the Monterey administration, or\nat least exact favorable terms of compromise; but obstacles began to present themselves. The action of\nthe garrisons at San Diego and San Luis seemed to\n*Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 200-12. Sessions of Nov. 25th-6th. Action of\ncitizens of Sta B. on Nov. 20th, announced by Alcalde Dana on Nov. 23d, also\nin Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 67-8. Art. 3 of these Sta Barbara resolutions is unintelligible. The Los Angeles plan, as reported by a committee\nof the ayunt., is also given in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 106-8, with a preface condemnatory of the people of Monterey, who, 'hallucinated with the\nidea of ruling all California themselves, have been deceived by adventurers. \\\n\u2022\"Nov. 28, 1836, report of the comisionados; Nov. 29th-30th, acta of\nayunt. of S. Diego; Dec. 1st, notice sent to Angeles; Dec. 3d-4th, Pico's\nappointment; Dec. 2d, 9th, 11th, corresp. between Arguello, Salazar, and\nPico about the revolt of troops; Dec. 16th, Alcalde Arguello complains that\ncommunication has ceased with the ayunt. of Los Angeles, and that all his\npatriotic efforts have been in vain. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 139-43, 14:7;' Los\nAngeles, Arch., MS., i. 107-20.\n 484   ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nindicate that the soldiers even of the south were not\nso intensely patriotic as to serve without food. Castillo Negrete was invited to take up his residence at\nLos Angeles, and give the loyal surenos the benefit\nof his counsels; but he declined the honor and the\nservice.6 And finally, at a session of the ayuntamiento December 10th, a communication was received\nfrom Santa Barbara, the ayuntamiento of which place\ndeclined to indorse the Angeles plan, proposing one\nof its own instead. The Barbarenos refused to take\npart in any sectional election held in the interest of\neither Monterey or Los Angeles; but favored a general junta composed of four delegates from each presidio and three from each town, to meet at Santa Ines,\nto work for the interests of the whole territory, and\nto choose provisional rulers. The Angelinos were\nnow discouraged, seeing nothing desirable iii the plan\nof Santa Barbara. They voted that nothing could\nbe done, thanked San Diego for its proffered cooperation, put on file with approval a protest of Castillo\nNegrete against the northern iniquity, and adjourned.7\nSuch was the situation at the end of December\n1836. At the beginning of 1837 new ayuntamientos\nwere installed; a fact which seems to have instilled\nnew life and courage into both Angelinos and Diegui-\nnos. The result was a new plan of Los Angeles,\ndated January 3d. Its purport was as follows: 1.\nThe plan of Monterey, so far as it relates to indepen-\n6 Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 213-14; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii.\n58.\n7 Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 215-19. Several proclamations of Vallejo\nand others in the north were also received and put on file. It was even allowed that these documents might be shown to such sound-minded and reliable men as had a curiosity to read them. The plan of Sta Barbara, apparently dated Dec. 9th, was in 4 articles. The 1st approved the preceding\nresolutions of Nov. 20th {see note 4); the 2d proposed the junta at Sta Ine's;\n3d, authorities to be provisional until approved by national govt; and, 4th,\nrefusal to take part in a sectional election, or counter-revolt. Dec. 29th, Alcalde Arguello sends a package of papers to the sup. govt by the Leonidas,\nand desires Castillo Negrete to put in a clear light in Mexico the patriotic\ndesires and efforts of himself and of San Diego in this crisis. S. Diego, Arch.,\nMS., 149.\n A NEW PLAN\u2014CORRESPONDENCE. 485\ndence from Mexico, is not recognized. 2. The electors at the proper time will come 'to this capital' and\nproceed to elect a diputacion according to law. 3, 4.\nUntil the new diputacion meets, the ayuntamiento of\nthis city will be the chief authority, but will turn\nover the command to the first vocal according to law.\n5. All to be submitted for approval to the supreme\ngovernment. San Diego was filled with joy at the\nreceipt of this plan on the 7th, and gladly promised\nsupport, though article 1 was deemed by the ayuntamiento not strong enough, and article 3 was feared\nto be illegal. The election was to be on the 29th,\nbefore which date several things happened, as we shall\nI have before me several communications, private\nletters for the most part, written by prominent men\nin November and December 1836, which deserve notice here, as throwing much light on this southern\ncomplication. Three of these papers are from the pen\nof Castillo Negrete, who, as we have seen, tarried a\nlittle in the south on his way to Mexico. The first\nis a letter of advice, dated at Santa Barbara November 18th to Lieutenant Domingo Carrillo, comandante\nof the post, respecting his duty in this' emergency.\nAfter being duly instructed about the Monterey iniquity, Carrillo was counselled to give his men an unlimited leave of absence until recalled to service in the\nname of the nation. All arms should be secreted,\nthat they might not fall into rebel hands. The troops\nmight however legally venture to aid the municipal\nauthorities in preserving order, always providing the\n8S. Diego, Arch., MS., 151-3; Los Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 126-7. Gil\nIbarra and Jos6 Sepulveda were the new alcaldes of Los Angeles; Jose* Antonio Estudillo held the office at S. Diego. On Jan. 2d the former ayunt.\nhad received the 9 decrees of the congreso constituyente, and had even as a\nmatter of courtesy acknowledged the receipt to Juan B. Alvarado. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 225-7. Andres Pico was the elector of S. Diego. Osio,\nHist. Cal., MS.,'320-2, says that Alcalde Ibarra was a nobody, and that the\nwhole opposition to Alvarado was managed by the ex-sindico, that is, by Osio\nhimself, through the 2d alcalde Sepulveda as an obedient agent. I shall\nhave more to say of Osio's course.\n 486 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nsaid authorities were loyal! Finally the comandante\nought to assemble his officers in a council of war to\nput on record their patriotic purposes. Thus might\nthey hope to escape the terrible consequences of revolt against Mexico.9\nThe licenciado's letters had a semi-official character, as his communication to Carrillo had been written\nin his capacity of legal adviser of the comandancia,\nand the other two as district judge of California under\nthe overthrown administration. From on board the\nLeonidas at San Diego, Don Luis in December directed\nto the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles a long exposition on the state of affairs. I regret that I have not\nspace to reproduce it nearly in full, for a resume does\nit no justice; but I present a few quotations in a note.10\n9 Castillo Negrete, Consejos al Comandante de Sta Bdrbara, Nov. 1836, MS.\nOriginal document. Nov. 20th, the judge certifies that Carrillo has remained\ntrue to the legitimate authority. Id., 9-11. Meanwhile Carrillo had perhaps followed the advice given by granting leave of absence to his men, to\nearn a living as they could. At any rate, I find such a discharge for one private dated Nov. 19th. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii: 266. Carrillo was later removed\nby Alvarado.\n10 Castillo Negrete, Exposicion quedirige elJuezdeDistrito al Ayuntamiento\ndeLos Angeles sobre el Plan revolucionario de Monterey, Dec 1836, MS. The\nday is left blank, but was probably Dec. 5th or 6th. 'A power usurpatory of\nour rights, disturber of our repose, pretends to take from us at the same time\norder and liberty.. .California's first necessity is to reestablish a legitimate\ngovernment.. .Californian inexperience may. be the victim of revolutionists,\nwho, seducing some incautious ones and favored by foreign smugglers, have\nset up in Monterey the throne of anarchy, and fixed the focus of a faction\nwhich is moved by unnatural men, without God, law, or country, and headed\nby four hallucinated deputies without skill or foresight, as blind instruments\nof the former.. .American adventurers and corrupt citizens found their hopes\non public calamity, on the ruin of the national treasury, on the protection of\nsmuggling, and on the squandering of mission property... Four ill-advised\ndiputados, abusing the name of diputacion, without powers, mission, or faculties, without having consulted public opinion, constitute themselves sovereigns\nand arrogate to themselves perpetually all legislative, executive, and judicial\npowers... It is not our duty to obey a diputacion not legally convoked.' (Yet\nthere is no evidence that the dip. convoked by Chico had ever been permanently adjourned.)..'. 'They are perjurers, breaking the oaths they took before God and men; traitors to the country, having forgotten the holy principle \"against the country there is no right.\".. .The so-called congreso con-\nstituyente merely follows the inspirations of a frantic philosopher, an\nold revolutionist, and a vicious foreign smuggler... The universal and\nurgent interest of the territory is to preserve peace, prevent the shedding\nof blood, and pro'tect life and property, being ruled by our respective ayunt.\nuntil the laws are again enforced.. .Let us check that faction which seeks to\nrule us without our consent, else the country wijl be covered with laws, the\nlegislators will be loaded with salaries and privileges. With republican\nphrases they will sow discord, plunder the treasury, and attack private for-\n CASTILLO NEGRETE'S ELOQUENCE. 487\nThe argument is an exhaustive, brilliant, and powerful one; though the author's denunciations of the\nrevolutionists and their policy are more bitter and\nviolent than there was any need to make them, their\nanimus being somewhat too clearly traceable to a personal dislike of two or three men. The remedy proposed was suggested at the end in a series of eight\nresolutions, on which, with some exaggeration, even\nof the author's estimate of metropolitan powers, was\nfounded the plan of January 3d already noticed. Don\nLuis issued also another formal protest against the\nMonterey movement, embodying more briefly his\nviews as expressed in the exposition, and intended to\nexplain the motives which obliged him to leave the\nterritory, for he did not feel at liberty to remain as\ninvited and help the Angelinos to carry into effect his\nsuggestions.11\nAntonio M. Osio, sindico of Los Angeles, who in\nlater writings claims to have been the chief promoter\ntunes, and respect neither God nor men... Have we not seen them break the\ncompact made on the field of Monterey, imprisoning some, expelling others,\nand forcing capitulated soldiers into their service?' (This charge had little\nif any foundation in fact.) He goes on to say that the electors sent to the\ncapital at the time fixed by law to renew the dip. were treated with scorn\nand not permitted to act. It is true that there was a summons for Nov. 6th,\nbut there is no other evidence that the electors were not allowed, or even\nattempted to perform their duties. Again, he speaks of 'the blind instruments of Ramirez, Pefia, and Hinckley, who would make of Cal. another\nTexas, and tear the national flag.. .Shall we be then like the Texans, victims\nsacrificed to foreign ambition? God forbid!. ..There is no ayunt. of higher\nrank than that of Los Angeles, since it is a city and by law the capital; therefore it should take the initiative.'\nHe then suggests the following plan: 1. The ayunt. of Los Angeles to\ninvite the others to form a 'common centre of union' to protect public welfare and avoid the disasters of an impending civil war. 2. The electors\nalready chosen to meet at Los Angeles and elect a new dip. 3. The dip. as\nsoon as formed to have the right to name a gefe politico and com. gen. 4.\nThe appointment of those rulers to be, however, provisional and subject to\nthe decision of the sup. govt. 5. The authorities of Los Angeles to write to\nthe 4 diputados of Monterey, begging them in the name of the country to\ndesist from their fatal purpose and favor the new election 'at the capital.'\n6. Angel Ramirez, Cosme Pefia, and Wm Hinckley to be sent to Mexico for\ntrial. 7. The new dip. to preserve order, etc., and to declare null the oaths\ntaken in support of independence. 8. The ayunt. to consult the people of the\ncity before acting on this proposition.\n11 Castillo Negrete, Protestacion del Juez de Distrito contra el Plan de Monterey 6 de Die 1836, MS. This and the preceding communications were re*\nceived at Los Angeles on Dec. 10th.\n 48S        ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nof the opposition to Alvarado, also wrote some letters\nwhich indicate that he had plans of his own, though\nthey do not make quite clear the purport of his schemes.\nThe 25th of November he sent to Antonio del Valle\na copy of the Los Angeles plan of that date, with a\nletter, to be shown also to the Carrillos, in which he\nsays: \"Although the plan touches some points that\nwe have not spoken of, I think they\"\u2014that is, the\nCarrillos and Osio's friends\u2014\"will agree to what I\npropose, according to our scheme, the difference being\nvery slight. It is necessary to choose rulers, and we\nshall play very badly the instrument in our hands if\nwe cannot make Vallejo comandante general. If the\npolitical command is separated\u2014which is not expedient in such cases\u2014we can give it to my uncle Don\nC&rlos [Carrillo], who is well known here and en la\notra banda, not a bad choice perhaps, whether he\nwishes it or not. Our friend Don Juan Rocha agrees\nto meddle in nothing, but merely to keep order with\nhis soldiers. I have told Don Juan Bandini he had\nbetter go home and keep quiet, since in this fandango\nonly Californians will be allowed to dance. This did\nnot please him, but it is best that he keep quiet,\nthough a friend. I will do all in my power to fulfil\nmy promises. I have already spoken with some\nfriends, who are ready to follow me. The comisionados from Monterey will be sent by the alcalde out of\nthis jurisdiction. Rocha will not admit them at San\nGabriel, and if they go to San Diego the Apostle\nAndre's [Pico] will send them about their business.\"12\nNext day Osio addressed Vallejo himself in a letter\nwhich throws but little light on the preceding. He\nhad been stunned with surprise and soirow, he wrote,\nat hearing what had happened at Monterey. He was\nsure Vallejo had nothing to do with the plan, but that\nCastro and Alvarado had used his\" Same without per-\n\" Osio, Carta sobre Combinaciones politicas\/SS de Nov. 1836, MS. Osio in\nhis history says nothing of these plans, which I do not pretend to understand\nfully.\n OSIO'S PROJECT. 489\nmission. It could result in' nothing but misfortune,\nand would make California the laughing-stock of the\nworld. Mexico could reconquer the territory, without\nexpending a dollar, by simply turning loose on its\nproperty a horde of Sonoran vagabonds. Vallejo\nmust*devise a speedy remedy; organize some kind of\na temporary government satisfactory to the people if\nnot strictly legal; and finally, go as a deputy to Mexico to explain matters. Independence is a foolish\ndream at present; and the writer quotes from Vallejo's\nold conversations with Echeandia, to the effect that\nCalifornia might one day be independent\u2014but only\nwhen their great-grandchildren should reach an advanced age! So far as intelligible, Osio's plan would\nseem to have involved a surrender to Mexico and\ncentralism on condition that Vallejo should be made\ngovernor and general.13\nJuan Bandini, as a matter of course, had something\nto say on the subject. In a letter of December 3d\nto Vallejo he represents himself as delirious with\nsorrow at what has occurred. The picture has no\nbright side. He loves California better than the\nland of his birth, but all his efforts and those of others\nin behalf of the country are now rendered vain and\nof no effect just when the prospects seemed fairest.\nThe result cannot fail to be disgrace and shame and\nvengeance. The Californians were mad to expose\ntheir plans without force to support them, to attempt\nto resuscitate the lost cause of federalism. \"It is\nhard to contend against one's own opinions, but it is\nharder to see a friend mixed up in so terrible a predicament.\"    Not a word of southern remedial plans.14\n13 Osio, Carta d Vallejo, 26 de Nov. 1886, MS. The writer implies that a\nvery extensive revolt in the south, in which the Indians were to have taken\npart, had been prevented by prompt measures; and he declares that the\n' Yanques' must be taught to let politics alone.\n14 Bandini, Carta a Vallejo, sobre revoluciones 8 de Die. 1886, MS. Pio\nPico adds a word of remembrance on the margin of Bandini's letter; and on\nthe same date writes to Vallejo on the subject. He expresses no disapproval\nof the plan; but doubts that Vallejo is concerned in it, as Alvarado claims.\nWere it so, surely he, Pico, would have been given a share in the enterprise.\nVallejo, Doc, iii 275.\n 490\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nOn the 7th Don Juan made a long report to the\nminister of hacienda on his favorite topic, using the\nrevolution as a new weapon against his old foe, Angel Ramirez, who had caused the outbreak solely to\ncover up his revenue frauds. The Californians had\nbeen led into a trap, and the real intention was to\nannex the territory to some foreign power. He sends\ndocuments to show that the south has disapproved\nsuch criminal plans, and that 'I have cooperated' in\nthis holy work.15 Five days later he wrote again to\nVallejo, in reply to a defence of the revolution. He\nreasoned earnestly and eloquently. He was still\nsure that Mexico would wreak a terrible vengeance\non all concerned, and trembled for his friend, who\nhad been so unfortunately misled. The whole matter\nhad in his mind no other phase than the punishment\nto be expected from Mexico and the agency of Angel Ramirez.16\nCarlos Antonio Carrillo took a more cheerful view\nof the situation. On the 5th of December he expressed his approval of what Castro and Alvarado\nhad done, though he feared the \u2022 article on independence could not be sustained for want of force. He\nattached little importance to the federal phases of the\nplan, for what had the federal government ever done\nfor California? He hoped much from the proposed\njunta at Santa Ines, and would do his best to unite\nthe south. He favored giving the civil as well as\nthe military command to Vallejo, as Osio had also\nurged. In two subsequent letters Don Carlos declared himself to be fully converted by the arguments\nadvanced, and an enthusiastic supporter of the whole\nscheme, independence and all. He even hoped to\ninduce the south to share his views. He had heard,\nhowever, that Bandini, Rocha, and others had sent\nto Sonora for aid, and wished Vallejo to come south\n15 S. Diego, Arch., MS., 145.    Bandini to min. of hac, Dec. 7, 1836.\n16 Bandini, Carta Particular d Vallejo sobre Cosas Politicas, 12 de Die.\n1836, MS.\n CARLOS CARRILLO FAVORS ALVARADO. 491\nwith as large a force as possible.17 Several writers,\ntreating the subject superficially, have confounded\nthese events with those of later date, and represented\nDon Cdrlos as Alvarado's chief opponent from the\nfirst.\nAlvarado had left the capital on or about Christmas.\nHis army consisted of some sixty Californians, and\ntwenty-five foreigners under Graham and Coppinger.\nPart of the force went down the coast on the Clementine, landed at El Cojo, and joined the rest at Purisima. Letters received before starting and on the\nway left little doubt of a kind reception at Santa Barbara. Messengers sent forward from Purisima brought\nback confirmation of favorable prospects, and the\nforces of the Estado Libre arrived at the mission January 3d, being cordially received by the Barbarenos\nof all classes.18\nConservative Santa Barbara, as we have seen,\nthough favoring a general junta in central California\nand requiring pledges that Mexicans should not be\npersecuted, had virtually favored the Monterey plan\nfrom the first by refusing to accept the opposing plan\nof Los Angeles. Carlos Carrillo and his friends had\nexpressed their approval. Valentin Cota had been in\ncommunication with Alvarado and received from him\na captain's commission.19    And, what was much more\n17 Carrillo, Cartas de Don Carlos al Gen. Vallejo, Die 1886, MS. The last\nletter was dated Dec. 23d. The leaders of the opposition, besides Bandini\nand Rocha, were said to be Manuel Dominguez, Vicente Sanchez, Estudillo,\nRequena, and Arenas. Felix Gallardo had been sent to Sonora by Rocha\nand paid $60 and two horses.\n18 J. J. Pico, Acontedmientos, MS., 38-9, claims to have commanded the\nparty that went by sea; but Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., 189-94, says the commander was Benito Diaz. He tells us that Capt. Hinckley had volunteered\nto take a force in his vessel and conquer the south; but his offer was declined,\na peaceful settlement being hoped for. This writer and Vallejo, Hist. Cal,\nMS., iii. 245, name Jacinto Rodriguez as the agent sent forward from Purisima. Pinto\u2014Apunt., MS., 24-7\u2014appointed alferez in Alvarado's force, gives\nsome details of recruiting men for the expedition. He went to Sta Cruz and\nobtained 35 men. The total force was 200 men. Janssens, Vida, MS., 87,\nsays that Villa and Buelna, the comisionados, had visited Sta Barbara before\nAlvarado's coming.\n19 Cota, Doc, MS., 5-6; Guerra, Doc, MS., v. 303-5.\n 492\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nimportant, Jose* de la Guerra y Noriega and Padre\nNarciso Duran had determined to support the new\ngovernment. These gentlemen have not left on record any expression of their views at this time. To\nwhat extent, if at all, they were influenced by a spirit\nof antagonism as Spaniards to everything Mexican,\nor by the fact that a son of Guerra was one of the\nfour revolting diputados, it is impossible to determine;\nbut there is much reason to conclude that they looked\nupon Alvarado's success, now that the movement had\ngone so far, as more likely to bring about peace and\nprosperity than would be the success of the southern\nfaction with its radical sectional policy and wavering\nsupport.\nAt any rate, the support of Duran, Guerra, and\nCarrillo made the way clear at Santa Barbara. President Duran went out to meet Alvarado, whom he received at the mission with all the honors paid in olden\ntimes to the governor, walking by his side to the\nchurch where the religious ceremonies de estilo were\nperformed. This was on January 3d; a few days were\nspent in interviews with leading men; and on the\n6th the ayuntamiento and people with great enthusiasm and all possible ceremony and noise took the oath\nof allegiance to the new system, the new governor,\nand the congreso constituyente. \"The people here\nare even more enthusiastic for the cause than those\nof Monterey,\" wrote Alvarado to Castro and Vallejo.20\n20 Jan. 9, 1837, Alvarado to Castro. Official and private letters in Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., iii. 152; iv. 8. Jan. 12th, A. to V. Private letter in Vallejo,\nCorresp., MS., 37-8. In these letters Alvarado manifests much real interest\nin the country's welfare; hopes for a peaceful settlement of all troubles; and\ngives to Carlos Carrillo the chief credit for the brilliant success at Sta Barbara. The fact of Sta Barbara's adhesion at some date before Jan. 11th is\nrecorded in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 234. In his Hist. Cal, MS., iii\n205-13, Alvarado narrates his experience at Sta Barbara. He says that P.\nDuran tried to impose some favorable conditions for the missions; but yielded\nthe point, when Alvarado declared that he was pledged to complete the work\nof secularization. So great was the enthusiasm that \"the gov. thought once\nmore of absolute independence for Cal., and consulted Duran about blessing\nand raising a flag of that purport; but the friar declined to bless the flag,\nand dissuaded him, so that the project was dropped. Vallejo, Hist. Cal.,\nMS., iii. 245-9.\n OPPOSITION AT ANGELES. 493\nThe news was not, however, altogether cheering from\nthe south. There was still a strong party at Los\nAngeles that would not be conciliated. In the letters\ncited, Alvarado explained the situation to his northern\nassociates; expressed his opinion that it would be\nnecessary to overcome the obstinacy of the Angelinos\nby a show of force; and ordered Castro to come immediately by sea to San Pedro with a reenforcement,\nand to meet him at sLos Angeles, whither he would\nsoon start.21 Meanwhile he made preparations for\nhis march,^enlisting some recruits for his army, both\nnative and foreign.22 He also found time to address\ntwo communications to the recalcitrant ayuntamiento\nof Angeles, in which he tried to demonstrate the\njustice of his cause, the groundless character of the\nfears that had been entertained, and the falsehood of\nthe charges that he would adopt a sectional policy or\ndeliver his country to the hands of foreigners or disturb any Mexican who should abstain from plots\nagainst the new system. He declared that his resources were ample to sustain the conditional independence declared, and that federalism was already\ntottering throughout the nation. He hoped sincerely\nthat Los Angeles would follow the example of Santa\nB&rbara, receive him in a spirit of conciliation, and\nunite with other towns in working for the welfare of\nthe whole country. His military force, he said, was\nmore than sufficient to enforce his views, but he hoped\nhis countrymen would not oblige him to use it against\nthem.23 At last with a force of eighty men, besides the\nriflemen, the governor began his march by way of\n21 Jan. 9,1837, A. to C, in Vallejo, Corresp., MS., 44-5. It would seem that\nVallejo also was urged to come to the south. Id., 37-8. Sra Avila, Cosas de\nCal, MS., 16-17, notes the rejoicings at Monterey, especially among the\nwomen, when the news of Sta Barbara's adhesion came.\n22Nidever, Life and Adven., MS., 87-8, was one who joined Graham's\nriflemen at Sta Barbara. The number was at last about 40. They were paid\n$2 a day, and promised the privilege of taking up lands later. They served\nabout 20 days.\n23 Alvarado, Comunicaciones al Ayuntamiento de Los Angeles, 7yl6 deEnero,\n1887, MS.   The second letter was written at Si Buenaventura.\n 494 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nSan Buenaventura, at which mission he was on the\n16th-17th.\nLet us turn now to the southern ayuntamientos,\nwhich illustrious and patriotic bodies we left jubilant\nover the plan of January 3d, evolved mainly from the\nbrain of Castillo Negrete, as a measure which was to\nsave the country from northern tyranny. By the 8th\nAlvarado's complete success at Santa Barbara was\nknown at Angeles, and rumors were current that\nhe intended to extend his march southward. Accordingly the people were called to arms. All persons sympathizing with the foe were ordered to leave\nthe city, the mission funds at San Fernando to the\namount of $2,000 were taken by the municipal authorities 'for safe keeping,' scouts were stationed on the\nSanta Barbara routes, the southern missions were\nnotified to be ready with supplies, and San Diego\nwas requested to send at once an armed force of patriots to aid in repelling the invader.24 San Diego\nhad from the first been full of zeal for the cause, and\nhad on one or two occasions reproached the Angelinos for their lukewarmness. The ayuntamiento had\nstill an unlimited supply of patriotic and warlike\nphrases for its ally; but to be thus suddenly called\nupon for such aid as men and muskets and a cannon\nwas really very startling. This was a radical measure,\nand required caution and deliberation. It was clear\nthat if the rebels of Monterey were really threatening\nan invasion of the 'law and order' towns, something\nmust be done. Therefore it was resolved to await\nmore particulars of news from the north, and to inquire what it was proposed to do with the force asked\nfor!    And nearly a week later, when a reply had been\n24 Jan. 6th, 8th, sessions of ayunt., in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 228-32;\nDept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 96-7; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 154. On Jan.\n11th the news was received officially that Sta Barbara had adhered to the\nnorthern cause, and refused to send electors accordingly to the plan of Jan.\n3d; also that S. Diego would accept that plan. On the same day Alvarado's\nfirst letter was received, and it was resolved that his authority could not be\nrecognized.  Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 233-4.\n SAN DIEGAN PATRIOTISM. 495\nobtained from the alcalde of Los Angeles, San Diego\nwent to work in earnest. On or about the 18th,\ntwenty men under Pio Pico and Regidor Francisco\nM. Alvarado started northward, in time to arrive at\nLos Angeles after the war was over.25\nThe Angelinos, notwithstanding the lack of support\nfrom San Diego, pushed forward their preparations\nfor defence. The mission money was partly expended\nin this work; the soldiers at San Gabriel were summoned to the city; one Charlefoux, with a band of\nthirty or forty^Jndian-hunters and 'traders' in horses,\nwas induced to join the patriot army; citizens and\nrancheros were enlisted; and by the 16th a force of\nabout 270 men was stationed at San Fernando, under\nAlferez Rocba as commander-in-chief, Alcalde Sepulveda having been the leading spirit in directing the\npreparations, and issuing on the 17th an address in\nwhich the citizens were called upon to prove by their\ndeeds that, however far others had followed the\nMonterey faction out of the path of duty, there were\nleft men who were ready to defend the honor of their\nbeloved country. It would seem also that Sepulveda\nhad sent to Alvarado a copy of his address, or certain\npropositions embodying the same sentiments, and that\nhis commissioners may have brought back from San\nBuenaventura the governor's second communication\nalready cited.26\n25 Jan. 10th, 12th, 16th, sessions of ayunt. Jan. 11th, corres. of Alf. Sala-\nzar, and his call for money and supplies. Jan. 14th, 16th, 18th, 23d, Alcalde\nEstudillo to Osuna, Cabello, Fitch, etc., about preparations for the march.\nS. Diego, Arch., MS., 155-66; Los Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 128-35. Jan.\n17th, Pio Pico says he will start with 25 men next day, picking up recruits\non the way. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 101. Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS., iii. 180-1, 217-18, 225, 232, tells us that Salazar was a friend of Castro,\nand purposely interposed obstacles; also that Capt. Fitch supplied only\nmoistened powder. He is very bitter against the Dieguinos as braggarts, who\nwould do nothing but talk, and to whom 'the Supreme Being had denied the\ngift of veracity.'\n26 Jan. 11th, 16th, sessions of ayunt. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 234-7.\nJan. 15th-17th, communications of Sepulveda and Rocha. Dept. St. Pap.,\nAngeles, MS., ii. 94-102. Jose* Perez was accused by Sepulveda of talking in\nfavor of the Monterey faction. The Indian allies are called Chaguanosos by\nJanssens and others, and Shauanoos (Shawnees ?) by Osio. The chief is called\nShalifii.    Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 321-40, gives many details of the prepara-\n 496 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nAlvarado's letter of the 16th was read at an* ayuntamiento meeting of the 17th. The allusion in it to his\nlarge resources for war seemed to the Angelinos a\nvery forcible point of his argument, and they were\nconvinced by a careful study of the document that the\npolicy of Don Juan Bautista was not so oppressive\nor unpatriotic perhaps as had been feared. Another\nletter from Antonio M. Osio was read, in which the\nwriter solicited powers to form an arrangement with\nAlvarado on an equitable basis, providing that the\n\"ruler should be a Californian. After a long discussion,\nit was resolved to send Sepulveda and Osio as comisionados, with authority to effect a settlement in\naccordance with the following resolutions: 1. The\nayuntamiento is anxious to avoid bloodshed, even at\nthe cost of some sacrifice not involving disrespect to\nlaws and oaths. 2. The plan of independence from\nMexico cannot be accepted, though there is no objection to a declaration in favor of the federal system.\n3. The Roman catholic religion must be the only\none permitted, and persons publicly holding other\nviews must be prosecuted as hitherto. 4. No officer\nor citizen is to be molested for opinions respecting this\nrevolution upheld by him prior to the ratification of\nthis treaty. 5. The state of things decided upon is\nto be binding upon both parties until the supreme\ngovernment shall decide, with the understanding that\nLos Angeles is not to be held responsible for the\ntions for defence, in which he himself was the leading man and Sepulveda's\ncounsellor. He aroused great indignation against the Monterey plan by assuring the women that under it protestant priests were to be tolerated who\nwould marry any girl that desired it to any foreigner, whatever his religion!\nThe women were terrified, and exhorted their husbands and sons to fight for\ntheir daughters and sweethearts and the catholic faith. Their conduct is\npraised as heroic. Osio gives the force as over 300 in 4 companies. He says\nthat Sepulveda and Manuel Dominguez went to S. Buenaventura to have an\ninterview with Alvarado, to persuade him to retire and be content with ruling\nthe north until the sup. govt should decide, and above all to ascertain the\nmilitary strength of the enemy. They were kindly received, but the succeeding particulars are not intelligibly expressed by Osio, though the spies\nlearned that Alvarado's force was far inferior to their own. All expected\nblood to flow, and the privilege of shooting Alvarado had been awarded by\ncommon consent to Sepulveda.\n THE HOSTILE ARMIES DRAW NEAR. 497\ntreaty, since it is made merely to prevent bloodshed\nin California.27 Next day Sepulveda wrote that every\nman capable of bearing arms should be sent to the\nfront, as the people of Monterey were approaching\nand had replied to his messages that on the 19th they\nwould be within gunshot on the plain of San Fernando.\nAlvarado, with his army of 110 men and two pieces\nof artillery, had left San Buenaventura on the 17th,\nand after a day's march in the rain had halted for the\nnight at Cayeguas rancho, whence he despatched the\nmessage cited above, and where he had a conference\nwith Osio and others sent by Sepulveda, a conference\nresulting in nothing beyond an agreement to hold\nanother nearer San Fernando on the 19th.28 Next\nday Alvarado advanced to the Calabazas rancho,\nwhere, or perhaps at Encino, he met Sepulveda and\nOsio on the 19th. The comisionados had meanwhile\nreported at San Fernando the inferiority of Alvarado's\nforce, thus, arousing a somewhat warlike spirit, if we\nmay .credit Osio's statement; but they had also re-\n27 Jan. 17th, 18th, session of ayunt. Los Angeles. Arch., MS., iv. 238-41;\nDept. St. Pap., MS., xi. 61-5. On Jan. 18th Pio Pico's letter was received,\nwith news that he was coming with 25 men; and the news was forwarded to\nS. Fernando. Id., Angeles, ii. 83. The S. Diego force, 20 strong, arrived on\nJan. 21st (too late to be sent to S. Fernando, as will be seen later). Los Angeles,\nArch., MS., 243-7. Ignacio Coronel was comandante at S. Gabriel after\nRocha's departure. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 99-100. Jan. 18th,\nSepulveda to Alcalde Ibarra. Id., ii. 100-1. Janssens, Vida, MS., 88-9,\nclaims to have commanded the garrison at S. Gabriel.\n28 Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 291-7, still speaking of himself as 'the friend of\nSepulveda,' and not naming the other comisionados, gives some details of the\nnegotiations at Cayeguas on the evening of Jan. 17th and morning of the 18th,\nthough he gives no dates. He. attributes the failure to the * pertinaz arro-\ngancia licurga' of Alvarado and Pefia, who put on airs of importance, and insisted on seeing the comisionados' credentials, which of course was impossible,\nas they had none. Osio says also that Carlos and Anastasio Carrillo were on\nthe spot working to prevent a conflict. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 215-\n25, like Vallejo, Hut. Cod., MS., iii. 249-59, says he refused to treat because\nthe comisionados, whom he says were Osio, Valle, and Lugo, insisted on addressing him as \\ chief of the northern forces,' instead of governor, some of\nthem even carrying their familiarity so far as to call him Juanito. In a report\nwritten a few days later, Alvarado\u2014Carta en que relata la Campana de San\nFernando, 22 de Enero, 1837, MS., being addressed to Gen. Vallejo, and also\nto the ayunt. of Monterey\u2014says nothing of these preliminary negotiations.\nHe says his force was 80 men, but I think this cannot have included Graham's\nmen.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   32\n 498\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nceived the ayuntamiento's instructions of the 17th to\nform a treaty. Andres Pico, who accompanied them,\nhad brought from the south the news not only that\nreinforcements were coming, but that Pio Pico and\ntwo associates were on the way as comisionados for\nSan Diego, and in order that those gentlemen might\ntake part in the negotiations they were again postponed until the next day.29\nOn the morning of the 20th, as Pico had not arrived,\nSepulveda and Osio, probably accompanied by others,\nwent again to Encino or Calabazas. Instead of proceeding to negotiate a treaty, however, they merely\nshowed to Alvarado their instructions, which had been\nintended to be kept secret, and obtained his approval\nof them in writing on the margin, together with an\nadditional promise, written in pencil, not to molest\nany one, Mexican or Californian, for having taken up\narms under the alcalde's orders. The document, with\nwhich the reader is familiar, was regarded by the governor as not conflicting in any essential point with\nthe plan of Monterey, and as one which he was amply\nauthorized to sign by virtue of the 'extraordinary\npowers' which had been given him. The comisionados\nnow set up the claim that, as a treaty had been signed,\nAlvarado should at once disband his forces and retire\nto the north. To this, of course, not being a man\nentirely out of his senses, Don Juan Bautista would\nnot listen; and after long discussions, he brought the\nmatter to a close on the 21st by sending a message to\nSepulveda that if San Fernando was not surrendered\n29Mainly the version of Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 297-300, 341-2, but confirmed more or less fully by contemporary records. Osio represents the leaders\nand men at S. Fernando as much disgusted with the ayuntamiento's instructions, which,were the work of Alcalde Ibarra and his adviser Requena. He\nalso says that Andres Pico had a secret conversation with Alvarado, which\nsuggested to \\ the friend of Sepulveda' grave suspicions of some trick. Alvarado himself, in his Hist. Cal, MS., affirms that the negotiations were broken\noff as before by the refusal of the comisionados to recognize him as governor,\nthough one of them went so far as to call him j excelencia;' whereupon he\ncalled them fools, and sent them off [ con cajas destempladas.' He also tells of\nan Indian, Mauricio, who was hired to return to S. Fernando with the tale\nthat Castro had arrived with a large reenforcement.\n FALL OF SAN FERNANDO. 499\non the messenger's return he would take it by force.\nThe order was obeyed at once, Rocha's men retired\ntowTard the city, and Sepulveda came out in person to\ntell the Monterey chief that the stronghold of the\npatriots was at his disposal. Alvarado accordingly\noccupied the mission with his army late in the afternoon of the 21st, and next day reported his success\nto his associates in the north.30\nOn January 21st, before the fall of San Fernando\nwas knoWcii in the city, a meeting of the ayuntamiento\nwas held, at which Pio Pico, Joaquin Ortega, and\nMartin S. Cabello, having presented their credentials\nas representatives of San Diego, were added to the\ncomisionados appointed and instructed on the 17th,\nand the instructions were modified or enlarged so as\n80 Alvarado, Carta en que relata la Campana de S. Fernando, MS. The\nwriter does not state what the agreement was, but simply says it differed very\nslightly from the established plan. He says his men were anxious to fight,\nand were with difficulty restrained. The agreement is given in Los Angeles,\nArch., MS., iv. 249-50; Dept. St. Pap., MS., xi. 64-5, and is literally as follows: 'The citizen Juan B. Alvarado, governor of the free and sovereign state\nof Alta California, declares his acceptance of the resolution passed by the\nillustrious ayuntamiento of the city of Los Angeles on the 17th inst, and by\nvirtue of the extraordinary faculties with which he is invested, does hereby\nconform to all that is contained in the articles expressed in the aforesaid\nresolution. Field of San Fernando, Jan. 2D, 1837. Juan B. Alvarado, Lie.\nCosme Pefia, secretary.' Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 343-8, says that Alvarado\nwas surprised and delighted at getting such favorable terms at such a critical\nmoment, when the most he had hoped for was to be allowed to rule over the\nregions north of Sta Barbara. The 'friend of Sepulveda' was sad to think of\nthe mothers of Los Angeles, and Alvarado, on learning the cause of his melancholy, promised that during his rule the decree of religious tolerance should\nnot be enforced, and the girls should not be encouraged to marry protestants,\nJews, and heretics. This author says nothing of the attempt to prevent\nAlvarado from remaining in the south. He says it was a hard task for Sepulveda and his 'friend,' not only to curb their own wrath, but to calm the warlike leaders at S. Fernando, especially Rocha, who raved like a madman,\ndeclaring that in future he would take a barber with him in his campaigns to\nbleed him, since it was the only way ever to see blood in Californian wars.\nJan. 23d, Carlos Carrillo writes to Vallejo, expressing his joy at the triumph\nof 'our cause.' Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 14. On Jan. 31st the current news at\nS. Diego was that the northern leaders had surrendered! So writes Alcalde\nEstudillo to the comandante of fronteras, who had been ordered to send aid,\nbut had not done so because he learned from 'unofficial sources' that it would\nbe useless. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 165. May 26th, Comandante Martinez at\nS. Francisco has learned of the victory at S. Fernando over 270 men. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iv. 161-2. Mention of the S. Fernando campaign in Janssens,\nVida, MS., 87-9; Avila, Notas, MS., 20; Botello, Anales, MS., 27; Nidever's\nLife, MS., 85-8.\n ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nto provide that their purport must not be divulged to\nthe northerners, and no one of the latter must be permitted under the treaty that might be formed to enter\nLos Angeles.31 Don Pio started for San Fernando\nwith his twenty men, and met Rocha's army in full\nretreat. It wras a good opportunity to make a show\nof his own valor by expressing disgust and rage at a\nstate of things so disgraceful, but he gradually became\ncalmer, and did not attempt to retake the mission writh\nhis brave but tardy Dieguinos.82\nThe ayuntamiento met again on the 22d, when\nthe occupation of San Fernando must have been\nknown, though it was not mentioned at the meeting,\nto listen to a report from the comisionados and a letter of thanks from Alvarado, who announced that on\narrival in the city he would give a greater proof of\nhis gratitude. But the Angelinos were in no mood\nfor kindly greetings; and after due deliberation, they\ndecided that their instructions as approved by Alvarado should be deemed in no sense to constitute a\nbinding treaty, since no signatures of the comisionados were affixed to it, and because the latter had not\nin truth been free agents, having been forced, as it\nwere, to show their instructions by the threatening\nattitude of the invader's troops. Therefore, all the\narrangements were declared null and void. California\nwras not a sovereign state, Alvarado was not its governor, and Los Angeles was again ready to defend\nthe national integrity. Orders were accordingly issued\nto post guards and take other measures for active defence\/\"\n81 Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 243-4, 246-7.\n82Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 348-9, who was of course in the rear guard of the\nretreating force, describes Pico's wrath. He tells us also that Cabello insulted Sepulveda on account of his agency in making such a treaty. Firearms were drawn, but no blood spilt. Osio himself lost his temper and talked\nof cowards when Requena claimed that the instructions had been misunderstood. Pico himself, Hist. Cal, MS., 59-62, pretends to have gone on to S.\nFernando, had a long interview with Alvarado, and obtained from him certain concessions which insured peace, and made it possible for the governor\nto enter Angeles.\n83Session of Jan. 22d. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 248-52.\n THE GOVERNOR AT LOS ANGELES. 501\nThe result of all these reactionary and defensive\nmeasures was\u2014and without any intermediate diplomacy, so far as the records show\u2014that Alvarado entered the city without resistance, probably on the 23d,\ncertainly within two or three days. He was accompanied by Graham's company and by the Monterey\nmilitia, leaving the Santa Barbara volunteers at San\nFernando. Castro, with thirty or forty men, arrived\nfrom Monterey on or about the same day.34 Bocha's\nsoldiers were at San Gabriel. The volunteers of the\nAngeles army had disbanded, but the twenty Die-\nguinos were still encamped in the city, and aided the\nnorthern troops in preserving order.\nThe ayuntamiento met once more on the 26th.\nThe meeting was attended also by Alvarado, J. J.\nPico, and Miguel Avila of Monterey, by Pio Pico,\nOrtega, Cabello, and Regidor Alvarado of San Diego,\nand by A. M. Osio of Los Angeles. No allusion was\nmade to the resolutions adopted at the last session, but\nthe object was to take into consideration the agreement made with Alvarado at San Fernando.35 The\ngovernor addressed the meeting in defence of the new\nsystem, and proposed a plan in six articles on which he\nthought all might agree, thus avoiding future controversy. This plan was referred to a committee of\nthree, Pio Pico, Cabello, and Osio, who reported it\nback with certain modifications, mainly intended, as\nit would seem, to obscure its exact meaning and provide for subsequent variations of interpretation.36   The\n34 Jan. 9th, Alvarado orders Castro to come south with 20 men by sea.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 9. Jan. 14th, Castro to Vallejo. Will start in 3 days.\nId., iv. 11. Jan. 17th, C. says he will start at 4 p. m. with 50 men by land,\nas the Clementine is not ready. Id., iv. 12. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii.\n216, 226-30, says that to raise funds Castro had to pledge his own property\nto Spence and Malarin. The debt was paid by Alvarado after 1841. The two\nofficers lodged at the house of Abel Stearns. The city was carefully patrolled\nbut no disturbance occurred.\n35It is spoken of as the agreement made by the 2 alcaldes and the S. Diego\ncomisionados with Alvarado, and would seem therefore to have been distinct\nfrom that of Jan. 20th; but there is no record to show its nature. It was\nperhaps the interview mentioned by Pico.    See note 32.\n36 The plan was in substance as follows, the portions in parentheses being\nthe committee's additions: 1. Alta California proclaims the federal system\n 502 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\ngist of it was that a new diputacion should assemble at\nSanta Barbara on February 25th, to adopt or reject\nwhat had been done at Monterey, always supporting\nfederalism, and insisting on a native ruler. It was\nformally approved by all parties. Then followed\nspeeches of congratulation at the victory achieved over\ndifficulties that had threatened to set Californians at\nenmity one with another. Pio Pico wished to be put\non record as saying that he would support a native\nruler to whatever section he might belong. Antonio\nM. Osio declared that \" sooner than submit to another\nMexican mandarin, he would retire to the forest and\nbe devoured by wild beasts;\" while Alvarado, in a\nclosing speech, promised a faithful fulfilment of the\ncompact.37\nof 1824 (since the new system of centralism has not been sworn by the dip.,\nand the system now ruling in the nation is not known). 2. The dip., to be\nchosen by electors according to Mexican law, will assemble and take into consideration what has been decreed in favor of the Monterey system. (The dip.\nwill meet and act in accordance with the laws in force.) 3. All that has\nbeen done will remain in force until the dip. meets. 4. The present govt\nwill summon the electors or decree the election. (To meet at Sta. Barbara\non Feb. 25th.) The two copies do not.agree. 5. The decree dividing Cal.\ninto 2 cantons is null and void. 6. Until the federal system shall have been\nrestored, no ruler appointed by the Mexican govt shall be admitted. (As\nsoon as possible the sup. govt will be informed by competent authority that\norder is restored, and asked to appoint an hijo del pais to govern Cal.) In the\ndiscussions on art. 6, it was agreed on both sides that no Mexican ruler would\nbe likely to be admitted, but it was urged that Mexico should be allowed to\ngrant a native ruler in answer to a request, rather than be ordered to do so.\n37 Ayunt. session of Jan. 26th, in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 254-62; S.\nDiego, Arch., MS., 156,163-4; Bandini, Doc, MS., 45. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS.,\n352-5, gives a different account, saying nothing of the plan adopted and of\ncourse nothing about his own speech. He says that Alvarado on reaching\nAngeles summoned the ayunt. to meet within an hour, caused himself to be\nrecognized as governor, and then thanked the members for their resolution of\nthe 22d, since it relieved him from all his agreements, made only because of\nhis inferior force, especially from his promise not to punish any one for past\nacts\u2014at which all turned pale! Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 230-7, and Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 249-59, narrate events at Angeles substantially in\naccordance with the records. Botello, Anales del Sur, MS., 28-9, and Pico,\nAcont., MS., 40-3, though both participants in these events, add nothing to\nour knowledge of them.\nJan. 30th, Alvarado demanded and received what was left of the money\ntaken from S. Fernando, with which to support his men. Los Angeles, Arch.,\nMS., iv. 267-9. J. J. Pico says he went with three men to get the money,\nabout $1,500. Osio says he delivered the money, $1,785, and that Alvarado\ntold him he was a fool not to have taken half the amount for his trouble!\nAlso on Jan. 30th Alvarado complained that several men were plotting mischief, and urged the ayunt. to adopt prompt measures. Los Angeles, Arch.,\nMS., iv. 267.   Vallejo says that 9 men, including Pio Pico, were arrested.\n PEACE RESTORED. 503\nHaving issued on the 1st of February a summons\nfor the electors to meet on the 25th, Alvarado, in letters sent northward on the 2d and 3d, narrated briefly\nwhat had occurred at Angeles. Officially he stated\nthat the modifications of the original plan, to which\nhe had assented, were not essential, while it had been\nnecessary to make concessions to conciliate public\nopinion in the south. In a private letter he explained\nthat under the present plan he hoped to reach, though\nby a roundabout course, his original aim, by managing\nto secure a inajority in the new diputacion. Otherwise it would have been necessary to maintain a military force permanently in the south, which would\nhave been an intolerable burden to the treasury.38\nLeaving Castro with thirty men to garrison San Gabriel and preserve order,39 Alvarado left San Fernando February 5th, and two days later arrived at Santa\nBarbara, where he found the popular enthusiasm unabated, and where his first act was to send home the\nMonterey troops and Graham's riflemen.40\nThus far all had gone well with Alvarado in the\nsouth; but there followed during February and March\n88 Alvarado, Carta en que relata los Sucesos de Los Angeles, 2 de Feb. 1837,\nMS., the same letter being sent to different officials. Feb. 3d, Alvarado to\nVallejo, private letter, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 176. He says that Domingo Carrillo refused to take the oath, and was removed from the command at\nSta Barbara. Rocha may have to be removed also. At S. Diego under Sala-\nzar there is really no garrison.\nS9Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 273^-4.\n40 Feb. 9, 1837, Alvarado to Vallejo, Estrada, and alcalde of S. Jose*, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 29; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 160-1; Id., S. Jose; v. 43.\nNidever, Life, MS., 85-8, says the riflemen were paid off at Sta Barbara.\nAlvarado tells us that he wished to retain Graham's men, but was advised by\nCastro that there was danger of not being able to pay them, and that it would\nbe best to discharge them while no dissatisfaction existed. The foreigners\nwere complimented in speeches and departed in good humor.\nSome references to printed accounts of the troubles in the south, some of\nthem extending over several years, and all very inaccurate and inextricably\nconfused wherever they arc more than a bare mention, are: Mofras, Explor.,\ni. 301-2; Petit-Thouars, Voyage, ii. 92-9; Forbes' Hist. Cal., 150-1; Wilkes'\nNarr., v. 175-9; Robinson's Life in Cal, 173-7; Gleeson's Hist. Cath. Church,\ni. 144-9; Ferry, Califomie, 2&-1. Manuscript statements on the southern\ncampaigns, adding nothing to what has been given, are: Castro, Relacion,\nMS., 41-4; Marsh's Letter, MS., 8; Vallejo, Remin., MS., 123-5; Lugo, Vida,\nMS., 23-5; Arce, Memoria, MS., 12-13; Robinson's Statement, MS., 15, 26;\nGalindo, Apuntes, MS.* 36-8.\n 504 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\na period of inaction which was unfavorable to his complete success, even if it did not develop any actual\ntriumph for his opponents. Notwithstanding the concessions gained, and their pretended enthusiasm, many\ninfluential southerners still chose to regard themselves\nas vanquished or tricked foes, rather than conciliated\nfriends of the plan as it stood. They withheld that\nhearty support which alone could have resulted in political harmony. Pio Pico's actions were mysterious,\nand he was suspected of exerting all his influence secretly against the government. Manuel Requena and\nother recalcitrant Angelinos were sent by Castro to\nthe governor, expecting to be banished to Sonoma, but\nwere released by Alvarado on signing an agreement\nnot to meddle in politics.41 Alvarado's letters to General Vallejo at this time show the anxiety which he\nfelt, containing alternate expressions of confidence and\ndiscouragement. Early in March the report was circulated, with quieting effects, that Vallejo was intending to come south with a hundred men.42\n41 Feb. 11,1837, Alvarado to Vallejo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 32. Reque-\nna's companions were Vicente Sanchez, Luis Arenas, Juan Gallardo, Antonio\ndel Valle, J. M. Ramirez, Juan Salazar, Antonio Avila, and others. Rocha\nwas in the number summoned, but ran away. Alvarado allowed him to return,\nbut not to be comandante or administrator. Botello, Anales, MS., 69-70,\nsays that Requena was sent into a kind of exile at Sta In6s, until in 1838 he\nretired to L. California. Janssens, Vida, MS., 89-92, describes the adventures\nof himself, Orozco, Rojas, and others, who fled from Los Angeles and also\ntook refuge in the peninsula.\n42Mar. 4th, ayunt., in answer to a request for quarters and supplies for\nVallejo's men, refused to incur any expense; but resolves that there are plenty\nof supplies and probably buildings also to be had for money. Los Angeles,\nArch., MS., iv. 285-6. Feb. 27th, March 13th, 16th, announcement of Vallejo's coming at S. Diego. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 70-2; S. Diego,\nArch., MS., 173. March 6th, all quiet; but there may be trouble, as some\ndon't wish Cal. to be a state. Governor's course approved by all good men.\nRobbers being strictly dealt with. Alvarado to Vallejo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\niv. 209. March 12th, Carlos Carrillo says to Vallejo that the people of Los\nAngeles are very well disposed, even more addicted to the new system than the\nBarbarefios. Id., iv. 214. March 9th, the people well disposed. 'If freedom\nis not secured now, Californians will be slaves forever and forfeit the respect\nof men.' Civic force at Sta Barbara, 150 men in good discipline. Arms bought\nof the Bolivar. Has gained favor by granting lands. The old folks are pleased\nwith the title of 'governor,' as it reminds them of old times. The U. S. consul\nat Honolulu writes to*Dana that 'there is nothing to fear from Mexico, which\nis not thinking of California. The present rulers of the state have more to\nfear from their own people, so many of them will want office. Chihuahua,\nJalisco, and Zacatecas have pronounced against the central govt.'   Alvarado\n IMPENDING DISASTERS. 505\nBesides disquieting rumors from the north, of which\nI shall speak later, there was an alarming report that\na force of two hundred men\u2014Sonorans, Indians, and\nAmericans\u2014under Lieut-colonel Juan Jose* Tobar,\nwere marching by the Bio Colorado on California,\nhaving failed in their revolutionary and mining\nschemes at Quitovaca. A brother of Captain Portilla, and other men who had left California were said\nto be engaged in this expedition. This wTas soon discovered to be a false alarm; but in consequence of it,\nAlvarado had made hasty preparations for defence;\nurged Vallejo to have his force ready to march at a\nmoment's notice; gone in person to Los Angeles, apparently causing the re-arrest of some of the malecon-\ntents there; and had sent Castro and Capt. Villavi-\ncencio with a force to San Diego. Castro's orders were,\nin case the rumors should have any apparent foundation, to remove or spike all the guns, to leave not a\nsingle horse between San Diego and San Gabriel, and\nto distribute all supplies at the missions in such a manner as to prevent them falling into the hands of the\nenemy.43 To what extent Castro found it necessary\nto carry out these measures in the south does not >ap-\npear; neither is there anything in the local politics of\nSan Diego at this time which demands notice, except\nthat on March 18th the ayuntamiento, on receipt of\ncertain communications from Alvarado, refused to recognize him as governor, or Vallejo as general.44\nto Vallejo, in Id., iv. 212. March 19th, the cause has yet many foes. Opinion in Angeles seems favorable; but no reliance can be placed on that town.\n'It should be burned.' Id., iv. 219.\n43 March 19, 1837, Alvarado to Vallejo. Official and private letter. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 215, 219. March 26th, Alvarado on coming to Angeles\nwith 50 men found the rumor false. Id., iv. 224. March 25th, the matter\npresented by Alvarado to the ayunt. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 287-9.\n44S. Diego, Arch., MS., 172. The theory advanced was that Alvarado's\nauthority as comandante of the northern forces had ended with the treaty of\nJan. 26th. It is to be noted, however, that this acta, though in the secretary's\nhandwriting, has no signatures. March 25th, Alvarado complains that his\ncommunications to the S. Diego ayunt. are not answered. That body should\nbe mildly exhorted to rejoin the rest of the state. Los Angeles, Arch., MS.,\niV. 289. Hayes, Emig. Notes, 480, states that the troops which went to\nAngeles in 1837 disbanded for want of pay, and never returned, the presidio\ngoing rapidly to  decay.    Alvarado,  Hist.  Cal,  MS.,  and Vallejo, Hist.\n -\n506\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nThe election provided for in the plan of Los\nAngeles took place at Santa Barbara either February\n25th or at least before March 5th, on which date the\ndeputies elected were summoned to meet, also at Santa\nBarbara, March 25th.45 The four new members\nelected seem to have been Pio Pico, Antonio M. Osio,\nManuel Jimeno Casarin, and Jose' R. Estrada, one\nof the last-named two being perhaps a suplente in\nplace of Jose Castro.46 The governor's summons,\nmuch to his disappointment, was not promptly obeyed,\nand the diputacion could not be organized in March.\nPico and Osio. refused to attend at all, a policy that\nmay safely be termed disgraceful in view of their\nspeeches in the Los Angeles meeting of January 26th.\nSix members assembled April 10th, however, at Santa\nBarbara, Juan A. Alvarado, Guerra, Buelna, Jimeno, Estrada, and Francisco J. Alvarado of San Diego as a suplente for Pio Pico, with Victor Prudon\nas secretary.\nOn the first day of the session the governor presented a manifiesto on the condition and needs of the\ncountry. April 11th this document was submitted to\na committee consisting of Jimeno, Buelna, and Estrada, all Monterey men it will be noted, who reported\nfavorably on the views therein expressed, and submitted a series of eight propositions for the approval\nCal, MS., iii. 261-2, connect Castro's visit to S. Diego with a revolutionary movement at that place.\n45 There are no records of the election that I have been able to find. Feb.\n19th, Francisco Sanchez at S. F. writes that he has been summoned to Sta B.\nas an elector. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 38. March 5th, the pres. and sec.\nof the electoral junta announced the result, which was communicated officially to Pio Pico on March 9th. Original summons in Pico, Doc, MS., ii. 155.\nThis doc. is also notable as bearing a seal of the 'Gobierno Supremo del Estado Libre y Soberano de la Alta California,' neatly and elaborately executed\nwith a pen, the only sample existing, for it was never engraved.\n46 It will be remembered that there had been much mystery about the composition of the diputacion since May 1836, and it is not yet cleared up. It\nwould seem that now the 4 who had acted in Nov. 1836 were regarded as\nholding over, Castro being prevented from acting by other duties, because\nAlvarado had said several times before the election that he had four votes\nsecure when the new dip. should meet. March 25th, Alvarado informed the\nayunt. of his inability to assemble the members elect, and his intention to\nsummon the suplentes.  Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 287-8.\n PLAN OF SANTA BARBARA. 507\nof the meeting, propositions which confirmed in substance all that had been done by Alvarado's government, and empowered the diputacion under its new\norganization to continue as a constituent congress of\nthe state.47 The resolutions were unanimously approved, and thus a new plan was added to the long\nlist. The diputacion acted the same day on certain\nland grants, but there are no definite records of any\nsubsequent sessions. The result was communicated to\nthe two southern ayuntamientos by Alvarado, who\npresented it as a faithful fulfilment of the agreement\nof January 26th, and hoped for a hearty support.\nHe was bitter, however, in his complaints against Pico\nand Osio. He chided San Diego for its action of\nMarch 18th, and declared his purpose now to enforce\nthe system adopted, being Iweary of his own leniency,\" and disgusted at the conduct of those Californians\nwho still \"sighed for the tyrant's yoke.\" Los Angeles nevertheless on April 18th rejected the action\nof the congress, as not in accordance with the treaty,\nwhich, as the Angelinos chose to regard it, had simply\nprovided that all should be put back in the old condition under a gefe politico and territorial diputacion.\n47 Plan de Gobierno adoptadopor la Diputacion en Sta Bdrbara, 11 de Abril,\n1837, MS.; mentioned in Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 75. Art. 1. Cal.\npronounces for the system that the majority of the nation has adopted (federalism of course is meant), and therefore the action of the dip. of Nov. 7,\n1836, remains in force, except art. 3, which is included in the constitution of\n1824. (The article on the catholic religion.) 2. The dip., including the deputies appointed by the ayunt. (?), is to continue as a congreso constituyente,\nto meet, after its adjournment at this place, as soon as convoked by the govt.\n3. Decrees 8 and 9 of the congress (those on a division of the state and on\nforeign commerce) are repealed, not having served the purpose intended; and\nthe Mex. laws on the points involved are restored. 4. The sup. govt will\nremain investOd with the extraordinary powers conferred in order to consolidate the system in case of difficulty arising. -5. The national govt shall be\npetitioned, it being understood that Cal. is an integral part of the Mex. republic, to restore the federal system. 6. Mex. shall also be asked to allow,\nby means within her power, that Cal. may govern herself as a free and sovereign state. 7. Pending the supreme decision desired on these petitions,\nCal. will remain under the form of govt expressed in the manifiesto and these\npropositions. 8. A certified copy of this acta shall be sent to the national\ngovt.\nApril 13th, Alvarado issues the corresponding decree, repealing decrees 8\nand 9 in accordance with art. 3. Vallejo, Doc, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 228, in MS.,\nthough ordered printed.\nJ\n 508 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nSan Diego, on the other hand, expressed on April\n27th cordial approval of the plan in general, though\nstill preferring to remain non-committal, and postponing the act of swearing allegiance until some doubts\ncould be cleared away respecting the system alluded\nto in article 1, fearing, perhaps, it might be centralism!48\nAbout the same time that Angeles repudiated the\nplan of April 11th, Pico and Osio made their tardy\nappearance at Santa Barbara with a plan of their own,\nfor which they sought approval from the congressmen,\nthough it was really a rejection of all that had been\ndone.49 There was no action by the congress, but\nAlvarado simply sent the proposition to Castro to be\npresented to the ayuntamiento, to which body he also\naddressed a letter filled with indignation at the conduct of those '' unworthy diputados who proposed a\nreturn to the tyrant's yoke and perpetual slavery-\u2014\nthe very men who had so lately declared their purpose\nto be devoured by wild beasts rather than submit to a\nMexican despot.\" The congress shared in his indignation, the governor said, and the ayuntamiento was\nexpected to share it; yet if the latter body should per-\n48 April 16, 1837, Alvarado to ayunt. of Angeles and S. Diego. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., xi. 78-82; Hayes' Doc, MS., 72. Apr. 22d, session of ayunt.\nLos Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 291-4. Apr. 27th, session of ayunt. S. Diego,\nArch., MS., 101. In the acta last alluded to, the signatures of the secretary\nand sindico of the S. Diego ayunt. did not appear, because those officers 'had\nbeen carried off by an armed force for some unknown cause.' This state of\nthings had been announced on April 24th by Alcalde Estudillo, who asked\nthat steps be taken for their restoration, addressing Alvarado as governor of\nthe state, and announcing \\ a decided enthusiasm in favor of armor patrio' on\nthe part of the people. It appears that in consequence of the action of March\n18th, Alvarado had sent Eugenio Montenegro to arrest the two officers, J.\nM. Teran and Domingo Amao, who escaped from custody while being taken\nto S. Gabriel. As late as September, Amao, who had fled to the frontera, had\nnot returned to his post as secretary. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 173, 175, 186.\n49The plan of Pico and Osio was as follows: 1. The territory of Alta Cali- v\nfornia reestablishes the order of things existing before the pronunciamiento of\nMonterey. 2. The laws of Mexico shall be respected and obeyed, whatever\nmay be the system she has adopted. 3. The treaty of Los Angeles between\ngovernor, ayunt., and comisionados shall be observed (?). 4. After the preceding articles shall have been carried out, the officers of the army shall be\ninvited, by the person on whom the office of gefe politico may legally devolve,\nto cooperate in restoring order. 5. The result of action on these propositions\nis to be communicated to the ayunt.    Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 296-7.\n LOS ANGELES SUBMITS. 509\nsist in its folly, he would not use force, but would hold\nit responsible for results. \"The fate of the Californians is in your hands, and it behooves you to reflect\ncarefully on what you will do.\"50\nAt a meeting of the ayuntamiento, May 1st, the\ngovernor's letter and Osio's propositions were read,\nand a long discussion ensued. No one had anything\nto say in favor of the new propositions. Four members, Ibarra, Valdes, Herrera, and Alvarado, declared\nthemselves in favor of the resolution of April 22d, involving, as they understood it, a full compliance with\nthe convention of January 26th. The other four,\nSepulveda, Lugo, Pantoja, and Lopez, urged a recognition of the existing government, and full compliance\nwith all its orders and decrees. Next day the discussion was resumed. Sepulveda made an earnest appeal;\nIbarra's party declared itself convinced, and a unanimous vote was secured in favor of the resolution that\n\"the ayuntamiento of the city of Los Angeles recognizes the present system of government, and the orders\nand decrees emanating therefrom, without prejudice to\nthe laws in force, decreed by the legislation of Mexico.\"\nJose\" Castro was present at this meeting, and it is just\npossible that Alvarado's opponents regarded their votes\nas the best means for avoiding an involuntary sojourn\nat Sonoma.51\nAlvarado now regarded the triumph of his cause as\ncomplete, and on May 10th issued a long and grandiloquent manifiesto of congratulation to the people of\nCalifornia. In this document he declared that, in\naccordance with his promise, he had been indefatigable and  successful in making  his countrymen free\n50Alvarado to ayunt. of Los Angeles, April 28, 1837. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,\nxi. 75-8. The ayunt. on April 29th ratified its action of the 22d, though it\nwas said there was danger of some members being carried north for their opposition to Alvarado. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 295.\n\"Sessions of May 1st, 2d. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 296-301. Alvarado writes also May 1st to clear up the doubts at S. Diego suggested in the\naction of April 27th, proving that the federal system was undoubtedly the\none intended, and pleading, with much flattery, that though he had arrested\ntheir sindido and sec, their escape, proved that they had not been very\nharshly treated. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 176, with a seal in ink and pencil.\n 510 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nmen; that despite the few backward steps he had\nbeen obliged to take in order to 'economize blood,'\nall had been regained by the action of the Santa Barbara congress, as approved now throughout the south;\nthat there was now but one opinion in California, and\nnothing to fear except from abroad\u2014to meet which\nlatter danger the people were exhorted to stand firm\nand united, worthy of their grand achievements and\ndestinies.52 The governor now despatched a messenger\nby land to Mexico to communicate to the government\nthe final action at Santa Barbara, bearing also de-.\nspatches in which Sonora was urged to join California\nand make a stand for federalism.53 Castro, perhaps\nwithout Alvarado's orders, withdrew his force from\nSan Gabriel to Santa Barbara. Flattery and some\nmore substantial rewards in the shape of office or\nlands were distributed among southern, friends of the\ncause. For instance, Alcalde Sepulveda was made a\ncaptain of the civic militia. Thanks were publicly\nrendered to Padre Duran, and the cattle of the presidial rancho of San Julian were distributed among\nthe soldiers, the rancho itself being given to Jose* de\nla Guerra.54    Finally, Alvarado and Castro started for\n62 Alvarado [Manifesto del] Gobernador Interino del Estado Libre y Sobera-\nno de la Alta California, a sus habitantes. Monterrey, Mayo 10 de 1837. Im-\nprenta del Supremo Gobierno a Cargo del C. Santiago Aguilar. Folio, 2 leaves,\nin Earliest Printing; Estudillo, Doc, MS., i. 248; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii.\n85; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., x. 19-20; and with French translation in\nPetit-Thouars, Voyage, iv. 24-33. Despite the imprint, it was issued at Sta\nBarbara on May 10th, and printed at Monterey later. With all its vapid and\nhigh-sounding Mexicanisms, the document contains also many eloquent expressions of patriotic good sense. A peculiar freak of the printer is to be\nnoted in the printing of the word aristocrata wrong side up\u2014evidently not\nan accident, since the same thing occurs in the proclamation of Nov. 6, 1836.\nMay 9th, Alvarado tells Vallejo that all troubles are at an end. The opponents from Angeles and S. Diego came to Sta Barbara to promise solemnly\nnot to disturb the peace. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 237. May 10th, he thanks\nand congratulates the ayunt. of Los Angeles. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS.,\nxi. 86.\n53 Alvarado, Manifesto. He offers all California's resources to aid Sonora\nin overthrowing the central system in the republic. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS.,\niii. 209, thinks this was a somewhat rash offer under the circumstances.\n54 Jan. 4, 1837, order for distribution of the movable property. Guerra,\nDoc, MS., vi. 28. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 260-1, thinks the grant of\nthe rancho was an unwise and illegal act, being also an interference with his\nown rights as general.\n AFFAIRS IN THE NORTH. 511\nMonterey, where they arrived the 30th of May.\nCastro was called back in a hurry by the news of new\ntroubles in the south, to be described later.55\nAffairs in the north from January to May 1837\nmay be very briefly recorded. After Castro's departure on January 17th, Ramon Estrada was left in command at Monterey with about a dozen men. The capital was abandoned for the most part to women and\nforeigners, and the only excitement was in the receipt\nof news from Don Juan Bautista in the south. General Vallejo at Sonoma, besides watching over Indian\ntribes on the northern frontier, busied himself in enlisting and drilling recruits, with a view of restoring\nthe presidial companies to something like their old\nstrength, and of more thoroughly organizing the civic\nmilitia in preparation for possible emergency. Some\nsuccess was achieved, especially at San Jose\" de Alvarado and San Juan de Castro, towns which, since the\nrevolution of November, had been honored with additions to their original names. Some of the new\nrecruits were sent to Sonoma to learn military discipline.56   One other matter occupied the general's atten-\n55 June 1, 1837, Alvarado to Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc Hist. Cal, MS., iv.\n242. Felipe Garcia, in Taylor's Discov. and Founders, ii. no. 25, testifies that\nthe people of Sta Barbara used to express their sentiments respecting the\n'big captains' of the north as follows:\nQuien del pais encendio el pasto\u2014Castro.\nQuien roba hasta kacer viejo\u2014Vallejo.\nQuien la aduana ha destrozado\u2014Alvarado.\nI para vivir sosegados\nDeben de ser fusilados\nAlvarado, Castro, y Vallejos.\n66 Jan. 6, 1837, Vallejo sends 50 cans of powder to Monterey. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., iv. 52. Jan. 7th, V. to com. of San Francisco, on recruiting young men\nfor the presidial companies, in Vallejo, Ordenes de la Comandancia Gen., a collection of printed orders of 1837-9, on paper of uniform size, bound in a volume, but not paged; one of the earliest books printed in California. Similar\norders were sent to all comandantes. In his Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 243-5, Vallejo says that about 60 young men came to Sonoma andvwere drilled by Lieut\nSabas Fernandez, while Salvador Vallejo was sent to Ross for arms and clothing. Jan. 12th, V. to Alvarado. 3 companies of 80 men each organized at S.\nF. and Alvarado, and one of 30 at Sonoma. All enthusiastic in 'the cause.'\nVallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 55. Jan. 20th, same to same, on available forces under captains J. J. Vallejo at S. Jose\", Francisco Sanchez at S. Francisco, and\nSalv. Vallejo at Sonoma. Id., iv. 57. Jan. 24th, V. to alcalde of S. Jose\",\nasking for 30 men, to recruit whom Alf. Prado Mesa is sent.   Vallejo, Ordenes.\n 512 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\ntion; namely, the conduct of Becher, supercargo of\nthe Mexican vessels Catalina and Leonor, which was\nthought to be sufficiently suspicious to justify a seizure of his property and credits at San Francisco, to\nthe amount of $11,000. It was believed that the government might justly use this property for its defence,\nshould it prove that Becher had promoted hostile\nacts.67\nAt the end of January Vallejo put his brother Salvador in command at Sonoma, and early in February\nmarched with fifty men to Monterey.58 His avowed\npurpose was to watch the progress of affairs in the\nsouth, and to protect the government from certain\npersons whose conduct had given rise to suspicions of\nactive infidelity, especially at San Juan. It was during this visit that he wrote to Alvarado to have quarters prepared for one hundred men whom he had\nready to send down by sea. I do not suppose he had\nany real intention of going to the south, but it was\nthought the statement, supported by the known departure from Sonoma, would help Alvarado.59 The\nnature of the plots at San Juan is not very clearly revealed; but before Vallejo's arrival a number of convicts had been disarmed by William R. Garner, Quin-\ntin Ortega, and Mariano Castro; and arms had also\nbeen seized at various ranchos.    Vallejo caused the\n67 Jan. 12th, 20th, V. to Alvarado, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 56-7. March\n17th, A. to V. Fears much from Becher's hostility, since he has discovered\nour plans to buy two vessels with which to operate against the centralists.\nHe pretends to clear for Callao, but it is feared he will touch at a Mexican\nport with bad reports. Castro will watch him at S. Diego. Id., iv. 216. Oct.\n27th, Richardson, Becher's agent, has received order to cancel attachment of\n$5,000. Id., iv. 341.\n68 Jan. 30th, instr. to Capt. Salvador Vallejo. Should any Mex. force appear,\nhe was to assure the foe that the northern Californians would maintain their\nrights if they had to destroy all the property they possessed. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., iv. 17. On Jan. 24th, the general had announced his purpose to go to\nMonterey.  Id., iv. 59.\n59Feb. 21st, V. to A., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 66; S. Diego, Arch., MS.,\n170. Feb. 20th, the gen. had addressed the gov. on the importance of reorganizing the presidial companies. Vallejo, Ordenes. Glad to hear of success, but warns A. to beware of Los Angeles. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 65.\nFeb. 25th, urges the necessity of looking out for the northern towns as of\nmuch greater importance than those of the south.  Id., iv. 75.\n VALLEJO'S MOVEMENTS. 513\narrest of Rafael Gonzalez, Francisco Pacheco, and\nJuan Quintero, the first of whom and eight convicts\nwere sent to Sonoma.63 At Monterey there were\nfound some symptoms of approaching trouble, fomented by Angel Ramirez, Captain Figueroa, and other\nMexicans, who circulated rumors of intended persecution and exile of their countrymen. A proclamation of the general seems to have quieted the popular\nexcitement. \"We do not confound the vices of governments with those of individuals,\" writes Vallejo.\n\"We repel the aggressions of the one and punish the\nfaults of the others. Virtue, honesty, and good behavior will be respected in all. Live in peace and\nunion, and I will protect your lives and property.\"61\nThe general was back at Sonoma by the middle of\nMarch; but late in that month was roused to renewed\nactivity by the report of an impending attack from\nSonora. He issued orders for all troops to concentrate at Monterey; while with fifty men he hastened\nto Santa Clara. The report, as we have seen, proved\nwithout foundation.62 Another affair which created\nsome local excitement was the arrest of Lieutenant\nAntonio M. Pico, who had been sent by the governor\nto negotiate a loan at Ross, but who on the way was\naccused  of attempting  to  incite  revolt among the\n60 Feb. 14th, Garner to com. of Monterey. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 72.\nFeb. 16th, Vallejo to D. A. Rodriguez. Id., iv. 64. Feb. 21st, same to Alvarado. Id., iv. 66. Feb. 27th, Mota, one of the prisoners, offered to reveal the names of the leaders if set free.  Id., iv. 86.\n61 Vallejo, Proclama del Comandante Gen., 24 de Feb. 1837. Original print,\n1 leaf, in Earliest Printing; Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 40; xxxii. 75; and with\nFrench translation, in Petit-Thouars, Voyage, iv. 22-3. In his Hist. Cal,MS.,\niii. 262-8, Vallejo claims, however, to have arrested Angel Ramirez, who tried <\nto bribe his Indians to seize the general. He was released after 2 days.\nMarch 6th, Alvarado thanks the gen. for his activity. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\niv. 208. March 9th, A. says his govt owes only $5,000, of which half will\nbe paid from the Bolivar's duties. Id., iv. 212. March 14th, Santiago Estrada\nput in command of Monterey. Id., iv. 81. March 18th, no person unless\nwell known to enter S. Francisco without a passport from the gov. Id., iv.\n84.\n62 March 27, 1837, orders to different officers, Capts J. J. Vallejo, Francisco\nSanchez, Salvio Pacheco, and J. M. Alviso. 'Good Californians must rush to\nthe defence of their country, threatened with invasion.' Also letter to Alvarado.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 85-9. April 4th, 26th, false alarm, forces may retire.\nId., iv. 92-3, 234.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   83\n 514\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.\nmilitia at San Jose* and San Francisco, perhaps at the\ninstigation of the southern Picos. He was sent to\nSonoma, much to the displeasure of the alcalde of San\nJosd, who deemed his authority interfered with.63 Finally, Alvarado arrived from the south at the capital\non October 30th, but was obliged to announce, in the\nsame letter that made known his arrival, the occurrence of new troubles at Los Angeles which had\ncaused Castro with sixty men to be sent back in haste,\nand which necessitated an interview with the general\nat the earliest moment.\n63 Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 95, 221, 231; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 46-\n7. A. says he escaped by breaking his parole. The arrest was on April 21st\nor 22d. April 24th, Vallejo writes to deny some rumors that he is hostile to\nthe present govt. May 16th, complains that his letters are not answered. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 233, 98. A., writing from S. Antonio on his way north,\nwrote very bitterly of the disgraceful acts of the citizens of San Jose\", who\nwere said to have threatened to overthrow him because he was a relative of\nVallejo. 'Perhaps they don't know that I have just conquered hundreds of\nbrave citizens who opposed me.' He speaks also vaguely of some prisoners\ncoming by sea from the south, whom it would be necessary to shoot at Monterey. Id., iv. 235.\n CHAPTER XVIII.\nSAN DIEGO PLAN--ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\n1837.\nBandini's Movements\u2014Plots on the Frontier\u2014Zamorano, Portilla,\nand Estrada\u2014Plan of May\u2014Seizure of Los Angeles\u2014Don Juan\nat San Diego\u2014The Army at Angeles and San Fernando\u2014Castille-\nro's Commission\u2014Oath of Centralism in the South\u2014Alvarado at\nMonterey and Santa Clara\u2014Rumors from Mexico\u2014Ramirez Revolt\u2014Monterey Taken and Retaken\u2014Alvarado Returns to the\nSouth\u2014Treaty with Castillero\u2014Alvarado Swears to the'Constitutional Laws\u2014His Motives\u2014Diputacion at Santa Barbara\u2014\nCastillero Sent to Mexico\u2014The ' California '\u2014Vallejo Refuses\nto Accept Centralism\u2014Carlos Carrillo's Appointment\u2014Alvarado's\nPosition\u2014Carrillo Assumes Office at Angeles\u2014San Diego Obedient\u2014:Not so Sta Barbara\u2014Letters of Vallejo and Alvarado-.\nJuan Bandini had followed the advice of Osio to\n\"go home and keep quiet,\" so far at least that the\nrecords are silent about him from December 1836 to\nMay 1837. During this period he lived on his frontier rancho, and spent all the time which troublesome\nIndians left at his disposal in plotting against Alvarado's government, or rather in devising schemes by\nvirtue of which, when Mexican supremacy should be\nfully restored, his own agency in bringing about that\nresult might be so apparent as to obtain proper recognition and reward. He had an understanding with\nCaptain Portilla and other prominent men at San\nDiego; while across the line, in full sympathy with\nDon Juan, was Captain Zamorano, who after his voluntary exile at the fall of Gutierrez, had found his\nway back to La Frontera.    Zamorano, like Bandini\n(515)\n 516 SAN DIEGO PLAN-ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nand Portilla, was very quiet and careful in his movements; but Captain Nicanor Estrada, who had been\nexiled with Gutierrez but had also returned from Cape\nSan Lucas, was more active in enlisting men, preparing arms, and arousing enthusiasm for the cause, being\nassisted by a party of refugees from the north, who\nhad fled from Los Angeles at Alvarado's approach in\nJanuary. Not much is known in detail of the preparations; but fifty or seventy-five men were enlisted,\nincluding, I suppose, remnants of the old compania de\nfronteras, and were armed as well as circumstances\nwould permit. Indian hostilities, to be mentioned\nlater, interfered somewhat with the progress of these\npatriotic efforts.1 Osio and Pico were secret supporters\nof this movement, and their plan already noticed was\ndoubtless a part of it, those gentlemen having changed\ntheir mind about the policy of being \"devoured by\nwild beasts\" rather than obey a Mexican mandarin.\nStrangely, in their narratives they say little or nothing of events in these months, though the former has\ndescribed so minutely the preceding occurrences.\nIt will be remembered that late in April, San Diego\nhad approved the new system as expressed in the\nSanta Barbara plan of April 11th, though postponing\non a frivolous pretext the formal swearing of allegiance.\nIf the ayuntamiento took any action later on receipt\nof Alvarado's explanation, it is not  recorded.    On\n1 These preparations are briefly related, and subsequent events more fully,\nin Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 86-97. The author regards the treaty of Jan.\n26th at Los Angeles as merely a trick of Alvarado to disarm the south, and\nthe action of the dip. at Sta Barbara on April 11th as a flagrant violation of\nthat treaty. The subsequent 'persecution' of S. Diego by Alvarado in sending Castro to take away the cannon, and in arresting members of the ayunt.,\nrendered the Dieguinos desperate. They went to the frontier, and in a few\ndays raised 70 men, but had to suspend operations for a time to fight Indians.\nThe same version in much more grandiloquent language is given in Bandini,\nSucesos del Sur, Mayo y Agosto, 1837, MS., a report to the minister of hacienda, dated Aug. 4th, in which, of course after a new tirade against Angel\nRamirez, Don Juan tells how 'S. Diego never faltered in her heroic devotion\nto Mexico,' and how, 'resolved to sacrifice our existence in favor of the national government, we planned for victory or an honorable death.' He does\nnotjaame Zamorano. Janssens, Vida, MS., 90-121, was one of the refugees\nfrom Angeles, and, if we may credit his story, which there is no one to con\ntradict, took a very prominent part in all this campaign.\n JUAN BANDINI'S PROJECT. 517\nMay 21st, Bandini and his associates, with a part of\ntheir armed force, came to San Diego and openly proclaimed their purposes. Zamorano, styling himself\ncomandante general and governor ad interim j addressed\nthe ayuntamiento, enclosing the plan which the soldiers and citizens had already approved, and asked that\nbody to cooperate for the t national decorum,' which\nof course it did at once. Bandini and S. E. Arguello\nwere named as comisionados to present the plan at\nAngeles, carrying also a letter from Zamorano, similar\nto that already mentioned.-2 The plan of this pronouncement contained, as a matter of course, since\nBandini was concerned in its production, more words\nand more articles than any that had preceded it. I\nappend some particulars in a note;3 but the general\n2 May 21, 1837, Zamorano to ayunt. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 178; Dept. St.\nPap., Angeles, MS., xi. 83^5. There is no formal record of the session at S.\nDiego. Janssens says that he and J. M. Alvarado were also members of the\ncommission. Zamorano must have assumed the command by consent of Portilla, who was his senior.\n3 Plan de San Diego que proclamaron Zamorano, Bandini, y otros en 21 de\nMayo 1837, MS. Art. 1. Alta California is restored to order and obedience\nto the sup. govt under the system adopted by decree of Oct. 23, 1835. 2. The\ncivil and military command is to be vested in the officer of senior rank as per\nsuperior order of Jan. 21, 1835. 3. The dip. having taken an active part in\nthe revolution of the north, its authority is ignored until the campaign be\nover, order restored, and new elections held. 4. All acts of the dip. since\nNov. 7, 1S36, declared null and void. Such of its resolutions as have proved\nbeneficial may be sanctioned by the new dip. later. 5. The person alluded\nto in art. 2 will take the oath before the ayunt. of Los Angeles, capital of\nthe territory. 6. Volunteer forces supporting the sup. govt are to be disbanded by the comandante when peace is restored. 7. The gefe will recommend to the sup. govt as highly meritorious the services of soldiers and volunteers who may aid in re-organizing the territory. 8. The leaders of the rebels of Nov. 7th, and officers commissioned by the sup. govt, who may present\nthemselves, acknowledging their error, and asking clemency, will be favorably\nrecommended to the sup. govt, to which authority those not doing so will be\ngiven up for judgment. 9. Troops from sergeant down, on presenting themselves, will be re-admitted to the service, the act being credited to them as a\nmerit. 10. All the forces organized as civic militia by the northern rebels\nare hereby dissolved. 11. Persons of the latter class, on presenting themselves, may retire to their homes, or serve as volunteers for the sup. govt.\n12. Loans made in favor of the just cause will be reimbursed from the public treasury. 13. The new dip. is to make a respectful representation through\nthe gefe politico to the sup. govt of the strong desire of the people of Cal. for\na separation of the civil and military commands. 14. Until the new dip. is\ninstalled, there is to be a junta of 5 members appointed by the gefe as counsellors in cases of difficulty. 15. This junta will be presided over by one of.\nits members, the pres. being changed each month. 16. The junta's duties:\nto resolve doubts of the gefe; to have charge of the public funds; and to\nappoint a treasurer.    17.   The treasurer to be paid a salary fixed by the gefe.\n 518 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\npurport, as in the plan of Osio and Pico, was to undo\nall that had been done since November 5th of the past\nyear, to recognize the full authority of Mexico under\nany system, to rule the country under southern and\n'loyal' auspices until the national authority should be\nfully restored, and to treat the rank and file of those\nwho had favored the Monterey rebellion as l erring\nbrethren' worthy of pity and forgiveness. The comisionados on arrival at Los Angeles seem to have\nacted secretly for a day or two, making known their\nmission only to a few trusted partisans like Ibarra,\nRequena, and Botello. It will be remembered that\nhalf the ayuntamiento had ratified the Santa Barbara\nplan more from fear of arrest and exile to Sonoma\nthan from any other motive, and the fear was still entertained.4 It was therefore deemed necessary to secure\nthe garrison and guns before appealing to the people.\nIt was probably on the evening of May 26th that\nthe seizure was effected by Bandini and his associates\nwithout resistance, and by an understanding with the\ncomandante of the guard. The sentinel was surprised\nand disarmed. A few soldiers of the civic militia\nwere disturbed in a game of cards to surrender the\npost and arms, including the gun brought by Castro\nfrom San Diego, while Captain Sepulveda at his own\nhouse was brought to terms without any suspension\nof harmonious relations by his guest Pio Pico.5 Next\n18. All insults, etc., to the pronunciados of Nov. 7th are to be severely punished. 19. A. copy of this plan to be sent to other ayunt. for adoption. 20.\nThis plan to be sent immediately by extra mail to the Mexican government.\n* Janssens narrates at some length that, on account of this fear of arrest,\nthe comisionados arrested Capt. Andre's Pico at S. Luis Rey on the way north,\nand compelled him to make the most solemn pledges to keep quiet and not interfere.\n6 Bandini says he executed this movement with 8 companions at 7 p. m.,\nnot giving the date. Janssens implies that it was done on the night of arrival\nby the 4 comisionados, including himself, aided by 4 others, including Ibarra\nand the Frenchman Baric. He gives many details, makes Bandini a great\nstrategist and hero, and implies that the inhabitants were made to believe for\na day that Bandini had a strong garrison in possession, with a large military\nforce approaching. Janssens was sent in a day or two to enlist Charlefoux\nand his 25 riflemen in the cause, which he did successfully. Botello, Anales,\nMS., 37-40, who was at the time sec. of the ayunt., thinks there had been\nsome discussion in that body before the capture, which was effected by 12 or\n BANDINI TRIUMPHANT.\nday the ayuntamiento met to listen to Bandini's eloquence and take his plan into consideration. Alcalde\nSepulveda took part in the debate and mildly opposed\nthe San Diego plan, but the majority approved it;\nand while no formal vote of approval appears on fhe\nrecords, it was decided that the document should be\npublished next day, together with a second address\nread by Bandini. Another session was held on the\n30th to devise means to prevent conflict and bloodshed, and to this end three comisionados were appointed to treat with Alvarado.6\nBandini remained at Los Angeles only a few days,\n\"maintaining his position with great difficulty, but resolved to die rather than yield.\" Then in consequence\nof alarming reports of Indian hostilities, the ayuntamiento in a secret session of May 31st voted at Bandini's request to suspend all politico-military movements and negotiations, in order to send a force to\nthe southern frontier in obedience to the call of the\n'governor and general,' Zamorano. Botello, a prominent southerner who accompanied the force, says that\nthe movement was hastened by reports of Castro's\napproach from the north, but this may be an error.\nBandini and his men carried with them the captured\nguns and entered San Diego in triumph. It was a\nproud day in the life of Don Juan when the Diegui-\nnos came out in procession to welcome with shouts\nthe return of their conquering hero.    Indian troubles\n15 men, including himself, Capt. Santiago Johnson, Pablo and Emilio Ve\"jar,\nacting in collusion with Alf. Palomares, who commanded the guard. The\nsentinel was a boy named Lara. There were later rumors of a plot by Sepulveda to recapture the guns and barracks.\n6May 27th, 30th, session of ayunt., in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 302-14.\nOf Don Juan's address I have only a fragment of the original blotter. Bandini,\nDiscurso ante el ayunt. de Angeles el 27 de Mayo, 1837, MS., in whioh I find\nnothing worthy of notice, his views being already well known to the reader.\nThe comisionados named were Antonio M. Lugo, Andres Pico, and Anastasio\nCarrillo. The instructions given for their guidance\u2014Instrucciones d que debe\nsujetarse la comisionnombradapor este ayuntamiento de LosAngeles, 80 de Mayo,\n1837, MS.\u2014required them in 10 articles to submit the plan to Alvarado,\nand if it were rejected all hostilities must be suspended and all armed bodies\nmust remain where they were until an arrangement could be effected to last\nuntil the Mexican troops should come, when the chief of the latter would\nact according to his orders.\n 520 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nwere of short duration. The enthusiasm was great,\nand volunteers freely offered their services. Charle-\nfoux and his New Mexican hunters had been induced\nby Janssens to join the force, and in a few days the\n'army of the supreme government,' perhaps one hundred and twenty-five strong, was ready for an advance,7 and began its march northward the 10th of\nJune.\nCaptain Portilla was in active command of the\nexpedition, though the self-styled governor and general, Zamorano, with Nicanor Estrada, Bandini, and\nArguello, seems to have accompanied the force. They\nentered Los Angeles June 16th, in time, as Bandini\nsays, to witness \"the shameful dispersion of Castro's force,\" and the flight of the leader in such haste\nas to leave behind some of his wearing apparel.\nJanssens goes still further, and states that the advance guard of the foe was met at the Santa Ana\nrancho, but threw down their arms and fled in disorder\non seeing the southerners prepare for a charge, not\nstopping until they reached San Fernando.8 Castro\nw7as certainly at Los Angeles on the 12th, when his\npresence, and the absence of the opposition members\nat an extra session, enabled the versatile ayuntamiento to turn another political somersault, | rectifying their vote in defense of the state government, and\nignoring the acts of Ibarra and his followers, which\nhad   disturbed   the  public   order.\"9    He   doubtless\n7 May 31st, ayunt. sess. at Angeles, and vote to send a force south. Los\nAngeles, Arch., iv. 316-18. Bandini says the reports of Castro's coming did\nnot arrive until he left Angeles; and this is confirmed by Janssens, who\nclaims to have been left behind at Los Angeles as a spy, staying at the house\nof Ignacio Coronel. On the first news of Castro's approach he was sent south\nby Pio Pico in great haste to warn the S. Diego leaders. May 30th Zamorano writes to alcalde of S. Diego about the Indian wars. S. Diego, Arch., MS.,\n177. *>\/\u00a3\n8 Bandini says Castro had 80 or 90 men at Angeles, while the others numbered 90. Janssens calls the southern force 125, and Botello, 250. The\nlatter speaks of Rocha coming to meet them at Paso de Bartolo with a few\nmen, at first supposed to be foes. This was perhaps the foundation of Jans-\nsens's story. Botello tells us also that a few of Castro's stragglers were\ncaptured.\n\u2022June 12th. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 315.\n CASTILLERO'S COMMISSION. 521\nretired to San Fernando, and later to Santa Barbara,\nbut as to the manner of his departure it is best not to\nattach much importance to the unsupported statements of his enemies.\nMeanwhile, Captain Andre's Castillero arrived at\nSan Diego, bringing the constitutional laws of December 29, 1836, which replaced the federal constitution\nof 1824; and the oath of allegiance to the new system\nwas taken with great enthusiasm by the assembled\nayuntamiento and vecindario on June 12th. After\nthe ceremony Castillero hastened away, and joined\nthe army at San Luis Rey the same night, when he\nrepresented himself as a comisionado of the supreme\ngovernment.10 Having arrived with the army at Los\nAngeles, he proceeded by virtue of his commission to\nsummon the ayuntamiento, which body, together with\nall officials, soldiers, and citizens, took the oath of allegiance to the constitutional laws on June 18th, with\nall due religious rites and social festivities.11 On or\nabout the 21st, Portilla's forces moved forward and\noccupied San Fernando, whence Castro had retired to\nSanta Barbara.12\n10 June 12th, session of ayunt. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 179. It is noticeable\nthat Castillero's name is not mentioned, and Alcalde Estudillo speaks of the\nlaws as having been received extrajudieialmente. It was only after some discussion that it was deemed proper to take the oath. This circumstance, not\nmentioned by Bandini and Botello, gives some plausibility to the charges of\nthose writers that Castillero's commission was a mere pretence invented to\nserve his own ends between S. Diego and S. Luis. Bandini goes so far as to\nintimate that Castillero's instructions, which he saw, were a forgery, suspected\nby him to be such at the time. It is not very probable that Castillero would\nhave gone so far in his deception as to forge papers, though under the circumstances he is likely enough to have resorted to much verbal deception and\nexaggeration. Alvarado, in a letter of Sept. 1st, stated that Castillero was\nnot, as he claimed to be, a comisionado. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 306. The\ncaptain, it will be remembered, was one of the officers who surrendered at\nMonterey in Nov. 1836. Of his subsequent movements until he appeared at\nS. Diego in June 1837 nothing is known. He may have gone to Mexico\nwith Gutierrez, and have been sent back as a commissioner, or he may have\nresumed his command as captain of the compania de fronteras, his special\ncommission to have the central system sworn to being sent to him from\nMexico.\n11 Los Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 138-9; iv. 319-21; Id., Ayunt. Rec, 5. The\nacta was communicated to the min. of war.\n12 Bandini speaks of dissatisfaction with Portilla's a*ts, in consequence of\nwhich the command was offered to himself, but declined. Why Zamorano\ndid not command is not very clear, but I think it possible that he did not\n 522 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nAlvarado on arriving at Monterey May 30th had\nimmediately heard of the new troubles in the south,\nincluding Bandini's seizure of the Angeles garrison,\nand had despatched Castro back in haste with sixty\nmen. This he announced to Vallejo in a letter of\nJune 1st, and a few days later he sent more details\nabout the plan of San Diego and the defensive preparations at Santa Barbara, where three guns had been\nmounted at the Rincon Pass, and whither Castro was\nalready hastening with aid. Still more alarming newrs,\nhowever\u2014for Alvarado had no doubt of his ability\nto control the south\u2014was that contained in the newspapers, to the effect that Mexico was organizing a\nforce to be sent to California, a report that doubtless\naccounted for the actions of Bandini and his associates.13 An interview between the governor and general was held at Santa Clara about the middle of\nleave S\u201e Diego at all. June 20th, ayunt: receives request from Portilla for\narms, supplies, etc., to continue his march and enforce the new constitution.\nAn appeal was accordingly made to the people. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv.\n322. Same date. Portilla addressed as com. gen. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles,\nMS., ii. 102. June 30th, Portilla at S. Fernando as comandante militar\ninterino, asks Ignacio Coronel to take command at S. Gabriel, raise volunteers,\nand get supplies from the mission. Coronel, Doc, MS., 187; Dept. St. Pap.,\nAngeles, MS., ii. 103. Same date, Portilla complains that some of his men are\nreturning home without leave. Id., ii. 105-6.\n13 June 1st, Alvarado to Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 242. June 6th,\nsame to same, from Sta Clara, in Id., iv. 243, says that Castro's men have\nvery few arms; he must be aided; Salvador Vallejo wishes to go south with\na company, and Villa will command another; the general urged to make\nhaste. June 7th, V. 's reply, in Id., iv. 102. Wishes Salvador to return, that\nhe may come down, for the northern frontier must not be left unprotected.\nPrompt steps must be taken; Angeles could not have been taken without\ncollusion; other towns will perhaps turn against their benefactors if there is\nany hope of aid from Mexico, but the coming of such a force is very doubtful. June 8th, V. orders Alf. Prado Mesa to put his men at Sta Clara at the\ngovernor's disposal, and Capt. Sanchez at S. F. to hold himself and force in\nreadiness for action. Id., iv. 246-7. Jnne 12th, Alvarado, at Sta Clara, to\nCastro, in answer to letters of 5th and 8th. Is indignant at the falsehood of\nS. Diego and the cowardice of those who yielded at Angeles. Agrees with\nC. that vigorous measures are called for; the Californians must be made free\nwhether they wish it or not. Capt. Sepulveda must be court-martialled.\nAll enemies of the system may be arrested and sent north, if it seems best.\nArms and ammunition will soon arrive from Honolulu by the Clementine. Will\ncome to' Sta B. himself as soon as he can see Vallejo, who should come tomorrow. Id., xxxii. 89. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 282-5, describes the\ninterview at Sta Clara as having been on June 13th-18th; and says that he\npromised the gov. his hearty support, though he objected to some of his acts\nin the south, and deemed the north as the part of the country needing most\nattention.\n REVOLT AT MONTEREY. 523\nJune, and immediately after, the former sailed from\nMonterey for Santa Barbara, where he arrived in\ntime to send back on June 21st the news of what had\noccurred at Los Angeles, now in the power of the\nsouthern forces. Vallejo was, as usual on receipt of\nan appeal for aid, busied with some important expeditions against the Indians, but on the 25th he issued\norders to different subordinates to mass their troops\nat Monterey in expectation of active service.14\nBefore returning to the south, it is as well to record an important political event which occurred early\nin July at Monterey, namely, a counter-revolt against\nAlvarado's authority by the very Mexicans who had\naided to put him in power. Angel Ramirez and\nCosme Pefia were the leaders. They had expected\nto control the governor's policy in their own interests,\nand had failed. Ramirez had lost his position in the\ncustom-house before the end of 1836. Peiia had gone\nsouth with Alvarado as secretary, but had soon returned, being succeeded by Victor Prudon. We have\nseen that there had been some ill feeling on the part\nof the Californians toward the Mexican residents, fomented perhaps to some extent by foreigners, and that\nVallejo had been obliged to make some arrests earlier\nin the year, issuing a proclamation which had promised protection a\u00bbd temporarily allayed discontent.\nRamirez, however, continued his plottings; and the\npresent time, in view of the news from the south and\nfrom Mexcio, was regarded as a favorable opportunity\nfor active operations. Vallejo's orders to mass troops\nat the capital had not apparently been promptly\nobeyed, else the revolt would hardly have been practicable.\nThe active leaders at Monterey were Captain Francisco Figueroa, Juan N. Ayala, and Sergeant Santia-\nM June 25th, V. to A., com. of Monterey, Capt. Sanchez, Alcalde Alvirez,\nand Capt. J. J. Vallejo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 251, 254-6; xxxii. 91; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 289-91. San Jose* was evidently suspected of disaffection, and was to be watched.\n 524 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\ngo Aguilar, director of the printing-office. Ramirez\nand Surgeon Alva were absent from the town, exerting their influence among the rancheros, and at San\nJose' and San Juan. Cosme Pefia was in town, but\nworked secretly, afterwards pretending that he had\nbeen forced into a passive compliance in the plot.\nCaptain Villavicencio had just started with most of\nhis men to join Castro in the south, and Jesus Pico,\nleft in command, was absent from his post, when at 5\np. m. on July 1st, the Mexicans, perhaps thirty or\nforty in number, under Figueroa, seized the fort and\narms without resistance, holding possession until the\n3d.15 Villavicencio was hastily recalled; Pico raised\na few men in the interior; Graham volunteered with\na part of his riflemen; the Mexican garrison was in\nits turn besieged, and a message was despatched to\nVallejo.16 Figueroa's men, frightened by the w7arlike\npreparations, and disappointed in not getting reinforcements from the country, offered to surrender if\nVallejo would come to protect them, claiming that their\nrevolt had been solely with a view to protect their\nlives, which had been threatened by Pico and others.\nVallejo replied favorably, knowing that there was\nreally much bitter feeling against the Mexicans, and\npromised protection to all, with punishment to but\nfew, if their statement should prove true; but before\nthis reply arrived, Figueroa surrendered, all his men\n15Florencio Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 41-50, is the only participator in this\nmovement on the Mexican side who has told the story, and he fails to throw\nmuch light on it. He says they found at the fort 4 or 5 men playing cards,\nbut at the presidio nobody at all, Pico having run away at the first alarm.\nThere were 50 Mexicans in all, and Alva returning from the country reported\na failure to get reenforcements. Spence, Estrada, and Munras had frequent\ninterviews with Figueroa and Pefia. Mrs Avila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 14-16,\nstates that during the Mexican occupation, the Indian servants, at the instigation of the Mexicans, plundered the houses of their masters.\n16July 3d, Villavicencio to Vallejo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 266, announcing both the capture and recapture; but there had been a previous despatch, for on the same day, July 3d, V. announced from Sonoma his own\ndeparture for Mont., and later in the day he wrote frofr Petaluma on his way.\nJuly 3d, V. to com. of S. Francisco and alcalde of Monterey. Id.,iv. 264-5.\nV. was at S. Rafael on July 6th, when he heard that Mont, had been retaken.\nId., iv. 272.\n ARREST OF THE MEXICANS.\nprisoners,\nand\nleaders\nwere made\nirons.17\nVallejo came down to Santa Clara, and caused the\narrest of several men in that region, including Angel\nRamirez. All except the leaders were released within\na few days. Those leaders were at first delivered to\nCaptain J. J. Vallejo for safe keeping at his rancho f\nbut were soon sent to Sonoma, both Vallejo and Alvarado agreeing that they must be very strictly guarded\nuntil all political troubles should be at an end.19 Those\nsent to Sonoma, and held in captivity there as late\nas the end of August, were Ramirez, Alva, Figueroa,\nPena, Ayala, Aguilar, Manuel Crespo, and Jose Maria Maldonado.    I have no definite information about\n17It would seem from V.'s letter from Petaluma, that the Mexicans had\nmade their offer to surrender on July 1st, the same day they took the fort.\nIn telling the story of the recapture, Serrano claims to have prevented a disaster by seizing Ayala's hand as he was about to apply the match to a loaded\ncannon. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 316-17, 376-SO, tells us that the lighted match\nwas dashed from the man's fingers by a bullet from the rifle of one of Graham's men! Other Californian writers who speak more or less fully of this\nMonterey revolt are: Torre, Remin., MS., 75-9; Arce, Memorias, MS., 11;\nPico, Acont., MS., 44-5; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 27-9; Botello, Anales, MS., 24-5;\nAlvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 174-5, 240-1; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii.\n292-6; Fernandez, Cosas de Cal, MS., 101; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 100-1;\nCoronet, Cosas de Cal, MS., 22; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 38-9; Garcia, Ilechos,\nMS., 68-70. Vallejo regards A. M. Pico's attempts, already noticed, as a\npart of this same plot. Harry J. Bee, Recollections, MS., 6-21, and in S. Jos6\nPioneer, Jan. 13, 1877, gives a narrative from memory of this affair, so absurdly inaccurate that it merits no further attention.\n18 July 4th, com. of Monterey to Capt. V. The prisoners may either be\nkept at the rancho or sent to Sonoma. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 268. Gonzalez,\nRevoluciones, MS., 10-11, says the prisoners were given up to him as alcalde\non his demand.\n19 July 8th, Vallejo to Villavicencio. The Monterey prisoners and all suspected persons to be sent to Sonoma under a strong escort. Vallejo, Doc., MS.,\niv. 273. July 9th, same to Alvarado. Fears that the lives of Mexicans are in\ndanger. All would certainly be killed should any native chance to perish in\nfuture troubles with Mexico. The persons named in an enclosed list (not given)\nshould be shipped out of the country. Id., iv. 275. July 9th, Villavicencio\nto Vallejo, with orders from Alvarado of July 6th, that no leniency be shown\ntaany man that took up arms to capture the fort. Id., iv. 274. July 11th,\nVallejo to Alvarado.    Has arrested Ramirez.    Has abundant proof of his plots\nto upset the govt. Id., iv. 279.   July 11 th, Vallejo to .   Leonardo Felix and\nPedro Chabolla arrested; Mesa and Higuera detained for examination. Id.,\niv., 278, 259. July 14th, Vallejo to J. J. Vallejo. Pena is in great terror.\nTo save bother his irons may be removed and he may be treated a little better\nthan the others; but must be kept secure and not allowed to speak to any one.\nId., xxxii. 99. Aug. 9th, Alvarado recommends great precautions with the\ncaptives. Id., iv. 292. Aug. 31st, list of the captives at Sonoma. Id., iv.\n304, 307.\n 526 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nthe date of their release, except that of Figueroa on\nAugust 31st; but several Californians state that after\nleaving Sonoma they were scattered at different missions for a time under surveillance before being restored to entire liberty.\nLet us now turn to the south, where at the end of\nJune Alvarado with Castro and the 'civic militia of\nthe state' at Santa Barbara was awaiting the approach\nof the 'army of the supreme government' encamped\nat San Fernando under Portilla and Juan Bandini.\nThere is a notable and unfortunate lack of exact data\nrespecting what was said and done in these days, there\nbeing no record at all' on the side of the northerners,\nand only a very vague one from the standpoint of the\nabajenos.20 It is clear, however, that Castillero as\ncommissioner of the supreme government, but regarded\nby Bandini and his associates as fully in sympathy\nwith their plan, went to Santa Barbara in the early\ndays of July and had an interview with Alvarado.\n\"We may only conjecture what was said at that interview, but the result was that Alvarado agreed to take\nthe oath of allegiance to the constitutional laws, and\nthus restore California unconditionally to Mexico. So\nfar as sectional issues were concerned, this was Alvarado's greatest victory and the most crushing defeat\nhe had administered to the south in all this play at\npolitics and war.    The country being restored to its\n20Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 361-73, who says that the ' amigo de Sepulveda,'\nthough the first man to whom Bandini applie'd for support, refused to promise\nmore than not (to use his influence against the Dieguinos, next speaks of the\ndifficulty experienced in getting a little coin to distribute among the soldiers\nwhen the oath was taken; tells of Sepulveda's arrest and temporary detention\nby the southerners in spite of his own efforts; notes some faults of Macedonio\nGonzalez in matters having no bearing on the political situation; and finally,\nexplains that Castillero was clever enough to manage the leaders on both sides\nfor his own interests, favoring Alvarado finally as the one who could help him\nmost. Bandini in his report of Aug. 4th\u2014Sucesos del Sur, MS.\u2014stated that\nhis force marched on victoriously to within 30 leagues of Sta B., when the\nrebels demanded a truce, the result being that the so-called state govt was\ndestroyed, and Cal. restored to Mexico. In his Hist. Cal, MS., 96-7, Bandini says that 'Castillero deceived us vilely, sold his honor for a few dollars,\nand joined Alvarado and Castro against us, so that by his intrigues we fell into\nthe power of our adversaries.'\n ALVARADO'S TRIUMPH IN DEFEAT. 527\nnational allegiance, the diputacion would naturally resume its powers, and Alvarado would become governor ad interim as senior vocal of that body. There was\nleft no pretext for southern opposition. The army\nof the supreme government must be disbanded, the\nelaborate plan of San Diego had melted into thin air,\nand there were no temporary offices to be filled, not\neven that of treasurer. Centralism was triumphant,\nfor w.hich the abajenos cared nothing. Mexico was\nvictorious, which gave them very little joy, but the\narribenos still controlled California, and southern patriotic intrigues would go for naught in the final settlement. No wonder Bandini deemed his party j vilely\ndeceived' by its pretended friend Castillero; yet what\nmore could the Mexican comisionado insist on than\nsubmission to the national authority ?\nOn the other hand, Alvarado as an advocate of federalism and Californian independence suffered a defeat,\nsomewhat humiliating in view of the recent proclamation of his purpose to make the Californians free in\nspite of themselves. He has written nothing, then\nor since, which throws much real light on his motives;21\nyet it is not difficult to conjecture with approximate\naccuracy the arguments by which Castillero induced\nhim to triumph in defeat. Experience had now proven\nthat the south could not be depended upon to support\nthe governor in the position he had assumed, but\nwould seize upon every pretext to revolt in order to\ngain sectional advantages or gratify personal prejudices.\nEven in the north there were signs of disaffection at\nSan Jos6, growing out of a local quarrel; while the\nMexican residents had gone so far as to rise in arms\nand seize the capital.    United effort, by which alone\n21 In a letter of July 12th to Vallejo he refers to a previous communication\nnarrating all that had occurred since their last interview; but unfortunately\nthat document is not extant. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 282. In a letter of\nSept. 1st, however, A. says he was strong enough to defeat the conspirators\nof both north and south. The plan of S. Diego was simply to seize the\noffices. \\Vhen the Dieguinos saw Alvarado's force they put themselves\nhypocritically under the constitution, abandoned their position, and acted\ndisgracefully. Id., iv. 307.\n 528 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nsuccess was attainable, could not be secured, and there\nwas much ground for discouragement. Not only did\nCastillero present these facts in a strong light, but he\nalso confirmed the report that a strong force was being fitted out in Mexico to reconquer California. It\nwas merely a question under what leaders the country\nshould be restored. to its national allegiance, and he\nmade no secret of his preference for Alvarado. To\naid in the final triumph of the men who had dealt so\nunfairly with him seemed no part of the governor's\nduty, and his desire to remain in office was naturally\nstrong. Moreover Castillero assured him that by his\ninfluence with the government, if sent to Mexico as a\ncommissioner, he could prevent the sending of the military force, which would of course be ruinous to the\ncountry, and could probably secure a confirmation of\nAlvarado's title as governor. Finally, there can be\nbut little doubt that Castillero brought the news that\nby the decree of December 30,1836, one day after the\nadoption of the constitution, the Californias had been\nformed into a department, and that thus one of the\nmain objects sought by Alvarado's party had been\nsecured.22 It is not strange that under the circumstances Don Juan Bautista w7as converted to centralism.\nIt was on July 4th that Portilla announced the\nagreement of the northern pronunciados to accept the\nconstitutional laws, and the consequent withdrawal of\nhis army to San Gabriel.23 On July 9th Alvarado\nissued a proclamation to the people, a very graceful\neffusion, albeit not very explicit as an explanation of\nhis late change of front, bearing evident marks of hav-\n22 Mexico, Leyes Constitucionales, 29 de Die 1836, in Arrillaga, Recop. 1836,\n(2) 317-78. Decree of Dec. 30th, making the Californias a department, in Id.,\n379-80. It does not appear that Castillero brought official news of this decree, though Alvarado immediately called himself gov. of the dept of Alta \u25a0\nCal.\n23 July 4th, Portilla to ayunt. of S. Diego. Hayes' Doc,, MS., 73; Id., Mission\nBook, i. 322; S. Diego, Index, MS., 42. The communication is headed ' Division of operations of the sup. govt.' July 8th, a similar document read\nto ayunt. of Angeles, and congratulations expressed for so happy a result.\nLos Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 323.\n THE GOVERNOR'S SPEECH.\ning emanated from the mind as well as pen of the\nversatile and eloquent Frenchman, Victor Prudon.24\nThis proclamation was first delivered as a speech by\nthe governor on the occasion of swearing allegiance\nto the Mexican constitution, an event celebrated at\nSanta Barbara on the date named, July 9th, with all\npossible ceremony and enthusiasm. From this date,\nbarring certain mysterious indications of irregularity\nin the composition of the diputacion, which, as they\nexcited no comment either in Mexico or among Alvarado's enemies in California, need not greatly trouble\neither historian or reader, Alvarado may be regarded\n24 Alvarado, [Proclama del] Gobernador Interino del Departamento de la\nAlta California d sus habitantes, 9 de Julio, 1837, MS. Issued at Sta Barbara.\n'Compatriots! Liberty, peace, and union form the trinal intelligence that\nshould rule our destinies. Our arms gave us the first; a wise congress assures\nto us the second; and upon ourselves depends the last, without which we\nhave neither liberty nor peace. Let us then preserve inviolate that union,\nsacred ark which holds the custody of our political redemption. War against\nthe tyrant only! Peace among ourselves! The solidity of an edifice consists in\nthe union of its parts; a single stone torn out from an arch causes the columns\nto totter, bringing ruin to a structure that would mark the age of time did\nits component materials remain united. Not otherwise disunion brings ruin\nto the moral edifice of a society. The territory of Alta California is immense;\nits coasts are bathed by the Pacific Sea, which, placing us in contact with the\nnations, develops our industries and commerce, fountains of abundance.' (See\nnewspapers of later years!) 'The benignity of our climate, the fertility of\nour soil, and\u2014I say it in your behalf\u2014the suavity of your customs and excellence of your character are so many privileges with which the Omnipotent\nhas favored us in the distribution of his gifts. What country can count so\nmany advantages as ours? Let us then strive to give it in history a place as\ndistinguished as that which it occupies on the map. The constitutional laws\nof 1836 guarantee to us our rights, and even extend them beyond our moderate\ndesires. The august chamber of national representatives is ready to consider\na bill to be presented by us for our greater welfare and prosperity; our votes\nmay be cast in favor of the citizen whom we deem worthy to occupy the supreme magistracy of the nation\u2014and what more do you wish? The very laws\nassure us that we arc not again to fall a prey to the despotism and ambition\nof a tyrant like D. Mariano Chico. The department of Alta California can\nhenceforth be governed only by a native or a citizen. Yes, friends; the enthusiasm and pleasure which you feel on receiving such news is well founded.\nI share your pleasure, and I close in order that you may no longer have to\nrestrain your joy. Give it free course, and shout with me\u2014Viva la Nacion!\nViva la Constitucion del ano de '36! Viva el Congreso que la sancion6! Viva\nla Libertad! Viva la Union!'\nAlso in Hayes, Doc, MS., 75; forwarded by Alvarado to ayunt., and received at S. Diego on July 31st. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 183. July 24th, the\nproclamation had been read at Monterey, causing great enthusiasm. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxxii. 103. Sent to Sonoma to be sworn July 12th. Id., iv. 280.\nAnd it would seem that the people of Sta Cruz went to Monterey on July\n17th to take the new oath. Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 20. The fact that the\noath was taken at Sta Barbara on July 9th is mentioned by Alvarado in a\nletter of July 12th to Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc, iv. 282.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   34\n 530\nSAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nas legally the governor ad interim of California, his\nrevolutionary term ending with his new oath.\nIn his letters sent northward, though unfortunately\nthe most important of them describing the negotiations with Castillero is missing, the governor described\nthe state of affairs as on the whole satisfactory,-his\nenemies being filled with confusion.25 The southern\nfriars, represented by Padre Dnran, now consented to\"\ntake the long-delayed oath of allegiance, on the ground\nthat .Spain had recognized the independence of Mexico, while the Zacatecanos of course made no objection, having already sworn to the bases.26 The diputacion assembled as early as July 16th at Santa Barbara ; but we have no record of its acts, except that on\nthe 21st it resolved, 1st, that in consequence of certain\ndoubts arising in relation to the election laws, a commission of two persons should be sent to the national\ncapital to treat with the supreme government; and 2d,\nthat the senior vocal, on whom by law devolved the\noffice of gefe politico, should notify the ayuntamientos\nand other authorities that the diputacion was assembled in extra session. He was also authorized to\ncarry out the first resolution.27\nIt is probable that the diputacion took no other\naction, and that the governor had no other use for its\nservices at this time, after securing its indorsement\nof his title, with authority to send a commission to\nMexico. It had been determined from the first by\nAlvarado and Castillero that the latter should \u00a30 to\n25 July 9th, 12th, 17th, Alvarado to Vallejo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 269,\n282-\u00a3 Pio Pico still disposed to favor the vagabonds at S. Gabriel, and Portilla for gefe politico, being instigated by Zamorano. Bandini gone home,\nconvinced that it is no use to struggle longer.\n26 July 8th, Duran to Alvarado, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 96. July\n12th, P. Moreno to A.   Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 18.\n27 These resolutions were published at Sta Barbara on Aug. 2d, and at\nMonterey on Aug. 13th. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 289; xxxii. 105, 107. Sent\nto Los Angeles July 29th. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 90-1. The\nfirst meeting of July 16th is mentioned by Alvarado on July 17th. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., iv. 283. There is also a short address of Alvarado to the dip. in\nId., xxxii. 121, undated, but probably delivered at.this time. It contains\ncongratulations on 'California Libre,' and states that only a few points require action at this time.\n CASTILLERO SENT TO MEXICO. 531\nMexico in the former's behalf, and the doubts on election laws were simply a pretext. Early in July the\ngovernor began to speak of the project in his letters,\nexpressing his belief that Don Andre's, with the aid\nof his brother, could exert in Mexico a greater influence in favor of himself and Vallejo thg,n any other\nman; meanwhile Castillero made a trip to the southern frontier to restore order among the men of his\ncommand.23 He returned in August, and sailed after\nthe middle of that month on the schooner California,\nreaching Acapulco the 15th of September. His mission was to prevent the sending of a Mexican force to\nCalifornia, to defend Alvarado's acts and policy before\nthe government, and to obtain if possible a confirmation of his title as governor together with that of Vallejo as general. It is not very unlikely that he carried with him a moderate sum of money to be placed\n\"where it would do most good\"\u2014else, knowing much\nof Mexican methods, he would hardly have been so\nconfident of success.\nThe California was a schooner called originally the\nClarion, and at the Sandwich Islands the Kaniu;\nbrought this year from Honolulu by Henry Paty;\nand by him sold to Alvarado for the state government. She was paid for in mission produce, and was\ncommanded during this year and the next by Thomas\nM. Bobbins of Santa Barbara. The governor had\nat first intended to purchase two vessels with mission\nfunds; and had hoped to use them profitably, not only\nin commercial enterprises and to protect the revenues,\n28Alvarado to Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 282-3, 306. Osio, Hist.\nCal, MS., 373-5, tells us that A. first appointed on this commission Carlos\nCarrillo and 'another' (Osio himself I suppose), who were summoned to Sta\nB. to receive their instructions. But it was suggested that one of them, the\n'other'probably, had the defect of telling the truth on all points, which would\nbe inconvenient; and therefore A. announced that to his great regret the\nscheme would have to be abandoned. Finally Castillero accepted the place\n(probably as a man of some wealth), from a desire to give himself importance\nby appearing in person before the president. The Cal. records name no companion of Castillero, though the commission was to consist of two; butBusta-\nmante, Gabinete, Mex., i. 36, mentions the arrival at Acapulco on Sept. 15th\nof Castillero and Nicolas Estrada as comisionados. I know of no such Californian, but it may have been Capt. Nicanor Estrada.\n 532\nSAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nbut also for purposes of defence against Mexico, and\neven as the nucleus of a west-coast navy with which\nto enforce federalism in the nation! Circumstances\nchanged, however; funds were not too plentiful; and\none vessel was deemed sufficient.29\nAlvarado's position as governor was now temporarily secure. On September 4th he circulated for\npublication the Mexican decree of December 30,\n1836\u2014nine days after the newTs of Alvarado's revolt\nreached the capital\u2014making California a department,\nauthorizing the national government to designate\nprovisionally the capital and the authorities to act\nuntil the regular elections could be held; and empowering the junta departarnental to divide the department into districts and partidos. Not even yet,\nthough published in the usual form, had this decree\nbeen received ' officially,' and for the present nothing\nwas done in consequence of it. Alvarado in later\ntimes claimed tha\u00a3 he had not before known of the\nfact that California had been made a department.30\nAbout the middle of September he returned once\nmore to Monterey.\nIf Alvarado's position was for a time comparatively secure, that of Vallejo had no longer any foundation to stand upon. He had no claim to the military\ncommand, which now belonged to the ranking officer\nin the territory. The governor recognized this fact\nin his letters of July; stated that both Portilla and\n29 March 9th, Alvarado to Vallejo, about his projected purchase of 2\nvessels. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 212. There is no record of the actual purchase, which i3 however spoken of by several Californians. The movements\nof tho Kaniu at the islands, and her sailing for Cal. in May 1837, are recorded in the Honolulu, S. I., Gazette, 1836-7. The pay of the crew began\nAug. 14th. There were 10 men and a boy, only 5 being of Spanish American blood. G. Robinson (William ?) was 1st pilot, and later W. Reed 2d\npilot. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-IL, MS., v. 13-14.\n30 Sept. 4th, A. 's order for publication of decree. Published at S. Diego\nbefore Dec. lGth. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 183-4, 190. Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS., iv. 15, says he had heard rumors from Castillo Negrete through Zamorano, which were not believed. I have not much doubt that he knew all\nabout it at the time of his arrangement with Castillero. The news of Alvarado's revolt was announced to congress by minister Tornel on Dec. 21st according to Bustamante, Voz de la Patria, MS., xi. 60-1.\n THE MILITARY COMMAND. 533\nZamorano desired the position; but desired Vallejo\nto aid him in giving it to Captain Jose de la Guerra,\non the ground that it was better that it should be\nheld by a friend than a foe.31 Vallejo replied in a\nprinted letter of July 20th, the meaning of which is\nnot quite clear, but in which he declared the separation of the civil and military commands to be impracticable, and thus apparently showed a desire to\nsee Alvarado share in his own fall.32 He, however,\nsaw the necessity of resigning his position, and based\nhis resignation on the alleged ground of his unwillingness to swear allegiance to the central constitution,\n\"such oaths having become bywords in the whole\ncountry.\" At the same time all military officers\nwere ordered to meet at Monterey to choose a comandante general.33 The San Francisco company, on\nreceipt of orders from Alvarado to take the oath,\naddressed a protest to Vallejo, in which they declared that they had once sworn to die in defence of\nfederalism, and asked to be discharged from the service rather than change their political faith.34 I suppose that Vallejo and other officers and soldiers in\nthe north were subsequently induced to take the oath\nin support of centralism; but I find no definite record\nof the fact. The council of war for the election of\na comandante had not been held as late as October,\nand probably was not held at all, the aim of Vallejo\nand Alvarado being perhaps to postpone definite action until the result of Castillero's efforts could be\nlearned. Portilla insisted that the choice must fall\non the senior officer, meaning himself.    Some officers\n31 July 12th, 17th, A. to V., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 282-3.\n32 Vallejo, Carta impresa al Gobernador, 20 de Julio, 1837, in Earliest\nPrinting. There is a possibility of error, as the date was printed 1838 and\nchanged in ink\u2014apparently by Vallejo's direction\u2014to 1837.\n33 No date, probably early in August, Vallejo to dip. and to Alvarado.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 202.\n3i Aug. 16th, Com. Sanchez to V., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 294. Aug.\n31st, protest of the company, Id., iv. 305. This is probably what Alvarado,\nHist. Cal., MS., iii. 181-3, ridicules as Berreyesa's revolt at the iastigation,\nof southern agents.\n 534\nSAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nin their letters expressed a preference for Vallejo.35\nThere seems to have been no final decision in the\nmatter. It does not appear that Vallejo's resignation was accepted by the diputacion, or that any\nother officer attempted to exercise the command.\nAll waited for news from Mexico.\nAnd this news came sooner than looked for, and in\nan unexpected form. It was an announcement that\nCdxlos Carrillo had been appointed provisional governor of the department of Californias. It reached\nMonterey October 30th, and Los Angeles ten days\nearlier, in letters from Luis del Castillo Negrete and\nJose* Antonio Carrillo at La Paz, enclosing certified\ncopies of the appointment to Alvarado and the ayuntamiento, and the original probably to Don Carlos himself at San Buenaventura. There is not much to be\nsaid of the circumstances in Mexico which had led to\nthis appointment. 1 have no copy of the report which\nGutierrez rendered on his arrival in exile, though it\nis not difficult to conjecture its purport. The Mexican government was too busy with troubles at home\nto devote much attention to a distant territory, but\nfinally it did go so far as to make preparations for\nsending 1,000 men under General Iniestra to restore\nthe wayward California to her allegiance.36 Money\nand arms, however, were scarce. The fitting-out of\nthe expedition progressed slowly, and before it was\ncompleted the Californian congressman, Jose Antonio\nCarrillo, devised a method of suspending it altogether,\n35 Sept. 1st, Alvarado expresses a high opinion of V.'s services, and hopes\nthe Mexicans will not succeed in breaking the friendship of the two. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., iv. 306-7. Sept. 20th, Portilla to 'Lieut M. G. Vallejo,' saying\nthat ill health may prevent his attendance at the council. Id., iv. 313. Oct.\n1st, Alf. Salazar to Vallejo. Cannot come in time, but votes for V. Id., iv.\n315.\n361 have no official record of these preparations, but there is no reason to\ndoubt the reports current in California at the time, founded on articles in the\nnewspapers and the statements of J. A. Carrillo, Castillero, and others. Osio\nand several others name Gen. Iniestra. Greenhow, who names Gen. Urrea as\nin charge of the movement, Mofras, Forbes, Marsh, and others tell us that on\nhearing of the rebellion Mexico 'fulminated furious proclamations,' etc., but\nI have seen no such papers.\n CARLOS CARRILLO'S APPOINTMENT. 535\nat the same time advancing the interests of his own\nfamily and sparing his country the threatened infliction of cholo soldiers. He persuaded the government\nthat California was not really disloyal or hostile to\nMexico; but had been driven to her present rebellious\nattitude by the arbitrary acts of Mexican rulers. Instead of sending an army at great expense, it would\nbe sufficient merely to appoint a native ruler\u2014his\nbrother Don Ca>los for example, well known in Mexico and popular at home\u2014whom California would\ngladly recognize and thus return to her allegiance.\nThe administration was glad to be persuaded, and\nwilling to try the experiment. The appointment was\nissued in a hurry by the minister of state on June\n6th; Don Jose Antonio left Mexico two days later,\nand from La Paz en route sent the papers ahead in\nAugust.37\nLos Angeles of course was delighted with Carrillo's\nappointment. True, Don Carlos was not in sympathy\nwith the abajenos, and had been a partisan of the\nother side throughout the late controversies, but \" anything to beat Alvarado and the pronunciados del\nnorte\" was the Angelinos' motto, and they made such\nhaste that Carrillo to the letter announcing his appointment had to attach his thanks for their acknowledgment, their congratulations, and for a grand illu-\n37 June 6, 1837, Minister Pena y Pena to Carlos Carrillo, announcing his\nappointment by the president, with power to fix the capital provisionally\nwherever circumstances might require. Copy from the original in the possession of the Carrillo family, in Carrillo, Doc, MS., i. Also in Dept. St.\nPap., Angeles, MS., xi. 92-3; and translation in Hopkins' Translations, 6. July\n21st, Antonio M. Ercilla announces the news from Tepic, where J. A. Carrillo then was, to Guerra, Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 145; but it does not appear\nwhen this was received\u2014possibly a little earlier than by the.other route.\nAug. 20th, J. A. Carrillo at La Paz to Alvarado, with certified copies. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iv. 165-6. Oct, 20th, Castillo Negrete's despatch from Baja\nCalifornia with similar copies read before ayunt. of Los Angeles. Carlos Carrillo's letter of Oct. 24th received on Nov. 4th. Los Angeles, Arch., MS.,\niv. 326-30. Oct. 25th, Carlos Carrillo to Alvarado, with news. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iv. 169-70. Oct. 25th, same to Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 337.\nOct. 31st, Alvarado's proclamation of the news, which came 'by yesterday's\nmail.' Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., x. 20-1; S. Jos6, Arch., MS., vi. 5; Hopkins' Translations, 6^7. Petit-Thouars, Voyage, ii. 100, who was at Monterey\nat the time, says the news came on Nov. 1st.,\n 536 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARILLLO.\nmination of the city in his honor. He also pledged\nhis word to make Los Angeles the capital on assuming\nthe government, a very impolitic promise to be made\nso early, but Don Carlos, an easy-going, kind-hearted\nman, was all at sea in matters of political management.\nAlvarado's submission to the national authorities\nand his acceptance of the constitutional laws were not\nknown in Mexico at the time of Carrillo's appointment. Jose A. Carrillo, writing from La Paz to Al-\nvaradp, presented a strong argument in favor of such\nsubmission, showing the impracticability of resisting\nMexican power, alluding to the difficulty he had had\nin preventing the sending of one thousand soldiers,\nand claiming that the most essential object of the revolutionists had been secured with a native ruler. He\nurged Alvarado to submit to the new governor, and\npromised in such case to go in person to Mexico, and\nobtain all necessary guaranties of pardon and protection for the revolutionary leaders, that is, to undertake the very mission in which Castillero was now\nemployed. Don C&rlos announced his appointment\nto Alvarado and Vallejo in friendly modest letters,\nexpressing much diffidence in respect to his own capabilities, but hoping to succeed by earnest effort with\nthe aid of his good friends. He made no formal demand for a transfer of the office, but left Alvarado to\ntake such action as might seem proper in consequence\nof his announcement.\nDon Juan Bautista now found himself in a very\npeculiar situation. Of course he had hoped to retain\nthe command, and was disappointed at the prospect\nof losing it, especially when any day might bring\nnews from Castillero which would secure him in its\npossession. With this feeling, however, neither the\nwriter nor reader of history is called upon to feel any\nspecial sympathy. His personal disappointment furnished no justification for refusing or delaying compliance with the orders of the government which he had\n ALVARADO'S POSITION. 537\nsworn to obey. There were, however, other and more\nserious complications. Alvarado had placed himself\nat the head of a revolution, and while he had surrendered in a sense and acknowledged the supremacy\nof the national laws, yet the government had not accepted his surrender, Castillero having had no authority whatever in the matter. In the eyes of the government at the time of this last appointment he wras\nsimply a rebel chief, ordered virtually, not to transfer the governorship, but to obey the governor. Was\nhe under obligation to come down from the vantage-\nground of success and high position, to place himself\nwithout guaranties as a private citizen at the mercy\nof a power that might legally shoot him as a traitor?\nCould he disregard the fate of his associates whose\nposition was like his own? Surely no successful\nrebel was ever known to give such excessive proofs of\ndevotion to his country. Again, Alvarado looked\nupon himself at this time as the legitimate ruler of\nCalifornia. He was so considered by the people, even\nby Carlos Carrillo, and there wTas not much reason to\nfear that President Bustamante would not so recognize him, knowing the circumstances, even if he should\ninsist upon naming a successor. An order to the incumbent to deliver the office was, by custom if not\nby law, as necessary to a change of rulers as was the\nappointee's order to receive it, and the recognition\nimplied in such an order was of vital importance to\nDon Juan. Thus a way seemed open to the delay so\nurgently demanded by the safety of the former rebels\nas well as by Alvarado's ambitious hopes.\nIn his proclamation of October 31st, the governor\nmade known to the people the news which he had\nunofficially received, and of which he hoped to receive\nconfirmation by the next mail, ad ling, \" All the department may be sure that I shall deliver the command to the nominee on receiving the slightest\nintimation from the supreme government.\" Within\na few days he notified the ayuntamientos in due form,\n 538 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nspeaking of \"the nearness of the time when I shall\ndeliver the command to Carrillo.\"38 Don Cdrlos\nunwisely yielded to the counsel of his advisers, and\nchose to regard Alvarado's position and his request\nin a private letter for a conference as insulting to himself and threatening to the peace of the country,\nspeaking of 'frivolous pretexts' for delaying obedience,\nand hinting vaguely by a negative assertion at fears\nthat \"you aspire to the place I occupy.\"39 Meanwhile the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles on receipt of\nthe governor's communications refused to recognize\nany other authority than that of Carrillo, who was\ninvited to come and establish his government in that\ncity before replying to Alvarado.40\nCould Alvarado have obtained an interview with\nDon Carlos\u2014his so-called 'uncle,' that is, cousin to the\nlady whom a real uncle had married\u2014he would probably have succeeded in making him understand the\nfull force of the reasons for delay, and of his right to\ninsist at least on the guaranty implied in recognition\nof his title; and thus further disagreement might\nperhaps have been avoided. But Carrillo's new\nsouthern friends knew better than to trust their easily\ninfluenced protege within the reach of Juan Bautista's\neloquence; and if there was any uncertainty about\nresults, it wTas removed by the arrival of Jose Antonio\nCarrillo at the beginning of December. This gentleman feared the influence of Castillero in Mexico,\nknowing how little the administration cared who was\ngovernor of California so long as there was no rebel-\n38 Nov. 3d, 7th, Alvarado to ayunt. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi.\n98- Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 57-8; Hopkins' Translations, 7. A private letter\nof 'Alvarado to Carrillo of Nov. 4th is not extant, nor the official note of\n89 Nov 14th, Carrillo to Alvarado, in reply to letters of Nov. 3d, 4th,\nprivate letter in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 345; official note in Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iv. 1G7-8. On Nov. 18th, before receiving C's reply, A. wrote to\nVallejo a private letter, expressing the same views as in his communications\nto C\u2014that is, his willingness to give up the rule on receipt of an order from\nMexico.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 346. ;     \u201e \u201e nn      _     ... ,\n4\u00b0Nov 18th, session. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 329-30. Carrillos\nletter of Nov. 14th to Alvarado had also been forwarded to this body. Dept.\nSt. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 96-8.\n CARRILLO ASSUMES THE COMMAND. 539\nlion to call for Mexican troops and money. He feared\nCastillero's arrival with an order that if no change\nhad yet been made in the governorship none need be\nmade. It was as much for his interest to avoid a\ndelay in the transfer as for Alvarado's interest to secure it. His influence over his brother was of course\ngreat, and the latter followed his lead without hesitation.\nOn December 1st the Angelinos, as representatives\nof the supreme government, took possession of a house\nthat had been rented as a temporary capitol.41 Next\nday Juan Bandini seems to have delivered an oration\nbefore the ayuntamiento.42 On the 4th the same illustrious body in an extra session received formal notice that Don Carlos would take the oath of office,\nthus assuming the governorship, on the 6th, at 9\na. M. It was thereupon resolved to prepare the sala\ncapitular, to open a subscription for funds wherewith\nduly to solemnize the act, to issue tickets of invitation\nto prominent citizens, to obtain a big cannon from San\nGabriel for salvos, and to illuminate the city for three\nnights. At last the day arrived, and the ayuntamiento met in public session; Jose Antonio Carrillo\nmade a speech; Carlos Carrillo took the oath and delivered an address; mass and te deum followed at the\nchurch; and the enthusiastic Angelinos proceeded to\ntheir new governor's house to shout their vivas and\noverload him with congratulations.43\nThe address of Don Cdrlos was circulated among\nthe people.44    It was of the congratulatory and grand-\nilLos Angeles, Ayuntamiento Records, MS., 24. The house was that of the\nwidow Josefa Alvarado, rented of John Temple for $360 per year, the negotiations having begun in September.\n42There is some mystery about this speech, which is fragment of a blotter\nin Bandini's handwriting, headed ' Discourse pronounced by the Sindico J.\nB. in the session of Dec. 2d,' in Bandini, Doc, MS., 46. Bandini was not a\nsindico at all in that year or .the next. The speech, however, amounts to\nnothing, being apparently an argument in favor of a meeting of the asamblea\ndepartarnental.\n43Sessions of Dec. 4th, 6th. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 331-5.\nu Carrillo, Discurso que pronuncid al tomar el mando politico en Los Angeles,\nd6 de Die 1837, MS.\n 540 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\niloquent type deemed suitable for such occasions. Its\npurport was: \"The end of all our troubles has come,\nthe political sea is calm, nothing but happiness ahead.\nYour wishes are fulfilled now that a Californian rules\nCalifornia. It was my brother who brought us the\ngift of peace and my appointment; but for his intercessions, a thousand bayonets would now gleam on our\nshores. I recognize my own unworthiness, but I trust\nin your cooperation. Let us be united, asking heaven's blessing.\" There was not the slightest intimation\nthat any opposition was expected, and no attempt to\nexplain the irregularity and haste with which the office was assumed. The action at Angeles was ratified\nat San Diego on December 9th.45\nThe support of Santa Barbara was essential, and\nDon Carlos sent his brother Jose Antonio as a comisionado to obtain it, instructing him to lay before\nthe ayuntamiento the disasters which must result from\nthe coming of the military J expedition now ready to\nstart from the'Mexican coast.46 Yet, notwithstanding\nthe comisionado's eloquence and influence, his threats\nof bringing a force from Mexico, and the fact that\nCdrlos Carrillo wTas a Santa Barbara man with many\nrelatives and friends in that place, the Barbarenos\ncould not be induced to support the present plan and\npolicy of Los Angeles. They had sworn allegiance to\nAlvarado, and regarded their oath as binding until\nthe command should be in due form transferred to\nanother. Moreover, they recognized their own need,\nas Alvarado's associates and supporters, of formal\nguaranties from Mexico, and they could but regard\nCarrillo's present actions as savoring of treachery.47\n45Dec. 8th, Carrillo to ayunt., with his appointment, etc. Dec. 10th,\nFrancisco Alvarado to C., with news of the ratification, enthusiasm, etc. S.\nDiego, Arch., MS., 189-90. Dec. 10th, C. orders the ayunt. of Angeles to\nproclaim him gov. in its jurisdiction. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 99. [\n46 Dec. 8, 1837, appointment and instructions of Carlos to J. A. Carrillo in\nSoberanes, Doc, MS., 70.\n47 In a letter of Dec. 20th, Alvarado informs Vallejo of the arrival of 2 men\nfrom Sta Barbara, with news of Carrillo's efforts and threats at that place.\nThey report a bitter feeling against D. Carlos.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 361.\n ALVARADO DESIRES A CONFERENCE. 541\nDuring the rest of the year nothing was accomplished on either side, save that the Zacatecan friars,\nthrough their prefect, expressed their recognition of\nCarrillo as governor,48 and that Castro was sent down\nwith an escort of ten men to take command at Santa\nBarbara. Castro was instructed to forward communications from the north and south, aid the local authorities in preserving order, keep a close watch on\nfomenters of opposition to the government, but not to\nuse force without orders, it being especially desirable\nto avoid a rupture.49 Correspondence continued in\nDecember. The governor had been offended by Carrillo's letter of November 14th, and had not answered\nit, but now he wrote a reply, which was forwarded by\nCastro. It was a dignified and forcible presentment\nof the matters at issue, expressing deep regret at Carrillo's hasty assumption, without legal formalities, of\na command which the writer was willing to turn over\nto him legally, and at his refusal to consult with the\nman whom he had recognized as a legitimate ruler\nrespecting certain matters that could not be treated\nin writing. He closed by renewing his proposal for a\nconference, which might take place at San Miguel,\nand by which further sectional strife might be prevented.50\nGeneral Vallejo also wrote on December 26th letters to Alvarado and the two Carrillos. To the former he declared that his right to await orders and\nguaranties from the Mexican government could not\nbe questioned; that the threat to bring a force from\nMexico was but braggadocio to frighten cowards; and\nthat were it not for the expected arrival of the California at an early date, he would not hesitate to march\n48Dec. 14th, P. Moreno to the friars. Arch. Olmpado, MS., 59.\n49Dec. 25, 1837, Alvarado's instructions to Castro. Soberanes, Doc, MS.,\n74-5, in 9 articles.\n50Dec. 23, 1837, Alvarado to Carlos Carrillo. Soberanes, Doc, MS., 78-\n81; Vidlejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 118. Same date, to Vallejo. Advises him to\nkeep military men on good terms, so that they may be disposed to obey his\norders. Id., iv. 304.\n 542 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nwith his soldiers to the south in Alvarado's support;\nyet under existing circumstances it would doubtless be\nbest to avoid violent measures.51 To Jose Antonio\nCarrillo he wrote that his boasting and threats at\nSanta Barbara had aroused not fear, but indignation\nthat ,a son of California could adopt such a course, rebuking him for his hasty action and advising prudence.\nLet them wait till the vessel should arrive with despatches, and then the command would be legally and\ngladly surrended, although the legitimate ruler had\nbeen grievously insulted.52 In writing to Don CaYlos,\nVallejo adopted a milder tone, appealing to his good\nsense and patriotism, and begging him not-to plunge\nthe country needlessly into a sectional strife by ignoring the rights of a ruler whom he had himself aided\nto put in power. Alvarado could not yield, even if he\nwished to do so, and leave his friends, unprotected,\nwhile Carrillo assuredly could not rule successfully\nwithout northern support. Why not then secure that\nsupport by showing a conciliatory spirit, and consenting to a slight delay, or at least to a conference?53\nAnswers to these letters, though not extant, were\nevidently not conciliatory. The sum total of all that\ncan be said against the position of Alvarado and Vallejo at this time is that they perhaps hoped to receive\nby the California, not an order to surrender their\npower, but authority to keep it. This hope on their\npart, causing them to desire delay, was neither more\nnor less culpable than Carrillo's fears on the same subject prompting haste. Otherwise, Alvarado's ground\nwas tenable legally and morally, besides tending to\n61 Dec. 26th, V. to A., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 368. He hints that Carrillo\nmay have heard in Mexico of some proposition to cede California to the U.\n\u00a7., which may account for his haste to get possession.\n\"Dec. 26th, V. to J. A. Carrillo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 367.\n53Dec. 26th, V. to Carlos Carrillo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 365. In a\nlater letter to J. A. Carillo, not dated, Vallejo accuses him. of having asked\ncongress to expend $60,000 in sending an army to Cal.; and says that had his\ncommission and the appointment of D. Carlos been genuine, they should have\ngone like men to lay their papers before the governor, and to come to an understanding. It seems that Carrillo had replied to V.'s first letter, asserting\nthat his threats were exaggerated. Id., xiv. 13.\n CARRILLO IN THE WRONG. 543\npeace and harmony, while Carrillo's position was inconsistent, partisan, and sure to result in sectional\nstrife. Don Carlos, a strong supporter of Alvarado's\ngovernment, on receipt of his appointment with power\nto select his capital, at once, without consulting his\nchiefs or associates, offered to make Los Angeles the\ncapital. Then he simply notified Alvarado of his appointment, not recognizing the latter's title, even so\nfar as to ask for a transfer of the office. He merely\nwaited for Alvarado as a rebel chief to submit humbly to him as representative of the supreme government; and at the governor's suggestion of delay for\nat least a conference and the legal formalities of a\ntransfer, he wrote insulting letters in reply, and by\nan irregular assumption of the governorship at Los\nAngeles became virtually leader of the faction that\nhad so long struggled against Alvarado and himself.\nThat Carrillo was a weak man, easily influenced by\nothers, ist far from sufficient excuse for this act of\ntreachery. Don Carlos deserved no sympathy, and\nhe got none, even from his own town of Santa Barbara, until long years had caused the facts to be forgotten. In time foreign residents and writers, and\neven many Californians, were taught to regard, him as\na leader of the surenos from the beginning, defrauded\nof the governorship by the plots of a northern faction.\nNaturally Carrillo's partisan acts in favor of the\nsouth, his treatment of his former associates, and his\nbrother's loud threats of bringing an army from Mexico excited much anger in the north, not only among\nthe leaders, but among the people. The leaders' interests, depending on the California's expected arrival,\nwere in favor of peace; therefore Alvarado, Vallejo,\nand Castro kept their temper tolerably well; but had\nthe governor chosen to yield, it is almost certain there\nwould have been a revolt in the north. That is, Carrillo's policy had brought about a renewal in a new\nform of the old sectional quarrel, the worst possible\n 544 SAN DIEGO PLAN\u2014ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.\nresult for California. It was Carrillo's fault, and not\nAlvarado's. Here as elsewhere, such a quarrel once\nbegun, there is very little room for sympathy or blame\nfor either side.64\n54 Testimony about the events of this period, from printed matter and from\nstatements of Californians, does not as a rule add anything to our knowledge\nderived from contemporary documents. Most Californians content themselves\nwith stating that Alvarado refused to recognize Carrillo, approving or disapproving his policy according as they lived in the north or south. Alvarado,\nHist. Cal, MS., iv. 23-32, gives a much fairer and more accurate version of\nthese than of some earlier events, agreeing for the most part with his letters\nwritten at the time. Vallejo's statements, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 277-320, are\nvery much less complete and satisfactory than are his original letters. Osio,\nHist. Cal, MS., 382-5, does not indicate, either under his own name or\nanonymously, what part he took; nor does he give many details; but he seems\nto have some words of blame both for Alvarado and for J. A. Carrillo. Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 97-9, states that Alvarado had no intention of giving\nup the office, but made a new revolution to avoid it. Carrillo was defeated\nthrough bad management on his side. J. J. Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 123-5,\nseems to regard Carrillo's appointment as the result of southern intrigue, and\nrepresents him as having ' raised the stan dard of revolt'! Botello, A nates, MS.,\n43-8, tells us that Alvarado and his friends resisted Carrillo on one pretext or\nanother, but really to prevent the abajenos from avenging their past wrongs\nand to keep them from moving the capital and custom-house. He admits that\nit was the intention of the sureiios to clip the wings of the northern clique.\nIn the brief account sent to the Islands, and published in the Honolulu S. I.\nGazette, May 5, 1838, and Honolulu Polynesian, ii. 93, Nov. 20, 1841, Alvarado is said to have agreed to give up the command on being shown Carrillo's\ncommission and receiving guaranties from him of protection for the life and\nproperty of himself and friends, which Carrillo refused. Mentions more or\nless accurate, but all incomplete and brief, of Alvarado vs Carrillo, some extending beyond the point to which I have brought my narrative, are as follows: Marsh's Letter, MS., 8; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 103-8; Pico, Acont.,\nMS., 47-8; Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 54-9; Valle, Lo Pasddo, MS., 19-21;\nCoronel, Cosas, MS., 24; Janssens, Vida, MS., 122-8; Castro, Rel, MS., 41-2;\nGalindo, Apuntes, MS., 39-40; Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 33; Avila, Notas,\nMS., 21. Also the following in print: Belcher's Voyage, i. 137; Mofras, Ex-\nplor., i. 301-2; Robinson's Life in Cal, 178-9; Laplace, Voyage, vi. 190-1;\nGreenhow'x Hist. Or., 367; Forbes' Hist. Cal, 150; Farnham's Life and Trav.,\n290; Tuthill's Hist. Cal., 144-5; Los Angeles Hist., 14.\n CHAPTER XIX.\nDON-JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\n1838.\nDon Carlos Closes Northern Ports\u2014Sends for Mexican Troops-\nCastro's Plan\u2014A Spurious Appointment\u2014Carrillo's Letters-\nMilitary Preparations\u2014Castaneda at San Buenaventura\u2014Santa\nBArbara Threatened\u2014News from Mexico\u2014Battle of San Buenaventura\u2014Los Angeles Taken\u2014Alvarado at San Fernando\u2014Don\nCarlos at San Diego\u2014A New Plan\u2014Tobar in Command\u2014Campaign of Las Flores\u2014Treaty\u2014Negotiations at San Fernando\u2014\nEscape of the Pretender\u2014Vallejo Favors Don Carlos\u2014News by\nthe * Catalina'\u2014Arrival of Castillero\u2014Recognition of Alvarado\nand Vallejo\u2014An Island for Carrillo\u2014Abajenos Despondent\u2014\nArribenos Triumphant\u2014Re-arrest of Carrillos and Picos.\nThe state of affairs was not greatly changed in January 1838. On the 3d, however, in view of critical\ncircumstances arising from 'polyarchy\/ Carrillo from\nhis capital at Angeles proceeded to close, so far as he\ncould do so by a decree, the ports of Monterey and\nSan Francisco, \"until the north should submit to the\nsupreme government,\" and to establish the customhouse at San Diego.1 Such an act did not tend in any\nmarked degree to conciliate the people from Santa\nB&rbara northward.\nNext, through his brother, he sent to Mexico a request for 200 armed men to aid in making his authority\nrespected, after which Don Jose' Antonio was sent on\nthe 6th to labor again with the obstinate Barbarenos.\nHe was aided by the Valles, Don Antonio and his\nXS. Diego, Arch., MS., 193; Hayes, Doc, MS., 79; Id., Emig. Notes, i.\n363. Published at S. Diego and S. Luis Rey on Jan. 8th. S. Diego, Arch.,\nMS., 210.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   35 ( 645 )\n 546 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nson Ignacio, and by the Picos, Don Pio and his brother\nAndres. They offered to Castro and Villavicencio as\ntheir ultimatum that Don Carlos on Alvarado's submission would countermand his request for 200 armed\nMexicans, and would give guaranties for the lives of\nthe rebels against Chico and Gutierrez. He would\nalso consent to an interview at San Buenaventura.\nCastro promised to go as a comisionado to Monterey\nto make known the propositions to Alvarado, whom,\nwith Vallejo perhaps, he would induce to return with\nhim to Santa Barbara, where negotiations might be\ncontinued. He started on the 11th, and both the\nCarrillos addressed letters to Alvarado, urging him\nto submit.2\nCastro believed that there was really danger of a force\ncoming from Mexico, and his object in coming north\nwas to consult with Alvarado. He proposed and the\ngovernor approved a sudden attack on Los Angeles,\nto be followed by'the sending of Don Cdrlos and\nsome twenty others to the north as prisoners. This\nplan was submitted to Vallejo,3 who probably disapproved it or counselled delay, not putting much\nfaith in Carrillo's threats. Of course there was no\nthought of accepting the latest propositions. In\nthese days the theory became current that Carrillo's\nappointment was spurious, since neither Alvarado, nor\n2Jan. 9, 1838, J. A. Carrillo to A. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 172-6.\n* Juanito, you know my firmness; accept the invitation and confide in me.\nDo not adhere to a caprice which will injure you and your country.' Jan.\n16th, Carlos Carrillo to A. Id.,iv. 179-80. Drops all resentments, and is\nwilling to comply with all that has been stipulated; that is, is willing that his\nrival should yield. Same date, C. C. thanks Castro for promising to use his\ninfluence with A. Id., iv. 176-7. Jan. 19th, A. to Vallejo, private letter.\nCastro had arrived Jan. 18th. The Barbarenos were reported very bitter\nagainst Carrillo; and one night they would have killed his agents if Castro\nhad not prevented it. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 22. On Jan. 15th A. had written to V. that J. A. Carrillo had said at Sta Barbara that Don Carlos had\nshown at Los Angeles his original appointment and guaranties for the late\nrevolutionists. Id., v. 20.\n3 Jan. 19, 1838, A. to V., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 22. He announces his\nintention to go south soon, says J. A. Carrillo is de facto governor in Los\nAngeles,'abusing everybody; there are two parties at Angeles; Carrillo brought\na Capt. Castaneda from Mexico, who has been offered the command at Sta\nBarbara. He (Alvarado) has 40 men at Monterey, 10 at S. Juan, 20 at Sta\nBarbara, all anxious to fight.\n CONTROVERSY CONTINUED.\n547\nanybody else outside of Angeles at least, had as yet\nbeen favored with a glimpse of the original. Even\nthe document of which an alleged copy had been\nshown, was not legal as was claimed, because it did\nnot bear the president's signature. The latter theory\nhad perhaps some force as a technicality; and to the\nformer a degree of plausibility was given by Carrillo's\nmysterious actions. At any rate, they served their\npurpose, and strengthened Alvarado's cause somewhat\nat the north.\nThroughout February also Alvarado waited, being\ncontent that affairs at the south should remain in statu\nquo, and believing that favorable news from Castillero\nwas more likely to arrive than was Carrillo's reinforcement.4 Correspondence was continued, though\nit brought no progress toward a settlement. J. A.\nCarrillo had informed Vallejo of the request for\nMexican troops, and the latter wrote to Don Cdrlos\nin reply a very earnest letter of reproach for having\npaid no attention to his past communications, and for\nhis hasty and unwise policy, which was sure to result\nin civil war. \" If it be true,\" he said, \" that troops\nhave been sent for, you may be sure the command\nwill not be given up, nor will those wrongfully termed\nrebels tamely submit.\" Yet he would like to see\nCarrillo legally in possession of the command, and as\nan 'affectionate cousin' hoped that all would result\nin tranquillity.5 On February 15th both Carrillos\nanswered Vallejo's communications of December 26th,\nwhich they claimed not to have received until the day\nbefore.    Both said in substance: \" Your arguments\n4 Vallejo, on Jan. 29th, had given the command at Sonoma to D. Salvador,\nand announced his purpose to march southward. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 25.\nHe had been at S. F. on Feb. 1st, and ordered a small force from that place to\nSta Clara; but the ayunt. interposed obstacles and could find no men. Soberanes,\nDoc, MS., 86-8.\n5Feb. 10, 1838, V. to Carlos Carrillo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 31. Feb.\n14th, Capt,. Villavicencio wrote to Alvarado from Sta Barbara that Carrillo\nwas making enemies, and it was rumored that he had summoned the Indians\nto his aid. Even Capt. Casteneda was displeased, and had been heard to deny\nthat Carrillo had any commission from the govt. Had A. decided to yield,\nthe writer and others had formed a plan of revolt. Id., v. 29.\n 548      DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nhave no force. We hold authority from the supreme\ngovernment. It is your duty simply to obey. You\nhave refused. We have sent for troops. If evil\ncomes of it, yours is the fault.\" Don Carlos claimed\nto have \" exhausted every conciliatory means,\" and\ndeclared that Alvarado's invitation to a conference\nhad involved an attempt to degrade his authority.\nDon Jose Antonio denied having threatened to bring\none thousand armed men, but defended the request\nfor one fifth of that number; ridiculed the \" Quixotic\nenterprise of conquering Mexico;\" and declared that\nwhatever orders the much-talked-of schooner might\nbring, they would come addressed to the governor and\nnot to rebels.6 .     .\nThe position assumed in these communications and\nothers of the time entirely ignored all that had been\ndone by Alvarado since November 1836. It was the\nold position of Los Angeles and San Diego striving\nfor the capital and custom-house. Considered as the\nposition of Bandini, Kequena, Ibarra, Portilla, and\nothers who had never submitted to Alvarado except\nwhen forced to do so, it possessed to a certain extent\nthe merit of consistency; but as that of Carlos Carrillo it had no merit whatever. Meanwhile Don\nCarlos continued to act as governor in the south by\nissuing the usual routine orders on minor matters\nconnected with the civil administration.7 And late\nin February he seems to have resolved on certain\nmilitary movements, for in obedience to his order\nAlcalde Estudillo sent a force of citizens under Pio\nPico with a supply of ammunition from San Diego\nto Los Angeles.8 .\nPortilla was still acting as general in the south,\nwith headquarters at San Gabriel.    Manuel Trujillo,\ne Feb. 15, 1838, Carrillos to Vallejo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 30-1.\n^ Four of these orders dated Feb. 10th, 16th, 19th .relatingto land\ngrants, commerce, and Indians, are given in ^ZJ^T^th't\nAlso 8 others, on police matters, mails, passports, etc., dated Feb. 6-18th, in\n^^a^c\/to9^^    Feb. 25th, E. to C.    Several communi-\ncations. 'S. Diego, Arch., MS., 195, 197, 211.\n CARRILLO BEGINS HOSTILITIES. 549\na recent arrival, was Carrillo's secretary. Early in\nMarch San Diego was warned to be on the lookout\nfor any force that the northerners might send down in\nHinckley's ship, since it was said that Alvarado was\ncoming south with an army;9 and a few days later\nCaptain Juan Castaneda, a Mexican officer who had\ncome to the country with Jose Antonio Carrillo, was\nsent with a force to occupy San Buenaventura.10\nThis occupation was effected probably on March 12th,\nwithout disaster, and soon Castaneda was instructed\nto advance and attack Santa B&rbara before it could\nbe reenforced from the north. He was to form his\nown plan of attack, but was to lose no time. He\nmust allow no conditions, but insist on immediate\nsurrender at discretion, after which the leaders were\nto be kept in close confinement. \"No more consideration must be shown for those faithless rebels.\"11\n9 March 3, 1838, C. to the encargado of S. Diego, Hayes, Doc, MS., 81;\nS. Diego, Arch., MS., 195. Estudillo promised on March 5th to observe all\npossible caution, and on March 7th sent the warning down to Todos Santos\nacross the frontier. Id., 211.\n10 March 10, 1838, Portilla's instructions to Castaneda. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., v. 38. He was to hold the mission and prevent the northern revolutionists from using its resources\u2014it will be noticed that Carlos Carrillo was\nthe administrator of this mission\u2014to cut off all communication with Sta\nBarbara, and if attacked by the enemy in overwhelming numbers, to ' save\nthe national honor' by retreating. Should he find the place already in possession of the foe, he might use his judgment as to the possibility of dislodging them. A letter of J. A. Carrillo to his brother on March 10th, Dept. St.\nPap., MS., iv. 182-3, seems to indicate a degree of displeasure that some of\nhis ideas had not been adopted.\n11 March 16, 1838, Portilla to Castaneda. 3 despatches. Alf. J. A. Pico\nis to join him with a reenf orcein ent. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 42-4. March\n12th, Carrillo warned Castaneda against Sergt Macedonio Gonzalez, who was\nto be closely watched. And on March 15th, he had recommended a Mexican\nnamed Badillo, who has a plan 'favorable to our views.' Id., v. 40-1.\nMarch 16th, Manuel Requena also wrote to Castaneda that a reserve force\nwas being organized to aid him. 'A Mexican officer accustomed to victory\nwill not be defeated in California.' i Laurels of victory await you!' Id., v.\n45. March 17th, Carrillo to 1st alcalde. Orders him to go with the sec. of\nthe ayunt. to S. Buenaventura, escorted by 15 armed men, that the citizens\nof Los Angeles there may have a civil authority at their head. The sec. is\nto report all occurrences until the gov. can come in person. Id., v. 46.\nMarch 18th, J. M. Covarrubias to Castaneda. Reenforcements will be sent.\nFullest confidence felt by the writer and by others, who sign their names oh\nthe back of the same letter; viz., Pio Pico, Trujillo, Zamorano, Requena, A.\nand Joaquin Carrillo, Ignacio del Valle, and two others. Id., v. 49. March\n18th, Carrillo and Portilla to Castaneda. He must accelerate his movements\nand attack Sta Barbara before Alvarado can arrive or the garrison escape.\nHe must not however pursue the rebels, should they escape, farther than\n 550 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nCastaneda, in obedience to his orders from Portilla,\nleft San Buenaventura probably March  17th, and\ntook a position with his force in sight of Santa Barbara, demanding the immediate surrender of the place.\nComandante Villavicencio, though his force was small,\nhad two or three small cannon'so placed as to defend\nthe approaches.    He refused to surrender, and de:\nspatched a courier in all haste to the north for reinforcements, while Captain Guerra and Padre Duran\nwent out to parley with the besiegers.   I have no means\nof knowing exactly what arguments these venerable\ndiplomatists used, but such was their force that Castaneda did none of the brilliant things expected of him\nby the Angelinos.    The captain most assuredly disobeyed in a disgraceful manner the orders of his chiefs\nCarrillo and Portilla, which with his force of over\none hundred men he might  easily have  executed.\nWhether his course was inspired by fear of Villavi-\ncencio's guns, or was the result of deliberate treachery to Carrillo, as Botello intimates, or of an agreement with Guerra afterward broken by Castro, as Pio\nPico seems to think, I do not know; but after remaining three or four days, perhaps at the Cerro del Vol-\nuntario, he retired to San Buenaventura.12\nPurisima. The gov. will leave Angeles on Monday so as to enter Sta-Bar-\nbura on Wednesday. Id., v. 50-2 It is noticeable that several letters of\nCarrX, PortiS and other prominent men at Angeles at this time bear the\nm^terious\u00b0sign <Fu.:. .u,' which evidently ha d some hi*le.a\u00abgmfianca\nOn March 20th Carrillo acknowledges the receipt of *MX>0 firo* ^ \u00b0 \u2122>\nas a loan to the treasury in aid of Castaaeda's movement On July 5, 1843\nGov. Micheltorena indorsed this by a marginal decree that it should^be.pud\nwhen convenient. Indorsed by Pio Pico to Andres Pico, and by the latter\nto Pablo de la Guerra. Guerra, Doc, MS., l. 232-3. ni-\u00abM,\u00bb of\n12 Botello, Anales del Sur, MS., 50-2, who as sec went ^J**\u2122^\"*\nAngeles to Castaheda's camp, says ^f^f^^^^^^i\nthough his officers urged an attack, and friends in Sta Barbara sent woict now\n^fito^StiSS; Castaneda was said to have had some differences\nw^thC^rmo before starting. Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 63, says that the agree-\nment washat Castaneda slould retire to f-J^^Tr^^dSS^\nfhP other side should pass Carpinteria, that is, until Alvarado and Carrillo\n^tS^ocSSSl Lug?, Vida, MS 18-19 tells n^cnwrnafo\npersuaded them to retire, promising mediation With ^^^^L^Qi\nA-puntaciones, MS., 29-34, claims to have been present at.the ^\u00a3iew be\ntween Villav ciencio and Andres Pico, after the negotiations with Guerra\nand Duran, when an arrangement was made to stop hostilities \u2122^JJ^\nshould come.    Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 21, merely says that Castaneda re-\n CASTRO SENT TO THE SOUTH. 551\nIn the north, during the first half of March, they\nwere content to wait as before, news from the south\nbeing unexciting, and the governor also suffering for a\ntime from illness.13 Then came the information that\nDon C&rlos had sent a force to San Buenaventura,\nthus assuming the offensive. The force was understood to be small, and Carrillo not apprehensive of\nany immediate attack. Alvarado resolved on prompt\naction, and sent Castro with fifteen men to Santa\nBarbara to join the garrison of that place, attack the\nabajefios by surprise, and to send Don Carlos and his\nleaders as prisoners to Monterey. It was the plan\nsuggested by Castro earlier, the execution of which\nhad been postponed. | It is time to put an end to\nthese political discussions,\" wrote the governor.14\nThere were particular reasons, it seems, for prompt\naction on both sides at this time. Alvarado learned\nthat a despatch from Castillero for him had been intercepted by Carrillo; and he, on the other hand, intercepted a letter from Don C&rlos to his wife. In that\nletter it was announced that the California had reached\nAcapulco; that some of Alvarado's official letters had\nbeen published in government journals of September\ntreated, pleading insufficiency of force. Mrs. Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 108-10,\nsays that Villavicencio's garrison of 20 or 25 men was increased to 100 men\nby the citizens. She says that Castaneda came only to Carpinteria. Farn-\nham, Life in Cal, 290-4, gives a very amusing but of course inaccurate account of the Sta Barbara campaign. Mention only in Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS., iv. 41-2; Pico, Acont., MS., 48-9; Estudillo, Datos, MS., 22-3; Gonzales, Experiencias, MS., 33-^5; Janssens, Vida, MS., 126; Vaide's, Mem.,\nMS., 27.\n13March 4, 1838, Alvarado to Vallejo. Thinks of going south in 8 days.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., v. 36. March 12th, friends in Los Angeles send encouragement. Same to same. Id., v. 39. March 12th, V. to J. A. Carrillo.\nA rather severe answer to his last letter, suggesting that it is as well to drop\nprotestations of friendship for a while until things.are more settled. 'I am\nneither centralist, federalist, nor monarchist, but ranchero, caring little for\nsystems while we have neither population nor capital.' Dept. St. Pap.l M.S.\\\niv. 183-5. There is also a letter of Alvarado to C&rlos Carrillo, in Vallejo, Doc.,\nMS., iv. 30, not dated, and probably written a little later. It is a repetition\nof the old views expressed somewhat independently.\n14March 18, 1838, A. to V., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 48. He wants a\nfew men sent from Sonoma and S. Francisco. March 13th, Villavicencio to\nA., from Sta Barbara. Sends 4 documents to undeceive him about Carrillo's\nintentions, one being doubtless Portilla's order to Castaneda to occupy S,\nBuenaventura. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 185-6.\n DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\n1837, and that Captain Bobbins had been rewarded\nwith some position in accordance with Alvarado's recommendations. It was implied also that the government was inclined to favor Alvarado as governor.\nThe party in power when official despatches should\narrive would manifestly have the advantage; therefore Castro had orders to win or lose in fifteen days.15\nSantiago Estrada was the courier sent by Villavicencio to announce to the governor Castaneda's appearance in front of Santa Barbara with one hundred\nand fifty men. Estrada met Castro on the way at\nSan Luis Obispo, and hastened that officer's movements; at Buenavista rancho his strength gave out,\nand he forwarded a letter to Santa Clara.16 All available force was at once placed at Alvarado's disposal\nby the general, Salvador Vallejo being sent by forced\nmarches from Sonoma.17 I have no details respecting\nthe march southward of Alvarado and his reinforcements. April 5 th he was at Santa Ines, and six days\nearlier at Buenavista had heard of Castro's success.\nCastro, after joining his escort to Villavicencio's\nforce and the Santa Barbara volunteers, had probably\nabout one hundred men, with whom, taking along also\na few cannon, he hastened on to San Buenaventura.\nHis approach to the mission seems to have been un-\n15 March 18, 1838, Alvarado to Vallejo from S. Juan, in Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., v. 47. Bustamante, in his Gabinete Mex., i. 90, MS. (not in the\nprinted edition), also says it was on Sept. 22d that the-return of California to\nallegiance was announced in congress. Bustamante had predicted this return\nin Dec. 1836, and that it would be effected through the friars.\n16 March 22, 1838, Estrada's original letter, forwarded by Alvarado to\nVallejo the same day. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 53-4. He says Castaneda's\nforce was encamped at the ' Laguna de Sal this side of Montecito,'which corresponds to the Cerro del Voluntario mentioned in different statements.\n17March 24, 1838, V. to Sanchez, Martinez, com. at Sta Clara, and to\nCapt. Vallejo, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 55-8. Same date, A. to V. from Sta\nClara. Will march next day for S. Juan. Is determined to avenge himself\nand punish the southerners for their shabby treatment of him. Does not\nneed a large force to do it. Id., v. 60. March 28th, Lieut Martinez, rancho\nde la Merced. Was lame, having been thrown from a horse; could not get\nany civicos to go, but helped Salvador with horses, etc. Id., v. 62. March\n24th, V. to A. Mentions the orders he has issued. An accident to his leg\nprevents him from coming in person. Is glad the time has come to act with\ndecision. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 187-8.\n BATTLE OF SAN BUENAVENTURA.\n553\nsuspected until he had surrounded it, or at least cut\noff its communications with Los Angeles.18 On the\nmorning of March 27th, Castaneda was notified by\nCastro, from the campo militar of the \\ northern division of operations,' to evacuate the place within one\nhour under assurance of protection to life and property,\nelse force would be employed. He returned the summons, writing on the back that in case of an evacuation\nit must be with all the honors of war. In a second\nnote Castro declined to make further concessions, and\nrepeated his demand, and on the back of this note was\nreturned Castaneda's refusal to surrender except as\nbefore offered. Yet a third summons was sent, with\na threat of opening fire at once; and the reply was,\n\"Do as you please.\"19    Firing soon began.\nThe battle of San Buenaventura, though much powder was burned, was not a bloody one. Castro reports\nto the governor the 28th: \"I have the pleasure to inform you that after two days of continuous firing, and\nwith the loss of only one man killed on our side, the\nwhole force of 110 men which defended this place has\nfled on foot under cover of hight; and at this moment\nI have determined that a company of mounted infantry under Captain Villa, and another cavalry company\nof lancers under Captain Cota, shall start in their pursuit, myself remaining here with the rest of the division and the artillery to protect this place, which would\nbe very advantageous for us in case the escaped rebels\nshould join the force of Don Carlos and return to save\ntheir honor.\"20    Next day he announced his success\n18 March 26, 1838, Castaneda to com. of Sta B., asking that 4 men who\nhad been given leave'of absence be sent back. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 61.\nMarch 27th, Carrillo to encargado at S. Diego, asking for a gun, the wheels\nto be obtained from Fitch, also munitions. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 195.\n19In Pico, Doc, MS., ii. 3-5, 7-8, I have the originals of Castro's first\nand second summons with the replies of Castaneda. The latter's 2d and 3d\nreplies are in Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 189.\n20 March 28,1838, Castro to Alvarado, forwarded by the latter to the Monterey alcaldes on April 4th from Staines. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 155; also\nin Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 188-9. March 30th, Alvarado from Buenavista\nannounces the victory, the news having just arrived by a courier from Sta B.,\nto administrators of missions from S. Juan northward. He says the forces\non each side were about 100 men; and he has 80 men who are to start south-\n 554 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nin having captured 70 of the fugitives, with 50 muskets and other arms. The soldiers were to be set free\naccording to the laws of war; the officers were sent to\nthe governor as prisoners.21\nNaturally accounts of this battle written from memory   though numerous, present many discrepancies.\nThere is a very general tendency to grossly exaggerate the forces engaged, really a little more than 100\nmen on each side, and to speak of assaults repelled,\nand other purely imaginary details.   Castaneda s force\nhad, as it would seem, no artillery, but included a party\nof New Mexicans armed with rifles.    Castro s approach was altogether unsuspected until at dawn he\nmade his presence known, having by that time seized\nall *he garrison's horses, cut off communication with\nAlleles, and also probably cut off the water supply,\nthus obliging the soldiers to quench their thirst mainly\nwith the mission wine.    Two guns were placed on\nthe shore-side in the direction of the chapel, and one\nperhaps on the elevation back of the mission.    Early\nin the fight a rifleman from the church tower killed\none of Castro's men.22    The guns were then directed\nupon the church, which in 1874 still bore some slight\nmarks of the cannonade, and from the walls of which\nin the course of certain repairs some time m the past\ndecade a cannon-ball is said to have been taken.   Ine\n\"continuous firing of two days\" was perhaps continuous only with considerable intervals between the volleys and it could not have continued into the second\nday'for a longer time than was necessary to make\nj 4. ^ t\/\u201e77^v> Dnr MS v 64. The doc. is indorsed at Merced by\nXtinez\u00b0nat 1^T^ffi^'^**. Rafael by Murphy between'8\nf m andV 30 p m of April 2d. In Id., v. 63,- is what purports to be a copy\nof astmTlIrnote to GenfVallejo; but the copyist has intentionally changed\nits figures so as to exaggerate grossly the forces engaged\nsearch 29th, Castro to Alvarado. Dept. St. ^ MS., iv. 190-1. March\nSU+ Cant Cota asks to have the prisoners Ignacio Alvarado leodoro loroa\nW 'Enriaue SepuWa left with him at. Sta Barbara, he> being responsible\n?or them ^\/l Castro's report forwarded fromSta.Ines to Vallejo onApr.5th.\nVallejo Doc, MS., v. 72-3; xxxii. 128.   April 9th, great rejoicing at S. Fran-\nsays he was Aquiline Ramirez; and Jesus Pico calls him Olivas.\n CAPTURE OF SOUTHERNERS. 555\nknown the flight of the garrison during the night.\nThe fugitives, or such of them as kept together, were\neasily overtaken by the horsemen near Saticoy on\nMarch 28th. Castaneda and a few of his officers\nwere sent under arrest to Santa Barbara, and perhaps\nto Santa Ines. Nearly all the Californians state that\nafter the occupation Castro found concealed in the\nmission church certain other men of some prominence,\nwho were sent north with the other prisoners. There\nis a general agreement that Andre's Pico, Alcalde\nLuis Arenas, and Ignacio Palomares were of this\nnumber.23 There are no contemporary records respecting any of the prominent prisoners, nor the circumstances and length of their captivity.24\nEscaping fugitives, who seem to have met on the\nway Pio Pico at the head of a small reenforcement,\n23 Others named, most of them and perhaps all incorrectly, are J. A. Carrillo, Gil Ibarra, Manuel Requena, Manuel Alva, Ignacio del Valle, and Jose*\nRamirez. Yorba, Alvarado, and Sepulveda (see note 21) were probably of\nthe number found in the church. Arenas was at Sta In6s on April 6th, giving testimony on that day against Carrillo. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xviii. 13-14.\n24Botello, Anales, MS., 52-63, was one who ran away from the mission\nwith the rest, and unlike the rest escaped to carry the news to Carrillo. Jose*\nCarrillo, son of D. Carlos, also escaped, but was re-arrested at Sta Ana.\nBotello notes some suspicious actions on the part of Castaneda, which seem\nunimportant. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 36-41, testifies that the New\nMexicans had been promised all the mares at S. Fernando for their services,\nand were therefore known as Yegueros. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 385-90, puts\nTobar in command instead of Castaneda, states that the garrison did not succeed in escaping from the mission, and describes some of the abuse shown by\nAlvarado when drunk to the prisoners at Sta In6s. Salvador Vallejo, Notas\nHistdricas, MS., 75-80, gives one of the most absurdly inaccurate narratives\nof the affair extant. Garcia, Hechos, MS., 86-92, claims to have been sent\nto S. Luis Obispo with the prisoners, who he says were soon set at liberty.\nPinto, Apuntaciones, MS., 34-7, aided in capturing Andres Pico and the rest,\nwho were hidden under the sacred vestments, etc., in the sacristy. He says\nCastro at first threatened to shoot Surgeon Alva. Gonzalez, Experiencias,\nMS., 35-6, says that only a few volleys were fired. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias,\nMS., 110-11, heard the firing all day at Sta Barbara. Pio Pico, Hist. Cal,\nMS., 63, and Avila, Notas, MS., 21-2, narrate that Pico with 20 men on his\nway to join Castaneda met some of the fugitives at Sta Clara River. Valle,\nLo Pasado, MS., 22-3, as well as Botello, mentions Jose* Carrillo's arrest. An\naccount of these events, dated March 30th, was published in the Honolulu S.\nI. Gazette, May 5, 1838. In it Castro is said to have made several arrests on\nhis first arrival at Sta Barbara, including that of D. Pedro Carrillo. Farn-\nham, Life in Cal, 294-8, evidently used the version in the Gazette, and added\nto it in his usual 'opera bouffe' style of writing history. Brief narratives\nalso in Valdes, Mem., MS., 27-9; Fqrster's Pioneer Data, MS., 14-15; Castro,\nRelacion, MS., 44-5; Arce, Mem., MS., 13-15.\n 556\nDON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nsoon carried to Los Angeles the tidings of the disaster at San Buenaventura. C&rlos Carrillo had time\nto collect his friends and the remnants of his demoralized army and retire to San Diego before Castro\ncame and took possession of the city, probably on the\n1st of April.25 Very little can be learned about events\nof the next two weeks and more. Castro's only act\nat Angeles, so far as known, was to issue a recommendation, or credentials, to a committee of citizens\nwho went to meet Alvarado with a view to secure a\ncessation of hostilities.26 On April 8th he had retired\nto San Fernando, whence he modestly acknowledged\nthe receipt of Alvarado's letter expressing satisfaction with his past achievements, and promised still\nmore good service when his force*should be joined by\nthat of the governor.27 Alvarado, having left Santa\nInes as late as the 6th, and spent perhaps a few days\nat Santa Barbara, joined Castro at San Fernando on\nor before April 16th. On this date he addressed\nanother letter to Don Carlos, deploring the latter's\npolicy and the resulting hostilities, but reminding his\n'dear uncle' that there was yet time to prevent serious\ncalamities by submitting his credentials to the diputacion and consenting to a conference.28\nMeanwhile Carrillo was at San Diego again preparing for war, at the instigation of Bandini, Zamo-\n25 March 31, 1838\u2014after Carrillo had departed, but before Castro's arrival\n\u2014the ayunt. sent a committee of 3, Lugo, Covarrubias, and Jose\" Carrillo, to\nurge Don Carlos to come to the city, where the presence of his Excellency\nwas deemed necessary for the protection of lives and property. Los Angeles,\nArch., MS., v. 2-3. Same date, showing that Don Carlos had not yet reached\nS. Diego, alcalde of S. Diego announces the sending of the gun desired and 6\nmen, all that could be induced to go to Angeles. 8. Diego, Arch., MS.,\n197; Hayes, Doc, MS., 83. April 1st, same to Carrillo. A bark in sight which\nmay be the one of which the gov. had written, viz., Hinckley's vessel. S.\nDiego, Arch., MS., 197.\n26 April 1st, Castro to Alvarado. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 192. There is\nnot a word about events since the fall of S. Buenaventura.\n27 April 8, 1838, C. to A. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 197-8. Alvarado's\nletter had been dated the day before, probably at Sta Barbara. He had 50\nmen with him, probably Salvador Vallejo's northern troops.\n28 April 14th, A. to Carrillo. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 201-2. He begs\nDon Carlos to leave the 4 or 5 vagabonds who advise him, and to form an\nalliance with himself.\n T0BAR SUPPORTS CARRILLO.\n557\nrano, and the rest. Here, as in the north, we have\nbut few particulars of the preparations;29 the chief\nsupport of the would-be governor's reviving hopes\nseems to have been the arrival from Sonora overland\nof Captain Juan Jose' Tobar, said to have been somewhat distinguished as an Indian-fighter and guerri-\nllero. Tobar arrived on April 4th and was at once\nmade general in place of Portilla. It does not appear\nthat he came in any official capacity, or accompanied\nby more than a small escort; but Don Carlos, wishing\nto make the most of his new ally, announced that he\nhad come to quell the disorders in California, implying of course that he brought a force with which to accomplish that object. Carrillo> hpwever, desiring to\ntreat the citizens fairly, had induced Tobar to suspend\nhis operations until the result of communication with\nCastro could be known. So he informed the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles, to which body Tobar also\nwrote, expressing his desire to try gentle means first,\nand authorizing an announcement \"in my name to\nthe troops with the northern rebels that they shall be\npardoned if they present themselves before me with\ntheir arms within fifteen days which expire on the\n25th\u2014otherwise I shall be inexorable in punishing\nthem.\"30\nFrom volunteers at San Diego, refugees from Los\n29 April 4, 1838, Ortega to Carrillo. Is at his orders, but excuses himself\nfrom going to meet him. April 11th, sends from S. Jose* del Valle some rumors about the northern forces. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv.' 196. April 4th,\nEncargado Estudillo orders all to come from the mission. 'The gov. is waiting for you to have a conference on various matters.' S. Diego, Arch., MS.,\n198. Apr. 5th, 10th, P. Caballero, at Guadalupe. B. Cal. sends cattle and\nreport of arms and ammunition to Carrillo. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 192,\n198-9. Apr. 6th, justice of S. Jose* del Valle tells Carrillo that both as legitimate gov. and as a cousin he may count on him. Id., iv. 221. Apr. 14th,\nOsuna, S. Luis, to Carrillo, has been unable to secure the services of Linares.\nCastro said to be advancing. Id., iv. 200. April 19th, 20th, Pio Pico, S.\nLuis, to Carrillo. Is ill and cannot meet him. Regrets Carrillo's illness. Id.,\niv. 195.\n30 April 11, 1838, session of ayunt., when the letters of Carrillo and Tobar were read. It was resolved to send the former to Castro. The people\nafter hearing the other letter at a public meeting 8 dissolved without uttering\na word.' Los Angeles, Arch., MS., v. 4-7. April 9th, Tobar to the ayunt,\nDept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 102-3.\n 558 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nAngeles, recruits obtained across the frontier\u2014for\nCarrillo's jurisdiction, if he had any, extended over the\npeninsula\u2014and the remnants of Portilla's men, Don\nCarlos formed an army of 100 men or more for his new\ngeneral, who soon marched northward. At Las\nFlores, after passing San Luis Key, he heard that the\nenemy had left Angeles for the south, and here To-\nbar's army made a stand, perhaps on the same day that\nCastro's force came in sight, and probably on the 20th\nor 21st of April. An adobe building of the rancho\nserved as barracks, and ah adjoining corral as a fort.\nThree cannon were mounted so as to command the\napproaches, the gunners being protected, and weak\npoints strengthened, by a judicious arrangement of\nhides, pack-saddles, and whatever else was at hand.\nJuan Bandini and Jose* Antonio Carrillo seem to have\nbeen present as well as Don Cdrlos. Bequena, Ibarra,\nand other prominent Angelinos were also within the\nfortified corral.31\nMeanwhile Castro and Alvarado had united their\nforces, obtaining volunteers also from Santa Barbara\nand perhaps from Angeles, and. had marched south\nfrom that city with over 200 men, occupying the mission of San Juan Capistrano about the same time that\nCarrillo reached Las Flores.32    An advance guard of\n81Botello, Anales, MS., 64-8, Janssens, Vida, MS., 129-39, and Coronel,\nCosas de Cal, MS., 25-8, give some meagre details. The last two were present, Janssens having charge of one of the guns. Botello being ^MecLre.\nmained at S. Luis with Pio Pico's family. Don Pio, Hist. Cal, MS., 63-70,\naccounts for his own absence by claiming to have discovered m advance that\nCarrillo intended to capitulate, and he was busied with plans to surprise b.\nBuenaventura, and thus counteract the cowardly policy of D. Carlos !\n32Ignacio Ezquer, Mem., MS., 5-10, who was temporarily in charge of b.\nJuan, the administrator having gone to join the southern army, tells us that\nJ A. Carrillo with a small party from the south came onfe evening and inquired about Castro's men, of whom nothing had been heard. He intended\nto sleep at the mission, but finally decided to go to the arroyo near by to spend\nthe night, taking along a supply of wine and aguardiente. At midnight, narrator was roused from sleep by the arrival of Castro's men. Later much\nliquor was consumed, and narrator was compelled to get drunk, not losing\nconsciousness, however, until the new-comers had fired a cannon toward the\nport, thus scaring away the sleepers at the arroyo, who left some of their accoutrements behind. Pinto, Apunt., MS., 74-5, confirms the story that the\ngun was fired on account of Alvarado's suspicions that there might be foes iii\nthat direction, and that some horses were found tied there.   Alvarado, Hist,\n CAMPAIGN OF LAS FLORES. 559\nTobar's force under J. A. Carrillo seems to have previously visited the mission and retired. It was on\nApril 21st that the northern army appeared in battle\narray before the improvised fort which protected the\nsouthern foe.\nThe combat at Las Flores was for the most part\none of tongue and pen, though a cannon was fired\nonce or twice from the corral, doing no harm\u2014so say\nseveral witnesses, confirmed by a? letter written at the\ntime. A flag of truce was sent\u2014from which side first\nis not quite clear\u2014with a demand, not for surrender,\nbut for an interview. Don Juan Bautista had no\nmotive for fighting if he could accomplish his purpose\nby other methods; the cannon had a threatening aspect, and Tobar might be a man who would not hesi-\nitate to use them; besides, he had not much doubt of\nhis ability to control his uncle in an interview. On\nthe other hand, there is some reason to believe that\nTobar really intended to fight, trusting to his guns to\nmake up for disparity of numbers. Many of his men\nwere imbued to a certain degree with their leader's\nvalor. Ca>los Carrillo, freely charged by his associates with cowardice, declined to assume the responsibility of shedding blood, forbade the discharge of a\nsingle gun, and went out to meet his nephew on the\nbloodless field of diplomacy. Tobar finally retired in\ndisgust, with many companions, not pausing until he\nhad crossed the frontier; and Don Carlos was left to\nhis peaceful methods of warfare. Zamorano, of whom\nvery little is known since the failure of his aspirations\nto the governorship with Alvarado's submission to\nMexico in July 1837, probably crossed the frontier\nabout the same time as Tobar. He came back four\nyears later, only to die; and as nothing is known of\nCal, MS., iv. 82-95, and Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 369-72, represent that\nthe southerners had occupied S. Juan, and retired at Castro's approach. They\nadd that Salvador Vallejo being sent forward to occupy S. Juan by 'conciliatory' means, did so by sending a threat to hang all who did not instantly surrender; or, as one says, he charged bayonets and rushed madly through all\nthe mission buildings from whioh the foe had retired!\nJ\n 560 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nhis experience in the mean time, I append a biographical sketch. He was a man of much ability, honor,\nand energy; of exemplary conduct, though ambitious;\nand never warmly in sympathy with the Californians.83\n33 Coronel, Botello, and Janssens are those who complain most bitterly of\nCarrillo's cowardice. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 390-4, describes Don Carlos as\n'fluctuating between fear and ignorance.' This writer also speaks of a gun\nplanted by Alvarado on a hill, and of the enemy's water supply being cut off.\nAlso of Carrillo's running to the beach and escaping in a boat. Alvarado,\nHist. Cal., MS., iv. 87-108, insists that Tobar, after he found out what kind\nof men he was fighting with, came to an understanding with Castro, who purposely left the way clear for his escape. Several persons, with no special\nadvantages for knowing anything on the subject, speak of a previous understanding between Alvarado and Carrillo, which is absurd. Salvador Vallejo,\nNotas Hist., MS., 64-7, talks of a conflict between 400 mounted Californians\nand 500 Sonorans and Opatas, of a bayonet charge, a rout, horses killed, a hot\npursuit, etc.! Pinto, Apunt., MS., 37-8, says that some cannon-shots were\nfired. Juan Forster, Pioneer Data, MS., 15-17, on whose land the battle\ntook place, says he watched the operations without taking any part. Also\nbrief accounts in Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 23; Sanchez, Notas, MS., 3-5;\nMeadows' Graham Affair,MS., 1-3; Pico, Acont., MS., 52-3; Estudillo,Datos,\nMS., 23; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 111-13; Arce, Mem., MS., 15-17; Lugo, Vida,\nMS., 19-21; Avila, Notas, MS., 21-4; Castro, Relacion, MS., 45-8.\nI know nothing of Capt. Tobar's life after this visit to Cal., and little of\nhis earlier record. In 1828 he was stationed at Altar under Gen. Figueroa's\norders. In 1832 he revolted, seizing Pitic and Guaymas; and in 1835 issued\na manifiesto at Arizpe in defence of his past acts. It was probably in the\ncharacter of a political refugee that he came to Cal. He is described as a\nvery tall man of fine appearance and great bravery, about 50 years of age.\nThere were later rumors, probably unfounded, of his intention to return with\na larger force. Pinart, Col de Sonora, MS., no. 38, print, 362. April 24th,\nTobar to Carrillo, bidding him farewell, with thanks for his kindness. Is at\nS. Diego, and is about, to leave Cal.    Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 203.\nAgustin Vicente Zamorano is said to have been a native of Florida, his\nparents being Spaniards. Of his early life, save that he received a good education, nothing is known until he entered the army on May 1, 1821, as cadet.\nIn July he was attached to the 6th battalion, taking part in several battles on\nthe insurgent side under generals Bustamante and Quintanar, and being made\nalferez in October. In Oct. 1824, he was transferred to the corps of engineers;\nand came to California with Gov. Echeandia in 1825. He served as Echeandia's secretary for 5 years; was married in Feb. 1827 to Maria Luisa, daughter of Santiago Arguello; was made lieutenant in 1828, still of the battalion\nand engineers; and early in 1831, on Echeandia's recommendation, was commissioned captain of the Monterey company. Record of military service in\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. Mil, MS., lxxvii. 2-3; St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 36, 68.\nMarriage, Arch. Sta B., MS., xii. 342; Dept. Rec, MS., vi. 30-1; vii. 108.\nIn 1832 he refused to accept the results of the revolt against Victoria; made\na counter-revolt against Echeandia: and sustained himself as comandante\ngeneral of the north until the arrival of Figueroa in 1833, as related in chap,\nviii.-ix., of this volume. He served as Figueroa's secretary in 1833-5; and\nin addition to his duties as captain of the presidio, conducted a printing-office\nat Monterey, having succeeded in obtaining a press and type in 1834. All the\nproducts of this press down to his departure bore his name, and I have in\nEarliest Printing many specimens, together with Zamorano's circular and\nscale* of prices. He was not a printer by trade. In June 1835 he was made\ncaptain of the S. Diego company.  Dept. St.. Pap., Ben. Mil*, MS., lxxix. 85,\n DIPLOMATIC INTERVIEWS. 561\nSeveral interviews were held at Las Flores, midway between the two armies, by the rival governors\nand their representatives, before a satisfactory settlement could be effected. Alvarado, describing those\nnegotiations from memory, mentions three interviews.\nThe first was broken off by Carrillo's familiar way of\naddressing Don Juan Bautista as Juanito, or Johnny.\nThe liberty wTas not displeasing to Alvarado, but his\ncompanions, Castro, Villa, and Salvador Vallejo, insisted on the use of his proper title, which Carrillo's\nfriends, Requena and Tobar, would not permit. Next\nday, however, the two rivals withdrew out of hearing\nof the rest to have a conference untrammelled by official etiquette. Don Carlos now showed his original\nappointment, and was much grieved that Don Juan\ndid not at once yield to so convincing an argument,\nbut before they parted some progress was made toward a temporary settlement which would remove the\nnecessity for further warfare.34\nOn April 23d Alvarado sent a despatch to Vallejo\nand other officials in the north, stating that for three\ndays with his 250 men he had besieged the foe, 100\nstrong wTith three cannon, at Las Flores, preventing\ntheir advance to attack the peaceful inhabitants of\nthe north. Don Ca>los was among the besieged, but\nafter several interviews had offered nothing satisfactory to the Californian people. Yet a complete victory by force of arms, the only way left, could not\nfail to follow within a few days.85    That same day,\nHis efforts with the surenos against Alvarado, prompted by personal ambition\nand the hope of gaining favor in Mexico rather than by sympathy with, or\nopposition to, the south, have been recorded in the preceding chapter. The\nlast definite record of his presence was on March 18, 1838, at Angeles,\nwhen he signed a letter to Castaneda. jj It is possible that he left the country\nimmediately on the fall of Los Angeles; but he probably remained for a while\nto support Carrillo's claims. I know nothing of him during his absence. In\n1842 ho came back with Gov. Micheltorena as lieut-colonel and inspector; but\ndied soon after landing at San Diego in August, leaving a widow who long\nsurvived him. One of his daughters married Gen. Jose* Maria Flores, and\nanother was the wife of Henry Dalton.\n84 Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 95-107. I omit further details, which are,\nI suspect, much more amusing than accurate.\n85 April 23, 1838, A. to V.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 77.    Same to ayunt. of\nHist. Cai,., Vol. III.   36\n 562 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nhowever, a treaty was signed which I give in full.36\nBy its terms the opposing factions were to be for the\nmost part disbanded; Carrillo was to accompany Alvarado to San Fernando, where an arrangement was\nto be made respecting the governorship; and until\nsuch arrangement had been made, Vallejo was to be\nrecognized as general.\nIt was after the general terms had been agreed\nupon, but before they were signed, that Tobar was\nallowed to escape, either by intention or carelessness\non the part of Castro. The treaty was virtually a\nsurrender by Don Carlos, who indeed, consistently\nwith his aversion to the use of cannon, could do\nnothing but surrender. He may have had some\nhopes of success in the consultation to be held at San\nFernando, but there was nothing in the treaty on\nwhich to found such hopes.    A few southerners rep-\nS. Jose\\ S. Jose\", Arch., MS., vi. 6; circular in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii.\n129.\n36 Tratado de Las Flores entre Alvarado y Carrillo, 23 de Abril, 1838. Original MS.    Copy in Bandini, Doc Hist. Cal, MS., 77.\ni In the space between the northern and southern forces of Alta California,\non the field of Las Flores, April 23, 1838, the subscribers have agreed upon the\nfollowing articles: Art. 1. The force of the south at Las Flores will be disbanded\nabsolutely, the citizens (volunteers) retiring to their homes with the arms\nbolonging to them. Soldiers in said force will march under their respective\nchiefs to protect the points where they belong. Art. 2. The artillery and\nmunitions belonging to the said division will remain at the disposition of the\ndepartmental government. Art. 3. The division of the north near the said\npueblo will disband its auxiliary citizen soldiery at the same time that the\ndisbanding mentioned in art. 1 takes place\u2014there remaining as a guard for\nDon Carlos Antonio Carrillo and Don Juan Bautista Alvarado 75 men chosen\nby their respective chiefs. Art. 4. Don C. A. Carrillo-will proceed, accompanied by Don J. B. Alvarado, with the escort cited in the preceding article,\nto the establishment of San Fernando for the purpose of arranging there\ngubernatorial matters pertaining to Alta California, this not being done in\nthe city of Los Angeles, named by a law as capital of the department, for\nlack of resources to do so in the present circumstances. Art. 5. Meeting in\nthe said establishment, both gentlemen named in the preceding article will\nagree upon what is necessary for the tranquillity of the country. Art. 6.\nPersons in the division of the south remain entirely at liberty to live, work, or\nsettle at any point of Alta California; assured that they wili not be molested\nfor having manifested their opinion on this occasion, on condition that they\nnever use their arms to break this agreement, others concerned enjoying the\nsame guaranties on the same conditions. Art. 7. Gen. Tobar will be recognized\nas an officer of the Mexican army, and wiil be shown all the consideration\ndue to his position. Art. 8. Pending the arrangement indicated in art. 5,\nLieut M. G. Vallejo will be recognized as comandante general of Alta California.    C&rlos Ante Carrillo.    Juan B. Alvarado.'\n TREATY OF LAS FLORES. 563\nresent Alvarado as having promised to give up the command and as having broken his pledge; but he made\nno such promise in writing, and there is no reason to\nbelieve that he did so verbally. If he failed to carry\nout the treaty of April 23d faithfully in any respect,\nit must have been in not promptly disbanding his\nforces, and there is no evidence against him on this\npoint.37\nThe northern army now retraced its march by way\nof San Gabriel to San Fernando, taking along the\ncaptured cannon, which were soon sent to Monterey\non Steele's vessel, and escorting the two rival governors, who were now on the best of terms. True, Don\nCdrlos suggested en route that his position seemed\nmore like that of a prisoner under guard than of a\nruler attended by an escort. Don Juan replied, \"If\nyou are a prisoner, so am I, as we are marching side\nby side.\" At San Fernando in the early days of\nMay their respective claims to the governorship were\ndiscussed. Carrillo could only show his original appointment and urge his rival's duty to submit to the\nsupreme government. Alvarado could no longer deny\nthat the document was in a certain sense genuine; indeed, he had probably never had any real doubt on\nthe subject, but he still insisted that the appointment\nshould bear the president's signature, and he made\nthe new point that he had no official knowledge of\nPena y Pena's signature, or indeed of his appointment as minister of state.33 He also, in addition to\nthe old arguments with which the reader is familiar,\nattached much weight to the fact that Don Carlos,\n37 May 14, 1838, Com. Sanchez to Vallejo, announcing his return from the\nsouthern campaign with the S. Francisco troops. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 78.\nThis indicates compliance with the treaty. Alvarado, Campana de Las\nFlores y Sucesos de Abril-Mayo, 1838, MS., a letter to Vallejo from Sta Barbara May 22d\u2014a most important original document\u2014stated that Carrillo, before signing the treaty, wished to be allowed to escape and to go to Lower\nCalifornia, where he thought he could make himself recognized as governor,\nbut he persuaded him that this was an impracticable scheme.\n88 Carrillo's appointment was simply an announcement that the president\nhad made him governor, dated from the Ministerio de lo Interior, and signed\nPefia y Pefia.    Copy from original in Carrillo (P.), Doc, MS., 1.\n 5U DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nduring the year that had elapsed since his appointment, had not, as he admitted, received a single official communication from the government. Had the\nnegotiations proceeded uninterruptedly, Don Carlos\nremaining under Alvarado's influence, it is probable\nthat they would have resulted in an agreement to\nawait orders from Mexico to transfer the command.\nThe two had already partially agreed on a convention\nof representatives from each pueblo; when Jose' Antonio Carrillo, Juan Bandini, and Pio Pico made their\nappearance, and soon regained control of their weak-\nminded chieftain. With them Don Carlos went away\nto Angeles, announcing his intention to remain in\nthat city where he was still recognized, but promising to commit no further hostilities.39\nAlvarado went to Sta Barbara about May 10th.\nHe had advised Carrillo not to go to Angeles, but\nhad not otherwise attempted to detain him. It appears that he had well founded hopes of a reaction in\nhis own favor among the Angelinos. On the 14th\nover sixty citizens, headed by Juan Gallardo, Jose*\nM. Herrera, Vicente Moraga, Pedro Dominguez, and\nAntonio Aguilar, presented a petition to the ayuntamiento, in which they represented, with all due deference to the supreme government, that the appointment\nof Cdrlos Carrillo as governor had not produced the\nbeneficial results intended, since the appointee had\nshown himself to possess none of the qualities necessary in a ruler, but had on the contrary committed serious blunders, notably in exciting hostilities at San\nBuenaventura and Las Flores, where \"only by divine\ndispensation had California been saved from mourning\nand sorrow.\" Therefore, the petitioners advised submission to the government of the north in accordance\n81* Alvarado, Campana de la Flores, MS. May 2d, A. to J. J. Vallejo.\n3ays that as the state is now entirely pacified, it has been determined to release all political prisoners. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 132. May 3d, A. to\nalcalde of S. Jose*. Tranquillity restored; Tobar fled; artillery in my possession; Don Carlos pardoned; shall soon come north, etc. Hopkins' Translations,\n8-9.\n ARREST OF THE CARRILLOS. 565\nwith public opinion and for the country's good. No\naction was taken, because the petition was not written\non stamped paper, but next day when that irregularity had been corrected, the people were summoned and\nthe subject discussed on its merits. Eight citizens\ntook part in the discussion, and of twenty-eight whose\nnames were not on the petition twenty-two voted\nfor what was asked in that document, while only one,\nSerbulo Varela, voted in favor of Carrillo. The\nmatter was finally referred to a committee, which reported that while the ayuntamiento had no right to\ncriticise the acts of Carrillo, yet a clearly defined\npublic opinion demanded the recognition of Alvarado\nas governor pending the decision of the government.\nThis was approved by a plurality of votes, the result\nbeing formally communicated to the people and to\nCarrillo, who was still addressed as governor. Thus\ndid the versatile city of the Angels accomplish\nanother political somersault.40\nOf course the two Carrillos and their supporters\nwere not ^disposed to accept the position in which the\nayuntamiento had placed them. Some of the number,\nlike Requena, Portilla, and Trujillo, had crossed the\nfrontier with Tobar; while others, as Pico, Bandini,\nIbarra, and Botello, were left to continue the agitation. Before they had time, however, to carry into\nexecution their new plan, whatever it may have been,\nthe leaders were arrested on or about May 20th.\nAlvarado, promptly informed of the troubles that were\nbrewing in the city, had sent Villavicencio with twenty-five men from Santa Barbara to nip the conspiracy\n40Sessionsof ayunt., May 14-15, 1838. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., v. 8-23.\nThe citizens taking part in the discussion were Tiburcio Tapia, Vicente\nSanchez, Abel Stearns, Antonio Ign. Avila, Jose* Sepulveda, Felipe Carrillo,\nIgnacio Machado, and Francisco J. Alvarado. The committee was composed\nof Vicente de la Osa, Sanchez, Castillo, Sepulveda, Stearns, and Tapia. In\nthe lists of about 90 citizens, only one foreigner appears besides Stearns, and\nthat was Miguel Blanco, or Michael White. In Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS.,\nii. 112, is an incomplete blotter-copy of the acta of the committee, of which\nStearns was made pres. and Castillo sec. According to the Los Angeles\nAyunt. Rec, MS., 24, there would seem to have been also an earlier petition\non the subject signed by 28 citizens.\n 566 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nin the bud. The governor states, both in his letters\nwritten at the time and in his later recollections, that\nthe arrests were made by the citizens of Los Angeles,\nwho delivered the prisoners to Villa on his arrival;\nbut other evidence is to the effect that the captain's\nforce made the arrests, searching the houses of prominent citizens for that purpose. At any rate, there\nwere seized and carried as captives to Santa Barbara,\nC&rlos Carrillo, Jose A. Carrillo, Pio Pico, Gil Ibarra,\nNarciso Botello, Ignacio Palomares, and Jose* M. Ramirez. Bandini escaped. It seems that the prisoners\ntaken at San Buenaventura had probably been released\nlaefore this time; but Andre's Pico was now re-arrested, together with Ignacio del Valle and Roberto Pardo\nat Santa Barbara.41 Pio Pico was quite ill at the\ntime, and served out a short term of nominal imprisonment at the presidio.42 Carlos Carrillo was released\non parole after a few days, promising not to leave\nSanta Barbara and to let politics alone, a promise\nwhich he kept religiously till opportunity offered to\nescape.43    The other captives, eight in number, were\n41 Alvarado, Campana de Las Flores, MS.; Id., Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 109-\n11. Botello, Anales, MS., 71-88, says he was taken at Requena's house and\n^taken to Carrillo's, where Ibarra and Ramirez were soOn brought in. Pio Pico\nhad been at Carrillo's house, but went to that of Dona V. Sotelo de Dominguez, where he was found by Villa's men hidden under the floor of a chamber.\nAt Sta Barbara all were confined in one room under that occupied by Alva-.\nrado. Jesus Pico, Acont., MS., 50-2, was with Villavicencio. He says J. A.\nCarrillo was found under a pile of hides. Carlos Carrillo was taken in charge\nby Villavicencio, his godson, and treated very kindly. Mrs Ord, Ocurrencias,\nMS., 113-17, remembers the arrival, when her mother\u2014Carrillo's sister\u2014addressing Villavicencio, said, 'Isit possible, Jose* Maria, that thou hast brought\nas a prisoner thy second father?' He replied, ' Godmother, I am ordered and\nmust obey, but I have cared for him on the way as if he were my own father.'\nJ. J. Warner, Los Angeles, Hist., 14, says he had an arm broken in resisting\narrest for refusing to have his house searched by a party under Alf. Espinosa;\nand on June 30th Warner made a complaint before the alcalde that Agustin\nMartinez on May 14th had entered his house sword in hand, forced him into\nthe street, and dangerously wounded him. Los Aug., Arch., MS., i. 156-7;\nId., Ayunt., MS., 18.\n42Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 76-83, remarks that though at first subjected to\npetty annoyances, he was finally allowed the freedom of the presidio, and was\neven taken in P. Duran's coach to be padrino at a christening, Alvarado giving him $200 to be expended in gifts. \\\n43Alvarado says he simply took Don C&rlos to his wife, saying, 'Here,\naunt, I bring uncle to you for safe-keeping. Try to make him understand\nthat he is too old now for school-boy pranks.'\n THE PRISONERS AT SONOMA.\nstarted on May 22d for the north, being mounted on\nhorses more famous for docility than speed, and protected by an escort of fifteen men well mounted and\narmed. Jesus Pico comrfanded the escort to Buena-\nvista, Santiago Estrada to San Juan Bautista, Jesus\nVallejo to San Jose*, and Corporal Galindo beyond\nthat point. They reached Sonoma the 3d of June,\nand were kept in confinement there by Vallejo until\nthe end of September, or a little later.44\nIn his letter of May 2 2d Alvarado complimented\nhis officers and men for their conduct during the campaign, announcing his intention of keeping up a force\nof about one hundred men for the present, and of going soon to Los Angeles in person.45 General Vallejo\nin turn congratulated him on his triumphs, urging\nhim to follow up his victory in such a manner as to\nsecure permanent peace, and not allow the troublesome element in the south to recover from their de-\n44 May 22, 1838, Alvarado to J. J. Vallejo, ordering him to come with a\nguard to meet the prisoners. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 86. May 30th, Gen.\nVallejo to Sanchez at S. Francisco and Murphy at S. Rafael. - Must furnish\nhorses, boats, etc. Id., v. 90-1. June 1st, J. J. Vallejo to Gen. V. His illness prevents him coming in person, but sends Corp. Galindo. Id., v. 92.\nJune 6th, Gen. V. to Alvarado. Prisoners arrived 3 days ago and iire kept\nsecured. Not allowed to communicate with the people. Id., xiv. 24. Jane\n9th, Vallejo to Lieut Ramirez. Cannot grant his request for release without\norders from the gov. Id., v. 94. June 20th, A. to V. May show some\nleniency to such of the prisoners as are grateful ,for the kindness with which\nthey have been treated. Id., v. 98. Aug. 9th, A. to ayunt. of Angeles. Grants\nrequest for liberation of political prisoners at Sonoma. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles,\nMS., xi. 108. Sept. 22d, A. to V. He is to free the prisoners as soon as\nthey bind'themselves to respect the governor's authority and not to disturb\nthe peace of the country; but they are not to be allowed to come south until\nDon C&rlos and others have presented themselves as invited. Vallejo, Doc.,\nMS., v. 181. Botello says the prisoners, or the 4 Mexicans at least, were very\ncruelly treated at Sonoma, being shut up in a floorless room, without beds,\nand given insufficient food. Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 393-4, 398-9, tells us that\nVallejo would not speak to them, gave them food that only excessive hunger\n^nabled them to swallow, and would not permit them to receive food presented by the people. Ignacio del Valle, one of the prisoners and a Mexican,\nsays they were treated well enough. Lo Pasado, MS., 25-9. Two of them,\nIbarra and Palomares, had the small-pox while at Sonoma.\n45 Alvarado, Campaiia de Las Flores, MS. He also asks Vallejo's advice\nabout opening negotiations with Sonora. Salvador Vallejo, one of the officers\ncomplimented, in a letter to Gen. Vallejo says that Juan Bautista is no military man, and he has had to use his sword several times on the officers, by\nwhich they have been brought at last into tolerable discipline and respect for\ntheir superiors!  Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 87.\n 588 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nfeat.46 To the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles the\ngovernor, for some reason inexplicable to me, instead\nof a letter of thanks for its action of May 15th, addressed a severe lecture on the evils of its past course,\nwith earnest advice for the future to attend strictly\nto municipal affairs and let state politics alone.47\nAt the end of May, Alvarado was invited by the\nayuntamiento to visit Los Angeles, his presence being required there to preserve peace and restrain certain turbulent citizens. He accepted the invitation,\nbut seems not to have made the visit until late in\nJune; and the only incident to be noticed in connection with it, and even this may very likely refer to a\nprevious visit, was a plot to assassinate the governor,\nwhich he claims to have discovered in time to prevent its success. The plot was revealed by a veiled\nwoman who did not make herself known. Alvarado\nhad reason to believe, however, and has always believed, that the lady to whom he owed his life was\nnone other than Dona Concepcion Arguello, the\nheroine of the Rez&nof romance.48 Meanwhile San\nDiego through its alcalde, Estudillo, had the impudence to inform Alvarado, the \\ gefe de la division del\nnorte,' that the people could not recognize any other\nruler than Carrillo. Reports came also that Zamorano, Portilla, and others were plotting mischief on\nthe frontier; but Alvarado promptly sent word to\n46 May 25th, V. to A. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 206-7; Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nv. 88. The general is very enthusiastic on the subject. 'The fate of California depends only on the conditions you make with the rebels.'\n47 May 27th, A. to ayunt. of Angeles. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 207; Dept. St.\nPap., Angeles, MS., xi. 104-6. The communication was also sent to S.\nDiego. June 6th, Vallejo suggests the propriety of chartering a vessel on\nwhich to send away a party of vagabonds who do nothing but make trouble.\nHe also suggests a revision of mission administrators' accounts. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., iv. 208-9.\n48 May 31, 1838, ayunt. to A., with invitation. Los Angeles, Arch., MS.,\nv. 26-7. June 6th, 10th, A. accepts and orders a house for his use to be prepared. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 107. June 9th, ayunt. receives his\nletter. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., v. 28. June 20th, still at Sta Barbara, but\ngoing to Angeles to reorganize the town. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 98. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 65-71, tells the story of the plot, which was to be\ncarried out by certain convicts, and gives his reasons for believing Dona Concepcion to have been his benefactress.\n ESCAPE OF THE PRETENDER. 569\nthose gentlemen that if he heard of their crossing\nthe line as threatened with a Mexican force, he would\nfirst shoot ten prominent men of the south, and then\nmarch to defeat the invaders!49 On the other hand,\ncheering rumors came from Honolulu by the Don\nQuixote, brought by the.. Clementine from San Bias,\nthat Captain Bobbins of the California' spoke of having favorable despatches for Alvarado, having been\nhimself made a naval captain by Alvarado's recommendation.50 Severe earthquakes were felt in the\nnorth late in June.\nIn July there were no new developments of a political nature.61 August was a more eventful month.\nIn its earliest days Carlos Carrillo, the 'Pretender,'\nescaped from Santa Barbara in company with his son\nPedro and Jose Maria Covarrubias. They fled in a\nboat, probably with the connivance of Dana and other\nforeigners during the governor's absence; but Don Cdx-\nlos, whose management and luck were equally unfortunate on sea and land, wras driven by stress of weather\nto land near Point Dumetz, whence he was aided by\nfriends to join the 'Carlist' conspirators on the San\nDiego frontier. Carrillo's alleged motive for flight was\nthe fear that he would be one of the ten men whom\nAlvarado had threatened to shoot on the approach of\nMexican troops. Yet Don Carlos forgave his persecutors, and promised to do all in his power to have\nthem pardoned when the supreme government should\nhave enforced his recognition! He even had the assurance to recommend his family to Alvarado's care.52\n49 June 26th, Estudillo to Alvarado. San Diegq, Arch., MS., 201. June\n20th, A. to Vallejo.   Vallejo, Doc, Hist. Mex., MS., v. 98.\n50 June 20th, Alvarado to Vallejo. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 98. Is organizing a permanent force of 100 men to be stationed at S. Fernando, where they\nwill be drilled by the 'unfortunate but able' Castaneda, who was so poor\nthat Alvarado had to give him a jacket to wear.\n51 The printed letter of July 20th from Vallejo to Alvarado bears date of\n1838, but probably belongs to 1837. (See chap, xviii.) July 26th, V. to officials, circular in which he complains that communications addressed to him\noften come open. Angel Ramirez has tampered with the mails at San Luis\nObispo.    Vigilance is required.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 119.\n52 July 30, 1838, C. to A., explaining the reasons of his flight, and bidding\nfarewell, Dept, St. Pap, MS., iv. 214-15.    Aug. 16th, Alcalde Olivera to\n 570 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nIf Alvarado was not very seriously alarmed at the\nflight of Don Carlos, he wras indeed troubled by letters\nfrom the north announcing the partial defection of no\nless a personage than General Vallejo. Jose Antonio\nCarrillo had utilized the time of his imprisonment at\nSonoma by holding long interviews with the general,\nand had succeeded in convincing that dignitary of his\ngood faith, and of the genuineness of his brother's appointment. So Vallejo stated in his letters of August\nlOth-llth, and in them advised the recognition of\nDon Carlos, or at least the holding of a convention at\nSanta Clara with a view to such recognition. Of the\nreal motives for delay in giving up the command, he\nsaid little or nothing. The point of his long and able\nargument addressed to Alvarado was to this effect;\nCarrillo's title being valid, it would be necessary to\nyield sooner or later; Alvarado and his.associates had\nfrom the first in good faith disclaimed any purpose to\nretain the command; with all his triumphs he had been\nso fully occupied in quelling revolts, that he had had\nno time to introduce needed reforms; experience\nproved there was no hope for a cessation of sectional\ntroubles; to yield voluntarily while in the full tide of\nsuccess would not only be flattering to their own\npride, make a good impression in Mexico, and check\nA., excusing himself for not having prevented Carrillo's flight. He had\nwatched the vessels, but never thought of his attempting a boat voyage. Id.,\niv. 223-4. Aug. 18th, A. tells Vallejo it seems to be his fate to act the part\nof papa to the families of his adversaries while they are absent on a campaign\nagainst him. For instance, *Zamorano and others whom he won't mention.\nVallejo, Doc Hist. Mex., MS., v. 145; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 74-82.\nCapt. John Paty of the Plymouth carried the news to the Islands, where it\nwas published in the Honolulu S. I. Gazette, Nov. 17, 1838. Paty said that\nCarrillo escaped on the Kamamalu's launch in the night. Alvarado took no\nnotice, except to fine Carrillo $100 for departing without a passport. Alvarado\nasserts that about the same time correspondence was seized bearing the mysterious sign ' Fu u.'   Carrillo's escape is mentioned in Pico, Hist. Cal,\nMS., 70; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 114-15; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 38-9. The\nHawaiians were somewhat disposed to ridicule the course of events in California; witness the following in the account just cited: j The task of recording great political events, of taking the profiles of revolutions, and sketching\nthe contour of national changes, falls to the lot of our brethren of the quill m\nmore enlightened realms; ours only is the duty of the historian of mighty\ndeeds! It is for us to tell of the bloody revolutions of California, to portray\nthe magnificent characters of her champions, and to chronicle the deeds of\nglory which cluster around the brows of her sons ! J\n VALLEJO'S DEFECTION. 571\ndissensions at home, but\u2014a still more practical advantage\u2014would enable Alvarado and his party really to\ncontrol public affairs for a time in their own way, since\nDon Carlos would come north to establish his government, remaining in their power until the whole matter\nshould be finally settled.53\nAll these things Jose Antonio Carrillo had promised in behalf of his brother. Furthermore, becoming acquainted with the general's particular hobby,\nhe had agreed that in case of the change being\neffected the presidial companies should be at once reorganized. He had realized the importance of playing his best card, for he better than any other understood the nature of the despatches to be expected\nfrom Mexico. That he succeeded in winning over\nVallejo to his views is not strange. Few men in\nCalifornia could resist his crafty eloquence; moreover,\nthere was much force in his arguments, as reflected\nin the general's letters, if faith could be placed in his\npromises and in his statements respecting the feeling\nin Mexico. Alvarado lacked that faith, and with\nmuch reason. The plot lately discovered against his\nlife at Angeles had not left him in a conciliatory\nmood. He had no doubt that his past successes\nwould be avenged by the imprisonment or exile of\nhimself and friends should the Carrillos gain control\nbefore the arrival of guaranties from Mexico, and\nthe recent flight of Don Ca>los, in ignorance of his\nastute brother's plans, was by no means a propitious\ncircumstance.\nThe governor's hesitation, if he hesitated at all, was\n53 Vallejo, Tres Cartas Reservadas en que insta el reconocimiento de D.\nCarlos Carrillo como Gobernador. Agosto, 1838, MS. Addressed on Aug.\n10th, 11th, to Alvarado, Castro, and Villavicencio. Other letters were\ndoubtless written of similar purport, and Carrillo wrote still others to Don\nCarlos and friends in the south, which latter seem not to have been delivered by Alvarado until later. Vallejo wished the matter kept secret; and\nthe plan if approved was to emanate ostensibly from Alvarado himself. The\nletter to the governor was long and minute in detail; the others shorter.\nAlvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 70-9, says he sent back a flat refusal, chiding\nVallejo for his disaffection, which was doing much harm in the south. He\ndeeply regretted the general's course.\n 572\nDON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nnot however of long duration; for in a day or two an\nevent occurred which put a new face on the whole subject. On August 13th, the Catalina arrived at Monterey with news from Mexico. Castillero wrote that he\nhad been successful in his mission, and that he would\nsoon arrive in California as a comisionado from the national government. Just how far he entered into details is not known, as his letter is not extant; but from\nthis and other private communications it was known\nthat Alvarado and his associates had nothing to fear,\neven if they were not to be continued in power. There\ncame also official despatches about the war with\nFrance, addressed to the governor and general respectively. One* package of correspondence was sent\nin haste to Sonoma, while Jesus Pico started at once\nto deliver the other to Alvarado at Los Angeles.\nVallejo, on August 17th, circulated to military authorities the despatch respecting the French war\n\"addressed to him\" by the Mexican government.\nFrom San Fernando on the 18th Alvarado wrote a\nlong letter to the general, communicating the good\nnews, and next day issued a proclamation, in which,\nbesides alluding to the French war, he announced\nalso the 'happy results' of Castillero's mission to\nMexico, without specifying what those results were.54\nThere was of course no further thought of giving\nup the governorship to Carrillo before Castillero's arrival, and Vallejo's plan of a convention at Santa Clara\nM Aug. 13, 1838, J. J. Pico to Vallejo, announcing arrival of Catalina.\nCalifornia expected in 10 or 12 days with money, arms, and clothing. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., v. 137. Aug. 17th, V.'s circular. Id., v. 144. Aug. 18th, Alvarado to V. from S. Fernando. Id., v. 145. Aug. 19th, A. sends his proclamation to V. Id., v. 147. Same date, the proclamation sent to Los Angeles\nand San Diego. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 108; S. Diego, Arch., MS.,\n208. Sept. 3d, Estudillo to A., 'gefe de la division del norte.' His proclamation has been published. Id., 201. Sept. 14th, 18th, the proclamation\nsent to Carrillo at his request. Id., 202. June 20th, a letter from Virmond\nin Mexico to Vallejo, which may very likely have been received by the Catalina. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 97. The writer announces Castillero's success,\nand the favorable ideas of the president towards Cal., and particularly toward\nVallejo. Says he, Virmond, has often taken the part of the Californians.\nCastillero is about to start. Money, arms, and clothing will be sent. Understands that the California is to carry the mails on the coast.\n GOOD NEWS FROM MEXICO. 573\nwas kept a secret among the few who knew anything\nabout it.55 There was nothing to do but await the\narrival of the California. Don Carlos, after being\nlanded by his boatmen, who carried his luggage back\nto Santa Barbara, had wandered for many days on\nfoot, harassed with fears of pursuit, until on arrival\nat San Luis Rey he had heard the news from Mexico, and had written to Alvarado a letter begging for\namnesty. Meanwhile Vallejo, on September 1st,\nasked to be relieved of the command, that he might\nattend to his private interests and those of his colony\nat Sonoma;56 but there is no evidence that any attention was paid to his request, and soon the general had\nto issue a proclamation to quiet certain popular rumors\nthat he was in league with the enemies of Alvarado.\nThese rumors he pronounced false, declaring that his\nviews had not changed since 1836, and that he would\nresign sooner than be false in any way to his friends.57\nMeanwhile the prisoners had been liberated, and there\nare some vague indications that they tried to make\ntrouble at San Jose and elsewhere, by representing\nthat Vallejo was in sympathy with the Carrillos.    No\n65Sept. 19th, A. to V., in Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 177. This is the governor's only reply to V.'s plan of Aug. 10th, so far as the records show. He says\nthat on account of the favorable news, he did not deliver the letters to southerners; that Castro, Villa, and S. Vallejo had declared that as military men their\nduty was to obey the gov., and that J. A. Carrillo's letter to himself was an\ninsult, and would not be answered. He mentions rumors of a pronunciamiento\nagainst Carrillo on the frontier; and speaks of Don Carlos' adventures and demand for pardon.\n56 Vallejo, Ofcio impresso en que quiere renunciar el mando militar, T de\nSet. 1838. In Earliest Printing; Vallejo, Ordenes, 9-14; Dept. St. Pap., MS.,\niv. 258. This communication, which is quite long, seems to have been\naddressed to Alvarado, but possibly to the min. of war. In it he urges the\nreorganization of the presidial companies as the only means of averting utter\nruin at the hands of the Indians.\n57 No date, blotter of the proclamation, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 287.\nOct. 22d, J. J. Vallejo urges his brother not to give up his command. Id., v.\n213. Nov. 9th, Salvador Vallejo, from Sta Barbara, to the gen. Speaks of\nrumors that he is in league with the southerners; and blames him for having\nopened his ears to J. A. Carrillo, who has \\ made a bag of him.' Says Alvarado is drinking too much. Id., v. 260. Nov. 10th, D. A. Rodriguez, S. Francisco, to Vallejo. Reports a conspiracy at S. Jose*, prompted by J. A. Carrillo\nand Angel Ramirez\u2014A. M. Pico and Pedro Chabolla being leaders, with accomplices at Sonoma. The outbreak to be on Nov. 15th. Id., v. 229. Nov.\n18th, J. J. Vallejo, Yerba Buena, to. his brother. Urges him in 2 letters to\nquiet the people by a proclamation.\n 574\nDON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nblame can be attached to General Vallejo for his\ncourse in this matter; but he was unfortunate in his\nchoice of a time for proposing his plan, and was over-\ncredulous in listening to the special pleading of Don\nJose* Antonio.\nThe California had been expected to follow the\nCatalina in a few weeks at most; troubles with France\nand other obstacles, however, caused Castillero's departure from Mexico to be delayed from July to September. On November 15th, the schooner anchored\nat Santa Barbara, and Captain Castillero, now comisionado of the supreme government, landing in bad\nhealth, sent communications to Alvarado, who was\nabsent, and to Vallejo at Sonoma. These communications informed the governor and general that by\nvirtue of documents brought by the writer in his\nofficial capacity they would be able to retain their positions, that the California had also brought arms and\nother war-stores, and that a personal conference was\nnecessary at the earliest opportunity.58\nThe most important of the documents brought from\nMexico by Castillero were as follows, in the order of\ntheir respective dates: a decree of June 30th dividing\nthe republic into twenty-four departments, one of\nthem the Californias, with capitals as before;59 a commission as captain of the presidial company of San\nFrancisco for Lieutenant Guadalupe Vallejo;60 an\nexpression of thanks for the gift of the California\nfrom the departmental to the national government;61\n68 Nov. 17, 1838, Castillero to Vallejo, transcribed in a later letter of the\nlatter.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 251; xxxii. 168; Earliest Printing.\n59 Decree of June 30th, in Arrillaga, Recop., 1838, 284-5; Sup. Govt St.\nPap., MS., xxi. 22; xii. 4; Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 225. This decree divided\nthe departments into 2 sections, Californias being one of those which was to\nelect a diputado to congress for 2 years on Oct. 1st. It is likely, however,\nthat this decree came also before on the Catalina in August.\n60 July 9, 1838, original appointment and commission, 2 documents, in\nVallejo, Doc, MS., i. 12.\n61 July 10th, the goleta to be used as apaquete mercante. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iv. 127; Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. HOf. There is no other evidence that\nsuch a gift had been thought of in Cal.  July 20th, decree of amnesty. Id,\n ALVARADO CONFIRMED BY MEXICO. 575\na decree of amnesty for all political acts and opinions\nduring the past troubles; an order addressed to Carlos\nCarrillo to the effect that the senior vocal of the territorial junta should act as governor temporarily, a\ncopy of the same being forwarded also to Alvarado;62\nan order to the governor to grant lands on the coast\nislands to Mexicans who might ask for them, giving\npreference to Antonio and Carlos Carrillo, who were\nto have exclusive possession of one of the islands in\nconsideration of their patriotic services;63 an appointment of Vallejo as comandante general in consideration\nof his distinguished services;64 and finally private\nletters to both Alvarado and Vallejo from President\nBustamante, who expressed his high esteem for those\ngentlemen, and confidence in their patriotism and\nability to direct the affairs of California in the future.65\nTruly Don Andrds had served his masters most\nfaithfully, and all had resulted well for the revolutionists of 1836.    Men of the southern faction have\n62July 20th, min. of the interior to Carrillo. 'The president, learning\nwith satisfaction that Alta California has returned to constitutional order,\nand as the law of amnesty draws a thick veil over all political occurrences,\ndirects that, in order to carry out the constitutional law, the. 1st vocal of the\njunta territorial of that department shall exercise the powers of governor;\nsteps being taken at once for the election of the junta departarnental, and a\nterna being sent to the sup. govt for the regular appointment, the pres. relinquishing for this time the powers given him by the constitution in the\nfrontier departments,' forwarded by Alvarado, as 1st vocal, to ayunt. of\nAngeles on Dec. 10th. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 109-10; also transcribed by Alvarado, who received it from Castillero, to Vallejo on Dec. 10th.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., v. 268; also English translation, in Hopkins' Translations,\n9. According to Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 126, the order, or a similar one,\nwas dated June 2d.\n63 July 20th, min. of the int. to gov. St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS., ii.\n387; Mont. Arch., MS., ii. 13; Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 92; Banditti, Doc, MS.,\n48; Halleck's Rept, 180-2; Jones' Report, no. 28. The gov. was to act in accordance with the junta; and the avowed object was not only to settle the\nislands, but to prevent foreigners from occupying them to the injury of commerce and fisheries. Sta Rosa Island was granted to the Carrillos in accordance with this order.\n64 July. 23d, appointment as comandante militar of Alta California, signed\nby Moran, min. of war. Original in Vallejo, Doc, MS. i. 13. Aug. 21st,\nMoran to com. gen. Orders that the auxiliary troops continue in service until\nfurther orders. Soberanes, Doc., MS., 96.\n65 Sept. 13th, original letters with autograph signatures, in Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., v. 166; xxxii. 158. The writer regrets the delay in Castillero's departure, which could not be avoided. He hopes Vallejo will look out for foreign\ninvaders: Castillero's commission seems to have been finally issued on Sept.\n7th.  Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 127; Sup. Govt St. Pap. MS., xiv. 1.\n 576 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nbeen wont to deplore the base ingratitude of Mexico\nin thus rewarding rebels, while the loyal surenos for\nall their suffering and sacrifice got no thanks. The\nreader knows that southern loyalty to Mexico was\nbut a very flimsy pretence. But for his own injudicious acts and utter incompetence as a ruler, Cdxlos\nCarrillo would merit a degree of sympathy; as it was,\nhis island grant was quite as much as he deserved.\nHis appointment had been obtained by his brother\non the representation that it would bring California\nback to her Mexican allegiance; but Alvarado had\naccomplished all that before Carrillo's appointment\nwas known there, and all subsequent disorders had\nresulted from the refusal of Don Ca>los to await the\ndecision of the supreme government. The president\nhad been made to understand that Alvarado and his\nassociates were the men who could control California,\nand whose good will was of some value to the national administration. Well would it be for the reputation of Mexico if her record were as clear on every\nmatter of state policy. Alvarado has often been\nrepresented; by writers who have disposed of several\nyears' annals in a paragraph, as having accepted centralism in gratitude for his recognition as governor;\nbut he had really sworn to the constitution a year\nbefore he was so recognized. Another theory that has\nbeen current to some extent is that Castillero brought\nfrom Mexico two blank commissions to be filled up in\nfavor of Alvarado or Carrillo as circumstances and\nhis own judgment should dictate, having also duplicate papers by which to reward with an island estate\nthe one who should not receive the governorship.\nThe reader with the facts before him will perhaps\nagree with me that this version is improbable to the\nverge of absurdity.66\n66 This version of duplicate documents is mentioned as a rumor by several\nCalifornians in their memoirs; and it was given currency by Peachy in an\nargument in the New Almaden case, an item from which has been widely circulated in the newspapers. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 394-6, describes the matter very unintelligibly.    Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 99, deemed the action\n CHRISTMAS ARRESTS AT SAN DIEGO. 677\"\nAlvarado and Vallejo proclaimed the tidings in\nprint to the people, at the same time congratulating\nthemselves and their friends in private letters; little\nelse was accomplished before the end of the year;6''\nThere was, however, some further revolutionary\ntrouble at San Diego, resulting in several arrests on\nChristmas night. The Carrillos were there, and\nnaturally the objects of much popular sympathy.\nThat there was any intention of resisting the orders\nfrom Mexico and continuing the struggle against the\ngovernor may perhaps be doubted; but reports of such\nplans, real or imaginary, reached Alvarado at Santa\nof Mexico disgraceful. Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 56-8, says that the minor\nofficials from Castro down for whom Castillero brought commissions were\nknown a,sofciales de Catarrillo. Alvarado notes the arrival of Castillero in\nhis Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 42-3, 111-13. A piece of doggerel, composed by one\nJos6 Elisalde and sung by the S. Diego soldiers, gives their view of the whole\nmatter, a game of cards being used as an illustration. Romero, Mem., MS., &;\nHayes' Emig. Notes, 495.\n\"Bautista busc6 barajas\nCastro se las baraj j.\nMontenegro puso el morite\nT Don Pio lo tapj.\nLuego vino Castillero\nT la carpeta se Uevo.\"\n67 In demanding his salary later, Alvarado seems to have dated his taking\npossession of the office from Oct. 1, 1838; why, is not very clear. Dept. Rec,\nMS., x. 6. Nov. 21st, Alvarado [Proclama del], Gefe Politico Interino de la\nAlta California dsus Hab'tantes, 21 de Nov. 1838. Impreso en Sonoma; Im-\nprenta del Gobierno. In Earliest Printing. In this proclamation the governor\ncongratulates the people on the happy ending of all dissensions; thanks Castillero; announces his own honest purpose to sacrifice everything for his country; and advises all to forget their resentments and get ready for the coming\nelections. Nov. 21st, Alvarado to Vallejo. Official and private letters. He\nsays the appointment of Carrillo had been due to underhanded work, and the\ngovt had been glad to cancel it. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 245-6. Nov. 22d,\nCastillero to Vallejo, private letter. Id., v. 248. Nov. 27th, Vallejo, Circular\nimpreso en que anuncia su Nombramiento de Comandante General, Nov. 21,\n1838, in Earliest Printing; Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 251; Savage, Doc, MS., i.\n20. This circular merely transcribes Castillero's letter of Nov. 17th. Nov.\n30th, P. Gonzalez congratulates Vallejo, and tells him the news was celebrated at S. Jose* with salutes, music, te deum, etc. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v.\n258. Dec. 3d, Vallejo congratulated in letters from Jose* R. Gonzalez, Ignacio\nPeralta, and Simeon Castro. Id., v. 263-5. Dec. 10th, Alvarado publishes\nin a bando, and includes in letters to Vallejo and others, the news of Castillero's arrival and the order of the sup. govt respecting the governorship.\nId., v. 268; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., x. 21-2; Id., S. Jose', v. 44-6. Dec.\n15th, the news and orders published at Angeles. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., v.\n38-9; Dept. St. Pap., MS., xviii. 8. Dec. 17th, P. Duran congratulates\nAlvarado. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 20. Dec. 22d, a new proclamation by\nAlvarado, urging the people to be true to the govt and not listen to revolutionists. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., x. 23. Dec. 29th, Alcalde Arenas\norders comisarios of ranchos to publish Alvarado's appointment. Dept. St.\nPap., Angeles, MS., ii. 135-6.\n' Hist. Cal., Vol. HI.   37\n 678 DON JUAN BAUTISTA AND DON CARLOS.\nBarbara, and he sent Castro with twenty-five men in\ngreat haste southward. At any rate, it gave the officers and men a chance to display the new uniforms\nlately received by the California. The pastorela was\nbeing performed at Bandini's house, Don Juan himself not being present apparently, and all prominent\nDieguinos were assisting in the festivities of Christmas, when Castro and his force surrounded the house\nafter midnight. The two Carrillos and the two Picos,\nwith Joaquin Ortega, were taken prisoners. Alcalde\nEstudillo was wanted also, but hid in a loft, and was\ndeclared by his wife and son to be absent from home.\nNext day Castro started northward with his captives.\nOrtega was soon set at liberty.68\n68 Dec. 22, 1838, Alvarado to Vallejo. Carrillo plotting to upset the govt,\nenlisting men on the frontier and in Sonora. A letter of (or to) Ignacio del\nValle had been seen revealing the plots. Vallejo, Doc., MS., v. 278. This is\nthe only contemporary document on the subject; but there are later proofs of\nthe prisoners being at Sta Barbara. It seems that there was a project formed\nto rescue them at S. Luis Rey; and that Estudillo did go to that place or near\nit. J. M. Estudillo, Datos, MS., 24-6, says his father returned because the\nprisoners disagreed and decided that no attack should be made. Another\nversion from the Estudillos, in Hayes' Emig. Notes, 343-4; Id., Miscellany, 41,\nis that Castro and his men were to be made drunk at a banquet at San Luis\nand then attacked; but Estudillo turned back because his heart failed him at\nthe thought of shedding blood. Pio Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 71-6, says the\nprisoners were armed and the majordomos were ready to help; but Estudillo,\nafter coming within a mile, disappointed their hopes by going back. Rafael\nPinto, Apuntaciones, MS., 39-43, who was with Castro, tells us the plan was\narranged by Andres Pico, who was allowed to go home for a while under Pinto's care before starting from S. Diego. The plan was for each of the captives\nto stab one of the captors to the heart at the supper-table at the moment of\nEstudillo's attack! Mention of the affair also in Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 115-\n16; Machado, Tlempos Pasados, MS., 34-5; Ezquer, Memorias, MS., 13-14;\nJanssens, Vida, MS., 142; Alvarado, Hist. GaL, MS., iv. 113-16.\n CHAPTER XX.\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\n1839-1840.\nGovernor and General at Santa Barbara\u2014Carlist Prisoners\u2014Don\nCArlos Yields\u2014End op the Conflict\u2014Military Discipline\u2014Presidial Companies\u2014Diputacion as a Junta at Monterey\u2014Division\nof California into Districts and Parttdos\u2014Prefects\u2014Plots of\nRamirez and Padre Mercado\u2014Life of Angel Ramirez\u2014Sedition\nat Branciforte\u2014Flag Tumult at Los Angeles\u2014Castillero Elected\nto Congress\u2014Vocales Elected\u2014War with France\u2014Jimeno Acting .\nGovernor\u2014Alvarado Married by Proxy-^-Arrival of the * California'\u2014Alvarado Appointed Governor\u2014Cosme Pena\u2014Castaneda\nSent to Mexico\u2014Annals of 1840\u2014Sessions of the Junta Depart-\namental\u2014tribunal de justicia\u2014monterey the capital\u2014conspirACY of Carrillo and Gonzalez.\nThere yet remained some traces, albeit not bloody\nones, of the past two years' conflict to be obliterated\nbefore the rulers of the department, now invested\nwith unquestionable authority, could proceed in the\nwork of reorganization, and open for California the\npath to complete prosperity, hitherto closed by sectional dissensions and other obstacles now for the\nmost part removed, if the proclamations of the time\nwere to be credited. The reader may suspect that\nnew difficulties, or the old ones in new forms, were\nlikely to be encountered. In the first days of the\nnew year General Vallejo arrived at Santa B&rbara\nfrom the frontera del norte to bear his share of the\npost-bellum burdens; the first public business in order\nwas mutual congratulation by governor and comandante.1 |\n1 Jan. 1, 1839, Vallejo to Alvarado, transcribing his promotion of July\n23d.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 1.   Jan. 2d, V. congratulates A. on his recogni-\n(679)\n 580 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nAt the same time arrived Lieutenant-colonel Castro\nwith his four or five Carlist prisoners from San Diego.\nCdrlos Carrillo was allowed the freedom of the town\nunder parole by Alvarado. The others were soon\nturned over to Vallejo, who sent them on board of\nvessels then lying at anchor in the roadstead, with\norders to the captains that no communication was to\nbe allowed with persons on shore. Jose' Antonio Carrillo was confined alone on the Leonidas; the rest, the\nPicos, Covarrubias, and Jose Carrillo,2 were committed\nto the care of Bobbins on the schooner California.\nVallejo relates that the penalty included a short trip\nout to sea in order that true repentance might be developed by the terrors of sea-sickness\u2014not a bad idea,\nbut perhaps an afterthought of later years.3 The\nCalifornia's prisoners were kept on board four days,\nand released January 19th\u2014from their floating dungeon at least.* Don Josd Antonio seems not to have\nrecovered his freedom until somewhat later, having\naroused Vallejo's wrath by stating that his solitary\nconfinement had been from fear that he would implicate the general himself in his plots against the government.6\nOn the 19th C&rlos Carrillo, being released from\nhis parole, probably at the same time the other pris-\ntion as gov. Id., v. 2; St. Pap., Miss, and Colon., MS;, iii 389. Jan, 2d, A.\nin turn congratulates V.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 160.\n2It is not quite clear whether the last two had been arrested with the rest\nat S. Diego or subsequently. .\n8 Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 392-400; Alvarado, H%st. Cal., MS., iv.\n50-4, 117-19. Pico, Hist. Cal, MS., 71-6, says they spent a few days on the\nvessels', and were then released. Feb. 5th, Don Pio wrote from S; Luis Rey\nthat he had rejoined his family. He had been ill, but was urged homeward\nby a desire to make known his liberty andthe end of all political differences.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 244i\n4 Jan 15th, Vallejo's orders to captains of the two vessels to receive the\nprisoners on board. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 13-14. Jan. 19th, order to place\nthe California's prisoners at Castro's disposal. Id., vi. 15.\n5 Jan. 23d, V. to Capt. Castaneda. Orders an investigation of the charges\nagainst Carrillo. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 19+20J The result does not appear.\nIt is possible that Don Jose* Antonio was released on the 19th like the rest,\nor that all were kept under arrest for some days after leaving the vessels.\nThree men of bad character were sent out of. the country at this time on the\nLeonidas. These were Pedro and Pablo Saenz* and Mdximo Guerra. Jan.\n24th, V. to captain of the Leonidas  Id., vi. 22.\n CARRILLO ABANDONS HIS CLAIMS. 581\noners left the vessels, addressed to Alvarado a letter,\nin which he formally recognized his legitimate authority as governor, relinquishing his own claims, and\npromising to give up all official documents in his possession. This communication was circulated on the\n23d by the governor, with an order that Don C&rlos\nbe not molested for his past acts and opinions, quickly\nfollowed by a publication of the Mexican decrees authorizing a grant of coast islands, and forbidding all\npersecution for complicity in the past disturbances.\nThus ended the long conflict between Alvarado and\nCarrillo, though the latter made some efforts subsequently to collect a salary for his term of office, and\ncertain debts contracted by him at Los Angeles as\ngovernor were paid from the departmental treasury.6\nHe did not obtain the island of Santa Rosa until some\nyears later, not deeming it at the time, perhaps, a very\ndesirable acquisition.7\nGeneral Vallejo found matters at Santa Barbara in\na condition which did not square at all with his ideas\nof military discipline. Don Guadalupe, proud and\npompous in manner, had been a soldier from youth.\nHe was a martinet by disposition and education, and\nat Sonoma, among Indians and soldiers paid from his\nown pocket, had been wont to put on the airs of a\n6 Jan. 19, 1839, Carles Carrillo to Alvarado, offering his submission. Circulated to different officials on Jan. 23d. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 215; Sta Cruz,\nArch., MS., 58; Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 169. Jan. 24th, A. publishes decree of\nJuly 20, 1838, on grant of islands. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 216. Jan. 25th, A.\nproclaims communication from the sec. of the int., condoning all political offences. Original in Coronel, Doc, MS., 65; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 217; Sta\nCruz, Arch., MS., 59. Jan. 27th, A. to sup. govt. Announces the complete\nrestoration of tranquillity through the efforts of Castillero and himself. Sup.\nGovt St. Pap., MS., xv. 9. Feb. 5th, S..Diego juez de paz, in name of the inhabitants, congratulates A. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 221. Sept. 22d, Carrillo to\nVallejo. Urges him to influence A. to giveihim an order on some vessel for\nhis salary as gov. from Dec. 6, 1837, to Jan. 21, or 25, 1839. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., viii. 166. July 1,1840, sub-comisariO's account, approved by A., shows\n$1,141 to have been paid for 'extraordinary expenses,' that is, supplies furnished to D. Carlos [ en el tiempo que fue* gobernador.' Id., xxvi. 97.\n7 Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 121-2, says he at first,told Don Carlos that\nthe president had ordered that he should be given an island and sent to live\non it, sarcastically proposing to.give .him a servant who would say every\nmorning, 'How has your Excellency slept ?' The old man begged not to b\u00a7\ncondemned to such a fate.\n 582 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\npetty sovereign. Colonel Alvarado and Lieutenant-\ncolonel Castro, on the contrary, had never been soldiers at all. They knew little of military discipline,\nand had not cared to enforce the little they knew.\nTo their officers they were 'Juanito' and 'Jose'\/ and\nthe men were correspondingly familiar and careless.\nCaptain Vallejo proposed to change all that, and\nAlvarado had no objections to the experiment, though\ndoubting the practicability of enforcing strict discipline in an army not regularly paid. The new regime\nwas introduced at once. In a few days the guardhouse was crowded with offending soldiers, while pretty\nmuch every officer in the place was under arrest. The\nCarlist prisoners, as we have seen, were promptly sent\non shipboard, and no attention was paid to the importunities of weeping sisters, cousins, and aunts. A\nlieutenant and a citizen in conversation ventured to\ncriticise the comandante's acts. The officer was reprimanded, legal proceedings were begun against the citizen for disrespect, and Castro was placed under arrest\nfor not having arrested the others. Castillero was\nsnubbed. Padre Duran, coming to plead for some\nprisoners, was forced by a sentinel to await his turn\nfor an audience with the general, and on announcing\nhis errand, was informed that he might retire unless\nhe had something to say about church matters. Captain Guerra y Noriega was ordered to take the command of Santa Barbara, and declining on the ground\nof ill health, was ordered under arrest at his own\nhouse, and informed that it was his duty simply to\nobey orders, though his petitions presented later in\nproper form would receive due attention. Some were\namused and others offended at these new methods.\nDon Guadalupe soon found himself involved in such\na tempest of protest and entreaty that he was forced\nto yield. At a grand party at the house of Guerra y\nNoriega, all shook hands, made peace, and received\nthe surrender of the general, who was forced to admit\n VALLEJO AT SANTA BARBARA. 583\nthat in an army of unpaid relatives, the old Spanish\ndiscipline must be somewhat modified.8\nVallejo not only turned his attention to the impracticable scheme of restoring discipline, but he also made\nearnest and oft-repeated efforts, unfortunately without success, to restore the old presidial companies on\nwhich he believed the country's permanent prosperity\nto depend. The companies had now no real existence\nexcept that of San Francisco, supported at Sonoma at\nVallejo's own expense. Alvarado was less enthusiastic in the matter, but whatever his desires, he could\nbarely find funds to support the few men already in\narms. He however ordered the municipalities to furnish recruits to the number of seventy. Vallejo also\naddressed his representations in favor of military reorganization to the minister of war, asking for money,\narms, and chaplains, but getting nothing beyond 'authority' to reorganize the companies. The government had authorized the retention of the civic militia\nin the service, but as there was no present need of that\nforce and no money with which to support it, the\nmembers were allowed to retire to their homes. It\nwas early in March that Vallejo returned to the\nnorth and reestablished his headquarters at Sonoma.9\n8 Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 392-418; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 59;\niv. 116-19. Jan. 28th-30th, corresp. between V. and Guerra, in Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., vi. 174-9.\n9 Some military items, Jan.-April, 1839. Jan. 3d, supplies brought by\nCastillero from Mexico: 598 coats, 477 pants, 297 shirts, 298 stocks, 289 shoes,\n200 cloaks, 400 caps and casques, 400 maletas, 200 chabrases, 100 muskets, 200\ncarbines, 99 sabres, 49 lances, 4 trumpets, 3,000 flints, 15,580 cartridges. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxv. 15; Alt. Lazaro Pina with 9 men of the S. F. company\nat Sta B. as Vallejo's escort. Id., xxv. 10. Jan 7th, 11th, 19th, Vallejo to\nAlvarado, urging organization of presidial companies, or of permanent militia.\nId., v. 3; vi. 165; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 242. Jan. 27th-29th, recruits\ncalled for. Quota of Angeles 40, S. Diego 10, Branciforte 15, Sta Barbara 5. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 219, 221;, Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 175. Jan. 31st,\nV. authorizes the auxiliary forces to disband temporarily. Names captains\nJ. A. de la Guerra, Valentin Cota, and A. M. Ortega; lieutenants Manuel\nCota, Juan P. Ayala, Felipe Lugo, and Octavio Gutierrez; alfereces Clemente\nEspinosa, Guillermo Navarro, Hilarion Garcia, Isidoro Guillen, Tomas Romero, Antonio Olivera, Joaquin de la Torre, and Ignacio del Valle. Id., vi.\n33,183. Feb. 6th, V.'s appeals to min. of warfor repairsof fortifications, etc.,\ndescribing present condition, explaining dangers of foreign encroachment,\nrecommending officers for promotion, etc. Id., vi. 217-24. Authorized from\nMexico to incur the expense of repairing fortifications Aug. 5th. S#p. Gov$\n 584 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nAlvarado had in the mean time convoked the diputacion to assemble at the capital. He issued an election proclamation for the formation in March of a new\njunta departarnental, and returned to Monterey at the\nend of January, being accorded the enthusiastic ceremonies of a public reception, with the usual salutes,\nspeeches, races, feasting, and dancing.10\nThe diputacion, its composition being unchanged\nsince 1837, met at Monterey the 25th of February.\nVocal Pico was absent during the sessions, and Osio\nserved as secretary. After delivering a short address\nupon the recent measures adopted in Mexico for the\nbenefit of California, Alvarado declared the body\nlegally installed as a junta departarnental. The sessions continued until March 7th, and action was\ntaken upon three subjects. First, the approaching\nelections for members of the junta and a deputy to\ncongress were declared legal, despite the non-attendance of electors from Baja California, if a majority of\nall the electors -were present. Second, Alvarado's\nproposition to divide the department into districts, to\nbe noticed presently, was approved. And finally a\nterna of three names was made out from which a permanent governor was to be selected by the supreme\ngovernment. The names in order of preference were\nJuan B. Alvarado, Jose* Castro, and Pio Pico.11\nSt. Pap., MS., xv. 8-9. Complaints of Sergt Petronilo Rios in command of\nartillery at Monterey about trouble in getting funds and supplies from the\nsub-comisario. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 269, 334-5, 465. March 13th, Prefect\nCastro orders fronrS. Juan the. formation of a company of auxiliaries to protect the district from Indians. Doc Hist. Cal., MS., i. 392. March 14th,\nV. to min. of war. Appeal for chaplains. Vallejo, Doc, Hist. Cal, MS., vi.\n228. March 31st, J. A. Pico ordered to Sonoma from S. Diego, and wants 2\nmen for an escort. Hayes' Miss. Book, i. 328. No comandante, nor muni-\ntionSjjsofaras known to Judge Osuna, at S. Diego. S. Diego, Arch., MS.,\n221. April 25th, V. says the order to retain the auxiliary troops in service\nwill entitle Alvarado to the military fue.ro. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 437.\nApril 26th, Capt. Guerra wants$12,000 of back pay.  Id., vi. 487.\n10Jan. 17th, call for election. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 214; Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xxxii. 174; Estudillo, Doc, MS., i. 249. The order convoking the members of the old dip. is not extant. Jan. 29th, A. sails for Monterey. Sta\nBarbara, Lib. Mision, MS., 47. Reception mentioned in Alvarado, Hist.\nCal, MS., iv. 124-5.\n11 Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 30-6, 47-8.    The members present were Alvarado,\n PREFECTS AND SUB-PREFECTS. 585\nAccording to the laws of December 1836, the republic was to be divided by congress into departments,\nand each department by its junta into districts and\npartidos.12 The corresponding decree of the junta\nwas issued by Alvarado on February 27th, dividing\nthe department of Californias into three districts, one\nof them belonging to the peninsula exclusively. Of\nthe others, the first district extended from the Sonoma frontier to San Luis Obispo, with the capital or\nhead town at San Juan de Castro; and the second\nfrom El Buchon to Santo Domingo on the peninsular\nfrontier, with the head town at Los Angeles. The\nfirst district was divided at Llagas Creek into two partidos, of which the second had its cabecera at San\nFrancisco mission, and the second district was divided\nat the space between ^>San Fernando and Cahuenga,\nSanta Barbara being the cabecera of the second partido.13 By the laws of December 30, 1836, and March\n20,1837, each district was to have a prefect appointed\nby the governor and approved by the supreme government; each partido, except one in every district,\nwas to have a sub-prefect appointed by the prefect\nand approved by the governor.14 Accordingly the\nprefects were named on the same day that the division was made, or the next, Jose Castro being appointed in the first district, and Cosme Pena in the\nBuelna, Guerra, Jimeno, Estrada, and Osio.    The organization of temporary\ncourts of 1st instance was discussed, without result so far as the record shows.\n12 Leyes Constitucionales. Ley vi. art. 1-3, in Arrillaga, Recop., 1836,\np. 367. Also decree of Dec. 30, 1836, ordering the division in Californias and\nthe appointment of prefects, in Id., p. 379. In the Mexico, Providencia de la\nSuprema Corte de Justicia\u2014que se proceda d la division del territorio de los de-\npartamentos of Nov. 11, 1837, governors were directed to have the division\nmade at once if not already done, Id., 1838, p. 572; but this instruction had\nprobably not reached Cal. In making the division, it does not appear that\nany restrictions were imposed as to number, extent, or population of districts.\n13 Feb. 27, 1839, decree of junta dividing Cal. into districts and partidos,\nin Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 33-4; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 220; Vallejo, Doc,MS.,\nvi. 274; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., x. 26, xi. 112; Estudillo, Doc, MS., i.\n254; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 246. The 3d district in Baja California was\nnot divided into partidos at this time.\n14 Mexico, Reglamento Provisional para el Gobierno interior de los Depart-\namentos, 20 de Marzo, 1887. Art. 61-121 on prefects and sub-prefects, in\nArrillaga, Recop., 1837, p. 202,214-23. Translation in Hall's Hist. S. Jose\",\n489-517.\n 586 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nsecond, though the latter was not approved in Mexico.15\nThe prefects may be regarded as a kind of petty\ngovernors, their functions being executive rather than\njudicial; further explanation of the system is deferred,\nand the somewhat complicated record of successive\nchanges in the incumbents of the prefectura will be\ncleared up in local annals. The same law of March\n20, 1837, which defined the powers of prefects, made\nprovisions also respecting ayuntamientos, which deprived California of those bodies except at the capital,\njustices of the peace taking their place. This provision was put in force by the dissolution of the ayuntamientos at the end of 1839.16 It may be noted here\nthat an attempt was made in the peninsula to oppose\nthe union with Alta California, there being a preference for union to Sinaloa\u2014at least in the mind of Gefe\nPolitico Castillo Negrete, who had no fondness for\nthe position of prefect under his old foe Alvarado.17\nThe attention of the people was occupied in March\nto a slight extent with the elections, but in April and\nMay there were several more exciting topics of popular interest. Angel Ramirez was accused of new\nplots to rouse the Indians, being supported by Padre\nMercado, and by certain persons who were dissatisfied\nwith the terna for governor. Ramirez had been arrested for complicity in the revolt of July 1837, and\nfor much of the time since that date had been compelled to live at certain missions under surveillance.\nWhether he was yet entirely free does not appear;\n151 have not found any regular appointments of prefects, but Alvarado\nnamed Castro and Pefia in his letter of Feb. 28th to vallejo, Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., vi. 277, and it is evident from many documents that the appointments\nwere issued on that date or on the 27th. The approval of the division and of\nCastro's appointment by the sup. gov. was on Aug. 7th. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,\niv. 131,280; Sup. Govt St. Pap, MS., xv. 10,12; Estudillo, Doc, MS., i. 262.\nBefore the news reached Cal. in Sept., Pena had already resigned and had\nbeen succeeded by Tiburcio Tapia.\n16 Nov. 7, 1839, gov. to prefect, ordering dissolution of ayunt. Dept. St.\nPap., Angeles, MS., xii. 19.    Details in local annals.\n17 July 16, 1839, Luis Castillo Negrete to some clergyman. No attention\nis to be paid to orders from Alta California till the change now pending in the\nsenate shall have been decided. Castro, Doc, MS., i. 37.\n FATE OF ANGEL RAMIREZ. 687\nnor is it possible to determine whether the charges\nmade at this time were well founded. Both Ramirez\nand Mercado were detained for some time at San Antonio, it being Alvarado's intention to send them both\nout of the country.18 Perhaps Don Angel escaped to\nthe Tulares and spent some months in the rancherias\nof gentile tribes. He returned, however, to live again\nfor a time at the missions, and died early in the next\nyear at San Luis Obispo. He had suffered long from\na terrible disease, and died at last without receiving\nthe rites of the church. His had been a strange\neventful career as friar, soldier, customs officer, and\nconspirator. He was known in California as an able\nand brilliant man, but without a redeeming trait in\nrespect of honor and morality. There is nothing in\nthe record to show that his most unenviable reputation was undeserved.19\n18 April 3, 1839, Cosme Pefia at Sta Barbara to Alvarado. Reports a plot\nbrewing to rouse the Indians of S. Antonio and other missions. Also plots\nto prevent the attendance of southern members elected to the junta. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., vi. 359. April 11th, Alvarado to Vallejo. Sends Pefia's communication. Ramirez is to remain at S. Antonio until he can be shipped away\nin the California. Has his eyes on the friars. Ex-gov. Carrillo has not yet\nsent the papers he promised. Id., vi. 404. April 29th, A. to V. The padre\n(Mercado?) detained at S. Antonio, and will be sent away as the general desires. Id., vi. 497- Pinto, Apunt., MS., 75-80, says he was sent to arrest\nRamirez at S. Luis Obispo, but he escaped, through a warning from Administrator Moreno, to the Tulares. Inocente Garcia, Hechos, MS., 68-70, was\nadministrator of S. Miguel. He says that Victor Arroyo was arrested by\nhim and sent in irons to Monterey for complicity in this plot. Tiburcio Alvarez had also been concerned in it.\n19 All the Californians agree that Angel Ramirez had been a friar of the\nMerced order, and later a captain in the insurgent army. Abrego, Cartas,\nMS., gives a few details learned from his uncle in Mexico. It seems that\nRamirez had left his convent in 1820 and fought under Gen. Anaya. He\nallowed the escape of some royalist intrusted to his charge, and this saved\nhis life later when himself captured by the Spanish forces. He was several\ntimes under arrest before coming to California. The government desired,\nsays Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 302-3, 316-17, 380-1, to remove him as far as\npossible from Mexico, where his intrigues caused constant trouble. Janssens\nsaw him serving in command of Vice-president Gomez Farias' body-guard.\nVallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 71-4, 187-8, 298-9, tells us he was a protege* of\nGen. Ugarte y Loyola of New Galicia. j Had he been president he would\nhave conspired against himself.' Says Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., ii. 224,\n'El capitan fraile tenia mas mafias que un burro de aguador.' In 1833 he\nwas made administrator of the Monterey custom-house, and arrived in the\nspring of 1834 overland, bringing a mistress with him. He was very free\nwith his money and that of the government, giving many expensive dinners\nand balls, which, with his social qualities, gave him much popularity. He\nknew everybody, and was skilled in all the arts of a demagogue.   He was\n 588 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nAt Branciforte, certain evil-doers disobeyed and\neven ridiculed the alcalde's orders. Comandante Castro sent Lieutenant Soto with a force to aid the municipal authorities. Nine, all members of the Robles,\nSalazar, and Soria families, were arrested. On the\nmarch back to San Juan the prisoners refused to obey\norders, and were fired upon, Avelino Robles being\nkilled and Nicol&s Robles badly wounded. Reports\nbased on this affair and the plots of Ramirez, were\ncirculated in the south, to the effect that the whole\nnorth was in revolt; but Prefect Pena issued a denial\nof such reports, presenting the death of Robles and\nthe imprisonment of his companions as a salutary example for the benefit of the Angelinos, showing the\nenergy of the government and the inevitable consequences of insubordination.20\nYet despite the warnings thus given by the prefect, a tumult occurred before the month was over in\nthe city of Los Angeles, or 'Los Diablos' as it .was\naccused of embezzling the public funds, but no definite proofs exist. Juan\nBandini's fruitless efforts to investigate his management of the revenues are\nwell known to the reader, who also remembers the part taken by Don Angel\nin support of Alvarado's revolution of 1836. He thought he could control\nAlvarado more easily than Gutierrez, but learned his mistake when he made\nthe attempt, being removed from his office in December 1836. Castillo Negrete described him in verse as 'El proto-libertador\u2014Primer hombre de Estado\u2014Es un fraile renegado\u2014Gran perjuro y gran traidor\u2014De oficio administrador\u2014Es de muy aneha conciencia\u2014Derrochador sin clemencia\u2014Sagaz\nrevolucionario\u2014Jugador y pendulario\u2014Sin Dios, ni patria, ni creencia.'\nUnable to control the governor, he engaged in plots against him; and was arrested in July, 1837. Later he lived at the missions, closely watched, and\nalways suspected. Torre, Remin., MS., 79, Garcia, Hechos, MS., 71-2,\nand Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 53-4, describe not very, clearly his mission life,\nstating that at the last he was treated with great indignity. He died at San\nLuis Obispo on Feb. 6, 1840, and was buried next day by P. Abella. After\npostponing confession from time to time, he at last promised to attend to his\nspiritual welfare after taking a short sleep, but from that sleep he never\nawoke, and thus died without the sacraments. S. Luis Obispo, Lib. Mision,\nMS., 55. His disease was syphilis contracted among the Indians. A writer\nin the Californian, Nov. 21, 1846, attributes hjs death to poison. On adcount\nof his promise to confess, his body was buried in the mission cemetery.\n20 April 19th, Castro to Vallejo, with: marginal order of the latter that the\nprisoners be tried by military law. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 456. May 2d,\nPrefect Pefia's circular, in S. Diego, Arch., MS., 223; Monterey, Arch., MS.,\nix. 7-8; Dept. Rec, MS., x. 24-^5. May 23d, Castro to Vallejo. No proceedings by military law because the gov. had banished the prisoners from\nCal. or from the Monterey district, v.* blames C. for having permitted\nan 'incompetent authority' to interfere.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 131.\n TUMULT AT LOS ANGELES, 589\nre-christened by Don Cosme at this time. Pena was\nnaturally not popular, especially among the class that\nhad so bitterly opposed Alvarado in the past, and\nthere were occasional manifestations of the feeling\nagainst him. One ground of displeasure was that he\nhad established his office at the house of Abel Stearns,\nin front of which he had raised the flag of the prefecture and planted a cannon. It was said that Stearns\nhad used the flag-staff as a post to which cattle were\ntied for slaughter, thus insulting the dignity of the\nAngelinos. On Sunday, May 19th, while Pena was\nabsent at San Pedro, some fifteen young men, armed\nand mounted, had assembled to pull down the flag,\nand perhaps to sacrifice a calf in burlesque before it.\nOn his return the prefect caused the arrest of the\nringleaders, Varela, Sepulveda, and Yorba, to be tried\nfor sedition, and obtained a guard of ten soldiers from\nSanta Barbara. Next, the citizens sent protests to\nthe ayuntamiento, which body asked Pena to remove\nthe flag to the public buildings,, where it would be\nrespected. Pena in anger surrendered the prefecture\nto Alcalde Tapia, and both reported to the government at Monterey. The reply was to impose a fine\nof five dollars on each signer of the memorial, which\nhad also been sent by twenty citizens to the governor,\nand one of ten dollars on each member of the ayuntamiento. Pena was, however, ordered to Monterey,\nand Tapia left in charge of the office. Quiet was restored by the middle of June.21\nThe primary elections had taken place in March,\nand on May 1st the seven partido electors met at\n21 General accounts, Pena to Vallejo, on June 8th. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nvii. 191. Pena to Alcalde. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., iv. 39-47. May22d-\n25th, action of ayunt. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., v. 87-8; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., xviii. 15-16. May 25th, Tapia to Alvarado. Dept. St. Pap, Ben. Pref.\ny Juzg., MS., v. 2-3. May 25th, com. of Sta B&rbara to Vallejo. Has sent\na force under Lieut Pardo. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 142. June 1st, Tapia announces that all is quiet. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 227. June 3d, gov. to Pref.\nTapia, imposing fines. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xi. 114-17. June 12th-\n17th, action at Angeles on the fines, which there was a willingness to pay,\nthough Tapia was exempted in July. Id., v. 22, 38, 43, 57; Los Angeles,\nArch., MS., v. 94-5.\n 590 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nMonterey as a junta electoral. The result of their\nlabors was that on the 2d Andre's Castillero was elected\nas congressman, with Antonio M. Osio as substitute;\nand on the Sd seven members of the new junta departarnental to meet on the 1st of August, were chosen\nas follows: Manuel Jimeno, Tiburcio Castro, Anas-\ntasio Carrillo, Rafael Gonzalez, Pio Pico, Santiago\nArguello, and Manuel Requena.22 May 13th and 14th\nthe old junta, or four of its members, held meetings\nto ratify the late election, and to empower the new\ncongressman to receive from the supreme government\nthe product of the pious-fund estates for the payment of public expenses.23 Two or three days later\nDon Andre's sailed on the California to occupy his\nnew post. It is as well to state here that though the\nnewly elected junta was convoked for August 1st, no\nmeeting was held at that time nor in this year at all.\nThe vocales would not present themselves, and the\nsubstitutes could not be summoned until the junta\nhad approved the excuses of the regular members!24\nVallejo in the mean time did not cease to urge military reorganization, especially with a view to secure\nthe northern frontier from foreign aggression. On\nMay 10th in one of several letters to the minister of\n22 Records of this election and of the local elections of March, in Leg.\nRec, MS., iii. 36-43. The partido electors were Osio and Santiago Estrada\nfor Monterey, Felipe Lugo and Joaquin Ortega for Angeles, Covarrubias for\nSta Barbara, Jose* Fernandez for S. Jose*, and Francisco Guerrero for S. F.\nThe substitute vocales chosen were Jose* Castro, J. R. Estrada, Ignacio del\nValle, Carlos Castro, Ignacio Martinez, J. J*. Vallejo, and A. M. Pico. Order for the election issued Jan. 17th. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 214; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxxii. 174; Estudillo, Doc, MS., i. 249. Further records of local\nelections. Doc. Hist. Cal, MS., i. 397; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 250. May\n5th, Alvarado proclaims the election of Castillero and Osio.' S. Diego, Arch.,\nMS., 245.\n23Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 43-4. May 16th, Alvarado to sup. govt. Sup.\nGovt St. Pap., MS., xv. 9. Aug. 7th, Castillero not successful in obtaining\nthe pious fund. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iy. 131; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 196,\n282. Castillero expected to sail from Sta Barbara May 13th. Id., vii. 64.\nThe vessel left S. Diego on June 7th.\n24 Aug. 1st, junta convoked for this date. Pico, Doc, MS., ii. 163; Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iv. 276. Aug. 12th, Castro to alcaldes. No quorum obtained.\nSta Cruz, Arch., MS., 40; Dept. St. Pap.,rMm^US., iv. 82-3. Aug. 14th,\nelection approved in Mexico.  Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., x. 28.\n MILITARY AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS. 591\nwar he described at some length his past efforts and\nsuccess in colonizing the region north of the bay. He\nrequired not only approval of what he had done, but\naid to carry on the work, including certain commercial\nconcessions to the colonists; for he could not longer\nsupport the military force from his own resources, and\nat the same time meet the constantly increasing demands of the settlers for aid.25 A few recruits were\nobtained for the regular companies, but they were of\na vagabond class which the municipal authorities were\nglad to get rid of, and which, the general did not desire for soldiers.26 There was trouble also because the\ngovernor discharged militia officers without the coman-\ndante's consent, and otherwise interfered in military\nmatters.27 The chief difficulty, however, was a financial one. There was of course a quarrel about the\ndistribution of revenues, the army not getting its share,\nas was believed by military men, and each company\nbeing defrauded, in the opinion of its officers. The\nchief complaint came from Santa Barbara, as Sonoma\ninterests were protected by the presence of the general, Monterey with the custom-house had the first\nhandling of the funds; and San Diego had no company\nto support.    Both in the south, and to some extent\n25 May 10, 1839, V. to min. of war on needs of the northern frontier. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 28. Other communications on military needs, in May.\nId., vii. 26, 27, 29, 37. June 10th, V. to Alvarado. A printed appeal for\nregular military companies and an escolta for each mission. * Nothing but\nthe old system can save the country.' Vallejo, Ordenes, 15-21; Id., Doc. Hist.\nCal, MS., xxxii. 206. Same date, to min. of war. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv.\n258. Dec. 1st, V. begs Castillero to get aid for the troops. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., viii. 334.\n26 May 10th, V. to Alvarado. No criminals will be accepted. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., vii. 43. May 24th, Capt. Villavicencio got 12 recruits in the south,\nunfit for soldiers, but turned over to Castro. Id., vii. 138. May 31st, V.\ncalls the recruits physically unfit or grossly immoral. Id., vii. 156. June 1st,\nthe wicked recruits to be sent back to Angeles. Id., vii. 167. Nov. 12th, V.\nto A. Sends a decree of Jan. 26th, requiring regular companies to be filled\nby draft. Id., viii. 274. Nov. 26th, A. says the conscription will be carried\ninto effect when instructions arrive. Id., viii. 318.   j\n27 May 19th, V. to A., complaining of the discharge as a dangerous precedent, and begging the gov. as colonel to revoke his order and put himself\nunder thegeneral's orders. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 117. June 7th, Capt. S.\nVallejo will obey the general's orders, notwithstanding his dismissal by the\ngov. Id., vii. 185. July 5th, Alf. Andrews Pico refuses to take command at\nS. Luis Rey as ordered by Vallejo. Id., vii. 316.\n 592 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nin the extreme north, the 'clique at the capital' was\ncharged with spending the public moneys almost exclusively for the benefit of local interests and personal\nfriends.28\nIn June the war between Mexico and Prance took\na large share of attention from the authorities, both\nmilitary and civil.. As the war had ended three\nmonths before, the real danger of an attack on Californian coasts was not great; however, as tidings of\npeace had not yet reached the north, an opportunity\nwas afforded for a brilliant display of national patriotism in preparing to repel the possible attacks of\nFrench corsairs. The resulting complication of military orders, interwoven with complaints respecting\ndefective fortifications and other means of defence,\nwas very nearly a reduplication of similar alarms in\nthe old Spanish times. The only result was that expenses were considerably increased during the month,\nand that a little work was done on one or two\nforts. French residents were not molested, though\nclosely watched, if orders were obeyed; on the last\nday of the month the news of peace was circulated.29\n^May 25th, Vallejo to Guerra at Sta B. Explains the distribution of If 10,000\nreceived for the army as its share of the California's duties, $25,000; S. Francisco co., with 60 men, got $2,000; Monterey, 30 men, $1,500; Sta Barbara,\n15 men, $1,000; S. Diego, $500; staff and unattached officers, $1,000; war\nmaterial paid for, $1,300; chest of medicine, $250; Sta B. artillery, $200;\ncapt. of port and other officers at S. F., $350; Alf. Ignacio del Valle, $100;\nthe rest for relief of old invalidos in small sums. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 140.\nJuly 5th, com. of Sta B. to V., complaining of neglect from the Monterey\nauthorities. Id., vii. 310. Complaints from S. Luis Rey. Id., vii. 313-14.\nJuly 10th, V. to Alvarado. Complains that the comisario refuses to obey his\nrequisitions. Id., vii. 70. Orders payment of $1,000 each to Sta B. and S.\nDiego, and offers to lend $10,000 to the treasury. Id., vi. 144, 146-7; vii. 358.\n$1,400 in goods and $100 in money paid to Monterey co. from Feb. to July.\nId., vii. 388. July 22d, Comisario Abrego expects to pay one fourth of dues\nfor past month. Id., vii. 406. Aug. 6th, only one soldier at S. Diego. S. Diego,\nArch., MS., 234. Aug. 7th, not a cent's worth of anything received for the\nartillery this year. Vallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 22, 17. Sept. 3d, men at S. Luis\nRey\u2014S. Diego co.\u2014left the service against orders to earn a living by their\nwork. Id., viii. 69-70. Sept. 8th, Capt. S. Vallejo complains that the S.\nFrancisco co. is neglected by the comisario. Id., viii. 86. Sept. 11th, Vallejo\nto Lieut J. M. Ramirez. Cannot relieve his wants, having no resources.\" Id.,\nviii. 133, 137. Oct. 27th, Abrego says Capt. Castaneda and the habilitado of\nS. F. refused $4,000 proffered, because the amount included 1,000 hides at\n$1.50>. Id., viii. 233. Nov. 3d, northern troops to have $2,500 from the first\nduties. Id., viii. 252.\n* Over 40 communications on this alarm* S. Diego, Arch*., MS., 221, 229-\n THE GOVERNOR'S WEDDING. 593\nFrom July to September lampoons of an insulting\nand threatening character, and directed against the\ndepartmental rulers, were posted at different places,\nand anonymous letters of similar purport were sent\nto Alvarado. At the same time rumors were current, for the most part without foundation, of plots\nin the south,. and even of a hostile expedition approaching from Sonora. Vallejo evidently did not\nshare in the alarm felt or feigned at the capital, as he\nrefused to put certain troops asked for under the governor's orders till he should be informed respecting\nthe exact nature of the suspected plots.30 In these\nmonths Alvarado, as was often the case during his\nrule, was unable to attend to his official duties on\naccount of illness, and his secretary, Jimeno Casarin,\nacted much of the time as governor, especially in\nJuly; however, Don Juan Bautista had sufficiently\nrecovered his health in August to marry Dona Martina, daughter of Francisco Castro. The marriage\ntook place at Santa Clara on August 24th, but Alvarado was not present, being represented by Jose*\nAntonio Estrada. Eight days later the bride came\nto the capital, where the festivities lasted several\ndays.81\nThe national schooner California arrived September\n15 th at Santa Barbara, on her return voyage from\n30; Dept. Rec, MS., x. 13; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 256-7; Id,, Angeles,\nxii. 6; Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 119-36; vii. 67-9, 174, 176, 189, 206-20, 249,\n404. Communications from Mex. Jan.-April. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xv.\n2-4. June 25th, news of peace in a private letter of Guerra. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., vii. 264. Officially published June 30th. Id., vii. 275. Oct. 31st,\norders had been received from Mexico to strengthen coast defences. Id., viii.\n240.\n80 Lampoons and anonymous letters at Sta Barbara and Monterey. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 310, 321; Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 140-4; Vallejo,\nHist. Cal, MS., iv. 7-14. Reports of the Sonora expedition brought to S.\nDiego in August, contradicted in Sept. Vdllejo, Doc, MS., viii. 58, 67.\nPlots in the south in Sept. Id., viii. 76, 88.\n81 Copy of record from Sta Clara mission book, in Vallejo, Doc, MS*,\nxxxii. 293. P. Gonzalez performed the ceremony. Alvarado, Hist. Cal,\nMS., iv. 169-72, tells us it was the arrival of La Place that kept him from\ngoing in person to Sta Clara, and he also says the rings used at the wedding\nwere of California gold.\nHist, Cal., Vol. III.   38\n 594\nALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nAcapulco.32 She brought Mexican despatches of August 6th and 7th, announcing Alvarado's appointment\nas governor, en propiedad, and promoting Vallejo to\nthe rank of colonel.33 All that had been done by governor or junta was approved, except the appointment\nof Cosme Pena as prefect of the second district; but\nthat gentleman had already given up his position to\nanother, and he soon took his departure for Mexico,*\nto be heard of no more in California.34\nThe despatches brought by the schooner were officially circulated a few days after their arrival by Acting-governor Jimeno, the prefects, and subordinate\nofficials; and the news of Alvarado's appointment was\nduly celebrated in different parts of the department,\nespecial enthusiasm being shown at Los Angeles, where\non a Sunday the flag was hoisted, salvos were fired, a\n82Sept. 15th, capt. of port reports arrival. Vallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 149;\nCooper's Log-book of the ' California,' MS., entry of same date.\n83 Aug. 7th, min. of int. sends Alvarado's appointment. Dept. St. Pap.,\nAngeles, MS., xi. 12-13; Id., Mont., iv. 16-17. Aug. 6th, Pres. Bustamante to\nV., congratulating him and Alvarado, and thinking him for his services. Vallejo\nDoc, MS., viii. 11. Aug. Gth, V.'s appointment and commission as colonel\nof the defensores de la patria, sent by min. of war. Id., i. 14-15. Also Aug.\n2d, 4tb-Gth, commun. from min. of war to Vallejo in reply to his letters of February, approving his measures, sending commissions for several officers, and\npromising additional aid. Savage, Doc, iv. 308, 310, 312, 314-15. Sept. 17th,\n22d, V. was congratulated by Carlos Carrillo and Cosme Pena on his appointment as comandante general en propiedad. Id., viii. 1\">7, 165. But there was\nno such appointment, since that of July 1838 had been permanent and not\ntemporary.\n34 The licenciado Cosme Pena was a Mexican lawyer who came to California with the Hijar and Padres colony in 1834, as asesor to succeed Gomez.\nI know nothing of his previous career. In the discharge of his official duties\nhe showed himself to be a man of fair ability and education, but he was a\nhard drinker, and unfortunate in his domestic relations. After being involved\nin many scandals, his wife left him in 1837 and started overland for Sonora.\nThe party was attacked by Indians on the Colorado, and the lady is said by\nIgnacio Coronel to have become the wife of a chief. Don Cosme had trouble\nwith Gov. Chico, and was at one time suspended from his office.^ In the autumn of 1836, he took a prominent part in Alvarado's revolution\u2014though far\nless influential than he was represented by Castillo Negrete, his bitter enemy\u2014\nand was made governor's secretary. He subsequently joined in the counter-\nrevolt of Angel Ramirez and other Mexicans, and was imprisoned for a time\nat Sonoma; but Alvarado still felt disposed to befriend him, and made him\nprefect of Los Angeles. He held this place several months, but of his acts\nnothing is known beyond the events of the 'flag tumult' mentioned in this\nchapter. Vallejo, who in his Hist. Cal, MS., iii. 1S8-91,. quotes from Peha's\npoem on the 'Fall of Man,' states that he went from California to Guaymas,\nwhere he served as a judge. None of the Salifornians have much to say in\nDon Cosme's favor.    He left two daughters in the country.\n GOVERNOR AND GENERAL. 595\nman was wounded by the premature discharge of a\ncannon, and at night the city was illuminated. Alvarado was, however, ill again, and did not take the\noath and formally assume the governorship till November 24th, the transfer being announced next day by\nhimself and Jimeno.85\nNow that the governor and comandante militar\nwere secure in the possession of their respective positions, a serious misunderstanding had developed between the two, resulting in a quarrel which lasted as\nlong as their control of public affairs, and in a suspension\nof that control a few years later. The causes were\nsomewhat complicated. It will be remembered that\nin November 1836 Vallejo, though his opinions were\nsubstantially in accord wTith those of Alvarado and\nCastro, had declined to engage actively in the revolu-\nlution against Gutierrez, but had, without his own\nknowledge or consent, been made military commander,\na position he was very willing to accept after the first\nsuccess had been achieved at Monterey. His cooperation was absolutely necessary to the revolutionists,\nand the position of general was a rewTard very flattering to the young lieutenant. His subsequent support\nof the cause was most cordial and effective, and was\nfully appreciated by his associates. Without his aid\nAlvarado's project must have failed, and this aid was\nnone the less, but rather more, effective that Vallejo\nremained in the north instead of personally taking\npart in the southern campaigns.    While disapprov-\n35 Sept. 20th, Jimeno to prefect and Vallejo with several dec. from Mexico.\nDept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., iv. 16-17; Vallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 160-3. Sept.\n21st, John Temple to Larkin, hopes the news of Alvarado's appointment will\nprove true. Larkin's Doc., MS., i. 24. Sept. 22d-23d, further circulation of the\nappointment by Jimeno through prefects. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 238, 241;\nVallejo, Doc, MS. viii. 167, 169; Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 56. Sept. 30th, congratulations of P. Duran. Arch., Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 25-6. Oct. 5th-9th,\nreceipt of the news at Angeles. Dolores Sepulveda was the man wounded.\nLos Angeles, Arch., MS., v. 96-7; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., v. 87-9;\nId., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., v. 21. Nov. 12th, Vallejo has learned with pleasure\nthe appointment and will give it due publicity. Vallejo, Doc. Hist. Cal, MS.,\nviii. 273. Nov. 24th, A. takes the oath and the office as announced on the\n25th. Id., viii. 313, 315; Dept. St. Pap., MS., xii. 18; Id., Mont., iv. 18.\n 596 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\ning some of the governor's acts, such as his disposition\nof the San Julian rancho, the general made few complaints, and threw no obstacles in the way of success.\nLater, at an unfortunate time, as already related, the\ncomandante was induced by Jose Antonio Carrillo to\nadvocate the recognition of Don Carlos as governor.\nThough kept secret as far as possible, enough of this\nmatter leaked out to cause the circulation of rumors\nnot flattering to Vallejo; and while there is no evidence\nof serious ill feeling between the two principals at the\ntime, yet it may be regarded as certain that both were\nleft in a state of mind not unfavorable to future controversy, and that others had their cue for the provocation of such controversy.\nThe trouble began after the arrival of Castillero\nand the submission of the south to Alvarado's rule.\nThe new rulers had now to organize the interior government of the country, and the military branch was\nto Vallejo all-important. To reorganize the presidial\ncompanies and put the army on a sound footing was\nthe one thing to be done before thinking of other reforms. Vallejo's plans were perhaps, under the circumstances, impracticable; at any rate, his enthusiasm\nwas not shared by Alvarado, who soon became indifferent, and was disposed to regard Vallejo's importunities as unwarrantable interference in the affairs of\nstate. He even took the liberty of discharging certain officers, thereby greatly offending the general,\nwhom he had not consulted in the matter.36 Alvarado was much troubled in these days by the demands\nof office-seeking friends and other petty cares, being\nalso nervous and ill from the effects of too much\naguardiente, so that his duties were left largely in the\nhands of his secretary.    Neither Jimeno nor Castro\n86 May 19, 1839, in reproving the gov. for his dismissal of the officers, a\nmeasure positively revoked by himself, V. says, ' Sr Governor, you flatter\nyourself with being in power, but you must not forget the force that sustains\nyour power. No government has existed without the military.' Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iv. 255-6. Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 25-8, represents A.'s mission\npolicy as having had much to do with his opposition at this time.\n THE MONTEREY CLIQUE. 597\nwas specially well disposed towTard Vallejo. Abrego,\nin charge of the revenues, naturally favored the governor and people of Monterey, rather than the comandante and absent officials. Trouble arose, as already\nstated, in connection with the distribution of military\nfunds and supplies, and complaints came in from all\ndirections that the 'Monterey clique' was spending the\npublic money for the exclusive benefit of its friends.\nTo what extent these charges were well founded, it is\nimpossible to determine; Alvarado, while his difficulties were not fully appreciated out of the capital, and\nwhile his old foes were willing to make the most of\nthe coolness between him and Vallejo, was certainly\nsubjected to influences not favorable to an impartial\ndistribution of the revenues, or to a wise administration of the. public interests.\nThere is no reason to question Vallejo's honest desire for the wTelfare of his country. He spent his own\nmoney freely to advance his plans of military reform,\nHe believed his former associates were neglecting\ntheir duties, and his pride was deeply wounded by\ntheir attitude, which seemed to say, \"Our need of you\nended with the cessation of armed opposition to our\nrule; attend to your northern frontier; put your force\nat our disposal when we call for it; and leave us to\ngovern in our own way.\" When, therefore, the governor did ask to have the troops of Monterey and\nSan Juan put under his orders to avert dangers in the\nsouth, Vallejo refused until the exact nature of the\ndanger should have been explained, declaring that his\ntroops would be always ready to support the law, but\nnot its abuse.37 He attempted, however, to bring\nabout an interview, for some time unsuccessfully.\n87 Sept. 9th, V. to A., in answer to demand of Aug. 14th. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iv. 278-80. Sept. 26th, Jimeno says the danger is past, and the force no\nlonger needed! Vallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 179. Aug. 10th, Castro would be\nglad to meet V., but wishes him to come south. V. had ordered him to come\nto Sonoma. Id., viii. 33, 35. Sept. 4th, J. J. Vallejo, S. Jose*, to the gen.\nHas not succeeded in having an interview with Alvarado and Castro to avert\ncalamities. A. is controlled by Castro, and things have a suspicious air. Id.,\nviii. 77.    Sept. 6th, Prado Mesa writes very bitterly against the 'clique,*  It\n 598 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nAbout this time the chief, Solano, conceived the\nproject of making a visit to Monterey with an escort\nof Indian braves. He had been invited by Alvarado\nin 1836 to pay him a visit, and had promised to do so;\nbut his action at this time was doubtless prompted by\nVallejo, who thought it well to frighten the potentates of the capital with a hint at his reserve power.\nHe of course had no real intention of inflicting on the\npeople of Monterey a large force of Indians; but he\nperhaps at first exaggerated the number to be sent.38\nIn the middle of October, the general announced that\nSolano had asked and received permission to visit the\ncapital with eighty Indians. I do not know if the\nvisit was made; but if so, it was probably with a\nsmaller number, who formed part of the general's escort, as he was at San Francisco October 22d and 23d,\nen route to Monterey.39\nHaving arrived at the capital, Vallejo asked for an\ninterview with the -acting-governor\u2014it does not appear\nthat he had any communication personally with Alia time to bring them to their senses. Id., viii. 78. Sept. 8th, V. to gov.\nDesires a conference at Sta Clara. Id., viii. 84. Sept. 24th, Jimeno, being\nabout to turn over the office, cannot grant the interview; besides, a gov. has\nno right to leave the capital. Id., viii. 171. Oct. 9th, J. A. Carrillo to V.\nThe political condition promises nothing but misfortune?. Thinks of selling\nhis property and leaving the country. He is always suspected, and even his\nprivate letters are not safe. Id., viii. 199.\n88 Sept. 3d, Pablo de la Guerra, in the name of his own and other Sta\nBarbara families, protests against V.'s proposed sending of Solano with 2,000\nIndians. He begs V. not to run such a risk for the sake of frightening Alvarado. Vallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 73. Oct. 2d, Sal v. Vallejo to-Guerra. Has\nurged his brother in vain not to send Solano to Monterey. Hopes to influence Solano, however, not to take more than 1,000 Indians. Id., viii. 192.\nThese letters purport to be copies of originals, and. are in the handwriting of\na man whom I have often detected in questionable practices. Doubtless the\nnumbers are pure inventions, and the dates are suspicious. Possibly the\nwhole is a forgery, but it is not unlikely that Vallejo may have made a threat\nand used large figures\n89 Oct. 16th, V. to Alvarado, announcing Solano's departure. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., viii. 216. Ochenta in the original is changed clumsily into ochocientos\nby the same genius mentioned in the last note. Document also in Dept. St.\nPop., MS., iv. 282. Proofs of V.'s trip and presence at S. Francisco on Oct.\n22d-3d, and indications that he had 31 men in all. Va llejo, Doc, MS., viii. 210,\n223, 225. Dorotea Valde*s, Reminis., MS., 7-8, claims to remember Solano's\nvisit at Monterey. Fernandez, Cosas de Cal., MS., 96, 101-3, remembers his\npassing through S. Jose with hundreds (!) of Indians. He says-Solano kept\nhis men in very good order, but both he and V. acted in a very proud, arrogant manner.\n VALLEJO AND JIMENO. 599\nvarado, who was perhaps absent\u2014and such an interview was held on October 30th. Doubtless the\ncomandante was independent and dictatorial in manner, and Jimeno stubborn rather than conciliatory.\nNext day the former wrrote a letter, stating that the\nconference had ended without results; that he had\nbeen able to get no satisfaction for Alvarado's interference in military affairs; and that n,ot the slightest\nattention had been paid to his pleas for reforms in\nfinancial and commercial management. He would\ntherefore go home to attend to his duties as best he\ncould without support, and to hope that the 'ruler of nations' might save California from the impending ruin.40\nHe soon resolved, however, to go to the national capital\nto lay before the president in person California's needs\n\u2014a project he had had in mind for some months, but\nwhich, after ordering all officers to vote for a comandante to serve during his absence, he abandoned before December, and decided to send Captain Castaneda instead as his comisionado. The captain, after\nsome trouble in raising funds for his journey, sailed\nfrom San Diego late in December. Later there came\nfrom Mexico a denial of Vallejo's request for leave of\nabsence.41\n40 Oct. 29th, V. to Jimeno, asking for an interview. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,\niv. 283. Oct. 30th, J. consents, naming the governor's house, at 4 p. m.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 236. Oct. 31st, V. to J., complaining, as in the text.\nId., viii. 241. Nov. 1st, J.'s answer. Is surprised that the conference should\nbe deemed at an end, and evades the .matters at issue. Thinks there is not\nmuch danger, and that V. should have confined the discussion to the military topic. Id., viii. 247. Nov. 13th (17th), V.'s reply from Sonoma. Independent and sarcastic. Peace will not last long, and the country is on the\nroad to ruin. Implies that he may have occasion to go to Mexico to explain\nthe true situation and needs of his country. Id., viii. 295; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iv. 284-5. Nov. 25th, Alvarado to V., in reply to the last. Will sacrifice his life to preserve the peace that now exists, etc. Id., viii. 316.\nDec. 13th, V. to comandante of S. Jose\\ 'There seems to be a determination\nto lead the country to ruin and exasperate its best citizens.' Id., viii. 373.\n41 Sept. 4th, 17th, mentions by J. J. Vallejo and Eulogio Celis of the general's plan of going to Mexico. Vallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 77, 158. Nov. 18th,\nV. announces his intention. Says he has the right to name his successor,\nbut prefers to leave the choice to the officers, who are to send in their votes.\nId., viii. 306. Dec. 1st, V. to Pres. Bustamante. Has decided to send Castaneda, but at the same time asks for leave of absence. Id., viii. 333. Dec.\n3d to Jan. 10th, ten letters with votes, mostly for Capt. Guerra. Id., viii.\n326, 344, 351, 378, 393, 396-7; ix. 12.   Dec. 7th, trouble with the comisario\n 600 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nThe annals of 1840 group themselves naturally\nabout four general topics, Vallejo versus Alvarado,\nsessions and acts of the junta, alleged conspiracy of\nCarrillo and Gonzalez in the south, and the Graham\naffair. The last subject will be presented separately\nin the next volume; the others demand present attention.\nThe controversy between governor and comandante waxed hotter and hotter throughout the year.\nEach accused the other of interference in matters\nbeyond his jurisdiction, and each was disposed to restrict the other's prerogatives to very narrow limits.\nVallejo recalled the old Spanish times when the two\ncommands were united in one person, and looked upon\nhimself as invested with all the powers of the old\ncomandante general, while to Alvarado he accorded\nthe petty civil authority of the Spanish gobernador.\nAlvarado, on the contrary, held that in a republican\ngovernment' the military authority was subordinate\nto the civil, expecting Vallejo to use his troops as\ndirected, to preserve order and protect the country.\nBoth were independent and assumed superiority. Mutual 'friends' were ever ready to widen the breach;\nthe old topics of disagreement still existed, and new\nones were added. The respective merits of the parties, as usual when a quarrel has once begun, are not\nworth much consideration; the controversy, however,\nwas as effective an obstacle to all real progress in California as had been the earlier one of Alvarado-against\nCarrillo.\nAlvarado had appointed Hartnell as visitador to\ncarry into effect his regulations for the management\nabout funds, and Alvarado's passport for Castaneda to go on a military commission 'as far as S. Diego.' Id., viii. 358-60. Dec. 20th, Casaneda at S.\nDiego, has got money from Celis. Id., viii. 384. April 23, 1840, min. of war\nto V. The pres. would be glad to see him, but the leave of absence cannot\nbe granted, as there is no officer to take his place on the frontier. Id.,ix. 116.\nMarch 10, 1840, Alvarado to min. of int. All quiet; pay no heed to Castaneda's loud talk and false reports. Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 65-6. April 21st,\n24th, letters from Castillero and the min. of war to V., announcing that\nCastaneda will soon return to Cal. with needed military supplies. Id., ix.\n115, 118.\n CIVIL AND MILITARY AUTHORITY. 601\nof missions, as will be more fully explained elsewhere.\nVallejo would not permit Hartnell to take possession\nof San Rafael in pursuance of his instructions, and\neven arrested the visitador, and carried him across the\nbay as a prisoner, for having ventured to interfere in\nmatters concerning the northern frontier without his\nconsent.42 His position was, not only that by virtue of his military jurisdiction and office of director\nof colonization he had exclusive control of Indian\naffairs north of the bay, but that San Rafael was no\nlonger a mission, the property having once been distributed and only restored partially under his solemn\npromise of redistribution\u2014a promise for the fufil-\nment of which the Indians were clamorous, and\nwhich he would fulfil at any cost.\nThe distribution of the public funds continued of\ncourse to be a subject of contention. Vallejo accused\nAbrego of not dividing the revenues equally as the\nlaw required between civil and military employees.\nHe called often for exact statements of the division;\nhe denied the governor's right to interfere in military\naccounts, and gave his communications the form of positive orders. Abrego, on the other hand, delighted in\nthe governor's interference against the 'autocrat of\nSonoma,' called upon Vallejo to show his commission\nas comandante general or be content with a captain's\npay, and refused to pay the salary of Richardson and\n**May 14,1840, Hartnell to gov. The Indians objected to the change, and\nreferred to Vallejo's promises. They could not be made to understand that\nthe comandante had nothing to do with missions. The arrest was at S. F.\nafter H.'s return, and he was taken back by V., but released probably next\nday, after agreeing that V.'s views in this particular case were correct. St.\nPap., Miss., MS., xi. 15-17. May 16th, H. left S, Jose* for Monterey yesterday, and the gov. is now satisfied, writes the judge of S. Jose* to Jimeno in answer to an order to investigate the arrest. S. Jos6, Arch., MS., iii. 38. Jimeno's\ninquiry about the arrest. Dept. St. Pap., S. Jose\", MS., v. 69. The matter\nwas agitated as early as Jan. 22d, when Alvarado complains of V.'s disposition to dictate to him about the distribution at S. Rafael. Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nix. 25. V.'s argument on the matter to H. and A. Id., xiv. 17; ix. 106.\nApril 4th, A. begs V. to let H. act according to the regulations. Id., ix. 97.\nApril 9th, V. repeats his arguments, but seems to promise compliance. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., v. 3-4. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 145-57, narrates the\naffair, except the arrest, and says that it displeased some of V. 's friends at\nSta Barbara.    Mentioned by Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 202-3.\n 602 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nGuerra appointed port-captains, as was claimed, illegally.43 Vallejo's refusal to show his commission was\nmainly to snub the comisario doubtless; possibly he\nalso wished to conceal the fact that his title in that\ndocument was comandante militar, and not general.\nMeanwhile routine military correspondence was unimportant, except promises from Mexico of supplies, some\nof which arrived before the end of the year.44\nAlvarado now regarded Vallejo as an enemy, and\nwould not even call on him when he came to Monterey.45 On April 1st he convoked an extra session of\nthe junta, and .declared to that body that 'certain men'\nwere plotting against the lawful authorities, and promoting insurrection. He implied clearly that Vallejo\nwas in*league with these men; indeed, Vallejo, Pico,\nand J. A. Carrillo were the only ones named, and it\nwas against the first that his charges were most bitter.\nHe accused the comandante of circulating predictions\nof impending disaster; of massing his troops at Sonoma,\nwhence they could operate against the government;\nof refusing aid, both against the Indians at San Jose*\nand to put down a revolt in the south; of refusing recruits and leaving the south defenceless; of sending\n48 Correspondence between Vallejo and Abrego on financial topics, including some rather sharp sayings on both sides, with Abrego's complaints to the\ndirector de rentas. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., iii. 140-1, 150-1, 166-7; Id.,\nBen. Mil, lxxxviii. 31-4; Id., Ben. Com. and Treas., iv. 15-16, 48-9: Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., ix. 6, 14, 31, 144, 176, 202, 213. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iv.\n193-200, declares that he never authorized any unfair division of the money.\n44 Jan. 1st, ' fuero' of the defensores not under arms ceases. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMont., MS., iv. 20. April 9th, military stores sent from Sonoma to Monterey.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., ix. 101, 104; xiv. 255. April 7th, recruiting, 15 men to\nbe raised. Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 11. Apr. 12th, com. of Sta B. complains. No\npay, while the sub-prefect is paid regularly. Vallejo, Doc, Hist. Cal., MS., ix.\n112. July 12th, V. sympathizes and hopes for relief from Mexico, not from the\ndepartmental authorities. Id., ix. 175. Aug. 20th, a comandancia militar authorized on the northern frontier. Id., x. 223. Aug. 21st-22d, relief promised\nfrom Mexico. Letters from Castillero and Virmond. Id., ix. 226, 229. The\nrelief included 500 muskets. Nov. 26th, Catalina has brought part of the\nstores. Id., ix. 327. 50 sabres detained at Mazatlan. Savage, Doc, MS., iv.\n324-5. Other routine commun. in Id., iv. 321, 326, 328, including the order\nfor a mil. command, at Sonoma.\ni5 Jan. 22d, A. to V. Says he is glad to get advice from intelligent men,\nthough he will not bind himself to follow it; he does not care for the opinion\nof fools and men who act for their own interests. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ix. 25.\nMarch 16th, V. chides him for not calling, and thus making a public display\nof the dissensions between them. Id., ix. 72.\n THE CONTROVERSY CONTINUED. 603\nCastaneda to work against the governor in Mexico,\nwith a view of securing both commands for himself;\nand of being the prospective author of the outbreak he\nso confidently predicted. Alvarado's motive in calling\nthe meeting was to obtain authority to spend money\nin supplying the prefects with arms for the protection\nof the country. The junta accordingly gave him the\npowers he desired, should Vallejo, who wras 'merely\ncomandante militar,' persist in neglecting his duties\nwith sinister views.46\nAll that Alvarado appears to have done in consequence of this action was to order Castro to form, a\ncompany of auxiliary troops for the public security,\nand to retain at Monterey some of the arms and munitions brought by the Catalina.4'1 I find no reply of\nVallejo to the action of the junta, which perhaps he\ndid not hear of until later, as the session was a secret\none. He continued his complaints and arguments,\nhowever, and no progress was made toward reconciliation.48 Californian prospects had no bright side to\nthe general in those days. His despondency and bitter opposition to the administration at Monterey were\nfounded to a considerable extent on wounded pride,\nand disappointment at not being able to control affairs,\nyet his motives were honest, his positions were for\nthe most part tenable, and Alvarado had no reason to\nsuspect him of treacherous or revolutionary designs.\n46Session of April 1, 1840. Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 75-8. Pico was to be fined\nand Carrillo forced to attend to his duties. This was a committee report, and\nno final vote appears.\n47 Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Com. and Treas., MS., iv. 54; Vallejo, Doc, MS.,\nix. 351.\n48 April 15th, V. to his brother, in a very despondent tone; can never forgive those who have brought about the coming evils; desires to die, since his\n\/efforts have been fruitless; hopes the crisis will come soon to teach a lesson\nto those who believe a train of civil employees can save the country; will not\nabandon his post till his resignation is accepted; dwells on the continual\nslights to which he is subjected. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxiii. 57. April 25th,\nto minister of War. Cannot make his authority respected, and should not be\nheld responsible for results. Id., ix. 124-5. He probably sent in his resignation about this time, as he states in his history. Sept. 1st, argument in a\nprivate letter to Alvarado, in answer to the latter's claim that he was trying\nto enforce the laws.  Id., ix. 241.\n 604 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nIndeed, it is probable that such a suspicion wa*s but a\npretence.\nThe junta, or four of its seven members, assembled at Monterey February 16th under the presidency\nof Alvarado, holding regular and extra sessions till\nthe end of May. I append a rdsumd of the proceedings in a note.49    The prominent matters presented\n49 Feb. 16, 1840, Ji neno, Castro, Arguello, and Gonzalez were present and\ntook the oath. Requena and Carrillo absent on account of sickness. Pico\nnot heard from. The gov. delivered an address on the state of public affairs,\nunder the following heads: police and municipal regulations, agriculture,\ncommerce, education, administration of justice, and ways and means. 'It\nis for you as a body to shower the most abundant benefits on the country you\nrepresent, reaping as the fruit of your tasks the eternal gratitude of its\ndearest sons.'\nFeb. 18th-22d, a Reglamento para el gobierno interior de la Junta Depaart-\nmental, 1840 (variations from the former reglamento given in Leg. Rec, MS.,\niii. 66-9), was formed by a committee and adopted. Regular sessions were to\nbe held from Jan. 1st to June 30th of each year, on Tuesdays and Fridays.\nThe junta was to have a sec. and two subordinates at $800, $300, and $200.\nThe changes in detail from the reglamento of 1834 (p. 252 of this vol.) were\nfor the most part unimportant. Feb. 18th, Arguello was made temporary\nsec, and Feb. 22d Pico appeared and took his seat. Feb. 25th, proposition on tribunals of justice. Committees formed: taxes and municipal administration, Pico; education, agriculture, and industries, Castro and Gonzalez; commerce and constitutional changes, Arguello. (Feb. 27th, various\ndoc. from Mex. submitted, including Alvarado's appointment as gov. p. 94.)\nFeb. 29th, excuses of Carrillo and Requena. (Dr Den's certificate of Carrillo's illness, p. 66.) March 3d, 9th, 10th, 13th, tribunal of justice; land\ngrants; excuses of Carrillo and Requena; suplentes to be summoned; Zenon\nFernandez chosen as sec. March 18th, question of the capital. Fernandez\nsworn. March 21st, Gonzalez asks for leave of absence on account of illness,\nage, and incapacity. About salary of vocales, $1,500 per year. March 24th,\ncapital. (March 26th, Gonzalez's excuses not accepted. 'Every public\nfunctionary is a mark for the shots of scandal.' p. 82.) March 27th, 29th,\n31st, lands, capital. (Salaries to date, $725. p. 99.) (April 1st, secret session to consider acts of Vallejo, Pico, and Carrillo. Gov. authorized to arm\nthe civil officers, as elsewhere related, p. 63-4, 69-78.) April 3d, land\ngrants. April 4th, 9th, 23d, threatening attitude of foreigners. Graham\naffair. (April 8th, Jimeno's report on coast and mission lands, p. 90-2.)\nApril 9th, Jimeno's report passed to com. April 28th, prop, to forbid distillation and importation of liquors from wheat, corn, and barley, as being injurious to Californian farmers. Castro allowed to go home to attend to matters left pending by his son who had gone to Mexico with the prisoners,\n(Jimeno's land report approved by com., also prohibition of distilled liquors on\nApril 30th. Salaries for month, $500. p. 79, 83, 87, 92, 96.) May 1st, land bill\napproved. May 5th, liquor bill approved, except the article on importation.\nCensus. May 8th, census. May 12th, eleven land grants referred to com.\nCensus bill. Secretary's salary raised to $1,000. May 15th, census bill.\nMay 19th, land grants. 27 referred and 11 others approved. May 22d,\nland grants, 14 referred and 27 approved. May 26th, 29th, 30th, 16 grants\napproved. (May 30th, Alvarado reported perfect tranquillity, obtained permission to leave the capital if necessary, and declared the sessions closed, p.\n78.)   Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 49-65, with additional records of various dates not\n SESSIONS OF THE JUNTA. 605\nfor the consideration of the junta, and requiring further notice here, were the establishment of a supreme\ncourt and a settlement of disputes respecting the\ncapital. The tribunal de justicia, in accordance with\nthe law of May 23, 1837, was to consist of four\nministros, or justices, a fiscal, or attorney, and a secretary. The places were filled in the session of\nMarch 10th by the appointment of Juan Malarin, J.\nA. Carrillo, J. A. Estudillo, and A. M. Osio, in that\norder, with Juan Bandini as fiscal and Mariano Bo-\nnilla as secretary. The last named was the only one\nwho had any legal knowledge, and as a measure of\nconciliation the south was given a majority of the\nmembers.50 The tribunal does not appear to have\nassumed its duties until May 1842, when Bandini,\ndeclining to serve tas fiscal, was succeeded by J. M.\nCastanares, and Bonilla as secretary by Narciso\nBotello.\nMarch 18th Jimeno introduced a resolution that\nthe junta should propose Monterey as the capital,\nwith the title of city, and that it be regarded so pending a decision. His reasons were the resolutions of\nthe diputacion in 1836; the fact that the decree making Angeles the capital had not been officially received;\nand some evidence which appeared in the government\njournal to the effect that Monterey was regarded as\nthe capital in Mexico.    The matter was referred to\nin order, but introduced by me under their dates in parentheses so far as\nthey have any importance. Id., p. 66-96. Hartnell was paid $30 per month\nfor the building occupied by the govt. Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 6. Items referring to these sessions of 1840, in Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., xii. 43; Id.,\nBen. Com. and Treas., iv. 46; Dwinelle's Colon. Hist. S. Fran., add., 70-2.\nIn Oct.-Nov., Jimeno was again acting as governor on account of Alvarado's\nillness. Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 95; Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 24, 69; Arch. Arzob.,\nMS., v. ptii. 28.\n50Mexico, Arreglo Provisional de la Administracion de Justicia23 de Mayo,\n1837, in Arrillaga, Recop., 1837, p. 399. Chap. iii. on 'Tribunales Supe\nriores de los Departamentos.' p. 408. Also decree of July 15, 1834, on the\nsame subject, in Id., 1839, p. 175, being the one cited in California at the time of\nthe appointment, as per Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 55; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 252.\nAction of the junta Feb. 25th to March 10th, in Leg. Rec, iii. 57-8; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxxiii. 38. May 19, 1841, members cited to instal the tribunal.\nBandini sent excuses, which were accepted. Narciso Botello appointed secretary. Dept. Rec, MS., xii. 44-6.\n 606 ALVARADO'S RULE\u2014POLITICAL EVENTS.\nArguello as a committee, and he, although a southern\nman, reported in favor of the resolution, declaring\nthat Monterey from its position should be the capital,\nand that it had virtually been recognized as such by\nthe supreme government. Pico insisted on obedience\nto the law of May 1835 making Los Angeles the\ncapital, but Arguello cited the later law of December\n30, 1836, authorizing the government to designate the\ncapital provisionally. On March 27th the resolution\nwas adopted, Pico protesting in violent language\nagainst this action as illegal and outrageous. Don\nPio went so far as to quit the hall in wrath, for which\nhe was officially rebuked and fined by the junta; but\nthe fine was remitted when he apologized and retracted his protests.51\nFinally, the conspiracy of Jose* Antonio Carrillo\ndemands our notice. If estimated from the bulk of\nthe record, it was an important matter indeed. In\nAugust, Joaquin Pereira, a Portuguese, revealed to\nJudge Olivera of Santa Barbara that Carrillo had\nproposed to him to join in an attempt to seize that\nplace by surprise, he having one hundred and fifty\nmen already enlisted for the enterprise. Macedonio\nGonzalez had gone to the southern frontier to raise\ntroops, only the resolution of Carlos Carrillo being\nawaited to begin operations. Pereira ran away soon\nafter making the revelation; and, so far as I can determine from the mass of papers before me, not a\nparticle of evidence was found in corroboration of his\nstatement. Yet Carrillo was regarded in these times\nwith much suspicion by the administration at Monterey, and Prefect Arguello, who seems to have\nbecome all at once an arribeflo, attached some importance to the charges, or pretended to do so. A complicated correspondence ensued; Carrillo was arrested\n61 Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 58-9, 63-78, 81-2, 84-5. The knowledge of foreign\nplots (Graham affair), to oppose which he would sacrifice his life, had much to\ndo with his apology; so he said.\n THE CARRILLO CONSPIRACY.\n607\nand taken to Monterey to be released; Gonzalez was\nbrought as a prisoner to Angeles, and perhaps even\nsent to Sonoma; and finally, in May of the next year,\nthe Carrillos were officially vindicated from all accusations, and restored to 'good reputation and fame.' It\nseems unnecessary to notice in detail the documents\nin the case, though they contain much that is amusing, if not very instructive.62\n62 Over 50 communications on the Carrillo-Gonzalez conspiracy. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., v. 20-44; xviii. 62-3; Id., Angeles, i. 21-6, 38; iii. 19-40, 53, 57;\nxii. 36-7, 63; Id., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., i. 13; iv. 5; vi. 73-7; Dept. Rec, MS.,\nxi. 21-3; xiii. 33; S. Diego, Arch., MS., 258, 285; Vallejo, Doc, MS., ix. 223;\nxxxiii. 139; Doc Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 1066; Hayes, Doc, MS., 136. Carrillo's\ntrip to Monterey as a prisoner was made from Sept. 27th to Oct. 7th. Gonzalez was a sergeant of the frontier garrison of Lower Cal., and very influential with the Indians. He had left his post in 1837 for the north, Vallejo,\nDoc Hist. Mex., MS., i. 74, being an order for his return, and had been engaged in the plots of Bandini and Zamorano, According to Dept. St. Pap.,\nAng., MS., xi. 125, he was arrested and sent to Sonoma in Dec. 1840.\n CHAPTER XXI.\nLOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nMilitary Commandants\u2014Decrease and Disappearance op the Presidial Organization\u2014Fort and Other Buildings\u2014Population\u2014Private Ranchos\u2014Summary op Events\u2014Politics and Indian Depredations\u2014Treasure on the Colorado\u2014Civil Government\u2014Ayuntamiento\u2014Criminal Record\u2014San Diego Mission\u2014Padre Martin\u2014\nStatistics\u2014Secularization\u2014Ortega as Administrator\u2014San Luis\nRey\u2014Padre Peyri\u2014A Prosperous Mission\u2014Slaughter 09 Cattle\n\u2014Chronologic Happenings\u2014Pio Pico in Charge\u2014Hartnell's Investigation\u2014Mission Ranchos\u2014San Juan Capistrano\u2014Statistical\nView\u2014Annals of Emancipation\u2014Administration of the Argue-\nllos\u2014The Ex-neophyte Pueblos op San Juan, San Dieguito, Las\nFlores. and San Pascual.\nSantiago Arguello was captain of the San Diego\npresidial company until 1835, when he retired from\nthe service, but he was often absent from his post.\nAgustin V. Zamorano was appointed captain in 1835,\nand held the position on the rolls during the rest of\nthe decade; but he was here only in 1837-8, and never\nassumed command of the company. Captain Pablo\nde la Portilla was nominally commandant of the post\nby the seniority of his rank whenever present, until\nhe left California in 1838. Rodrigo del Pliego,\nalways absent, was on the rolls as lieutenant until\nabout 1838, when Jose* Antonio Pico was raised to\nthat rank. The company alferez was Juan Salazar\nuntil he was ordered to the north in 1839, Jose* A.\nPico also holding that rank apparently from about\n1834, when he was promoted from that of sergeant,\n(60S)\n mm\nMILITARY COMPANY. 609\nand Andres Pico becoming alferez in 1839. Salazar\nwas habilitado, and more often than any other during\nthe decade is named as acting commandant, though\nevery other officer of the company held the command\nat times.1\nThe military organization was, however, but a\nshadow of its former strength. In 1830, as we have\nseen, the total force was about 120 men. During the\nfirst half of this decade the presidial cavalry company\nshows a muster-roll varying from 35 to 25. Six\nartillerymen and three Mazatecos are mentioned in\n1833; nine and 17 of the same classes in 1836.    In\n1835, of the 27 soldiers 11 were on duty at the presidio, 13 at San Gabriel, and one at San Juan. In\n1837 the troops were sent north in the sectional disputes, and never returned as a body. From that date\nthe presidio was abandoned, though a force of one\nsoldier is reported in 1839. The organization had,\nhowever, been kept up at San Luis, where in September 1839 the remaining eight soldiers quit the service to save themselves from starvation. Pay-rolls\nof the company show a theoretical expenditure of\nfrom $800 to $900 per month, never paid. It appears\nthat a sum of $500 was sent down from the capital\nin 1833; the commandant was notified in 1839 that\nthere was $1,000 in the treasury for his company; and\npresumably the men did not live without occasional\nrations. Military correspondence is devoted almost\nexclusively to complaints of destitution.2\n1 For presidio annals of S. Diego in 1821-30, see vol. ii. p. 539 et seq. The\nscattered archive references for the official list as given above I do not deem\nit worth while to present, they being more bulky and complicated than important.    Many of them are included in note 2.\nSantiago E. Arguello was receptor of customs in 1833-4; and was succeeded by Martin S. Cabello under a Mex. appointment of July 22, 1833.\nHe was recpiired to give bonds for $2,000. Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., vii.\n5; LI, Ben. C. & T., iii. 21.    He had trouble with the local authorities in\n1836, and the place was held for a time by Andres Pico. In 1837-8 Bandini,\nPico, and Cabello are named confusedly as in charge of the revenues; and in\n1839-40 nothing appears on the subject. S. D. Arch., MS., 5, 41, 95, 107,\n118; Dept. St. Pap., Cust.-H., MS., iv. 1-4; Hayes, Doc, MS., 8.\n2 May 17, 1832, want of resources prevents the organization of a frontier\nco., as the gov. thinks.    Minister Alaman urges the necessity. Sup. Govt St.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   39\n 610 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\nOf the presidio buildings nothing is known except\nthat they were abandoned in 1835 or a little earlier,\nand in ruins long before 1840. Probably much of\nthe material was brought down to build the little\ntown of 30 or 40 houses that had sprung up at the\nfoot of the hill. After Castro's raid of Christmas\n1838, earthworks were hastily thrown up on the ridge\nfor the town's protection, and a cannon was brought\nover from the castillo. This castillo, or fort, at Point\nGuijarros, had no garrison or guard after 1835, if it\nhad one before. An investigation in 1839 showed\nthe existence of nine cannon, two of them serviceable, with 50 canisters of grape and 300 balls. It\nwTas intended to put a guard in charge of this property, but the enterprise failed; and in January 1840,\nthe remnants of the fort and casa rnata were sold to\nJuan Machado for $40. A few of the guns were\nperhaps removed; one may still be seen at San Diego;\nand the rest, after being spiked by an American captain in 1842, are said to have been thrown into the\nbay during the war of 1846-7.3\nPap., MS., v. 7-8. June 1833, comisario sends $500 to S. D. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen. C. 6s T., MS., ii. 86. April 17, 1834, Alf. Salazar cannot go to Mont,\nfor want of a shirt and jacket. Has only a poor cloak to cover the f ight-\nful condition of his trousers. Id., B. M., lxxix. 55. Gov. has called on president and padres to furnish supplies. Id. June 1835, S. D. must furnish its\nquota of artillery mditia. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 263-5. Oct. 1835, list of officers and men of the co. and their whereabouts. S. D. Arch., MS., 55. Feb.\n7th, decree reestablishing the local militia. Id., 82-3. Aug. 1836, com. succeeds in borrowing three guns for his troops. Id., 122. 1839, plenty of corn\nand wheat at the mission, but nothing else. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 313-14.\nFour fire-arms and pikes borrowed. Id., 243. Final disbandment at S. Luis,\nand complaints of Pico. LI, viii. 69-70. Only one soldier at S. D.; therefore\nthe juez de paz cannot execute the prefect's orders. S. D. Arch., MS., 234.\nJuly, $1,000 ready for the co. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., iii. 162. For muster-rolls, pay-rolls, names of company officers, etc., and complaints of destitution, see Dept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxii. 30; lxxiv. 45; lxxv. 5, 10-12;\nlxxvii. 14, 20; lxxviii. 2, 4; lxxix. 23-4, 40, 54, 82; lxxx. 26; lxxxi. 3, 19,\n29, 35; lxxii. 1, 28, 64; lxxiv. 4; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 1, 8-10; iv. 2, 4; St.\nPap., Sac, MS., iii. 35,\u00bb37, 117; x. 4; xii. 6; xiii. 16; xiv. 16-20, 43; Dept.\nRec, MS., ix. 47; 8. D. Arch., MS., 30, 82, 158, 180; Id. Index, 33; Hayes,\nDoc, MS., 12, 13, 19, 28; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 283; iii. 176; iv. 315; vi. 7,\n24-5, 90-1, 264; vii. 103-5, 312; viii. 253.\n3 Not a building of the presidio left in 1839; all in ruins. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., viii 8; viii. 23-4. It was therefore necessary to buy a house in town for\na proposed garrison. The earthwork on Stockton Hill mentioned in Hayes1\nDm. Notes, 364; Id. Mined., 41; S. D. Unioni June 20, 1876. On what became of the guns, Romero, Mem., MS., 3.    Photograph of one of the guns\n DECREASE OF POPULATION.^ 611\nThe population of the district, not including neophyte and gentile natives, has been given as 520 in\n1830.4 There are absolutely no statistics for this\ndecade. There was probably a small decrease in the\nfirst half, and subsequently a very large one, caused\nby the scattering of the military force and by the\ndepredations of Indians at the ranchos. Bandini,\nwithout giving figures, states that the depopulation\nwas very rapid after 1836.5 As an estimate, I put\nthe population in 1840 at 150, the smallest figure for\nmore than half a century. The number of foreigners\nwas nine in 1836, and ten in 1840, three of them having families.6 The neophyte population of the three\nmissions, 5,200 in 1830, had decreased to 5,000 in\n1834. After the secularization there are no definite\nstatistics, but there are indications that in 1840 the\nex-neophytes whose wThereabouts were known, afc the\nmissions, in the pueblos, and in private service, may\nhave been 2,250. Of gentiles and fugitives, as in other\nperiods, the number cannot be given. I append a note\non the ranchos occupied by private citizens during\nthis period.7    Most of them had to be abandoned at\nin the plaza at Old Town, with inscription, El Jupiter. Violati fulmina regis.\nCarolus tertius, etc. Manila. Aiio de 1783, in Hayes' Em. Notes, 550-2. Reports on the castillo and guns in 1839. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 269; viii. 21, 264;\nxxv. 204. April 1839, alcalde says he has never received any munitions or\nartillery, but will have a search made. S. D. Arch., MS., 221. Sale of the\ncastillo to Machado. Hayes' Em. Notes, 494; Id. Doc, 115. Aug. 1835,\nmention of a contribution, plans, etc., for building a church and casa consis-\ntorial. S. D. Arch., MS., 56. May 1837, Padre Duran authorizes the alcalde\nto select a building for a chapel and to fence in a campo santo. Hayes' Miss.\nB., 411. Douglas, Journal, MS., 88, describes S. D. as a town of 50 houses\nin 1840; estimated exports, $10,000.\n* See vol. ii., p. 544 of this work.\n5Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 8. In 1839 the number of votes cast for electors was 31. S. D. Index, MS., 53.\n6St. Pap., Sac, MS., xii. 15; Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., iii. 39.\n7 San Diego ranchos in 1831-40, according to land commission and district\ncourt lists in Hoffman's Reports, list for 1836 in S. D. Arch., MS., 110, and\nother authorities. Those marked with a * were finally rejected by the L. C\nor U. S. courts. Agua Caliente, granted in 1840 to Jose* A. Pico; claimant\nunder a later grant, J. J. Warner. Cueros de Venado, owned by J. M. Mar-\nron in 1836; not presented to the L. C. under this name. Jamacha, granted\nin 1840 to Apolinaria Lorenzana, who had asked for it and obtained the necessary certificates from the padres in 1833-4. Cayetano Gaitan was in charge\n1836. Lorenzana claimant before L. C. *Jamul, granted to Pio Pico in\n1831.   Andres Pico in charge 1836.   Pio Pico claimant before L. C.   Jeus,\n 612 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\none time or another on account of Indian depredations. The inhabitants of the town still pastured\ntheir cattle and raised crops, as they had done before,\non lands regarded as common. The cultivated fields\nwere chiefly in Soledad Valley, where the cultivators built enramadas for temporary residence. They\nclaimed no property in the land, but he who tilled a\nfield one year acquired a respected right to do so the\nnext. The town lots had been at first assigned by\nthe military commandant; and the first written title\nfrom the alcalde is said to have been that given to\nTomasa Alvarado in 1838.\nEvents at San Diego during this decade, as in\nmost others, were neither numerous, important, nor\nowned by M. I. Lopez in 1836. Not before the L. C. *Melyo, granted in\n1833 to Santiago E. Arguello, who was the claimant before L. C. Nacion,\nnot yet granted to private ownership. J. A. Estudillo in charge 1836. Otay,\ngranted in 1829 to Jose* A. Estudillo, whose heirs, Victoria Dominguez et al.,\nwere claimants before L. C. Sant. E. Arguello in charge 1836. Paguai,\ngranted Sept. 7, 1839, and confirmed May 22, 1840, to Rosario Aguilar, but\nrefused by the grantee. Hayes' Em. Notes, 488. Peiiasquitos, granted in\n1823 and again in 1834 to F. M. Ruiz and F. M. Alvarado, the latter being\nowner and occupant in 1836 and later claimant before L. C. Rosario,\nmentioned in 1828; in charge of Manuel Machado 1836; not before the L. C\nunder this name. San Antonio Abad, mentioned in 1828; Sant. E. Arguello\nin charge 1836; not before the L. C. San Dieguito, granted provisionally to\nSilva family 1831. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 97. Granted in part, 1840 or 1841,\nto Juan M. Osuna, who is named as owner in 1836, and whose heir was claimant before L. C. San Isidro, mentioned in 1828; owned and occupied by\nJose* Lopez in 1836; not before the L. C. Secuan, Juan Lopez ' solicitante' in\n1836; not before L. C.; probably in Lower Cal. *Soledad, regarded as a\npart of the town commons and formally made such in 1839. Granted by\nGov. Carrillo in 1838 to Fran. M. Alvarado; claimant before L. C. Cave J.\nCoutts. San Jose* del Valle, granted in 1836 to Silvestre de la Portilla, who\nwas also the claimant before L. C. In charge of Francisco Villa 1836. *Tem-\nascal, occupied by Leandro Serrano in 1828 and owned by him in 1836.\nGranted by Gov. Echeandia, no date given. Claimants, Josefa Montalva et\nal. *Tem6cula, granted to J. A. Estudillo in 1835; claimants before L. C,\nV. D. Estudillo et al. Granted provisionally to Andr6*s and Pio Pico, June\n2, 1840. St. Pap. Miss., MS., x. 4. Tecate, owned and occupied by Juan\nBandini in 1836. Not before L. C. (Bandini was driven out by Indians, and\nin 1838 obtained a grant of Jurupa farther north.) Tia Juana, on the frontier, granted to Santiago Arguello in 1829. Abandoned for a time on account of Ind. raids. Vallecitos, granted to Jose* M. Alvarado in 1840; L.\nSoto claimant before L. C.\nFeb. 5, 1835, Com. Arguello turns over, to alcalde papers relating to applications of soldiers for lands, as being no longer within his powers. S. D.\nArch., MS., Jan. 12, 1835. Joaq. Carrillo petitions the alcalde for a grant\nof the mission lands, since S. D. is no longer a presidio, but a pueblo. Id., 32.\nInformation on the general subject of lands and town lots. Hayes' Em. Notes,\n480.\n SUMMARY OF EVENTS. 613\nexciting. A chronological summary is appended, consisting of references to items of political and military\naffairs as given in other chapters, interspersed with\nsuch other petty happenings as seem worthy of brief\nnotice.8    This little community was intensely patri-\n8 Chronological summary of S. Diego events, 1831. Revolt against Gov.\nVictoria, Nov.-Dec. See p. 200-4, 210, this vol. Arrival of Jackson's trading\nparty from Sta Fe in Nov. Id., 387.\n1832. Meetings of officials and of the diputacion, March-May, and position of the Dieguinos in the struggle against Zamorano and the plan of Monterey.   Id., 225-9.\n1833. Departure of Ex-go v. Echeandia in May, Id., 244. Petition of\nthe inhab. for an ayuntamiento. Id., 249. Visit of Gov. Figueroa, July.\nId., 247. Fears of an attack from the Indians, neophytes, and gentiles combined, with rumors of political designs. Ringleaders arrested. Id., 358-9.\nBandini in congress tries to have the post of S. Diego opened to foreign trade.\nId., 369. March 26th, a soldier under arrest was forcibly released by a corporal and 7 privates, all belonging to the L. Cal. forces. Dept. St. Pap., B.\nM., MS., lxxix. 9. Nov. 12th, a fall of meteors alarmed the people, and\nsent them in haste to the church. It also broke up an interesting game of\nmonte. Ezguer, Mem., MS., 3.\n1834. Arrival of the Natalia, Sept., with part of the Hijar and Padres\ncolony, p. 267 of this vol. Bandini as inspector of customs, and his smuggling operations. Id., p. 371. Nov., according to the reglamento, S. Diego\nand S. Dieguito formed a parish of the 1st class, salary $1,500. Id., 347-8.\nNov.-Dec, robberies by Indians of frequent occurrence. The com. gen. will\n* take steps,'but meanwhile Capt. Portilla is to make a salvia asking the\nalcalde for volunteers. Hayes' Miss. Book, 221, 224-5. Dec. 18th, 21st,\nelection of an ayuntamiento for the next year, as recorded elsewhere in this\nchap.\n1835. First ayunt. in session attending to municipal affairs. S. Diego in\nbehalf of Estudillo opposes Castro as gefe politico. This vol., 299-300. Visit\nof R. H. Dana. Two Years before the Mast. Feb. 11th, Gov. Figueroa writes\nto alcalde about a school, for which it seems the people had offered to pay.\nHayes' Doc, MS., 17. Feb. 4th, effort to organize an expedition against the\nCahuillas who are threatening Sta Isabel. Id., 37. Large force of gentiles\nsaid to be threatening S. Luis Rey. Arms to be collected and funds raised\nby contribution. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iv. 150-1. April, examination of\nInd. accused of having plotted to seize Gov. Figueroa at S. Luis. This vol.,\n361.\n1836. Vague rumors of revolutionary troubles. Bandini's plan for a general assembly to save the country, and assurances of S. Diegan loyalty. This\nvol., 419-20. May 29th, oath of allegiance to the new Mex. constitution.\nId., 423. Oct. 9th, 16th, primary and secondary election. Andres Pico\nsent to Monterey as partido elector. Id., 446. S. Diego to be a part of the\n2d or southern district, that of Los Angeles, according to Alvarado's plan.\nId., 475. News of Alvarado's revolution or the plan of Monterey; S. Diego\nloyal to Mexico; acts of the ayunt., the people, and of Bandini in Nov.-Dec.\nId., 481-5. The existence of hidden treasure at the ruined missions on the\nColorado was reported by Indians; or at least their stories about certain coins\nin their possession gave rise to a belief in such treasure. The foreigners\nThos Russell and Peter Weldon were leading spirits in the matter; the alcalde was an interested party; and Receptor Cabello made a formal demand\nfor the treasure in behalf of the national treasury! A party actually went\nto make the search, finding nothing; and the matter was investigated by the\nayuntamiento, Russell and Weldon being arrested. This matter furnished a\nsubject for comment from Feb. to July. S. D. Arch., MS., 95-6, 108, U4j\n 614 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT,\notic, fully imbued in these times with politico-military\nzeal under the leadership of her prominent citizens\nBandini, Pico, and the rest. In 1831 she began the\nfirst revolution against Mexican authority, that expelled Governor Victoria, and should have made\nPio Pico a San Diegan governor. But in 1836 she\ndeveloped intense loyalty to Mexico, in opposition to.\nAlvarado's revolutionary plan; and both then and\nId. Index, 24; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 55-6. Indian depredations,\nchiefly in Jan.-March, with reference to authorities for many but confused\ndetails. This vol., 67-8.\n1837. Port open to coasting trade only by decree of Feb. 17th. Vol. iv.,\n84. Enthusiasm of S. Diego against Alvarado. Troops sent north too late.\nThis vol., 485, 494-5, 505. Arrest of municipal officers by Alvarado's agents,\nand partial conversion of the ayunt. in April. Id., 508. Plots of Bandini,\nPortilla, and Zamorano. S. Diegans march north and capture Los Angeles\nin May. Id., 515-21. \u2022 Oath to the central constitution June 12th. S. Diego\nsupports Gov. Carrillo, Dec. Id., 540. Depredations of Indians on the frontier. Ranchos destroyed and the town threatened. Expeditions by citizens\nand by the troops enlisted to oppose Alvarado. Id., 68-9. The hostile bands\nincluded fugitive neophytes, rancho employes, and savages from the interior.\nClaudio was a leader. Leiva, Molina, Camacho, and another were killed at\nJamul. Tia Juana, Tecate, and most of the frontier ranchos were plundered.\nThere was an absurd tendency to connect, for political effect, the hostility of\nthe Indians with the plan of Monterey; and there were some controversies\nbetween civil and military authorities as to the methods of conducting the\ndefence.    This year's ayunt. was the last elected*\n1838. Jan., Gov. Carrillo's decree establishing the custom-house at S. D.\nThis vol., 545. Feb., force of citizens under Pio Pico sent to Los Angeles.\nId., 548. April, Carrillo defeated, retires to S. D.; new preparations,\nTobar's arrival, and campaign of Las Flores. Id., 556 et seq. June, S. D.\nstill refuses to recognize Alvarado. Id., 568-9. Same in Sept.; but Carrillo\nat S. Luis submits. Id., 572-3. More political trouble in Dec; Castro's raid\nat Christmas and arrest of the Carrillos and Picos. Id., 577-8. A heavy\nstorm of rain and snow in Dec. was very destructive to sheep. St. Pap. Miss.,\nMS., ix. 36. No depredations by Indians this year; but in April and Sept.\nthere was some corresp'ondence on precautious and suspicious movements of\nthe natives. S. D. Arch., MS., 204; St. Pap. Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 388.\n1839-40. The Indians of the frontier were still on the war-path, especially\nin 1839, and few if any of the ranchos escaped plunder, most of them being\nentirely abandoned at different times. So far as can be judged from the\nrecords, nothing effectual was done by either local or territorial authorities to\npunish the marauders, though there was no lack of complaints and promises\nand plans. See this vol., 6^-70. Details are too bulky for separate reproduction, and when combined give no satisfactory result. In March 1839\nan election was held under the new laws, Fitch presiding; and Andres Pico\nand J. A. Estudillo were sent as electors to Los Angeles to vote for congressman and members of the junta. S. D. Arch., MS., 222. In Oct., Belcher,\nthe English explorer, visited the port and remained five days, but he gives\nvery slight description of the place. Belcher's Narr., i. 325 et seq. In 1840\nseveral foreigners were arrested to be exiled with Graham to S. Bias, but\nlittle is known of particulars. This vol., 14-15, 24, 30-1. J. B. Lean&ry's\nvisit to S. D. on this business with orders from the prefect. S. D. Arch., MS.,\n254. Romero, Mem., MS., 5, thinks it was in 1840 that the last channel\nbetween the river and False Bay was closed by a flood.\n DEPREDATIONS OF INDIANS.\nin the sectional strife of 1837-8 her favorite sons\nstruggled valiantly by word of mouth and pen in\nsupport of C&rlos Carrillo and southern interests.\nSome Dieguino forces even took part in the bloodless\ncampaigning; their town was more than once invaded\nby the northern foe; and prominent citizens were made\ncaptives. Next to political excitements, and often\nfar surpassing them, were those arising from depredations of hostile Indians, especially in 1836-7 and 1839.\nAgain and again the frontier ranchos were plundered\nuntil most of them had to be abandoned; and the\ntown itself was often thought to be in danger, with\nneither soldiers, arms, nor supplies for effectual defence. A search for hidden treasure on the Colorado\nwas a local topic of comment in 1836; popular elec-.\ntions of municipal rulers were held for three years;\ncomplaints of hard times and various pressing needs\nwere always in order; petty controversies between\nlocal officials furnished occasional opportunity for consuming the small supply of paper and ink; and for\nthe rest the people must content themselves with,\ntheir social diversions, with waiting for news of northern complications, and the anchoring in their bay of\nthe trading craft that came not infrequently to carry\naway their little store of hides and tallow.\nCivil government in San Diego, as distinct from\nthe military rule, began with the installation of the\nfirst ayuntamiento in 1835. This town council, consisting of alcalde, two regidores, and a sindico, was\nelected in December of each year to serve during the\nnext year.    I append the official list for the decade.9\n9 Ayuntamiento of S. Diego elected Dec. 21,1834, to serve during the year\n1835: alcalde, Juan Maria Osuna; regidores, Juan B. Alvarado and Juan Maria\nMarron; sindico, Henry D. Fitch; sec, appointed at $20 per month, soon reduced to $15, Jose* M. Mier y Teran; jueces del campo, Bonifacio Lopez, appointed by ayunt., Jan., Matias Olivas in Aug. At the election 13 electors\nvoted, and Pio Pico got two votes for alcalde. S. D. Arch., MS., 2S-9. The\ninhab. on Sept. 22d had petitioned the govt to give them an ayunt. in accordance with the laws. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 234-41. Fran.\u25a0 Basualdo was at first\nappointed sec, but not approved by the assembly, being a military man.\n1836: alcalde, Santiago Arguello; regidores, Juan Maria Marron and\nManuel Machadoj sindico j Jesus Moreno; sec, Domingo Amao; jueces de.\n 616 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\nThe alcalde had jurisdiction over the whole district,\nappointing the administrators of missions and owners\nof ranchos to serve as subordinates, or comisarios de\npolicia. For three years only, 1835-7, the ayuntamientos were continued, and then the alcalde's place\nwas filled by a juez de paz appointed by the governor\neach year in 1838-40. The change was made because\nthe population was less than that required for a legal\nayuntamiento; and from January 1838, San Diego\nwas ordered to recognize Los Angeles as cabecera de\npartido. Details of municipal affairs, meagrely recorded, are more important as illustrating the system\nthan as part of local annals; but I give a few items\nin a note.10    From 1839 this district formed part of\ncampo, Andres Ibarra and Ignacio Lopez; juez de policia, Juan B. Corona (?);\ncomisarios de policia, Jose* Corona, Esculano Olivas, Juan B. Alvarado, Henry\nD. Fitch, and as substitutes, Fran. Ruiz, Andres Ibarra, Matias Olivas, Ramon Osuna, and the administrators of missions and proprietors or overseers\nof all ranchos in the district. At the election of ayunt. Audits Pico got 5\nvotes and Arguello 6. S. D. Arch., MS.,* 63; Hayes, Doc, MS., 34. The\nsecretary's salary was still a matter of contention, but was not raised from\n$15. Mier y Teran served in the early part of the year, but was removed for\nvarious faults, and in return made charges against the alcalde, S. D. Arch.,\nMS., 66. The 2d regidor was elected for two years, so that Marron held\nover. The alcalde found fault with the sindico as an unruly and dangerous\nman. Id., 98.\n1837: alcalde, Jose* Antonio Estudillo; regidores, Francisco M. Alvarado\nand Francisco Ruiz; sindico, Jose M. Mier y Teran; sec, Domingo Amao.\nNo other officials named. Election of Dec. 18, 1836, in S. D. Arch., MS.,\n144. Machado should have held over as 1st regidor, but declined to serve\non account of bad health.\n1838: no ayuntamiento as per governor's order of Dec. 9, 1837. Id., 190.\nJuez de paz, Jose* A. Estudillo; sec, Jose* F. Alvarez. No election. Estudillo held the office at first temporarily as ' encargardo,' and then permanently\nby the governor's appointment. Fitch acted at E.'s request in June. Id.,\n300. Sec Amao having run away, Governor Carrillo appointed Alvarez in\nMarch. Id., 195-6.\n1839: juez de paz, Juan M. Osuna; 2d juez, or suplente, Juan M. Marron.\nNo sec named. Osuna was elected by the people on Jan. 1st to succeed\nEstudillo at the latter's request.\n1840: juez de paz,'Juan M. Osuna; suplente, Juan M. Marron; treasurer\n(depositario de fondos propios), J. A. Estudillp to April, Francisco M. Alvarado from May. Fitch and J. M. Alvarado had been appointed justices of\nthe peace by the prefect in Dec 1839 for 1840; but in Jan. the gov. restored\nthose of the preceding year. Hayes, Doc, MS., 102-20. The prefect had\nmade the appointment on the nomination of the justices, as there was no\nsub-prefect to propose candidates. Perhaps the governor's act was founded\non this irregularity. Fitch took the oath of office and began to act. Alvarado declined to take the oath because he could not write. S. D. Arch., MS.,\n249. The secretary's salary was now $10. Dept. St. Pap., Ang. Pref. y Juzg.,\nMS., iii. 48.\n10 Many communications received by the alcalde from the govt and by\n MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. 617\nthe third prefecture and of the Los Angeles partido,\nnot having sufficient population for a sub-prefect.\nThe criminal record presents no causas celebres, and\nbut a meagre array of petty cases. Methods of court\nprocedure and principles involved in the administration of justice call for no general remark. The subject is best disposed of, like most others connected\nhim forwarded to the sub-alcaldes or comisarios at the ranchos. S. D. Arch.,\nMS., passim. July 1835, Los Angeles alcalde claims jurisd. over criminal\nmatters at S. D., requiring a mule-thief to be sent to him. Jan., trouble\nbetween S. D. alcalde and the com. at S. Luis Rey, the latter claiming the\nright to its own alcalde and regidores. Feb. 10th, alcalde instructed by\ngov. that his political authority does not extend beyond the presidio settlement; but in the administration of justice his jurisdiction extends to all the\nsettlements. Jan. 5th, animals must be kept out of town under penalty of\na fine. Vagabonds, drunken persons, etc, must be fined. Jan. 7th, papers\nrelating to a rancho turned over to alcalde by commandant. Jan. 8th, fines\nfor persons carrying prohibited weapons. Penalties for petty thefts. Juez de\ncampo to attend to hide trade. Merchants must submit their measures and\nweights to the ayunt. Jan. 12th, schools considered. Feb. 19th, committee\nto investigate qualifications of applicants for lands. Mar. 19th, work on the\ncasa consistorial must cease for want of supplies for the prisoners. People\ncalled on for contributions. May 3d, a dispute on a private debt referred by\ngov. to ayunt. May 19th, Joaquin Carrillo forbidden to sell his garden, at\nhis wife's petition and on order of the gov. Sept. 22d, alcalde wishes to know\nif he may force traders to sell at less extravagant prices. Sept. 25th, complains that Arguello refuses to pay his deguello tax.\n1836. Indian alcaldes paid 1 real per day. Man. Silvas employed on 'ne-\ngocios subalternos' at $3 per month. May, trouble between alcalde and the\nencargado at Temascal, the latter refusing to obey the former's summons.\n1837. March, sindico makes a report of receipts and expenditures. Ayunt.\nagrees that each regidor shall take his turn in aiding the alcalde. Dec. 9th,\ngov.'s order that there is to be no election for ayunt. 1838. Jan. 17th, S.\nDiego must recognize Los Angeles as cabecera, and electors must go there to\nvote. 1839. June, prefect orders juez de paz of S. D. to select Indians for\nauxiliaries. Colorado Ind. claim the right to elect their alcaldes. 1840.\nJuez de paz Fitch needs an escolta de tropa to enforce the liquor laws; also\na secretary, as he cannot write Spanish. Prefect appoints the depositario de\nfondos propios. No expenditure without prefect's orders. No pay for acting\nas receptor or captain of the port. A tax was imposed on the hide-salting\nestablishments of foreigners, as had been done before in 1834. Dept. Rec, MS.,\nxi. 8; Dept. St. Pap., Pref. y Juzg., MS., vi. 69. See also, for preceding items,\nS. D. Arch., MS., 30-1, 42, 58, 99, 113, 172, 190, 214, 231, 246, 249, 264; Id.\nIndex, 19, 64-5, 130-4; Hayes Doc, MS., 13-14, 24, 70, 112; Id., Miss.\nBook, 226.\nItems of revenue and finance. Customs revenue, year ending June 1831,\n$389, all paid out to employes. Mexico, Mem. Hoc, 1832, doc. 3. Libro de\nfianzas 1833-4, referred to in Dept. St. Pap., Cust.-H., viii. 15. Alcabalas or\nexcise tax 1834 to April, $10,007. Id., Bm. Mil, lxxvi. 4. Aug. 1839, Ramon\nOsuna appointed collector of tithes. 8. D. Arch., MS., 235. Munic. receipts\n1839, $76; expenditures, $77. Same May to July 1840, $29. Sept. to Nov.\n$51 and $29. July 1840, some hides were declared to have been unlawfully\nseized, but there was no money to pay for them. Id., 266.\n 618 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\nwith local annals of the period, in a list of original\nitems as appended.11\n111831. Charges of rape and incest by a girl against her father, a military officer. The evidence was not strong enough for conviction, but the\ngirl was removed from her father's control on account of his cruelty. Dept.\nSt. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxiv. 11-29. 1833. Much gambling among both Indians and gente de razon. Ezquer, Mem., MS., 2-3. 1835-40. Municipal\npolice regulations, instructions to jueces de campo, etc, most relating to the\nkilling of cattle, carrying weapons, punishment for petty thefts. S. D. Arch.,\nMS., 51, 162, 168; Id. Index, 106-9. 1835. For want of funds to support\nprisoners, they were put to work for any citizen who would feed them. S. D.\nArch., MS., 38. Domingo sentenced to 4 years of presidio for murder of\nCruz. Hayes' Miss. B., 310; Dept. St. Pap., Ang. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 21.\nA prominent citizen granted by the alcalde a separation from his wife who\nhad lost $2,000 by gambling. S. D. Arch., MS., 63. There are many petty\ngambling cases before conciliadores in these years. 1836. F. M. Alvarado\nfined $50 and $25 to the Ind. he had flogged, ' a scandalous proceeding.'\nFine reduced to $25 and 'satisfaction' to complainant. Id., 67. A Mex. for\napplying his brand to the cattle of others, and an Ind. for forging the sin-\ndico's name to a permit for a keg of aguardiente, sent by the alcalde to Lieut.\nGutierrez as no longer to be tolerated in the jurisdiction. Id., 113-14. Penalties in the alcalde's court: stealing cattle or horses, one to three months of\npublic works; stealing brandy, 2d offence, 1 year with chain; not informing\nagainst a thief, $3 and 3 days' arrest; Ind. for rape, 1 year with chain; Ind.\nservant of Bandini for carrying off a woman, 6 months; running away and\nstealing a horse, 20 days; coming from S. Miguel without a pass and robbery, 1 month; robbing a room, banishment for municipality. Id., C7. Two\nex-convicts arrested as vagrants. Id., 71. Thos Russell fined $10 and loss of\nhis pistol for sending a challenge to Lumsden. Id., 67. Prisoners all at work\nfor private citizens, says the com., being blamed for the escape of *a convict.\nDept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxxi. 19. Bandini supposes that an Ind. murderer\nbeing a christian will come under jurisdiction of the alcalde, and not of the\nmil. com. Hayes' Miss. B., 302. Sept., an Ind. who 'tuvo inconsequencias'\nwith his wife after prayers went and hanged himself. J. J. Ortega and two\nothers went to look at the man and reported to the chief alcalde. Then the\n1st regidor and sec. went to the spot, and looking upon the hanging man\nasked three times in the name of God who had killed him. Getting no reply,\nthey proceeded to examine the body, and being satisfied he had hanged himself, ordered him to be taken down. Id., 301. Dec, Russell banished for\nescape from prison. S. D. Arch., MS., 63. 1837. Ind. for killing a calf\nfined $2 and 45 days on public works. Fine for gambling, $2.50 for each\nparty. The alcalde founds his decisions on the laws of 1827 and 1833. Id.,\n191. Feb., there were 14 prisoners on publfo works, three of them allotted\nto Fitch to repair the plaza road. Id., 172. Sindico ordered to patrol the\ntown with a guard of citizens. Id., 161. Five prisoners at work on a courthouse and jail deemed more important than a church. No place to keep the\nprisoners at night unless some citizen would give up a room. Contributions\ncalled for, and 8 fan. corn received. Id., 166-7. 1839. Prefect calls for a\nlist of 'ociosos y mal entretenidos.' Alcalde replies that owing to his efforts\nthere are no idlers in town. Id., 228. Prefect asked to decide about two ex-\nneophytes who stole a cow. Alcalde understands that such are to be again\n'reduced ' to their mission. Hayes' Miss. B., 334. Prefect says a thief must\nbe sent to the alcalde of Los Angeles, from mission to mission, with the papers\nin the case. S. D. Arch., MS., 237. 1840. There being no troops or jail,\nFitch needs an escolta to enforce laws against drunkenness, etc. Hayes, Doc,\nMS., 118. Feb., citizens, chiefly foreigners, subscribe $828 as a reward for\ndiscovery of the murderer of Luis Juan. S. D. Index, MS., 65.\n SAN DIEGO MISSION. 619\nAt the San Diego mission padres Martin and Oliva\ncontinued their ministry, the latter throughout the\ndecade, the former until his death in 1838, after\ntwenty-six years of continuous service.12 Down to\n1834, when statistics come to an end here as elsewhere, the padres had baptized 160 Indians, buried\n312, married 127 couples, and had on their register\n1,382 neophytes. At the end of the decade there\nwere about 800 nominally under control of the ex-\nmission authorities, though there were only 50 at\nthe mission proper.13    Naturally secularization is the\n12 Fernando Martin was a native of Robledillo, Spain, born May 26, 1770.\nHe became a Franciscan in 1787 at the convent of Ciudad Rodrigo, where\nafter completing his studies he served as preacher until 1809, when he volunteered for the American missionary field, leaving C&diz in March and arriving at the Mex. college of S. Fernando in June 1810. The next year he was\nappointed to Cal., and after vexatious days at Acapulco and elsewhere on\naccount of a pestilence and of insurgent troubles, he reached L. Cal. in\nApril 1811, and came up to S. Diego by land, arriving on July 6th. His\nmissionary service began at once, and he never served at any other establishment. He was an exemplary friar, of whom little was heard beyond the\nlimits of his mission, yet he was accredited by his superior in 1820 with\nmore than average ability and zeal. He was one of the few friars who took\nthe oath of republicanism. His death occurred on Oct. 19, 1838. Autobiog.\nAutog. de los Frailes, MS.; Sarria, Informe de 1817, MS.; Arch. StaB., MS.,\niii. 123; Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 19-21; St. Pap. Miss., MS., ix. 36.\n13 Statistics of 1831-40: decrease of pop. 1,544 to 1,382; baptisms 160;\ndeaths 312; marriages 127; decrease in large stock 8,822 to 3,417; horses and\nmules 1,192 to 307; sheep 16,661 to 8,616. Largest crop 6,849 bush, in 1831;\nsmallest 1,710 in 1834; average 3,561, of which 2,395 wheat, yield 7.33; barley 903, yield 5.54; corn 202, yield 18.\nStat, of 1769-1834: bapt. 6,638, of which 3,351 Ind. adults; 2,685 Ind.\nchild, j 602 child, de razon. Marriages 1,879, of which 169 de razon. Deaths\n4,428, of which 2,573 Ind. adults, 1,575 Ind. child., 146 adults de razon, 134\nchild, de razon; death rate 5.32 per cent of pop. Largest pop. 1,829 in 1824.\nDown to about 1806 females exceeded males slightly; but this was reversed\nlater. The proportion of children under .8 years varied from ^ in early years\nto 5 in later. Largest no. of cattle 9,245 in 1822; horses 1,193 in 1831; mules\n330 in 1824; asses 37 in 1801; sheep 19,450 in 1822; goats 805 in 1789; swine\n120 in 1815; all kinds 30,325 in 1822. Total product of wheat 132,077 bush.,\nyield 10 fold; barley 81,187 bush., yield 11 fold; corn 24,112 bush., yield 47\nfold; frijoles 4,299 bush., yield 9 fold.\nMiscell. stat. of 1834-40: July 1834, P. Martin loans the presidio $1,533.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. C.&T., MS., iii. 39. 1835-8, distrib. to neophytes in\n4 years, 439 shirts, 202 skirts, 673 blankets, 116 fan. maize, 2,110 wheat, 22\nfrijoles, 140 barley. St. Pap. Miss., MS., vi. 38-9. See ground plan of the\nmission buildings perhaps of 1839. Id., vii. 3. Value of church effects $4,802;\ndue from inhab. $560. Id., vii. 2. June 24, 1839, Hartnell's report; S. Diego\nhas 2 vineyards of 8,600 cepas and 517 olive trees, fields for 1 fan. corn and 8\naim. frijoles; Sta Isabel 5,860 vines, fields for 30 fan. wheat, and 20 fan. barley;\nSta M6nica 8,000 vines, fields for 2J fan. corn, 2 fan. frijoles. Id., xi. 23-5.\nFeb. 1839, admin, says the mission with estates of Sta Isabel and Sta M6nica\nis in ruins, people all fled except 50. Id., ix. 37.    May, P. Oliva says Sta\n LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\nleading topic of mission annals; but at San Diego\nonly slight additions can be made to what has been\ngiven in the general narrative. After a certain\namount of theorizing and agitation by Echeandia in\n1829\u201433, followed by an experimental emancipation\nof chosen neophytes by Figueroa in 1833-4, Alferez\nRamirez and Captain Arguello being successively\ncomisionados, the mission was finally secularized in\n1835, and was put in charge of Jose* Joaquin Ortega,\nwho kept the place of majordomo or administrator\nuntil replaced by Juan M. Osuna in 1840.14 After\nsecularization, affairs are said to have continued very\nmuch as before. The Indians had never been so\nclosely confined to the mission routine here as farther\nIsabel has 560 souls. S. D. Index, MS., 135. 1839 (?), Sta Isabel 344 inhab.,\nSta M6nica 116, mission 320, total 780, also 16 de razon. St. Pap. Miss.,\nMS., vii. 2. June, 1840, debts of the mission to J. A. Aguirre $446, W. E.\nHartnell $350, Ant. Cot $69, Joaq. Ortega $1,748, Rosario Aguilar $54; total\n$2,668.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxiii. 12; Pico, Pap. Miss., MS., 47-51.\nuOn secularization in general, see chap. xi.-xii. this vol., and chap. ii.\nvol. iv. 1831, ace. to Echeandia's decree of Jan. 6th, comisarios, etc., were\nto be chosen, but no immediate change made. This vol., 306. Bias Aguilar\nwas the majordomo this year. 1832, Echeandia's efforts in the south; views\nof P. Martin and others. Id., 316. 1833, Echeandia's regl. of Jan., Jose* M.\nRamirez appointed comisionado. Figueroa's experimental plan. Sant. Arguello comisionado and his -efforts in July-Sept. Id., 326-32. 1834. Ind.\npueblos. Id., 339. No record of progress this year. Id., 346. Nov. 22d, Juan\nJose Rocha acknowl. receipt of the decree of secularization for S. D. Dept. St.\nPap., B. 31., MS., lxxxviii. 18. 1835, actual secularization, Joaquin Ortega in charge from April as majordomo at $50 per mo.; no details. This vol.,\n353. June, the alcalde is informed by gov. that respecting punishment of\nInd. he is to consult the asesor. S. D. Arch., MS., 50. 1836, Jan., alcalde\nat the town summons the majordomo to appear before him to propose candidates for mission alcalde and regidores\u2014though the mission ayunt. was to\nhave control of petty local matters, not of admin, of justice. Id., 71; Mont.\nArch., MS., ix. 2. Several doc vaguely indicating a controversy between\nAlcalde Arguello and Ortega. Hayes' Miss. B., 316-17. 1837, Ortega as\nmajordomo, generally called administrator, at a salary of $600. The padre\ntakes O.'s place during his absence. Id., 318. Jan., mission ayunt. chosen.\nS. D.^Arch., MS., 167. Belcher, Narr., i. 327, describes the mission Ind.\nas armed with bows and arrows. 1838, Rosario Aguilar named a majordomo\nunder Ortega. St. Pap. Miss., MS. v. 55. 1839, Feb., administrator has\ntrouble in causing the gentile chiefs to respect his authority. Id., xi. 35,\nMay 7th, P. Oliva claims that Sta Isabel is not a 'sitio valdio' as clainiea\", but\na mission with 580 Ind. Hayes' Miss. B., 329. June, alcalde ordered by\nprefect to aid Inspector Hartnell in restoring fugitive ex-neophytes to the\nmissions. Hayes' Miss. B., 332. June 24th, Hartnell reports the mission Ind.\nin a very naked condition and clamorous for the removal of the administrator\nin favor of the padre. St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi. 24-5. 1840, under Alvarado's\nregulations Ortega was removed, and Juan Maria Osuna was made majordomo\nin July by Hartnell. Arch. Misiones, MS., ii. 1077; S. D. Index, MS., 135-6.\nOrtega not permitted to go to Sta Isabel*.*\n SAN LUIS REY. 621\nnorth, and the change was therefore somewhat less\nabrupt. Of the gradual decadence, not much more\nrapid than it had been before 1834, as of the minor\ntroubles and controversies and complaints, we have\nbut the most fragmentary record.\nPadre Antonio Peyri at the end of 1831 left San\nLuis Rey, an establishment which he had founded\nand in 33 years of faithful service had brought to the\nfront rank of California missions, and quit the country in company with the exiled Governor Victoria.\nHe was one of the most prominent Fernandinos,\nthough he chose to devote his energies mainly to\nhis local task; and he was unwilling to remain and\nwitness the overthrow of all his plans, being grievously disappointed at Victoria's failure to establish\nwhat he had foolishly hoped would prove a new regime  for  the  missions.15    After  Peyri's  departure\n13 Antonio Peyri was born Jan. 10, 1769, at Porrera, Catalonia, Spain;\ntook the Franciscan robe in the convent at Reus Oct. 25, 1787; sailed from\nCadiz May 8, 1795; and left his college in Mex. for Cal. March 1, 1796, arriving in July. He served two years at San Luis Obispo, and in 1798 was a\nfounder of San Luis Rey, where, and at the branch establishment of S. Antonio de Pala, he served continuously thereafter. By his superiors he was\naccredited with distinguished merit as a manager, but not with fitness for\nhigh office. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Sarria, In forme sobre los\nFrailes 1817, MS.; Arch. Sta B., MS., iii. 123-4. He was less unfriendly\nthan most Spanish friars to the republic, and took the required oath in 1826;\nbut in the same year petitioned the president of Mex. to relieve him of his\nmission administration. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 23. In 1S29 he demanded his passports, being as a Spaniard included in the law of March 20th,\nand though offered exemption by the governor, insisted in his demand, asserting that ho was an old man no longer fit for service. Id., 56-7. He obtained from the Mex. authorities permission to retire with* full payment of\npast stipend. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 145, 148. The padre sailed on the\nPocahontas Jan. 17, 1832, from S. Diego for Mazatlan on his way to Mexico;\nsee p. 210, this vol. Tho tradition is that he had to leave S. Luis secretly,'\nand that his neophytes, 500 strong, hastened to S. Diego to prevent his departure, arriving only in time to receive his blessing from the receding ship.\nBid well, Cal., MS., 185-7, learned from one of the Indians who aided his\ndeparture that he kneeled on the hill and prayed for the mission as his last\nact. Peyri took with him from the mission fimds about $3,000, the amount\nof stipend duo him, as he wrote to Capt. Guerra. He is accused by the\nrepublican foes of Victoria of having contributed large sums to support the\nlatter's cause, and of having carried away secretly, hidden in barrels of grain\nand olives, other large amounts in gold and silver.\" Pio Pico, Hist. Cal, MS.,\n159-00, learned from Juan Mariner, a Catalan trusted by Peyri, that the\npadre took 32 barrels of olives, each containing money. Vallejo, \/list. Cal.\nMS., ii. 150-9, makes it 14 bbls of flour, and says the S. Bias customs offi-\n 622 LOCAL ANNAIS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\nPadre Jose* Antonio Anzar, a new-comer, served in\n1832, being accused of some irregularities; Buenaventura Fortuni was the minister in 1833-6; in 1837-9\nthere is no record except of Oliva and Abella as\nvisiting friars; and in 1840 Father Francisco Gonzalez de Ibarra took charge. San Luis was the only\nmission to show a gain in population for 1831-4, and\nat the end of that period, with a register of 2,844\nneophytes, it stood at the head of the list, not only in\nrespect of population but in the number of its livestock.    Additional statistics are appended.16    In 1840\ncers refused to land the suspicious cargo. Leandro Serrano, sometime majordomo of S. Luis, talks of 10 kegs of silver dollars passed of as brandy.\nHayes' Em. Notes, 205; Id. Miscell, 92. I suppose all this to be unfounded.\nForbes, Cal., 22, saw Peyri on his way to Mex., publishes his portrait as a\nfrontispiece of his book\u2014said by old Californians to be a good likeness\u2014and\ndescribes him as the beau ideal of the old-time fraile with his jolly figure,\nbald head, and white locks. Nearly all speak well of him. Fray Antonio\nleft Mex. in Feb. 1834, and by way of New York and France reached Barcelona in tjune. Instead of the tranquillity he had expected for his old age,\nhe found only turmoil and strife. It was not even safe to visit his native\ntown. He bitterly regretted having left Cal., and confessed his great error;\nbut the doctors told him that his age and infirmities made a return voyage\ndangerous, even if his funds had not been exhausted. He had brought from\nCal. two young neophytes, Pablo and Agapito, whom he had placed in the\nPropaganda college at Rome, where they were contented and the objects of\nmuch interest. All this I learn from the friar's original letter written at an\ninn at Barcelona, and mailed at Marseilles in April 1836, to Stephen Anderson in Edinburgh. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 1. Taylor, Discov. <k Found., no.\n35, p. 201, says he died at Rome in 1835, drawing on his imagination for the\nfact. The tradition in Cal. is that one of the neophytes completed his education as a priest, but nothing definite is known of his career. See also, on\nthe life and character of Peyri, Vischer's Missions of Cal, p. vii.-viii.; Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 36; Hughes' Cal. of the Padres, 32; Hayes' Mem-\norab., 73; St. Pap Miss., MS., v. 15; Dept. St. Pap., MS., ii. 53-4; Id., xix.\n18; Lancey's Cruise, 168; S. Diego Union, June 19, 1873; Perez, Recuerdos,\nMS., 23-7; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 75; Vallejo, Remin., MS., 31-2; Mofras,\nExplor., i. 343.\n16 Statistics of San Luis Rey 1831-4: increase in pop. 2,776 to 2,844; baptisms 385; marriages 161; burials 324. Decrease in large stock 27,978 to\n13,000; horses and mules 2,468 to 920; sheep, etc., 26,658 to 15,300. Largest\ncrop 7,825 bush, in 1831; smallest 2,307 in 1834; average 4*684, of which 2,325\nwheat, yield 5.74 fold; 1,030 barley, yield 5.5 fold; 1,202 corn, yield 53 fold;\nbeans 102, yield 6.87 fold.\nGeneral statistics 1798-1834, the whole period of mission existence: total\nno. baptisms 5,591, of which3,539adult Ind., 1,862 Ind. children, 192child, de\nrazon; average per year 151. Total of marriages 1,425, of which 9 gente de\nrazon. Deaths 2,859, of which 1,445 Ind. adults, 1,367 Ind. child., 12 and 35\nad\\ and child, de razon; average death rate 4.42 per cent of pop. Largest\npo^). 2,869 in 1826. Sexes about equal down to 1809; then the excess of\nmales increased to about 10 per cent. The proportion of children under 8 yrs\nwas about J, rather more before and less after 1812. There were generally\nfrom 20 to 50 persons de razon living at the mission.    Largest no. of cattle\n SECULARIZATION. 623\nthere were about 1,000 of the ex-neophytes at mission, pueblos, and ranchos more or less under control\nof local authorities. Secularization began here as at\nSan Diego with Figueroa's experimental emancipation\nin 1833, resulting in the forming of an ex-neophyte\npueblo at Las Flores, with but a small population.\nThe final secularization was accomplished in November 1834 by Captain Portilla as comisionado, and Pio\nPico remained in charge as majordomo and administrator until succeeded by Jose A. Estudillo in August\n1840.17    After the securalization the decline in pop-\n27,500 in 1832; horses 2,226 in 1828; mules 345 in 1828; asses 5 in 1827; sheep\n28,913 in 1828; goats 1,300 in 1832; swine 372 in 1819; all kinds 58,767 in 1828.\nTotal product of wheat 114,528 bush., yield 9 fold; barley 94,600 bush., yield\n16 fold; corn 101,442 bush., yield 182 fold; beans 10,215 bush., yield 23 fold.\nMiscell. statistics of 1831-40. Accounts of 1834 as rendered by P. For-\ntuni to Capt. Portilla: assets $46,613, debts$14,429. St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi.\n53. 1835: Inventory Aug. 22d; valuation $203,737; debts $93,000; the church\n64x10 varas, of adobes, tile-roofed, floor of clay, board ceiling, 9 doors, 18\nwindows, 4 adjoining rooms, all valued at $30,000, included in the total, as also\nthe 6 ranchos valued at $40,437, the most valuable being Pala, Sta Margarita,\nand S. Jacinto. Id., vi. 10-11. Jan., May, nothing but cattle for the needy\ntroops of S. Diego. St. Pap., Sac, MS., x. 4; xiv. 44. 1839: Lists of debts\namounting to $15,656 in May and $14,639 in Aug. The largest creditors were\nJuan Ebbetts, J. A. Menendez, Thos Shaw, P. Fortuni, Thos Park, John\nTemple, P. Ibarra, and Pio Pico. Pico, Pap. Miss., MS., 47-51, 57; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS:, xxxiii. 12. Long list of debtors owing from $3 to $173, or 1 to\n30 beasts, each. Pico, Pap., 53-5; Bandini, Hist. Cal, MS., 9-10; Osio, Hist.\nCal, MS., 218-20; and Julio Ce*sar, Cosas de Ind., MS., 1-2, give some particulars about the mission ranchos, without definite dates or figures, agreeing\nin substance with information given on p. 555 of vol. ii.\n17 Chron. summary of events at S. Luis Rey during the decade: Echeandia's preliminary agitations here as at S. Diego. For gen. account of secularization, see chap, xi., xii., this vol., and chap, ii., vol. iv. 1831: Gov. Viqtoria\nat,S. Luis, departure of P. Peyri. This vol., p. 183, 210. Julio Cesar, Cosas de\nInd., MS., 4, says that one of the neophyte boys carried away by Peyri came\nback to Cal. in later years. 1832: Echeandia at S. Luis, writings against\nZamorano, Ind. ready to fight, meeting of the diputacion. This vol., p. 225-\n7. Capt. Pablo de la Portilla appointed comisionado by Echeandia. Id., 326.\n1833: Portilla continued in office. His efforts at emancipation under Figueroa's instructions. Small results. Id., 330-2. Feb., Com. Portilla needs\n15 or 20 men to prevent disorders among the Ind. on account of the division\nof lands. Dept. St. Pap., Pref. y Juzg., MS., v. 76. Oct., Rosario Aguilar,\nmajordomo at Pala, knocked down and left for dead by Simon, an Ind., who\nwas arrested. S. D. Arch., MS., 20.\n. 1834: Great slaughter of mission cattle; 5,700 head killed on shares\nfrom May to July, the mission getting half the hides and tallow. This vol.,\np. 348-9. In July, after the slaughter was well advanced, permission was\nasked of the dip. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 148-51, 163. Estudillo, Datos, MS.,\n33-4, puts the number killed at about 20,000. In Sept., Oct., a part of the\nHijar and Padres colony were at S. Luis. This vol., 207-8. Some of them accused of inciting a revolt. Id., 281. Actual secularization in Nov., Portilla\nreceiving the property from P. Fortuni. Id., 346.   Besides trouble caused by\n 624\nLOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\nulation was more rapid than that in wealth, the Indians succeeding in retaining partial control of the rich\nmission ranchos of Santa Margarita, Pala, Santa Isa-\nthe Ind. running away in appreciation of their new liberty, Portilla seems to\nhave had some difficulty with the padre. Dec. 30th, Figueroa advises him to\n'contemporizar' with the friars, who have the right to select their own residence. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 7.\n1835: Pio Pico in charge as majordomo, or administrator. This vol., p.\n353. Ind. plot, or rather protest against the loss of the mission rancho of\nTeme*cula. Id., 361. Oct., the admin, is forbidden to disturb Portilla in the\npossession of his rancho S. Jose* del Valle. S. D. Arch., MS., 62. Nov., Ind..\ngo to S. Diego to complain before the alcalde that they are not given the\npromised liberty, but are severely treated by Pico. The alcalde reports to\ngov. that the danger is serious. Hayes' Miss. B., 229; 8. Diego Index, MS.,\n131.\n1836: Pico still majordomo and encargado de justicia. His troubles with\nthe Ind. still continued. In June he imprisoned Pablo Apis, a leader among\nthe neophyte petitioners, for redress of wrongs; but they forced him to release\nthe prisoner, and both parties went to S. Diego to make charges before the\nalcalde. The latter sent a small guard to S. Luis, retained Apis and 4 others\nunder arrest, urged Pico to use great care so as not to lose the crop, and reported to the gov. The corresp. is complicated, but no definite results are\nindicated. Evidently Don Pio was not as popular a manager as had been P.\nPeyri. S. D. Arch., MS., 112; Id. Index, 133; Dept. St. Pap., Pref. y Juzg.,\nMS., iii. 32-3; Savage, Doc, MS., iii. 64-5; Hayes' Miss. B., 297-9, 303-4,\n293. Sept., alcalde ordered to aid Pico in retaking fugitive neophytes from\nthe gentiles in the interests of religion. Id., 308. Soldiers * strike ' for pay\nand rations. This vol., p. 483-4. 1837: Arrest of Andres Pico. Castillero\njoins the southern army here in June. This vol., p. 518, 521. 1838: This\nyear, like the preceding, sectional strife so fully occupied the minds of all that\nthe records bear but slight trace of anything else. Campaign of Las Flores\nApril. Id., 558 et seq.    Ex-gov. Carrillo at S. Luis in Sept. Id., 573.\n1839: March, the mission must support the fam. of soldiers absent on\nservice. S. D. Index, MS., 134. May, an Ind. widow asks prefect to be released from the mission to support herself and daughters. She is overworked\nand gets no clothing. Los Ang. Arch., MS., i. 160-1. June 5th, Pico complains to Visitador Hartnell that the Ind. are constantly running away and\ntaking refuge at Los Angeles. Vallejo, Doc, vii. 179. June 14th, prefect\ninstructed by Hartnell to aid Pico in his efforts to recover all fugitives. Dept.\nSt. Pap., Aug., MS., v. 26-7. June 24th, H. says the vines are much injured by worms. Mission debts and credits about $15,000. Weaving in\nprogress. St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi. 25. July, in Pico's absence P. Ibarra was\nput in charge of the mission. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 324; viii. 12. P. claimed\nthat during an earlier absence much property had disappeared. Andres\nPico declines to take command. This vol., p. 591. Oct.-Nov., trouble between Pico and admin, at S. Juan about some cattle at a rancho claimed by\nboth. Hartnell after investigation decided that P. should have 4,000 and the\nother 2,000. Pico at once sent a man to kill his 4,000, and there were none\nleft! Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 3G3-8. Nov. 7th, com. of S. Luis to be\ntried for the crime of freeing a known criminal, Morillo. Dept. St. Pap., Ang.,\nMS., xii. 20.\n1840: Andres Pico in temporary charge, Pio being absent in the early\nmonths. In July Hartnell appointed Joso A. Estudillo as majordomo under\nAlvarado's new regulations. Pio Pico made much trouble about transferring\nthe office; but it appears that the difficulty was chiefly on matters of etiquette.\nDon Pio felt sore at the loss of his place, and deemed himself aggrieved by\nsome informality in the manner of demanding a transfer. Moreover he had\nbecome personally responsible for mission debts to the amount of $2,000, and\n SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. 625\nbel, Teme'cula, and San Jacinto throughout this decade, though not much longer.\nFather Barona died in 1831, and Zalvidea continued in charge of spiritual affairs at San Juan Capistrano throughout the decade, having, however, but\nlittle to do with the management of temporalities\neven in the early years. The population in 1834 had\ndecreased to 861, and in 1840 was probably less than\n500 with less than 100 at the pueblo proper; while\nin its crops San Juan showed a larger deterioration\nthan any other establishment.18    Here secularization\nhe wished to get rid of this responsibility before turning over the property.\nOriginal correspondence in Arch. Misiones, MS., ii. 1069-70, 1083; Hartnell,\nDiario, etc., MS., 35, 38, 57-60; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 351; xxxiii. 91,\n94; St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi. 5-9. Finally Hartnell came to S. Luis on Aug.\n4th, and from the 10th to 16th the transfer of property to Estudillo was\nformally made, it being discovered that the number of cattle at the mission\nranchos was much less than the inventory of 1839 called for, but also that\nthe said inventory had been grossly inaccurate by the fault of C&rlos Castro,\nwho had not taken the trouble to count. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 18-20. Meanwhile there was some difficulty about Joaquin Ortega taking charge at Sta\nIsabel as ordered by the gov., the Indians protesting. Id., 58; Hayes' Miss.\nB., 344. Pico had long been trying in different ways to get possession of\nTem^cula rancho against the wishes of the Ind. Feb. 13th, P. Ibarra to\nDuran, with particulars. Arch. Misiones, MS., ii. 1021-2. After surrendering the administratorship he contained his efforts, and seems to have obtained\na temporary grant or permission to occupy. Nov. 5th, Capt. Juan and his\nband are resolved that the Picos shall not put their stock at Teme*cula, claiming that rancho as the best grain land of the mission; but P. resolved to succeed. St. Pap., Miss., MS., x. 3; xi. 9-11. Nov. 22d, Majordomo Estudillo\nand 11 Ind. had come to Angeles to oppose the grant, resolved to quit the mission if it was confirmed. Dept. St. Pap., Pref. y Juzg., v. 11. Dec. 15th, Gov.\nJimeno to encargadoof S. Luis. Assure the Ind. of Tem6*cula that they shall\nnot be disturbed. Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 51-2. Pico himself, Hist. Cal., MS., 98-\n100, says that the ex-mission was very prosperous under his honest and systematic management; but not so under his successor. John Forster, Pioneer\nData, MS., 21-2, also declares that Pico's administration was exceptionally\nhonest and efficient. Julio Ce*sar, Cosas de Ind., MS., 4-5, asserts that all\nthe administrators were cruel despots, and Pico the worst of all.\n18 Jose\" Barona was born at Villa Nueva, Spain, March 22, 1764, became a\nFranciscan at Velorado, July 18, 1783, left the convent at Calahorra Sept. 2,\n1794, arrived at the college of S. Fernando Aug. 24, 1795, and came to Cal.\nJan.-May, 1798. He served at S. Diego in 1798-1811, and at S. Juan Capistrano in 1811-31. He was regarded by his superiors as a faithful worker of\nmedium merit. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Arch. Sta B., MS., iii.\n125; Sarria, Inf. sobre Frailes 1817, MS., 43-4. As early as 1817 he was in\nbroken health, and desirous of retirement. In 1823 he was rudely treated by\nsome soldiers at S. Juan; and after 1827 he spent most of his time at S. Luis\nas an invalid. But little appears about him in mission or secular records.\nHe died at S. Juan Aug. 4th, and was buried on the 6th by P. Zalvidea.\nGuerra, Doc, MS., i. 240. Statistics of San Juan Capistrano 1831-4: decrease in pop. 926 to 861; baptisms 149; deaths 200. Decrease in large stock\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   40\n 626 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\nassumed a form slightly different from that at the\nother missions, since all the neophytes were emancipated under Figueroa's experimental system of 1833,\nthe lands being apportioned to them by Captain Portilla as comisionado, and a regular Indian pueblo being organized in November.19    It is not quite certain\n10,978 to 8,059; horses and mules 178 to 59; sheep, etc., 5,019 to 4,080. (In\n1838 there were 494 cattle, 448 horses, and 9 mules.) Largest crop 1,625\nbush, in 1831; smallest 300 (?) in 1834; average 790.\nGeneral stat. 1771-1834, the whole period of the mission's existence: total\nof baptisms 4,404, of which 1,089 Ind. adults, 2,028 Ind. child., 4 and 83 de\nrazon; average per year 69; total of marriages 1,1 G8, of which 24 de razon;\ntotal of deaths 3,227, of which 1,255 Ind. adults, 1,898 Ind. child., 24 and 30\nde razon; average per year 50; death rate 5.88 per cent of pop. Largest\npop. 1,361 in 1812. Females slightly in excess of males down to 1811.\nChildren decreased from \u00a3 to \u00a3 of the pop. Largest no. of cattle 14,000 in\n1819; horses 1,355 in 1806; mules 183 in 1813; asses 4 in 1813; sheep 17,030\nin 1800; goats 1,353 in 1784; swine 206 in 1818; all kinds 31,270 in 1819.\nTotal production of wheat 140,700 bush., yield 19 fold; barley 7,760 bush.,\nyield 21 fold; corn 89,875 bush., yield 100 fold; beans 5,375 bush., yield 22\nfold.\nSept. 12, 1832, P. Zalvidea sends a keg to S. Luis to be filled with consecrated wine, that at S. Juan having soured. Sta Cruz Arch., MS., 11. 1835:\nInventory of mission property, formed by the padre and four comisionados.\nTotal amount including buildings $54,456; debts $1,410 (credits $13,123;\nbuildings $7,238; furniture, tools, etc., $14,708; church $1,250; sacred utensils $15,568, ranchos S. Joaquin and Mision Vieja $12,019, library $490). St.\nPap. Miss., MS., v. 48-9. 1838: Live-stock turned over by Sepulveda to his\nsuccessor Arguello as mentioned above. Id., vi. 33. Income of the storehouse\n$2,372, expenditure $1,717. Id., vi. 37. 1839: S. Juan owes $1,000 besides\nthe padre's stipend. Credits $5,000. Id., xi. 26. 1840: List of debts amounting to $1,556.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxiii. 12; Pico. Pap. Mis., MS., 47-51.\n19 Chronological summary for S. Juan Capistrano 1831-40: 1832: Padre\nallowing the Ind. to manage their own affairs. His views on Echeandia's\nreglamento. This vol., p. 315-17; St. Pap., Miss. & Colon., MS., ii. 63; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 25.\n1833: Alf. Rocha was appointed comisionado by Echeandia, Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 87, but took no action. Capt. Portilla was appointed by Figueroa\nlater, and in Oct. effected the emancipation of all the neophytes. See a few\ndetails in this vol., p. 332.\n1834-7: No definite records. Rocha mentioned as comisionado in 1834.\nId., 346. S. Juan to be a parish of the 2d class according to the reglam. of\nNov. hi, 348. J. A. Pico is named by Ezquer, Mem., MS., 3-4, as comisionado to secularize the mission in 1834, and he seems to have held that position in Feb. 1836. Dept. St. Pap., Ang. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 21. Francisco Sepulveda became administrator in 1836 or 1837, apparently.\n1838: Sepulveda succeeded by Santiago Arguello in Jan. Occupation of\nS. Juan by the army of Alvarado and Castro in April during the Las Flores\ncampaign. This vol., p. 558. June, Arguello promises to exert himself to\nprevent the spread of small-pox. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 100. A.'s salary\nwas $1,000. St. Pap. Miss., MS., vi. 32.\n1839: April, Delfin, a neophyte, in behalf of all the neophytes, charges\nthe administrator with wasting and misapplying the mission effects, so that\nthe. Ind. are deserting, tired of working without results. The admin, cultivates fields for himself with Ind. labor; puts his own. brand on the best\nhorses; and buys animals with mission brandy.    Only 60 Ind. at work.\n PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN. 627\nthat all the steps were completed, nor is anything\nknown of pueblo annals for a year. It would appear,\nhowever, that whatever was accomplished had to be\nundone under the regulations of the next year, and\nthat the mission was secularized like the rest in 1834.\nJose Antonio Pico and Francisco Sepulveda were\nsuccessively in charge during 1834-7; and Santiago\nArguello from January 1838. The Indians, having\nhad a foretaste of liberty, became more and more discontented, and were clamorous for a return to pueblo\nlife and self-government. Hartnell failed to satisfy\nthem on his tour of 1839; and finally in 1840 they\nwrere  left  in  charge  of Padre  Zalvidea, aided  by\nThey ask for a just administrator, and one who has not so large a family.\nSt. Pap. Miss., MS., vi. 34-7. Gov. Alvarado instructed Hartnell to investigate, and he found the charges against Arguello unfounded, though the Ind.\nwere discontented, and wished the padre to manage their affairs. Id., xi. 26-\n8. Hartnell's visit was early in June, and he refused to make any immediate\nchange, though he seems to favor a trial of their plan of saving the expense\nof an administrator. He found affairs in a bad state, only 80 Ind. at the\nmission, and some gente de razon disposed to make trouble. The prefect\nwas instructed' to aid in the restoration of fugitives. Hartnell, Diario, MS.,\n31, 42, 69-72. In Aug. Arguello says he cannot improve the condition of\naffairs on account of constant desertions, robberies, and the prefect's refusal\nto allow the arrest of runaways. St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi. 43-6.\n1840: Ramon Arguello was left in charge during his father's absence; but\nthe Ind. were bitterly opposed to the whole family. Hartnell in June was\nauthorized to set the Ind. free if he could make satisfactory arrangements.\nArch. Miss., MS., ii. 1111; Hartnell, Diario, MS., 86. On arriving in July\nto put in force the new reglamento, he first appointed Ramon Arguello as\nmajordomo, but the Ind. would not submit, showing great excitement.\nThen a proposition of Andres Pico to rent the mission, support the padre\nwith the old and sick, and pay fair wages to all ex-neophytes who would\nwork. Also one of J. A. Estudillo to take the mission as majordomo for 5 or\n6 years for one third of the product of the estates instead of a salary, binding\nhimself to care for the padre and Ind., to repair the buildings, and to add his\nown oxen and horses for working purposes to the mission stock. But the Ind.\nwould listen to nothing of the kind, insisting on being formed into a pueblo.\nIt was finally agreed that temporarily, until the govt could make arrangements about the pueblo, Padre Zalvidea should have charge of the property,\nthe Ind. promising to work faithfully under his administration. Hartnell,\nDiario, MS., 5-6. Hartnell's reports to govt, and his correspondence with\nPico and Estudillo. Id., 60-4; Arch. Mis., MS., ii. 1075. Sant. Arguello\nmuch offended at his son's removal. St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi. 11. P. Zalvidea\nhad refused absolutely to remain in permanent charge, or as curate at the\nproposed pueblo, unless families de razon should also be allowed to settle\nthere, and some civil authority be established over the Ind. alcaldes. At the\nend of Dec he appointed Agustin Janssens as acting majordomo; approved\nby govt in Feb. 1841. Janssens, Doc, MS., 5-6. Correspondence with a\nneophyte who tilled land at Trabuco. Id., 3-4. Janssens had been living\nfor a time at Trabuco as representative of Capt. Arguello, who was soliciting\na grant of the rancho.\n 628 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN DIEGO DISTRICT.\nAgustin Janssens, with the promise of complete\nemancipation as soon as arrangements could be made.\nIn these last years a very large part of the Indians\nwere absent at Los Angeles and at the ranchos.\nThere were three pueblos of ex-neophytes in the\ndistrict besides San Juan Capistrano, namely, San\nDieguito, Las Flores, and San Pascual, about all of\nwhich there is a most unfortunate lack of information. They were composed of Indians selected from\nthe different missions for their intelligence, good behavior, industry, and fitness in all respects for earning\ntheir own living and managing their own affairs. They\nwere feeble approximations to such towns of civilized\nand christianized natives as all the missions had been\nintended under the original system to become; but in\nevery respect except the choice of the best Indians,\nthe conditions were unfavorable to success. San Dieguito, Las Flores, and San Juan were perhaps organized in 1833, the two former from the ex-neophytes\nof San Diego and San Luis respectively; and in May\n1834 they were represented by the governor as in a\nflourishing condition. San Dieguito seems to have\nhad about 15 families at the start; and at the time of\nHartnell's visit in 1839 they were complaining that\ntheir best lands had been taken away. Las Flores\nhad 196 inhabitants in 1836, and they were so far advanced in politics that they presented charges against\ntheir Indian alcaldes, who were replaced by others\nafter investigation by Pio Pico. In 1839, Hartnell\nfound 49 families of 143 souls, and in four years they\nhad rid themselves of half their property; but the\nrest of the live-stock, valued at $867, was distributed\nwith a warning that unless they did better they would\nbe again reduced to mission life. San Pascual was\norganized in November 1835, with 34 families of 113\nsouls from San Diego. Nothing more is known of it\nduring the decade.20\n20 On the pueblos, see this vol., 339; St. Pap. Jfiss.,MS., xi 25-6; vi. 52;\nDept. St. Pap, Ang., v. 78; Hartnell, Diario, MS., 42; Hayes'Miss. B.,230,\n305, 497; Id., Doc] 66; S. D. Arch., MS., 114.\n CHAPTER XXII.\nLOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nA Centre op Political Agitation\u2014 Chronologic Summary and Index\u2014\nLocal Occurrences\u2014Indian Hostilities\u2014Day and Stearns\u2014Vigilance Committee\u2014Sectional Warfare\u2014Carrillo's Capital\u2014Tumult op the Flag\u2014Arrest of Foreigners\u2014Increase op Population\n\u2014Private Ranchos\u2014Ayuntamiento and Municipal Affairs\u2014Criminal Record\u2014A Race\u2014The Prefecture\u2014Pena, Tapia, and Arguello\u2014Port of San Pedro\u2014San Gabriel\u2014Padres Boscana and\nSanchez\u2014Statistics\u2014Secularization\u2014Events\u2014Bandini's Reforms\n\u2014San Fernando Rey\u2014Father Cabot\u2014A Prosperous Mission\u2014\nAntonio del Valle as Comisionado\u2014Chronologic Record.\nDuring this decade Los Angeles was a centre of\npolitical agitation and of military achievement. From\nthe expulsion of Governor Victoria in 1831, after a\nbattle fought not far from town, there was hardly a\nmonth in which the Angelinos did not feel themselves\nto be responsible in a peculiar manner for the salvation of California, either from the arbitrary encroachments of Mexican despots or from the mad folly of\nMonterey patriots, whose methods of resisting despotism did not merit the approval of abajeno office-\nseekers, and who were blind to the claims of the\nangelic city as capital of the province. Especially\nin the struggle against Alvarado and in favor of\nC&rlos Carrillo as governor did the zeal of Los\nAngeles manifest itself, though it was strongly reen-\nforced by eloquence from San Diego. But in this\nstruggle the south was destined to defeat, for Santa\nBarbara when not hostile was lukewarm, San Diego\nif eloquent was not warlike, and the arribeno leaders,\n(629)\n 630 LOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\ninstead of being annihilated by the patriotic plans\nand pronunciamientos of their opponents, showed\nan alarming tendency to use actual force in the play\nat war. All the complicated and ludicrous sequence\nof positions assumed\u2014not to say somersaults accomplished\u2014by the illustrious ayuntamiento and citizens of\nthe southern metropolis has been fully presented in the\npolitical annals of the country, so that the appended\nsummary 0 assumes largely the form of an index to\n1 Chronologic summary of Los Angeles events during the decade. 1831.\nStearns banished by Victoria. This vol., p. 194. Also troubles of Alcalde\nSanchez, imprisonment of regidores and citizens, and arrest of Jose* A. Carrillo. Id., 195-6. Dec, arrival of the revolutionary forces from S. Diego,\nfight near Cahuenga, defeat of Victoria. Id., 204-10. Arrival of Wolfskill's\nparty from Sta F& in Feb. Id., 386. On Oct. 5th, the chaplain's house was\naccidentally burned. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., iii. 18-19.\n1832. Jan. 7th, ayunt. adheres to the S. Diego plan. This vol., p. 212.\nJan.-Feb., the diputacion in session. Vain efforts to make Pio Pico gov.\nThe ayunt. declares for Echeandia against PicO. Id., 216-20, 231-2. Feb.-\nAprii. Ibarra's intrigues, the ayunt. turns from Echeandia to Zamorano,\nnorthern force retires, southern force under Barroso at Paso de Bartolo,\nAngeles, and S. Grvriel, a truce. Id., 225-7. Dip. meets in Dec. Id., 229.\nArrival of Ewing xoung's trappers in April.    Id., 387.\n1833. Jan.-Feb. Angeles recognizes and congratulates Gov. Figueroa.\nId., 242. Padre Duran's views on the condition and treatment of Ind. in the\ntown. Id., 329-30. Excitement arising from acts of N. Mex. traders and\nhorse-thieves. Id., 395. Botello speaks of a school this year kept by Vicente\nMoraga at $15 per month.\n1834. Controversy about the salt-fields. Id., 374. Ind. troubles of Oct.-\nDec., chiefly in S. Bernardino region. Id., 359-60. More details as follows:\nOct. 23d, report of Gen. Gutierrez to gov. On 19th the chief Marona reported\nthe advance of 4 chiefs and 200 Ind. on S. Gabriel at the instigation of Hijar\nand Araujo. P. Estenega and Araujo went to meet them on the 20th. The\npadre was detained and plundered, but given up to Araujo at La Puente, and\nthe chief testified that the Ind. had risen at A.'s instigation. Lieut J. M.\nRamirez was sent against the Ind. on the 21st, and Araujo was ordered to\nMont. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 179-83. Oct. 23d, Ramirez's report of his\ncampaign. He attacked 60 Ind. on the 21st, killing 4; and later attacked\n200, forcing them to retreat. Id., 177-8. Figueroa's orders of Oct. 31st for\nprecautions, etc. Id., 183-7. Further corresp. It appears that the Ind. had\nstolen the sacred vessels and other property at S. Bernardino. Id., 190-1.\nDec. 16th, Serrano has been warned to leave Temascal by Ind., who say the\nAngeles district is to be attacked by Colorado River bands. Id., 205. From\nGutierrez's report of Feb. 6,1835, it appears that in the last days of Dec. the\nrancho of S. Bernardino had been attacked, plundered, and burned. Ramirez\nwith a fofce of 58 men marched on Jan. 5th. Meanwhile 6 or 8 wounded\nrefugees came in, reporting that 13 persons had been killed, that several families had escaped to other ranchos, and others had been made captives. They\nsaid the leaders were ex-neophytes of S. Gabriel and that further hostilities\nwere intended. Id., iv.. 1-3. Unfortunately nothing is known of the result\nof Ramirez's campaign, and nothing more of the massacre. I suppose the\nnumber killed may have been exaggerated, and that all were Indians. In St.\nPap., Sac, MS., xii. 6-8, is a report showing that in Jan.-Feb. 1835, rumors\nof impending attack were still current in the district, and that most ranche-\n INDEX OF EVENTS. 631\npreceding chapters of this volume. There are interspersed, however, various other matters of considerable local interest, most of which, like the political de-\nrias in the mountains were in arms to repel invasion by more distant tribes.\nNov. 22d, American residents protest against being obliged to do military\nservice except in case of invasion or other great emergency. One of their\nnumber has been put in jail for refusal to serve. Dept. St. Pap. Aug., MS.,\ni. 154-6.\n1835. March, Apalategui and Torres revolt against Figueroa in the supposed interest of Hijar and Padr6*s. This vol., p. 281-6. Charges against\nAbel Stearns as a smuggler. Id., 375. Angeles made a city and capital by\nMex. decree of May 23d, news not received till late in the year. Id., 292,\n416. In Sept. Wm Day bought a barrel of wine of Abel Stearns, and finding\nit sour wished the seller to take it back. Stearns refused, and a quarrel\nensued, during which S. attacked D. with a stick, and was in turn stabbed\nin four places, one cut nearly severing his tongue. Day was arrested and\nkept in jail for a year, while complicated and intermittent legal proceedings\nwere carried on against him. Day was not only put in jail but handcuffed,\nand certain Mexicans under Manuel Arzaga broke into the jail and removed\nhis irons, for which they are said to have been banished. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.,\nMS., v. 67-74, 93-156; Botello, Anales del Sur, MS., 6-14.\n1836. Jan. 4th, publication of the decree making Angeles the capital,\nlack of zeal in furnishing public buildings. This vol., p. 416-17.    Jan. 28th,\n' drunken Ind. to be arrested and put to work on the city water-works. Los\nAng. Ayunt. Rec, MS., 70. March-April, murder of Domingo Felix, and\nthe resulting vigilance committee. This vol., p. 417-19. June, oath to the\nbases constitucionales. Id., 423, 432. April-June, Gov. Chico's visit and\ntroubles connected with his investigation of the vigilance committee. Id.,\n430-2. Sept., troops at S. Gabriel decline to serve longer without clothing.\nDept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxxi. 23-4. Nov.-Dec, news of Alvarado's\nrevolution, meetings of ayunt. and citizens, patriotic plans against the plan\nof Monterey. This vol., p. 481-4. Dec, Angeles with S. Diego and Sta B.\nto form a district according to Alvarado's plan, not carried out. Id., 475.\n1837. Jan., new plan against revolution; correspondence of leading men;\nseizure of the mission funds; hostile preparations; campaign of S. Fernando;\ntreaties and protests; Alvarado and Castro at Angeles; peace and congratulations. Id., 484-503. Arrest of 9 or 10 Angelinos by Castro. Id., 504. April-\nMay, the city again asserts its opposition to the new govt, but finally deems\nit best to submit. Id., 507-9. May-June, a new pronunciamiento; S. Diego\nplan; Bandini captures the town; Portilla advances in warlike array, but\nCastillo arrives With the new constitution, and Alvarado ends the war by submitting to Mexico. Id., 518-21, 526 et seq. Oct.-Nov., news of Carlos Carrillo's appointment as gov., and great joy of the Angelinos. Id., 534-8. Dec,\nDon Carlos sworn in before the ayuntamiento. Id., 539-40.\n1838. Jan.-Feb., Carrillo at Angeles as the capital. Id., 545 et seq.\nMarch, a military force sent north only to be defeated; several prominent\ncitizens made prisoners of war. Id., 549 et seq. April, Castro again in possession of the town, but many citizens escape to the south. Id., 556.   May,\n\/Carrillo returns with Alvarado after the unsuccessful campaign of Las Flores;\nrevolt of citizens in favor of Alvarado; ayunt. and citizens decide against Carrillo; but after further plots Carrillo and other prominent citizens are sent to\nthe north as prisoners, all is peace again, and Alvarado is entertained by the\nAngelinos. Id., 564-9. About this year, according to Botello, Janssens, and\nMrs Ord, Ignacio Coronel, aided by his daughter and wife, opened a primary\nschool in town.\n1839. Jan., the quota of Los Angeles in the call for recruits for the army\nis 40 men.   This vol., p. 583.    May, tumult of the flag, or troubles of Pre.-\n 632 LOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\nvelopments alluded to, have received elsewhere all the\nattention they merit. Such matters were the meetings\nof the diputacion in 1831-2; the depredations of New\nMexican 'traders' in 1833; Indian hostilities involving\nthe destruction of San Bernardino in 1834; the Apa-\nMtegui revolt, wounding of Abel Stearns, and the\npromotion of Angeles to be a city and capital in 1835;\nvigilance committee's operations in 1836; the prefect's\ntroubles and flag tumult of 1839; arrest of foreigners,\nacts of the Chaguanosos, Stearns' contraband operations, and the Carrillo conspiracy in 1840.\nBoth town and district must be regarded as reasonably prosperous during the decade. The population in\n1830 has been given as 1,160, or 770 for the town, and\n390 at the ranchos and missions. The chief authorities for the following period are a padron of 1836 and\na voting list of 1839, as given with a few other details\nin a note.2    While the statistical basis is not entirely\nfeet Cosme Pefia. Id., 588-9. Sept., news of Alvarado's confirmation in Mexico as governor of Cal.; popular rejoicing at Los Angeles. Id., 594-5. June\n5th, precautions ordered against the small-pox. Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., v.\n21-2, 25. Aug. 16th, 21 citizens send a petition to the ayunt. on the state of\nthe town cemetery, which has been used since 1822, and is totally inadequate\nto present needs, endangering the health of the community. They ask that\na suitable site for a new burial place be selected, and that the ayunt. and\npriest consider the matter of removing all remains from the old campo santo.\nThe ayunt. referred the matter to a committee, and approved its report in\nOct. in favor of a new cemetery to be established at the cost of the petitioners with cooperation of other citizens. Coronel, Doc, MS., 92-4. But nothing\nwas accomplished for 5 years.\n1840. April, arrest of some 14 foreign residents, who were sent to S. Bias\nwith Graham and his companions. Vol. iv., p. 14. May-June, pursuit of the\nChaguanosos and N. Mexican horse-thieves. Id., 77. Oct., more of Stearns'\nsmuggling operations. Id., 95. Conspiracy of Jose* Antonio Carrillo, who was\ncarried to Monterey as a prisoner, an affair which caused much correspondence with but little foundation.  This vol., p. 606-7.\n2 Population of Los Angeles: 1833, John Forster thinks there were about\n200 families in the town. Bancroft's Pers. Obs., MS., 90. 1834, 21 Ameri\ncans sign a petition. Dept. St. Pap., Ang., i. 156. 1836, padron of Angeles\njurisdiction showing of gente de razon, 603 men, 421 women, and 651 children; total, 1,675; Indians, 553. Los Ang., Ayunt. Rec, 13. List of 358\nmen available for the protection of the city, including 8 at S. Jose\\ 4 at Ala-\nmitos, 3 at Lugo's, 17 at Sta Ana, 5 at Las Bolsas, 5 at S. Antonio, 48 at Sta\nGertrudis, 21 at S. Gabriel, and a few at other ranchos. Id., 5. The census\nof 1836 is also mentioned as above in Los Ang. Co. Hist., 33-4, and the\nnames of foreigners, 40 in number, are given; also in Los Ang. Arch., i. 121\n-4. 1837, from the padron of the preceding year 274 (or 264) men were selected as fit for military service. Id., i. 137; iv. 279. 1838, names of about\n90 citizens in petitions, etc Id., v. 8-23.    1839, original list of voters, with\n POPULATION AND RANCHOS. 633\nsatisfactory, I think the population of gente de razon\nin 1840, including 40 or 50 foreigners, some of them\nwith families, may be safely put at 1,800, or 1,100 in\nthe city and suburbs with 700 at the ranchos and\nmissions, a gain of 640 during the decade. The Indian population, exclusive of gentiles and refugees in\ndistant rancherias, may be regarded as about 1,500. I\nappend a list of some 30 ranchos,3 more than half of\nage, occupation, and residence. The whole number is 153, living in town 87,\non the ranchos 53, at the missions 13. There were 99 laborers, 24 rancheros,\n12 merchants, 15 men of different trades, besides a clerk, school-master, and\nan administrator; 54 could write. Abel Stearns is the only foreigner named.\nCoronel, Doc, MS., 51-64.\ns Ranchos of the Los Angeles district 1831-40. Those marked with a *\nwere rejected by the Land Commission or U. S. courts. Alamitos, 6 leagues,\nconfirmed in 1834 to Juan J. Nieto, heir of Manuel Nieto; Abel Stearns,\nclaimant before L. C. Francisco Figueroa lived here in 1839, it having been\nbought by Gov. Figueroa for $500 in 1835. Azuza, 4 leagues, granted to\nIgnacio Palomares and Ricardo Ve*jar in 1837, 1840, and to Luis Arenas in\n1841, including S. Jos6; Henry Dalton cl. Ballona, 1 league, granted in 1839\nto Agustin Machado, who was the claimant.1 The Talamantes and 5 voters\nin all lived here in 1839. Boca de Sta Mdnica, 1^ leagues, granted in 1839\nto Fran. Marquez et al., Isidor Reyes et al. claimants. Bolsas, 7 leagues,\nconfirmed in 1834 to widow of Manuel Nieto, Jose* J. Morillo claimant. The\nRuiz, 3 voters, lived here in 1839; 5 men in 1836. For half of Las Bolsas,\nRamon Yorba et al. were claimants. Brea, 1 league, granted in 1828 to Ant. J.\nRocha, who was claimant; nothing in the records of 1831-40. Cahuenga still\nungranted. In Feb. 1833, though occupied by the mission, it was claimed by\nthe ayunt. as ejidos of the town. *Cajon de Muscupiabe, granted in 1839 to\nJuan Bandini, who was claimant. *Canada de los Pinacates, \u00a3 league, granted\nin 1835 to Jose* and J. M. Cruz; M. Antonio Cruz claimant. Canada de Sta\nAna, 3 leagues, granted in 1834 to Bernardo Yorba, who was claimant. 17 men\nin 1836; 12 voters in 1839. Cerritos, 5 leagues, granted in 1834 to Manuela\nNieto, John Temple claimant. Said by Requena to have been sold for $4,000.\nCienega de las Ranas, see S. Joaquin. Cienegas, 1 league, granted in 1823 to\nFran. Avila; no record in this decade; claimant, Januario Avila. Coyotes, 10\nleagues, confirmed in 1834 to J. J. Nieto; A. Pico et al. claimants. 4 voters\nlived here in 1839. In 1840 this rancho was decided to belong to J. B. Lean-\ndry, though Tomas Sanchez claimed it, having lived there 8 years as renter\nof a part. Dept. St. Pap., MS., v. 15-16. Cuati (Huerta), granted in 1830\nto Victoria Reid, who was claimant. Cucamonga, 3 1., granted in 1839 to\nTiburcio Tapia; L. V. Prudhomme claimant. Habra, l| 1., granted in 1839\nto Mariano Roldan; A. Pico et al. claimants. Jurupa, 7 (or 14) 1., granted in\n1838 to Juan Bandini; claimants, Bandini and Louis Robidoux. Nogales, 1\n1., granted in 1840 to Jose* de la Cruz Linares; M. de Jesus Garcia et al.\nclaimants. Ojo de Agua, granted to Encarnacion Sepulveda in 1840. Not\nbefore the L. C. Paso de Bartolo Viejo (sometimes called S. Rafael), 21.,\ngranted in 1835 to Juan Crispin Perez; Pio Pico et al. claimants. Eincon,\n11., granted in 1839 to Juan Bandini; B. Yorba cl. *Rosa de Castillo, granted\nin 1831 to Juan Ballesteros; A. Lestrade cl. San Antonio, confirmed in 1838\nto Ant. M. Lugo, who was claimant. 5 men here in 1836. San Francisco,\ngranted in* 1839 to Antonio del Valle, much against the wishes of the S. Fernando Ind.; Jacoba Felix cl. San Joaquin, 11 1., granted in 1837, 1842 to\nJose* Sepulveda, who was the cl., including Cienega de las Ranas. San Jose*,\ngranted in 1837, 1840 to R. Vejar and Ign. Palomares, who were cl. (see\n B\n634 LOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\nthe number newly granted, which were occupied by\nprivate owners during the decade, information bein^\nmainly drawn from the later records of the Land\nCommission. Municipal affairs were managed by an\nayuntamiento elected each December for the following year, until late in 1839, when justices of the peace\ntook the place of alcaldes and regidores. Jueces de\ncampo for the environs of the town and auxiliary\nalcaldes at the ranchos were subordinate to the ayuntamiento.    A full official list is appended,4 with such\nAzuza). The Felix, 4 voters in all 1839; 8 men in 1836. S. Jose de Buenos\nAires, belonged to Alanis and Polanco in 1840. Near Sta Mdnica. Leg.\nRec, MS., iii. 59, 82-3. *San Pascual, 3 1., granted in 1840 to Enrique\nSepiilveda and Jose* Perez; M. M. Lugo de Foster et al. cl. San Pedro, 10 1.,\ngranted in 1822 to Juan J. Dominguez; M. Dominguez et al. cl. 4 voters in\n1839. San Rafael, 8 1., granted in 1784, 1798 to J. M. Verdugo, whose heirs\nwere cl. Two Verdugos and another voter in 1839. San Vicente, 41., granted in\n1839 to Francisco Sepulveda, who was cl. Included Sta M6nica. Leg. Rec,\nMS., iii. 59, 82-3; Carrillo (D.J, Doc, MS., 79-80. Santa Ana, see Canada de\nSta A. and Santiago de Sta A., Santa Catalina Isl., solicited in 1840 by Louis\nVignes and J. M. Ramirez for sheep-raising, but not granted. Dept. St. Pap.,\nPref. y Juzg., MS., vi. 77; Id., Aug., xii. 40-1, 97. Santa Gertrudis, 5 1.,\nconf. in 1834 to widow of Manuel Nieto, S. Carpenter cl. 48 (?) men in\n1836; 10 voters in 1839. Report on this rancho in 1833 in Cota, Doc, MS.,\n1. Santa Mdnica, see Boca de Sta M. In 1840 it was decided that neither\nMarquez nor Reyes had any title to the lands which had been held by Alvarado and Machado. Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 59, 82-3. Santiago de Santa Ana,\n111., granted in 1810 to Antonio Yorba, whose heirs were the cl. In 1836\nthree men; in 1839 three Lugos and another voter. Sauzal Redondo, 5 1.,\nconf. in 1837 to Antonio Ign. Avila, who was the cl. *Topanga Malibu, 3\n1., granted in 1804 to J. B. Tapia; L. V. Prudhomme cl. No record in 1831-\n40. Tujunga, 1^ 1., granted in 1840 to Pedro Lopez et al.; cl., D. W. Alexander et al. Virgenes, 2 1., granted in 1837 to J. M. Dominguez; cl., M.\nAnt. Machado. Two voters in 1839. *Las Virgenes, gr. in 1834 to Domingo\nCarrillo, whose heirs were the cl. See record of cases in Hoffman's Reports,\nalso Hayes' Miscell, 29-31; Id., Doc, MS., 12. On pueblo lots, see cases nos\n422, 477, 688 before the L. C. In 1836 the matter of titles to town lands\nwas agitated, and it appeared that no one had a written title, grants having\nbeen made verbally at first by military comisionados and later by the ayuntamiento. Owners were ordered to petition for regular titles to stop boundary disputes. Los. Ang. Arch., MS., i. 76-8; ii. 72; Id., Ayunt. Rec, 4;\nLeg. Rec, MS., iii. 3.\n4 Municipal government at Los Angeles, with list of officials. Chief\nauthorities: Los Ang. Arch., MS., i., iv., v.; Id., Ayunt. Rec, MS., Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., xviii.; Id., Aug., i.-v., xi.; Id., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., iii., v., vi.;\nId.. Ben., iv.-v.; Leg. Rec, MS., i., ii.; Valle, Doc, MS., besides hundreds\nof scattered references.\n1831. Alcalde Vicente Sanchez; 1st regidor Juan B. Alvarado; sindico\nGil Ibarra. Sanchez was always in trouble. His election was declared void\nbecause he was a member of the assembly, and the 1st regidor todk his place.\nHe was suspended in April, but reinstated by Victoria, to be again suspended\nand imprisoned by V. 's opponents in Dec. Tiburcio Tapia is named as alcalde in May. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., iii. 56.    The auxiliary\n MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. 63$\nitems as are extant respecting routine happenings in\nconnection wTith pueblo government. As has been\nremarked, this versatile town council assumed an in-\nalcaldes were Juan Perez at Sta Gertrudis, Manuel Gutierrez at S. Pedro,\nJulio Verdugo at S. Rafael, Rafael Pico at Simi, and Yorba at Sta Ana.\n1832. Alcalde Manuel Dominguez; regidores Juan N. Alvarado, Jose*\nMan. Cota, Felipe Lugo, Ignacio Maria Alvarado, Juan Ballesteros; sec.\nVincente de la Ossa; alcalde aux. at Sta Ana Tomas A. Yorba. Jan. 27th,\npay of sec. raised to $20. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 352. The election for the\nayunt. of the next year in Dec. had to be postponed on account of an epidemic\nwhich prostrated all the officers and most of the people.\n1833. Alcalde Jose* Ant. Carrillo; regidores Felipe Lugo, Ignacio M. Alvarado, Antonio Machado, Jose* Sepulveda; sindico Tiburcio Tapia; sec. Ossa,\nand Vicente Moraga temporarily in Feb. and May; jueces de campo Antonio\nM. Lugo and Ricardo Ve*jar; aux. alcaldes Perez at Sta Gertrudis, Verdugo at S. Rafael, Bernardino Yorba at Sta Ana, and Man. Dominguez at S.\nPedro; A. M. Osio receptor. Jan. 4th, the aux. alcaldes chosen. Jan. 5th,\nsessions of the ayunt. to be Tuesday and Wed. at 10 a. m. Jan. 9th, Macha-\ndo's offer to repair the priest's house gratuitously accepted. Feb. 7th, sec.\nremoved for neglect of duty, subject to action of dip. Feb. 28th, com. appointed for state election. April, ayunt. refuses to remit fine of T. A. Yorba,\nwho in 1832 had failed to attend election on excuse of ill health. The dip.\nin 1834 approved the refusal. July, the election of a second alcalde recommended to gov. Aug. 29th, ayunt. refuses to obey gov.'s requisition for 20\nmen to fill the ranks of the S. Diego comp. Carrillo being chosen member of\nthe dip., the 1st reg. was to take his place as alcalde, either permanently or\ntemp., as the gov. should decide, and the decision was in favor of the former.\nSept. 7th, the gov. wants more reasons, etc., respecting a 2d alcalde. Sept.\n20th, complaints of Carrillo's absence, but ayunt. could not excuse him from\nattendance at Monterey. Munic. receipts. Jan.-Sept., $977, including $417\ntax on wines and liquors, $448 fines, expend. $928.\n1834. Alcalde Jose* Perez, regidores Jose* Sepulveda, Vicente de la Ossa,\nJanuario Avila, sindico Vicente Moraga, sec. Moraga till May, Manuel Ar-\nzaga from June. Perhaps also Moraga ceased to be sindico in the middle of\nthe year, for his resignation seems to have been accepted in July, though he\nseems to have acted in Nov. Botello, Anales, MS., 10, says M. was removed\nfor carelessness and inability. Jueces de campo Lugo and Ignacio Palomares.\nMunic. receipts, $919, includ. liquors $321, fines $150, gambling licenses $214,\ndry goods shops $39, expend. $986, includ. ayunt., school, and constable\n$465, church $6, sec. $96. In Sept. $24.50 sent to dip. at Mont, for powder\nand flintsx Dec., munic. treasurer to have 8 per cent. May 30th, sindico cannot act as secretary. There were complaints that Perez was a tool of J.\nA. Carrillo, through whom judicial decisions could be bought. It was charged\nthat an assassin was let off for $200. Not too much credit should be given to\nthese charges as they may have originated from personal and political controversies, the merits of which cannot be known. gg11* .\n1835. 1st alcalde Francisco Javier Alvarado, 2d alcalde Domingo Romero;\nregidores Januario Avila, Vicente de la Ossa, Ignacio Palomares, Rafael\n'Guirado, Juan N. Alvarado, Juan de Dios Bravo; sindico Narciso Botello, sec.\nManuel Arzaga; jueces de campo Antonio I. Avila, Jose* Serrano, Ignacio M.\nAlvarado; aux. alcaldes Perez at Sta Gertrudis, Tomas Yorba at Sta Ana, Domingo Carrillo.at Los Berros (?), encargado de indios Tib. Tapia. Munic. receipts $580, expend. $583. Botello, Anales, MS., 12, says Arzaga was removed\nabout June and he, B., acted as sec Jan., business hours at the alcalde's\noffice fixed at 10 a. m. to noon, and 3 to 5 p. m. Feb., gov. orders alcalde to\nfollow implicitly the orders of the district judge, his superior. March 30th,\nmeeting presided by the gov.    April, gov. urges the speedy installation of the\n 636\nLOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\nteresting variety of attitudes in the political controversies growing out of the struggle between north\nand south, and as a consequence town officials had\ntribunal de vagos ace to law of March 3, 1828.   Aug. 28th, com. gen. sends\nalcalde 4 men to force the Sonorans and citizens to respect his authority.\n1836. 1st alcalde Manuel Requena, 2d alcalde Tiburcio Tapia; regidores\nRafael Guirado, Juan M. Alvarado (3d not named, but probably Bravo), Basilio Valdes, Felipe Lugo, Jose* Maria Herrera; sindico Abel Stearns to June,\nAntonio M. Osio from July; sec Narciso Botello; jueces de campo Ant. I.\nAvila, Jose* M. Lugo, Juan Ramirez; encargados de justicia, or aux. alcaldes,\nPerez at Sta Gertrudis, Julio Verdugo at S. Rafael, Manuel Dominguez at S.\nPedro, Jose* Ant. Yorba at Sta Ana Abajo or S. Jose* (Jesus Felix also at S.\nJose), Teodosio Yorba at Sta Ana, Bernardo Yorba at Cajon de Sta Ana, Mariano R. Roldan at Alamitos. Munic. receipts, $664, expend. $518. Botello\nas collector and treasurer claimed 8 per cent, but was allowed only three per\ncent for commission. Jan., ayunt. resolves that troops which had been asked\nfor and arrived, as there was no food for them, should go to'S. Gabriel, and\nthe com. gen. should be requested to send troops to be supported on their\npay. Gov. orders a plan to be made of lands for fondo legal y ejidos. Also\ncost of a govt building to be estimated. Feb. 4th, tribunal de vagos established consisting of Requena and the 1st and 2d regidores Guirado and Alvarado. March, the diputacion to occupy two rooms offered by Sanchez and\nStearns. May, gov. approves alcalde's proposal to permit certain persons to\ncarry arms. Dec 13th, appeal of comandante at S. Gabriel, that he has no\nmeans of supporting his troops, who wish leave to earn a living for themselves.\nAyunt. decides that the admin, of S. Fernando must be asked for aid.\n1837. 1st alcalde Gil Ibarra, 2d alcalde Jose* Sepulveda; regidores Valdes, Lugo, Herrera, Francisco Pantoja, Bernardino Lopez; sindico Ignacio M\nAlvarado, sec. Narciso Botelo, aux. alcalde Manuel Duarte at Sta Gertrudis.\nNo record of the others. Munic. receipts $381, expend. $460. Feb., the two\npermanent committees on police and on lands not yet chosen on account of\npolitical convulsions. Sept. 21st, order of gov. received to suspend 1st alcalde, who is to report for trial to the Sta Barbara alcalde. Ayunt. resolves\nto petition gov. for a suspension of the order until the accusations against\nIbarra can be investigated. Dec. 22d, Gov. Carrillo gives order for election\nof substitutes for those members of the ayunt. whose resignation has been accepted.\n1838. 1st alcalde Luis Arenas, 2d alcalde Jose* Perez; regidores Ignacio\nPalomares, Bernardino Lopez, Juan Ballesteros, Antonio Machado, Januario\nAvila, Jose* del Carmen Lugo; sindico Vicente de la Ossa, sec. Narciso Botello;\njueces de campo Jose* M. Lugo, Agustin Machado, Emigdio Vejar, Maximo\nValenzuela; comisarios de policia, or aux. alcaldes, Antonio M. Lugo, Tib.\nTapia, Raf. Guirado, Fran. M. Alvarado, id. suplentes Julian Chavez, Cristd-\nbal Aguilar, Isidro Alvarado, Isidro Reyes. The services of the ayunt. were\nmore or less interrupted by the arrest and enforced absence of its members,\nespecially Alcalde Arenas and Sec. Botello. Munic. receipts $837, expend.\n$834. Aug. Perez and Ballesteros appointed to revise the policia de los\ncampos.\n1839. 1st alcalde Tiburcio Tapia (until May), 2d alcalde Manuel Dominguez; regidores Antonio Machado (acting sindico and acting 1st alcalde after\nMay), Januario Avila, Jose* del C. Lugo, Fran. M. Alvarado, Jose* Sepulveda,\nJuan Crisdstomo Vdjar; sindico Vicente Sanchez (elected but not sworn in),\nsec. Botello, and later Ignacio Coronel. At the election of this ayunt. in\nDec. 1838, the law of July 12, 1830, was followed, the new law not having\nbeen received. In Nov. the ayunt. was abolished, and the two alcaldes, Dominguez and Machado, were ordered to act as jueces cte paz pending the regular appointment.    It is notable that on the 1st alcalde becoming prefect it\n CRIMINAL RECORD. 637\nsome exciting adventures to relieve the monotony of\ntheir regular duties; but these experiences growing\nout of national and territorial patriotism were permitted to absorb the surplus of zeal that might otherwise have been devoted to local controversies; so that\nthe record of town affairs is somewhat tame, even\nwhen supplemented by the criminal record and items\nconnected with the administration of justice.6    These\nwas not the 2d alcalde but the senior regidor that took his place. Munic.\nreceipts $739. July 17th, proposition to rent the salt-fields and tax asphal-\ntum for municipal revenues. Feb., Capt. Juan de Dios Padilla. refuses to\nobey a summons from the alcalde. Also reprimanded for not removing his\nhat in the juzgado. May, prefect proposes 2 jueces de paz at the capital and\none at each mission, also at S. Pedro and Sta Ana. Ayunt. expresses regret\nat prefect's illness. July, 2d regidor fined $10 for misdemeanor in the case of\nTemple. Nov. 7th, governor's order to dissolve the ayunt; order rec'd Nov.\n21st. Dec, no sindico required under the new system, but a depositario must\nbe appointed to dispose of funds only on prefect's order.\n1840. Jueces de paz Felipe Lugo and Juan B. Leandry; jueces de campo\nRamon Ibarra, Juan Ramirez, Enrique Vejar, Antonio Ignacio Avila for\nthe environs of the town; for the ranchos Ignacio Palomares at S. Jos6,\nMariano Roldan at Los Coyotes, Bernardo Yorba at Cajon de Sta Ana,\nTomas Yorba at Sta Ana, Jose* Yorba at Sta Aha Abajo, Francisco Figueroa at Alamitos, P. Dominguez at S. Pedro, Juan Sepulveda at Palos\nVerdes, Felipe Talamantes at La Ballena, Julio Verdugo at Los Verdu-\ngos. Pio Pico collector of tithes appointed July 16th, to receive 5 per\ncent for commission. Ranchos established for less than 5 years were exempt. Tithes might be paid in cattle and horses. Munic. receipts $567,\nexpend. $517. Proceeds of stamped paper 1st quarter $57, 3d quarter\n$12. Complaints in Feb. that accounts have not been rendered, and that\nneither schoolmaster nor sec of ayunt. has been paid. Feb., Lugo and\nLeandry complain to prefect that certain men oppose them and criticise their\nconduct. They are willing to resign or to answer any charges. Sept., subaltern jueces are informed that they have but 3 days in which to return answers to their superiors.\n6 Administration of justice at Los Angeles. 1831. A man fined $5 for\nbranding cattle out of season. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 8. 1833, Jan.-Feb.,\nordinances of ayunt. against carrying forbidden weapons, playing forbidden\ngames, and selling liquor after 8 p. m. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iv. 74, 84-5,\n89-90; Dept. St. Pap. Ang., MS., i. 99, 110. Also similar regulations in\nother months. Nov., owners of ranchos must be made to burn the carcasses\nof cattle slaughtered. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iv. 75. 1834. By complaint of\nJ. A. Carrillo alcalde Perez seized some silver on the Pacifico. J. A. Aguirre,\nthe owner, succeeded in proving the seizure illegal, and that the whole affair\nwas a plot of Carrillo and Perez, who were to share the profits, and who were\naccused of other conspiracies against the wealthy Spaniard. They were\ncondemned to pay damages for the ship's detention, and the alcaldes\nwere reprimanded for neglect of duty. Dept. St. Pap. Ben., MS., v. 1-15,\n64-7. 1835. April 8th, bando of Alcalde Alvarado containing municipal ordinances in 19 articles. Id., Aug., i. 157-60. May, Yorba writes to Capt.\nGuerrera that thefts of horses and cattle at the ranchos are of frequent occurrence, and the alcaldes take no energetic steps to prevent such outrages\nGuerra, Doc, MS., vi. 151. July, prisoners have to be transferred to S.\nGabriel for want of guards and insecurity of prison in town. Los Ang. Arch.,\nMS., i. 60-1.    Oct., a military court to sit at S. Gabriel to try men who\n 638 LOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\npetty items as appended have a certain interest and\nvalue as an element in pueblo annals, even if in the\nabsence of causas celebres they call for no special remarks in my text,\nkilled cattle at Los Nietos for their hides. Id., iv. 283. Nov. no food furnished to prisoners; but for charity they would starve. Dept. St. Pap. Ben.,\nMS., v. 67. Dana, Two Years before the Mast, 196-7, tells how a Mexican\nentered a naturalized Yankee's house and stabbed him to the heart. Americans seized the murderer, and as the gov. and gen. declined to interfere, with\nthe aid of 30 or 40 trappers they took possession of the town, appointed a\njudge and jury, and shot the man after his conviction in spite of a proclamation from a general 'with titles enough for an hidalgo.' This is a story of\nsome interest, but I think it has no foundation in fact.\ny 1836. See reference to murder of Felix and acts of vigilance committee\nelsewhere. Jan 2d, new series of munic regulations. Dept. St. Pap., Aug.,\nMS., ii. 72. Jan. 14th, ayunt. complains of an 'epidemic of crows'! and calls\nfor a contribution for the slaughter of the birds; else a bando will be issued.\nLos Ang. Ayunt. Rec, MS., 64. Jan. 28th, danger of hydrophobia. No\nman must keep more than two dogs, and those securely tied. All the rest\nmust be killed, and the 2d alcalde offered to furnish poison on credit as the\ntreasury was empty. Id., 68. Feb., inhab. willing to build a prison; meanwhile the curate's house to be used. Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., x. 44, 54.\nMarch, 12 prisoners, 7 of them out on bail, 1 for murder, 1 assault with\nwounds, 6 for larceny, 2 for stealing cattle. Id., B. M., lxxxii. 28. Six suspicious persons found sleeping in the fields at S. Francisco rancho, with 3\nEnglish muskets and a pistol. Id., Aug., ii. 48. Aug., still 12 prisoners, including 2 assassins. Id., vi. 9.\n1837. Feb., the junta de guerra mentioned above (Oct. 1835) had condemned to death the men convicted of cuereando. The ayunt. asks for a\ncommutation to exile or some milder punishment; but the culprits were to be\nmarched through the streets with a crier proclaiming their crimes on the\nway to their destination. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iv. 283-4. Jesus Pico, Acon-\ntecimientos, MS., 43, says he was charged With conducting the men, 8 in\nnumber, to Monterey, en route for Sonoma. He remembers the names of\nRomero, 2 Valdds, Jose* Garcia, and Antonio Valencia. Manuel Arzaga was\nliving with the wife of a man absent at Guaymas. By advice of Padre Duran,\nthe alcalde ordered the guilty couple to be parted, the woman to be delivered\nto P. EstSnega at the mission, until her husband should come, and Arzaga to\nbe sent to S. Diego and closely watched. The two managed to meet again,\nand at the padre's complaint new orders were issued in Nov. S. Diego, Arch.,\nMS., 188.\n1838. German, Sucesos, MS., 2-3, says that Ritillo Valencia, for firing a\npistol at Domingo Altamirano, was sent to Mont, in irons. July 7th, police\nregulations in 22 articles. Los Ang. Arch., MS., v. 29-37. Oct., Antonio\nValencia being tried for murder of Ant. Aguila. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xviii.\n11. Nov., nine keepers of shops petition for the privilege of selling liquor on\nfeast days after the ' toque de las animas,' as the only means of gaining a\nliving, so dull was trade. Referred to the gov. Los Ang. Ayunt. Rec, MS.,\n52.\n1839. Jan., police regul. in 10 articles for the year. Los Ang. Arch., MS.,\nv. 48-51. Feb., Jose M. Cota, son of the owner of Los Cerritos, sent to the\ngov. as a cattle thief. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xviii. 19-20. May, decree against\nvagrants, who must be made to work. Dept. Rec, MS., x. 25; Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., vii. 10; Mont. Arch,, MS., ix. 9. Criminal proceedings against Francisco Limon for outrage on a little Indian girl at S. Fernando, resulting in\nher death. Sentenced to 2 years in presidio. Sentence sent to Mex. for\napproval. Dept. St Pap., Ben., MS., iv. 1-4.   Decree against sale of liquors\n AN OUSTED PREFECT. 639\nIn February 1839, in accordance with a Mexican\nlaw of 1836, Governor Alvarado divided Upper\nCalifornia into two districts and appointed Cosme\nPena prefect of the second, or Los Angeles district,\nSanta Barbara being a partido under a sub-prefect.\nThe licenciado Cosme Pena was appointed prefect\nand took possession of the office on April 11th, promising great things in his installation speech; but he\nsoon became involved in troubles with the people, not\nbeing either personally or politically popular, and after\nthe flag tumult recorded elsewhere, on May 25th\nunder the pretext of illness he turned over the office\non feast days. Id., Ang., MS., v. 9, 65-6; S. D. Arch., MS., 224. Aug., 5\nprisoners escape from jail. Alcalde complains that citizens refuse to do guard\nduty. Los Ang. Arch., MS., i. 167-8. A soldier at S. Luis claimed by alcalde for criminal trial. Com. J. A. Pico declines to give him up; but is\nordered by Vallejo to do so if the crime was committed before enlistment.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 53. Nov., alcalde fined by prefect $20 for permitting\ncard-playing in a tavern on Sunday. Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., v. 102-3.\nDec, Joaquin Ruiz on trial for being ringleader in an attempt to release Ant.\nAvila from prison. The fiscal, in consideration of R.'s talent and poverty,\nand his father's large family, and intemperance, recommends a penalty of\nonly 2 years presidio. Id., Ben., v. 382-3.\n1840. A horse-race between animals owned by Andres Pico and Fernando\nSepulveda, a minor, led to a dispute and a suit against S. for the stakes, which\nFrancisco Sepulveda, Fernando's father, was forced to pay by alcalde Lugo.\nThe matter was sent to the gov., who on the advice of the judge of the 1st\ndistrict decided that Lugo must pay back the stakes, and be suspended until\nhe should do so, but retaining the right to sue for a recovery from the parties\nto whom they had been paid. Lugo replied in a long and somewhat skilful\ndefence, refusing to be suspended except by the junta after legal proceedings\nor to pay the stakes. He claimed that the gov. and Mont, judge had argued\nas partisan attorneys and not as judges; that they had made many blunders;\nthat the affair was none of their business, but belonged to the superior tribunal, and if there was no such body it was their fault. He says that the\nelder Sepulveda was present at the race, and had in other races paid his son's\nlosses without objection. \\ The final decision is not given. S. Diego Arch.,\nMS., 265. Very few public women at Angeles at this period. Arnaz, Re-\ncuerdos, MS., 14-15. Jan.-March, bandos with police regulations in 14 art.\nDept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., iv. 2, 43-6. March, many Angeles prisoners confined at Sta B., claim for $20 a month for their support. Id., 50. May, three\nprisoners allowed to serve in an exped. against horse-thieves under bonds.\nId., 109, June, edict to prevent careless management of the salt works. Id.,\n112-13. A woman exiled for pursuing an innocent Irishman, Jas Boxe, and\nkeeping him from his wife. Los Ang. Arch., MS., i. 191-5. July, 22 prisoners; 10 cattle-thieves, 3 homicides, 6 thieves, 2 assassins, 1 charged with\nrape. 4 were sent to Sta B., 4 kept in jail, and the rest released on bail for\nwant of room and food. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xviii. 24. Aug., prefect orders\nthat Ant. Valenzuela must not molest Domingo Romero, accused of incest,\nwhich will be investigated by the prefectura. Los Ang. Ayunt. Rec, MS.,\n44. Nov., a man sentenced to 3 months public work3 for drawing a knife to\nkill a citizen in the court-room. S. Dieyo Arch., MS., 263.\n 640 LOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\nto Alcalde Tapia, and went to Monterey. Tapia was\nacting prefect till August, though Machado took his\nplace in June and July; and on the 10th of August\nhe was formally appointed by the governor, Pena\nhaving resigned. In September came the news that\nthe latter's appointment had not been approved in\nMexico. It does not appear that any action was\ntaken in Mexico on Tapia's appointment, and perhaps\nit was never intended to be permanent; at any rate\nin May 1840 he asked to be relieved on account of\nillness, and Santiago Arguello was appointed to the\noffice. The prefect's salary was $2,000 and that of\nhis secretary\u2014Francisco Castillo, succeeded before\nthe end of 1839 by Narciso Botello\u2014was $700. The\nprefect as an executive officer exercised a general authority over the ayuntamiento and over all local\nofficials in the district; but there is nothing in his\nroutine acts of 1839-40 that demands special notice.6\n6 On the prefecture and tumult of the flag see this vol. p. 585-9. Pefia's\nappointment announced March 7, 1839. Dept. St. Pap. Aug., MS., x. 112-14.\nI omit miscellaneous references to authorities for this and the following\npoints. April 11th, Pefia installed, and makes a long speech. Id., ii. 164;\nId., Pref. y Juzg., iv. 53; v. 79; though there are other documents indicating the 13th or 15th as the date. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xviii. 17-18; Id.,\nBen. C. & T., iv. 26. April 13th, P. to Vallejo on the good disposition of\nthe people. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 410, 439. April 16th, J. M. Covarrubias\nnamed as sec, and he may have held the place for a time before Castillo's\nappointment. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. C. & T, MS., iv. 28. April 22d, Prefect Pefia directs alcalde not to allow administrators of missions to remove\nfugitive Ind. from town without consent of alcalde and prefect. Id., Ang.,\nii. 165. May 25th, Pena directs Tapia to take charge ad int. Savage, Doc,\nMS., iii. 48; Hayes' Doc, MS., 92-3. Same date, notifies govt, and administrators to same effect. Dept. St. Pap., Pref y Juzg., MS., v. 5; S. Diego,\nArch., MS., 225. May 26th, Tapia assumes the office. Dept. St. Pap. Ang.,\nMS., v. 10. June 12th, prefect orders that Ind. shall be collected at the\nmissions. S. Diego Index., MS., 134. June 21-3. Machado takes the office\nad int. Dept. St. Pap., Pref. y Juzg., MS., v. 7; Id., Ang., v. 20. Pefia's\nresignation July 31st, accepted Aug. 10th, and Tapia appointed same day.\nId., Pref. y Juzg., v. 24, 29; Id., Mont., iv. 12. Castillo reigns as sec Aug.\n21st, and Botello acts ad int. Id., Pref. y Juzg., MS., *r. 25; Coronel, Doc,\nMS., 94. Nov. 5th, prefect fines alcalde $20. Nov. 29th, orders alcalde to\nconvoke ayunt. for an extra session. Botello appointed sec Oct; 5th-7th.\nLos Ang. Arch., MS., v. 100; Dept. St. Pap. Aug., MS., v. 86, 90. May\n24th, Tapia asks to be relieved on account of illness. Id., Pref y Juzg., vl\n69. May 30th, Arguello appointed. Id., Aug., iv. Ill; xii. 31; Dept. Rec,\nMS., xi. 15-16; S. D. Arch., MS., 255. June 2d, Arguello accepts, Jurie\n17th, installed, making a speech. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., ii 32-3; Id.,\nPref. y Juzg., vi. 72; Hayes' Em. Notes, 511-14; Id., Doc, 127. Sept. 9th,\nprefect has released the sub-prefect, whom he believes innocent. Dept. St,\n SAN PEDRO AND SAN GABRIEL. 641\nThe port of San Pedro, though a large quantity of\ncountry produce was shipped there, and few trading vessels failed to visit it, had as yet neither local\nauthorities nor other residents. There was, however,\na sub-alcalde at the Dominguez rancho a few miles\ninland. In 1831-2 there were some slight attempts\nat ship-building. From 1833 Antonio M. Osio as receptor at Los Angeles had charge of the port trade\nas well as of the inland commerce with New Mexico.\nA part of the colony landed here in 1834. Osio\nstates that 5,000 hides from the mission cattle were\nshipped here in that year, while Mofras writes of an\nannual shipment about, that time of 100,000 hides,\n2,500 centals of tallow, and several cargoes of soap.\nAbel Stearns had a warehouse, and in 1835 and other\nyears was accused of doing a profitable contraband\ntrade. The fugitive governor, Chico, is said to have\ntouched at San Pedro in his flight, in 1836, to take\non board a quantity of stolen tallbw. Dana's experience of several weeks in loading hides here is described in his famous narrative; and Belcher gives a\nslight description of the place as it appeared in 1839.7\nAt San Gabriel in 1831-2 the names of padres\nJesus Maria Martinez, Francisco Gonzalez de Ibarra,\nVicente Pascual Oliva, and the Dominicans Francisco\nCucullu and Mariano Sosa appear occasionally on the\nmission registers; but the regular ministers were\nfathers Boscana and Sanchez, until their deaths which\noccurred respectively in July 1831 and January 1833.8\nPap., P. y J., MS., vi. 77. Expenses of ofiice in Oct. $52; in Nov. $6.\nId., iii. 52, 56.\n7 See this vol. pp. 267-9, 288, 349, 363, 366, 369, 375, 384, 393, 442; vol.\niv. 80, 95, 146; Mofras, Explor., i. 362; Dana's Two Years, 107 et seq.;\nBelcher's Voy., i. 322; Douglas' Jour., MS., 87-8. And on Osio's appointment as receptor, Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 109; Id., Cust.-H, ii. 10-25; vii.\n12-13; Id., Aug., xi. 8; Id., Pref. y Juzg., ii. 156.\n8Ger6nimo Boscana was bom on May 23, 1776, at Llumayor, island of\nMallorca, and took the Franciscan habit in the convent of Jesus extra muros\nat Palma on Aug. 4, 1792. After acting for nearly four years as professor of\nbelles lettres, he started for America June 5, 1803; arrived at Mexico Oct.\n24th; started for Cal. Feb. 17, 1806, and landed at Monterey June 6th. His\nmissionary service was at Soledad in 1806; at Purisima in 1806-11, at San\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   41\n 642 LOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\nSanchez was succeeded by padre Tom&s Eleuterio\nEstdnega, who came  down from the north  on the\nLuis Rey in 1812-13, at San Juan Capistrano in 1814-26, and at San Gabriel\nin 1826-31. Though accredited by his superiors in 1817 and 1820 with 'regular' merit and' ability somewhat more than medium, yet some doubt was\nfelt about his qualifications as a spiritual guide, and he was spoken of as one\nwhom for reasons known to the guardian it would not be well to leave alone at\na mission. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Sarria, Infornie sobre Frailes,\n1817, p. 44; Id., Informe de Mis. 1819, p. 115. His chief ministry was at S.\nJuan Capistrano, where he devoted much study to the manners and customs\nof the natives, especially their religious traditions. His writings, on this subject, found among his papers and long in possession of Capt. Guerra y Noriega,\nwere published by Robinson in 1846 under the title of Chinigchinich. He is\ndescribed by Eulalia Perez, Recuerdos, MS., 26, and others as of less than\nmedium stature, fair complexion, considerably bent in his old age; an inveterate snuff-taker; kind-hearted and well liked generally, but subject to occasional spells of apparent lunacy when he seemed to be angry with himself and\nevery one about him. The portrait published with his book is said to look\nlike him. His sudden removal from S. Juan in 1826 and the disparaging\nhints in reports of superiors as noted above give some weight to the charges\nof Vallejo and others that the padre was guilty of immoral relations with his\nne6fitas. He tried unsuccessfully to get his passport and quit the country in\n1829 under the law expelling Spaniards. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt i. 55. His\ndeath occurred on July 5, 1831; and he was buried next day in the San Gabriel church on the San Jose* side of the presbytery near the remains of Padre\nNuez. 8. Gabriel, Lit. Mis., MS., 40; Guerra, Doc, MS., i. 243-4.\nJose Bernardo Sanchez \"was born Sept. 7, 1778, at Robledillo, Spain, and\nbecame a Franciscan in the convent of N. Sra Sta Maria de Gracia at S.\nMiguel supra Tagum, Oct. 9, 1794. Leaving Spain in Feb. 1803, he reached\nhis college in Mexico in Aug., and came to Cal. in 1804. He served at S.\nDiego in 1804-20, at Purisima in 1820-1, and at S. Gabriel in 1821-33, until\nhis death on July 15th. In 1817-20 he was regarded by his superiors as of\ndistinguished merit and ability far above the average, but was suffering, and\nin hopes of\" early retirement. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Sarria,\nInf. sobre Frailes, 1817, MS., 39-40; Arch. Sta B., MS., iii. 130. In 1806\nSanchez accompanied Sergt Pico on an expedition against the Ind.; in 1818,\nhe took an active part in preparations to resist Bouchard's insurgents; in\n1821 he went with Payeras on an exploring and baptizing tour among gentile\nrancherias; in 1828 he was greatly aggrieved by a charge of smuggling, and\nasked for a pass to retire; in 1829, he again desired a passport as a Spaniard\nwho had not taken the oath; and in 1831-2 he was active in opposing Gov.\nEcheandia's project of secularization. From 1827 to 1831 he held the high\nposition of president, performing its difficult duties with great credit. He is\ndescribed as fair and fat, of lively disposition, generous and hospitable, with\na multitude of friends of all classes. He was an able manager of temporal\naffairs, and took great pride in the prosperity of his mission, being greatly\ndisappointed and perhaps soured by the disastrous results of secularization,\nagainst which he had struggled in vain, even to the extent of slaughtering\nthe mission cattle at the last as recorded in this chapter. Mofras, Explor.,\ni. 272-3, says that Father Sanchez died of grief; and Eulalia Perez, Recuerdos,\nMS., 14-15, adds that about a month before his death he was insulted, jostled,\nand struck by his neophytes, which had a deplorable effect both on his mind\nand body. It is possible that this story has some slight foundation in fact,\nthough, if so, it is strange that no more definite record appears. His body\nwas buried on Jan. 16, 1833, by Padre Oliva at the foot of the altar in the\npresbytery of the mission church. Guerra, Doc, MS., 244; S. Gabriel, Lib.\nMis., MS., 40; cited also in Los Ang. Express, Sept. 16, 1874, by J. J.\nWarner. The remains were disturbed but not removed in Dec, 1850, at the\nburial of P. Ordaz.\n SAN GABRIEL. 643\narrival of the Zacatecanos and remained in charge of\nSan Gabriel during the rest of the decade. Father\nAlexis Bachelot from the Sandwich Islands also lived\nhere most of the time in 1832-6. The neophyte\npopulation decreased only about 30 down to 1834;\nbut by the end of the decade nearly 1,000 had left the\ncommunity, leaving about 400, though I suppose there\nwere still about 1,000 ex-neophytes whose whereabouts was somewhat definitely known. A considerable increase in cattle down to 1834, but not probably\nmaking allowance for the slaughter of that year, is\nshown by the regular reports; but by 1840 the livestock had almost entirely disappeared.9 The record\nof secularization at this establishment is very meagre\neven in comparison with the others. Colonel Gutierrez was the comisionado to effect the change in 1834,\n\"Statistics of 1831-4. Decrease in pop. 1352 to 1320. Baptisms, 175* largest no. 64 in 1832; smallest, 30 in 1831. Deaths, 144; largest no. 85 in 1832;\nsmallest 8 in 1834. Increase in large stock 25,725 to 26,220; decrease in\nhorses and mules 2,225 to 220; sheep, 14,650 to 6,660. Largest crop, 4,315\nbush, in 1834; smallest, 407 in 1832; average crop, 2,440, of which wheat\n1,755, yield 7.33 fold; barley 157, yield 9.8 fold; corn 432, yield 61 fold.\nGeneral statistics of 1771-1834, the whole period of the mission's existence.\nTotal no. baptisms, 7,854, of which 4,355 Ind. adults, 2,459 Ind. children, 1\nadult and 1,039 children of gente de razon; average per year, 123.) Total of\nmarriages, 1,955, of which 241 de razon. Deaths, 5,656, of which 2,916 Ind.\nadults, 2,363 Ind. children; 211 and 186 de razon; annual average, 88; average death rate, 7.61 per cent of pop. Largest pop., 1,701 in 1817. There\nwas a slight excess of males down to 1803, and a greater excess later. The\nproportion of children varied from \u00a3 at first to l0 at the last. Largest no.\nof cattle, 26,300 in 1828; horses, 2,400 in 1827; mules, 205 in 1814; asses, 6\nin 1794; sheep, 15,000 in 1829; goats, 1,380 in 1785; swine, 300 in 1802,1803,\nand 1822; all kinds, 40,360 animals in 1830. Total product of wheat,\n225,942 bush., yield 16 fold; barley (for only 11 years), 1,250 bush., yield 10\nfold; maize, 154,820 bush., yield 145 fold; beans,\" 14,467 bush., yield 28 fold.\nMiscell. stat. of the decade. Feb. 1833. J. M. Marron borrows 200 cattle for 5 years from P. Estenega. Marron, Pap., MS., 10. 1834. There were\n4,443 head of cattle thus lent out. The mission debts were $8,271, and\ncredits $11,153. There were 163,579 vines in 4 vineyards, and 2,333 fruit\ntrees. Artillery, 4 small cannon, one of them lent to the ayunt., and 3\npedreros. St. Pap., Mis., MS., vi. 12-14. Nov. 26th, amount of supplies to\nS. Diego presidio $49,665, to Sta Barbara $6,895, no period specified, perhaps\nsince the foundation. Dept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxix. 52-3. 1839. Hartnell's report of June 24th, 369 souls all contented. Debts $4,000 (or $6,000),\ncredits $10,500; 1,100 cattle, 1,700 horses, 1,040 sheep. St. Pap., Mis., MS.,\nxi. 28-9; Hartnell, Diario, MS., 72-4. Dec. 31st, Bandini distributes $1,615\nof clothing among 233 Ind. Id., vi. 42-3. 1840. April. In the list of effects\nto be surrendered by the administrator were 72 cattle, 715 sheep, and 3\nhogs. St. Pap. Mis., MS., 41. Debt at the same date $3,230, of which $1,944\nwas due to P. Estenega. Pico, Pap., Mis., MS., 47-51.\n 644\nLOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\na year marked also by the wholesale slaughter of the\nmission cattle by order of the padres, and by the destruction of the San Bernardino branch by hostile\nsavages.10    Gutierrez turned over the control to Juan\n10 Chronologic summary of S. Gabriel events. 1831. Gov. Victoria\nwounded, cared for at the mission in Dec. This vol., p. 206, 210. To be\nsecularized and a school established under Echeandia's plan. Id., 305-6. A\nschooner framed here to be launched at S. Pedro. \/(\/., 363. Death of P. Boscana, this chapter. 1832. Echeandia's forces encamped here in April. This\nvol., 227. P. Bachelot begins his service as assistant minister. Id., 317.\n1833. Alf. Ignacio del Valle appointed as comisionado for secularization in\nJan., but nothing accomplished. Id., 326. J. A. Carrillo goes in Feb. to\nharangue and tranquillize the Ind. Id., 327. Death of P. Sanchez and arrival\nof P. Este*nega. This chap. This year a controversy between the mission and\nJ. J. Nieto at Sta Gertrudis was settled by arbitration. N. had borrowed\n8,000 (?) mission cattle on shares 8 or 9 years before. It was decided that\nN. should have all the cattle at Los Cerritos and the mission \u00a7 of all the rest;\nand in Oct. that N. should give up 3,000 head. There was more trouble that\nhad not been settled 3 years later. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.., MS., v.\" 167-84.*\n1834. Part of the Mex. colony here from Sept. This vol., 267. Beginning\nof secularization, Col Nicol&s Gutierrez made comisionado and an inventory\nprepared in Nov. Id., 346-8. Slaughter of the mission cattle, private individuals taking contracts from the padre to kill pattie on shares for their hides\nand tallow. Id., 348-9. Indian depredations at S. Bernardino Oct.-Dec. Id.,\n359, and annals of Los Angeles in this chap. Controversy about right of the\nmission to use the salinas. Id., 374. Lugo, Vida, MS., 107, represents S.\nBernardino as a very prosperous establishment, and says that extensive\nimprovements in the buildings were in progress when the destruction occurred. This year a garrison was organized at S. Gabriel, to consist of a sergeant and 8 men from Portilla's Mazatlan company. Dept. St. Pap., B. M.,\nMS., lxxxviii. 26.\n1835. Col Gutierrez still in charge, but no records of progress in secularization. The insurgents Apalategui and Torres imprisoned here in March.\nThis vol., 284. A painting of S. Gabriel is mentioned as having been made\nby Ferdinand Deppe this year from a drawing made on the spot. Later in\npossession of Daniel Hill at Sta Barbara, and photographed for Vischer's\nwork. Taylor's Discov. and Found., ii. no. 42, p. 216; Hayes' Scraps, Angeles,\niv. 84.\n1836. No record of mission affairs except that Juan Jose Rocha was in\ncharge as majordomo, being appointed in Feb. June 1st, oath taken to the\nnew 'bases' or centralism. This vol., p. 423. Sept., soldiers refuse to serve\nwithout pay. Id., 446. The governor's alleged immoral conduct. Id., 448.\n1837. Jose* Perez succeeded Rocha as majordomo early in this year. Nothing\nknown of events at the mission except occasional mention of the presence of\nportions of the northern or southern forces during the sectional wars. This vol.,\npp. 495, 501,503,510, 528. Of 1838 still less is known, not even the administrator's name appearing. Coronel, Cosas de Cal., MS., 219, represents the mission as still rich and in good order in 1838, but his view would seem to be\nexaggerated.\n1839. Juan Bandini was administrator, having probably been appointed\nthe year before. In March he claims that he found the mission property in\na vGry bad condition, but has restored it to prosperity. But he offers his,\nresignation, and asks that the $500 due him for salary be paid in mares and\nother mission effects, as there is plenty of everything but cattle. He in-\nformjj the govt in a private letter that he has already taken 40 young bulb,\nbut will return them if the gov. thinks it best. The resignation seems to\nhave been accepted, but reconsidered, as B. continued to serve through the\n SAN FERNANDO REY. 645\nJose Rocha in 1836; the latter was succeeded in 1837\nby Jose* C. Perez; and he by Juan Bandini probably\nin 1838. Nothing is known in detail of the administration of these men, but in the middle of 1839 the\nmission had still 1,700 horses, 1,100 cattle, and 1,000\nsheep. Local events in these years are swallowed up\nin the maelstrom of political doings at Los Angeles.\nIn 1839-40 we have the visits of Visitador Hartnell,\nand the transfer of the estate from Bandini to Father\nEstenega. Live-stock now included 72 cattle and 700\nsheep, yet Don Juan claimed to have done much for\nthe welfare of the ex-mission.\nAt San Fernando Father Ibarra continued his\nministry alone until the middle of 1835, when he retired temporarily to Mexico. His successor was\nPedro Cabot from San Antonio, who served until his\ndeath in October, 1836.11    From this time till August,\nyear. March20-2. St. Pap., Mis., MS., x. 1-2; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 185,\nIn June Hartnell made his first visit, reporting Bandini's accounts all right, the\nproperty in good condition, and the Indians content. He authorized B. to\nkill 100 cattle and to buy $2,000 worth of clothing to be paid for in brandy\nand other produce of the next year. In July B. appointed Rafael Guirado\nas clerk at $15 per month. Hartnell, Diario, MS., i. 53-4, 72-4; Arch. Miss.,\nMS., ii. 887-9.\n1840. In a letter of Feb. P. Duran quotes P. Estenega to the effect that\nthe mission has to support 38 gente de razon, that there is not a candle, no\ntallow to make a candle, and no cattle fat enough to supply the tallow.\n' What a scandal 1 and what a comment on secularization!' says Duran. Arch.\nMisiones, MS., ii. 1017. March, Bandini speaks of the orange orchard as the\nonly one in Cal., and he has given it special care, having restored it with over\n100 trees. St. Pap. Mis., MS., vi. 42. At the end of April Bandini turned\nover the property by inventory to P. Estenega, Id., 41, but did not leave the\nmission or entirely give up the management. In May three droves of mares\nwere stolen by Indians. From July 25th to Aug. 1st. Visitador Hartnell was\nhere on his second tour. Bandini was absent at first, but came on the 28th.\nThe Ind. complained bitterly that B. had carried off mission property, chiefly\nhorses and carts (probably as per letter to gov. in 1839, as above); also that\nhe had opened a dram-shop, sold mission brandy to the Ind., and then punished them for getting drunk ! Hartnell declined to comply with the prefect's request that the administrator be ordered to supply his house with\ngrain, soap, lard, etc. On Aug. 1st Juan Crispin* Perez was appointed as\nmajordomo to manage affairs under the supervision of P. Estenega. Hartnell,\nDiario, MS., 21, 37, 64, 91-2, 99-100. H. was also at S. Gabriel on Aug.\n18th-19th. Also in July and Aug. there were reports that the savages were\non the point of renewing their hostilities at San Bernardino.\n11 Pedro Cabot, a brother of Padre Juan Cabot, was born at Bufiola, Mal-\nlorca, on Sept. 9, 1777. He became a Franciscan at Palma, Dec. 22, 1796;\ncame to Mexico, June-Sept.  1803; and to Cal. Feb.-Aug. 1804.    His mis-\n 646 LOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\n1838, I find no mention of any minister, but Ibarra\nmay possibly have served. Then came Bias Ordaz,\nwho remained during the rest of the decade. Down\nto 1834 the decrease in neophyte population was less\nthan 100; in live-stock there was no falling-off whatever if the registers may be trusted; and the crops\nwere still good. Thus this mission was exceptionally\nprosperous at this period; and at the end of the decide there were still about 400 Indians in tho ex-\nmission community, statistics being more voluminous\nthan at the missions further south.12 Lieutenant\nAntonio del Valle was commissioned to secularize the\nestablishment in   1834, and the  next year became\nsionary service was at S. Antonio in 1804-28, and again in 1829-34; at Soledad in 1828-9; and at San Fernando in 1835-6. He was rated by his superiors as of distinguished merit and scholarship, well qualified for any position\nin Cal., even the prelacy. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Serria, Inform* sobre Frailes, 1817, MS., 59-60; Payeras in Arch. Sta B., MS., iii. 133.\nFray Pedro was known as a dignified, scholarly, courteous man, nicknamed\nEl Caballero in contradistinction to his rougher brother Juan, nicknamed El\nMarinero, than whom, however, he was hardly less popular. Both were\nnoted for their hospitality at S. Antonio and S. Miguel, their adjoining missions, and were beloved by all classes, notwithstanding Pedro's polished\nmanners, retiring disposition, and tendency to asceticism. He gave much\nattention to the language of his neophytes, and he was an uncompromising\nroyalist, declining to take the oath to republicanism in 1825-9. In July\n1836 he was determined to quit the country and to persevere in his demands\nfor a passport; and declined most positively Duran's request to serve as president in case of his (D.'s) departure. In Aug. he was called to shrive the\nvictims of the vigilantes at Angeles, but declined to come. His remains\nwere interred in the mission cemetery on Oct. 12th, by Padre Ibarra. Copy\npf the burial register by Taylor in S. F. Bulletin, Apr. 25, 1864. Money due\nhim is said to have been paid to a nephew who came from Spain.\n12 Statistics of S. Fernando 1831-4. Decrease in pop. 827 to 792. Baptisms 89; largest no. 36 in 1834; smallest 16 in 1832. Deaths 124; largest\nno. 45 in 1832; smallest 19 in 1834. Cattle remained at 6,000 while horses\nand mules decreased from 560 to 520 by the loss of 40 mules; sheep remaining at 3,000. Largest crop 2,370 bush, in 1834; smallest 830 in 1831; average\n1,530'bush., of which 940 wheat, yield 12 fold; 470 corn, yield 80 fold; beans\n45, yield 9 fold.\nStat, for 1797-1834. Total of baptisms 2,839, of which 1,415 adult Ind.,\n1,367 Ind. children, 57 child, de razon; average per year 74. Total of marriages 849, of which 15 gente de razon. Deaths 2,028, of which 1,036 Ind.\nadults, 965 Ind. children, 12 and 15 de razon. Annual average 54; death\nrate 6.61 per cent, of pop. Largest pop. 1,080 in 1819 (or 1,100 in 1805,\nwhich may be an error). Sexes nearly equal; children from \u00a3 to $. Largest\nno. of cattle 12,800 in 1819; horses 1,320 in 1822; mules 340 in 1812; asses 1\nto 3 every year till 1819; sheep 7,800 in 1819; goats 600 in 1816; swine 250\nin 1814; all kinds 21,745 animals in 1819. Total product of wheat 119,000\nbush., yield 19 fold; barley, only raised in 6 years, 3,070 bush., 14 fold;\nmaize 27,750 bush., 83 fold; beans 3,624 bush., 14 fold.\nMiscell. stat. of 1834-40. 1834, P. Ibarra delivered to comisionado $20,000\n SAN FERNANDO. 647\nmajordomo, retaining the position, apparently to the\nsatisfaction of all concerned, until 1837, when he was\nsucceeded by Anastasio Carrillo. From the middle\nof 1838, Captain Jose M. Villavicencio served as administrator, though often called away by supposed\nmilitary duties, and leaving the management of the\nestate  to Carrillo, Castillo,  and Perez.13    Hartnell\nin hides, tallow, etc., and $5,000 in coin. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 150. Dec,\nmission furnishes $1,000 for Hijar's colony. St. Pap., Mis., MS., vii. 77-8.\n1835, July, inventory apparently incomplete, total value $41,714. The\nchurch is 40 x 6 varas, tile-roofed, board ceiling, brick floor, adobe walls, 3\ndoors, 7 windows with wooden bars; sacristy, 8 varas sq. with one door and\nwindow, worth $1,650; credits $5,736; buildings, $15,511; 32,000 vines worth\n$1G,000; 1,600 fruit-trees, $2,400; library of 191 vol., $417. Id., vi. 22-3.\n1836, amounts paid. $2,226 to Ignacio del Valle, P. Cabot $1,003, P. Duran\n$1,048, P. Ibarra $500. Id., vii. 68-71. Supplies for troops, $2,159. Id., vi.\n74-8. 1837, March, inventorv of $153,639. Id., vii. 67. 1838, June, inventory of $156,915; credits $14,293, buildings, $56,785, house utensils, $601,\ngoods in storehouse, $5,214, liquors, etc., $7,175, live-stock, $53,854; S.\nFrancisco rancho, $1,925, grain, $618, tannery, $544, carpenter shop, $127,\nblacksmith, $789, soap works, $512, mills, $200, tools, $368, tallow works,\n$2,540, church, $1,500, ornaments, etc., $4,348, library, 50 works, ;\ndebts, $1,689. Id., viii. 13-14. 1839, June 23, Hartnell's statement of property on hand 'for distr-ib. among Ind. or trade'? 8,547 head of live-stock\n(by another report of this date the live-stock on the different mission ranchos\nwas 3,590 cattle, 2,044 horses, 2,887 sheep, 25 asses, 57 mules, and 47 hogs),\n280 hides, 50 arrobas wool, 314 arr. iron and steel, 13 bbls. liquor. Id., vii.\n8. Accounts; Sept. income $1,439, expend. $822; Nov., $2,687 and $1,789;\nDec. $11,282 and $4,899. Paid to P. Ordaz this year $661. Hide and tallow\nacct income $48, expend. $290. Stock deli v. to Bandini Nov. 1st, $393.\nDue the mission Nov. 1st, $271; Dec. 11th, $805; supplies to govt from June\n1838 to Dec. 11, 1839, $6,775; supplies to Sta B. company, $516; to others,\n$247. Mission debts Nov. 30th, $4,344. Id., vii. 8-15. 1840, inventory of\nproperty June 19th, 4,130 cattle, 2,637 horses, 2,500 sheep, 60 mules, 33\nasses, 30 hogs; Dec. 31st, 2,270 cattle, 60 hogs, all the rest about the same\nas in June. Grain in June, 236 fanegas; in Dec, 1,157 fanegas, worth $2,295.\nHides and leather in June, 124; in Dec., 59, wrorth $88. Wool, June, 140 arr.;\nDec, 15 arr., worth $22. Sr<ap, June, $150; Dec, $190. Brandy and wine in\nDec 58 bbls., $2,360. T- ,w and lard, Dec, 81 arr., $119. Oil, 9 bbls.,\n$504. Iron, 180 arr., ? j. Total value in Dec, not including live-stock,\nland, or buildings, $6,\" j. Receipts for 9 months of the year (June-Aug.\nlacking), $9,874; exr- A., $11,069. Id., 8-15, 13-14; ix. 19-21.\n13 Chronologic suj..mary of S. Fernando events. 1831. Gov. Victoria here\non his march south against the rebels; also the bearing of Echeandia's secularization plan, never put in operation, on this mission. This vol. p. 205,\n306. 1832-3. Nothing in the records. 1834. Antonio del Valle as comisionado takes charge of the mission estates by inventory from P. Ibarra in Oct.\nThis vol. p. 346. S. Fernando to be a parish of 2d class with salary of $1,000\nunder the reglamento of Nov. Id., 348. Slight controversy about the use of\nthe salt fields. Id., 374. 1835. Valle was on May 25th appointed to be\nmajordomo, or administrator, at $800 salary from June 1st. In July, Ind-\ncomplain that last year two boxes of money had been shipped away; there\nwas now a box of silver, and they demanded that strict accounts should be\nrequired from P. Ibarra before his departure. Id., 353; St. Pap., Mis., MS.,\nxi. 3.    Recommendation that a guard be placed at S. Francisco rancho to\n 648 LOCAL ANNALS OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.\nfound all except the accounts in comparatively excellent condition on the occasion of his official visit in\n1839; but matters were less satisfactory in the next\nyear.\nprevent cattle-stealing. Id., 2. In July the admin, reports that horses are\nbeing constantly stolen, and that Ind. who have taken refuge at the mission\nare the thieves. Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., i, 172.\n1836. The death of Padre Cabot and the probable return of P. Ibarra are\nmentioned elsewhere in this chap. Valle remained in charge of the establishment. In Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., ii. 23-9, is a records of the exploits\nof Rafael, or El Cuyuya, a locally famous robber, who was often arrested and\nas often escaped from the jail here and at Los Angeles and Sta Barbara. All\nthe power of the district seemed insufficient to keep him confined or to keep\nhim separated from two of his favorite women, whom he always rescued from\ntheir imprisonment. 1837. In March Valle, who is highly praised by Duran\nand others, was succeeded by Anastasio Carrillo as majordomo. St. Pap.,\nMis., MS., vii. 67-8. In Jan. strange Ind., said to be aided by gente de\nrazon, made a raid on the mission horses, some of which were recovered after\ntwo fights, in which several Ind. were killed and wounded. Dept. St. Pap.,\nAug., MS., ii. 97-8. Mission funds, $2,000, taken for 'safe keeping' by the\nAngeles authorities in their efforts to resist Alvarado in Jan. This vol. p.\n494. Southern garrison under Rocha stationed here, but the mission is captured by the northerners. Id., 495-501. In June Castro retires and Portilla\nfor the south takes possession. Id., 521. 1838. The administration is given\nup in June by Carrillo to Capt. Jose* M. Villavicencio. St. Pap., Miss., MS.,\nviii. 13. Mission mares pledged to N. Mex. allies of the south for their aid.\nThis vol., p. 555. Castro's force here in April. Id., 556. Alvarado and\nCarlos Carrillo at S. Fernando after the campaign of Las Flores. Id., 562-4.\nA permanent force to be stationed by Alvarado. Id., 569.\n1839. Villavicencio still administrator and military commandant; but\nFrancisco del Castillo seems to have been in charge temporarily during a part\nof this year or the preceding. On the division into prefectures, etc., S. Fernando was attached to the Sta Barbara partido, the boundary being between\nthe mission and Cahuenga. Id., 585. From June 16th to the 24th, Visitador\nHartnell was at this mission, where he found 416 Ind., well contented except\nwith the granting to Valle of the mission rancho of S. Francisco, which they\nclaimed to need. The crops were good and there were no grasshoppers or\nrust. Valle had not yet moved his family to the rancho. The clerk, Mada-\nriaga, was discharged as unfit for the place. Villavicencio's and Castillo's\naccounts were found in a confused and unintelligible condition. Hartnell,\nDiario, MS., 1, 2, 13, 74-7; St. Pap., Miss., MS., xi. 29-30. 1840. Villavicencio seems still to have held the office, but to have been absent much of\nthe time, leaving affairs in charge of Juan Perez, and later Anastasio Carrillo.\nHartnell made his visit Aug. 20th, 22d, but nothing is recorded of his acts\nand the results, except that it was the governor's interference with his orders\nremoving Perez in favor of Carrillo that caused the visitador to resign his\nposition on Sept. 7th at Sta Barbara. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 15-16, 21, 65.\nNothing known of mission affairs this year except the statistics given in the\npreceding note.\n CHAPTER XXIII.\nLOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nGain in Population\u2014Presidial Organization\u2014Military Items\u2014Summary op Events\u2014Santa Barbara in the Political Controversies\u2014\nChico and Duran\u2014Municipal Affairs\u2014Official List\u2014Sub-prefecture\u2014Grants of Private Ranchos\u2014Santa Barbara Mission\u2014\nStatistical View\u2014Annals of Secularization\u2014San Buenaventura\n\u2014Fathers Suner, Urla, and Fortuni\u2014Population, Agriculture,\nand Live-stock\u2014Majordomos and Administrators\u2014Santa Ines\u2014\nFather Arroyo de la Cuesta\u2014Statistics of Decadence\u2014A Gain in\nCattle\u2014Moderate Prosperity\u2014Local Happenings\u2014La Purisima\nConcepcion\u2014Secularization\u2014Inventories.\nThe population of Santa Barbara district, not including San Fernando, which was legally within its\njurisdiction, increased from 630 in 1830 to about 900\nin 1840, so far as the meagre and contradictory records\nafford a basis for estimate.1 During the same period\nthe ex-neophyte -Indian population decreased from\n4,400 to 1,550, the latter number including 750 in\ntown and on the ranchos, in addition to 800 still living in the ex-mission communities. Adding the totals\nof population for the three districts of San Diego,\nLos Angeles, and   Santa Barbara, we  find that in\n1 July 1834, a pop. of over 1,000 is claimed for Sta Barbara; and the April\npadron is said to have shown 940, probably including Ind. except neophytes,\nand perhaps exaggerated to secure an ayuntamiento. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 58,\n241, 243. The padron referred to is in St. Pap., Mis., MS., v. 45. Dec. 31,\n1834, a padron which makes the pop. 792, including 414 adults, 378 children,\n52 Ind., and 64 foreigners. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. P. y J., MS., vi. 1. An\nundated padron, possibly incomplete, shows a pop. of 614 souls in \u25a0 the port\nand inmediaciones.' Guerra, Doc, MS., i. 135. In June 1841 there were 262\nmen between the ages of 18 and 60 years. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. P. y J., MS.,\niv. 13. In July 1834 there were 9 Amer. married to natives, but not naturalized. Id., Ben. MU., lxxix. 112-13.\n(649)\n 650 LOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\nSouthern California the gente de razon had increased\nduring the decade from 2,310 to 2,850; while the\nchristianized Indians had decreased from 9,600 to\n5,100, of wliich latter number only 2,250 were still\nliving at the missions.\nHere the military or presidial organization of early\ntimes was still kept up, and fragmentary records\nappear from time to time to remind us of the old\nSpanish forms, though never sufficiently complete to\nafford satisfactory information on any phase of the\nsubject.    I append the items such as they are.2    Jose\n2 Sta Barbara military items. 1831. Lieut Romualdo Pacheco, comman'\ndant; Alferez Rod. del Pliego; but the former was killed and the latter left\nCal. this year. Pay-roll for the'year $9,029; 44 men, 22 invalidos, 8 artillery.\n$350 for relief of the troops from the Ayacucho, and loan from James Burke\nin Oct. and Dec. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 50; Pinto, Doc, MS. i. 1832. Capt.\nJose* de la Guerra y Noriega, and also Lieut Juan M. Ibarra named as commandant.    Dom. and Auast. Carrillo alfe*reces; 19 soldiers named; 3 officers,\n35 men, 19 invalidos. Pay-roll for 5 months $4,999. 1833. Ibarra, comandante; capt., Guerra y Noriega; alferez, Domingo Carrillo; sub-comisario subalterno, Anastasio Carrillo. Pay-roll for the year $11,615; 3 officers, 32 men,\n6 artill., 5 Mazatecos. In his account of Dec. 31st A. Carrillo charges himself $6,710; credits $6,725. Net yield of post-office $51; stamped paper $27.\nMission supplies for the year $2,270. The comisario at Mont, ordered in\nJan. to send $2,000 for Sta B. Complaints of destitution. Sales of livestock from rancho nacional $675. Some orders were issued by Gov. Figueroa\nat Guerra's request on the restocking of the rancho; tithe cattle to be used for\nthis purpose. Guerra, Doc, MS., v. 177; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 53; Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iii. 91-2; Id., B. M., Ixxvi. 12.\n1834. Ibarra comandante; Anast. Carrillo habilitado. 2 officers, 33 men,\n18 invalidos, 5 artillery^ 5 Mazatecos.    Pay-roll for the year, $10,671.    May,\n36 coats, hats, etc., and 72 shirts\u2014probably showing the company to number\n36 men\u2014ordered to be distributed. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. C. & T., MS., iii.\n32-3. April, com. calls on gov. for materials to repair soldiers' quarters, in\na ruinous condition. Id., B. M., lxxix. 54. Efforts to obtain a loan of cattle\nfrom the missions for the rancho nacional. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 2. Morineau, Notice, 148, speaks of a field cultivated for the soldiers' support. 1835.\nIbarra and Carrillo as before, the latter sometimes as acting comandante. 2\noff., 31-4 men, 16inval., sergeants Tomas Romero, Juan P. Ayala, and Isidoro\nGuillen. Pay-roll for 11 months $9,474. Deducted from pay for montepio\nand invalidos $348. Oct., aid asked for a capt. of artillery with a corporal\nand 4 men who go to Sta B. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. C. & T, MS., iii. 92. Actual payments for year ending July 1st, $1,912, leaving due the comp. $7,373.\nId., Ben. M., lxxxi. 2. Supplies from pueblo de los Berros, $1,038. Id., Ben.\nP. y J., vi. 17. 1836. Ibarra com. of post; Lieut Domingo Carrillo com. of\nthe comp.; A. Carrillo habilitado. 3 off., 29-32 men, 16 inval., 6 artil}., 9\nMazatecos, 2d alfe*rez Pablo Pacheco. Pay-roll for 6 months $5,163; invalidos for the year, $1,560; deduction per month for montepio and invdlidos,\n$29.\n1837. Jose\" de la Guerra y Noriega, comandante. In Guerra, Doc, MS.,\ni. 131-4, is a list of 116 men, among whom the 625 head of live-stock at S.\nJulian rancho should be distributed; but the list contains many names of men\nno longer in the company or at Sta B.    The rancho had been granted by Alva-\n MILITARY ITEMS. 651\nde la Guerra y Noriega was nominally captain of the\npresidial company, sometimes acting as comandante,\nand continuously after 1837. Lieut Juan M. Ibarra\nof the Mazatlan company acted as comandante in\n1833-6. Domingo and Anastasio Carrillo were the\ncompany alfereces down to 1836, when the former became lieutenant, and Pablo Pacheco second alferez.\nLater Boberto Pardo and Jose Lugo held these\nplaces, and Ignacio del Valle appears as habilitado.\nDown to 1836 the cavalry company numbered from\n40 to 30 rank and file, with 20 to 15 invalidos, the\npay-rolls varying from $1,000 to $600 per month, and\nthere being generally half a dozen artillerymen and as\nmany Mazatecos in the force. In later years the\nnominal force was about half as large, but in both\nperiods more than half the men were not actually\nserving as soldiers; and rarely was there any need\nof their services. The district was quietly prosperous,\nbut the appended resume* of events is hardly more\nthan an index of what has been recorded in other\nrado to Guerra y Noriega. Ingress for the year, $3,529; paid out to troops\n$3,238; effects in store May, $308. June 10th, Jose* Ign. Lugo represents\nthat he was retired from mil. service 30 years ago at $8 per month; but has\nnever received a cent. Owes $350 and wants it paid on acct. Gov. replies\nthat he must present his acct to the comisaria j when established'! Dept. St.\nPap., Ben. Mil, lxxx. 81-2.\n1838. Antonio de la Guerra named as comandante; also J. M. Villavicencio. List of officers and men in the company of civic militia. Capt. Valentin\nCota, lieut Juan P. Ayala, and Roberto Pardo, Alf. Jose* Ant. Olivera, rank\nand file 38 men. Cota, Doc, MS., 13. 1839. Com. Jos6 de la Guerra yNoriega; also Alf. Roberto Pardo. Habilitado, Alf. Ignacio del Valle, also acting\ncom. Sergt Jose* Lugo was promoted to be 2d alferez. Anast. Carrillo\nnamed as comisario subalterno. In Soberanes, Doc, MS., 146, is mentioned\na cavalry comp. of capt., alferez, and 15 men, whose pay amounts to $462 per\nmonth. Other reports show 17-19 men and 11-12 invalidos. Pay-roll for\nthe year, $7,630. Jan., Lieut. Octaviano Gutierrez reports the artillery to\nbe 7 guns, 2 of them 6 pounders, the rest 4; 4 of them brass and 3 iron; 4 of\nthe 7 dismounted or useless. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxv. 11. There was much\ndiscontent respecting the distribution of mil. funds by the Mont, authorities.\nIn Aug. Guerra says the artill. comp. has received nothing since he was in\ncommand. Id., viii. 22, 17, 170, 205. Five recruits called for from Sta B.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., xviii. 56-7. 1840. Guerra y Noriega com., Ignacio del\nValle habilitado. 19 men (one report says 32-3, perhaps including invalidos).\n2d alf. Jos6 Lugo. In Aug. G. complains that the comp. is reduced to 8 or\n10 available men, and there are no supplies for more. Sub-lieut Pardo has\nbeen long away, and G. is incapacitated by age and infirmities. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., ix. 224. Complains of unjust-discrimination, since the sub-prefect gets\nhis salary regularly. Id., 112.    Pay-roll for the year $8,457.\n 652 LOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\nchapters.8 Santa Barbara was always conservative in\npolitics, taking no part in the movement of 1831\nagainst Victoria, but supporting in the  interest of\n8Chronologic summary of Santa Barbara events. 1831. Jan., Gov. Victoria here on his way north. This vol., p. 182. March, imprisonment of J.\nA. Carrillo from Los Angeles. Id., 196. Victoria's last visit in Nov., joined\nby Capt. Pacheco. Id., 205. A forest fire on the hills endangering the town,\ndriving the people to the beach, covering the decks of vessels with cinders,\nbut turned aside by the green vineyards of the mission, is described by Robinson, Life in Cal, 98.\n1832. Jan. 1st, adherence to the S. Diego revolutionary plan. This vol.,\np. 212. Feb.-May, action of Sta B. in support of Zamorano against Echeandia. Ibarra's forces in possession. Id., 223-8. Arrival and arrest of Capt.\nSumner of the Waverly. Id., 364.\n1833. Marriage of Thos. O. Larkin on a vessel in the port. Id., 365, 408.\nBandini's efforts in congress to make Sta B. a puerto menor. The port is described as a hot-bed of smuggling. Id., 369. April, pacification of Mex.\ncelebrated with great festivities. Dept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxix. 31.\nMay, an Ind., attempting to climb the flagstaff to arrange the halyards, fell\nand was killed. Id., 28.\n1834. Nothing in the records. 1835. Career of the convict Badillo, released this year. This vol., p. 16. Foreigners said to have known of the\nApalategui revolt at Angeles in advance. Id., 285. April, sailing of Hijar,\nPadre*s, and the other prisoners. Id., 288. Oct., remains of Gov. Figueroa\ndeposited in the mission church. Id., 295. Removal of the Ind. from S. Nicolas Isl. by Sparks, Williams, and others. Nidever's Life and Adven., MS.,\n68-72; and 'many newspaper sketches in connection with accounts of the\nrescue of an Ind. woman 15 years later. R. H. Dana arrived here in Jan., and\noften visited the place during this year and the next, his adventures being\ndescribed in nis Two Years before the Mast, 63, and passim. He describes\nSta B. as * composed of one-story houses built of sun-baked clay, or adobe,\nsome of them whitewashed, with red tiles on the roofs. I should judge that\nthere were about a hundred of them; and in the midst of them stands the\npresidio, or fort, built of the same materials and apparently but little stronger.'\nSee also Robinson's Life in Cal, 40 et seq., for descriptions and views which\nmay apply to Sta B. in this\u2014or any other early decade.\n1836. April, arrival of Gov. Chico from Mex. This vol., p, 421. June,\noath to federalism. Gov. Chico's visit and troubles with P. Duran. Id., 423,\n432-6. Nov.-Dec, news of Alvarado's revolution. Sta B. declines to join\nLos Angeles against the north. Id., 481-4,491.\n1837. Jan., Gov. Alvarado and his army received and supported by the\nBarbareflos. Id., 491-3. Garrison from Sta B. at S. Fernando. Id., 501.\nFeb., Alvarado's return from the south. Id., 503. April, session of the diputacion, approving Alvarado's movement. Id., 506-7. Pico and Osio present\nthemselves with a new plan. Id., 508. Castro and his force come here from\nS. Gabriel. Id., 510. June-July, return of the gov. from the north in consequence of new opposition at Angeles; he accepts centralism, which is approved by Sta B.; meeting of the diputacion. Id., 522-3, 526-32. Deo., the\nBarbareuos refuse to support Carlos Carrillo; Castro in command; threatened\nattack from the south. Id., 540-1, 549-50.\n1838. Jan., new and vain attempts of Carrillo to obtain support. Id.,\n545-6. March, approach of Castaneda and southern army; Castro and Alvarado come from the north; campaign of S. Buenaventura; southern prisoners\nat Sta. B. Id., 551-5. May, a force is sent to Angeles, and Carrillo with\nothers is brought back as a prisoner. Id., 564-6. Carrillo escapes in Aug. Id.,\n569. Nov., arrival of Castillero with news of Alvarado's confirmation in Mex.\nId., 574.    Dec, S. Diego prisoners brought by Castro. Id., 578.    Murder of\n RECORD OF EVENTS. 653\ntranquillity Zamorano's cause in 1832. Political and\nother annals of 1833-5 contain nothing notable; but\nin 1836 the policy of Governor Chico and his controversy with Padre Duran created an excitement among\nthe Barbarenos that had much effect on later events.\nDuring the sectional troubles of 1837-8 this town\nexercised a great and probably controlling influence.\nThrough the efforts of Guerra y Noriega and Duran\nits support was given from the first to Alvarado; and\nthough naturally loyal to Mexico and averse to revolution, the citizens refused to aid Los Angeles and\nSan Diego in their factious opposition to the plan of\nMonterey. Nor did they waver in their support of\nAlvarado, even when Carlos Carrillo, one of the\nmost popular of their number, urged his claim as\ngovernor. When these troubles were at an end the\ncourse of local happenings again became monotonous\nin 1839-40. Captain Guerra y Noriega, like Vallejo\nin the north, had hoped for a restoration of the old\npresidial organizations, but the hope was a vain one,\nand the aged captain's efforts barely kept in existence\nthe skeleton of his garrison.\nThe municipal records of Santa Barbara have been\nfor the most part lost, so that respecting the pueblo\ngovernment, administration of justice, criminal cases,\nand even list of officers, only a slight record can be\nformed   from   miscellaneous   scattered   documents.4\nCapt. Bancroft by Ind. at Sta Rosa Isl. Vol. iv., p. 90-1. Views of Sta B., in\nForbes' Cal.\n1839. Jan., Alvarado, Vallejo, and the southern prisoners; the general's\nattempts to enforce military discipline. Id., 580-3. May, Lieut Prado and\n10 men sent to maintain order at Angeles. Id., 589. Election; Covarrubias\nelector for Sta B. Id., 590. Complaints respecting the distribution of revenues. Id., 591-2. June, sub-prefect can find no pus vacuno to vaccinate Ind.\nDept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., v. 23. Visit of a British explorer. Belcher's Voy.,\ni. 320-2.\n1840. Revelation of the Carrillo conspiracy. This vol., p. 606. Arrest\nand imprisonment of foreigners in connection with the Graham affair. Vol.\niv., p. 14-17, 28.\n* Sta Barbara municipal government and official list. 1831-2. Alcaldes Rafael Gonzalez, Miguel Valencia; regidor or sindico Jose* Maria Garcia. Guerra,\nDoc, MS., ii. 197; Leg. Rec, MS., i. 348; Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS. Gov.\nVictoria was accused of having suppressed the ayuntamiento. This vol. p.\n202.    In 1832 the diputacion left Sta B. under the jurisdiction of the com.\n 654 L'OCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT,\nThe successive alcaldes, or justices of the peace from\n1839, were Rafael Gonzalez, Jose' Antonio de la\nGuerra, Jose Maria Garcia, Jose Maria Valenzuela,\ngen. as a place where the civil govt was not fully organized\u2014that is, was disposed to favor Zamorano. Id., 218. 1833. Alcalde, or judge of 1st instance,\nJose* Antonio de la Guerra. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 90; Id., Ben., P. y J.,\niii. 77. Valentin Cota juez auxiliar. Carrillo, Doc, MS., 112. ' In April,\nGov. Figueroa states that Sta B. has no ayunt. or constitutional alcalde. The\nso-called alcalde, or his place, was created by the dip. without formalities of\nlaw, and he is merely a juez conciliador. He asks the opinion of Asesor\nGomez, who replies that to decide the appointment illegal under the Span.\nlaws and to put the citizens under military rule would open political wounds\nnot yet healed. Dept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxvi. 6-9. Jose* M. Maldonado\nwas receptor in charge of the revenues from this year. This vol. p. 377.\n1834. Alcalde Jose* M. Garcia (several references for different months).\nIn Aug. the dip. voted to create an ayunt. with alcalde, 4 regidores, and sindico, after discussion and the receipt of petitions. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 188-9;\nthis vol. p. 249-50. In July the extent of the alcaldia was given as from S.\nFernando to Purisima, 55 1. from east to west, and 25 1. north to south. Dept.\nSt. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxix. 87. 1835. Alcalde Jose Maria Valenzuela.\nOct. 12th, election of Rafael Gonzalez declared null by Jose* Castro. Dept.\nSt. Pap., Ben., MS., ii. 31. Carmen Dominguez juez de campo. No trace of\nthe ayunt. as provided by the dip. Wm G. Dana was perhaps captain of the\nport in these years. Benito Diaz succeeded Maldonado as receptor by appointment of July 3d, salary $400. Id., Ben., Cust.-H., vii. 10, 14; viii. 14. 1836.\nAlcalde Wm. G. Dana. James Burke in July wished to be excused from serving as regidor. Leg. Rec., MS., iii. 27. Diaz suspended in Dec. as receptor.\nDept. St. Pap, Ben., Cust.-H, MS., iv. 1. 1837. Alcalde Diego Olivera;\nregidor Santiago Lugo. Jose* Ant. de la Guerra was capt. of theport; and\nDiaz, notwithstanding his suspension, still served as receptor. 1838* Alcalde\nDiego Olivera; sindico Ramon Vald^s. Munic.-receipts, taverns at 4 reals per\nmonth, stores, $1, billiards, otter-skins, $159, liquors, $64, fines, $4, lots and\nbrands, $4, total, $232; expend., secretary's pay at $15 per month, $123,\nsacristan, $87, church and office expenses, $22, total, $232. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen., P.yJ, MS., ii. 26-30.\n1839. Sta B. made cabecera of 2d partido of 2d district. This vol. p. 585.\nSub-prefect, appointed in April, Raimundo Carrillo, salary, $365; Sec. Francisco Castillo, who resigned in Aug. Alcalde Antonio Rodriguez, sindico\nVicente Valencia. These were elected for the year; but under the prefecture\nsystem from April there were appointed as jueces de paz, Jose* Maria Rojo\nand Antonio Rodriguez, the latter becoming 1st juez on JRojo's removal in\nJuly. Pedro Cordero was appointed, probably at the same time, as 2d juez,\nor suplente. Manuel Lorenzana served as alg'uacil at $5 per month. Jos6 Ant.\nde'la Guerra was still capt. of the port at $30 (or $50). Diego Olivera was\nmade tithe-collector in Dec Munic. receipts and expend., $330. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben., MS., ii. 31-2. May 31st, sub-prefect's decree with munic regulations in 23 articles. Id., Ben., P. y J., v. 9-10. June, juez orders comandante to remove the slaughter-pen from the Arroyo de la Vina, as a nuisance.\nHe may put it on the beach toward the castillo, or north of the town. Sta\nB. Arch., MS., 5-7. This order caused a controversy, and after reference to\nthe govt, Capt. Guerra seems to have had his own way. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,\niv. 258-71. July, a 2d sindico appointed. Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., xi. 9.\nJudicial cases must be referred to Lds Angeles. Id., v. 93. Business is\nstopped because the juez can find no competent secretary. Sta B. Arch., MS.,\n11, 13. In July there was a controversy between the civil and military authorities. Jose Andrade was arrested for debt, and brought before the juez de\npaz; but Capt. Guerra claimed. that the man was his servant, and as such\n MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. 655\nWilliam G. Dana, Diego Olivera, Antonio Rodriguez,\nJose' Maria Rojo, and Jose* Antonio Olivera. In the\nearly years of the decade there seems to have been\nmuch doubt respecting the legality of the civil government and the exact extent of military jurisdiction.\nIn 1834, on. petition of the citizens, the diputacion\nvoted to give the town a regular ayuntamiento; but\nthe only evidence that such a body existed in 1835-8\nis the occasional mention of a regidor or sindico. In\n1839 Santa Barbara wTas made a partido of the second\nprefectura, and Raimundo Carrillo served as sub-prefect this year and the next. About twenty ranchos\nwere granted to private ownership during the decade,5 but beyond the dates of concession and names\nentitled to the military fuero, and finally took him by force from the civil\ncustody. After much trouble at home the matter was referred to Monterey\nand Sonoma, where the final decision was rendered in favor of the captain,\nand Justice Rojo lost his place. The justice of t\\e decision may be questioned,\nsince Andrade seems to have been only nominally, and to a very slight extent a servant. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 301, 305-9,409, 416; viii. 32; StaB.\nArch., MS., 7-9; Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 273-4; Doc Hist. Cal., MS., iv.\n1029-31.\n1840. Sub-prefect Raimundo Carrillo. Jueces de paz, Antonio Rodriguez\nand Pedro Cordero, resigning in Feb. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. P. y J., MS., vi.\n60; but Joaquin Carrillo is also named in Jan; Id., Aug., iv. 17, 19. Jose*\nAnt. Olivera and Ramon Valde*s appointed in April or May. Id., xii. 28, 31;\nId., Ben,, P. y J., vi. 69; and served for rest of year. Sindico (?), treasurer,\nor depositario, Juan Camarillo, succeeded by Jacinto Lorenzana; sec, Fran.\nCastillo, and later Manuel Ponce de Leon. Munic receipts for the year\n$662.75, expend. $666.50. Id., Aug., iii. 63, with monthly accts in Id., iv.\npassim. Jan., a woman for abandoning her husband was ordered put in irons\nor a corona, pending investigation, there being no secure place of confinement.\nSta B. Arch., MS., 13.' Feb.-April, Narciso Fabregat and other traders ask\nthat either the order closing shops on feast-days be enforced or repealed, since\nmany opsn their shops on pretence of living there. Dept. St. Pap., MS., v.\n1, 54. J une, sub-prefect ordered to exile a woman living in concubinage. Id.,\nAug., i. 1. Oct., the Sonoran Jesus Valde*s, or El Tuerto, killed by Jose* M.\nLosaga. Los Ang. Arch., MS., i.-221-2.\n6 Private ranchos of Sta Barbara district (included with those of Los Angeles in earlier decades). See Hoffman's Reports. Those marked with a *\nwere rejected by the land com. or U. S. courts. Alamos, granted in 1839 to\nJose* de la Guerra, who was the claimant. Calleguas, 1837, Jose* Pedro Ruiz:\nG. Ruiz et al. cl. Casmalia, 21., 1840, Antonio Olivera, who was cl. Conejo,\nstill in possession of Capt. Guerra y Noriega. Guadalasca, 1836, Isabel Yorba,\nwho was cl. Jesus Maria, 1837, Lucas Olivera et al.; L. T. Burton et al. cl.\nLompoc, 38,000 acres, 1837, Joaquin and Jose* A. Carrillo, who were cl. Nipo-\nmo, 15 L, 1837, Wm G. Dana, who was cl. Ojai, 1837, Fernando Tic6, who\nwas cl. Pozas, 6 1., 1834, J. Carrillo; Jose* de la Guerra y Noriega cl. Punta\nde Concepcion, 1837, A. Carrillo, who was cl. Refugio, 6 1., Ant. M. Ortega\net al., who were cl. Rincon, 11., 1835, Teodoro Arellanes, who was cl. Saca,\n1838, Antonio; Antonia de la Guerra de Lataillade cl. Rio de Sta Clara, 1837,\nValentin Cota, who was cl.    San Julian, 6 1.,  1837, Geo.  Rock, only a\n 656\nLOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\nof owners, we have no details of what the occupants\nwere doing. It is noticeable that none of the titles\nwere rejected in the litigation of later times. Sir\nJames Douglas in 1840 wrote of Santa Barbara as a\nlarger town than Monterey, estimating the annual\nexports of hides and tallow at $25,000.\nSanta Barbara mission remained in charge of Padre\nAntonio Jimeno until late in 1840, with Padre\nNarciso Duran as associate from the end of 1833.\nAntonio Menendez, the Dominican chaplain of the\npresidio, was buried at the mission in April 1832.\nThe neophyte population, 711 in 1830, decreased to\n556 in 1834, the year of secularization. In 1836\nit was 480; and in 1840 not more than 250.6    In\n* dummy'for Capt. Guerra y Noriega, who was cl. San Pedro, 1 1., 1838,\nJoseph Chapman, whose heirs were cl. Santa Ana, 1837, Crisogono Ayala,\net al., who were cl. Santa Clara, or El Norte, 1837, Juan Sanchez, who was\ncl. Santa Cruz Isl., 1839, Andres Castillero, who was cl. Santa Rosa, 3^ 1.,\n1839, Francisco Cota; M. J. Olivera de Cota cl. Sespe, or San Cayetano, 61.,\nCarlos Ant. Carrillo, who was cl. The original grant was for 2 1., which was\nfraudulently changed to 6 1.; but the courts finally cut it down. See S. F.\nBulletin, Oct. 10,1878. Simi, formerly occupied by the Picos. In 1831, Rom-\nualdo Pacheco was granted the use of a portion. Guerra, Doc, MS., vi. 29-\n30. Sisquoc, 1833, Maria Ant. Caballero; James B. Huie cl. Tepusquet, 2\n1., 1837. Tomas Olivera; A. M. Cota et al. cl. Tinaguaic, 2 1., 1837, Victor\nLinares; Wm D. Foxen cl.\n6 Sta Barbara statistics of 1831-4. Decrease in pop. 711 to 556. Baptisms\n80 children; largest no. 29 in 1831; smallest 16 in 1834. Deaths 200. Increase in large stock 3,259 to 3,819; decrease in horses and mules 759 to 419;\nsheep 3,480 to 2,700. Largest crop 3,700 bush, in 1834; smallest 2,700 in 1832;\naverage 2,400, of which 1,476 wheat, yield 7 fold, 435 barley 12 fold, 405 maize\n47 fold, 57 beans 12 fold.\nStatistics of 1834-40. Inventory of March 1834, credits $14,953, buildings $22,936, furniture, tools, goods in storehouse, vineyards, orchards, corrals, and animals $19,590, church $16,000, sacristy $1,500, church ornaments,\netc, $4,576, library $152, ranchos $30,961 (S. Antonio $9,421, Dos Pueblos\n$12,055, S. Marcos $6,111, Sta Cruz $1,650, S. Jose $1,050, Guyzapa $674),\ntotal$113,960, or less debt of $1,000, $112,960. St. Pap., Miss., MS., vi. 49-\n50. Monthly wages to mission employes, priest $125, teacher $83, 1st majordomo $40, 2d id. $17, expense of worship $41, 10 servants at $6, $60, total\n$367. 1835-6. Pop. 506, 481, baptisms 9, 13, marriages 5, 3, deaths 50, 25.\nMarch 1835. Inventory of church, etc., agreeing with that cited above, ex*-\nceptthat 8 bells are valued at $3,290. Id., v. 46-7. Of the effects of 1834\n$2,484 had been distrib. among the Ind. Id. 1838. Live stock of all kinds\n1,212 animals. Detailed inventory of property as turned over by Carrillo to\nCota. Receipts 'Jan.-March $569, expend. $324. Salaries, padres $1,500,\nsurgeon Nicolas $100, admin. Cota $480, majordomo Valenzuela $240, clerk\nPonce de Leon $120, corporal Vicente $144, sacristan Lino $72, blacksmith\n$120C total per'year $3,276. Id., viii. 6-8. 1839. Pop. 246 according to Hartnell's report. Diario, MS.   555 by a report in St. Pap., Miss., viii. 1, which\n MISSION SANTA BARBARA. 657\ncattle there was a slight gain down to 1834, and good\ncrops were harvested to the last; even after the secularization a considerable degree of prosperity in livestock and agriculture is indicated by Hartnell's statistics of 1839. The buildings were also kept in better\ncondition that at most other establishments. Alferez\nAnastasio Carrillo was the comisionado to secularize\nSanta  Barbara,7 and  the  successive  administrators\nmust include scattered Ind. Cattle 1,770, horses 609, sheep 2,250, mules 30,\nasses 4, goats 22, 70 hides and sides of leather, 40 parchments, 42 salted\nskins, 150 cheeses, 59 arr. tallow, 188 arr. iron, grain sown 33 fan. wheat, 6\nfan. barley, 3 fan. maize. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 88. Feb. 27th, account of\nsupplies to govt since ,1837, total amount $4,360, on which is credited $740.\nSt. Pap., Miss., vi. 25. 1840. Due the mission from Scott, Thompson, Cot,\nand Park, $1,479. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxiii. 12; Pico, Pap. Mis., MS., 47-\n51.\nGeneral statistics of 1786-1834, the whole period of mission history. * Total no. of baptisms 5,679, of which 2,490 Ind. adults, 2,168 Ind. children,\n1,021 children de razon; average per year 116. Marriages 1,524, of which\n200 gente de razon; average 31. Deaths 4,046, of which 2,446 adult Ind.,\n1,2S8 Ind. children, 160 and 152 gente de razon; average among neophytes\n77; death rate 8.03 per cent of pop. Largest pop. 1,792 in 1803. Males in\nexcess of females except in 1801-10. Children from \u00a3 to \u00a3 in earlier years,\nlater J to &. Largest no. of cattle 5,200 in 1809; horses 1,337 in 1816; mules\n340 in 1823, asses 1 to 3 each year; sheep 11,066 in 1804; goats 200 in 1792\nand 1820; swine 200 in 1823; all kinds 16,090 in 1809. Total product of wheat\n152,797 bush., yield 14fold; barley 24,733 bush., 17fold; maize 19,084 bush.,\n72 fold; beans 2,458 bush., 11 fold.\n7 Summary of Sta B. mission annals. 1833. P. Duran favors the partial,\nor experimental secularization. This vol., 335. 1834. Anastasio Carrillo comisionado, with Jose* M. Garcia as majordomo, at $40 per month, and Leandro\nGonzalez as maj. de campo at $16.50 from October. Id., 346. In Nov. Carrillo complains that the funds are not sufficient to pay the expense of $367 per\nmonth, and says the padres will perform the teacher's duties for a small fee. St.\nPap., Miss., MS., ix. 32-3. In Nov. P. Uria of S. Buenaventura was buried\nhere. Sta B. Lib. Mis., MS., 37. 1835. Garcia was left in charge from June\n1st by the comisionado, at $50, Raimundo Carrillo being llavero and clerk at\n$30. Id., 24r-5, 27-8, 30-1. Mariano Bonilla had been appointed teacher at\n$1,000, but there were difficulties about his salary, and also about his supposed connection with the colony revolt. Id., 26, 28, 32-3. 1836. Raimundo\nCarrillo su cceeded Garcia as administrator on June 20th. Id., vii. 53. 1837. In\nDec. Carrillo writes that he has broken up a place where Manuel Gonzalez\nsold liquor to the Ind. There are other offenders of the same stamp who\nhinder progress at the mission, and he desires the commandant to interfere.\nCota, Doc, MS., 9-12, 1838. Oct. 13th Carrillo turned over the estate to\nManuel Cota, under whom Manuel Ponce de Leon served as clerk at $12, and\nJose* M. Valenzuela as majordomo. St. Pap., Miss., MS., viii. 6-8; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxxii. 287. In March Carrillo complains that the troops are killing cattle, and is told by the comandante that Castro had authorized the officers to kill all the cattle needed without asking permission of the administrator. St. Pap., Miss., MS., vi. 26. In July the Ind. demanded clothing\nand the yield of the fisheries, else they would not work. Id., ix. 38. 1839.\nCota still in charge though suspended temporarily in July; also Valenzuela;\nbut Ponce de Leon was replaced by Antonio Garraleta in April. P. de L.\nwrites to Hartnell to complain about his pay. Vallejo, Doc, xxxii. 287.\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   42\n 658 LOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\nwere Jose* M. Garcia in 1835-6, Raimundo Carrillo\nin 1836-8, Manuel Cota in 1838-9, and Leandro\nGonzalez from 1840. In 1837-8 the support of Alvarado's army was a heavy tax on the mission resources; yet as wre have seen these resources were by\nno means exhausted. There was trouble in 1839 with\nCota, who was opposed by the padres and Indians\nand was suspended by Visitador Hartnell, after which\nfor a time at least the neophytes became more contented and industrious under Father Duran's supervision.\nFather Suner of San Buenaventura died at his post\nin 1831, and his associate Father Uria died in 1834;\nbut Bias Ordas had come to this mission in May 1833,\nand his ministry continued till 1838; while Buenaventura Fortuni, coming in the middle of 1837, served until\nhis death in 1840. Padre Antonio Jimeno served\ntemporarily during Fortunes illness, and seems to\nhave become the regular minister at the end of 1840.8\nFeb. 6th an ex-neophyte applies to com. gen. for a renewal of his certificate\nof emancipation obtained from Gov. Figueroa, but since lost. Id., vi. 232.\nFeb. 18th, Cota urges the gov. to restore the live-stock taken during the\nlate wars. St. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 38-9. July, visit of Hartnell 1st to 15th.\nHe found the accounts in bad condition and the Ind. much dissatisfied with\nCota's management; and he finally suspended the administrator, who was accused of cruelty to the Ind. and insolence to Duran, and was also disrespectful to H., who resisted Cota's respectful petition to be reinstated, advising the\ngovt against it. Duran was authorized to expend $500 for clothing for the Ind.\nDiario, MS., 3-4, 11-1?, 14, 41-2, 78-82, 88-9. July 8th, original letter from\na neophyte complaining of the alcaldes. St. Pap., Miss., MS., viii. 6. July\n10th, Hartnell to Duran explaining that he has suspended Cota and put affairs\nin charge of the alcaldes under D.'s direction. D. replies that he will aid by\nadvice and to protect the Ind., but will have nothing to do with the temporal administration. 'The old times have gone by never to return.' Arch.\nMiss:, MS., ii. 919. July 18th, govt approve H.'s conduct. Id., 921. Oct.\n25th, Duran to Hartnell on petty details of mission affairs. He seems to\nrepresent the Ind. as doing much better without the administrator. Id., 951.\nNov. 18th, Cota seems to write as admin. He says the mission has long depended on manufactures rather than stock-raising and agriculture. St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS., ix. 39. 1840. Feb. 15th, P. Duran urges the appointment of an\nadministrator. Arch. Miss., MS., ii. 1017; and Leandro Gonzalez is appointed\nat $1,000 from May 15th. St. Pap., Miss., MS., viii. 6; Dept. St. Pap., Ang.,\nMS., xii. 33. Hartnell's second visit was from Aug. 27th to Sept. 7th, but\nthere is nothing in the records respecting his acts or the condition of affairs.\nDiario, MS., 15-16. Dec. 18th, P. Fortuni of S. Buenaventura buried here.\nSta B. Lib. Mis., 38.\n8 Francisco Suner was born in Jan. 1758, at Olot, Cataluna, taking the\n SAN BUENAVENTURA. 659\nThe falling-off in neophyte population down to 1834,\nwhen there were 626 in the community, was much\nless marked than in the past decade; and in livestock there was an actual gain, agricultural operations\nbeing also moderately successful to the end.    After\nFranciscan habit at Barcelona on April 14, 1779. Here he served from 1800\nas predicador conventual and as comisario visitador of the 3d order. Leaving\nCadiz in April, 1804, he reached the Mexican college in July, and in 1808\ncame to Cal. His missionary service was at S. Carlos in 1808-9, San Juan\nCapistrano in 1809-13, San Luis Rey in 1814-16, Sta Barbara in 1816-23, and\nS. Buenaventura in 1823-31. He was rated by his superiors as of medium\nability. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Payeras, Inf. de 1820, MS., 128;\nSarria, Inf. sobre Frailes, 1817, MS., 50-1. He was a preacher of more than\nordinary eloquence, but his usefulness as a missionary was seriously impaired\nby his broken health, on account of which he made frequent efforts from 1814\nto obtain a passport for retirement, and which probably had much to do with\na brusque manner and irritable temperament that made him generally unpopular. From 1824 he was blind. He took the oath of republican allegiance in 1826. His death occurred on Jan. 17, 1831, and he was buried next\nday in the S. Buenaventura church. S. Buen., Lib. Mis., MS., 25,67.\nFrancisco Javier de la Concepcion Una was born May 10, 1770, at 2 P. M.\nat Aizarna, villa de Sta Cruz de Cestona, province of Guipiizcoa, Spain. In\nDoc Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 1-3, I have his original certificate of baptism. He\nbecame a Franciscan Jan. 13,1789, at S. Sebastian; left Cadiz May 8,1795; and\ncame to Cal. in 1797. After serving at S. Fernando in 1797-1805, he retired\nto his college, but came back at the end of 1807, serving at Sta Cruz in 1808,\nSta Ine*s in 1808-24, Soledad in 1824-8, and S. Buenaventura in 1828-34.\nAccredited by his superiors with distinguished merit and ability. Autobiog.\nAutog., MS.; Sarria, Inf., 1817, MS., 51-2; Payeras, Inf., 1820, MS., 129;\nArch. Sta B., MS., x. 444. Padre Uria was stout in physique, jolly in\nmanner, addicted to pleasantries and jokes, indulging sometimes in coarse\nlanguage, kind-hearted and well liked though at times very quick-tempered.\nHe was an excellent manager of temporal affairs, and was noted for his generosity, especially to the Indians. Some of his letters are found in Guerra,\nDoc, MS., ii. 155 et seq., besides business letters in other archives. Valdes,\nMem., MS., 7-9, has something to say of him, and also Osio, Hist. Cal, MS., 62.\nFrom 1817 he was anxious to retire, but could not get his passport, though in\n1826 he refused to take the oath of allegiance. In his last illness he went to\nSta Barbara, where he died at the house of Capt. Guerra in Nov. or Dec\n1834 and was buried in the vault of the mission church by P. Jimeno. Sta B.\nLib. Mis., MS., 37.\nBuenaventura Fortuni, or more correctly Fortuny, as he usually wrote it3\nwas born at Moster, Cataluna, in Feb. 1774, and took the habit at Reus Oct.\n30, 1792. He left Cadiz in May 1803, and came to Cal. in 1806. His ministry was at S. Jose* in 1806-25, S. Antonio in 1825-6, S. Francisco Solano in\n1826-33, S. Luis Rey in 1833-6, and S. Buenaventura in 1837-40. His superi-\nors pronounced him an able, zealous, and faithful missionary. Autobiog. Autog,\nde los Padres, MS.; Sarria, Inf., 1817, MS., 70-1; Payeras, Inf., 1820, MSM\np. 139. Vald6s, Mem., MS., 9, describes the padre as of medium height and\nspare. He was a quiet unobtrusive man, careful in temporal management)\nmoderate in his views and expressions, strict in religious duties, but indulgent to the Indians, and noted for his charitable disposition. In 1826 he refused to take the oath, but was respectful and obedient to the government.\nLike Una he came to Sta Barbara in his last days, and died at the residence\nof Jose Ant. Aguirre on Dec. 16, 1840. St. Pap., Mis., MS., ix. 49. His re\nmains were deposited in the mission vault on the 18th. Sta B., Lib. Mis.\nMS., 38.\n 660 LOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\nsecularization the decline was not rapid, there being\na gain in horses, a loss of only about 50 per cent in\nherds and flocks, and a succession of good crops at\nSanta Paula rancho down to the end of the decade,\nwhen there were still about 250 Indians in the community with perhaps as many more scattered in the\ndistrict.9 The records of secularization are very\nslight, but it was not effected until the spring of 1837\nby Cdrlos Carrillo as comisionado under appointment\nof the preceding year. Carrillo was called away by\nhis contest for the governorship, and in 1838-40 Rafael Gonzalez was in charge as majordomo and ad-\n9S. Buenaventura statistics of 1831-4. Decrease of pop. 726 to 626. Baptisms, 71; largest no., 21 in 1834; smallest, 12 in 1833. Deaths, 158; greatest no., 51 in 1832; smallest, 30 in 1834. Increase in large stock, 4,860 to\n5,140; horses and mules, 360 to 640; decrease in sheep, 3,350 to 2,850. Largest crop, 2,925 bush, in 1834; smallest, 1,525 bush, in 1833; average, 2,352, of\nwhich 1,050 wheat, yield 6 fold; 600 barley, 18 fold; 525 corn, 31 fold; 178\nbeans, 14 fold.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Baptisms, 126; marriages, 50. Feb. 28, 1837,\ncredits $4,475, debts $4,215. St. Pap. Miss., MS., vii. 67. 1838. Income,\n$10,496, expend. $9,543. Total receipts for cattle, liquors, manufactures,\netc, $9,541; support of Ind. $2,316. Credits at end of year $13,925, debts\n$1,163. Income for Dec $3,386, expend. $421. Id., viii. 8-12. 1839. Receipts Jan.-March, $6,584, expend. $570. Id. Property in June, 5,587 animals, 180 hides, 409 arr. tallow, 532 fan. grain, $219 soap. Id., vii. 4-5.\nHartnell's inventory in July, 2,208 cattle, 1,670 sheep, 799 horses, 35 mules,\n15 asses, 65 goats, 320 fan. wheat, 182 fan. corn, 30 fan. pease, 180 hides, 394\narr. tallow, 15 arr. lard, 5 bbls brandy, 13 bbls wine, 168 arr. iron, $219 soap.\nDebts about $3,000. Pop. 263 in community and 22 with license. Diario,\nMS., 77-8, 87-8. Ace to St. Pap., Miss., MS., viii. 1, the pop. was 457,\nprobably including many scattered Ind. in the district. Inventory of Dec\nId., viii. 9. Debts incurred May 1838 to June 1839, $465; credits $1,005.\nId., vii. 5. 1840. Receipts Aug. 1839 to July 31, 1840, $6,830; expend.,\n$G,737. Debts Aug. 25th, $4,918. Id., vi. 5-6; Pico, Pap. Mis., 83. Debts\nAug. 25th, $7,227. Id., 47-51; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxiii. 12. The chief\ncreditors were Con cepcion Arguello $1,000, P. Fortuni $1,983, Aguirre $1,843,\nScott $779, and Thompson, $447. Inventory in Dec, 5,907 animals, other\nproperty about as in June. St. Pap., Miss., MS., vii. 4-5. Receipts Sept. and\nNov., $431, $735; expend., $402, $970. Id., ix. 48-52. ^\nStatistics of 1782-1831, the whole period of the mission's annals. Total of\nbaptisms 3,876, of which 1,896 Ind. adults, 1,909 Ind. children, 4 and 67 de\nrazon; annual average 54. Marriages 1,107, of which 11 gente de razon.\nDeaths, 3,216, of which 2,015 Ind. adults, 1,158 Ind. children, 22 and 21 de\nrazon. Annual average 61; death rate 7.5 per cent of pop. Largest pop.,\n1,330 in 1816. Males slightly in excess of females, and children about 1-6 of\nthe pop. Largest no. of cattle, 23,400 in 1816; horses 4,652 in 1814; mules\n342 in 1813; asses, 2 each year; sheep, 13,144 in 1816; goats, 488 in 1790;\nswine, 200 in 1803, 1805; all kinds, 41,390 in 1816. Total product of wheat\n148,855 bush., yield 18 fold; barley, 54,904 bush., 19 fold; maize, 51,214\nbush., 84 fold; beans, 9,061 bush., 14 fold.\n SANTA ndlS. 661\nministrator.10 The great event of the period was the\nfight of March 1838, between Carrillo's supporters\nunder Captain Castaneda and those of Alvarado under\nGeneral Castro, the only battle of the war in which\nblood was shed.\nPadre Bias Ordaz continued his ministry at Santa\nInes till 1833, when Padre Jose Joaquin Jimeno came\nfrom the north, serving throughout the decade, with\nMarcos Antonio Saizar de Vitoria as associate in\n1835-6, and Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta in 1836-40.\n10 Summary of S. Buenaventura annals. 1831-5. Blank, except an occasional mention of this mission with others in various secularization plans not\ncarried into effect, and the death of padres Suner and Uria as recorded in an\nearlier note of this chapter. 1836. Carlos Carrillo comisionado for secularization, appointed in June, the act being hastened by Gov. Chico's quarrel\nwith the padres at Sta In6s and Sta Barbara; but the formal transfer of the\nproperty by inventory did not apparently take place until February of the\nnext year; and the records are very slight. St. Pap. Miss, and Colon., MS., ii.\n3723; Id., Miss., vii. 67; Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 24; this work, iv. p. 46;\nthis vol., p. 426, 435. 1837. Alvarado and his northern forces at S. Buenaventura in Jan. on their way to Los Angeles. Id., 494, 497. Carrillo received\nhis appointment as gov. in Sept. or Oct. Id., 534. 1838. Rafael Gonzalez\nin charge as majordomo from May. St. Pap., Miss., MS., ix. 48-9. March,\noccupation of the mission by southern forces; battle between Castaneda's and\nCastro's armies. This vol., p. 549-55. Gonzalez, Exper., MS., 35-6, claims\nto have received the mission in good condition, and to have delivered it 4\nyears later still prosperous, he having always been on excellent, terms with\nthe padre; but he says that much aid was given to the troops for which no\nreturn was ever made. 1839. Gonzalez mentioned as administrator this\nyear and the next in many records. Hartnell's inspection was June 25th to\nJuly 1st. He found affairs in fairly good condition, crops looking well at\nSta Paula, though much injured by squirrels at the mission. There was complaint that no clothing had been distributed since Carrillo's departure, and\nthe admin, was authorized to buy $1,000 worth of effects on credit, the debt\nto be a preferred one; also to kill 200 cattle, in addtion to the regular monthly\nslaughter of 30. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 14, 77-8; Arch. Miss., MS., ii.\n905, July 3d, P. Fortuni complains to the visitador that the Ind. will not\nattend to prayers, alleging that he did not wish them to pray, and that the\nadministrator, majordomo, and alcaldes will not oblige them. Id., 907. In\nlater years it was claimed that there was no distribution of clothing, etc,\nafter Sept. 1839. St. Pap., Mis., MS., 50. 1840. Hartnell's second visit\nwas in Aug. The Ind. had no fault to find with Gonzalez, admitting that he\ncared well for them; still, for the sake of novelty, they desired his removal,\nand the appointment of Miguel or Vicente Pico; but H. finally made them\nunderstand the folly and injustice of such a demand. The Ind. were also\nvery much alarmed at the danger of losing Sta Paula rancho, their only dependence for crops, and of which Manuel Jimeno was trying to get a grant.\n.If they could not keep the rancho they desired to quit the community; and\nthe padres, administrator, and neighbors all agreed that the Ind. were right.\nHartnell thought so himself, though very friendly to Jimeno. Diario, MS., 15,\n21-2. The rancho was not granted for several years. In Dec., for lack of a\nminister, the sacristan officiated at several burials. S. Bum., Lib. Mis., MS.,\n,1168.\n 662        LOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\nBoth Vitoria and Arroyo died at this mission.11 In\nneophyte population the loss to 1834 was about 15\nper cent, and from that time to 1840 about 12 per\ncent; but at the end of the decade only 180 of the\n300  Indians were living in community.12    Agricul-\n11 Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta was born at the villa of Cubo, Castilla la\nVieja, on April 30, 1780, becoming a Franciscan Aug. 3, 1796, at the chief\nconvent of Burgos. He sailed from Cadiz Sept. 2, 1804, and left the college\nof S. Fernando on Dec. 14,1807, for Cal., where he arrived early in 1808. His\nmissionary service was at S. Juan Bautista in 1808-33, at S. Miguel in 1833-4,\nat S. Luis Obispo in 1834-5, at Purisima in 1835-6, and at Sta Ine*s in 1836-\n40, though it was only at San Juan that his bodily infirmities permitted him\nto work. His superiors accredited him with great merit, ability, and zeal.\nAutobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Sarria, Inf. de 1817, MS., 64-5; Payeras,\nInf. de 1820, MS., 137. From about 1813 he suffered almost continually from\nrheumatism, and was repeatedly at the point of death. In 1809 he said the\nfirst mass in the new church of Mission San Jose*. In 1826, though maintaining his allegiance to the king of Spain, he took a modified oath to republicanism. Father Arroyo was a scholar and always a student, giving special attention to the languages of the Indians of the San Juan region, of which he\nhad already prepared a grammar before 1817, which and the padre's skill in\nthe native idioms are mentioned in Sarria's report of that year. His Grammar of the Mutsun Language and his Vocabulary or Phrase-booh were published by Shea in New York, 1861; and the original MSS. were at one time in\nmy possession. In Larios,* Vida, MS., 35, I have a curious table or perpetual calendar apparently made by him. The biographic notice (by A. S. Taylor) in the introduction to the Grammar is very erroneous. Robinson, Life\nin Cal., 108, describes him as closely confined to his chamber, and when tired\nof study he would have the children called in to play before him, calling them\nby such names as Cicero, Plato, Alexander, etc. All testify to his great\nlearning and piety. Florencio Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 186-8, spent much\ntime with the padre when he was at San Luis Obispo. At that time his legs\nwere paralyzed, and he was moved about in a wheeled chair by attendants.\nHe used to invent all kinds of pretexts for keeping Serrano at bis side for days\nfor the pleasure of conversation. Alluding to the difficulty of quitting the\nCalifornian service, he used to say:\n'Si fueres a California\nEncomienda a Dios la vida\nEn tu mano esti la entrada\nY en la de Dios la aalida.*\nFather Arroyo died at Sta Ines on Sept. 20, 1840, at the age of 60, and his\nbody was buried on the 22d by P. Jimeno in the mission church on the gospel\nside near the presbytery. Sta Ine's, Lib. Mis., MS., 22-4. The burial notice\ncontaining a biog. sketch was translated with some additional notes and printed\nin the S. F. Bulletin, 1865, being republished in the S. Jos6 Pioneer, Feb. 22,\n1877.\nFor a biographic notice of Padre Vitoria, see Pioneer Register and Index,\nvol. v. of this work.\n\"Sta In& statistics 1831-4. Decrease of pop. 408 to 344. Baptisms 63.\nDeaths 109. Decrease in live-stock 7,590 to 7,460; gain in horses and mules\n390 to 460; sheep 2,160 to 2,000. Largest crop 2,373 bush, in 1S32; smallest 1,623 bush, in 1834; average 1,962 bush., of which 1,525 wheat, yield 10\nfold; barley only produced in 1834 125 bush., 11 fold; corn 382 bush., 54\nfold; beans 20 bush., 5 fold.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Inventory of Aug. 1, 1836, of the property turned\nover to Covarrubias by P. Jimeno. Credits $1,892; buildings $945; furniture,\ntools, and goods in store $14,527; live-stock 8,040 cattle $24,850; 1,923\n SANTA INiES MISSION. 663\ntural operations were always on a moderate scale,\nwith constantly decreasing crops; but in live-stock the\nmission held its own down to the secularization, and\nafterward showed a considerable gain. The church\nproperty was valued at about $11,000; the inventory\nof other property was generally about $45,000, and the\nmission debt was reduced from $6,000 to $2,000; so\nthat the establishment was more prosperous than any\nin the south. The mission was not secularized until\n1836, when Jose* M. Ramirez was made comisionado,\nbeing succeeded by Jose M. Covarrubias in 1836-7,\nFrancisco Cota in 1837-40, and Miguel Cordero perhaps acting temporarily from October 1840. Except\na few inventories and other statistics, there exist no\nrecords of events connected with secularization;13 nor\nsheep $1,469; 343 horses $886; 45 mules $540; 987 fruit trees $987; church\n$4,000 (48f x9 varas, walls of adobe, 4 doors, 8 windows, sacristy 9x6, 3 doors,\n1 window, tile roof, board ceiling, brick floor); ornaments $6,251, library\nof 66 volumes $188: total $56,437 (or $46,186 besides church property); debts\n$5,475; net assets $50,962. St. Pap. Miss., vi. 27-8. Oct., $1,689 paid to\nJas Scott. Id., vii 53. 1837. Jan. 27th, receipts $645, expend. $642. Feb.\n6th, Covarrubias* general account, credits $55,619; debits $55,459. Id., vii.\n54. Feb. 6th, Covarrubias turns over to his successor property to the value\nof $44,772 with debts of $5,487. Id., vi. 28. Dec. 31st, receipts for year\n$49,770, expend. $54,123. Property on hand (except church, etc.) $45,552, and\ndebts $2,715. Id., vi. 30-1. 1838. Dec. 31st, receipts $50,478, expend.\n$54,754. Inventory $47,362, debt $2,713, credits $1,533. Id., vi. 29, 31.\n1839. Monthly salaries, padre $83.34, prefect $41.65, worship $41.65, clerk\n$25, admin. $50, 2 majordomos $15, $12, watchman $10, servant $10, total\n$288.64. Id., vi. 32. March, pop. 315. Id., 31. July, Hartnell's inventoiy.\n9,720 cattle, 2,180 sheep, 382 horses, 32 mules, 4 asses, 50 hogs, 796 fan.\ngrain, 448 arr. tallow, 75 arr. lard, 87 hides, 50 arr. wool, 200 arr. iron, $30\nsoap, 1 bbl. brandy, etc. Pop. 183 souls. Planted 112 fan. grain. Hartnell,\nDiario, MS., 82, 90. Nov., 2,129 varas of cloth, 40 rebozos, 4 jackets, etc.,\ndistrib. among the Ind. St. Pap. Miss., MS., vii. 17. 1840. Jan. 31st,\n(administraciones' for a year, receipts $282, expend. $282. Id. Feb. 1st,\ninventory similar to Hartnell's, except that there are 2,720 (9,720 ?) cattle,\nand 1,268 fan. of grain. Debts $1,747. Id., 16-20. Debt $2,079. Pico, Pap.\nMis., MS., 47-517\nStatistics of 1804-34, the whole period of the mission annals. Total of\nbaptisms 1,372, of which 566 Ind. adults, 757 Ind. children, 1 and 48 gente\nde razon; annual average 45. Marriages 409,' of which 9 de razon. Deaths\n,1,271, of which 736 Ind. adults, 519 Ind. children, 3 and 13 de razon; annual\naverage 42; average death rate 7.56 per cent of pop. Largest pop. 770 in\n1816. Females generally in excess of males, and children about \\ of the\npop. Largest no. of cattle 7,300 in 1831 (but increased after 1834); horses\n800 in 1816; mules 124 in 1822; sheep 6,000 in 1821; goats 130 in 1818; swine\n250 in 1816; all kinds 12,320 animals in 1820. Total yield of wheat 63,250\nbushels or 17 fold; barley (for 12 years only) 4,024 bush., 26 fold; maize\n39,850 bush., 164 fold; beans 4,340 bush., 27 fold.\n13 Summary of Sta Ine*s events.   1831-5.   Nothing to be noted.   1836.\n 664 LOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\nare there any local occurrences of the decade requiring\nfurther notice than that contained in the appended\nitems.\nPadre Vitoria was the minister at Purisima until\nAugust 1835; Padre Arroyo de la Cuesta served here\nin 1835-6; and Padre Juan Moreno in 1834. Possibly Moreno was in charge part of the time in 1836\u2014\n40, but I find no definite record for these years, and\nthere was no regular minister. In neophyte population the mission nearly held its own down to 1834,\nwhen it had 407 souls, but at the end of the decade,\nthe number had fallen to 120 in community, with perhaps as many more scattered in the region. The\nfalling-off in crops and in live-stock was constant for\nthe decade, except that there was a considerable increase of horses after the secularization, if the somewhat irregular statistics may be trusted.14    The value\nJune, trouble between Gov. Chico and P. Jimeno, leading to secularization.\nThis vol., p. 433-5, 426; iv. 45-6. Jose* Maria Ramirez as comisionado,\nturning over the estate Aug. 1st to Jose* M. Covarrubias as majordomo. Va*\nllejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 24; St. Pap. Miss. & Colon., MS., ii. 372; Id., Miss.,\nvi. 27. 1837. Jan., Covarrubias delivers the property to his successor Francisco Cota. Id., 28-30. Feb., Cota complains that the no. of working horses\nand mules has been so reduced by supplies to the troops, that only 80\nhorses and 30 mules are left. Id., vii. 5&-4. Trapper horse-thieves at the\nmission in Oct. Vol. iv., p. 113. 1838. Nothing. 1839. Cota admin., Joaquin Villa and Miguel Valencia majordomos, Jose* Linares llavero. St. Pap.\nMiss., MS., vi. 32. April, Cota asks permission to spend $1,000 for clothing\nfor the Ind., who have received none in two years, and also to slaughter 300\ncattle; which is granted by Hartnell. Id., ix. 7; Vallejo, Doc, vii. 15;\nHartnell, Diario, 2, 4. Hartnell's visit was on July 15th. He found the\nInd. desirous of getting rid of their administrator, on whom and his dependents they claimed that all the mission revenue was spent; but H. reported\nCota successful in paying off debts. Diario., MS., 82, 90. Aug., Gov. authorizes the transfer (probably temporary for repairs ?) of the church to the weaving-room. Dept. Rec, MS., x. 15. Dec, Anastasio Carrillo to Hartnell about\nthe 300 cattle promised him, the padre prefecto consenting. Letter copied\nin Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 83-5, to illustrate the methods of disposing of\nmission property. 1840. Aug. 5th, an anonymous letter in English warning\nHartnell that the admin, is plundering the mission of all its property. Arch.\nMis., MS., ii. 1095. Sept. 10th, Hartnell's visit, only a fragment of the\nrecord. He found the Ind. much alarmed at reports that the gov. had given\norders for mission cattle in favor of private individuals. Hartnell, Diario,\nMS., 93. Oct. 23d, Cota resigns, and Miguel Cordero takes charge as majordomo. Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 44-5.\n14 Purisima statistics 1831-4. Decrease in pop. 413 to 407. Baptisms 88,\nlargest no. 47 in 1834, smallest 10 in 1833. Deaths, 167, largest no. 50 in\n1832, 1833, smallest 28 in 1834.    Decrease in large stock 13,430 to 7,470;\n LA PURISIMA CONCEPCION. 665\nof the Purisima estate in 1835 and for severaj years\nthereafter was about $60,000, divided as follows:\nchurch property $8,000, buildings $5,000, implements\nand furniture $2,000, produce $11,000, lands $17,000,\nand live-stock $17,000.15   Domingo Carrillo, appointed\nhorses and mules increase 430 to 1,270; sheep 6,070 to 6,514. Largest crop\n1,842 bush, in 1834; smallest 600 bush, in 1833; average 1,260 bush., of\nwhich 830 wheat, yield 8 fold; 210 barley, 9 fold; 142 corn, 31 fold; 52\nbeans, 12 fold.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Feb. 18, 1835. Inventory formed by the comisionado, and Wm G. Dana and Santiago Lugo as appraisers. Chief building with\n21 rooms $4,300, 12 smaller buildings $1,205, furniture (tools, etc.) $2,001,\neffects in store $6,255, grain and produce $4,821, church ornaments, etc.,\n$4,944, church $400, library $655, 5 bells $1,000, 3 gardens $728, livestock (pertaining to church?) $201; total of church property $7,928; ranchos,\nSitio de Mision Vieja $373, S. de Jalama $784, Los Alamos $1,185, S. Antonio $1,418, Sta Lucia $1,080, S. Pablo $1,060, Todos Santos $7,176,\nGuadalupe $4,065; total of lands $17,141; live-stock $17,321. Credits\n$3,613, total $62,058; debt $1,218; net assets $60,840. St. Pap. Mis., MS.,\nv. 43-4. Aug. 18th, inventory of delivery from comisionado to majordomo,\nexcepting real estate and church property, $29,981, about the same as before,\ncredits $1,774, debt $1,371. I'd., vi. 16. 1837. Inventory of March 25th\n$23,653, credits $2,155, debt $2,155. Id., viii. 11. 1838. Inventory of delivery by Carrillo to Valenzuela, $27,394. Id., 2-3. Dec. 31st, receipts since\nJune 15th $4,427, expend. $2,441. 1839. Jan. and March, receipts $2,247,\n$2,301, expend. $255, $190. Salaries of admin., majordomo de campo, and\nllavero $982. No padre is mentioned. In Feb. over 600 sheep were\ndrowned in the floods. Pop. Feb. 28th 242. Id., 3-5. July 25th, Hartnell's\ninventory. Pop. 122, many of them sick, at the mission and 47 free Ind. at\nAlamos. 3,824 cattle, 1,532 (?) horses, 1,300 sheep, 89 mules, 1 burro, 3& bbls\nwine, 3^ bbls brandy, 60 arr. tallow, 22 arr. lard, 100 hides, 99 tanned skins,\n210 fan. grain, etc. Planted 60 fan. wheat and barley. Crops looking well,\nmany wild cattle. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 23. Debt July 25th $3,696. Pico,\nPap. Mis., MS., 47-51.\nStatistics of 1787-1834. Total of baptisms, 3,314, of which 1,740 Ind.\nadults, 1,492 Ind. children, 4 and 78 de razon; annual average 70. Marriages 1,031, 5 being gente de razon. Deaths 2,711, of which 1,790 Ind.\nadults, 902 Ind. children, 1 and 18 de razon; annual average 57. Largest\npop. 1,520 in 1804. Sexes about equal to 1800, females in excess in 1801-7,\nand males later; children about \u00a3 of pop. Largest no. of cattle 13,000 in\n1830; horses 1,454 in 1821; mules 300 in 1824; sheep 12,600 in 1820; goats\n292 in 1791; all kinds 23,862 animals in 1821. Total product of wheat\n9,522 bush, yield 11 fold; barley 9,306 bush., 17 fold; maize 28,255 bush.,\n82 fold; beans 4,818 bush., 14 fold.\n15Events at Purisima. 1831. Fears of an Ind. revolt. Dept. Rec, MS.,\nix. 7. 1832-3. No record except as this mission is mentioned in secularization plans never put in operation. 1834. Domingo Carrillo appointed comisionado in Nov. Slaughter of mission cattle rather vaguely recorded. This\nvol., p. 346, 349-50. 1835. The place seems to have been called Pueblo de\nlos Berros. Guerra, Doc, MS., vii. 81; Dept. St. Pap., Ben., P. y J, MS.,\nvi. 17. Secularization effected in Feb., and on Aug. 18th the comisionado\nturned the estate over to his brother Joaquin Carrillo as maj. St. Pap. Miss.,\nMS., vi. 16. Aug. 25th, Carrillo writes to gov. about the Lompoc rancho\nwhere he is going to build, and is apparently using the mission effects and\nInd. rather freely for his private advantage. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 48-9.\nThe rancho was granted two years later. The building of a new church was\ncontemplated this year, the old one being in a sad state, but nothing was\n 666        LOCAL ANNALS OF SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT.\nin 1834 as comisionado, effected the secularization\nearly in 1835; and his successors in the administration were Joaquin Carrillo in 1835-8, Jose' Maria\nValenzuela in 1838-40, and Eugenio Ortega from\nOctober of the latter year.\napparently accomplished. 1836-7. No record except an inventory already\ngiven. 1838. June 15th, Carrillo surrenders the estate to Jose\" Maria Valenzuela. St. Pap. Miss., MS., viii. 2, 4. 1839. Emigdio Ortega was majordomo de campo under Valenzuela, and Juan Salgado llavero. Pico, Pap.\nMis., MS., 49. Visitador Hartnell's inspection was in July. The Ind. were\ncontent with their administrator but wished to have a padre, Moreno preferred. At their request Salgado was removed; the killing of wild bulls was\nauthorized, also the slaughter of 300 cattle and purchase of $800 in clothing.\nThe 47 Ind. at Alamos were anxious to keep their lands, and J. A. de la\nGuerra, the grantee, promised in writing not to molest them. Hartnell,\nDiario, MS., 2, 3, 23-4, 42. 1840. No record of Hartnell's;2d visit. Oct.\n23d, Eugenio Ortega succeeded Valenzuela in the administration. Dept. Rec,\nMS., xi. 45. Douglas, Journal, MS., 87, speaks of the mission as nearly in\nruins, and estimates exports at $2,000.\n CHAPTER XXIV.\nLOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nPopulation\u2014Visits and Descriptions\u2014Summary and Index of Events\n\u2014Military Record\u2014Municipal Affairs and Administration of\nJustice\u2014Prefecture\u2014Criminal Record\u2014Private Ranchos\u2014Mission San Carlos\u2014San Luis Obispo\u2014Padre Gil y Taboada\u2014Statistics\nof Decline\u2014San Miguel\u2014Padre Juan Cabot\u2014Population and\nProperty\u2014San Antonio\u2014Secularization\u2014Mercado's Complaints\u2014\nHartnell's Inspection\u2014La Soledad\u2014Padre Sarria\u2014Inventories of\nLive-stock and Crops\u2014San Juan Bautista or San Juan de Castro\u2014\nPadres and Neophytes\u2014Mission Estate\u2014Emancipation of the Indians\u2014Pueblo and Capital of the District\u2014Santa Cruz, or Pueblo\nde Figueroa\u2014Villa de Branciforte.\nThe population of gente de razon in the Monterey\ndistrict, including Branciforte and seven missions,\nmay be regarded, on authority that is tolerably satisfactory, as having increased from 1,100 at the beginning to 1,600 at the end of the decade. Of the\nlatter number 700 lived at Monterey, 550 at the\nranchos of the district, 250 at and about Branciforte,\n50 at San Juan, and 50 at all the other missions.1\nThere were perhaps 75 foreigners who may be re-\n1The Monterey, Padron, 1886, MS., shows a pop. in the town of 255 men,\n146 women, and 293 children, total 694, of whom about 30 Ind. and 42 foreigners; on 28 ranchos 206 men, 105 women, and 270 children, total 581, of\n;vhom 65 Ind. and 15 foreigners; total 1,180 gente de razon (including 57 foreigners) and 95 Ind. The same doc. with slight variations in Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xxxii. 10 et seq. In Id., xxxi. 76, is a padron of 1834, showing 1,049\npersons in 146 families or households, 43, being foreigners, 52 Ind., and 96\n' militares.' In Id., 250, is a list, apparently incomplete, of 145 voters, including 5 naturalized foreigners. For Branciforte we have nothing earlier\nthan 1845, when a padron shows 294 Cal. and Mex., 56 foreigners, and 120\nInd. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 218. For S. Juan, Mofras gives a pop. of 100\nin 1842.\n(867)\n 668 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\ngarded as permanent settlers. The ex-neophyte Indian population decreased from 3,500 to 1,740, of which\nnumber about 1,020 lived in''communities, or at least\nnear the ex-missions. Many vessels anchored in this\nport each year, as has been noted elsewhere in marine\nlists and commercial annals, where the visits and adventures of different voyagers have received sufficient\nattention; but several of these visitors have published\ntheir observations, and of these I have deemed it well\nto quote descriptive portions relating to Monterey,2\n3 Monterey, descriptions by visitors, town improvements, etc. 1834. A\nvoluntary contribution to be requested from each vessel for the construction\nof a wharf. This vol., 380. 1835-8. See view of Monterey in Forbes' Cal.\n1834-5. ' Monterey, as far as my observation goes, is decidedly the pleasant-\nest and most civilized-looking place in California. In the centre of it is an\nopen square, surrounded by four lines of one-story buildings, with half a dozen\ncannon in the centre, some mounted and others not. This is the presidio or\nfort, entirely open and unfortified.. .The houses, as everywhere else in Cal.,\nare of one story, built of adobes.. .of a common dirt-color. The floors are\ngenerally of earth, the windows grated and without glass, and the doors,\nwhich are seldom shut, open directly into the common room, there being no\nentries. Nearly all the houses are whitewashed on the outside. The better\nhouses, too, have red tiles upon the roofs. ' The Indians do all the hard work.\nThe men in Monterey appeared to me to be always on horseback. Nothing\nbut the character of the people prevents Monterey from becoming a large\ntown.' Dana's Two Years, 89-93. 1836. 'The town is a scattered series of\nhouses, containing not more than 500 inhabitants, among whom are 15 or 20\nforeigners, Americans and Englishmen, engaged in trade.' Ruschenberger's\nNarr., ii. 403-4. June 1st, Gov. Chico orders the administrator of Sta Cruz\nto cut and send him a tree 20 varas long for a flag-staff. Savage, Doc, MS.,\ni. 23. 1837. * Monterey I found as much increased as S. Francisco had fallen\ninto ruin. It was still, however, very miserable, and wanting in the military\nair of 1827. The adobe or mud-brick battery remained, and had been newly\nbedaubed during the late ebullition of independence.' The fortifications, of\nwhich plans must not be taken, ' consisted of a mud wall of three sides, open\nin the rear, with breastwork about three feet in height; with rotten platforms\nfor 7 guns, the discharge of which would annihilate their remains of carriages.' But the author got few supplies, and was not in a good humor.\nBelcher'8 Narr., i. 136. 'Tout se pre*sente sous l'aspect le plus neuf, et tel\nenfin que l'on peut imaginer qu'ont dti. le voir les premiers cfecouvreurs. En\napprochant de la pointe Venus on commence cependant a distinguer par-\ndessus les roches une eminence sur laquelle est erige* un mat de pavilion ou\nl'on abore les couleurs nationales. Tout & c6t6, est le corps-de-garde d'une\nbatterie h barbette de 8 canons, que l'on nomme le Castillo.'. .Pen apres avoir\napercu la pointe du fort on decouvrira le fond de l'anse on Ton verra dabord\ndans la partie de l'Est, le clocher de la chapelle du Presidio, ainsi que les\nba\\timents qui en dependent et qui sont tous renferm^s dans la m6me enceinte; puis successivement et a. mesure que le batiment avancera, ou decouvrira dans l'Ouest du Presidio des maisons ^parses ca. et Ik, sans aucun ordre;\nelles forment, par leur reunion, ce que l'on nomme la ville de Monterey, sans\ndoute par de*f e*rence pour le siege du gouvernement; il semble inutile d'ajouter\nqu'il n y a aucun autre monument que l'eglise du Presidio. Parmi ces maisons, dont le nombre s'eleve tout au plus de 40 a 50, plusieurs sont blanchies\na la chaux, quelqus-unes ont un e*tage et une certaine apparence de conforta-\n DESCRIPTIONS AND EVENTS. 669\nthough the sum total of information thus gathered\nfrom Dana, Ruschenberger, Belcher, Petit-Thouars,\nLaplace, and others, is not very complete; nor is it\nsupplemented to any satisfactory extent by local records on the material growth of the town. Events\nat the capital were for the most part of such a nature\nas to be naturally included in the political record of\nterritorial affairs as summarized in chronologic order\nand indexed in the appended note.3    A few minor\nbilit6, mais la plupart sont de miserables cases couverte en joncs on en branches\nd'arbres; presque toutes n'ont ni cour, ni jardin.' Population not over 200,\nCreoles, natives, Mexicans, Scotch, Irish, American, kanakas, and even a few\nFrench. Many compliments for the women. Petit-Thouars, Voyage, ii. 83-5,\n110, 112. 1839. 'Ainsi par exemple Monterey, que le cour de Madrid avait\ntraitee toujours en enfant ga\\te* (!), qui est dans une magnifique situation, de-\nvant un bon mouillage, aupre*s de cantons fertiles, etc. Monterey, dis-je\nn'avait fait presque aucun progres depuis 25 anne*es. Elle comptait, il est\nvrai, quelques maisons, quelques families de residents strangers de plus, mais\nelle manquait tout a fait de commerce et d'industrie.' Yet the author was\nwell treated and has much to say in praise of the gov. and people of the higher\nclasses. Laplace, Campagne,v\\. 304. Alvarado, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 128-30,\ntells us that by his efforts a new cuartel was built for the soldiers\u2014still standing in 1875\u2014at a cost of $9,000, being the best building in Cal. He also improved roads in the vicinity, building a bridge from the new cuartel to Hartnell's college, and another toward Capt. Cooper's house. In Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., vi. 119-23, 335, vii. 249, 404, is found corresp. of the year between\nPetronilo Rios, com. of the artillery, and Gen. Vallejo respecting improvements in the fortifications, on which work seems to have been done with very\nslight results. 1840. Farnham restricts his descriptive matter to the mission,\nbut the pictorial edition of his work (N. Y. 1857) gives on p. 69 what purports to be a view of Monterey, with a huge edifice on the summit of the hills\nin the distance. ST. F. B. M.,' Leaves from My Journal, describes the new\nbridge mentioned above, for crossing which on horseback he was arrested and\nfined $2. Nov. 12th, P. Gonzalez writes to ask of Vallejo the gift of the\nold presidio chapel to be used as a town church. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxiii.\n154.\n3 Summary and index of events at Monterey. 1831. Jan., arrival of Gov.\nVictoria, who takes the oath of office on the 3lst, and has trouble with the\nayunt. This vol., pp. 182, 187. April-May, execution of Anastasio, Aguila,\nand Sagarra for robbery, for which the gov. was blamed. Id., 190-1. Sept.,\nmilitary trial of Duarte, alcalde of S. Jose*. Id., 195. Nov., departure of\nGov. Victoria to meet the southern rebels. Id., 205. Dec, Monterey adheres\nto the S. Diego plan against Victoria. Id., 212.\n1832. Jan.-Feb., Zamorano's pronunciamiento against the S. Diego plan,\norganization of the compania extrangera, and Z. 's departure from the south.\nId., 220-4.    May-June, Avila's revolt. Id., 230.\n1833. Jan., arrival of Gov. Figueroa and his assumption of office; also\ncoming of the Zacatecan friars; first printing in Cal. Id., 240-2. March, election for assembly and congress, repeated in Dec. Id., 24(L April 27th-28th,\npublic diversions, illuminations, bull-fight, ball, etc., to celebrate the peace\nof Zavaleta. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 114-15. Weather record by Larkin,\n1833-5. This vol., p. 357. Nov., arrival of Capt. Walker's overland trappers,\nwho pass the winter at Monterey. Id., 390-2; iv. 434.\n1834. The 1st printing-press put in operation, by Zamorano & Co.   It\n 670\nLOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nitems are added, but such as require no general remarks. Leading topics of interest were the troubles\nwith Governor Victoria in 1831, Zamorano's counter-\nrevolt and  organization of the foreign company in\nis not known exactly how the press came, but its products\u20147 little books and\nover 100 documents\u2014are preserved in my library. The press was carried to\nSonoma by Gen. Vallejo in 1837, after Zamorano's departure, but subsequently returned to Monterey, where it was used by the Americans in 1846.\nMay-No v., sessions of the diputacion. This vol., pp. 248-52. May, scare at\nreports of a southern conspiracy. Id., 257. Sept. 11th, arrival of a courier\nfrom Mex. with orders to Figueroa. Id., 271. Sept. 12th, return of the gov.\nfrom a tour in the north. Id., 256. Sept. 25th, arrival of the Morelos with\nthe colony from Mex. Id., 268. Oct. 14th, arrival of Hijar, and resulting\nControversies with the gov. Id., 272 et seq. Oct. 16th, election of assembly\nand member of congress. Id., 258, 291. Dec. 21st, wreck of the Natalia. Id.,\n268. Trouble between Angel Ramirez and Juan Bandini, lasting several\nyears. Id., 370 et seq. Hartnell and P. Short perhaps began their educational enterprise this year. Id., 317.\n1835. March-April, ayunt. meets to approve the gov. 's acts in the colony\ncontroversy. Hijar and Padres with other prisoners sail from Mex. on the\nRosa. Id., 287-8. Larkin built a bowling alley at a cost of $438. LarMn's\nAccts., MS., ii. 311. Aug.-Oct., sessions of the assembly. This vol., p. 291.\nSept. 29th-Oct. 2d, death of Gov. Figueroa and funeral ceremonies. Id., 295.\nOct., etc., alarm at the prospect of losing the capital. Id., 291-2.\n1836. April 25th, an earthquake shock at 5 a. m. Gomez, Diario, MS.\nMore shocks June 9-10. Id. Heavy rains. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxvi. 214.\nMay, arrival of Gov. Chico; election and meeting of dip. This vol., p* 421-6.\nJuly, revolution against Chico, preceded by the Castanares-Herrera scandal,\nand resulting in the governor's departure July 31st. Id., 429-42. Sept. 6th,\narrival of Gov. Gutierrez. Id., 445. Oct. visit of the U. S. man-of-war Peacock. Vol. iv. 141. Oct.-Nov., Alvarado's revolt, overthrow and exile of Gutierrez. This vol., 455-64. Nov., meeting and acts of the dip. or congress.\nId., 469-76.    Dec, Alvarado and his army march southward. Id., 491.\n1837. Jan.-Feb., threatened movement against the new govt. Id., 511\u2014\n13. May-June, return of Alvarado and Castro; called south again by new\nhostilities. Id., 510-11, 522-3. July, revolt of Ramirez and Pena against Alvarado; capture and recapture of the town; arrest of rebels. Id., 523-6. Oct.,\nvisit of the French man-of-war Venus, Petit-Thouars com.; news of Carlos\nCarrillo's appointment as gov. Id., 534; Vol. iv. 148. Nov. 19th, wreck of\nthe Com. Rodgers. Id., 103. Dec, visit of the British exploring ship Blossom, Beleher com. Id., 145-6.\n1838. June-July, Ind. robbers cause much trouble by their depredations\nin the district. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 146. Earthquakes. Vol. iv., p.\n78, this work. Aug. 13th the Catalina, arrives with news from Mex. favorable to Alvarado. This vol., p. 572.\n1839. Feb.-March, public reception to Alvarado; sessions of the assembly. Id., 584 et seq. May, elections for congress and junta. Id., 589-90.\nJuly, arrival of J. A. Sutter on the Clementina, iv. 127. Aug., visit of the\nFrench man-of-war Artemise, Laplace com. Id., 154-5. Marriage of the gov.,\nand festivities at the capital. This vol., p. 593. Oct., visit of the chief Solano\nand his Indians from Sonoma. Id., 598-9.\n1840. Feb. -May, sessions of the junta; Monterey declared the capital.\nId., 602-6. March-April, arrest and exile of Graham and other foreigners.\nVol. iv. 1-41. June, visit of the French Danaide, Rosamel, and U. S. St\nLouis, Forrest. Id., 35-7. Nov. 30th, a Cal. earthquake reported in Mexico,\nbut nothing known of it in Cal. Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., iv. 43; Sta B,\nArch., MS., 21.\n PRESIDIAL COMPANY. 671\n1832, the arrival of Governor Figueroa in 183&, the\ncoming of the colony and the establishment of a\nprinting-office in 1834, troubles with Hijar and Padre's and death of Figueroa in 1835, the coming and\ngoing of Chico and Alvarado's revolution in 1836,\nthe Ramirez counter-revolt and the waiting for news\nof sourthern war and politics in 1837-8, military reform and the governor's marriage in 1839, and the\nexile of the foreigners to San Bias in 1840. Ordinary local happenings were beneath the dignity of a\ntown so devoted to grand affairs of state.\nThe military organization was still kept up, but\nthe records are even more fragmentary and confusing\nthan in the past decade, so much so indeed\u2014and\nnaturally enough in connection with frequent changes\nin the comandancia general, revolutionary movements,\ncalls on volunteer troops or soldiers from another\ndistrict, and absence of the regular company in southern campaigns\u2014that it is not worth while to attempt\nthe presentment of details either in notes or text.\nAgustin Zamorano was captain of the company in\n1831-6, and Jose' Castro in 1839-40, but Captain\nJose* Antonio Munoz was much of the time comandante of the post in 1833-6, and Lieut-colonel Gume-\nsindo Flores in 1839-40. Gervasio Arguello, lieutenant of the company, was absent in Mexico, and\nBernardo Navarrete was acting lieutenant in 1833-6.\nRodrigo del Pliego was alferez, departing in 1831;\nIgnacio del Valle in 1832-6 and perhaps later; Jose\nSanchez in 1832-4; Josd Antonio Pico from 1836;\nRafael Pinto, Jacinto Rodriguez, and Joaquin de la\nTorre in 1839-40. One of these acted as habilitado.\nSergeants named are Jose* A. Sol<5rzano, ayudante de\nplaza in 1832-3, Francisco Soto, Gabriel de la Torre,\nand Andre's Cervantes in 1835-6, and Manuel R. Castro in 1840. The company varied very irregularly\nfrom 20 to 50 men including invalidos, and the monthly\npay-rolls from $570 to $900. There was generally an\nartillery force of five men under Sergeant Jose' M. Me-\n 672\nLOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\ndrano in 1831-2, and Petronilo Rios in 1839-40. An\ninfantry detachment, the piquete de Hidalgo, numbering about 25 men, was commanded by Lieut Patricio\nEstrada until his exile in 1836.* Matters pertaining\nto the custom-house, collection of revenues, and financial administration at the capital have been fully set\nforth, including lists of officials, in the two chapters\ndevoted to commerce, finance, and maritime ,affairs for\nthe decade.\nMatters pertaining to the local government and\nthe administration of justice are appended at some\nlength.6    The succession of municipal rulers was as\n* Additional military items. 1831. 71 'militares' with 39 women and\nchildren. 1832. Hartnell and J. B. Espinosa commanding compania extran-\ngera. Lieut Mariano Estrada, Alf. Juan Malarin, and Alf. Fran. Pacheco\ncalled into service. 1833. Cadet Fran. Araujo, ayudante de plaza. 1836.\nJose* M. Cosio, id. 1837. Ramon Estrada com. during Alvarado's absence.\nJose* M. Villavicencio and Santiago Estrada also named as com. References\nfor military items. Dept. St. Pap., B. Al., MS., lxvi. 17; lxxiii. 12; lxxiv.\n4-5; lxxv. 8; lxxvi. 2, 10-11, 53, 111; lxxviii. 4, 7; lxxix. 70, 78, 81; lxxx.\n4, 23-4; lxxxi. 23, 26, 44-7, 49; lxxxii. 56, 64-5; lxxxiii. 1, 3-5, 65; lxxxiv.\n5; lxxxv. 6; lxxxviii. 31, 36; Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 286, 291,293; ii. 196; iii.\n190; iv. 80-1; vi. 44-5, 119, 220, 334, 465; vii. 388; viii. 201, 407; xxii. 36;\nxxv.-vi. passim; xxxii. 12-13, 58, 74, 103, 201; Pinto, Doc, MS., i. 8-13;\nDept. Rec, MS., ix. 47; xi. 33; S. Jose\" Arch., ii. 29; iv. 18; v, 23, 39; St. Pap.,\nSac, MS., xiii. 3-4, 7; xiv. 12-13, 44; Dept. St. Pap., iv. 70, 247; Savage,\nDoc, MS., iv. 312; St. Pap, Miss., MS., v. 40; Soberanes, Doc, MS., 130-1,\n258.\nDec 1833. List of live-stock and implements to be loaned by the missions\nfor 6 years to form ranchos nacionales for the Mont, and S. F'co companies.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben. C. & T., MS., ii. 79-81. 1834-5, receipts from Soledad\nproperty,as above to the amount of $1,513. Dept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxx.\n11. Nov. 2,1834. Gov. orders Simeon Castro and Trinidad Espinosa to leave\nthe lands held provisionally by them, the same being needed for the national\nrancho. Id., C. & T., iii. 14. Oct. 1835, controversy between the comp. and\nayunt. for El Toro and S. Francisquito, the ayunt. having claimed the former\nand ceded it to Estrada. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 60-6.  -\nFor matters connected with revenue and finance for 1831-5, see chap. xiii.\nthis vol., and for 1836-40, chap. iii. vol. iv. The officials successively in\ncharge at Monterey as administrators of customs, sub-comisarios, and collector, were Joaquin Gomez 1831-2, Mariano Estrada 1832-3, Rafael Gonzalez\n1833-4, Angel Ramirez and Jose M. Herrera 1834-6, Wm E. Hartnell 1837,\nAntonio M. Osio, Eugenio Montenegro, and Jose* Abrego 1838-40. Lieut. P.\nNarvaez was capt. of the port 1839-40.\n6 Monterey pueblo officials, municipal government, prefecture, administration of justice, and criminal record. 183J. Alcalde Antonio Buelna; regidores, Antonio Castro, Juan Higuera, Jose* Maria Castillo, and Joaquin Alvarado; sindico, Jose* M. Aguilar; secretary, Jose\" Castro; depositario, Francisco Pacheco; jueces de campo, Faustino German and Agustin Martinez.\nAlcalde auxiliar Salvador Espinosa. Jan. 10th, appointment of comisionados\nfor missions of the district. 26th, police regulations in 4 art. April 11th,\nvote against buying a table-cloth and inkstand. Nov. 27th, preparations for\nelection, the jurisdiction being divided into 4 manzanas, one including tho\n MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. 673\nfollows: Antonio Buelna, Salvador Espinosa, Marce-\nlino Escobar, Manuel Jimeno Casarin, David Spence,\nJose* Ramon Estrada, EsteVan Munr&s, Simeon Cas-\nranchos. Full record of meetings in Monterey, Actas del Ayunt., MS., 23-43.\nFelipe \\Arceo for being concerned in the death of Timoteo Lorenzana has to\npay $25 to the widow. Gabriel Espinosa sentenced to work 2 months for\nMariano Castro for taking his horse. Mont. Arch., MS., vi. 1-2. April, J.\nM. Ramirez arraigned for death of Gomez. Dept. Rec, MS., ix. 10. April-\nMay, Atanasio, Aguilar, and Sagarra shot for stealing. Sept., several men\nask for license to hunt wild cattle in the Gavilan Mts. Dept. St. Pap., Ben.,\nP. yJ., MS., iii. 21.\n1832. Alcalde, Salvador Espinosa; regidores, Joaquin Alvarado, Jose* M.\nCastillo, Jose* Aguilar, and Santiago Moreno; sindico, Manuel Jimeno Casarin (excused as not being for 5 years a resident). Only the sess. of Jan. 1st\nfor installation of the new ayunt., Mont. Actas, MS., 43-4, and the organization in Dec. for a new election, Mont. Arch., MS., vii. 39, are recorded.\nIn March, on account of non-payment of duties on brandy the school had to\nbe closed.\n1833. Alcalde, Marcelino Escobar; regidores, Jose* Aguilar (or A*vila ?)\n' Santiago Moreno, Pedro Castillo (succeeded in Aug. by Simeon Castro, who\nwas unwilling to serve, but was required to do so), and Antonio Romero;\nsindico, Santiago Estrada; Francisco Perez Pacheco, treasurer; comisario de\npolicia, 1st cuartel, Jose* M. Aguila, suplente Antonio de Sta Cruz; 2d cuartel, Ignacio Acedo, supl. Felipe Vasquez; capt. of the port, Juan Malarin.\nMunic. finance, balance Jan. 1st $68; receipts for year $892; expend, school\n$238; sec ayunt. and dip. $325, porter $60, prisoners $188, office exp. of\nayunt. $39, miscell. $128, sindico's percentage on receipts $26, Ind. working\non the road $29, total $1,036. Doc Hist. Cal, MS., i. 77-8; Moid. Arch.,\nvii. 40-2. Jan. 4th-llth police regulations in 18 art. Id.; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 159-63; Id., Mont., ii. 13-17. Jan. 10th, division of the town into\n2 cuarteles, and appointment of police. Id., 22. Jan. 27th, prosecution of\nSergt SohSrzano for entering the prison of a woman and causing-scandal. St.\nPap. Sac, MS., x. 24. March, prisoners have nothing to eat, ayunt. asked\nfor 1 meal per day. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., P.& J., MS., iii. 87. April, a cabin\nboy of the Catalina sent to S. Bias to be tried for assault on the mate. Id.,\nB. M., lxxix. 35-6. July, choice of a regidor to succeed Castillo, who went\nto S. F. as receptor. Id., Ben., P. & J., v. 43. Sept., estimate of ayunt. expenses for a year $988. Mont. Arch., MS., xvi. 44.\n1834. Alcalde Manuel Jimeno Casarin; regidores, Simeon Castro, Antonio Romero, John B. Cooper, and Jose* Joaquin Gomez (from July); sindico\nJose Aguila; sec. Jose* M. Maldonado, and later Jose* M. Mier y Teran; capt\nof the port Malaria. Jan., plans and estimates submitted for casas consis-\ntoriales. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., P. & J., MS., vi. 49. Feb., police regulations.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 68. Liquor tax in March-April $215. Dept. St.\nPap., B. M., MS., lxxvi. 3. May, Marcos Juarez, a soldier, tried by mil.\ncourt for robbing the storehouse, and sentenced to 5 years' work at Sta Rosa\non the northern frontier. Id., lxxxviii. 22-3. June, Joaquin Alfaro and Ger-\ntrudis Garibay accused of murder of the soldier Encarnacion Hernandez.\nNo result recorded. 7c?., 9-18. A boy put in prison for rape on a child. St.\nPap. Sac, MS., xiv. 44. June 28th, boundaries fixed by gov. provisionally,\nso vaguely as to be of no value. St. Pap., M. & C, MS., ii. 220. Nov.,\nassembly grants a secretary to the ayunt. at $20 salary, the sindico having\n- served. Leg. Rec, ii. 210.    A vagrant sentenced to 8 months of * colonizacion en el territorio.' Mont. Arch., MS., i. 32.\n1835. Alcaldes David Spence and Rafael Gonzalez; regidores, John\nCpoper, Joaquin Gomez, Rafael Gomez, Wm Hartnell, Jesus Vallejo, and\nSalvador Espinosa. (Fran. P. Pacheco is mentioned in Oct.); sindico, Miguel\nHist. Cal,., Vol. III.   4=3\n 674 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\ntro, and David Spence again. In 1831-7 an ayuntamiento of one or two alcades, four or six regidores,\nand a sindico, was elected  each year to serve the\nAvila; sec. Francisco Castillo Negrete to June, Jose* M. Maldonado from\nJune; alcaldes auxiliaries, Los Ortegas (?) John Gilroy, Pilarcitos Luis Mesa,\nBuena Vista Santiago Estrada, Pajaro Antonio Castro, Soledad Nicolas Alviso,\nS. Carlos Jose* Ant. Romero; jueces de policia, Jose Castaiiares and Antonio\nde Sta Cruz; juez del monte, Santiago Duckworth. Jueces de campo, Pilarcitos, Francisco Lugo; Alisal, Vicente Cantiia; Guadalupe, Guadalupe Can-\ntua; Carneros, Joaquin Soto; La Brea, Antonio German and Faustino German; Las Llagas, Carlos Castro; Pajaro, Ramon Amez(quita); Monterey,\nFelipe Garcia; Laguna Seca, Teodoro Sanchez; Buena Vista, Mariano Estrada,\nSalinas, Jose* M. Boronda. Majordomo of the ayunt., Geo. Allen. Jan. 3d,\nteacher cannot begin work for lack of furniture, etc. Jan. 5th, police regul.\nof the past year adopted. 10th, committee appt. to consider land grants, and\none on schools. 12th, building a jail. 17th, limits of the ejidos, from the\nmouth of the river to Pilarcitos, to Laguna Seca, bounds of S. Carlos to Canada Honda and the sea. 24th, schools, contributions to be solicited; com. to\nform a tariff* on wood; regulation of bread; 31st, wood and timber tariff fixed.\nFeb. 7th, proposition for a girls' school; a map of the town needed but very\nhard to make; appeal to govt for arms to use against cattle-thieves; a record\nbook for town lots to be obtained; 14th, trouble with the sindico. 28th, J.\nB. Alvarado chosen to solicit funds for the girls' school. March 14th, one\nreal per day to be paid to a watchman for the prisoners on public works.\n28th, a room rented for a sala capitular at $10 per month. April-May, political and colony matters qhiefly. June 20th, the church transferred from\nthe military to municipal care. July 11th, vote to grant the request of Los\nAngeles for a copy of the reglamento as a model, but Angeles must pay the\nexpense of copying. 18th, action to oblige regular attendance at the ' normal\nschool.' Slow progress on the buildings, as the prisoners were not properly\nincited to work. Aug. 1st, Jose* Arana put in charge of the work and prisoners, his salary to be completed by a contribution. Lumbermen must pay a\ntax of 10 per cent on sales. 8th, et seq., land grants approved. 29th, vote\nto pay $8 for an ox that died in the service of the ayunt. Sept. 12th, organization of militia. Oct. 3d, com. to provide for a separate burial place for\nforeigners. 28th, tiles borrowed to save the unfinished building from ruin by\nthe rains. Nov. 7th, serious complaints against the principal of the school\nfor neglect of his duties and failure to attend to religious instruction. 21st,\nRomero the teacher defends himself. Foreign cemetery selected. Dec. 5th,\nvigorous action to be taken against the horse-thieves, etc. Town well to be\nrepaired. Dec 18th, extra session to consider the arrest by Capt. Munoz of\nthe sindico. The acts of the ayunt. are recorded in full in Monterey, Actas del\nAyunt., MS., 46-249, it being of course impossible to present a satisfactory\nresume I have omitted repetitions of matters noticed here and elsewhere;\ninternal regulations, and leaves of absence to members; grants of town lands;\nand action on about 20 grants of ranchos in the district. Many of the items\ngiven above are also noticed in other records. Feb., gov. decides that $20 is\nan excessive salary to the sec. Mont. Arch., MS., ix. 3. June, trial of Julian\nPadilla for passing counterfeit onzas. Id., ii. 3-6. Aug. Jose* de Jesus Ber-\nreyesa condemned to 5 years' presidio at Sta Rosa for stealing horses. Oct.,\ncontroversy between the military and munic. authorities for the possession of\ntho ranchos El Toro and S. Francisquito. El Toro had belonged to the garrison, but the ayunt. obtained it (for ejidos) and granted it to Estrada. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iv. 60-6; Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 224-5. There is much in the\nayunt. records about the ejidos, but no definite results of discussion are apparent. Dec, Eugenio Murillo sentenced to Texas for 10 years. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben., P. & J., MS., iii. 47.\n1836.   Alcaldes Jose Rumon Estrada and Marcejino Escobar; regidores\n AYUNTAMIENTO RECORDS. 675\nnext; but for only 1831 and 1835 are the records of\nayuntamiento sessions extant, those of the latter year\nbeing  especially complete.    In   1838  the governor,\nWm Hartnell, Teodoro Gonzalez, (also acting alcalde), Bonifacio Madari-\naga, and Gil Sanchez (to April); sindico, James Watson; sec, Jose* M. Maldonado; Antonio Lara, alguacil. Jueces de campo Santiago Estrada, Trinidad\nEspinosa, Feliciano Espinosa, Jose* Arcco, Guadalupe Cantua, Santiago Guat\n(Jas. Watt?); auxiliaries, Quentin Ortega, Jose* M. Villavicencio, Luis Mesa.\nComisarios de policia, Jose* Madariaga, Francisco Soto, Jose* Abrego, Jose*\nPacomio; suplentes, Jose* Sta Cruz, Nicanor Zamora, Gil Cano, Luis Placen-\ncia. Ayunt. records not extant. Jan., two couples sentenced to chain-gang\nand seclusion for illicit intercourse. One of the women was the wife of Cosme\nPena. Mont. Arch., MS., vi. 6-7. Two girls of the colony while bathing at\nHuerta Vieja were carried off by Carmeleno Ind., who were arrested and\nflogged. Hijar, Cal, MS., 118-19. April, ayunt. allowed to use the assembly chamber temporarily. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., P. & J., MS., iii. 31. Grant\nof a town lot to Louis Pombert. Doc?Hist. Cal, MS., i. 255. June, gov. decides that Maldonado may be sec. of ayunt. and assembly. Leg. Rec, MS.,\niii. 22-3. Aug.-Oct., trial of Corporal Antonio Cadena, of the piquete de\nHidalgo, for the murder of private Barbaro Barragan of the artillery. \" He\nwas sentenced to 10 years' presidio at Chapala; and a woman in the case to\n2 years confinement at S. Jose* mission. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., lxxxii.\n29-54; lxxviii. 2-3.\n1837. Alcaldes Est6van Munras and perhaps Marcelino Escobar. Mun-\nrds is often mentioned as 2d alcalde, and Escobar is named once in Dec The\nonly regidores named are Simeon Castro and Bonifacio Madariaga. Mont.\nArch., MS., vi. 7; Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., ii. 107. Juez de campo Eu-\nfemio Soto.    Fragmentary police regulations in Vallejo, Doc, MS.-, xxxii. 60.\n1838. Alcaldes (or encargados de ju3ticia) Simeon Castro and Feliciano\nSoberanes; secretary Florencio Serrano. Jan. 10th (or Aug. 10th) bando of\npolice regulations. Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., iii. 66-8; Sta Cruz Arch.,\nMS., 85-6.\n1839. Prefect of 1st or Monterey district, with headquarters at S. Juan de\nCastro, Jos6 Castro appointed Feb. 28th, and installed, making a patriotic\nspeech March 10th; salary $2,000. His secretary was Jose* M. Covarrubias.\nCastro was required to give up the military command. During his temporary absence in May, Juan Ansar, the juez de paz at S. Juan, acted as prefect. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 247-8; xvii. 44; Id., S. J., v. 21. 26, 56; Id.,\nMont., iii. 78; iv. 4, 78, 81; Id., Aug., x. 12-13; xii. 14; Id., Ben., P. y J,\niii. 2; Id., C. & T, iv. 28; Mont. Arch., MS., iv. 4; xvi. 28; S. Jose3 Arch.,\nMS., ii. 72; iii. 30-1; Dept. Rec, MS., x. 7; Unb. Doc, MS., 242; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., viii. 407; xxxii. 183; Estudillo, Doc, MS., i. 255; Gomez, Doc,\nMS., 39. Encargados de justicia Castro and Soberanes as before till April.\nJueces de paz from May, David Spence and Estevan Munras; secretary at\n$300, and collector at commission of 5 per cent, Manuel Castro, juez auxiliar\nVicente Cantua. Feb. instructions to comisarios de policia. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xxxii. 176. April, justices fined $20 by gov. for permitting a game of\nbagatelle on holy days. Fine for benefit of school. Dept. St. Pap., Mont,\nMS., iv. 12. Alcalde Castro by order of the prefect decides to appoint jueces\nde paz at Mont., S. Carlos, Salinas, Natividad or Alisal, S. Cayetano, Car-\nneadero, and S. Luis Obispo ranchos. Mont. Arch., MS., ix. 6. April 29th,\nelections to take place on May 1st.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 497.\n1840. Prefect Jose* Castro until his departure with the Graham exiles in\nMay, after which Jose* M. Villavicencio acted ad interim until August 20tb\nwhen Tiburcio Castro, father of Jos6, was appointed. Francisco Arce was\nsecretary until Dec., when he was succeeded by Manuel Castanares. Dept.\nRec, MS., xi. 16-18, 31, 60; Arch. Doc, MS., 19; Dept. St. Pap., Mont.,\n 676 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nhaving accepted the Mexican central system, abolished the town council and appointed an encargado\nto serve temporarily until the new organization could\nbe effected; and accordingly in 1839-40 a juez de\npaz was at the head of affairs. Also in 1839 Jose'\nCastro was made prefect of the first district with\nheadquarters at San Juan, his father, Tiburcio Castro,\nsucceeding him in 1840. Excepting the Castanares-\nHerrera cases, noted elsewhere in connection with\nthe political troubles to which they contributed, the\nadministration of justice at Monterey furnishes very\nlittle matter that is either interesting or instructive;\nnevertheless the criminal record with other details of\nmunicipal affairs are believed to be worth preserving.\nPrivate ranchos6 mentioned in the records as having\nMS., iii. 84; Id., Ben. P. y J., iii. 13; Mont. Arch., MS., ix. 30. Juez de\npaz David Spence and perhaps Est6van Munras; juez auxiliar Joaquin Buelna\nat Pilarcitos; capt. of the port Pedro Narvaez. Simeon Castro is also named\nas alcalde. April 7th while the town was under martial law on account\nof the arrest of foreigners Diego Felix murdered his wife and her unborn child, for which crime he was shot by the governor's order within 12\nhours. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ix. 108; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 45-9; Castro, ReL,\nMS., 57-60. July, gov. organizes and instructs a patrol force to protect the\ndistrict against Ind. and other robbers. Dept. St. Pap., St. Jos6, MS., v. 58-\n60. Aug.-Sept., the jurisdiction of the juez defined as extending to Rio de\nSoledad, including Alisal, Sauzal, Espinosa's rancho, Bolsa Nueva, all the\nranchos of the Salinas, Tucho, to the Carmelo boundary. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMont, MS., iv. 23; Mont Arch., MS., ix. 26-7. Dec, owners of shops, etc.\nmust keep a light before their doors till 10 P. m., even if the shop is closed.\nId., 30-1; Dept Rec, MS., xi. 29. Additional references for the list of town\nofficials. Mont Arch., MS., i. 28; ii. 1, 3, 8, 12; iii. 2-4; v. 1; vi. 3-9, 24;\nvii. 40, 43, 62-6; ix. 3, 9, 25-7; xi. 12, 14; xvi. 16, 23; Dept. St. Pap., Mont,\nMS., ii. 21-2; iv. 82; iii. 93; vi. 10, 28, 36, 38; S. Jos6 Arch., MS., i. 46-7;\nii. 50; iii. 40, 103; iv. 15, 18, 51; v. 32, 39-40; vi. 27, 38; Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii. 95, 162, 167; iv. 249; xiv. 2; xvii. 2, 3; Id., Ben., P. y J., iii. 30,\n47-8, 79, 84, 88; vi. 37; Id., Ben., ii. 3; vi. 74, 310; St. Pap., Miss., MS., v.\n40; Id., Sac, xi. 69; xii. 10; xiv. 7, 13; Id., Miss. & Col, ii. 229,235, 353-6;\nLeg. Rec, MS., i. 348; ii. 262; iii. 22-3; Gomez, Doc, MS., 24-5, 33.\n6 Ranchos of Monterey district, 1831-40. Those marked with a * were\nrejected by the land commission or U. S. courts. Aguajito, \\ 1., granted in\n1835 to Gregorio Tapia, who was the claimant. Aguajito (Sta Cruz Co.), 500\nv., 1837, Miguel Viilagrana, who was cl. Alisal, 1\u00a3 1., 1834, Feliciano So-\nberanez et al.; B. Bernal cl. In 1836 Soberanes and 37 other persons lived on\nthe rancho. Alisal, \u00a7 1., Wm. E. Hartnell, who was cl. Animas, or Sitio de\nla Brea (Sta Clara Co.), 24,000 acres, conf. in 1835 to Josefa Romero de Castro, who was cl. In 1836 she and her family, 16 persons, were living at Las\nAnimas. At the same time Antonio German and 32 persons were living at\nLa Brea. See also Canada de S. Felipe y Las Animas. * Arias Rancho, 11.,\n18391, Francisco Arias; A. Canil et al. cl. Aptos (Sta Cruz Co.), 1 1., 1833,\nRafael Castro, who was cl. Aromitas y Agua Caliente, 3 1., 1835, Juan M.\nAusar, who was cl.   Arroyo de la Laguna (Sta Cruz Co.), 1840, Gil Sanchez;\n PRIVATE RANCHOS. 677\nbeen granted or occupied during the decade number\nabout 95, the population of which, at the end, as already noted, was about 550 souls, or about one third\nJ. and S. Williams cl. Arroyo de la Purisima, see Canada Verde. Arroyo\ndel Rodeo (Sta Cruz Co.), 1\u00a3 1., 1834, Fran. Rodriguez; J. Hames et al. cl.,\nArroyo Seco, 4 1., 1840, Joaquin de la Torre, who was cl. Ballena, see Rin-\ncon de Ballena. Bolsa Nueva y Moro Cojo, 8 1., 1825, 1836-7, 1844, Simeon\nCastro; M. Antonia'Pico de Castro, cl. Bolsa del Pajaro (Sta Cruz Co.), 2 1.,\n1837, Sebastian Rodriguez, who was cl. Bolsa, see also S. Cayetano, S. Felipe, Escorpinas, and Chamisal. Brea, see Animas. Buena Esperanza, see\nEncinal. Buenavista, 2 1., 1822-3, Santiago and Jose* Mariano Estrada; Mariano Malarin, Attorney for Estrada, and David Spence cl. The Estrada\nbrothers with families, 34 persons, lived here in 1836. Butano (Sta Cruz Co.),\n11., 1838, 1844, Ramona Sanchez; M. Rodriguez cl. Calabazas, see Canada\nde C. Canada Honda, 1835, Angel Ramirez. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 225; Mont,\nActas del Ayunt, MS., 114. Not brought before the L. C. Canada de S.\nFelipe y las Animas, 1839, Thomas Bo wen; C. M. Wreber cl. Canada de la\nSegunda, 1 1., 1839, Lazaro Soto; A. Randall et al. cl. Canada Verde, 1836,\nmentioned by Janssens, Vida, MS., 67-8, as having been granted by Gov. Chico\nto Francisco Castillo Negrete, but the grant was not completed on account of\nthe political troubles. Canada Verde y Arroyo de la Purisima (Sta Cruz Co.), 2\n1., 1838, Jose* M. Alviso; J. A. Alviso cl.; Carbonera (Sta Cruz Co.), JL, 1838,\nWm Buckle, who was cl. Carneros, 11., 1834. David Littlejohn, whose heirs\nwere cl. * Chamizal, 1 1., 1835, Felipe Vasquez, whose heirs were cl. Approved by the ayunt. in 1835. Chamizal (Bolsa de), 1837, Francisco Quijada;\nL. T. Burton cl. Chualar (Sta Rosa de), 2 1., 1839, Juan Malarin, whose executor was cl. Joaquin and Francisco Estrada with 2 servants lived on the\nrancho in 1836. * Corral de Padilla, 2,000 v., 1836, Baldomero; M. Antonia\nPico de Castro cl. Corral de Tierra, 1836, Guadalupe Figueroa; H. D. Mc-\nCobb cl. Corralitos (Sta Cruz Co.) not yet granted, but occupied in 1836 by\nIgnacio Coronel and family, 12 persons in all. Encinal y Buena Esperanza, 3\n1., 1834, 1839, David Spence, who was cl. Vicente Felix as majordomo with\n5 others living here in 1836. Escorpinas (Escarpinas or JCscorpiones ?) 2 1.,\n1837, Salvador Espinosa, who was cL * Espiritu Santo (Loma), 1839, M.\ndel E. S. Carrillo, who was cl. Los Gatos, or Sta Rita, 11., 1820,1837, Jose*\nTrinidad Espinosa, whose heirs were cl. Guadalupe, 1840, D. Olivera and\nT. Arellanes, who were cl. Guadalupe or Llanito de los Correos, 2 1., 1833,\nJuan Malarin, whose executor was cl.; occupied in 1836 by Guadalupe Cantua\nas majordomo and 8 persons. Laguna, see Arroyo de la L. Laguna de las\nCalabazas (Sta Cruz Co.), 2 1. 1833, Felipe Hernandez; C. Morse, cl. Laguna\nSeca, 1\u00a3 L, 1834, C. M. de Munras, who was cl.; occupied in 1836 by Teo-\ndoro Moreno as majordomo and 6 others. Laureles, 1\u00a3 1., 1839, J. M. Bo-\nronda et al., who were cl.; the grant of Canada de Laureles to Jose* Ant.^Ro-\nmero was approved by the ayunt. in 1835. Llagas, 6 1., 1834, Carlos Castro;\nMurphy cl. (Sta Clara Co.), Carlos and Guillermo Castro with 11 other\npersons lived on the rancho in 1836. Llano de Tequisquite, \u00a3 1., 1835, J. M.\nSanchez, who was cl. Llano, see Buenavista. Llanito, see Guadalupe. Loma,\nsee Espiritu Santo. Milpitas, 1838, Ignacio Pastor, who was cl. Moro Cojo,\nsee Bolsa Nueva. Rancho Nacional, 21., 1839, Vicente Cantua who was cl.;\noccupied in 1836 by Francisco Mesa as majordomo and 7 others. The Huerta\nde la Nacion was asked for in 1835 by Capt. J. A. MunOz, and approved by\nthe ayunt. Natividad, 2 L, 1837, Manuel Butron and Nicolas Alviso; Ramon\nButron et al. cl. M. Burton and others, 29 in all, lived on the rancho in 1836.\nNoche Buena (Huerta de la Nacion?), 1 1., 1835, Jose* Ant. Munoz; Jose* and\nJaime de Puig Monmany (?) cl. Ojitos, see Poza. Pajaro, see Vega del Rio;\nalso Bolsa del P. Palo de Yesca, see Shoquel. Parage de Sanchez, 1\u00a3 1.,\n1839, Francisco Lugo; Juana Briones de Lugo cl.  Patrocinio (Alisal ?), occu-\n 678 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nof the total population of the district. Excepting,\nhowever, the padron of 1836, showing the names and\nnumbers of inhabitants at that time, we have no sat-\npied in 1836 by Hartnell, P. Short, and 13 colegiales with servants, etc., 44\npersons in all. Pescadero, 1 1. 1836, Fabian Baretto, who was cl. Pescadero\nor S. Antonio (Sta Cruz Co.), f 1., 1833, Juan Jose* Gonzalez, who was cl.\nPiedra. Blanca (S. Luis Obispo Co.), 1840, Jesus Pico, who was cl. Pilarcitos;\nexpediente of Gabriel Espinosa in 1835. Doc Hist. Cal, MS., i. 485;- grant'\nof a tract to Luis Mesa approved by ayunt. in 1835; occupied in 1836 by Jose*\nM. Arceo, Gregorio Tapia, and others, 40 in all; not before L. C. Pismo, 2\n1., 1840, Jose* Ortega; Isaac Sparks cl., in S. Luis Obispo Co. Potrero, see S.\nCarlos; also S. Pedro. Poza de los Ositos, 4 1. 1839, Carlos C. Espinosa, who\nwas cl. Puente del Monto, see Rincon. Punta de Pinos, 2 1., 1833, 1844, Jose*\nM. Armenta, Jose Abrego; J. P. Leese cl.   Purisima, see Canada Verde.\n* Quien Sabe, 6 1., 1836, Fran. Castillo Negrete, who was cl. (S. Joaquin Co.)\n* Refugio (Sta Cruz Co.), 1839, Maria de los Angeles Castro et al.; J. L.\nMajors cl. *Rincon de\" la Ballena (Sta Cruz Co.), 1 1., 1839, Jose C. Berhal;\nS. Rodriguez cl. Rincon de la Puente (Punta?) del Monte, 7 1. 1836, Teodoro\nGonzalez, who was cl. In 1835 the grant to Felipe Aguila was approved by the\nayunt. Rincon, see Salinas, also S. Pedro. Rinconada del Zanjon, 1^ 1., 1840,\nEusebio Boronda, who was cl. Rosario, see S. Francisco. Rodeo, see Arroyo del\nR. Rosa Morada, see S. Joaquin. Sagrada familia, see Bolsas. Salinas, 11.,\n1836, Gabriel Espinosa, who was cl. Salinas (Rincon).\u00a3 1., 1833, Cristina Del-\ngado; Ramon Estrada cl. In 1836 Salinas was occupied by Jose* M. Boronda,\nBias Martinez, and others, 78 persons in all. Salsipuedes (Sta Cruz Co.) 81.,\n1834, 1840, Manuel Jimeno Casarin; James Blair et al. cl. San Andres (Sta\nCruz Co.), 2 1., 1833, Joaquin Castro; G. Castro cl. S. Antonio, occupied in\n1836 by Jose* Ant. Castro and family, 15 persons. The identity of this rancho is\nuncertain. See also Pescadero. S. Bernabe*, see S. Justo. S. Bernardo, 11.,\n1840, Vicente Cane*, who was cl. S. Carlos (Potrero), 1 1., 1837, Fructuoso; J.\nGutierrez cl. S. Cayetano (Bolsa), 21., 1824,1834, Ignacio Vallejo; J. J. Vallejo cl. In Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., i. 123, are some papers relating to the Pico\nclaim on* this rancho. Jesus Vallejo and 15 persons occupied the rancho in 1836.\nS. Felipe, 3 1., 1836, F. D. Pacheco; F. P. Pacheco cl. S. Felipe (Bolsa) 21.,\n1840, F. P. Pacheco; F. P. Pacheco cl.; occupied in 1836 by Rafael de la\nMota and 7 others. S. Francisco del Rosario, occupied in 1836 by Angel\nCastro and 13 other persons (perhaps Paicines granted to Castro in 1842). S.\nFrancisquito, 21., 1835^ Catalina M. de Munras; Jose* Abrego cl. Occupied\nin 1836 by Juan Rosales as majordomo with family, etc., 9 persons. S.\nGregorio (Sta Cruz Co.), 4 1., 1839, Antonio Buelna; E. Buelna et al. cl. S.\nIsidro, I 1., 1833, Quintin Ortega, who was cl. (Sta Clara Co.) Occupied in\n1836 by Ortega and 37 persons. S. Joaquin or Rosa Morada, 2 1., 1836, Cruz\nCervantes, who was cl. *S. Jose* y Sur Chiquito, 2 1., 1839, Marcelino Escobar; J. Castro cl. The grant of Sur Chiquito to Teodoro Gonzalez was approved by the ayunt. in 1835. S. Juan y Cajon de Sta Ana, 1837, Juan P.\nOntiveros, who was cl. S. Justo,-4 1., 1839, Jose* Castro; F. P. Pacheco cl.\n*S. Justo el Viejo y S. Bernabe*, 6 1., 1836, Rafael Gonzalez; Ellen E. White\net al. cl. S. Matias, occupied in 1836 by Joaquin Soto and family, 14 persons (not in\" L. C. cases under this name; Soto was granted El Piojo and\nCaiiada de Carpentaria later). S. Miguel, occupied in 1836 by Trinidad and\nSalvador Espinosa, 21 persons (the grant of Canada de S. Miguel to Jose* M.\nAndrade was approved by the ayunt. in 1835). *S. Pedro, Potrero y Rincon de (Sta Cruz Co.), 1838, Jose* R. Buelna. *S. Vicente (Sta Cruz Co.), 2\n1., 1839, Antonio Rodriguez, who was cl. S. Vincente, 2 1., 1835, Francisco\nSoto and S. Munras; Conccpcion Munras et al. cl. (Las Pozas was approved\nto Soto in 1835 by the ayunt.) *Sta Ana y Sta Anita (S. Joaquin Co.), 6 1.,\n1836, Francisco Castillo Negrete; Josefa M. de C. N. cl.   Sta Ana, see S.\n SAN CARLOS MISSION. 679\nisfactory statistics nor any record of events at the\nranchos beyond the occasional mention of a few in\nconnection with general annals of the territory.\nPadre Ramon Abella remained in charge of Mission San C&rlos until 1833, when he was succeeded\nby the Zacatecan Jose Maria del Refugio Sagrado\nSuarez del Real. There is extant neither record of\nsecularization or other events, nor statistical information for any part of the decade; but I append the\nfew scattered items that can be found.7    Seculariza-\nJuan. Sta Cruz Co. ranchos, see Aguajito, Aptos, Arroyo de la Laguna,\nArroyo del Rodeo, Bolsa del Pajaro, Butano, Canada Verde, Carbonera, Cor-\nralitos, Laguna de Calabazas, Pescadero, Refugio, Rincon de la Ballena,\nSalsipuedes, S. Andr6*s, S. Gregorio, S. Pedro, S. Vincente, Sayante, and\nShoquel. Sta Manuela, 1837, Francis Branch, who was cl. (S. Luis Obispo\nCo.) Sta Rita, see Los Gatos. Sta Rosa, see Chualar. Saucito, 1\u00a3 1., 1833,\nGraciano Manjares; J. Wilson et al. cl.; occupied by M. and fam., 8 persons,\nin 1836. Sauzal, 2 1., 1834, 1845, Jose* Tiburcio Castro; J. P. Leese, cl.;\noccupied in 1836 by Martin Olivera and fam., 19 persons in all. *Sayante\n(Sta Cruz Co.), 31., 1833, Joaquin Buelna; N. Cathcart cl. Shoquel and Palo\nde Yesca (Sta Cruz Co.), 4 1., 1833-4, 1844. Martina Castro, who was cl.\nSur, 2 1., 1834, J. B. Alvarado; J. B. R. Cooper cl. Sur Chiquito, see S.\nJose*. Toro, 1\u00a3 1., 1835, Ramon Estrada; C. Wolters cl.; much trouble\nabout the right of the ayuut. to grant this rancho, which was claimed by the\nmilitary company. Trinidad, occupied by Sebastian Rodriguez, etc., 40 persons in 1836 (not before L. C. under this name; but Rodriguez was granted\n2 ranchos in Sta Cruz Co.) Tucho, occupied by Cruz Cervantes majordomo\nand 10 others in 1836; parts of the rancho granted after 1840; the grant to\nManuel Boronda and Bias Martinez approved by ayunt. in 1835. Tularcitos,\n61., 1834, Rafael Gomez, whose widow was cl. Vega del Rio del Pajaro,\n8,000 acres, 1820. Ant. M. Castro; J. M. Anzarcl.; not mentioned in this\ndecade. Verjeles, 2 1., 1835, Jose* Joaquin Gomez; J. C. Stokes cl.; occupied\nin 1836 by 14 persons, Eusebio Boronda being majordomo. Yesca, see\nShoquel. Zanjones, 1\u00a3 1., 1839, Gabriel de la Torre; Mariano Malarin cl.\nZanjon, see also Rinconada. Also the following ranchos without names:\nAntonio Romero, 1840; Jas Meadows cl. Francisco Perez Pacheco, 2 1.,\n1833, id. cl. *Hermenegildo, 500 v., 1835, Id. cl. Manuel Larios, 1 1., 1839;\nId. cl. Mariano Castro, 1839; Rufina Castro cl. Estevan Espinosa, J 1.,\n1840; Henry Cocks cl. Ranchos approved by the ayunt. in 1835 and not\nmentioned above; Los Pajines, or Paicines, to Angel Castro; not named, near\nSoledad, to Jose* Cantor; Chichiguas, near S. Juan B., to Rafael Gonzalez;\nnot named, S. Luis Cbispo region, to Simeon Castro. See Hoffman's Reports\nand Monterey, Actas del Ayunt, MS.\n7 San Carlos events. 1831. Provisions of Echeandia's decree, or the\nPadr6*s plan, never carried into effect; Manuel Crespo being appointed\ncomisionado; visit of Gov. Victoria; robbery of the mission storehouse by\nAguilar and Sagarra. This vol., p. 183, 190, 305-7. 1832-3. No record\nexcept of the change of padres in the latter year. P. Duran favored the partial secularization. Id., 319, 335. 1834. No record of secularization. July\n8th, the assembly permits a moderate slaughter of cattle to pay debts. Leg*\nRec, MS., ii. 148. The majordomo forbidden by the gov. to punish Ind.,\nsome of them having complained of being beaten. Dept. St. Pap., Ben,,\n 680 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\ntion was effected in 1834-5, Joaquin Gomez being\ncomisionado, succeeded by Jose' Antonio Romero as\nmajordormo. There was but little mission property\nleft in 1834, and none at all except the ruined buildings\nin 1840. The neophytes numbered about 150 at the\ntime of secularization, and I suppose there were 30\nleft in Carmelo Valley at the end of the decade, with\nperhaps 50 more in private service in town or on the\nranchos.\nAt San Luis Obispo, the southernmost mission of\nthe district, Padre Gil y Taboada continued to serve\nas minister till his death at the end of 1833, in which\nMS., v. 38-40. Joaquin Gomez was probably appointed comisionado this\nyear. This vol., p. 354. 1835. Jose* Ant. Romero administrator put in\ncharge by Gomez, according to Torre, Remin., MS., 37-8, who says that the\nInd. rapidly got rid of their share of the live-stock, and that Romero stocked\nhis own rancho with tho mission cattle and sheep. July. Gov. Figueroa's\nplan to establish a mission rancho of 600 cattle, 1,000 sheep, and a few\nhorses for the support of the padres and worship; but the president declined\nto permit the friars to take charge of sucii an establishment. This vol. p.\n351; St. Pap. Miss, and Colon., MS., ii. 334-5. July 31st, P. Real asks the\ngov. to order the majordomo to detail the horses for his ministerial duties as\nagreed on by the gov. and president. Id., 339. 1836. Ruschenberger, Narr.,\nii. 407, visited S. Carlos, and describes the mission as in ruins and nearly\nabandoned; though he found 8 or 10 Ind. at work repairing the roof. 1837.\nPetit-Thouars, Voyage, ii. 113 et seq., gives a melancholy description of the\nprevalent dilapidation; but he found P. Real, who 'fit les honneurs de ses\nruines,' and two or three families of Ind., who lived in the mission buildings,\nliving on shell-fish and acorns. 1S38. No record.. 1839. Juan Rosales,\njuez de paz. Marcelino Escobar juez interino in March. March 11th, inventory of buildings, 25 rooms, apparently turned over by P. Real to Escobar,\nthe padre's habitation and other rooms being reserved as church property.\nDept. St. Pap., MS.', xvii. 5-6. April 10th, prefect to juez; an Ind. must\nreturn and live with his wife. Doc. Hist. Cal, MS., i. 406. Oct. 5. Mission owes $160 to Escobar and Rafael Gonzalez. Pico, Pap. Mis., MS., 47-\n51. Laplace, Campagne, vi. 294, gives a view of the mission as it was in this\nyear. 1840. Nov. 11th, gov. orders the encargado to surrender to Jesus\nMolino some lands, house, etc, held by Jose Aguila. Dept. Rec, MS., xi.\n48. Farriham visited and described the forsaken buildings of 'San Carmelo.'\nAccording to the reglamento of this year, tho govt was to continue to manage S. Carlos 'according to circumstances.' Vol. iv., p. 60.\nStatisticsof S. Carlos 1831-4, entirely lacking. Statistics of 1770-1834(only\nestimates for the last four years). Total of baptisms, 3,957, of which 1,790\nadult Ind.; 1,306 Ind. children; 17 and 838 de razon; annual average of Ind.\n49. Total of marriages 1,065, of which 199 de razon. Deaths, 2,885, of which\n1,365 Ind. adults; 1,137 Ind. children; 194 and 189 de razon; annual average\n38; average death rate 8.17 per cent, of pop. Largest pop., 921 in 1794; sexes\nvery nearly equal; children 1-3 to 1-5. Largest no. of cattle, 3,000 in 1819-\n21; horses, 1,024 in 1806; mules, 76 in 1786; sheep, 7,000 in 1805-12; goats,\n400 in 1793; swine, 25 in 1783; all kinds, 9,749 animals in 1809. Total production of wheat, 43,120 bush., yield 10 fold; barley, 55,300 bush., 15 fold;\nmaize, 23,700 bush., 56 fold; beans, 24,000 bush., 25 fold.\n SAN LUIS OBISPO.\n681\nyear Padre Ramon Abella came down from the north\nto take his place, remaining throughout the decade.\nPadre Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta was Abella's associate in 1833-5.8 The statistical record of San Luis\nis comparatively complete, and shows that down to\n1834 the establishment lost but slightly in population, having 264 neophytes in that year; gained somewhat in live-stock, especially in sheep; but had little\nsuccess in agricultural operations.9    After the secu-\n8 Luis Gil y Taboada was one of the few Mexican Fernandinos, though of\nSpanish parentage and himself intensely Spanish in feeling. He was born at\nGuanajuato, May 1, 1773, becoming a Franciscan at Puebiito de Quer6*taro in\n1792, joining the S. Fernando college in 1800, and being sent to Cal. in 1801.\nHe served as a missionary at S. Francisco in 1801-2, 1804-5, 1819-20; at S.\nJose in 1802-4, Sta Ine*s in 1806-10, Sta Barbara in 1810-12, S. Gabriel in\n1813-14, Purisima in 1815-17, S. Rafael in 1817-19, Sta Cruz in 1820-30, and\nS. Luis Obispo in 1820, 1830-3. His superiors gave him credit for more than\naverage merit, noting the fact that he saved many souls by the Caesarean\noperation, but he was often in bad health. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres,\nMS.; Sarria, Inf. sobre Frailes, 1817, MS., 54-5; Payeras Inf. de 1820, MS.,\np. 137-8. In 1814 he blessed the corner-stone of the Los Angeles church;\nin 1816 he asked leave to retire, having more than fulfilled his contract with\nthe king in 16 years of service, 'que le han parecido otros tantos siglos; in\n1817 was the founder of S. Rafael, being thus the first to introduce Christianity north of the bay; in 1821 he was asked to become pastor of Los Angeles,\ndeclining on account of ill health; again in 1825 and 1830 he tried hard to\nget a license for departure; and in 1833, while recognizing his destiny to die\nin the country, he declared that he was tired of mission affairs. It was at\nhis own request and against the wishes of P. Jimeno that he was given charge\nof S. Luis. He was a man of much nervous energy and considerable executive ability, with a certain skill in medicine and surgery, and a knowledge of\nseveral Indian languages. To his neophytes he was indulgent and was well\nliked by them, being very free and familiar in his relations with them\u2014somewhat too much so in the case of the women it is said, and it is charged that\nhis infirmities of body were aggravated by syphilitic complications. In 1821\nhe was accused of improper intimacy with a married woman who often visited\nhis room and was found in his bed by the husband under circumstances hardly\nexplained by the padre's plea of services as amateur physician; but his superiors were inclined to regard him as innocent, though imprudent. Arch. Arzob., MS., xii. 360-1. In Dec. 1833, at the rancho of Sta Margarita where\nhe had gone to say mass for the Ind. occupied in planting, he was attacked\nby dysentery and vomiting of blood, and died on the 15th. He was buried\nnext day in the mission church on the gospel side near the presbytery, by P.\nJuan Cabot. Guerra, Doc, MS., i. 246-7.\n9 Statistics of S. Luis Obispo 1831-4. Decrease in pop. 283 to 264. Baptisms 26; 9 in 1831; 4 in 1832. Deaths 115; 38 in 1832; 19 in 1834. Increase in large stock 3,740 to 3,800; horses and mules 1,540 to 800; sheep\n1,000 to 3,440. Largest crop 900 bush, in 1834; smallest 556 in 1833; average 745 bush., of which 490 wheat, yield 8 fold; 12 barley, 3 fold; 105 maize)\n30 fold; 27 beans, 7 fold; and 115 of various grains, 30 fold.\nStatistics of 1772-1834. Total of baptisms 2,657, of which 1,277 Lad.\nadults, 1,331 Ind. children, 49 children de razon; annual average 42. Total\nof marriages 775, of which 23 de razon; annual average 12. Total of deaths\n2,318, of which 1,429 Ind. adults, 877 Ind. children, 4 and 8 de razon; annual\n 682 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nlarization the number of neophytes was gradually reduced to 170 at the end of the decade; and live-stock\ndecreased about 50 per cent in the five years, only\naverage 32; average death rate 7.30 per cent, of pop. Largest pop. 852 in\n1803. Males in excess to 1798, females later; children \u00a3 to \u00a3 and even less\nat last. Largest no. of cattle 8,900 in 1818; horses 1,594 in 1799; mules 340\nin 1830; asses 134 in 1817; sheep 11,000 in 1813; goats 515 in 1786; swine\n210 in 1788; all kinds 20,820 animals in 1813. Total product of wheat\n116,161 bush., yield 11 fold; barley 1,375 bush., 4 fold; maize 26,923 bush.,\n104 fold; beans 3,595, 22 fold; miscell. grains 3,156 bush., 20 fold.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Feb. 5, 1835, pop. 253. Mt Pap., Miss., MS., x. 9.\nApril 28, 1835, P. Abella gave letters of attorney to A. M. Ercilla to collect\nof U. Sanchez, Mazatlan, $9,390 due the mission. Guerra, Doc, MS., iii. 17.\nDec 13, 1836. Inventory of the estate; buildings, goods, produce, tools, etc.\n$13,458; live-stock $19,109; fabrica, $5,000, garden $6,858; Sta Margarita\nrancho $4,039; 9 sitios of land $9,000; church and ornaments $7,257; library\nand musical instruments $519; credits $5,257 (besides the $9,390 due from\nUrbano Sanchez as above); total $70,769. Increase over inventory of 1835,\n$7,657, besides $100 given to troops, $333 debts paid, and $1,285 in cloths\netc. to Ind., total gain $9,376. No debt mentioned. St. Pap., Miss., MS.,\nvii. 57-9. Jan. 1837, admin, ordered by Gen. Castro to deliver $1,200 in\nproduce, and there are other similar orders of smaller amounts. Id., 65.\nMarch 19th, credits $5,884; debts $776. Id., 57. Jan. 1839, credits $343;\ndebts $2,304; inventory $61,163. \/(\/., 60-3. July 30th, Hartnell's inventory,\netc.; pop. 170; 1,684 cattle, 1,200 horses, 2,500 sheep, 16 mules; 157 hides,\n53 arr. tallow, 21 arr. lard, 300 arr. iron, 100 arr. wool, 388 fan. grain, etc.\nId., 59-60; Hartnell, Diario, MS., 24. Debts to 5 persons$987. Pico, Pap.,\nMis., MS., 47-51.\nRecord of events. 1831. Status under Echeandia's decree o^ no effect,\nexcept that J. B. Alvarado was appointed comisionado, and a comisario apparently chosen. This vol. p. 306-7. 1833. Mules stolen by N. Mexicans.\nId., 396. Lat. and long, observed by Douglas. Id., 404. Death of P. Gil.\nTwo neophytes robbed the church and shops, confessing the crime; but during the trial one died and the other escaped. Dept St. Pap., B. M., MS.,\nlxxvi. 53-6. April, Isidro Ibarra reports to gov. that the N. Mex. sell liquor\nto the Ind. and insult him. Needs a guard, else he will have to shoot somebody. Id., lxxix. 28-9. 1834. Part of the colony here. This vol. p. 267.\nS. Luis to be a parish of the 2d class under the reglamento. Id., 384. 1835.\nSecularization in Oct. by Manuel Jimeno as comisionado, Santiago Moreno\nbeing at the same time appointed majordomo, or administrator. St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS., ix. 14-15. 1836. Manuel Trujillo, administrator until Dec. 13th,\nwhen Moreno again takes charge (or perhaps Moreno had not accepted the\nappointment in 1835, Trujillo taking his place). Id., vii. 57, 61, 63. In Sept.\nthe Ind. had trouble with Trujillo and several of them went to Monterey to\nlay their grievances before the govt in a long memorial written by P. Mercado\nat S. Antonio and signed by them with crosses on Oct. 5th. The document\nrepresented the neophytes as living in slavery, being grossly ill-treated,\nstarved, and overworked, naming several instances where women had died\nfor want of a little atole. Several Ind., however, came from S. Luis to testify that the charges were false; and finally the complainants themselves testified to tb.e same effect. They said they had a very different complaint about\nsome cattle, which the padre advised them to lay before the govt. P. Abella\ncame with them to S. Antonio where P. Mercado wrote out their complaint,\nas they supposed, and obtained their signatures. They were much surprised\nto learn the nature of the document they had signed! Carrillo (J.), Doc, MS.,\n35-6, 39-45 (including the original memorial); Dept St. Pap., B. M., MS.,\nlxxxii. 9-27.    1838.    Moreno still in charge.   Some of Castro's prisoners sent\n SAN MIGUEL. 683\nhorses showing an increase, and all the horses being\nstolen by New Mexican 'traders' in 1840. Most of\nthe cattle however were wild, and only slight reliance\nwas placed in agriculture. The inventory showed a\nvaluation of about $70,000 in 1836, and $60,000 in\n1839, after wThich there are indications that the loss\nwas rapid. Secularization was effected in 1835 by\nManuel Jimeno Casarin, whose successors as majordomos or administrators wTere Manuel Trujillo in 1835-\n6, Santiago Moreno in 1836-9, Juan P. Ayala in\n1839-40, and Vicente Cane* from November 1840.\nAt San Miguel, the next mission proceeding northward, Padre Juan Cabot remained at his post until\nhis departure from California in 1835, and his successor Juan Moreno until after 1840. Padre Arroyo\nde la Cuesta, of San Luis, spent much of his time here\nin 1833-5, as did Padre Abella in 1839-40.10    Under\nhere. This vol., p. 555. June, P. Abella represents affairs as in a bad way;\nthere are some gentiles that might be converted if there was any inducement\nin the shape of food and clothing. Guerra, Doc, MS., vii. 55. Oct. 5th,\nadmin, complains of the insolence of the native alcaldes. Needs a guard. St.\nPap., Mis., MS., ix. 74-5. Nov., complaints of robberies by Ind. and Englishmen. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 220. 1839. Moreno is succeeded in May by\nJuan P. Ayala. St. Pap., Mis., MS., vii. 61; ix. 74-6; Dept Rec, x. 10.\nA. was also encargado de justicia. Victor Linares was made majordomo\nunder Ayala iu May, but removed in Oct. by Hartnell's advice to save his\nsalary of $20 and the cost of supporting bis large fam. H. in July found the\nInd. very content, but fearful of losing the rancho which Sra Filomena Pico\nde Pombert had asked for. H. authorized the slaughter of 200 bulls for the\npurchase of clothing. Id., x. 8; Hartnell, Diario, MS., 4, 25,33,46. S. Luis\nwas the southern boundary of the 1st district. This vol., p. 585. 1840.\nAyala was succeeded by Vicente Cane* in \"Nov.' Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 46.\nFeb., 120 mares exchanged for 60 cattle. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ix. 50. Death\nof Angel Ramirez at S. Luis. This vol., p. 587. April, stealing of 1,200 mission horses by the Chaguanosos. Vol., iv. p. 77. Nov. 19th, gov. to encargado; Ind. must prepare to unite with those of S. Miguel (?). Dept. Rec, MS.,\nxi. 43. Sept. 11th, Hartnell's visit. He found the Ind. desirous of being\nleft under the padre's care. Diario, MS., 93. A*vila, Cosas de Cal, MS., 24-\n5, says that under Cane's care the mission went entirely to ruin. $6,000 was\nDouglas' estimate of exports from S. Luis and Purisima. Vol. iv. p. 80. In\nMelius' Diary, MS., 6-7, is described a cave at the anchorage used by the\ndealers in hides and tallow.\n10 Juan Cabot, a brother of Padre Pedro Cabot, was born at Bunola, Isl.\nof Mallorca, in June 1781, becoming a Franciscan at Palma in 1796, coming\nto Mexico in 1804 and to Cal. in 1805. He served at Purisima in 1805-6, at\nS. Miguel in 1807-19, at. S. Francisco in 1819-20, at Soledad in 1821-4, and\nagain at S. Miguel in 1824-35. Rated by his superiors as a zealous missionary of medium capacity. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS., Sarria, Inf. de\n1817, MS., 58-9; Payeras Inf. 1820f MS., 133-4. Robinson, Life in Cal., 84,\ndescribes him as a tall, robust man with the rough frankness of a sailor, cele-\n 684 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nthe ministrations of these friars the neophyte population fell off from 684 to 599 in 1834, and to 350 or\nless in 1840. There was a gain in cattle and not a\nvery marked loss in crops down to the date of secularization;11 but later the falling-off was much more\nbrated for his good humor and hospitality. Indeed he was known as 'el ma-\nrinero' in contrast with his dignified brother Pedro, 'el caballero.' In 1814\nhe made a tdur among the gentile tribes of the Tulares, and his narrative appears in my list of authorities. He tried unsuccessfully to get a license to\nretire in 1819; in 1820-1 served as secretary to Prefect Payeras in his tour of\ninspection; and in 1826 declined to take the oath to republicanism. More\nfortunate than his brother, Fray Juan at last secured his passport. Dec. 20,\n1834, Gov. Figueroa orders the payment of $400 to the friar, who after 30\nyears' service is about to return to his own country, proposing to embark on\nthe California. Dept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxix. 52. He probably departed\nearly in 1835. According to an article in the S. F. Bulletin, April 25, 1864,\nPadre Cabot was heard of in Spain by Bishop Amat in 1856 and died a little\nlater.\n11S. Miguel statistics of 1831-4. Decrease of pop. 684 to 599. Baptisms\n152 (including 26 adults in 1834); largest no. 94 in 1834; smallest 12 in 1832.\nDeaths 253; largest no. 87 in 1834; smallest 32 in 1832. Increase in large\nstock 4,960 to 5,140; horses, etc. 1,120 to 920; sheep, etc., '7,506 to 5,931.\nLargest crop 2,044 bush, in 1832; smallest 1,087 bush, in 1831; average 1,638\nbush., of which715bush, wheat, yield 6.4fold; 480barley, 11 fold; 168maize,\n32 fold; 37 beans, 8 fold; 135 miscell. grain, 21 fold.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Inventory of March 20, 1837; main buildings of\nthe mission cuadro $37,000; rancheria or Indians' houses, 74 rooms, of adobes\nand tile roofs, $3,000; goods in warehouse, implements, furniture, and manufacturing outfit, $5,043; garden with 166 vines and fence, $584; ranchos, S.\nSimeon, Sta Rosa, Paso de Robles, and Asuncion, with buildings $10,211;\nvineyards of Aguage and Sta Isabel with 5,500 vines, $22,162; live-stock (including $2,400 in wild cattle at La Estrella) $20,782; crops growing $387;\ncredits$906; total$82,806; debts$231. St. Pap., Miss., MS., viii. 24-6. Jan.\n31, 1839, administrator's account for 1837-8; inventory on taking charge\n$79,268 (why not $82,806?), additions to goods in store $6,092, supplied to\ntroops (?) $9,001, cellar $807, cattle $1,340, total charged $96,508; paid to\nemployes, etc., $4,748, supplies to neophytes of home products $4,381, id. foreign goods $2,030, house expenses $1,302, paid out for goods and produce\n$4,409, live-stock purchased $3,457, total credited $20,588; balance, or present\nvaluation $75,919. As will be noticed this account is not wholly intelligible.\nBy the end of June the valuation had been reduced to $74,763. Salary list;\nadmin. $800, clerk $240, two majordomos each $144, total $1,328; credits in\nJan. $278; debts $947. Population in Jan. 525 at the mission and 75 absent.\nId., 16-23. Aug. 1839, Hartnell's census and inventory. Pop. 361 souls;\n990 cattle, 249 horses, 3,800 sheep, 28 mules, 52 asses, 46 goats, 44 swine, 700\nfan. grain, etc Hartnell, Diario, MS., 25; St. Pap., Miss., MS., vhi. 15.\nStatistics of 1797-1834. Total of baptisms 2,588, of which 1,285 Ind.\nadults, 1,277 Ind. children, 26 children de razon; annual average of Ind. 67.\nTotal of deaths 2,038, of which 1,225 Ind. adults, 796 Ind. children, 6 and 11\nde razon; annual average 53; average death rate 6.91 per cent of pop. Largest\npop. 1,076 in 1814; sexes about equal to 1805, males in excess later; children\nabout \u00a3. Largest no. of cattle 10,558 in 1822; horses 1,560 in 1822; mules\n140 in 1817, sheep 14,000 in 1820; goats 66 in 1834; swine 245-in 1813; asses\n59 in 1818; all kinds 24,393 animals in 1822. Total product of wheat 72,544\nbush., yield 12 fold; barley 9,727 bush., 9 fold; maize 6,417 bush., 68 fold;\nbeans 646 bush., 7 fold; miscell. grains 1,344 bush., 15 fold,\nSummary of events etc   1831. Status under Echeandia's decree, Jose*\n SAN MIGUEL. 685\nrapid. The mission was secularized in 1836 by Ignacio Coronel; and Inocente Garcia was the administrator in 1837-40. The inventory of transfer showed\na valuation, not including church property, of $82,000,\nwhich in the middle of 1839 had been reduced to\n$75,000. There were several ranchos with buildings,\nand two large vineyards, none of the lands being\ngranted to private ownership during the decade.   The\nCastro being appointed comisionado, and the Ind. manifesting a preference\nfor the old system. Nothing done. This vol., p. 306-8. 1833. Jan., P. Cabot\nto gov., announcing election of native alcaldes and regidores. Gomez, Doc,\nMS., 22. Feb., a large quantity of growing wheat destroyed by flood. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxxi. 4. Mrs Ord, Occurrencias, MS., 69, visiting the mission\nthis year noted the prevalent prosperity and the large amount of property,\nthere being a notable change for the worse at her next visit two years later.\nLat. and long, as taken by Douglas. This vol., p. 404. 1836. June 30th,\nsecularization considered in the diputacion. Leg. Rec., MS., iii. 23. July 14th,\nIgnacio Coronel put in charge, probably as comisionado, at $600 salary. Coronel, Doc, MS., 189. Sept. 30th, P. Moreno writes that on the coming of\nthe admin, all property was distributed among the Ind. except the grain, and\nof that they carried off more than half. Guerra, Doc, MS., vii. 4. Oct. 16th,\nP. Abella writes that P. Moreno refuses, very properly, to render accounts;\nand the govt seems disposed to bother the padres in every possible way. Carrillo {J.), Doc, MS., 37. 1837. Inocente Garcia takes possession as administrator by inventory. March 30th, Mariano Bonilla served as his clerk. Garcia, Hechos, MS., 73-4, relates that on one occasion a party of men under\nIsaac Graham forced the doors of the monjeria, after which G. abolished the\ninstitution, leaving each family to care for their women. G. says he raised\nlarge crops until he found it was of no use, as there was no market and there\nwas more food than the Ind. could eat. He gives many details in a confused\nway about S. Miguel affairs. The Ind. were addicted to theft and could not\nbe controlled. Hechos, 57 et seq. 1838. P. Moreno complains bitterly of his\npoverty and the disappearance of the mission property. Guerra, Doc, MS.,\nviii. 2-3. 1839. Garcia still admin., but Bonilla acting in June-July. Monterey, Arch., MS., ix. 12; St. Pap., Miss., MS., x. 18. Hartnell's visit was\nearly in Aug. His reports do not indicate a bad state of affairs, though there\nwas a dispute pending about some blankets which the Ind. claimed not to\nhave been distributed; and at their request he dismissed the majordomo at\nS. Simeon, Manuel Ortega. The Ind. wished to have no administrator and to\nbe left with the padre\u2014anything for a change. They were also afraid of\nlosing their lands at S. Simeon, Asuncion, Paso de Robles, and Sta Rosa; but\nthey were willing to spare La Estrella, Cholam, Gueguero, and Canamo.\nOrders were given to investigate the case of men said to be ' cuereando' or\nkilling cattle for their hides on the mission lands; also permission for P. Moreno to cultivate the Huerta de Asuncion on his own account. In Nov. there\nwere complaints from the admin, that the Ind. were running away, and from\nthe padres that Garcia was not obeying the visitador's instructions, flogging\nthe Ind. excessively, and otherwise interfering with the padre's prerogatives.\nHartnell, Diario, MS., 25-7, 34, 47-8, 83-4. Aug., a majordomo poisoned\nby two Ind., who were arrested for the murder. St Pap., Miss., MS., x.\n18. Hartnell's instructions for the administrator, including repairs, concentration of industries, payment of debts, etc. Id., viii. 17-20. 1840. No\nrecord. Hartnell was here in Sept. but says nothing of mission affairs. Diario, MS., 93.\n 686 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nIndians lived at the ranchos as well as at the mission\nproper, and were somewhat unmanageable at times,\non account of their intimate relations with the Tula-\nreno gentiles; yet though the padre complained of\npoverty and mismanagement, the absolute ruin of the\nestablishment does not appear to have begun until\nafter 1840.\nPadre Pedro Cabot remained at San Antonio until\n1834, and Padre Jesus Maria Vasquez del Mercado,\none of the newly arrived Zacatecanos, succeeding\nCabot in that year, remained till 1839, to be succeeded in his turn by Padre Jose* de Jesus Maria\nGutierrez. Down to 1834 the neophyte population\nwas reduced by deaths from 681 to 567; and five\nyears later Visitador Hartnell found 270 living at\nthe mission and its adjoining ranchos, though as the\nnumber was reported as 520 in the same year, it is\nlikely that in 1840, there were 500 Indians connected\nwith the establishment, half of the number being scattered at some distance.12    Live-stock decreased about\n12S. Antonio statistics 1831-4. Decrease in pop. 681 to 567. 'Baptisms\n51; 17 in 1832, 9 in 1834. Deaths 184; 58 in 1833, 38 in 1832. Loss in large\nstock 5,000 to 2,540, horses and mules 1,000 to 540; gain in sheep 10,000 to\n11,000. Largest crop 2,718 bush, in 1832; smallest 2,100 bush, in 1833; average 2,448 bush., of which 1,527 wheat, yield 10 fold; 555 barley, 15 fold; 168\nmaize, 50 fold; 36 beans, 19 fold; 159 miscel. grains, 38 fold.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Sept. 10,1835. Inventory of produce, implements,\nfurniture, and goods, $7,883. St Pap., Miss., MS., vi. 16. April 27, 1836\n(1835?). Inventory; credits (?) $18,642, buildings $11,197, vineyards, implements, furniture, and goods in store $22,671, ranchos (S. *Carp6foro?, S. Bar-\ntolome or Pleito, Tule, S. Lucas, S. Benito, S. Bernabe*, S. Miguelito, Ojitos,\nS. Timoteo, and S. Lorenzo) $32,834, live-stock $1,000; total $93,122, besides church property $7,617; but there should be deducted $16,886 for property distributed among the Ind. St. Pap., Miss., v. 51-3. May 3, 1833, a\nminute and descriptive inventory of church property, total value $7,617.\nPico, Pap. Mis., MS., 17-25. Inventories of Sept. 7, 1836, deducting debts,\n$35,703; Dec. 30, 1836, $36,355; Sept. 1, 1837, $37,639, and without date\n$35,399 (apparently none of these including lands or buildings). St Pap.\nMiss., MS., viii. 27-29. General accounts, not intelligible, Sept. 10, 1835,\non-delivery to Ramirez, debit $15,587; credit $15,093, balance $489. Dec. 31,\n1836, Andrade to Abrego, dr. $35,703; cr. $38,892; gain $3,188. Sept. 1,1837,\nAbrego to Villavicencio, dr. $36,121; cr. $41,477; gain $5,3.~6. Id., 38-9.\n18S9. Feb., salaries, $500 to padre, $500 to admin., and\u00bb$180 each to two\nmajordomos. Id., 37. Pop. in Jan. ace to Pico's report 520, including 53\nabsent. Id., 36. Pico's accounts of Oct. 1838 to April 1840 show an excess of\nexpenditures over receipts of $500. Id., 33-7. Aug. 6, 1S39. Hartnell's\ncensus and inventory; pop. 270; 1,462 cattle, 303 horses, 2,612 sheep,. 15\nmules, 9 swine; 130 hides, 240 fan. grain, 114 arr. tallow, 10 arr. lard, 100\n SAN ANTONIO. 687\n50 per cent before 1834, except sheep, in which there\nwas a small gain; but by the end of the decade cattle\nand horses had lost another 50 per cefit, and sheep\narr. wool; crops in good condition. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 27; St. Pap. Miss.,\nMS., viii. 30. Debts $499, including those to Jose* M. Aguila, clerk, and\nManuel Lopez, ex-llavero. Pico, Pap. Mis., MS., 47-51.\nStatistics of 1771-1834. Total of baptisms 4,456, of which 1,761 Ind.\nadults, 2,587 Ind. children, 1 and 107 gente de razon; annual average 68.\nTotal of deaths 3,772, of which 2,000 Ind. adults, 1,763 Ind. children, 5 and\n4 gente de razon; annual average 58; average death rate 7.66 per cent of pop.\nLargest'pop. 1,296 in 1805; males always in excess of females, notably so\nafter 1805; children \u00a3 to \\ and in the last years &. Largest no. of cattle 8,000\nin 1828; horses 1,030 in 1831; mules 82 in 1832; sheep 11,500 in 1816; goats\n293 in 1790; swine 150 in 1817; all kinds. 20,118 in 1818. Total product of\nwheat 99,713 bush., yield 10 fold; barley 12,097 bush., 11 fold; maize 19,-\n591 bush., 85 fold; beans 2,514 bush., 15 fold; miscel. grains 4,500 bush., 21\nfold.\nSummary of events, etc. 1831. Status under Echeandia's decree, never\nput in execution, Antonio Castro being appointed comisionado. This vol., p.\n306-7. 1833. Duran favors partial secularization. Id., 335. Lat. and\nlong, by Douglas. Id., p. 404. 1834. Rumors of colony plots. Id., 281. S.\nAntonio to be a parish of the 2d class under the reglamento. Id., 348. 1835.\nSecularization by Manuel Crespo as comisionado in June, with Mariano Soberanes as majordomo till Sept., when he turned over the estate to Jose* M.\nRamirez, R.'s appointment being on Aug. 16th. Id., 353-4; St. Pap. Miss.,\nMS., vi. 16; xi. 30-3; Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 4, 8, 9. Florencio Serrano was\nemployed as teacher. June 22d, P. Mercado complains that all his efforts for\nthe good of the Ind. are rendered futile by the persons in authority, who\ncommit adultery openly and other excesses. The gov. orders an investigation. St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi. 32-7. Aug. 12th, the debt of P. Pedro Cabot\nto the mission, $808, was annnlled on account of his poverty. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., iii. 48-9. Ramirez declares that on his taking charge there was no\nmoney, no cloth, no table furniture; the shops closed, only a few poor and\ndying horses, very little other live-stock; the year's yield of hides and tallow\nestimated at $1,500; and expenses over $2,500. Dept St. Pap., B. M., lxxxi.\n73-4. Dec 28th, P. Mercado writes to the gov. on the unjust and even inhuman treatment of the Ind., who are beaten and starved in defiance of the\nlaws under Ramirez' management. j He also claims that their spiritual interests are neglected, because the admin, will not provide horses for the padre,\nand the Ind. are allowed to live at S. Lorenzo and other distant points; moreover he cannot collect his pay as minister. Id., 57; Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 3-6.\nDec 31st, Mercado's report to same general effect; heathenism gaining on\nChristianity; Ind. naked and starving, and two thirds of them absent in\nquest of food not to be had at the mission. 8. Antonio, Doc. Sueltos, MS.,\n120-1. 1836. Ramirez succeeded by Jose* Maria Andrade on Sept. 7th, and\nthe latter by Jose* Abrego on Dec 30th. St. Pap. Miss., MS., viii. 27, 29, 38.\nP. Mercado continued his charges of mismanagement and cruelty against Ramirez, declaring that the Ind. had passed from their former condition of minors\nunder guardianship to that of slaves under inhuman and irresponsible masters. He cited several instances of excessive punishment. In March an investigation was ordered by the gov., Jose* M. Cosio being the fiscal. Many\nwitnesses were examined, including Mercado, Ramirez, and several neophytes.\nThe testimony indicates that the padre, angry because the admin, could not\npay him ail his salary, had greatly exaggerated his charges of cruelty; and\nthat Ramirez, a comparatively efficient manager, had resorted to the lash in\naccordance with .Figueroa's regulations, as the only means of controlling the\nvicious and lazy Ind., whose complaints It suited the padre's purposes to en>\n 688 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nabout 80 per cent. Evidently there were but slight\ntraces of former prosperity; and matters were not\nmended by the interference of a quarrelsome friar\nand frequent changes in the administration. Manuel\nCrespo was the comisionado for secularization in 1835,\nand the successive administrators were Mariano Soberanes, Jose M. Ramirez, Jose M. Andrade, Jose*\nAbrego, Jose' M. Villavicencio, and Jesus Pico ad int.\nPadre Mercado was loud and constant in his complaints and charges, especially against Ramirez, who\nwas exonerated after a formal investigation; and the\nIndians were alw*ays discontented and unmanageable.\nThe venerable friar and ex-prefect Vicente Francisco Sarria died at Soledad in 1835;13 and from that\ncourage. The result was the acquittal of Ramirez, with an earnest admonition to him and Mercado to work harmoniously for the good of the mission.\nDept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxxi. 33, 48-78; Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 7-12. Yet, as\nwe have seen, a change of administrators was made in Sept. with a view to\npromote harmony. 1837. Abrego was replaced by Jose* M. Villavicencio on\nSept. 1st. St. Pap. Miss., MS., viii. 29. Garcia, Hechos, MS., 72-3, relates\nthat the Ind. rose against Abrego, accusing him of sending off hides and tallow, and giving them nothing. Abrego was besieged in his house, but released by Garcia who came from S. Miguel with 30 men. There is nothing\nin the records about this affair; nor are there any of P. Mercado's complaints extant for this year. 1838. Villavicencio was succeeded on Oct. 15th by Jesus\nPico, with Jose* M. Aguilar as clerk. St. Pap. Miss., MS., viii. 30-1; Pico,\nPap., Mis., MS., 48. 1839. Pico, Acont, MS., 53-4, says he merely acted\nad int. during the absence of Capt. Villavicencio in the south. He says the\npadre was arrogant and himself quick-tempered, and they quarrelled at first;\nbut soon became friends and associates in cock-fighting and gambling. April-\nMay, P. Mercado and Angel Ramirez arrested for plots against the govt.\nThis vol., p. 586-7. Aug. 6th-7th. Hartnell found the mission accounts in a sad\nstate of confusion, and the Ind. much discontented, complaining of harsh treatment, and that of all the produce sent away and the effects received they get\nnothing but threats and blows. They wished to live without any admin.,\nand were very bitter against the incumbent. (Pico or Villavicencio? H. also\nnames Jose* Ant. Rodriguez as the man who gave up the administration to\nthe incumbent.) Diego Felix was majordomo, and he made charges against\nthe administrator. The Ind. also complained of a bad man de razon living at\nS. Bernabe, who had given venereal disease to many of the mission women.\nHartnell's instructions required the admin, to expel all gente de razon not\nemployed by the mission, and to seek a new majordomo with a smaller family.\nHartnell, Diario, MS., 27-8, 34, 47-8, 51, 84; St. Pap., Miss., MS., viii.\n31-2. 1840. Vicente Moraga seems to have succeeded Pico in the temporary\nmanagement under Villavicencio, who on June 20th orders M. not to deliver\nthe property to Hartnell when he comes. He proposes to give up nothing\ntill his own claims are paid. If his (V. 's) wife needs anything, she is to have\nit, if the mission has to be sold to pay for it! Guerra, Doc, MS., ii. 192-3;\nVallejo, Doc, MS., xxxiii. 81. There is no record of the result. Aug. 5th,\nP. Gutierrez writes to Hartnell that the missipn is advancing every day\ntowS-rd complete destruction. Id., ix. 214.\n13 Vicente Francisco Sarria was a Biscayan, born in Nov. 1767, at S.\n LA SOLEDAD. 689\ntime the mission had no resident minister, Padre\nMercado of San Antonio having charge of its spiritual interests and making occasional visits from the\nEstevan de Echabarris, near Bilbao, at which latter town he became a Franciscan in Nov. 1703, serving at his convent as lector de filosofia for laymen,\nmaestro de estudiantes, and lector de artes de religiosos. He left Cadiz in\nJune 1804, and after four years' service at the College of S. Fernando, he was\nsent to California in 1809. His missionary service was at S. Carlos in 1809-\n29, and at Soledad in 1829-35; that is, these missions Were his headquarters,\nhe being absent much of the time on official tours. Autobiog. Autog. de los\nPadres, MS.; Sarria, Inf. sobre Frailes, 1817, MS., 76-7; Payeras, Inf., 1820,\nMS., 134-5, in which latter report he is highly praised, as of the most distinguished merit and ability, fitted for the highest position3, and one who might\nwith advantage be entrusted with a needed manual for Franciscans. In 1813-19\nSarria held the.office of comisario prefecto of the missions\u2014the highest in the\nprovince\u2014and again filled the position in 1823-30, or perhaps a little longer,\nbeing also president in 1823-5. In the discharge of his official duties he\nproved himself as prelate the worthy successor of Serra, Lasuen, and Tapis,\nand associate of Seiian and Payeras. Readers of my chapters on mission annals are familiar with his acts and views and writings, which space does not\npermit me to recapitulate here. In my list of authorities some half-a-dozen\nof his more notable productions appear, among which is a curious volume of\nmanuscript sermons in his native Basque. He was a scholarly, dignified,\nand amiable man; not prone to controversy, yet strong in argument, clear\nand earnest in the expression of his opinions; less disposed to asceticism and\nbigotry than some of the earlier Fernandinos, yet given at times to fasting and\nmortification of the flesh; devoted to his faith and to his order; strict in the observance and enforcement of Franciscan rules, and conscientious in the performance of every duty; yet liberal in his views on ordinary matters, clear-headed in\nbusiness affairs, and well liked by all who came in contact with him. As\nprefect, no Californian friar could have done better, since in the misfortunes of\nhis cloth he never lost either temper or courage. Declining as a loyal Spaniard to accept republicanism, P. Sarria was arrested in 1825, and his exile\nordered; but his arrest, which lasted about five years, was merely nominal,\nand the order of exile, though never withdrawn and several times renewed,\nwas never enforced. In S. Antonio, Doc Sueltos, MS., 83-4, is a letter to\nthe padre from his nephew in Spain, 1820, on family poverty and misfortunes.\nAfter 1830, old and infirm, but still actively engaged in local missionary\nduties, he lived quietly at Soledad, which he declined to leave in 1834 when\nthe northern missions were given up to the Zacatecanos, especially as no resident minister was assigned to this mission. Thus he was the last of the Fernandinos in tho north, dying just before the secularization which put an end\nto the Franciscan regime. He died suddenly, perhaps fell while saying mass\nat the altar, on May 24, 1835, without receiving the final sacraments. Padre\nMercado declared that his 'muerte violenta' was due to 'escasez de alimentos.'\nS. Antonio, Doc Sueltos, MS., 120; and the tradition became somewhat prevalent that he died through neglect of the administrator. Mrs Ord heard this\nversion; see also Mofras, Explor., i. 389-91; E. C, in Revista Cientif, i.\n328; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., iv. 93. By these writers the death is dated\n1838, and Mofras names the month as August. Vallejo says Sarria's death\nwas caused by neglect on the part of the Mexican friars. The truth is,\nprobably, that the aged friar, childishly insisting on remaining alone with his\nIndians, overtasked his strength and shortened his life, circumstances rendering suitable care impossible. I do not credit Mercado's charges, or believe\nthat there was an administrator in Cai. who would have maltreated a missionary so widely \/known and loved. His body was carried to S. Antonio\nand buried in the mission church, on the epistle side of the presbytery in the\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   44\n 690 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nautumn of 1834. There was but slight loss in population or in live-stock down to 1834, though crops\nwere very small; but later Indians, animals, and property of all kinds rapidly disappeared. The population\nwas about three hundred in 1834; and in 1840 it had\ndwindled to about 70, with perhaps as many more\nscattered   in   the   district.14    The   debt   was   large,\nsepulchre nearest the wall, on May 27th. S. Antonio, Extracto, Muerte de\nSarria, MS.; translation in Taylor's DUcov. and Found., ii. no. 24, p. 199.\nPadre Ambris was told that years later Sarria's body was found to be intact.\n14Soledad statistics 1831-4. Decrease in pop., 342 to about 300. Baptisms, 140, rather strangely including more than half adults; 54 in 1833, 26 in\n1831. Deaths, 150; 50 in 1834, 20.in 1832. Increase in large stock, 5,000 to\n6,200; horses and mules decrease 1,000 to 200; sheep, 5,257 to 5,000. Largest\ncrop, 1,890 bush, in 1832; smallest, 784 (?) in 1834; average 1,200, of which\n777 wheat, yield 10 fold; 253 barley, 7 fold; 84 maize, 25 fold; 21 beans, 8\nfold; 5S miscell. grain, 6 fold.\nStatistics of 1835-40. June 30, 1835, delivered to govt for national rancho\nin the past year, $1,513, and for the colony, $222. Dept. St. Pap., B. M.,\nMS., lxxx. 11. Inventory of Aug. 12, 1835; credits, $412; buildings, $1,764;\nimplements, furniture,\"effects, etc., $3,234; church property (church, $35,\nornaments, etc., $3,347, library of 51 vol., $186) $3,G18; ranchos, with livestock and produce, $31,366; total, $47,297 (should be $10,334). St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS., v. 57. Dec. 31, 1836, inventory without valuation, including\na vineyard with 5,000 vines; ranchos of S. Lorenzo, S. Vicente, and S. Fernando; 3,243 cattle, 32 horses, 2,400 sheep; credits, $7)66, debts $377. Id.,\nviii. 39-41. 1837. Salary list $1,240. Id., 43. Administrator's account\nfor the year, dr $2,702, cr $2,750, balance on hand $42. Id., 46. 1838.\nAdmin, acct, dr $1,005, cr $920, on hand $136; also 1,303 animals, great and\nsmall. Id., 47. Pop. Dec. 31st, 1G8 souls. Id., 48. 1839. Jan.-Aug.,\nequal receipts and expend., no balance. II, 44-5. Feb., credits $556, debts\n$88. Id., 40. March, due to employes, $1,5S7. Id., 77. May, June, excess of receipts over expend., $54. Id., ix. 73-4. May. 541 cattle, 32\nhorses, 930 sheep. Id., 74. Aug. 8th, Hartnell's census and inventory; pop.,\n78; 45 cattle, 25 horses, 865 sheep, 1 mule, 1 ass, 156 fan. barley. Diario,\nMS., 28.    Nov., debts $1,297. Pico, Pap. Mis., MS., 47-51.\nStatistics of 1791-1,834. Total of baptisms, 2,222, of which 1,235 Ind.\nadults, 924 Ind. children, G3 children de razon; annual average 50. Total of\nmarriages 682, of which 11 de razon. Total of deaths 1,803, of which 1,207\nInd. adults, 574 Ind. children, 9 and 13 gente de razon; annual average 40;\naverage death rate 9 per cent, of pop. Largest pop., 725 in 1S05; males always in excess of females, sometimes greatly so; children from 1-3 to 1-10.\nLargest no. of cattle, 0,599 in 1831; horses, 1,257 in 1821; mules, 80 in 1807;\nsheep, 9,500 in 1803; swine, 90 in 1814; all kinds, 1G,551 animals in 1821.\nTotal product of wheat 64,254 bush., yield 12 fold; barley 13,956 bush.,\n1G fold; maize 18,240 bush., 90 fold; beans, 2,260 bush., 11 fold; miscell.\ngrains, 13,012 bush., 27 fold.\nRecord of events, etc. 1831. Status under Echeandia's decree, not carried out; Tiburcio Castro comisionado. This vol., p. 306-7. 1833. Election\nof an Ind. ayuntamiento. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt 1, p. 375. 1834. The\npadre reported destitute of means, and leading a hermit's life. Soledad was\nto be a parish of 2d class. This vol., p. 348. 1835. Secularization by\nNicol&s Alviso, who was majordomo and perhaps comisionado; also alcalde\nauxiliar. 183G. Jose* M. Aguila succeeded .Alviso at a date\" not given, and\non Dec. 31st was succeeded by Salvador Espinosa, salary $500; Jose\" Ant.\n SAN JUAN BAUTISTA DE CASTRO. 691\nand there were left only 45 cattle, 25 horses, and 865\nsheep, though the inventory of 1835 had shown an\nestate valued at $36,COO besides the church property.\nSecularization was effected in 1835 by NicoMs Alviso,\nand the successive administrators were Jose M.\nAguila, Salvador Espinosa, and Vicente Cantua. At\nthe end of the decade the establishment was on the\nverge of dissolution, and I am not sure that the final\norder was not issued before the end of the last year.\nAt San Juan Bautista padres Felipe Arroyo de la\nCuesta and Juan Moreno served together in 1831-2,\nand the latter remained till 1833, when Padre Jose*\nAntonio Anzar took his place. The regular statistical reports cease in 1832, when there were 916 Indians on the register. As no extraordinary cause of\ndispersion is known, there may have been 850 neophytes in 1834. The only subsequent record is to\nthe effect that the number of Indians emancipated\u2014\nand there is no allusion to any others\u2014in 1835 was\n63, presumably heads of families and possibly representing 250 souls, but probably much less. As an\nestimate, which is hardly more than a guess, there\nmay have been 100 ex-neophytes in the immediate\nvicinity of the mission, and as many more scattered\nbut not relapsed wholly to savagismin 1840.15    Secu-\nGaxiola sec. $120 (later $180). Jose* Rosas, majordomo, $120. 1837-9.\nEspinosa still in charge. 1839. Hartnell's visit was in Aug. He found the\nInd. complaining of both Espinosa and Rosas, the former taking mission\ncattle for his rancho, and the latter spoiling the crops by his obstinate ignorance. They wanted to be free, under a kind of supervision by A\"guila, who\nhad been well liked as administrator. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 28. Nov. 5th.\nEspinosa was succeeded by Vicente Cantua. St Pap. Miss., MS., viii. 45.\n1840. Cantua still in charge; ordered in March to sell 6,000 tiles to buy food\nfor the Ind. Dept Rec, MS., xi. 37.\n15 Statistics of S. Juan Bautista 1831-4. There are no records after 1832,\nso that the figures for 1834 are only estimates. Decrease in pop. 964 to 850.\nBaptisms 144. Deaths 304. Decrease in large stock 7,820 to 5,000; horses\nand mules 324 to 200; sheep 7,000 to 4,000. Average crop (2 years) 2,029\nbush., of which 1,380 bush, wheat, yield 11 fold; 405 bush, barley, 10 fold;\n150 bush, corn, 25 fold; 49 bush, beans, 11 fold; 43 bush, miscel. grains, 5\nfold.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Inventory of May 1835; land $5,120; live-stock,\nincluding 41 horses, $1,782; implements, effects, etc., $1,467; total $8,369,\nto be distributed among 63 emancipated Ind. St. Pap. Miss., MS., x. 16.\nInventory of church property; church $3,500 (?), ornaments, etc., $39,240 (?),\n 692 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\nlarization was effected in 1835 by Tiburcio Castro,\nwho was administrator through 1836, no successor\nbeing named.    The inventory of the change shows a\nlibrary, 182 vol., $591, 6 bells $1,060, furniture of the choir $453, total\n$44,844. Id., vi. 10. June 6, 1835, paid to S. F. comp. since July 1834,\n$84, for the colony $435, besides $500 still due on colony account. Id., viii.\n48. Inventory of 1835 (no month named), buildings $36,000; implements,\ngoods and furniture $7,774; church .property (church, fully described, $35,000,\nornaments, etc., $7,740, library $461, bells $1,060, choir furniture $1,643)\n$45,904; vineyards, lands, and buildings outside the mission $37,305; ranchos,\nprobably including live-stock (S. Justo $1,300, Todos Santos $1,755, S. Felipe\n$1G,052) $19,107; credits $1,040; cash $222; total $147,413; deducting amount\ndistrib. to Ind. $3,439, and debt $250, balance $138,723. Id., vi. 17-19.\n1836. Jan. 1, 1837. Castro's general account for 1836; salaries (P. Anzar\n$2G5, Admin. Castro $262, Maj. Castro and Rios $149 and $171) $847. Expenses of house, etc., $155; goods and produce supplied to Ind. $312; total\n$1,315. Product of garden and vineyard $150, slaughter $270, due from\nthe ship California $357, cheeses left over $134, total $911. Balance of\nexpend, over receipts $404. Cattle and horses branded 175; sheep sheared\n2,C24; crops G07 fan. Cattle on hand 8G9, sheep 4,120. Credits in March\n$338, debts $1650. Id., viii. 49-51.    Nothing for 1838-40.\nStatistics of 1797-1834. Total of baptisms 4,100, of which 1,S98 Ind.\nadults, 2,015 Ind. children, 2 and 195 gente de razon; annual average 103.\nTotaLof marriages 1,028, of which 53 de razon. Total of deaths 3,027, of\nwhich 1,708 Ind. adults, 1,203 Ind. children, 5 and 65 gente de razon; annual\naverage 79; average death rate 9.35 per cent. Largest pop. 1,248 in 1823;\nsexes about equal to 1810, males largelv in excess later; children \u00a3 to 5. Largest no. of cattle 11,000 in 1820; horses\" 1,598 in 1806; mules 35 in 1S05; sheep\n13,000 in 1816; swine 99 in 1803; all kinds 23,789 animals in 1816. Total\nproduct of wheat 84,633 bush., yield 15 fold; barley 10,830 bush., 19 fold;\nmaize 18,400 bush., 88 fold; beans 1,871 bush., 12 fold; miscell. grains 2,640\nbush., 10 fold.\nSummary of events, officials, etc., 1831. Status of S. Juan under Echeandia's decree, not carried out; Juan Higuera comisionado. This vol., p.\n303-7. 1834. S. Juan and Sta Cruz to form a parish of 2d class under the\nreglamento. Id., 348. 1835. Secularization, Tiburcio Castro being administrator, or majordomo, and perhaps comisionado, though Jose* Castro may\nhave held the latter position, and Antonio Buelna also signs an inventory.\nAngel Castro and Joaquin Rios were subordinate majordomos. Felipe Amesti\nand Rafael Gonzalez are named as alcaldes 1st and 2d of the new pueblo.\nDoc. Hist Cal, MS., i. 483; Mont Arch., MS., ii. 2. July 27th, the gov.\nhas learned that the Ind. have taken more property than was assigned to\nthem. This must be corrected. St. Pap. Miss. & Col, MS., ii. 342-3. Jidy\n31st, Castro to gov. complaining that P. Anzar had taken the best rooms in\naddition to 11 already held by him. The padre wishes the admin, and all\nthe Ind. to devote themselves entirely to his service. St. Pap. Miss., MS.,\nx. 15. Alvarado, Hist Cat, MS., ii. 212-18, says that secularization was\nsuccessful here and at S. Antonio, though nowhere else, the Ind. being entirely freed, though watched, and making tolerably good use of their freedom\nand property. 1836. S. Juan was the headquarters of Alvarado and. the\nrevolutionists while preparing to oust Gov. Gutierrez, this vol., p. 453-4;\nand after the revolution the place began to be called S. Juan de Castro, in\nhonor Of the general, though the name was perhaps not officially used for\ntwo or three years. Id., 511. 1837. Jose* Maria Sanchez juez de paz. Revolutionary plots and arrest of conspirators. Id., 512. March, the Ind.\nattacked the rancho of Jose* Sanchez, killing two ex-neophytes and wounding\nSanchez himself. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 223. 1838. Ravages of the Ind.,\nsaid to be fugitive christians accompanied by many gentiles, at Pacheco's\n SANTA CRUZ. 693\nvaluation of $93,000, besides church property to the\namount of $46,000, and over $8,000 distributed to\nthe Indians. At the end of 1836., the mission estate\nhad still about 900 cattle and 4,000 sheep, with a\ncrop of 900 bushels, and a debt of $1,300. These\nare the latest statistics extant. Secularization appears\nto have been much more complete than at the establishments farther south, there being no traces of the\ncommunity after 1836. Constant depredations of\nsavages with ex-neophyte allies from 1837 contributed to the wTork of ruin; but a little settlement\nof gente de razon sprang into existence, containing I\nsuppose 50 inhabitants at the end of the decade; the\nname became San Juan de Castro; jueces de paz took\ncharge of local affairs; and the town was honored by\nbeing made cabecera of the district in 1839, on the\norganization of the prefecture.\nPadre Joaquin Jimeno continued his ministry at\nSanta Cruz till 1833, when he was succeeded by\nPadre Antonio Suarez del Real, who remained\nthroughout the decade. In 1834 the neophyte population had fallen from 320 to about 250, and apparently there wras no very marked loss in live-stock or\nagriculture down to that time.16    Secularization was\nrancho, where they killed Hip61ito Mejia. They also burned J. M. Sanchez's\nhouse, and S. pursuing wounded seven of them. A few days later they\nattacked Jose Castro's rancho, and again visited Pacheco's, driving off horses\nand stealing all they could carry. There was much correspondence about\nan exped. against the savages, but no results are known. Vol. iv. 75. 1839.\nJuan Miguel Anzar juez de paz, with Antonio Castro as suplente. For prefecture see annals of Monterey in this chapter, S. Juan de Castro being the\nhead-town of the district. April, buildings being prepared for the prefecture. Castro proposes to establish a rancho nacional at S. Luis Gonzaga.\nLeg. Rec, MS., iii. 87-92; Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 491. 1840. A*nzar still\njuez de paz, with Manuel Larios as suplente. By Alvarado's regulation of\nMarch on missions, S. Juan was one of the establishments which the govt\nwas to ' continue to regulate according to circumstances.' vol. iv. 60. July,\norganization of a patrol against Ind. between S. Juan and S. Jose. Dept. St.\nPap., MS., v. 14; Id., Mont, iii. 85-90. Sept. 1st the S. Juan jurisdiction\ndefined as extending from Natividad by Los Carneros and Pajaro to Las\nLlagas. Mont Arch., MS., ix. 26-7.\n16 Sta Cruz statistics 1831-2 (no figures for 1833-4). Decrease in pop. 320\nto 284; baptisms 17; deaths 54; marriages 11; increase in large stock 3,363 to\n4,095; horses, etc., 363 to 495; sheep 4,827 to 5,211. Crops 3,570 bush, in\n1831; 1,710 bush, in 1832.\nStatistics of 1834-40.   Debt in Sept. 1834, $4,979; credits $1,877. St. Pap.,\n 694\nLOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\neffected in 1834-5 by Ignacio del Valle as comisionado; and the value of the property when he turned\nit over to Juan Gonzalez as administrator at the end\nMiss., MS., ix. 71. Nov. 14th, sub-comisario acknowledges draft of Deppe\non the mission for $2,266. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. C. & T., MS., iii. 11-12.\nNov. 27th gov. orders prompt delivery of 13 blankets for troops. Sta Cruz,\nRec, MS., 18. 1835. Inventory of Dec. 1st. Buildings $16,940, furniture,\netc., $478, implements, machinery, etc., $2,163, huerta with 1,210 vines and\n1,024 fruit-trees $2,173, live-stock at the mission $1,051, id. with tools at the\nranchos (Matadero $5,104, Animas $1,125, Jano $1,050, Ano Nuevo $10,302)\n$17,581, effects in store-house $3,291, produce $5,176, credits $3,338, total\n$52,191, debt $4,979, balance $47,212, besides church property as follows:\nbuilding $8,050, ornaments, bells, cannon, etc., $23,505, library of 152 vols.\n$386, total $32,142 (another copy makes it $40,191). The live-stock noted\nabove consisted of 3,700 cattle, 500 horses, 2,900 sheep, 18 mules, 10 asses,\n28 swine. The chief creditor was Virmond, and the chief debtor the\nnational treasury. The lands 2x11 1. and mostly fit only for grazing are not\nvalued. Sta Cruz Rec, MS., 1-3; St. Pap. Miss., v. 54; vi. 40; Miscel Hist.\nPap., MS., no. 15. A newspaper scrap of unknown origin, often reprinted,\nmakes the total $168,000, and lands $79,000. Property distributed among\nthe Ind. from Aug. 24, 1834, to Dec. 1, 1835, $10,576. St Pap. Miss., MS.,\nix. 66-7. December 11th, payment of $300 to Comisionado Valle for his services. Id., 69. April 22, 1837, live-stock 1,000 cattle, 460 horses, 2,000 sheep,\n22 mules, 16 asses; 70 fan. grain; credits $3,040, debts $594, to Russ. Amer.\nCo. and N. Spear. Id., vii. 47-8; Pico, Pap. Mis., MS., 47-51. March 11,\n1839, receipts since beginning of 1838, from sale of hides $1,120; expend, for\nsalaries $1,465, besides cattle and horses delivered on order of govt. St\nPap. Miss., MS., ix. 72. Oct. 7th, Hartnell found 70 Ind., 36 cattle, 127\nhorses, and 1,026 sheep. Diario, MS., 44.\nStatistics of 1791-1834. Total of baptisms 2,466, of which 1,277 Ind.\nadults, 939 Ind. children, 6 and 244 de razon; annual average 50. Marriages\n847, of which 63 de razon. Deaths 2,035, of which 1,359 Ind. adults, 574\nInd. child., 45 and 47 de razon; aunual average 44; average death-rate 10.93\nper cent of pop. Largest pop. 644 in 1798. Males always in excess of\nfemales; children $ to &. Largest no. of cattle 3,700 in 1828; horses 900 in\n1828; mules 92 in 1805; sheep 8,300 in 1826; swine 150 in 1818; all kinds\n12,602 animals in 1827. Total product of wheat 69,900 bush., yield 18 fold;\nbarley 13,180 bush., 21 fold; maize 30,500 bush., 146 fold; beans 9,250 bush.,\n57 fold; miscel. graius 7,600 bush., 28 fold.\nSummary and index of events. 1831. Status under Echeandia's decree\nnot enforced. This vol., p. 306-7. Jan., P. Jimeno reports election of\nneophyte alcalde and regidores approved by gov. Sta Cruz Rec, MS., 13.\n1833. Jimeno succeeded by Real as padre. Duran favors partial secularization. This vol., p. 335. Lat. and long, by Douglas. Id., 404. Fortifications to prevent smuggling recommended by Capt. Gonzalez. Dept. St. Pap.,\nMS., iii 114. 1834. Ignacio del Valle as comisionado took charge on Aug.\n24th, appointing Juan Gonzalez majordomo Oct. 31st. St. Pap. Miss., MS.,\nx. 6; ix. 66; Sta Cruz Rec, MS., 12; VaUe Lo Pasado, MS., 9-10. Valle\ngave to the new pueblo the name Pueblo de Figueroa, which had been ordered\nby the gov. in Jan., and also gave Spanish surnames to the ex-neophytes.\nSta Cruz and Branciforte were to form a parish of the 2d class. St Pap.\nMiss., MS., 68, 71; this voL, p. 384. Sept. 15th, the padre, having given\nup the mission, asks the gov. for house, etc., grain and other supplies for\nhimself and horses, the care of church and wine, Ind. assistants for worship,\na division of goods in store, and that the eomisionado shall not prejudice\nInd. against the padre. Id., x. 6. Oct. 24th, gov. orders com. to settle the\nmission accounts at once. Sta Cruz Rec, MS., 23. Oct. 31st, gov. approves\nappt of majordomo at $40 inclusive of rations. Id., 12.   Nov., the padre in-\n SANTA CRUZ. 695\nof 1835 was $47,000, exclusive of land and church\nproperty, besides $10,000 distributed to the Indians.\nThere is no record of subsequent distributions or of\nhow the estate disappeared; but jn 1839 Hartnell\nfound only 70 Indians\u2014with perhaps as many more\nscattered in the district\u2014and about one sixth of the\nlive-stock of the former inventory. Francisco Soto\nsucceeded Gonzalez in 1839, and possibly the juez de\nsisted on having 10 rooms and the granary for a stable, but the gov. decided\nthat he could have only the rooms actually needed, and that the granary\ncould not be spared. St Pap. Miss., MS., ix. 70. Nov. 17th, Valle has\nselected a room for the ayunt., one for the secretary, and one for a school.\nId., 63. 1835. The governor's plan for a mission rancho for support of\nchurch not carried out. This vol., p. 351. May 21st, gov. calls for accounts\nof supplies to govt and to colony. Sta Cruz Rec, MS., 4. June 13th,\nmajordomo to pay padre $20 for freight of lumber. Id., 4. Dec. 1st (or\nperhaps earlier) the property was turned over by Valle to Gonzalez as administrator, the secularization being deemed complete. Valle was paid $300 for\nhis services. Id., 20. Inventories of Dec. 1st as given elsewhere, Asisara,\nan ex-neophyte, in Amador, Mem., MS., 90-113, spins a long yarn, perhaps\ntrue in some particulars, about P. Real's success in making away with much\nof the property secretly by night before Valle took charge, and of the process by which Valle, Soto, and Bolcof appropriated the rest. 1836. Spear's\nlighter running between Sta Cruz and S. F. vol. iv., p. 83. Forces recruited\nfor Alvarado's army. This vol., p. 491. March, gov. orders that Ind. must\ncomply with their church duties. Sta Cruz Arch., MS., 6. 1837. The oath\nto support centralism in July. This vol., p. 529. 1839. Francisco Soto\nsucceeded Gonzalez as administrator in Jan., and in Oct. was ordered to turn\nover the property to Jose* Bolcof, the juez de paz. Dept. Rec, MS., x. 3;\nDept. St. Pap. Nont., MS., iv. 18, but perhaps did not do so at once. In\nSept. Hartnell found the few remaining Ind. clamorous for liberty and a\nfinal distribution of property. They particularly wished to retain El Refugio\nand the mission puerta, which the padre also desired. They were bitter\nagainst their administrator; and Jose* Antonio Rodriguez desired the position.\nHartnell, Diario, MS., 8, 44. The French voyager Laplace, Campagne, vi.\n272-84, devotes several pages to a melancholy picture of the establishment\nin its state of ruin, poverty, and filth, as compared with its former somewhat\nexaggerated magnificence. He found the administrator a man of fine appearance and manners, and he found a pretty ranchera willing to sell vegetables\nat a fair price, but this 'California dove' was frightened away by the appearance of P. Real. I Vraiment il y avait de quoi d'effaroncher; car il serait\ndifficile de rencontrer un individu au regard plus cynique, a la physionomie\nplus effronte*e, a l'air plus d6bruill<S que ce padre Mexicain, avec sa figure\nbrulee, ses grands yeux noir a fond jaune, son chef convert d'un chapeau a\nlarges bords et a moitie deionc6, sa robe de, franciscain, autrefois blanche,\nmaintenant souille*e de mille taches, sans capuchon et retrousee jusqu'& la\n-ceinture afir de laisser toute liberte* aux membres inferieurs; entir avec une\nescopette en bandouliere qui achevait de donner a ce costume quelque chose\nde pittoresque.' 1840. No record of the man in charge. According to the\nreglamento the govt was to continue to manage this ex-mission according to\ncircumstances.' Vol. iv., p. 60. In Jan., there was an earthquake, and tidal\nwave, carrying off a large quantity of tiles and bringing down the church\ntower. Id.,. 78; Mont. Arch., MS., ix. 24. March, gov. orders admin, to\ngive up to P. Real the garden and distillery with the houses adjoining the,\nchurch. Dept. Rec, MS., xi. 9.\n 696 LOCAL ANNALS OF MONTEREY DISTRICT.\npaz Jose\" Bolcof took charge this year or the next.\nThe secularization of 1835 was considered more complete than at most other establishments, and the\nPueblo de Figueroa, distinct from the villa across the\nriver, came into existence on paper; but I find no indication of real pueblo organization, or that the status\nof this ex-mission community differed in any respect\nfrom that of others.\nThe population of the villa de Branciforte, given as\n150 at the beginning, may be estimated at 250 at the\nend of the decade, though there are no definite figures\nfor this period. In 1831-5 the villa seems to have\nelected its own ayuntamiento of alcalde, two regidores,\nand sindico; though I find nothing to authorize this\napparent independence from the civil authorities of\nMonterey. In 1836-40, however, the subordination\nto the latter was officially asserted, and an alcalde\nauxiliar was annually appointed, or a juez de paz after\n1839, the popular choice being usually approved by\nthe Monterey ayuntamiento and governor or prefect.\nThe successive municipal chiefs of Branciforte, the\nlist of subordinate officers being incomplete,17  were\n17 Summary of Branciforte annals. 1831, Alcalde Joaquin Castro. 1832.\nAlcalde Joaquin Buelna, regidor Manuel Villagrana, jueces de campo Rafael\nCastro and Francisco Soria. Municipal receipts $36, expend. $26. Dept. St.\nPap., Ben., MS., v. 80-1. 1833, Alcalde Jose* Antonio Robles, regidor Juan\nJose* Castro, deposed by the alcalde in June but reinstated by the gov. Id.,\nP. &J., v. 40. Munic. receipts with $10 balance from 1832, $43, expend.\n$42. Dept St. Pap., MS., iii. 131. Dec. 18th, 24th, elections of town officers\nfor next year. Id., 127-31. 1834. Alcalde Jos6 Bolcof; regidores Jose* Maria\nSalazar (?) and Jose* Teran; sindico Rafael Castro, secretary Jose* de los Santos\nA\" vila. Jan. 6th, alcalde's instructions to jueces de campo. Sta Cruz, Arch.,\nMS., 93-4. Jan. 22d, gov. approves alcalde's appointment of a monthly commission of regidor and 4 citizens to visit the ranchos, prevent thefts of horses,\nand catch runaway neophytes to work on the casas consistoriales. Id., 83.\nExpenses of the year $40, including a baston dejusticia which cost $15. Dept.\nSt Pap., B. M, MS., lxxviii. 6-7. May 10th, the ayunt had imposed a tax\nof $1 per vara of thickness on every tree felled and $1 on every otter skin, for\nthe payment of a teacher and of the secretary. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 62; St.\nPap., M. & C, MS., ii. 237-8. June 12th, Zamorano reports that the civil\njurisdiction of Branciforte extends from the ranchos north of Sta Cruz to the\nrancho of Jose* Amesti, between the summit of the sierra and the shore. Id.,\n218. June 28th, gov. provisionally fixes the limits of the jurisdiction as the\nS. F. boundary in the north, the S. Andres rancho of Joaquin Castro in the\nsouth, between the sea and the summit. Id., 220. 1835. Alcalde Alejandro\nRodriguez. Sindico Macedonio Lorenzana. Receipts $31, expend. $13. Sta\nCruz, Arch., MS., 84. Dec. 28th, gov. tells alcalde that Branciforte, not having the pop. necessary for an ayunt., must be subject to the ayunt. of Mon-\n BRANCIFORTE. 697\nJoaquin Castro, Joaquin Buelna, Jose* Antonio Robles, Jose* Bolcof, Alejandro Rodriguez, Rafael Castro,\nAntonio Rodriguez, Joaquin Buelna again, and Jose\nBolcof. Municipal finances were in a healthful condition, or at least expenses were so kept down that\nthere was usually a balance of more than a dollar in\nthe treasury at the year's end. The villanos still did\nsomething to sustain their old reputation in the way\nof social irregularities and popular tumults; if they\nseem not to have sustained it fully, the fault is perhaps not theirs but that of the defective records.\nAbout 20 ranchos were granted in this region before\n1840, a list of which with others in the Monterey\ndistrict has been given in this chapter.\nterey. He will appoint an auxiliary alcalde. St. Pap., M. dsC, MS., ii. 366.\n1836. Alcalde auxiliar Rafael Castro. Miguel Villagrana was elected Jan.\n19th, but objection was made that he could not read or write and that the\nelection was irregular; therefore the ayunt. of Mont, after consulting the\ngoV. appointed Castro. Dept. St. Pap., Mont, MS., vi. 13-15. Sindico,\nMiguel Ramirez. (But Francisco Juarez is mentioned in Jan. Sta Cruz Arch.,\nMS., 84.) Secretary Joaquin Buelna appointed in March at $10 per month.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 99-107. April, alcalde complains of the actions of\nGervasio Soto and wife; who, in revenge for being watched in accordance with\norders from Mont., caught two buzzards and tied firebrands to the birds,\nthus setting a man's house on fire. Mont. Arch., MS., ii. 6-7. P. Real also\ncomplains to the gov. Of disorders resulting from ill-assorted marriages; Juan\nPinto and his wife separated; Fran. Soria beating his family; and Gervasio\nSoto and family the cause of all the trouble. Soto should be banished in the\ninterest of public tranquillity. Id., 7-8. 1837, Alcalde auxiliar Antonio Rodriguez. Unb. Doc, MS., 245-6. No other record for the year. 1838. Alcalde Joaquin Buelna; regidores Francisco Soria and Macedonio Lorenzana;\nSez de campo Miguel Villagrana. Election of Feb. 12 th. S. Josi, Arch.,\nS., iv. 34. There is no explanation of this election, or why regidores were\nchosen. Probably there is some error, and Buelna was simply appointed alcalde auxiliar, though the people were allowed to express their choice. Indeed, Buelna is called juez auxiliar in several doc. of the year. There was\nno change of system. Aug. 1st, Feliciano Soberanes, from Mont., informs\nGen. Vallejo of Ind. outrages in the region. Eugenio Soto's body riddled\nwith arrows was found hanging near Sta Cruz. Vallejo, Doc, MS., v. 122.\n1839. Alcalde or juez auxiliar Joaquin Buelna until July, when Prefect Castro appointed Jose* Bolcof on the ground that Buelna had long held the place,\nand other citizens should have a chance to hold office. Sta Cruz, Arch., MS.,\n50; St. Pap., Sac, MS., xi. 3. Sindico Macedonio Lorenzana; sec. Manuel\nRodriguez, perhaps both for the next year. Mont Arch., MS., ix. 18. Gil\nSanchez tithe-collector. Sta Cruz, Arch., MS., 29. Branciforte's quota of recruits called for in July was 15. This vol., p. 583. Munic. receipts for year\n$18, expend. $39. Mont. Co., Arch., MS., 18. Tumult of April 16th, in\nwhich citizens revolted against the alcalde and resisted arrest by the prefect's\nforces, two being killed and several wounded. Id., 588; Dept. St. Pap., Aug.,\nMS., v. 3-4. 1840. Juez de paz, Jose* Bolcof. April, 4 recruits called for.\nSta Cruz, Arch., MS., 22. May, 10 foreigners in the jurisdiction, 4 being\nnaturalized. Dept St. Pap., MS., xviii. 71-3. For account of the Graham\naffair, many of the exiles residing in this region, see chap. i. of vol. iv.\n CHAPTER XXV.\nLOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\n1831-1840.\nGain in Population\u2014Nitmbeb op Inhabitants in California, North and\nSouth\u2014Summary op San Francisco Events\u2014Military Affairs\u2014\nCompany Transferred to Sonoma\u2014Pueblo and Ayuntamiento\u2014\nGranting op Lots\u2014Later Litigation\u2014Growth of Yerba Buena\u2014\nRichardson, Leese, and Spear\u2014Private Ranchos op the District\u2014\nSan Francisco Mission\u2014San Rafael\u2014Padre Amoros' Map of Mission Lands\u2014San Francisco Solano\u2014Pueblo of- Sonoma\u2014General\nVallejo's Achievements in the Frontera del Norte\u2014San Jose Mission\u2014:A Prosperous Establishment\u2014Santa Clara\u2014Padres Viader\nand Moreno\u2014Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe de Alvarado\u2014\nPopulation\u2014Municipal Affatrs and List of Officials\u2014Summary of\nEvents.\nThe population of gente de razon at San Francisco,\ngiven as 300 in 1830, may be regarded as 280, about\nequally divided between the peninsula and contra\ncosta, in 1840, the departure of the soldiers having\nmore than counterbalanced the gain from other\nsources. Adding 750 for San Jose and 200 for Sonoma and the northern frontier we have a total for\nthe district of 1,330, a gain from 840 during the decade.1 The ex-neophyte Indian population had meanwhile decreased from 4,920 to 2,300, of which num-\nxData for estimating the district pop., except at S. Jos6, for which we\nhave a regular padron, are very meagre. The size of the ayunt.\u20142 regidores\n\u2014in 1835 may indicate a pop. between 50 and 200 in the jurisdiction. Also\nin 1835, the resident signers to a petition were 30 in the contra costa. In\n1837 the militia company of S. F. jurisdiction\u2014peninsula and contra costa\u2014\nnumbered 86, which should be about \u00a3 of the pop. And finally in 1842 a\npadron shows 157 gente de razon on the peninsula. In the northern frontier\ndistrict there were in 1840 about 70 soldiers, cavalry and infantry, who with\ntheir families and those of the few rancheros etc. cannot have represented a\npop. of less than 200, my estimate.\n(698)\n POPULATION. 699\nber not over 1,250 were still living in the ex-mission\ncommunities. Combining the totals for San Francisco and Monterey districts we have for the population\nof northern California 2,930 and 4,040 Indians, against\n1,940 and 8,400 Indians ten years earlier, and against\n2,850 and 5,100 Indians in the south. Again combining the figures for north and south we have a total\npopulation for California in 1840 of 5,780 and 9,140\nIndians, against 4,250 and 18,000 Indians in 1830.\nThe foreign population as estimated elsewhere was\n380, more than half of the number probably being included in the preceding figures.\nBut for the organization of a municipal government\nand the growth of a new settlement at Yerba Buena,\nto be noticed presently, there is nothing in the record\nof events at San Francisco that calls for further mention than is given in the appended summary.2    Never\n2 Summary and index of San Francisco events. 1831. Possible visit of\nGov. Victoria in March or April. This vol., p. 186. Execution of Rubio for\nmurder in Aug., a famous case. Id., 191-3. Plottings of Padre*3 and Vallejo, and exile of the former in Oct. Id., 197, 200. Caceres, the only Spaniard in the jurisdiction, ordered away. Id., 401. Adhesion of S. F. to the\nS. Diego plan against Victoria in Dec. Id., 212. Oysters said to have been\ndiscovered in the bay by Capt. John Bell. S. F. Call, June 5, 1867. 1832.\nS. F. adheres to the new Zamorano plan, after a little trouble and a temporary suspension of Com. Sanchez in favor of Martinez. This vol., 223-4.\nMutiny on the Wm Thompson, smuggling by the Bolivar, and otter hunting in the bay. Id., 364-5, 374. 1833. Trouble between Vallejo and his\nsoldiers. Id., 248. Hard times, and Vallejo's troubles with the padres. Id.,\n322. Smuggling and seizure of vessels. Id., 365-6, 369, 393. Visit of\nDouglas, the Scotch botanist. Id., 404. 1834. Election of an ayuntamiento.\nSee note on munic. affairs, this chapter.\n1835. Proposition of the U. S. to purchase S. F. Bay. Id., 400. The\ncolonist conspirators embarked on the Rosa. Id., 286-8. Dana's descriptive\nmatter. Two Years, 261 etseq., 439 etseq. 1836. The presidio for the most\npart abandoned, the company having been transferred to Sonoma. Note on\nmil. affairs, this chapter. The Russians had a license to build a warehouse,\nbut did not utilize it. This vol., p. 426. Wreck of the Peor es Nada in Jan.\nVol. iv. 105. Celebration of July 4th. See note on Yerba Buena, this chap.\n1837. Organization of a militia company. Visit of Edwards from Oregon,\niv. 86. Edwards found half-a-dozen families living at the ruined presidio,\n\"and he incorrectly attributed its ruin and desertion to the late revolution\nagainst Mexico. Capt. Hinckley arrested for smuggling, iv. 103. Visits of\nBelcher and a part of Petit-Thouars'expedition in Oct., the narratives containing nothing on the state of affairs, though scientific observations were\nmade. In his memorial to the govt on Aug. 17th, Gen. Vallejo had much to\nsay of the advantages of S. F., with 8 towns, 17 haciendas, and 25 ranchos,\nwith 125,000 head of cattle, etc., situated near the bay, and tributary to the\nport.   Vallejo, Esposicion, MS., 13-14; Id., Doc, MS., iv. 299.\n1838.   Gov. Carrillo closes the port in Jan. This vol., p. 345.   Vallejo\n 700 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nsince the foundation had life in the peninsula establishments been more monotonous and uneventful than\nin this decade. Even the stirring scenes of the revolution and following sectional quarrels in 1836-8 had\nlittle effect on the tranquillity of San Francisco, except that a few of its citizens went abroad to serve in\nthe patriot, or rebel, army, and the rest were kept busy\nin awaiting and discussing news from Monterey and\nthe south. Belcher, Petit-Thouars, and Laplace made\nsome explorations in the bay without having any\nremarkable experiences or embodying much information in their published narratives respecting the\nstate of affairs on shore. A small fleet \u2022 of traders\nanchored each year in the port, but matters connected with commerce, vessels, and revenue have been\npretty fully recorded elsewhere in chapters specially\ndevoted to those subjects at all the ports.3\nThe presidial cavalry company varied in 1831-4\nfrom 40 to 30 men rank and-file, besides six or eight\ninvalidos, half of this force or more being absent on\nescolta duty at the missions of Santa Clara, San Jose,\nSan Rafael, and Solano, and the effective force of the\nhere in Feb. trying to raise men for service in the war. Id., 547. May. Return of S. F. troops under Sanchez from the south. Id., 563. Earthquake in\nJune, doing some damage at the mission, iv. 78. Oct. A band of robbers\nplundered stores (at the presidio?). Vallejo, Doc, v. 204. 1839. Visit of\nJohn A. Sutter in July. Vol. iv., p. 127 et seq. Visit of Laplace in Aug.\nId., 153. According to Dept. St Pap., Mont., MS., iv. 107, the military\npost was abandoned so that no salute was fired. Laplace's narrative gives\nno definite information about the state of things at S. F., though there is no\nlack of philosophic reflections; and there is the same lack of information in\nthe narrative of Belcher, whose visit was in Sept. According to Davis,\nGlimpses, MS., 44, the winter was very severe and rainy. 1840. Nothing to\nbe noted in the record of events.\n3 For 1831-5 see chap. xiii. this vol.; for 1836-40, chap. iii. of vol. iv. Antonio M. Osio in charge of the revenues, $2,419 in 8 months, in 1831. Russian\nvessels at S. F. during the decade, see iv. p. 158-9, 163 et seq. 1833. Bandini in congress unable to open S. F. as a full port. Pedro del Castillo in\ncharge of revenues as receptor in 1833-5. Much complaint of smuggling, and\nneed of a treasury officer. No custom-house officer in 1836-8. Wm A. Richardson captain of the port from 1836 or 1837. Vessels, tonnage, and exports\nin 1837-9, Richardson's record vol. iv. p. 88-93. Vallejo from this year made\nearnest but unsuccessful efforts to transfer the custom-house from Mont, to\nS. F. 1838. Carrillo attempts to close the port as a southern war measure.\n1839. Francisco Guerrero appointed receptor of customs after Leese had been\nrecommended but not approved. His pay was 25 per cent of receipts. Richardson got $60 per month.    1840. Douglas' estimate of S. F. exports $80,000.\n MILITARY RECORD. 701\ngarrison being from 18 to ten soldiers. The nominal\nexpense as per pay-rolls was from $10,000 to $9,000\nper year. The officers of the company, each serving\nat times as commandant of the post, after the retirement of Lieut Martinez in September 1831 were\nalfereces Mariano G. Vallejo and Jose Sanchez, the\nformer being absent as member of the diputacion and\nrevolutionist in 1832 and the latter being succeeded\nby Damaso Rodriguez at the end of 1833. The company sergeants were Jose' Berreyesa in 1831, Pablo\nPacheco in 1832-5, and Cayetano Juarez from 1833.4\n4 San Francisco military items. 1833. Efforts of Vallejo to collect tithes\nin cattle for the company; 170 head collected; gov. also calls on the missions\nfor contributions of cattle for a rancho nacional. Pinto, Doc,MS., i. 67; Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., ii. 67; Dept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxv. 1-2; Id., Ben. C. & T,\nii. 73-81. March 6th, $737 in goods sent by the comisario at Mont. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxii. 2*5. Vallejo's complaints of privations of his men. This vol.,\np. 322; but also demands for more soldiers and for a treasury official. Doc,\nMS., ii; 25, 27; St. Pap., M. & C, MS., ii. 315. 1834. Jan., gov. declines to\npermit escoltas to go to S. Francisco to receive what the missions will give\nfor the rancho nacional. Dept St. Pap., MS., iii. 142. May 3d, Vallejo reports the presidio buildings in a ruinous condition since the rains, the fort\nbeing nearly destroyed. He demands immediate aid to save the war material,\nand gets authority to act and make estimates. Id., B. M., lxxviii. 5-6. Later\nV. suggested the sale of the buildings to soldiers on pay account or to others\nin exchange for live-stock for the rancho; and he is authorized to so dispose\nof them, reserving barracks; but there is no further record. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., iii. 129; xxxi. 133. For the year 1833-4, the company received $3,574,\nleaving $5,191 still due. Dept St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxx. 3. 1835. Receipts from Solano in supplies $422. Pinto, Doc, MS., i. 151. Sept. 10th,\nV. authorized to receive 200 cattle as a loan for the rancho. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., iii. 73. Oct. 20th, V. says he has sent 600cattle and some horses by Car-\nquines to the frontier rancho. No profit to be expected for two years. Id., 79.\n1836. A party sent to S. Rafael for cattle for the rancho. Id., 109. Feb. 29th,\nVallejo to gov. recommends that the best buildings be appraised and turned\nover to soldiers on acct of their back pay. Others may be sold for cattle for\nthe rancho. Id., 97. 1837. Over $30,000 of back pay due the company. Id.,\nEsposicion, 20. Jan., a new civic company organized at S. F. under Capt.\nFrancisco Sanchez, lieutenants Jose* Martinez and Joaquin Castro, alfereces\nManuel Sanchez and Antonio M. Peralta, with 3 sergeants, 6 corporals, and\n72 privates, 86 men in all. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 14, xxiv. 7. Armament\nand war material at the presidio, report of Joaquin Piiia Jan. 7th; 8 iron\nguns\u20143 24-pounders\u20143 of which are useless; 8 brass guns, 1 useless; 994 balls;\n4 muskets, 1 pistol, 1 machete, 37 musket balls, and a few trifles. Id., xxiv.\n4. 1838. Oct., Spear has 2 small guns for sale to Gen. V. Id., v. 214. 1839.\nCapt. Sanchez named as com., also Prado Mesa. Aug., minister of war, says\norders have been given for the protection of S. F. Savage, Doc, MS., iv. 327.\nDec., the Mex. govt., in accordance with V. 's suggestions, authorized the\nremoval of the fortifications to Angel Island. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 217; viii.\n352; Dept. Rec, MS., x. 32-3. 1840. Funds sent from Mont, to Sonoma for\nthe comp. to amount of $2,700, and $700 for the general. Also for S. F.,\n$2,700 in July. Dept St Pap , Ben., iii. 146-7, 152; Id., C. & T., iv. 53.\nPay-roll for 1840, $14,058.    March 17th, Vallejo calls on gov. for aid, being\n 702 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nThere was also in 1831-2 an artillery detachment of\neight men under the successive command of Petronilo\nRios, Joaquin Pina, and Antonio Mendez. In 1835\nthe company was tranferred to Sonoma, where its\nforce was reduced to 20 in 1837, but raised to nearly 50\nin 1839-40. The officers, after Vallejo had been made\ncaptain and general, were Alferez Rodriguez to 1838;\nSergeant Juan Prado Mesa, made alferez in 1837,\nand acting as comandante in 1839-40; Antonio Pefia,\nsergeant in 1836 and alferez in 1837; and sergeants\nCayetano Juarez in 1836, Ignacio Pacheco in 1837,\nIgnacio Higuera and Lazaro Pina in 1839, and Santos\nBerreyesa in 1840. After the transfer Alferez Rodriguez remained at the presidio in 1835 with two or\nthree men; and after that year San Francisco was\nabandoned by the regular soldiers but for an occasional\nvisit by an inspecting officer; and the mission escoltas\nwere also recalled. In 1837 a company of civic militia\nnumbering 86 men was organized under Captain Francisco Sanchez, who subsequently figured as commandant of the post. It does not appear that these militiamen did anything more than 'hold themselves in\nreadiness' for the country's service, or that they ever\ngarrisoned the presidio, where, however, from two to\nsix men lived with their families in 1836-40, and\nwhere as we shall see ayuntamiento meetings were\nheld in 1835-8.\nDown to 1834 the military commandant had exercised political and judicial jurisdiction in the San\nFrancisco district, except at San Jose* and Branciforte; but now an organization of civil government, in\nthe north as elsewhere, was demanded by the laws, by\nthe spirit of the times, and by Figueroa's plans. The\nchange was the more necessary because of the proposed\ntransfer of the military establishment to the frontera\ndel norte.    Besides the soldiers soon to depart for\nabout to station a company at S. F. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ix. 79, 81. For company rosters and accounts see Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxi.-vi.; S. F. Cuentos de\nfa Comp. - MLS., xxii., xxiv.-v., besides many scattered items in other archives.\n PUEBLO OF SAN FRANCISCO. 703\nSonoma there were on the peninsula and contra costa\na few gente de razon, perhaps nearly 200 in all, whose\ncivil needs required attention. Accordingly the governor, after some preliminary correspondence with\nComandante Vallejo and the taking of a census, gave\norders in November 1834 for the election of an ayuntamiento to govern the pueblo of San Francisco and\nthe adjoining region down to Llagas Creek or the\nPulgas rancho on the peninsula and the ranchos\nacross the bay eastward. The town council was duly\nelected, and installed in January 1835, being regularly\nrenewed at the beginning of each year until 1839. The\nsuccessive alcaldes were Francisco de Haro, Jose'\nJoaquin Estudillo, Ignacio Martinez, and Haro again\nfor a second and third term. The records of ayuntamiento meetings are not extant, and not all the members in all years can be named; but we have sufficient\noriginal documents to show the existence of the\nmunicipal government and the nature of proceedings,\na summary of which is as for other towns appended\nin a note.6    Meetings and elections\u2014the former not\n5 In connection with later litigation on the S. F. pueblo lands,, each of\nthe many documents in the archives pertaining in any way to municipal affairs in 1834-36 was cited, translated, and commented on over and over again by\nlawyers and judges in briefs and decisions, which also contain in various combinations testimony from other sources. All this matter is extant in print in\nmany forms; and there are several general treatises that are quite satisfactory. For this reason, and because my space does not permit the minute\nchronologic summary and analysis that would be in a sense desirable, and as\nthe comparatively few items of evidence brought to light by my researches do\nnot radically modify the conclusions previously reached, I shall attempt only\na brief outline of the leading points. For more details I refer the reader to\nDivinelle'8 Colonial Hist S. F.; Halleck's Land Tides in San Francisco, Decisions, etc., with Notes and Comments, etc,S. F., 1860; Randolph's Argument\nin Hart v. Burnett, S. F., 1850; Jones' Pueblo Question Solved, S. F., I860;\nWheeler'8 Land Titles; and Cal. Supreme Court Reports.\n1834. Feb.-June, preliminary corresp. between Gov. Figueroa and Comandante Vallejo on the limits of S. F. jurisdiction, census of population, and\ndesirability of an ayuntamiento. The limits were defined temporarily by the\ngov. as including the S. F. mission lands to the Sta Cruz line on the coast,\nthe Pulgas rancho, and across the bay the ranchos of Peralta and Castro and\nall north and east to the gentilidad. St. Pap., M.&C, MS., ii. 217-20; Dept\nSt. Pap., MS., iii. 141. Nov. 3d, action of the diputacion, sent by gov. to\nVallejo on the 4th, ordering the election of an ayunt., of alcalde, two regidores,\nand sindico, to reside at the presidio, and assume the political and judicial\nfunctious formerly pertaining to the mil. comandante. Dwindle, add. 35-6.\nNov. 4th, gov. to Vallejo, authorizing him to establish municipal govt, and\napproving a line fixed by him from Pt Lobos to Rincon Pt as the pueblo\n 704 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nvery numerous, presumably\u2014were required to be\nheld, and were held, so far as the records show, at\nthe presidio, though some of the officials and most of\nthe citizens lived elsewhere, the presidio, as we have\nboundary. Vallejo, Doc, MS., ii. 316. This was the 'Zamorano document,'\nshown to be spurious, as no such 'Vallejo line' was ever adopted for the purpose indicated, though the land commission accepted it as authentic. Janssens, Vida, MS., 48-9, claims to have brought the gov.'s order from Mont, to\nS. F., and to have witnessed the installation of the ayunt. Dec. 7th, record\nof primary election at the presidio; electors chosen; Ignacio Peralta, Francisco Sanchez, Fran. Soto, Joaquin Castro, Jos6 C Sanchez, Fran, de Haro,\nManuel Sanchez, Juan Miranda, Antonio Castro, Marcos Briones, and Apo-\nlinario Miranda, the highest no. of votes being 27. Dwindle, add. 36.\n1835. Alcalde Fran, de Haro, secretary Fran. Sanchez, regidores and\nsindico unknown. Jan. 22d, Haro to gov., announcing that the ayunt. has\nbegun its sessions, having appointed a sec. at $15, and Gregorio Briones as\nalcalde auxiliar of the contra costa. Jan. 31st, gov. approves the appointments. Dept. St. Pap., Mont, MS., iv. 91-2. This is more definite than\nDw(inelle's references for same facts. Jan. 31st, gov. to Joaq. Estudillo,\ncomandante of S. F. de Asis (there is no other evidence that he held such a\nposition), acknowledging receipt on the 23d inst of a padron, and ordering\nthe election of an ayunt. of 4 members according to the pop. (50 to 200?).\nDwindle, add. 37. This order is unintelligible on its face. Dwinelle dwells\non the use of the word partido in the former order and pueblo in this, and\nclaims that after the ' aggregate' ayunt. of the partido was organized, the\ngov., learning the no. of inhab., ordered the organization of anew 'composite' ayunt. for the pueblo, which superseded the 1st. This conclusion\nseems to me to rest on very slight foundation; and I prefer to suppose there\nis something wrong about the 2d order, especially in view of its date. I do\nnot think there was a new election, though such was possibly the case on\naccount of some informality in the 1st; and I regard the fine distinction made\nby lawyers on both sides between a partido and pueblo ayunt. as imaginary.\nMay 30th, petition of 30 residents of the northern ranchos (Contra Costa and\nAlameda counties) to be transferred from the jurisdiction of S. F. to that of\nS. Jos6, on account of the long distance by land and perilous voyage by sea\nto the place of ayunt. meetings, also the lack of proper lodgings at S. F. presidio. This was referred to the dip., and then to the respective ayunt. in\nSept. That of S. Jos6 on Nov. 4th reported in favor of the change; and\nthat of S. F. on Dec. 20th against it on the ground that the complaints of the\npetitioners were frivolous, as they came frequently to S. F. on private business, and the presidio lodgings had been thus far satisfactory. This seems\nto have ended the matter, and no change was made. St. Pap., M. & C, MS.,\nii. 361-4. June, a reply to a petition of the ayunt. on assigning ejidos and\npropios is mentioned in an index, but is not extant. Dwindle, adci. 53. July,\ngov. decides that the ayunt. has no right to grant Estudillo a house lot on\nthe beach with sowing lands at Yerba Buena. Dept St Pap., Ben., P. & J.,\nMS., vi. 16. This may have been because the granting of lots away from\nthe presidio required consideration, because of the location ' on the beach,' or\nof the extent of land desired; at any rate on Sept. 22d, as made known by\ngov. to alcalde on Oct. 27th, the dip. decided that the ayunt. could grant lots\nof 100 varas and 200 varas from the shore at Yerba Buena. Dec. 13th, primary election; electors Bartolo Bojorges^ Jcse* C. Sanchez, Felipe Briones,\nGabriel Castro, Manuel Sanchez, Ignacio Peralta, Joaquin Estudillo, and\nCandelario Valencia. Election held in the plaza of the pueblo of S. F. de\nAsis\u2014probably at the presidio as before. Dwindle, add. 47. Final election\non Dec. 27th, no record except that Joaquin Castro was chosen regidor and\nhis election declared null by reason of his relationship to the sindico. Dept,\n MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. 705\nseen, being almost entirely abandoned after 1836. In\nMay 1839, under the new system of prefectures, the\nayuntamiento was abolished here as elsewhere, and a\njustice of the peace was appointed, Francisco Guer-\nSt. Pap., Ben., P. & J., MS., vi 18. The other officers chosen were as follows.\n1836. Alcalde Jose* Joaquin Estudillo, who announces his election Jan.\n1st. H>. Regidores Gregorio Briones and Jose* C Sanchez. Dwindle, 62. Sec.\nFran. Sanchez; alcalde auxiliar on the frontier Nicolas Higuera. Vallejo, Doc.,\nMS., iii. 181. Other appointments were probab.ly made on the frontier,\nwhich Vallejo refused to recognize, being sustained by the dip., which body\nin July decided that the region north of the bay was subject only to military\nauthority. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., P.&J., MS., iii. 39-41; Leg. Rec, MS., iii.\n18-19.    This year lots at Yerba Buena were granted by the ayunt. to Wm\nA. Richardson and Jacob P. Leese.    No record of elections for the next year.\n1837-    Alcalde Ignacio Martinez, 1st regidor, holding over, probably Jose*\nC. Sanchez; sindico Bias Angelino, sec. probably Fran. Sanchez, capt. of the\nport Wm A. Richardson, alcalde auxiliar of Contra Costa Francisco Armijo.\nThree lots at Yerba Buena granted to John Fuller, Francisco Sanchez, and J.\nFeil. Dec. 3d, primary election; electors Fran. Guerrero, Fran, de Haro,\nVicente Miramontes, Antonio M. Peralta, Jose* Ant. Alviso, Juan Bernal,\nLeandro Galindo, Jose* C. Bernal, and Domingo Sais; highest vote 29. Final\nelection on Jan. 8, 1838, result as below. Dwindle, add. 53-4. But according\nto Halleck, 123, Wm A. Richardson was first elected alcalde, declining to\nserve.\n1838. Alcalde Fran, de Haro, 2d regidor Domingo Sais, sindico Jose*\nRodriguez, sec. perhaps still Sanchez, alcalde aux. at S. Mateo Gregorio\nBriones. S. Jose Arch., MS., v. 34.    Capt. of port, Richardson.   Lots at Y.\nB. granted this year to Fran. Caceres and Wm Gulnac. Sept., trouble between Leese and Hinckley and Spear, partly on account of disagreement\nabout a lot. Dept. St Pap., MS., iv. 226-7; xvii. 56. The Ojo de Figueroa\nnear the presidio granted to Apolinario Miranda by Com. Sanchez'(?). M. had\nalready a house there. Dwindle, add. 54-5. Dec. 31st, alcalde sends a suma-\nrio for the murder of Jose* Peralta by his relative Jose* Ant. Galindo in Sept.\nDept St Pap, Ben., v. 280-2; Id., P. 6a J., MS., vi. 18. Election on Dec.\n31st with result as below. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xvii. 56,\n1839. Alcalde Vicente Miramontes (who did not accept or was not\napproved, Haro continuing to act), regidores Domingo Sais and Tiburcio\nVasquez, sindico Fran. Caceres. In May under the new system the ayunt.\nceased to exist, and on the 15th Francisco Guerrero became juez de paz by\nthe gov.'s temporary appointment. Id., Mont., iv. 97. Vicente Miramontes\njuez suplente from July. Id., 103-4; John Fuller sindico from Aug.; Richardson capt. of port; Jose* Ant. Alviso and John Coppinger from July 20th\njueces at S. Francisquito and Corte Madera; Ignacio Higuera 'encargado' at\nContra Costa till May, when Ignacio Peralta was appointed juez and S. Pablo\nde Contra Costa was thus formally separated from the jurisdiction of S. F.\nEstudillo, Doc, MS., i. 257. Lots at Y. B. granted this year to Sal v. Vallejo,\nJose* Pena, Wm S. Hinckley, and John C. Davis; and on one occasion the\ngov. was consulted about certain applications for lots. There was some\ntrouble with Cayetano Juarez, who when appointed for some duty in the\nnorth declared that the frontera did not belong to the jurisdiction of S. F.\nThe alcalde desired permission to send the prisoner Galindo to S. Jose* for\nwant of a jail and guard. In Feb. Dolores was made the cabecera of the\npartido, extending from Llagas Creek to Sonoma; but no sub-prefect was\nappointed at S. F. until after 1840, S. Jose* being made temporarily the cabecera. S. Jose\" Arch., MS., ii. 18. April 20th, Haro asks instructions about\ngranting a lot at the mission. Dwindle, add. 61.   May 21st, gov. permits Leese\nHist. Oal., Vol. III.   45\n 706 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nrero holding that position in 1839-40. At the same\ntime the mission was made nominally head town of\nthe partido, though there was as yet no sub-prefect\nhere; the municipal chief transferred his office also to\nDolores from the presidio, where, in theory at least, it\nhad been before; and the contra costa ranchos were\ncut off from the jurisdiction of San Francisco and\ngiven a juez de paz' of their own. Meanwhile the\ntown authorities granted seventeen house lots at\nYerba Buena in 1836-40, and three lots at the mission in 1840.\nThe subject of municipal government at San Francisco in these years assumed later an importance not\ndreamed of at the time, from the fact that a great\ntown grew up on the peninsula. Local authorities\ncontinued to grant lots as a matter of course down to\n1846 and later, and after the American occupation\nthe question whether lands not so granted belonged\nto the city or to the United States came up for settlement. This is not the place to record the litigation in its many phases, but brief mention cannot be\navoided. It was finally decided, after unlimited discussion extending through many years and several\nadverse decisions, by the land commission, California\nto build at Visitacion. Dept. Rec, MS., x. 12. May 26th, Guerrero publishes\na bando of police regulations. Dept. St. Pap., Mont, MS., iv. 100. July\n15th, Guerrero makes known to the prefect the desire of citizens to settle at\nthe mission, favored by himself as also by the prefect, and Nov-. 30th by the\ngov., who authorizes the granting of lots at the mission, 50 varas in extent,\nthe settlers to use for their cattle the surrounding lands except S. Mateo and\nthe coast, but not to disturb the Ind. or embarrass the administrator as long\nas the community exists. Id., v. 102; xvi. 24. Many other routine communications of the year from Guerrero to prefect in Id., v. 92-110. Alvarado's\nidea, Miscel. Hist. Pap., MS., no. 24, is that the above movement was merely a transfer of the juzgado, or municipal headquarters, from presidio to\nmission; and this, I think, was what was practically effected, there being no\nchange of pueblo or thought of a new pueblo proper.\n1840. Guerrero still juez de paz. Feb. 1st, accepts the continuation of\nappointment. Feb. 2d, writes to prefect on his proposed plan of Dolores so\nas to regulate the granting of lots which the gov. has authorized. He will\nmake the church the centre, and will repair some of the ruined buildings\nwhich the vecinos have occupied for many years. He desires the administrator to give up or lend a room for a jail. Many other routine communications of the year. Dept. St. Pap., Mont, MS., v. 110-13. Lots were granted\nthis year at Yerba Buena to Leese, J. A. Vallejo, J. B. Cooper, J. Vioget (2);\nand at Dolores to L. Galindo, C. Valencia, and F. Gomez.\n THE PUEBLO LANDS, 707\nsupreme court, and United States district court, that\nSan Francisco in 1835-46 was a pueblo; that as such\nit was entitled by Spanish and Mexican law and usage\nto four leagues of land, and that the United States\nwas under obligation to recognize the pueblo title.6\n6 The position of Jones and Randolph as representing the opposition, was\nthat there was at S. F. no pueblo, in the sense of a corporate body owning or\nentitled to own lands. There were two pueblos in the sense of | settlements,'\neach originally intended to become the nucleus of a town, and each having a\ncertain territorial franchise or right to the use of certain lands\u2014the presidio\nfor military, and the mission for missionary purposes. The presidio might\nbecome the seat of a pueblo, civil community, or municipality, by the settlement of retired soldiers; but these soldiers settled elsewhere, and the presidio\nbecame merely an abandoned military post. The mission also might by secularization and the aggregation of settlers de razon to the ex-neophytes have\nbecome a pueblo, but did not, secularization proving a failure and the Ind.\ndisappearing. The ayunt. established in 1835 was for the government of the\nwhole partido, not specially for the pueblo, and its creation was not the creation of a Pueblo de S. Francisco. A third pueblo, or settlement, sprang up\nat Yerba Buena from 1835-6. As a matter of convenience, the govt at Monterey delegated to the partido ayunt. authority to grant lots at Yerba Buena,\nand later at Dolores, and such lots were legally granted. Each settlement\nmight have obtained from the govt certain lands for propios, etc., but-never\ndid so. All the lots were granted either at Y. B. or at Dolores, never at the\npueblo of S. F. The ' pueblo system' so much talked of was for the most\npart an invention of later times; or if not so, the 4 leagues of land to which\na pueblo was entitled must be formally granted by the govt, or at least marked\nout officially, the U. S. being under no obligation to recognize a title that the\nMex. govt might, under certain circumstances if applied to, have seen fit to\nconcede.\nAs a matter of fact S. F. was a pueblo exactly like S. Diego, Sta Barbara,\nand Monterey. Much confusion has been caused by the multiplicity of names\napplied to peninsula establishments, such as presidio, mission, pueblo, esta-\nblecimiento, port, S. Francisco, S. F. de Asis, Dolores, Yerba Buena, etc., and\nmost of it may be removed by noting that San Francisco de Asis was the\nlegal and proper name from the first for all on the peninsula, the other terms\nbeing used to indicate localities at S. F., very much as Mission, Presidio, or\nNorth Beach are still used. In early times S. F. was a mission-military establishment intended eventually to become a town or pueblo of Spanish citizens,\ncomposed of ex-neophyte Ind., retired soldiers and their descendants, colonists or settlers from abroad, naturalized foreigners\u2014any or all of these.\nThe pueblo would begin to exist, in the familiar sense of the term, whenever\nthere should be any residents besides soldiers and neophytes; in the legal\nsense when a local civil govt should be provided for them. Nature in this\ncase fixed the natural bounds of the pueblo lands on three sides; in the distribution of lots the convenience of citizens would be limited only by needs,\nactual and prospective, of military defence and of Ind. yet to be released\nfrom neophytism. In 1834 S. F. was a pueblo in the ordinary sense; in 1835,\nby the organization of an ayunt., it became a pueblo in a strictly legal sense.\nNothing more was required. An ayunt. without a pueblo could have no\nexistence; though the jurisdiction of every ayunt. extends far beyond its\npueblo. This pueblo was not the presidio, it was not the mission, it was San\nFrancisco. The presidio was the place of meeting, and the natural centre,\nor starting point, of the pueblo; but the residents did not want lots there,\npreferring Yerba Buena cove. The ayunt. had the right under the laws to\ngrant town lots; possibly would have granted them without consulting the\n 708 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nThe decision was, I think, entirely in accordance with\nfact, law, and equity; though many abler men s^ill\nhold the contrary opinion. Among the many champions of the respective sides in the controversy may\nbe appropriately named Edmund Randolph and William Carey Jones against the pueblo title, and in favor\nof it Henry W. Halleck and John W. Dwinelle, the\nlatter's Colonial History of San Francisco being the\nmost extensive and satisfactory treatise on the subject. As is their wont, the lawyers succeeded in\nmaking of a comparatively simple matter a very complicated one; but their efforts were valuable contributions to local history.\nThe settlement of Yerba Buena, nucleus of the\nmodern city, had its humble beginning in this decade,\nand contained in 1840 more than half-a-dozen structures. As we have seen, the name Yerba Buena had\nbeen transferred from the anchorage west to that\nsouth of Loma Alta, or Telegraph Hill, where several\nvessels had anchored before 1830, where a French\ntrader had landed to build a boat, and where the construction of a guard-house had been ordered in 1827,\nthere being no evidence that it was ever built.7 At\nany rate in 1831-4 all was in a state of nature but\nfor the presence of a party of foreign boat-builders\nfor a time in 1831 or 1832.8   Vessels were still per-\ngoVi\u2014though it was customary in Cal. to ask his advice and opinion on the\nmost trifling measures\u2014at the presidio; was instructed by the govt that it\nhad the right to grant lots at Yerba Buena; and later received like instructions respecting Dolores. Lots were granted at these two points, and would\nhave been granted at other points within the probable pueblo limits had they\nbeen desired. The gov. and dip. had no powers in the granting of lands\nthat could be delegated to an ayunt. They could inform the ayunt. as to its\npowers, and to a certain extent regulate their exercise. The right of the\npueblo to its lands was recognized indirectly by the govt in several ways,\neven in the granting of ranchos which infringed on the conventional four\nleagues. There can be no doubt that at any time before 1846 the local\nauthorities might have had four leagues of land formally set apart for the\ntown. Whether their failure to do so forfeited the city's right under the U.\nS. was a question for the U. S. to settle; but having assumed the obligations\nof Mexico by relinquishing the pretension to insist on perfect titles in the\ncase of private ranchos, the govt virtually conceded the pueblo title, and\nthe cpurts could not do otherwise than confirm it.\n7 See vol. ii. p. 590.\n8 James W. Weeks, Reminiscences, MS., 68-72, states that himself, George\n YERBA BUENA. 709\nmitted to anchor here, though not without occasional\nobjection.9 In 1835 William A. Richardson became\nthe first settler, erecting as a temporary dwelling a\ntent, or 'shanty of rough boards' as Dana saw it in\nDecember, replaced within a year or two by an adobe\nbuilding. His lot was granted in 1836, and his building stood near the corner of what were later Dupont\nand Clay streets. His business was the collection of\npisoduce from points about the bay to make up the\ncargoes of trading vessels by the aid of Indian crews\nwho navigated two or three old launches belonging\nto himself and the missions. His Indians had a\ntemascal, or bath-house, at the foot of Sacramento\nstreet, the water front being the present Montgomery street.10 In 1836 Jacob P. Leese, in partnership\nwith Spear and Hinckley, obtained a lot and built a\nwooden structure for house and store near Richardson's, completing the building in time for a grand celebration on July 4th, at which assembled as guests\u2014\nand prospective customers of the enterprising proprietor\u2014all the residents for leagues around.11 In\n1837, or possibly the next year, Leese obtained\nthrough the influence of Governor Alvarado permis-\nFerguson, John Matthews, and perhaps one Brown, undertook to repair an\nold launch of Captain Richardson's, towing her to Y. B. for the purpose, and\nliving there for several months. But they abandoned the launch after doing\nmuch work on her. W. makes the date 1832, but he also speaks of the execution of Rubio, which was in 1831.\n9Dec. 3, 1833. Receptor to admin, at Mont., urging that vessels be\nobliged to anchor in sight of the presidio and not at Y. B. Dept. St. Pap.,\nB. M., MS., lxxv. 3. Davis, Glimpses, MS., 7, says that on his arrival at Y.\nB. in 1833 Candelario Miramontes had a potato-patch on what is now the\nplaza. From him D. borrowed a horse for trips to the mission and presidio,\nkeeping him tethered near the shore.\n10 Authorities for the progress of Y. B. in these early years are Hittell's\nHist. S. F, 77 et seq.; SouU's Annals ofS. F., 162etseq.; Tuthill'sHist. Cal,\n289 et seq.; Dana's Two Years, 261-2; Davis' Glimpses, MS.; and a great\nvariety of newspaper and other accounts. As to minute details there is no\nagreement. According to Hittell the Widow Briones lived hi the North\nBeach region, building about 1836 an adobe house at the corner of Filbert\nand Powell streets. Jose* Ramon Sanchez, Notas, MS., 16-17, says that in\nthe presidio region, but distinct from the presidio buildings, were two houses,\none, occupied by the Sra de Higuera, built of timber by the Russians; the\nother of adobe at the Ojo de agua del Polin.\n11 See in Annals of S. F., 170, a view\u2014not from a photograph taken on.\nthe spot\u2014of the house and festivities.\n 710\nLOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nsion to occupy a beach lot on Montgomery street near\nCommercial, where he erected a large and substantial\nframe structure. In 1838 the trail to the mission\nwas widened into a very rough wagon road; and\nRosalia Leese began life as the first child born at\nYerba Buena, on April 15th.\nLeese dissolved his partnership with Spear and\nHinckley this year, and Spear, after vain efforts to\nsecure the store on the beach, obtained permission j;o\noccupy another lot a little farther north, at the corner\nof Clay and Montgomery, with a ship's house landed\nfrom the Kent. Leese tried to prevent the success of\nthis scheme, and even went so far as to offer to give\nhis building, if its location was to be made the 'pretext for illegal concessions by the alcalde,' per the government for a custom-house;12 but this offer was not\naccepted, or fulfilled, since the building was sold later\nto the Hudson's Bay Company. Spear, however,\nbuilt another store adjoining 'Kent Hall' probably\nbefore the end of 1840.13 As we have seen, seventeen building lots were granted before the end of the\ndecade, and doubtless several small buildings were\nerected besides the six that I have mentioned; but I\nmake no attempt here to identify them.14    In 1839\n12 Sept. 11, 1838, Leese to Alvarado. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iv. 226-7. The\n^gov. was expected at Y. B. when the matter was to be settled. Hinckley and\nSpear also sent the gov. a complaint against Leese. Id., xvii. 56. Evidently\nthere was a bitter business quarrel.\n13Davis, Glimpses, MS., 193 et seq., who was Spear's agent from 1838,\nsays that John Perry, a naturalized Mex. citizen, got a grant of the lot and\ndeeded it to Spear; but there is no record of any such grant.\n14 Sutter, Pers. Remin., MS., 16-18, says that on his arrival besides Spear\n& Hinckley's store within 50 yards of his vessel at anchor, and Richardson's adobe on Dupont St, there was a little frame building belonging to John\nFuller near Sacramento and Montgomery, Prudon's adobe on Montgomery\nnear Telegraph Hill, and a few other small houses. Davis, Glimpses, MS.,\n197-8, implies that the two-story wooden grist-mill on Clay between Montgomery and'Kearny was put in operation in 1839-40, the machinery being\nbrought from Callao for H. and S. on the Corsair in 1839. The same writer,\np. 18-19, 191-2, describes the celebration of July 4th in 1839, at Leese's\nhouse, and that in 1840, including a picnic at the Rincon and a ball at Richardson's. April 11, 1839, Manuel Pedrorena to Capt. Fitch on the business\nprospects for F. at Y. B., where he is advised to open an establishment.\nThere are four small launches running on the bay, and a new large one is expected for Leese. Y. B. is the liveliest port of Cal. Fitch, Doc, MS., 59.\nMay 10th, Gov, Alvarado to Vallejo.    Intends building at Y. B. warehouses\n PRIVATE RANCHOS. 711\nCaptain Jean Vioget was employed to make a survey\nand map of Yerba Buena. His survey, by which\nlots were granted from that date, and to which those\nalready granted were made to conform, covered the\ntract now included by California and Pacific between\nMontgomery and Stockton streets. No names were\ngiven to the streets, and none of the blocks had exactly the position of later times. The population of\nthis little village in 1840 was probably about 50 souls,\nincluding 16 foreigners.\nI append a list of private ranchos granted before*\n18 40,15 including for convenience all in the northern\nand a wharf, so as to deter the Russians from desiring to establish themselves\nthere. The S. F. merchants want all the advantages but only build shanties,\nand don't even keep them in repair.   Vallejo, Doc, MS., vii. 32.\n15 Ranchos of S. Francisco district, including all from Sta Clara Co. northward. Those marked with a * were rejected by the L. C. or U. S. courts.\nAbrevadero, see Llano. Acalanes (Contra Costa), 1 league, granted to Cande-\nlario Valencia in 1834; Elam Brown claimant. Agua Caliente (Alameda), 2\n1., 1839, Fulgencio Higuera, who was cl. Agua Caliente (Sonoma), 1840,\nLazaro Pina; conf. in sections to J. Hooker, M. G. Vallejo, T. M. Leavenworth, and C. P. Stone. * Alameda, rancho not named, 1840, Guillermo\nCastro, who was cl. Alameda Co. ranchos, see Agua Caliente, Arroyo de\nAlameda, Pozitas, J3. Antonio, S. Leandro, S. Lorenzo, Sta Rita, Valle de S.\nJose*. *Los Angeles Island (S. F. Bay), 1839, A. M. Osio, who was cl. Las\nAnimas or La Brea (Sta Clara), 1802, 1834, Mariano Castro. In 1836 Josefa\nRomero de Castro and fam. and Antonio German and fam., 48 persons in all,\nwere living at Las A\"nimas and La Brea. See also S. Felipe y Las Animas.\n*Arroyo de la Alameda (Sta Clara ?), 1,000 varas, 1840, Jesus Vallejo, who\nwas cl. Arroyo de las Nueces y Bolbones (Contra Costa), 2 1., 1834, J. S.\nPacheco, whose heirs were cl. *Arroyo de S. Antonio (Sonoma), 1840, Antonio Ortega; C. White cl. Arroyo Seco (Sacramento), 11 1., 1840, Teodosio\nYorba; Andres Pico cl. Ausaymas (Tuolumne), 2 1., 1836, F. P. Pacheco,\nwho was cl. Baulinas, see Tamales. Bolbones, see Arroyo, j Brea, see\n-tjiimas. Buri Buri (S. F.) 1835, Jose* Sanchez; Jose* de la Cruz Sanchez cl.\nCamaritas (S. F.), 300 v., 1840, J. J. Noe; F. Vassault cl. Canada del Corte\nde Madera (Sta Clara), 1833, D. Peralta and M. Martinez; D. C. Peralta cl.\nCanada de Guadalupe (S. F.), a petition of Manuel Sanchez in Feb. 1835, in\nDoc. Hist Cal., MS., i. 482, not granted.    Canada de Herrera (Marin), 11.,\n1839, Domingo Sais, who was cl. Canada de Pala (Sta Clara), 8,000 v., 1839,\nJ. J. Bernal, who was cl. Canada de S. Felipe y Las A*nimas (Sta Clara), 2\n1., Thos. Bowen; C. M. Weber cl.    Canada de Raimundo (S. Mateo), 2\u00a3 1.,\n1840, John Coppinger, whose widow was cl: *Capay (Tehama), 5 1., 1835\n(1845?), Josefa Soto; P. B. Reading cl. Los Carneros (Solano), 1836, Nicolas\nHiguera; C. E. Hart, Ed. Wilson et al. cl. Caymus (Napa), 2 1., 1836, Geo.\nYount, who was cl. Coche, see Ojo de Agua. Contra Costa Co. ranchos,\nsee Acalanes, Arroyo de Nueces, Laguna de Palos Colorados, Me*danos, Mt\nDiablo, S. Pablo, S. Ramon. Corral de Tierra (S. Mateo), 1 1., 1839, Tiburcio Vasquez, who was cl. Corral de Tierra (S. F.), 1 1.,. 1839, F. G. Palomares, whose heirs were cl. Corte de Madera del Presidio {Marin), 1 1., 1834,\nJohn Read, whose heirs were cl. Corte de Madera\" de Novato (Marin), 11.,\n1839, John Martin, who was cl. See also Canada. Diablo, see Mt Diablo.\nEntre Napa (Napa), 1836, Nicolas Higuera; conf. (or in two cases rejected)\n 712 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\ndistrict or all above the Santa Clara valley, instead\nof introducing in different parts of the chapter separate lists for San Jos\u00a3, the peninsula, the contra\nin 12 tracts to different men. Estero Americano (Sonoma), 2 L, 1839, Ed.\nM. Mcintosh; Jasper O'Farrell cl. Esteros, see Rincon. Figueroa, see Ojo\nde Agua. Gatos, see Rinconada. Guadalupe, see Canada. Guilicos (Sonoma), 4 1., 1837, John Wilson, who was cl. Herrera, see Canada. Isla de\nYeguas, see Mare IsL Juntas, see S. Ramon. Juristac (Sta Clara), 1 1.,\n1835, A. & F. German, who were cl. Laguna de la Merced (S. Mateo & S.\nF.), 1\u00a3 1., 1835, Jose\" Ant. Galindo; Josefa de Haro et al. cl. Laguna de\nPalos Colorados (Contra Costa), 3 1., 1835, 1841, Joaquin Moraga and Juan\nBernal cl. Laguna Seca (Sta Clara), 4 1., 1834, Juan Alvires; heirs of Wm\nFisher cl. Llagas, S. F. de las (Sta Clara), 6 1., 1834, Carlos Castro;\nMurphy cl.; 12 persons living here in 1836. *Llana del Abrevadero (Sta\nClara), 1822, Ant. Higuera et al. cl. Mare Island (Solano), 1840-1, Victor\nCastro; Bissell & Aspinwall cl. Marin Co. ranchos, see Canada de Herrera,\nCorte de Madera, Nicasio, Novato, Pt Quintin, Pt Peyes, S. Jose*, Sauza-\nlito, Tamales. Me*danos (Contra Costa), 2 1., 1839, Jose* A. Mesa et al.; J.\nD. Stevenson et al. cl. Mejanos (Me*danos?) (Contra Costa), 4 1., 1835, Jose*\nNoriega; John Marsh cl. Merced, see Laguna. Milpitas (Sta Clara), 1 1.,\n1835, Jose* M. Alviso, who was cl. (Claim of Nicolas Berreyesa on a grant of\n1834 rejected.) Molino (Sonoma), or Rio Ayoska, 10\u00a3 1., J. B. R. Cooper,\nwho was cl. Monte del Diablo (Contra Costa), 1834, 1844, Salvio Pacheco,\nwho was cl. Napa (Napa Co.), 1838, Salvador Vallejo, confirmed in 24 tracts\nto dif. men, and two claims rejected. *Napa, 4 1., 1834, C. Brown et al.\nNapa Co. ranchos, see also Carneros, Caymus, Entre Napa, Salvador's rancho.\n*Nicasio (Marin), 20 1., T. Quilaguegui et al. (Ind.); J. B. Alvarado cl.\nNovato (Marin), 2 1., 1839, Fernando Felix; B. Simmons, cl. See also Corte\nde Madera. Nueces, see Arroyo. Ojo de Agua de la Coche (Sta Clara), 2 1.,\n1835, Juan M. Hernandez; B. Murphy cl. Ojo de Agua de Figueroa (S. F.),\n100 v., Apolinario Miranda, whose heirs were cl. Pala (Sta. Clara),\n1 1., 1835, I. Higuera; E. White et al. cl. See also Canada. Palos\nColorados, see Laguna. Petaluma (Sonoma), 101., 1834, 1843-4, M. G. Vallejo cl. Pinole (Contra Costa), probably occupied by Ignacio Martinez, to\nwhom it was granted later. Polka (Sta Clara), 11., 1833, Isabel Ortega; B.\nMurphy, cl. Potrero Nuevo, see Rincon. Pozitas (Alameda), 2 1., 1839,\nSalvio Pacheco; J. Noriega and R. Livermore, cl. Presidio, see Corte de\nMadera. Pulgas (S. Mateo), 41., 1836 and earlier, Luis Arguello, whose\nheirs were cl. Punta de Quintin (Marin), 2 1., 1840, J. B. R. Cooper; B. R.\nBuckelew, cl. Punta de Reyes (Marin), 8 and 2 1., 1836, James R. Berry;\nB. Phelps and A. Randall, cl. A suit between Berry and Osio in 1844 is recorded in Dept. St. Pap., Ben., P. and J., iv. 49-52. PurisimaConcepcion\n(Sta Clara), 11., 1840, Jose* Gorgonio, et al.; Juana Briones cl. Quien Sabe,\nsee Sta Ana. Quintin, see Punta. Raimundo, see Canada. Rincon de los\nEsteros (Sta Clara), 1838, Ignacio Alviso; Ellen C. White, Fran. Berreyesa et\nal., and Rafael Alviso, cl.    Rincon de Salinas y Potrero Nuevo (S. F.), 11.,\n1839. J. C. Bernal, who was cl.   Rinconada de los Gatos (Sta Clara) 1\u00a3 1.,\n1840, S. Peralta and J. Hernandez, who were cl. Rio Ayoska, see Molino.\nSacramento Co., see Arroyo Seco. Salinas, see Rincon. Salvador's Rancho,\n(Napa), 520 acres, 1839, S. Vallejo; conf. in 4 tracts to* dif. men. San Antonio (Alameda), 1820, Luis Peralta; conf. in 5 tracts to heirs, etc. San Antonio (Sta Clara), 1839, Juan Prado Mesa; Encarn. Mesa et al., and Wm. A.\nDana et al., cl. (Three claims on this grant rejected.) San Antonio, see\nArroyo. S. Felipe, see Las Animas. S. Francisco co. ranchos, see Angeles Isl.,\nCamaritos, Canada-de Guadalupe, Corral de Tierra, L. Merced, Ojo de Agua,\nRincon de Salinas, Yerba Buena Isl.; also pueblo lots before L. C. granted to\nBernal, Estudillo, Gulnac, Leese and Vallejo, Valencia.    See also Llagas.\n mm\nMISSION DOLORES. 713\ncosta, and Sonoma, or the frontera del norte. These\nranchos were about eighty in number; but the only\nones about whose exact population during the decade\nanything is known were a few in Santa Clara which\nhave already been mentioned as within the jurisdiction of Monterey.\nAt San Francisco mission, Padre Estenega, retiring to the south, was succeeded in 1833 by Padre\nLorenzo Quijas, a Zacatecan; and the latter in 1834\nby Padre Jose de Jesus Maria Gutierrez, who served\nto the end of 1839.    The neophytes numbered 204 in\nS. Francisquito (Sta Clara), 1839, Antonio Buelna; M. Concepcion V. de Rodriguez et al., cl. S. Isidro (Sta Clara), 1 1., 1833, Quintin Ortega, who was\ncl. 39 persons living here in 1836. S. Jose* (Marin), 1\u00a3 1., 1840, Ignacio\nPacheco, who was cl. S. Leandro (Alameda), occupied in 1838 by J. J. Estudillo, to whom it was granted later. There were boundary disputes between\nEstudillo and Guillermo Castro, who occupied the rancho of S. Lorenzo.\n*S. Mateo, 2 1., 1836, 1841, J. C. Sanchez, who was'cl. S. Mateo\nco. ranchos, see Buri Buri, Canada de Raimundo, Corral de Tierra,\nL. Merced, Pulgas, S. Mateo, S. Pedro. S. Miguel (Sonoma), 6 1., 1840,\n1844, Mark West, whose heirs were cl. S. Pablo (Contra Costa), 4 1., 1834.\nFrancisco Castro and heirs et al.; Joaquin I. Castro, cl.; rancho also called\nCochiyunes. Leg. Rec, MS., iii. 78. S. Pedro (S. Mateo), 2 1., 1839, Francisco Sanchez, who was cl. S. Ramon (Contra Costa), 2 l.,1833, Rafael Soto\nde Pacheco et al., who were cl. S. Ramon, 1 1. 1834, Jose* M. Amador;\nLeo Norris, cl. S. Ramon (Alameda), 4 1., 1835, J. M. Amador, who was cl.\nS. Ramon or Las Juntas (Contra Costa), 2 1., 1833, Bartolo Pacheco and\nMariano Castro; Domingo Peralta, cl. Sta Ana y Quien Sabe (Sta Clara), 7 1.,\n1839, Manuel Larios and J. M. Anzar, who were cl. Sta Clara, see Rio.\nSta Clara co. ranchos, see A^nimas, Arroyo de la Alameda, Canada de Corte\nde Madera, Canada de Pala, Can. de S. Felipe, Juristac,' Laguna Seca, Llagas,\nLlano del Abrevadero, Milpitas, Ojo de Agua, Pala, Polka, Purisima, Rincon de Esteros, Rinconada de los Gatos, S. Antonio, S. Francisquito, S.\nIsidro, Sta Ana, Sta Teresa, Solis, Tularcitos, and Yerba Buena. Sta Rita\n(Alameda), 1839, J. D. Pacheco, who was cl. Sta Rosa (Sonoma?), 1831.\nRafael Gomez. Dept Rec, MS., ix. 78 (not before L. C), Sta Teresa (Sta\nClara), 1 1., 1834, Joaquin Bernal; Agustin Bernal, cl. Sauzalito (Marin),\n3 1., 1835, Jose* Ant. Galindo; (perhaps regranted in 1838 to) W. A. Richardson, cl. Socayre, see Yerba Buena. Solis (Sta Clara), (1835?), Mariano\nCastro, whose heirs were cl. Solano co. ranchos, see Carneros, Entre Napa,\nMare Isl., and Soscol. Sonoma co. ranchos, see Agua Caliente, Arroyo de\nS. Antonio, Estero Americano, Guilicos, Molino, Petaluma, S. Miguel, and\nSta Rosa. Soscol (Solano), used as a rancho nacional. Tamales and Bau-\nlinas (Marin), 2 1., 1836, Rafael Garcia, who was cl. See Punta de Reyes,\nalso. Tehama co., see Capay. Tularcitos (Sta Clara), 1821, Jose* Higuera,\nwhose heirs were cl. Tuolumne co., see Ausaymas. Valle de S. Jose* (Alameda), 1839, Antonio M. Pico; Ant. Sufiol et al., cl. Visitacion (S. F.),\n1839, applied for and occupied, granted later. See also Canada de Guadalupe. Yeguas, see Mare Isl. Yerba Buena or Socayre (Sta Clara), 1833, A.\nChabolla, who was cl. *Yerba Buena Isl. (S. F.), 1838, Jose* Castro; J. S.\nPolack, cl.\n 714 liOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\n1832, probably less than 150 in 1834, and at the end\nof the decade there were left .only 90 living at San\nMateo, .with possibly 50 more scattered in the district.16    Crops were small, and records of farming op-\n16 S. Francisco mission statistics 1831-4. (No figures whatever for 1833-\n4.) Decrease in pop. 219 to about 150 (204 in 1832). Baptisms 7 and 8 in\n1831-2. Deaths 10 and 11 in 1831-2. Gain in large stock 5,132 to 6,018 in\n1832, and 10,329 in 1835; horses, etc., 932 to 1,511 in 1835; sheep 2,000 to\n4,250 in 1835.    Crops 1,670 bush, in 1831, 1,036 bush, in 1832.\nStatistics for 1835-40. Debt in Nov. 1834, $10,089. St. Pap. Miss., MS.,\nix. 65. Inventory of July 28, 1835. Account books, etc., no valuation;\nbuildings minutely described, including 27 structures besides the principal\nvivienda, $22,482; utensils and furniture $319; manufacturing apparatus\n$233; goods and produce in storehouse $2,414; garden with fences and fruit-\ntrees $334; corral $335; farming tools $34; launch and boat $880; live-stock,\nchiefly on the coast, 4,445 cattle, 691 horses, 2,125 sheep, 5 mules, 6 asses,\n122 swine, $17,172; church property, buildings $9,057, ornaments, etc.,\n$8,770, total $17,827; S. Mateo buildings and produce $2,753; lands, 5 leagues\nat the mission, 3 1. at S. Mateo, 9 1. at the Parage de la Costa as estimated,\nfor there was no doc. to show extent and no survey, no value given; credits,\n40 items, the largest being the estate of Luis Arguello, $402; Id. of Pablo de\nSala $416, and Joaquin Ortega $300, total $2542; grand total $67,227, less\n$7,222 debts (13 items, largest A. B. Thompson $1,948, Virmond $2,668,\nJohn C. Jones $1,183), balance $60,004. Original signed by Estudillo, Flores,\nValle, and Pedro Castillo in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 220; also in St. Pap. Miss.,\nMS., vi. 19-21. Sept. 23, 1839. Hartnell found 89 Ind. all at S. Mateo; 758\ncattle, 967 horses, 1,272 sheep, 34 mules, and 2asses. Hartnell, Diario, MS.,\n43. May 13, 1840, there were 320 cattle, 707 horses, 1,300 sheep, 40 mules,\nand 8 asses, other remnants of property being of no value. St. Pap. Miss.,\nMS., vii. 36-7, and debts amounting to $2,615. Pico, Pap. Miss., MS., 47-\n51.\nStatistics of 1776-1832. Total of baptisms, 6,998, of which 3,715 Ind.\nadults, 2,829 Ind. children, 454 children de razon; annual average 115.\nMarriages 2,121, of which 85 de razon; average 37. Deaths 5,553, of which\n3,464 Ind. adults, 1,900 Ind. children, 58 and 111 gente de razon; annual av-\narage 94; average death rate 12.4 per cent of pop. Largest pop. 1,252 in\n1820; males always in excess; children J to 5. Largest no. of cattle 11,240\nin 1808; horses 1,239 in 1831; mules 42 in 1813; sheep 11,324 in 1813; all\nkinds 22,663 animals in 1805. Total product of wheat 114,480 bush., yield\n10 fold; barley 59,500 bush., 9 fold; maize 16,900 bush., 51 fold; beans 19,-\n380 bush., 25 fold; miscel. grains 19,053 bush., 24 fold.\nSummary of events, etc. 1831. Status under Echeandia's decree, never\nenforced. This vol., p. 306-7. 1833. Proposition before the dip. to fix\nbounds of mission lands. Id., 249. Reports in favor of secularization. Id.,\n333, 335. 1834. Joaquin Estudillo appointed comisionado in Sept. St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS., ix. 62. May 10th, petition of the padre to dip. for a definition\nof boundaries. Leg. Rec, MS., ii. 63. Sept. 28th, Estudillo recommends the\ndischarge of one of the two majordomos to save expense. St. Pap. Miss.,MS.,\nix. 62. Oct., claim of a ne6fita, married to Robles of Branciforte, for 65\nhead of cattle left by her father and incorporated with the mission herds. P.\nAbella testified that he knew nothing of the matter, and the gov. decided\nthat the woman was entitled to only her pro rata on the general distribution.\nDept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., v. 22-31, 85-92. 1835. Estudillo having some\ntrouble with the padre, Ignacio del Valle came up from Sta Cruz to take his\nplace or to aid him; and on July 28th, as per inventory already cited, the\nestate was turned over to Gumesindo Flores as administrator. Valle, Lo Pa-\nsado, MS., 10; Sta Cruz Arch., MS., 74; St. Pap., Miss,, MS., vi. 19,   The\n SAN RAFAEL. 715\nerations amount to nothing; but in live-stock there\nseems to have been a large gain down to the secularization in 1834-5. Joaquin Estudillo was the comisionado, aided by Ignacio del Valle; and the successive\nadministrators were Gumesindo Flores in 1835-6,\nJose* de la Cruz Sanchez in 1836-40, and Tiburcio\nVasquez from 1840. The inventory of the transfer\nin 1835 showed a total valuation of $60,000, or, for\nreal estate and fixtures, land not being valued, $25,-\n800; church property $17,800; and available assets,\nchiefly live-stock, in excess of debts, $16,400. In\n1840 the debt amounted to only $2,600, but the little\nremnant of cattle and sheep could not have been worth\nmuch more. If any property was ever divided among\nthe Indians, there are no records to show it.\nPadre Amor6s died at San Rafael in 1832,17 and\ntrouble between Estudillo and P. Gutierrez arose from a charge of the former\nthat the latter had neglected his duties in administering the sacraments to\nthe dying Indians. E. complained to the gov., at which Prefect Garcia Diego\nwas angry, deeming it an interference of secular officials in matters of ecclesiastical prerogative; but in Aug. he acknowledged Gutierrez' \\ criminal negligence,' and promised to chide him. Id., ix. 62-5; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt.\nii. 8, 11. 1836. Jose* de la Cruz Sanchez in Dec. succeeded Flores, who resigned. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 47, 36. 1837. March 19th, Sanchez asks\nVallejo to compel the padre to give up one of his 9 rooms. Id., i. 27. July'\n1st, Vallejo sends 19 Ind. from Sonoma to aid in mission work; will probably\nsend more. Id., iv. 262. 1838. See a view of the mission in Forbes' Cal,\nreproduced in Annals of S. F. 1839. Sanchez still in charge. Hartnell in\nSept. found the accounts in such a condition as might be expected, the admin, not being able to read or write (?). The Ind. were discontented with\nhard work and no ropa; wanted to live in liberty under the care of Vicente\nMiramonte; feared that S. Mateo would be taken from them; desired also to\nkeep the coast lands from Pilarcitos to Purisima; and some of them to have\nthe Canada de Guadalupe. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 7-8. This year, as we\nhave seen, Dolores was made cabecera of the partido, and three lots were\ngranted to citizens of S. F. pueblo. 1840. Sanchez was succeeded in May\nby Tiburcio Vasquez. St. Pap., Miss., MS., vii. 36.\n17 Juan Amor6s was a Catalan, born at Porrera Oct. 10, 1773. He became\na Franciscan at Gerona in 1791 and was ordained in 1797. He came to Mexico in 1803, and to California in 1804, serving as a missionary at S. Carlos in\n1804-19, and S. Rafael in 1819-32. His superiors rated him as possessed of\nmore than common ability, and well fitted for office or a professorship. Autobiog. Aidog. de los Padres, MS.; Sarria, Inf. de 1817, MS., p. 32-3; Payeras,\nInf., 1820, MS., 140. Padre Amor6s was noted for the zeal with which he\nundertook every task whether temporal or spiritual. He was a successful\nbusiness manager, a mechanic of more than ordinary skill,.and a kind missionary well hiked by his neophytes. He was always in gqod health, and never\ncould find too much work to do. He strove to please all classes and engaged\nin no controversies. In 1817 he wrote a letter urging the extension of trade\nand especially the fair treatment of foreigners.    He promised fidelity to the\n 716 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nthe mission was in charge of Padre Estenega of San\nFrancisco until the Zacatecan Jose Maria Vasquez\ndel Mercado came in 1833, to be replaced in 1834 by\nPadre Jose* Lorenzo de la Concepcion Quijas, also a\nZacatecan, who from that year had charge of both\nSan Rafael and Solano, living at the former chiefly.\nStatistics of the last years of this establishment as a\nmission are for the most part wanting,18 but the num-\nMex. republic and was praised even by Echeandia and Jose* M. Estudillo.\nThe tradition is that once when the mission was attacked by savages he crossed\nthe bay to S. F. on a tule balsa with a woman and several children. He died\nat S. Rafael at 3 a. m. on July 14, 1832, and was buried in the church on the\n16th by P. Fortuni, his predecessor at the mission, who had known him since\n1792, and declared him to be a saint. S. Rafael, Lib. Mis., MS., 12.\n18 S. Rafael statistics for 1831-2, extremely unreliable (no figures for\n1833-4). Decrease in pop. 970 to 300 (probably should be 700 or 900, though\npossibly 300 only were at the mission when the report was made, or more\nlikely there is an error in the figures). Baptisms 155 (including 110 adults ?)\nin 1831 and 15 in 1832. Deaths 29 and 37 in 1831-2. Increase in large stock\n1,548 to 2,442 (?); horses and mules 448 to 372; sheep 1,852 to 3,000. Crops\n1,990 bush, in 1831,1,776 bush, in 1832.\nStatistics of 1834-40. Inventory of Sept. 31, 1834. Church property,\nbuilding, $192, ornamentos, etc., $777, library of 75 vols $108, total $1,077;\nmission buildings $1,123; garden or orchard, $968; boats, etc., $500; livestock $4,339; Nicasio rancho $7,256; credits $170; total $18,474; debts $3,448;\nbalance $15,025. St. Pap., Miss., MS., v. 58-9. Dec, there were distributed\nto 343 Ind. (doubtless males or heads of families, representing a pop. of at\nleast 500 souls) 1,291 sheep and 439 horses. Id. Inventory of Nov. 30, 1836.\nManufacturing estab., produce, tools, and probably buildings, $1,434; livestock $1,385; orchard $891; rancho $6,644; credits $464; total $10,818;\ndebts $3,177; balance $7,641. Id., vii. 55-6, 78-9. Pop. in 1838, 365 souls.\nId., vi. 26. Hartnell's inventory of Sept. 18,1839. Pop. 195 at the mission;\n474 horses, 26 yoke of oxen, 3 mules (cattle and sheep torn off); 417 fan.\ngrain, 42 hides, 72 deer-skins, 60 arr. tallow. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 98.\nDebt in 1840 to Spear, Celis, Aguirre, Scott, Shaw, John Reed, Tim. Murphy,\nand Rotscheff, $1,967. Pico, Pap., Miss., MS., 47-51.\nStatistics of 1817-34. Total of baptisms, 1873, of which 1,096 Ind.\nadults, 768 Ind. children, 2 and 7 de razon; annual average 103. Marriages 543,\nof which 8 de razon. Deaths 698, of which 458 Ind. adults, 239 Ind. children,\n1 de, razon; annual average 38; average death rate 6.09 per cent of pop.\nLargest pop. 1,140 in 1828; sexes about equal, children I. Largest no. of\ncattle 2,120 (?) in 1832; horses 450 in 1831; mules 1-4; sheep 4,000 in 1822-3;\nswine 30 in 1823; all kinds 5,508 animals in 1832. Total product of wheat\n17,905 bush, yield 8 fold; barley 12,339 bush., 9 fold; maize 3,657 bush., 40\nfold; beans 1,360 bush., 13 fold; miscel. grains 412 bush., 8 fold.\nSummary of events, etc. 1832. The mission was attacked by savages,\nagainst whom an expedition was sent out under Lazaro Pina. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., i. 307. 1833. Trouble between P. Mercado and Alf. Vallejo; the\nfriar's murderous slaughter of gentiles. This vol., p. 322-4. 1834. Ignacio\nMartinez takes charge as comisionado. Oct. 1st, boundaries assigned to the\npueblo of S. Rafael; from Arroyo de las Animas, down Canada de los Baulenes\nto the shore, and on opposite or northern side the Canada of the Arroyo de S.\nAntonio to Los Tamales, and from Punta de Quintin to the mouth of S. Antonio\ncr. along the bay shore. St Pap., Miss., MS., xi. 11,19, with the map which is\nhere reproduced.   S. Rafael, Solano, S. Jose* mission, and the colony were to\n SAN RAFAEL.\n717\nber of neophytes in 1834 must have been about 500,\na decrease of about 50 per cent since 1830; and in\n1840 there were 190 Indians living in community with\nprobably 150 scattered. The valuation in 1834 was\n$18,500, or deducting real estate and church property,\n$4,500 in excess of debts; two years later the debt\nseems to have considerably exceeded the available\nassets, though this fact is somewhat misleading as an\nindication of the actual state of affairs.    A large por-\nMap of S. Rafael Lands in 1834.\ntion of the property was distributed at the secularization and is not included in the inventory of 1836.\nThe Nicasio rancho was also granted to the ex-neo-\nform a parish of 1st class. This vol., p. 348. 1835. Martinez in charge.\nMay 1st, Vallejo acknowledges receipt of an order to put certain Ind. in possession of Nicasio, which is given them in full ownership, and their rights\nmust be protected. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 29 (this grant was rejected by the\nL. C.) August 18th, gov. urges V. to attend to Figueroa's order of this date\nto take especial care of the S. F. Indians at S. Rafael, who had difficulty in\nmoving their property (?) for lack of boats. Id., Hist. Cal., iii. 70. Oct. 20th,\nV. complains that the padre (Quijas) resides at S. Rafael though paid by So-\n 718 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nphytes. In 1837, as the Indians were not as a rule\nmaking good use of their liberty, and as political and\nother troubles rendered, proper supervision impossible,\nthe property was collected into a common fund, under\nGeneral Vallejo's promise of redistribution when circumstances should be more favorable. Ignacio Martinez was in charge as comisionado in 1834-6, followed\nby John Read as administrator in 1836-7, and Timothy Murphy in 1837-40. Hartnell in his first tour\nof 1839 found the Indians discontented, especially in\nview of constant encroachments on their lands. They\ninsisted on complete emancipation and the promised\ndistribution of property, protesting in 1840 against\nthe enforcement of Alvarado's reglamento, and being\nsupported by Vallejo, who insisted that the mission\nhad been completely secularized, and that his promises\nmust be fulfilled. After a controversy with Hartnell\nand the governor Vallejo's view of the matter in substance prevailed; and a distribution of the live-stock\nat leasf was ordered.\nnoma. Id., Doc, iii. 45. 1836. Martinez turns over estate to John Reed on\nNov. 30th. St. Pap., Miss., MS., vii. 55, 78. .1837. Reed is succeeded by\nTimothy Murphy on April 21st. Id., 78. Visit of Edwards in March, Diary,\nMS., 14-17, who also vjsited Cooper's mill and the ranchos of Reed and\nMartin. He gives little information, but notes that the Ind. were not\nmaking good use of the property that had been distributed. Complaints of\nvagabond foreigners in the region. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv. 343. 1838. Jan.,\nJose* Talis, capt. of the Tamales, is permitted to leave S. Rafael with those of\nhis tribe, on condition of sending a few men occasionally to hear mass, if any\nmass should be celebrated. Id., v. 23. 1839. Hartnell's visit was in Sept.\nHe found the accounts in bad condition, as the admin, could not read or\nwrite. The old Christians desired their liberty and the distrib. of property;\nand all complained that hardly any land remained to them. They needed S.\nAnselmo, part of which was in possession of the Sainses and part asked for by\nCooper; Las Gallinas desired by Berreyesa; and Arroyo de S. Jose* cultivated\nlast year by Murphy for the community, but now in possession of Pacheco;\nand Pt S. Pedro, which Murphy wants, and S. Ger6nimo occupied by Rafael\nCacho. The neophyte Camilo had occupied Olompali since* 1834, and was industrious and successful, but now the Mirandas were encroaching, and Camilo\ndemanded a regular title to his land. All complained that for two years no\nclothing had been distributed. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 7, 43, 52, 98. * 1840.\nJan.-May, controversy between Hartnell and Vallejo. This vol., 601; iv. 61.\nH. came to put the mission under the new reglamento, appointing Gregorio\nBriones as majordomo; but the Ind. were opposed to being returned to\nmission life; and H. finally agreed to favor Vallejo's plan of distributing the\nproperty after paying the debts. St. Pap., Miss., MS., xi. 12-17. Oct. 13th,\nVallejo to Murphy, orders him at once to distribute 3 cattle and one horse to\neach of the Ind.  Vallejo, Doc, MS., ix. 29L\n SAN FRANCISCO SOLANO. 719\nFather Fortuni served at San Francisco- Solano\nuntil 1833, when his place was taken by the Zacatecan,\nJose* de Jesus Maria Gutierrez, who in turn changed\nplaces in March 1834 with Padre Lorenzo Quijas of\nSan Francisco. Quijas remained in charge of ex-mission and pueblo as acting curate throughout the decade, but resided for the most part at San Rafael.\nThough the neophyte population, as indicated by the\nreports, decreased from 760 to 650 in 1834 and 550\nin 1835,19 yet there was a gain in live-stock and but\n19 S. Francisco Solano statistics, 1831-4. Decrease in pop. 760 to 650.\nBaptisms 555, largest no. 232 (106 adults) in 1831; smallest 22 in 1833.\nDeaths 272, largest no. 106 in 1833, smallest 43 in 1834. Gain in large stock\n2,729 to 6,015 (in 1833; no figures for 1834); horses and mules 729 to 1,164\n(id.); sheep (id.) 4,000 to 7,114. Largest crop 3,260 bush, in 1832; smallest\n2,347 bush, in 1833; average 2,750 bush., of which wheat 1,414, yield 10 fold;\nbarley 917, 15 fold; corn 328, 62 fold; beans 36, 5 fold; miscel. grains 39, 7\nfold.\nStatistics of 1823-34. Total of baptisms (to 1835) 1,315, of which 641\nInd. adults, 671 Ind. children, 3 children de razon; annual average 101.\nMarriages (to 1833) 278, of which 1 de razon. Deaths 651, of which 462 Ind.\nadults, 187 Ind. chil., 1 and 1 de razon; annual average 54; average death-\nrate 7.8 per cent of pop. Largest pop. 996 in 1832; sexes nearly equal; children l Largest no. of cattle 4,849 in 1833; horses 1,148 in 1833; mules 18\nin 1833; sheep 7,114 in 1833; swine 80 in 1826-7; all kinds 13,193 animals in\n1833. Total product of wheat 13,450 bush., yield 9 fold; barley 5,970bush.,\n15 fold, 3,270 bush., 62 fold; beans 306 bush., 7 fold; miscel. grains 640\nbush., 13 fold.\nSummary of events, and statistics 1835-40. Oct. 24, 1831. Part of the\nrancheria burned, a man and 4 women perishing. Vallejo, Doc, MS., i. 268.\n1833. P. Gutierrez succeeds Fortuni. The padre interferes with settlements\nat Petaluma and Sta Rosa. This vol., p. 255. Padre complains of foreign\n* hunters' at Suisun. Id., 392. Also 3 objectionable foreigners at the mission.\nDept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 116. 1834. M. G. Vallejo in charge as comisionado\nof secularization in Oct.-Nov. This vol., p. 279, 294. This mission with S.\nRafael and S. Jose* was to form a parish of 1st class. Id., 348. Vallejo made\nan exped. to Solano in Jan. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxi. 58. 1835. Secularization by Comisionado Vallejo, who made Antonio Ortega majordomo. This\nvol., p. 346, 353-4. A census of June 4th shows a pop. of 549 souls. Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., iii. 33, 36, 54; xxiii. 9; xxxii. 2. Unfortunately the inventory\nsent at the same time to Mont, is not extant. March 3d, gov. to V., who\nmust give the padre free use of furniture and utensils in addition to his regular allowance; may also furnish horses and boats for the padre's use. Id., iii.\n11-12. June 4th, V. to gov., the Ind. chiefs constantly demand permission\nto go to their own lands, recognizing Sonoma as their head town, and V. has\npermitted it for fear of provoking hostility. Id., 37. Blotter of all V.'s\ncommun. to gov. from June to Dec. Id., 35-47. June 27th, gov., uncertain\nabout permitting the Ind. to live at their rancherias. Too much liberty is\nnot good for them. Wants more suggestions. Id., 57. Supplies to colony\ndown to June 20th, $421. Pinto, Doc, MS., i. 151. Aug. 2d, P. Quijas at\nS. Rafael to gov. complains that the Vallejos and Ortega have shown him\ngreat disrespect, besides refusing him beef; and that Ortega was immoral as\nwell as insolent. He will not return unless Ortega is removed. St. Pap.,\nM. & C, MS., ii. 345.    Oct. 20th, Vallejo to gov. thinks if P. Quijas lives at\n 720 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nslight falling-off in crops; and the establishment must\nbe regarded as having flourished down to the date of\nsecularization, being one of the few missions in California which reached their highest population in the\nfinal decade, though this was natural enough in a new\nand frontier mission. Mariano G. Vallejo was made\ncomisionado in 1834, and in 1835-6, with Antonio\nOrtega as majordomo, completed the secularization.\nMovable property was distributed to the Indians, who\nwere made entirely free, many of them retiring to their\nold rancherias. A little later, however, in consequence of troubles with hostile gentiles, the ex-neophytes seem to have restored their live-stock to the\ncare of General Vallejo, who used the property of the\nex-mission for their benefit and protection, and for the\ngeneral development of the northern settlement. The\ngeneral claimed that this was a legitimate use of the\nS. Rafael, Solano should not have to pay his salary, which he has already\nclaimed to be excessive ($1,500). Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 45. Dec. 15th, Vallejo resigns his position as comisionado, stating that ' mil circunstancias'\nhave prevented the distribution of lands and other property. Id., 47. 1836.\nAntonio Ortega acting administrator at $500, and Cayetano Juarez majordomo\nat $240. Ignacio Acedo also an employe* at $120. Mission debts at end of\nyear $1,138; credits $224. Clothing, rations, etc., distributed to Ind. $4,191.\nId., xxiii. 26. 1837-8. Pablo Ayala succeeded Ortega at a date not known;\nnor is anything known of his accounts. Oct. 1837, padron of 185 Suisunes\nliving at the ex-mission. A re h., Mis., MS., ii. 844. 1839. Salvador Vallejo\nwas appointed on May 7th to succeed Ayala. Dept. Rec, MS., x. 10. Vallejo,\nDoc, vii. 16. But the new administrator was not put in possession of the\nproperty; so he informed Hartnell in Sept. when H. came on his first tour of\ninvestigation, at the same time resigning. Id., viii. 85. Gen. Vallejo was\nthen consulted, and on Sept. 9th wrote a letter of explanation. He says that\nas comisionado he distributed all the live-stock (this does not agree with his\nstatement of Dec. 15, 1835, given above, that the property had not been distributed, but possibly V.'s resignation was not accepted, and the distrib. took\nplace in 1836), and the Indians were set entirely free. But bitter hostility\nwith the savages ensuing, the Ind. gathered anew about Vallejo, with many\ngentiles after treaties had been made, and gave up to him their stock, 2,000\ncattle, 700 horses, and 6,000 sheep. With this property he has cared for the\nInd., paid expenses of worship, etc., besides indirectly developing the settlement of the north\u2014a proper use for the mission funds. Now there are 3,000\nto 4,000 cattle, 500 horses, and 6,000 sheep (in March the gov. had ordered a\nloan of 3,000 sheep for 3 years from Sta Clara for the benefit of Solano. Pico\n{Pio), Doc, MS., ii. 9. What had become of these animals?) which, with the\nsmall vineyard and orchard, will be put at the visitador's disposal if he desires it. Vallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 89. But Hartnell did not deem it prudent\nto take charge of the estate under these circumstances. Hartndl, Diario,\nMS., 93-8. And nothing appears on the subject in 1840 except that by the\nreglamento the govt was still to regulate Solano 'according to circumstances.'\nVol. iv., p. 60.\n PUEBLO OF SONOMA. 721\nestate; and he would have established a new mission\nin the north if the padres would have aided him.\nDoubtless his policy was a wise one, even if his position as guardian of the Indians in charge of their private property put by them in his care was not recognized by the laws. Moreover, there was a gain\nrather than a. loss in live-stock. Thus the mission\ncommunity had no real existence after 1836, though\nPablo Ayala and Salvador Vallejo were nominally\nmade administrators. The visitador made no innovations in 1839, and apparently none were made in\n1840. I suppose there may have been 100 of the ex-\nneophytes living at Sonoma at the end of the decade,\nwith perhaps 500 more in the region not relapsed into\nbarbarism.\nOn the secularization of Solano a pueblo was\nfounded at Sonoma in 1835. Besides the fact of the\nfounding, the transfer of the San Francisco military\ncompany, the granting of several ranchos in the north,\nseveral campaigns against hostile Indians, and a few\nother matters fully treated elsewhere as indexed and\nsupplemented with minor items in the appended note,20\nvery little is really known in details of events and\n20 Summary and index of Sonoma events, etc. 1831. Sta Rosa granted\nto Rafael Gomez, as a check to the Russians, but never occupied under the\ngrant. Vol. iv., p. 160, this work. 1832. In the instructions of the Mex.\ngovt to Gov. Figueroa the colonization of the northern frontier is urged in view\nof probable encroachments of Russians and Americans; and a plan of Virmond to found a settlement at Sonoma is mentioned. ligveroa, Instruc, MS.,\n35-7. 1838 et seq. Figueroa's efforts to effect the settlement of Sta Rosa\nand Petaluma. Founding and abandonment of Sta Anna y Farias. This\nvol., p. 246-7, 255-7, 272. Lat. and long, of Solano by Douglas. Id., 404.\n1834. Petaluma granted to Vallejo. Arrival of the colony. The governor's\nalleged Ind. campaign. Id., 256-7, 360.\n1835. Arrest and exile of the colony chiefs in March. Id., 286 et seq.\nFounding of Sonoma by Vallejo, as comandante and director de colonizacion,\nat Figueroa's orders. Id., 293-5. An exped. against the northern Ind. from\nSonoma. Id., 360. Dec. 3d, Com. Vallejo claims that there is no civil\nauthority as yet and the district is therefore subject to his military rule.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 82. The four leagues of public lands were later confirmed by the land commission to the town on Vallejo's grant of June 24th.\nAlso lots were confirmed to V. under the gov.'s grant of July 5th. Hoffman's\nRepts.\n1836. Vallejo's campaigns against the Guapos and other hostile Ind.; his\ntreaties of June; his excellent Ind. policy. Vol. iv., p. 70-2. The S. F. presidial company had been transferred the preceding year, except a few men\nwho now came to Sonoma.   The officers have already been named in this\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.   46\n 722 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nprogress at Sonoma and in the surrounding regions.\nThe record is not more meagre perhaps than at several other places, but is remarkably so in view of\nchap. See p. 702. The comp. was often called from this time caballeria\npermanente de la frontera. There are extant many complaints from Vallejo\nthat the force was insufficient to protect the frontier settlement and Mex.\nnational interests against savages, Americans, and Russians. June, a scandal\naffecting one of the officers. Bandini, Doc, MS., 40. Sept. 9th, circular\nof Vallejo on the misdeeds of James Doyle and his 11 foreign companions who\nare trying to 'purchase' houses of the Ind. Castro, Doc, MS., i. 29;\nVallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 133. Nicolas Higuera was appointed alcalde auxiliar at Sonoma by the alcalde of S. F.; but Vallejo refused to recognize any\ncivil authority, in which position he was sustained by the govt. Id., iii. 99,\n181.\n1837. Gen. Vallejo's efforts to enlist and drill recruits; Capt. Salvador\nVallejo made mil. comandante, the general going to Monterey Jan.-March.\nThis vol., 511-12. June, campaign of Salv. Vallejo and Solano against the\nYolos; capture of Zampay; treaty with Sotoyomes. Vol. iv., p. 72. Vajlejo\nurges the employment of a competent surveyor in connection with the formalities of putting settlers in possession of lands; also recommends precautions\nagainst men who may desire ranchos only for speculation. Vallejo, Doc., MS.,\niii. 125; iv. 99. Specimen of grant of a town lot by Vallejo. A house must\nbe built within a year or the lot will be forfeited. Id., iv. 5. July, Ramirez\nand other political prisoners from south of the bay sent to Sonoma. This\nvol., p. 525-6. The company's protest against centralism and the general's\nproffered resignation. Id., 533. Dec. 26th, Vallejo to Carrillo on the progress\nmade in the north through his efforts; desires to devote himself entirely to\nthe frontier, rather than to be comandante general. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iv.\n365.\n1838. Salvador Vallejo again in temporary command, and marches south.\nThis vol., p. 547, 552. Southern political prisoners kept here June-Sept.\nId., 567. Various Ind. complications. Vol. iv., 72-3. Ravages of the smallpox. Id., 73-4. An infantry company of 15-20 men is mentioned in Vallejo,\nDoc, MS., xxiv.\n1839. Salvador Vallejo was com. of the post, Alf. Prado Mesa and Alf.\nLazaro Piiia acting at times, and was also captain of the compania de infan-\nteria organized the year before. This infantry company was composed of\nabout 25 selected Indians who were, however, given Spanish names on the\nrosters. They were armed with muskets and their pay amounted to $1,390\nthis year. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxv. passim. The cavalry company was raised\nto over 40 men this year and the next. Id. Both general and captain urged\nthe necessity of increasing the force, and complained of neglect on the part\nof the authorities at Monterey in the matter of supplying money. Id., vi.\n218; viii. 86. Artillery 10 guns, 9 of them brass, 2^ to 8 lbs calibre. Id.,\nxxv. 63. Six of the guns bought with all their appurtenances by Gen. V.\nwithout aid from the govt. Id., vii. 37. March, return of Gen. V. from the\nsouth, and his complaints of mismanagement by Capt. V. during his absence.\nThe offences were of slight importance, but were deemed by so strict a disciplinarian worthy of reprimand. Id., vi. 344-6. May, Gen. V. writes to\nMex. govt explaining his operations at Sonoma in the past 5 years, and his\nsuccess in founding a frontier settlement after great sacrifices and privations,\nand all without expense to the govt. But now his resources are nearly exhausted and he must have aid in order to ensure permanent success. Id., vii.\n26-8. Dec, court-martial of two deserters. Soberanes, Doc, MS., 158-65.\nOct., Solano's visit to Monterey. This vol., p. 589. Salvador was appointed\njuez de paz at Sonoma in Jan., taking the oath in May. Meanwhile in Feb.-\nMarch the people refused to attend an election on the plea that they were\nsubject only to military authority, for which the alcalde (S. Vallejo ?) appears\n THE FRONTERA DEL NORTE. 723\nGeneral Vallejo's prominent position in all that concerned the frontera del norte and of the complete\ndocumentary record of other matters contained in\nthe papers of his collection. Vallejo had many difficulties to contend with, but his zeal and energy in\nthis cause were without parallel in California annals;\nand the credit due him is not impaired by the fact\nthat the development of his own wealth was a leading incentive. His Indian policy was admirable, and\nin the native chief Solano he found an efficient aid.\nFor the most part at his own expense he supported\nthe regular presidial company, organized another of\nnative warriors, kept the hostile tribes in check by\nwar and diplomacy, protected the town and ranchos,\nand, in spite of the country's unfortunate political\ncomplications and lack of prosperity, established a\nfeeling of security that in 1839 had drawn 25 families\nof settlers to the northern frontier. Could he have\nhad the cooperation of the friars he would have\nfounded new missions in the north and east. I have\nestimated the population of gente de razon, not including the Russians, north of the bay in 1840 at\n200 souls. The establishments of Ross and New\nHelvetia during this period, having been treated in\nspecial chapters, require no further notice here.\nTurning to the southern establishments of the district we find that Padre Narcisco Duran at San Jos6\nto have been fined $20. In June Gen. V. ordered the captain not to serve as\njuez, claiming that the gov. had no power to appoint a military officer to\ncivil positions. Mont Arch., MS., ix. 10; Dept. St. Pap., MS., xvii. 57;\nId., Ben. P. & J., iii. 26-9; Id., Mont, iv. 96; Doc. Hist Cal, MS., i. 398.\nVallejo's efforts to found a new line of frontier missions, particularly one at\nSta Rosa. The friars could not be induced to undertake the task, and the\ngov. was not very warm in support of the measure. Vol. iv., p. 48; Fernandez,\nCosas, MS., 88-90, with a letter of P. Quijas.\n1840. Salv. Vallejo commandant; cavalry and infantry companies as before. In April there was a serious rising of the native infantry, who attacked\nthe cavalry, and being repulsed joined the hostile chiefs of savage tribes.\nThey were in turn attacked by Pina and Solano with a force of soldiers and\nfriendly Ind., and were defeated with much loss. Subsequently two savage\nchiefs and 9 other Ind. were shot. Vallejo believed the rebels had an understanding with the Sacramento tribes. Vol. iv., p. 12, 74. Aug. 20th, order\nof Mex. govt to constitute the northern frontier into a comandancia militar.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., x. 223.\n 724 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nmission was succeeded in 1833 by the Zacatecan\nPadre Jose* Maria de Jesus Gonzalez Rubio, who remained throughout the decade. This mission for the\nwhole decade was probably the most prosperous in\nCalifornia both before and after secularization. Its\nhighest population of 1,866 souls was reached in 1831,\nand though the number fell to about 1,400 in 183421\n81 Statistics of S. Jose* mission 1831-2 (no figures for 1833-4). Decrease of\npop. 1,745 to 1,456 (in 1833, but 1,886 in 1831). Baptisms 366 (336 inch 293\nadults in 1831). Marriages 129. Deaths 398. Increase of large stock 13,300\nto 13,710, horses and mules 1,300 to 1,250; sheep remained at 13,000. Crops\nabout 10,800 bush, each year.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Statement of P. Gonzalez that the mission had\n18,000 cattle, 15,000 sheep, 1,900 horses, and effects valued at 20,000. Taylor,\nin Cal. Farmer, June 1, 1860. Inventory of Jan. 15, 1837. Credits (chief\ndebtors Wm Gulnac $336, S. Rafael mission $1,236, the can6nigo Fernandez\n(!) $385, and dept. govt $6,117), $9,117. Buildings, including corrals, etc.,\n$10,700. Utensils and furniture $240. Manufacturing apparatus and material, also hides, tallow, lard, wagons, and 3,600 fan. of grain, $9,108. Goods\nin warehouse $17,810. Orchard and vineyard at the mission, 6,000 vines,\nabout 600 fruit trees, $7,472; id., S. Cayetano, abt 600 trees, inch 10 olive-\ntrees, $1,514. Farming tools $282. Live-stock, $18,000 cattle, 2,074 horses,\n14,965 sheep, 30 mules, 15 asses, 77 swine, $98,977. Boat $100. Total valuation $156,325. Debt (chief creditors J. A. Aguirre $402, Antonio Morena\n$377), $975. Balance $155,350. Original with autographs of J. J. Vallejo\nand Padre Gonzalez, in Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 64; also St. Pap,, Miss.,\nMS., vii 49-51. 1837-8. No records. 1839. Pop. in Aug. according to Hartnell's count 589 souls. Id., x. 12. . March 2d, gov. orders the loan of 3,000\nsheep to the Solano establishment for 5 years. Id., x. 14. Aug. 28th, property available for trade or for distribution to the Ind. $30,000. Id., vii. 48.\nSept. 1st, acct of supplies to govt and escolta (no period specified, possibly\nsince 1837) $16,809. Id., 43. 1840. Live-stock 20,000 cattle, 15,000 sheep,\n1,120 horses, 15 mules, 150 swine, 2 asses. Other property (enseres) $23,570.\nCredits $3,452 (as to what had become of the acct of $6,000 against the govt\nthe reader may adopt any theory he likes except that it had been paid). Debts\n$4,434. Id., 37-40; Arce, Doc, MS., 28-9; Pico, Pap., Mis., MS., 47-51.\nStatistics of 1797-1834. Total of baptisms 6,737, of which 4,182 Ind.\nadults, 2,488 Ind. children, 67 child, de razon; annual average 177. Marriages\n1,984, of which 4 de razon. Deaths 5,109, of which 3,524 Ind. adults; 1,554\nInd. children, 4 and 27 de razon; annual average 134; average death rate 12.17\npercentof pop. Largestpop. 1,886 in 1831; males always in excess of females;\nchildren \\ to \\. Largest no. of cattle 18,000 in 1826; horses 1,425 in 1834;\nmules 100 in 1830; sheep 20,000 in 1826; all kinds 35,600 in 1826. Total\nproduct of wheat 13,680 bush, yield 19 fold; barley 16,750 bush., 20 fold;\nmaize 17,290 bush., 80 fold; beans 3,790 bush., 25 fold; miscel. grains 8,800\nbush., 33 fold.\nSummary of events, etc. 1831. Status under Echeandia's plan not carried\nout. This vol., p. 306-7. 1832. P. Duran on the proposed reglamento. Id.,\n316*. May 7th, Duran in great trouble because the Ind. die so fast. They\nseem 'mas fragiles que el vidrio.' He has appointed 5 boys to report cases of\nsickness, and has had them well flogged to make them attend to the duty,\nyet now and then some Ind. slips out of the world without the sacraments.\nS. Jose\", Lib. Mis., MS., 27. 1833. P. Gonzalez succeeds Duran, the latter reporting this mission in a condition for partial secularization. This vol., p. 318,\n333.    S. J. was to be joined to Solano and S. Rafael as a parish of 1st class.\n SAN JO.SE MISSION. 725\nand to 580 in 1840\u2014with probably 200 scattered in\nthe district\u2014yet crops were uniformly good, the yield\nbeing larger in proportion to the seed sown than elsewhere, and live-stock increased steadily to the end.\nSecularization was effected in 1836-7, Jesus Vallejo\nhaving charge as administrator until April 1840, when\nhe was succeeded by Jose Maria Amador. The inventory made at the time of transfer showed a total\nvaluation, not including lands or church property, of\n$155,000 over and above debts; and the fragmentary\nIdi, 348. 1834-5. No records. 1836. Secularization ordered; Jesus Vallejo\ntakes partial possession as administrator in Dec. Id., 426; iv. 47. 1837. Formal delivery of the property by P. Gutierrez to Vallejo by inventory as already\ncited, Jan. 15th. Feb. 13th, V. ordered to proceed to distribution of lots.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 71. Cattle delivered to Willamette co. Vol. iv. p.\n86. 1838. June, mission damaged by an earthquake. Id., 78. July 1st, specimen of grant of a lot by the admin, to V. Chologon, as per order of Feb. 13,\n1837, as above. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxx. 94. 1839. Aug. 16th, J. Vallejo to\nthe general, complaining that Alvarado and Jimeno at Monterey seem disposed to let the missions go to ruin. He wishes to save S. Jose*, or if it can't\nbe done to let it be ruined in charge of some other admin. 7c?., iii. 40. Hartnell arrived on his tour of inspection Aug. 20th. He had expected some\ntrouble with Vallejo, the nature of which is not explained, and had even been\nfurnished with an order for troops from the pueblo under Antonio Buelna.\nBut he was well received and was much pleased with the prosperous condition\nof the establishment at first sight, as he writes on the 21st, the Ind. being well\nclothed and the storehouse well filled. It seems that Don Jesus had either\nasked to be relieved, or it had been resolved to remove him, since -H. asks the\ngovt to select some suitable admin., as he cannot approve Carlos Castro for\nthe place. Hartnell, Diario, MS., 39-40; S. Jos6 Arch., MS., iii. 34. Unfor-\nf unately the inventory is missing. Aug. 28th a series of instructions by Hartnell for the admin., which seem to imply that Vallejo had been somewhat too\nindependent in his management, inclined to severe punishments, to private\nspeculation, neglect of worship, and careless methods of keeping accounts.\nSt. Pap., Miss., MS., vii. 40-2; x. 13-14. Aug. 29th, H. to govt, has found\nthe accounts in bad order as elsewhere, the Ind. discontented and destitute\n(a wonderful change in 8 days !), punishments too severe, majordomo brutal;\nadministrator carries off property to his own rancho. Id., x. 12. Vallejo was\nauthorized in Sept. to spend $2,000 in goods for the Ind., but spent $2,SCO\nbefore he got the permission, at which and other minor informalities Hartnell\nsent reprimands in Nov. Some blankets and other articles were ordered furnished to Soledad. Vallejo, Doc, MS., viii. 175; Hartnell, Diario, MS., 50-\n1. 1840. Vallejo still in charge. According to the reglam. of March some of\nthe property at this mission was to be distributed to the oldest Ind., and a\nclerk was to be put in charge of the estate. There is-no record of Hartnell's\nvisit in April, but his instructions to the majordomo and clerk on routine\nduties are dated April 23d. Vol. iv., p. 61. And on the same date the property was turned over to Jose* Maria Amador as majordomo, the inventory\nbeing signed by Jose* Antonio Estrada (doubtless the clerk) a ruego de Amador. St Pap., Miss., MS., vii. 37-8. Oct. 24th, order of govt to lend J. B.\nAlvarado 300 heifers and 25 bulls for 5 years ! Dept Rec, xi. 46. Davis,\nGlimpses, MS., 28-9, mentions a slaughter of 2,000 cattle for their hides and\ntallow.\n 726 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FJEtANCISCO DISTRICT.\nstatistics of later years indicate no falling-off in any\nkind of property. This is the more remarkable as\nthe wealth of San Jose* made it a shining mark for\ngovernment demands, and large amounts of live-stock\nand other -property were loaned to private individuals\nand to other ex-missions. Don Jesus, though somewhat independent of supervision and informal in his\nmethods, must be regarded as a very efficient manager. It is probable, however, that in 1840 the ebb\nof prosperity had begun and that the elements of approaching decadence were somewhat more apparent\nthan is indicated by the imperfect records that have\nbeen preserved.\nAt Santa Clara Padre Viader concluded his missionary service of nearly 40 years in 1833, when he\nleft the country. His successor was the Zacatecan\nprefect Padre Francisco Garcia Diego who served to\nthe end of 1835 with an associate from 1834 in the\nperson of Padre Rafael de Jesus Moreno, after whose\ndeath in 1839 Padre Mercado took charge of the ex-\nmission.22    Statistical  reports   by   the   missionaries\n** Jose\" Viader was born at Gallines, Catalonia, on Aug. 27, 1765, and became a Franciscan at Barcelona in May 1788, sailing for Mexico in 1795, and\nstarting from the college of S. Fernando for Cal. in Feb. 1796. His only missionary service was at Sta Clara from 1796 to 1833. His superiors accorded to\nhim more than medium merit and ability both in temporal and spiritual\naffairs. Autobiog. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Sarria, Inf., 1817, MS., 68-\n9; Payeras, Inf., 1820, MS., 138. Padre Viader was a large man of fine\nphysique; somewhat reserved and stern in manner with strangers, but well\nliked by all acquaintances, with whom his manner was always frank and courteous; very strict in all matters pertaining to the faith and religious obervances,\nnoted for the size of the crucifix hanging always with the rosary from his\ngirdle; a diligent and effective man of business, devoted to the temporal prosperity of his mission, and not always impressed with the sanctity of the revenue laws. His diaries of two expeditions to the Rio de Merced and in search\nof sites for new missions in 1810 appear in my list of authorities. It is related than one night about 1814 while going to attend a dying neophyte he\nwas attacked by three Ind. who tried to kill him but were instead overcome\nby his great physical strength, becoming subsequently the padre's faithful\nand useful allies. In 1818 he made a tour to S. F. and S. Rafael as secretary\nto the. padre prefecto. In 1821 he was present at S. Juan Bautista at the\nlaving of the corner-stone and dedication of the new church. In 1826 he declined to take the oath of allegiance. Swan in a newspaper sketch often re-\nprinted, mentions the valuable services attributed to Viader in connection\nwith the drought of 1828-30, which he is said to have foretold.' In early\nyears he had desired to retire, but had consented to remain at the request of\nsuperiors and neophytes.   Of his departure in 1833 on the coming of the\n ,SANTA CLARA. 727\ncease for the most part in 1832, when the neophyte\npopulation had fallen to 1,125, being possibly 800 in\n1834, and at the end of the decade about 290 with\nprobably 150 scattered in the district.23    Down to\nZacatecanos we have no details; but in Oct. 1835 Virmond at Mex. wrote of\nhis safe arrival at Habana, whence he probably went to Spain.\nRafael de Jesus Moreno was a Mexican Franciscan of the Guadalupe college, Zacatecas, who came with the others in 1833 and served at Sta Clara\nuntil 1839, being also president and vice-prefect of the Zacatecan friars in\n1836-8. The fact that he was chosen for so responsible a position indicates\nthat he was a man of some ability, but otherwise no information direct or indirect about him appears in any records that I have seen. He died on June\n8, 1839, at Mission San Jose* where he had gone for his health a little earlier.\nManuel Jimeno wrote at the time that his illness was caused by a fit of anger,\nand his death by a mercurial potion prescribed by an English doctor. He\nwas buried in San Jose* mission church by P. Gonzalez on the 9th. S. Jose\", Lib.\nMis., MS., 29-30.\n23 Sta Clara statistics of 1831-2 (figures for 1833-4 missing). Decrease of\npop., 1,226 to 1,125 (800 in 1834 according to Hall and Gleeson); baptisms,\n55; marriages, 34; deaths, 155. Increase in large stock, 9,788 to 10,765\n(14,230 in 1834); horses and mules, 788 to 765 (1,230 in 1834); sheep, 8,000\nto 9,500 (15,000 in 1834).    Crops, 4,130 bush, in 1831; 5,580 bush, in 1832.\nStatistics of 1835-40. Mission supplies to the escolta for 7 months to\nApril, 1835, $273. Dept. St Pap., Ben. C. & T., MS., iii. 89. To S. F. presidio, Jan.-Oct., $493. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 7. 1837. Salary list.\nAdmin. $1,500, teacher $500, majordomo $192, tanner $240, clerk $240,\nbesides expenses of the padre and supplies to the com. of the escolta. St.\nPap., Miss., MS., vii. 30-1. 1839. Receipts for year, including balance in\nJan., $23,385; expend., $10,607. Id., 20-2. Sept. 2d property available for\ntrade or distribution, 5,620 cattle, 6,500 sheep, 353 horses, 30 swine, 1,686\nfan. grain, 1,000 arr. dried meat, 500 arr. wool, 347 arr. tallow, 274 arr. lard,\n415 hides, and other articles, no value given. Id., 28-9; also in Hartnell,\nDiario, MS., 29, where the number of Ind. is given as 291. Debt in March\n$6,102, credits $3,947. Debt in Sept. $4,428. St. Pap., Miss., MS., vii. 30.\nThe admin, bought of a ship $1,103 worth of goods for the Ind. without permission, for which he was blamed. Id., 33; Hartnell, Diario, MS., 52. 1840.\nReceipts (not apparently inch balance of Jan.) $12,537, expend. $2,507. St.\nPap., Miss., MS., vii. 23-25. May 15th, inventory of property turned over\nby Estrada to Alviso, 3,717 cattle, 218 horses, 4,867 sheep, 510 fan. grain,\n20 arr. tallow, 20 arr. wool, and other miscel. articles, no value given; debts\n$3,940. Ide, 33-6; Pico, Pap. Mis., MS., 47-51. The chief creditors being\nMig. Pedrorena $1,496, J. A. Aguirre $1,379, and Thos Shaw $585.\nStatistics of 177771834. Total of baptisms 8,640, of which 4,534 Ind.\nadults, 3,177 Ind. children, 6 and 923 de razon; annual average 133. Marriages 2,548, of which 182 de razon. Deaths 6,950, of which 4,152 Ind.\nadults, 2,329 Ind. children, 137 and 332 de razon; annual average 111; average death rate 12.63 per cent of pop. Largest pop. 1,541 (?) in 1795 (1,464 in\n1S27); males largely in excess of females; children ^ to *& Largest no. of\ncattle 14,500 in 1828; horses 2,800 in 1811; mules 45 in 1827; sheep 15,500 in\n1828; goats 500 in 1786; swine 60 in 1820; all kinds, 30,936 animals in 1828.\nTotal product of wheat 175,800 bush., yield 17 fold; barley 21,270 bush.,\n32 fold; maize 46,450 bush., 98 fold; beans 5,500 bush., 17 fold; miscel.\ngrains 11,400 bush., 21 fold.\nSummary of events, etc. 1831. Visits of Gov. Victoria. This vol., p.\n186-200. Status under Echeandia's decree not enforced. Id., 306-7. Davis,\nGlimpses, MS., 44., speaks of a slaughter of horses early in this decade.\n1832.   P. Viader accused of buying smuggled goods. This vol., 365.    1833,\n 728 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\n1834 there was a gain in live-stock and the crops\nwere large. Secularization was effected at the beginning of 1837 by Ramon Estrada, who served as administrator until May, 1840, when he was succeeded\nby Ignacio Alviso. The inventories of the transfer I\nhave not been able to find; but lists of effects in 1839-\n40 show that two thirds of the cattle and sheep had\ndisappeared, and apparently all other available property of any value. This had been one of the richest\nestablishments, and its downfall had been remarkably\nrapid.\nViader left Cal. and was succeeded by PP. Garcia Diego and'Moreno. Juan\nPrado Mesa was com. of the escolta down to the time of secularization.\nEscolta involved in a revolt against Vallejo at S. F. Id., 248. Aug. 7th,\npadre complains to alcalde that the neophytes go to the pueblo and get drunk\nwith notable prejudice to their souls and bodies. S. Jose\", Arch., MS., i. 52.\nLat. and long, by Douglas. This vol., 404. 1834. Sta Clara, with the\npueblo, to form a parish of 1st class under the reglamento. This vol., p.\n348. 1835. P. Garcia Diego departs at end of the year. Jose* Z. Fernandez,\nteacher, resigns in Sept. Many neophytes were given licenses of emancipation. Id., 354. Specimen of March 9th, the Ind. being permitted to live at\nSolano. Vallejo, Doc, MS., iii. 17. July. Sale of liquor forbidden. Id.,\n61. Sept. P. Moreno to gov., says that if they go on granting licenses, the\nmission will soon have no gente. Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt. ii. 14. 1836.\nOrder of secularization in Dec. Jose* Ramon Estrada appointed comisionado.\nVol, iv., p. 47. 1837. Estrada took possession early this year and became\nadministrador as well as comisionado; but in some documents the admin, is\ncalled Jose* Mariano Estrada. March 13th. Estrada to alcalde, says he came\nas admin, and not as executioner; is preparing a full report; something must\nbe done to protect the poor Ind. The killing of 3 Ind. is referred to. S. Jos6\nArch., MS., vi. 28. Vallejo's visit in March; interview with Alvarado in\nJune; arrest of rebels. This vol., p. 513, 522, 525. Belcher, Voy., i. 117,\nsays: ' nrn,\u00ab mission is fast falling to decay, and scarcely common civility was\nshown to us. 1S38. Earthquake ia June. Vol. iv., p. 78. 1839. The governor's marriage. This vol., iii. 593. Jose* Pena, teacher. Mont. Arch., MS.,\nix. 10. March-April. Order to send 3,000 sheep to Sonoma as a loan for 5\nyears, against which the Ind. protested, and the sheep were not sent. St. Pap.,\nMiss., MS., ix., 57-8; Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 475. Two of the sprightliest\nInd. delivered to the schr California by general's order. Id., 356. July.\nTroubles with the Indians, several killed. Vol. iv., p. 75-6. In Sept. Hartnell found the Ind. discontented, clamorous for a new admin., complaining\nthat they received no rations or clothing, though they seemed in good condition. They demanded that no more ranchos should be granted from mission\nlands, particularly the one asked for by Forbes, S. Miguel, and Paso de S.\nFrancisquito asked for by Pina. H. thought the salary of $500 to a teacher\nfor 6 or 8 small children should be saved. Diario, MS., 29-30. 1840. Estrada\nwas succeeded in May by Ignacio Alviso. St. Pap. Miss., vii. 33. Sebastian\nPeralta, majordomo. July. P. Mercado protests against ah order to search\nhis house and church, for music to celebrate the fiesta of independence. Id.,\nix. 54-5. Nov. 16. No produce left except hides. All industries suspended.\nId., 53.   Some of the arrested foreigners confined here. Vol. iv., p. 23.\n PUEBLO OF SAN JOS& 729\nThe pueblo of San Jose de Guadalupe, also called\nSan Jose* de Alvarado after 1836 in honor of the governor, with the ranchos of its jurisdiction, increased\nin population from 540 at the beginning of the decade\nto 750 at the end.24 Both numbers probably included\nsome Indians, and there are no means of determining the proportion of the population living on the\nranchos which have been named in this chapter.\nMunicipal affairs continued under the direction of an\nayuntamiento of alcalde, two regidores, and a sindico,\nelected annually until 1839. The successive alcaldes\nwere Mariano Duarte, Ignacio Ceballos, Salvio Pacheco, Pedro Chabolla, Antonio M. Pico, Jose' M.\nAlviso, Juan Alvires, and Dolores Pacheco. Some\ndetails are appended.25    In 1839 the ayuntamiento\n2* A padron of 1831 shows a pop. of 524. Hall's Hist. S. J., 118; StaClara\nCo. Hist,, Atlas, 9; and several newspaper articles. In 1833-4 the census\nshows 602 souls, of which number, however, 171 were Indians; and it is not\nunlikely that a like no. in other padrones were Ind., though there is no indication of it. The 602 did not include 7 families who it was thought might\nbelong to S. F. It should also be noticed that several large ranchos of what\nis now southern Sta Clara Co. were in the Monterey jurisdiction, and not included in these lists. Dept St. Pap., Ben., P. y J., MS., i. 46. 1836. List\nof 123 men between the ages of 15 and 50, 7 being foreigners. Vallejo, Doc,\nMS., xxiii. 22. Feb. 1, 1840, pop. 939. Dept St. Pap., S. J., MS., vii.J8.\n1841, pop. 936. S. Jose\", Padron, MS. This padron seems to include no\nIndians; but it does include the contra costa inhabitants, about 150 in number. There is some doubt about my figures for 1830 (see vol. ii., p. 602), the\npop. of 540 perhaps including Indians.\n25 Municipal government, list of officials, and criminal record of S. Jose*.\n1831. Alcalde Mariano Duarte; regidores Leandro Flores, Antonio Rodriguez, and Fernando Fe*lix; sindico Jose* Luis Chabolla, secretary Jose* Reyes\nBerreyesa, depositario Luis Peralta. Dept. St. Pap., B. M., MS., lxxiii. 14-\n19. 1832. Alcalde Ignacio Ceballos; regidores (probably Felix or Rodriguez\nholding over) and Joaquin Higuera. Castro, Doc, MS., i. 8; S. J. Arch., MS.,\ni. 41; ii. 55. Sec. Salvio Pacheco. Dept St. Pap., S. J., MS., iv. 105. Aug.\nJose* el Cantor to be sent to Mont. Sept., the mail of the 22d of each month\nsuspended, leaving that of the 11th. Id., 105-6.\n1833. Alcalde Salvio Pacheco; regidores (Joaquin Higuera) and Maximo\nMartinez (Sebastian Peralta also called regidor); sec. Jose* Berreyesa, juez de\ncampo Francisco Palomares; Luis Peralta mentioned as juez de paz (?), Antonio M. Pico 'majordomo de propios.' S. J. Arch., v. i.; vi. 10; Dept. St.\nPap, S. J., MS., iv. 132, 138. Feb., guardia and jail to be repaired; meanwhile prisoners to be sent to Sta Clara. No one to be allowed to cut down\ntrees in the alameda. March, ayunt. funds to be used for the purchase of\npowder and lead. Dec. surplus funds (!) to be sent to the govt at Mont.\nThe number of regidores cannot be increased at present. Id., 115-16, 140.\nAug., lands delfondo to be given to the most industrious; not to be taken\nfrom owners, but the latter must cultivate or rent them. Id., 121; Id., Ben.,\nP. & J., vi. 13. Sept., the ayunt. has no power to compel vagrants to work\nfor the public.  Id., 15.   Antonio Chabolla to be allowed to cultivate the\n 730 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\nwas dissolved here as elsewhere, and Dolores Pacheco\nserved as juez de paz in 1839-40. The jurisdiction\nof the ayuntamiento extended after  1834 from the\nYerba Buena ejidos without prejudice to the common use of wood, water,\netc. Id., S. J., iv. 137; Doc Hist Cal, MS., i. 412.\n1834. Alcalde Pedro Chabolla; regidores Maximo and Ignacio Martinez\n(the election of Tomas Pacheco being declared null), sec. Salvio Pacheco, and\nJose* Fernandez from July. Dept. St. Pap., S. J., MS., ix. 142, 146, 148, 155.\nAlcalde permitted by gov. to go to S. Rafael for 6 days; a regidor must be\npunished like any other man, and cannot leave town without permission.\nId., 148, 151. May 15th, municipal regulations issued by the alcalde. Dept.\nSt. Pap., MS., iii. 163-6. Citizens not to go in pursuit of horse thieves,\nexcept in company with troops. Id., S. J., iv. 143. June 12th, Sec. Zamorano reports that the civil and political jurisdiction of (por parte del) the\npueblo of S. Jose* has always been understood to extend 'from the Laguna\nrancho to Sta Clara, and on the other side comprising all the ranchos as far\nas the strait of Carquines, toward the villa de Branciforte as far as the summit of the sierra which divides them.' St. Pap., M. & C, MS., ii. 218. And\non June 28th the gov. fixes the limits, not very clearly, as follows: 'The\ndemarcation toward the pueblo of S. Jose* Guadalupe will begin from the\nline fixed for that of S. F. at the rancho of the Castros ' (S. Lorenzo and S.\nLeandro? but these ranchos not included) 'from the missions of Sta Clara and\nS. Jose* and the said rancho and settlements (congregaciones) of the centre as\nfar as la gentilidad toward the tulares, following the cordillera and the\nvalley to the Laguna rancho, near the sierra of Sta Cruz, the summit of which\nwill serve as dividing line between S. Jose* and Branciforte.' Id., 220.\n1835. Alcalde Antonio Maria Pico; regidores (Ignacio Martinez) and\nLeandro Rochin, sindico Luis Chabolla, sec. Jose* Berreyesa, depositario\nJose* Noriega. Jan. 15th. municipal and police regulations in 21 articles.\nmi Pap. Sac, MS., xi. 23-9. Petition of inhab. of Contra Costa, to be\ntransferred from S. F. jurisdiction to that of S. Jose\\ This vol., p. 291.\n1836. Alcalde Jose* Maria Alviso; regidores (Leandro Rochin) and Nicolas Berreyesa, sindico Francisco Archuleta, sec. Jose* Berreyesa. Record of\nelections Dec. 13, 21, 1835, in Castro, Doc, MS., i. 23-5. March, padre complains that men at S. Ignacio rancho sell liquor to the Ind. S. Jos6, Arch., MS.,\ni. 11. Sept. 10th, meeting of ayunt. to complain of the padres of S. Jose* and\nSta Clara who put obstacles in the way of justice and assumed authority\nnot belonging to them; it was voted to call on the gov. to oblige the padres\nto give up to the court two Ind. offenders, Mateo and Estanislao. St. Pap.,\nM. & C, MS., ii. 367-8. Only one prisoner in June. In Feb. the alcalde\nwas excused from serving by the gov., but no successor is named. Dept. St.\nPap., S. J., MS., iv. 113; v. 9.\n1837. Alcalde Juan Alvires; regidores (Nicolas Berreyesa) and John\nBurton. Antonio Rodriguez is also mentioned in Nov. as alcalde (?). Sta Cruz\nArch., MS., 44. Burton acted as juez much of the year. Jan. 19th, municipal regulations published by the ayunt. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxxii. 68.\nDec. 21st, nine citizens for all petitioned that no grants of land should be\nmade until the pueblo lands could be marked out. A petition for the assign-,\ning of these lands was sent to the gov. on the 23d by the alcalde; and on\nthe 24th the gov. authorized the ayunt. to appoint a commission to make a\nmap. Hall's Hist 8. J., 125 et seq.\n1838. Alcalde Dolores Pacheco. No other member of the ayunt. named.\nIn March the ayunt. appointed Guillermo Castro, Wm Gulnac, and Salvio Pacheco as comisionados to surrey the pueblo lands, which they did with all\ndue formalities, and the map and report were sent to the gov.; but there is no\nevidence of any subsequent confirmation. According to this survey, some of\nthe original landmarks had been incorrectly placed.   Full account of the\n SAN JOSti DE GUADALUPE. 731\nranchos of San Leandro and Las Pulgas in the north,\nto Laguna Seca in the south, excluding all these ranchos, and from the summit of the Santa Cruz mountains eastward to the tulares. That of the juzgado\nfrom 1839 included also in a sense the contra costa\nranchos up to Carquines strait, since the juez of that\ndistrict was auxiliary to him of San Jose* and not of\nSan Francisco. San Jose was also made temporarily\ncabecera of the partido, but no sub-prefect was ap-\nsurvey and lines adopted in Hall's Hist. S. J., 125-32. Munic. receipts and\nexpend., $326. S. J. Arch., loose pap., 59.\n1839. Alcalde Jose* Noriega; regidores Tomas Pacheco and Wm Gulnac,\nsindico Diego Forbes, sec. Jose* Z. Fernandez, comisario de policia Anastasio Cort6s. In accordance with an order of June 15th, the ayunt. dissolved\nitself on the 18th; and Dolores Pacheco took charge of municipal affairs as\njuez de paz. Dept. St. Pap., S. J., MS., v. 26; Gomez, Doc, MS., 40.\nJose* Z. Fernandez was at the same time appointed juez de paz suplente, and\nin July Antonio Sufiol was appointed sindico, or treasurer of the juzgado, and\nPedro Mesa now or earlier was juez de campo. Jan. 29th. Prefect to gov.\ncomplains of the citizens who are accustomed to sign a threatening protest\nagainst any act of the ayunt. that does not please them, which does great\nharm. S. J. Arch., MS., iii. 26. March. Record of elections; certain vocales who did not attend were fined $2 each; names of officers and primary\nelectors given; elector de partido, Jose* Fernandez, suplente Salvio Pacheco.\nId., vi. 54-6. March 14th. Ayunt. petitions gov. that S. Jose be made\ncabecera of the partido instead of San Francisco. Action on this matter was\npostponed; but in Sept. S. Jose* was declared temporarily the cabecera.\nDept. St Pap., MS., iv. 249; Doc \/list Cal, MS., i. 398; 8. Jose Arch.,\nMS., ii. 18. April. A soldier arrested and fined by the alcalde. Gen. Vallejo decides that he had no right to do it and the fine need not be paid.\nVallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 357. Prefect thinks two jueces de paz needed in\ntown, and another if the contra costa ranchos are added to the jurisdiction.\nS. J. Arch., MS. iii. 28. Capt. Salvio Pacheco of the civic guard was put\nunder arrest for offensive expressions in a letter to Gen. Vallejo; but at the\nsame time was required to go to Mont, as elector, being obliged to resume\nhis state of arrest on return. Vallejo, Doc, MS., vi. 493. May. Criminal\nproceedings against an Ind. girl and her accomplice for killing an Ind. at\nMilpitas. Dept. St Pap., S. J., vii. 13. Another against Jose\" J. Castro for\nkilling Anastasio Cortes in a gambling quarrel. Id., 17. June. Sindico's report of receipts and expend., $134. S. J. Arch., loose pap., MS., 19; for\nnext six mo., receipts $237, expend. $199. Id., 17. July 30th. Police regulations. S. J. Arch., MS., ii. 62.\n1840. Juez de paz Dolores Pacheco, suplente Jose* Z. Fernandez, sindico\nprobably Sunol. In Dept. St Pap., MS., xvii. 49, is a report of Sec. Fernandez of an election of Dec. 19, 1839, of Antonio M. Pico and Felix Buelna as 1st\n\u25a0and 2d alcalde (?). June 14th. Alcalde calls attention to the law that all but\nowners and servants living on ranchos must belong to the nearest town; therefore proprietors must dismiss all agregados under penalty of a fine of 30 reals.\nMont. Arch., MS., ix. 21. March 1st. Sindico's account, expenses $299,\nreceipts in taxes and fines, $343. S. J. Arch., loose pap., 22. May 2d.\nJuez sends (again?) to gov. the plan and expediente of the town ejidos. S. J.\nArch., MS., 36. June 4th. Sends list of foreigners in the jurisdiction. Id.,\n39. July 4th. Gov. tells the juez of contra costa that he is auxiliary to the\njuez de partido of S. Jose\\ Dept Rec, xi. 17.\n 732 LOCAL ANNALS OF SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT.\npointed till after 1840. The record of events in town\nfor the decade is well nigh a blank, though I append\nthe summary.26 Of industrial progress we Enow\nnothing beyond the increase in population for the jurisdiction as already given, and the fact that the sum\nof $2,000 was spent on a church. No visitors during\nthis period have furnished either descriptive matter\nor narratives of their visits. The people took but\nslight part in the revolutionary and sectional warfare\nof 1836-8; but raiding bands of Indian horse-thieves\nfurnished constant material for excitement and semi-\nmilitary ardor, most of the vecinos enrolling themselves in two companies of militia.\n26 Summary and index of events, etc. 1831. Part taken by S. Jose\"\nagainst Gov. Victoria; trial of Alcalde Duarte; adhesion to the S. Diego plan.\nThis vol., p. 187-8, 194-5, 212. 1832. Slight part taken in the Zamorano\nrevolt. Id., 223-4. 1833. Expedition against the Moquelumnes Ind. Id.,\n359, 394. 1835. Slight reference to exped. against Ind. horse-thieves. S.\nJos6 Arch., MS., i. 40; Palomares, Mem., MS., 1-13. In June Padre Moreno informed the gov. that he was building a pueblo church with contributions\nfrom the citizens etc., and asked for the tithes for this purpose. Figueroa in\nreply sent a libranza of $30 as a personal contribution, and authorized the\npeople to devote their tithes to the building fund, though the payment of\ntithes was no longer obligatory. There was some additional correspondence,\nand in 1838 Gen. Vallejo also authorized the use of the tithes; but it does not\nappear that any funds were obtained from this source until 1839, in which\nyear $2,050 were received and expended. In 1840 Gov. Alvarado renewed\nthe concession, and in July the work was still going on. Arch., Arzob., MS., v.\npt. ii. 9-10, 29; Dept St. Pap., v. 6; Id., S. J., iv. 170; Gomez, Doc, MS.,\n29,38; Vallejo, Doc, v. 206; xxxii. 353; xxxiii. 176; S.J. Arch., MS., iii. 32,36.\n1836. Alvarado here preparing for revolution. This vol., p. 456. 1836-40.\nInd. affairs, including one or more expeditions and raids in nearly every year.\nVol. iv. 74-6. 1837. Recruiting a militia force. This vol., p. 511. lYou-\nbles connected with the arrest of A. M. Pico. Id., 513-14, 523-7. Rumors\nof conspiracy in Nov. Id., 573. There were two militia companies organized\nat S. Jos6, each of 44 men, rank and file. The officers of the 1st were capt.\nSalvio Pacheco, lieut A. M. Pico and Guillermo Castro, alf. Tomas Pacheco\nand Jose M. Alviso Jr.; and of the 2d, Capt. Jose\" M. Alviso, lieut, Agustin\nBernal and Ignacio Martinez, alf. Inocencio Romero and Fulgencio Higuera\nCapt. Jesus Vallejo was mil. comandante. Vallejo, Doc, MS., xxiv. 8, 9;\nS. J. Arch., MS., vi. 26. The force was dissolved in 1840. Dept. St. Pap.,\nBen., P. & J., MS., iii. 13. 1838. Earthquake in June, a house shaken\ndown. Vol. iv. p. 78. Aug., Juan Carrasco found dead of hunger at Arroyo\nMocho. S. J. Arch., MS., v. 32. Nov., celebration of news of accession of\nAlvarado and Vallejo. This vol., p. 577. 1840. Arrest of foreigners. Vol.\niv. p. 11. Ind. making trouble at Sutter's. Id., 138. Douglas, Journal,\nMS., 88, estimates the exports of hides, tallow, and grain at $80,000.\n PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\n1542-1848.\nCONTINUED ALPHABETICALLT FROM VOLUME II.\nFabbol, 1845, one of Fremont's men '45-7. iv. 583. Fabregat (Narciso),\n1819, Span, lieut of the Mazatlan cavalry, who served chiefly at Sta B., being\noften mentioned in the military records down to '30; being suspended for a\ntime in '27-8 on account of his Span, birth, though he took the oath and gave\nno cause of suspicion; retired from mil. service in '33. ii. 254, 336, 361, 441,\n533-4, 572-3, 575, 675; iii. 51-3. In '29 he was 67 years old, had been three\ntimes married, had a daughter in Sin. to whom he allowed one third of his\npay, and two small children by his last wife. He became a trader at Sta B.,\nand in '43 was grantee of the Catera or Pozitas rancho. iii. 655; iv. 642; ment.\nin '44. iv. 408. I have no later record than '45, but think the old lieut was\nmurdered by robbers soon after '48.\nFages (Pedro), 1769, Span.-lieut of Catalan volunteers, who accomp. the\n1st exped. as com. of the forces that came by sea; mil. com. of Cal. July '70\nto May '74, being capt. from '71; came back as gov. and com. gen. of Cal.\nSept. '82 to April '91, being colonel from '89; in the city of Mex. '94, the date\nof his death not being known. See biog. i. 481-7; his Voyage and other writings, i. list of auth., 141, 396, 408, 443, 486; mention '69-74, including his\nexplor. of S.F. Bay and his quarrels with P. Serra. i. 117, 119,128,131, 134,\n136, 140-1, 147, 151,153, 168-9,171-2, 175-6, 178-9,181-92,195-6, 207,210,\n213, 215, 217-19, 223, 225-7, 229, 231-2, 245, 283-6, 290, 386, 671; ii. 44;\nment. in '81-2, including his appt as gov. and operations on the Colorado, i.\n363, 366-70, 373, 376, 378, 383-5; mention in 1783-90, gen. record, includ.\nfamily troubles, i. 387-408; mission affairs during his rule. i. 409-25; foreign\nrelations and commerce, i. 426-49; occasional ment. in con. with local matters, i. 450-80; 1791-2, end of rule, departure, biog. i. 481-7; additional references, i. 492, 534, 583, 605, 609, 619, 625, 661-2, 666-7; ii. 44. Don Pedro\nwas a central figure in early Californian annals; his character has been to me\na most attractive one; but I refer the reader to i. 486-7, for my views on the\nsubject.     Fagins (Lucius), 1847, owner of a S.F. lot.\nFairbanks (Henry), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Payson, Utah, '82.\nF. (W.R.), 1848, nat. of Vt, who came by sea with his cousins, named Hey-\nman, at the age of 10; in the mines to '55; 10 years in N.Y.; at Tomales '80\nwith wife, Belinda Scanlan, and 4 children. Marin Co. Hist, 493. Fairchild\n(Ephraim), 1847, prob. overl. immig. v. 556; blacksmith and wagon-maker,\nwho worked at N. Helv. '47-9; at Sac. in '71. F. (Wm H.), 1846, connected\nwith the Mormon settlement on the Stanislaus in '46-7, though prob. not a\nMormon; settled at Stockton '47; county surveyor and supervisor '78-9.\nFairfax (D.M.), 1847, mid. on the Columbus, acting master of the Erie. Fairfield (Levi), 1848, miner from whom Gov. Mason obtained specimens of gold,\nFala (Francis), 1847, owner of lot at S.F. Fales (Bounty), 1846-7, doubtful\nname, Cal. claims (v. 462). Falker (Joseph K.), 1844, Amer. who got a\npass for 1 year. Falkner (E.R.), 1848, clerk of Starky, Junion, & Co. at k\nF. Fallet (1847), at N. Helv. FaUon (Daniel), 1826, mr of the Adam. iii.\n145. F. (D.), 1846-7, in list of Cal. claims (v. 462). F. (Jeremiah), 1847,\nowner of S.F. lot; also at S. Jose\\\nFallon (Thomas), 1844, Canadian generally said to have come with Fremont, though there is some doubt in the matter, iv. 453; also said by the\ncounty histories to have lived for a time in Butte Co. The earliest original\n(733)\n 734 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nrecords of his presence are in Oct.-Nov. '45, when he was at Branciforte, age\n26. In '46 he took part in enlisting men south of the bay to cooperate with the\nBear filibusters, v. 137; and in July, being known as 'captain,' raised the U.\nS. flag at S. Jos6. v. 245-6. Later in '46-7 he served in Co. F, Cal. Bat., enlisting at S. Juan in Oct. (v. 358); several times named in the N. Helv. Diary\n'46-7; in the list of Cal. claimants (v. 462); in '48-9 a successful miner; mayor\nof S. Jose* in '51; absent in Texas '52-4; later a capitalist of S.F. and S. Jose*,\nwhere he still lives in '85. His 1st wife, by whom he had 5 children, was, I\nthink, a daughter of Michael Lodge, the Irish pioneer of '22. She obtained a\ndivorce, as did the 2d wife; and in '84-5 the amorous old captain had to pay\ndamages in a breach-of-promise suit. F. (Wm O.), 1845, Irish trapper,\nknown as [ Mountaineer,' I Big,' or | Le Gros' Fallon, who came fromN. Mex.\nwith a party of which little is known, and in Feb. '45 took part with the\nCalif, against Micheltorena in the south, iv. 495, 587. In Aug. he was at N.\nHelv. intending to start soon for the states; early in '46 he found Fremont's\nmen in the S. Joaq. Val. v. 6; in June joined the Bears in the capture of Sonoma, and his signature appears in the original procl. of June 14th in my\npossession, v. 110, 114. He served prob. in Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), and had\na Cal. claim of $50 for a mule (v. 462); was a member of the 4th Donner relief, and his diary, published in the Star, was the foundation 'of the absurd\ncharges against Keseburg. v. 541-3. He went east with Gen. Kearny as guide,\nv. 452; and in the S.F. Calif of Sept. 2, '48, we read that he had started alone\nfrom Ft Hall for Cal., and it was feared he had been killed by Ind.\nFalls (Richard J.), 1846, nat. of N.Y.; sergt Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons, who\nserved under Kearny at S. Pascual, the S. Gabriel, and the Mesa '46-7. v.\n347. He remained in Cal. after his disch., living on a Napa farm till '62, when\nhe went east to serve in the war with distinction and wounds for 3 years, rising to the rank of colonel. Returning to Cal. he was in '69 an officer in the\ncustom-house; and in '83-5 a sergt of police in S. F. His daughter, Ivy I.\nFalls, was appointed postmistress at Vallejo in '69. Famin (Ign.), 1847,\ndoubtful name of an Englishman at N. Helv.\nFannier (M.), 1846, doubtful name of the Cal. Ba\\ (v. 358). Fanning\n(H.F.), 1847, resid. of Stockton. Tinhham. F. (R.C.), 1846, Co. F, Cal.\nBat. (v. 358); enlist at S. Juan, Oct. Farias (Jose* Maria), settler at Los\nAng. '15. ii. 350; still there '39-48. F. (Santiago), 1827, Scotchman, bapt.\nat S. Diego; prob. James 'McFerion,' q.v. Farley (Anderson), 1846, Co. F,\nCal. Bat. (v. 358); prob. an overl. immig., cl. for a Napa rancho '52. F.\n(Geo.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at The.Dalles, Or., '82. F., 1846,\nsaid by Lancey to have come with Kearny; owner of a S. F. lot '47. F.\n(John F.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); died at Portland, Or., '69. Hist.\nOr., i. 630. F. (John G.), 1847, father of John F., Co. B, N.Y.Vol.; d. S.F.\n'49. F. (Thos P.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol.; at Portland, Or., '82. Farnesio\n(Francisco), 1805, priest from Manila, at Mont., sent to Mex. ii. 31, 160.\nFarnham (Thos Jefferson), 1840, nat. of Me, who came overL to Or. in '39,\nand to Cal. via Honolulu on the Don Quixote, returning east by S. Bias and\nacross Mex., and writing books on Or., Mex., and Cal. as a result. See iii.\n680; iv. 2, 4, 6-7, 10, 15-17, 25-8, 95, 103, 117, 120, 156-7, 192, 266. F. was\na lawyer of some ability, and a writer of somewhat fertile imagination. His\nwork on Cal. is criticised elsewhere in this work; here it must suffice to say\nthat in all those parts resting on his own observations it is worthless trash,\nand in all that relates to the Californian people a tissue of falsehoods. He\ncame back to Cal. in '47\u2014perhaps in '46, as he took part in a public meeting\nat S.F. in June '47, v. 455\u2014and died at S.F. in Sept. '48, age 42. He left a\nwidow and 3 children in N.Y. The former, Eliza W. Farnham, came to Cal.\nby sea in '50, and in '56 published her California Indoors and Out, a pleasing\npicture of life on the Pacific coast. She was a woman bent on doing the world\nas much good as possible, and one of her hobbies was the bringing eastern\ngirls to Cal. in quest of husbands. She died in '64 at the age of 49. Farns-\nworth (J.B.), 1839, Engl, at Mont. ace. to newsp. item of '72. F. (J.M.),\n1846, doubtful memb. of the Mormon col. v. 547.     Farnum, 1848, mr of a\n FARNUM\u2014FELIX. 735\nvessel at Sta Cruz and Mont.     Farr (Philip), 1847, Co. G, N.YTVol. (v. 499);\nd. at Dutch Flat '83.\nFarwell (Edward Augustus), 1842, Boston printer and sailor who came\nfrom Honolulu with Capt. Cooper on the California, perhaps as mate, with\nletters from Reynolds to Larkin, age 27. iv. 341. In '43 he waf naturalized,\nand in '44 got a grant of the Arroyo Chico rancho, Butte Co. iv. 670; I have\na letter of '45 from his brother Joseph R. in Bost. to the U.S. consul asking\nfor information about him. He went east overl. in '45, seeking relief from\nweak eyes, returning in '48; was for a time in charge of Sutter's launch running on the Sac, and died at S. F. in Jan. '49. F. (James), 1840, doubtful\nname in Farnham's list of arrested foreigners, iv. 17. Fatoute (Ezra), 1847,\nCo. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. Faucon (Edward H.), 1835, mr of the\nBoston ships Alert and Pilgrim '35-7. iii. 381, 383; iv. 105, 141. Wm H.\nThomes informs me that Capt. F. is still living in Mass. '85. Fauffer (Jo-\nhann), 1847, musician of N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. Wash. '64. Faulkner (James\nY.), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at S. Jose '50 and '74; S.F. '71; in Or. '78.\nFauntleroy (Daingerfield), 1844, nat. of Va, b. 1799; capt. of state militia\nabout 1838; purser U.S.N, from '33; on the Savannah '44-7. iv. 453. The\nservice that has made him best known in Cal. was as capt. of a comp. of volunteer dragoons to which was intrusted the preservation of order in the\nMont, district July-Sept. '46, F. commanding the garrison of S. Juan B. and\nmaking an exped. against hostile Ind. v. 232, 247-8, 254, 293-4. Died at\nPensacola navy-yard in '53. His son W.H.F., in interviews and letters of\n'77, being then in S.F., gave me information about his father's life.\nFaura (Jose*), 1798, Span, friar who served 12 years as missionary at S.\nLuis Rey and S. Juan Cap. Biog. ii. 110; ment. i. 564, 577, 654, 657; ii. 110,\n159-60. Faust (John B.), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. v. 685; in May intending\nto start from Sonoma with a party to explore Trinidad Bay; in March '48\ndigging wells >at Benicia. v. 673; d. at the Yuba mines Aug. 18th. Faus-\ntino, 1845, leader in a disturbance at Los Ang. iv. 523. Fautrel, 1837, mr\nof the Nancy, iv. 105. Faxon (Wm. T.), 1840, Amer. trader who came by\nsea and took charge of Larkin's store at Mont. '41. iv. 120. He went to Hon. in\n'42 but returned in '44, his name frequently occurring in commercial corresp.\nHe left the country on the California in '46, and in a later letter Capt. Ar-\nther gave a very unfavorable report of his conduct on the voyage.\nFebiger (Geo. Carson), 1846, lieut on the Dale, on land service at S.F.\nF. (John C), 1846, passed mid. on the Dale; at Wash. '78. Feil (J.)* 1837,\nowner of S.F. lot. iii. 705; doubtful name. Feliciano (Alejo), 1777, sir-\nviente at S.F. i. 297. Felipe, executed at Sta. B. '24. F. (A.), 1848,\npassp. from Hon.\nFe*lix, see list in i. 735-6 of those, who came before 1800. Felix (Anastasio), at Los Ang, '46. F. (Antonio), at Los Ang. '39, age 28. F. (Antonio),^ soldier at S.F. '44, age 21. F. (Diego), at Mont. '36, age 26, wife\nMaria del Rosario, child Andres; maj. at San Antonio '39. iii. 688; executed\nfor the murder of his wife '40. iii. 676. F. (Dolores), alferez of cavalry at\nMont. '45. iv. 652. Still at Mont. '48. F. (Domingo), murdered by his wife\nand her paramour at Los Ang. '36, a crime that resulted in the 1st Cal. vigilance com. iii. 417-19, 631. F. (Domingo), militia sergt at S.F. '37 and\nlater; owner of S.F. lot '43, and grantee of S. Mateo rancho '44. iv. 669, 671,\n673, 676, 683; still at S.F. '55, a witness in the Santillan case. F. (Doroteo),\nsettler at Los Ang. 1803. ii. 350. F. (Fernando), regidor at S. Jose '31. iii.\n729; at S. Mateo '35; grantee of Novato '39. iii. 712, and of Sanel '44. iv.\n673; age 46 in '44; ment. by Revere. '46. ii. 297. F. (Francisco), settler at\nLos Ang. 1791. ii. 350. F. (Hip61ito), French, at Brancif. '45, age 27. F.\n(Ignacio), soldier at Sta. B. before '37. F. (Jacoba), cl. of S. Fran, rancho.\niii. 633. F. (Jesus), aux. alcalde at S. Jose* '36. iii. 636. F. (Jose), settler\nat Los Ang. '13-19; ii. 349, 354. F. (Jose), at S.F. and Son. '42-4, age 15-\n20. F. (Jose*), juez de campo S. Jose\\ v. 662. F. (Jose* Antonio), killed\nby Ind. about '24. F. (Jose Antonio), at Los Ang. '46. F. (Juan), soldier\nat Sta. B. '32.   F. (Juan), at Los Ang. '39, age 57.     F. (Juan), killed by\n 736 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nInd. at Refugio '45. iv. 642. F. (Juan Jos\u00a3), at Brancif. '28-45, age at latter\ndate 45; wife Antonia Castro, child. Rafaela, Miguel b. '22, Leon '25, Angel\n'27, Antonio '32, Victoria '31, Josefa '39; juez de paz in '43. ii. 677; iv. 663.\nF. (Julian), at S. Mateo '35. F. (Leonardo), soldier at S.F. '19-27; arrested\nat Mont. '37. iii. 525. F. (Luciano), sentinel at S. Buen. '19. ii. 333; in\nrevolt at Sta B. '29. iii. 78; at the Natividad fight '46; in 49 juez de policia\nat S. Luis Ob. F. (Luis), soldier at S.F. '44, age 17. F. (Luis), soldier at\nSta B. '32-7, wife Secundina Cordero, 3 children. F. (Manuel), in Los Ang.\ndist. '46-56. F. (Nicolas), at Los Ang. '46. F. (Rafael), at S. Mateo '35;\nS.F. militia '37; in '41 in S. Jose* dist., age 44, wife Juana Amezquita, child.\nRamon b. '28, Urbano '29, Macario '31, Julia '27, Sinforosa '34, Jose d. '40.\nF. (Rafael), soldier of S.F. comp. '39-42; detailed in '41 to accomp. capt.\nCastaneda to Mex.; grantee of Pescadero, S. Joaq., '43. iv. 672; ment. in '46.\nF. (Santiago), at S. Juan Cap. '46, age 30, wife Juana Riola, child. Juan,\nAndrea, Alonza, and Ascension. F. (Tomas), soldier at Sta B. before '37.\nF. (Vicente), invalido corp. in charge of Los Ang. as comisionado much of\nthe time 1785-1800. i. 347, 461, 479, 6G1; owner of the Felix rancho, 1802-16.\nii. Ill, 185, 353. F. (Vicente), soldier at Sta B. before '37, wife Filomena\nValenzuela; 5 children\"; in '36 maj. at Buena Esperanza rancho. iii. 677;\nwidower, age 26, child. Casiana, Ger6nimo, Juan, and Jose*; grantee of Moro\ny Cayucos, S. Luis Ob., '42. iv. 655; in trouble with the auth. at S. Luis '47.\nPerhaps 2 or 3 men of this name.\nFellom (Caius Julius), 1845 (?), Danish sailor, brother of Matthew, who\ncame to Cal. in '52 and again in '62, and at S. Jose* in '78 claimed to have\ntouched at Sta B. before '46 on the whaler Waverly. 8. J. Pion. Jul. 6, '78.\nF. (Matthew, or Felipe), 1821 (?), Danish hatter and sailor, who landed from a\nwhaler all the way from '21 to,'24 ace. to dif. records, ii. 444, 526-7. He settled in the Gilroy region, and married after '34, when his age was 32. Felipe\nwas prob. his baptismal name in Cal.; on Larkin'sbooks '41-7; in '42 making\nsoap at Gilroy's; in '46 juez at S. Juan B. v. 640. He is said to have become\nrich in lands and cattle, and to have died in '68 or '73. Fellows (C.J.), 1845,\ndoubtful arrival, iv. 587. F. (Hiram W.), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469);\nreenl. Fendero (Jesus), Mex. soldier of the piquete de Hidalgo at Mont. '36,\nage 29.     Fenley (Daniel), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nFerguson, 1846, doubtful memb. of the Mormon Col. v. 547. F. (Adrian),\n1835, at S. Jos\u00a3; prob. Geo. A., q. v. F. (Daniel), 1824, Irish shoemaker\nfrom N. Mex. ii. 526; iii. 156; joined the comp. extranjera at Mont. '32. iii.\n221; in '36 a resid. of Los Ang., age 30, with a Cal. wife. He was one of the\nvigilantes (iii. 430); but failed to secure a lot; and in '39 or earlier came\nnorth, his name appearing on Larkin's books in '39-40. He was murdered in\nSalinas Val. '41 by Arana, the paramour of F.'s wife, Carmen Ruiz. iv. 280,\n653. F. (Geo. A.), 1831, Amer. sailor, cooper, and lumberman, who deserted from the Fanny, working at S. Rafael, S. F. iv. 708-9, Mont, in '33,\nand S. Jose* from '34. iii. 405; arrested but not exiled in '40. iv. 17; in the\ncontra costa '44; signed the S. Josd call to foreigners '45. iv. 599; lot at S.F.\n'47; perhaps had a store at Stockton '48; in '78-83 a resid. of Mayfield. F.\n(James), 1847, sergt-maj. of Morm. Bat. v. 477, 483; in '58 adj.-gen. Utah;\ndelivered a lectute in Liverpool '55. F. (Jesse), 1828, Amer. trapper of\nPattie's party, who remained in Cal., settling at Los Ang.; married a Rendon\nin '31; named in '36 as a trader, age 36; said to have died in L. Cal. a few\nyears later, ii. 558; iii. 163, 178. F. (J.C.), 1846, overl. immig., named by\nBryant; Co. C, Cal. Bat., enlisting at S. Juan in Oct. (v. 358); Joseph F. had\na Cal. claim (v. 462); Josiah F. was a witness in the Cal. claims and in the\nFremont court-martial, v. 454. These may have been all the same man; but\nthere was also a Ferguson at Sonoma in June before the arrival of the immig.\nv. 110, 128.     Fermor (Edward), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nFernandez (Antonio), regidor of Mont. '27-8. ii. 612. F. (Diego), 1827,\nSpan, trader on the Waverly; teacher at Sta B. '30. ii. 574; wife Brfgida\nNavarro, 2 child.; widower in '36, age 51, 3 child.; mai. at Purisima '42. iv.\n648.     F. (Dionisio), grantee with his bro. Maximo of land in Butte '46. v.\n FERNANDEZ\u2014FIELD. 737\n675. F. (Francisco), 1825, Span, from the Aquiles; ordered away in '28-30.\niii 51. F. (Gregorio), 1794, Span, friar, who served at S. Luis Ob. and\nPurisima, retiring 1805. Biog. ii. 123; ment. i. 547, 576, 675, 689; ii 159-60.\nFernandez (Jose*), 1817, Span, sailor who came from Peru with Rocquefeuil\nas a sailor on the Borddais, and served in the S. F. comp. as soldier and corporal in '19-27, going with Arguello in '21 on the exped. to the north, ii. 232,\n289, 446. In '28-9, like other Span., he was in some trouble with the Mex.\nauth. but was allowed to remain, iii. 51-2, 75; in '30 sec. of the ayunt atS.\nJose*, iii. 730; in '39 partido elector, iii. 590, 731; in '44 sindico. iv. 685; in\n'46 juez de paz, capt. of defensores, serving in the south under Castro to Ang.,\nand after U.S. occupation memb. of the council, v. 140, 295, 662, 664; in *49\n2d alcalde. La later years he resided at Sta Clara, being a witness in the N.\nAlmaden and many other cases. In '74 he dictated his recollections of early-\ndays, a most interesting narrative called Cosas de California, He died a year\nor two later, over 75 years of age. Capt. F. was a man who always merited\nthe respect and esteem of those who knew him.\nFernandez (Jose Maria), 1796, Span, friar, who served at S. F., but was\nobliged to retire in '97, insane from the effects of a blow on the head. i. 712-\n13; also i. 577, 711. F. (Jose Perez), see 'Perez Fernandez.' F. (Jose*\nZenon), 1834, Mex. teacher who came in the H. & P. col., iii. 263, teaching for\na short time at Sta Clara, iii. 728. In '39 he was sec. of the S. Jose* aynnt.\nand suplente juez de paz. iii. 731; in '40-1 sec. of the junta and ad int. of the\ngovt. iii. 604, 193; and grantee of Quito rancho, Sta Clara, in '41. iv. 672; in\n'42 juez de paz at Mont., administering justice in a way not quite satisfactory\nto Com. Jones, and going south with Jimeno Casarin as sec. iv. 39, 294,653,\n656; in '44 sec. of the assembly down to his death in Aug. iv. 410. F.\n(Manuel), 1794, Span, friar who served at Sta Clara and Sta Cruz, retiring in\n1798. Biog. i. 498; ment. i. 576-7, 618, 723. F. (Mariano), artillery corporal\nat S.D. 1803-6. ii. 102-3. F. (Mariano), of the custom-house guard at Mont.\n'45, perhaps the same. F. (Maximo),.grantee of rancho in Butte, and S. F.\nlot '46. v. 675, 684. F. (Pedro), builder of 1st frame house at S. Jose '41.\niv. 684. F. (Sabas), Mex. corporal sent to Cal. for the Mont. comp. '37;\nemployed at Sonoma as lieut in com. of an Ind. comp. iii. 511; iv. 72. F.\n(Santiago), soldier of S.F. comp. '41.\nFernandez del Campo (Jose*), 1828, Mex. lieut in com. of Cal: artfll., stationed at Mont.; arrested by insurgents '29; died in '31. ii. 608, 674; iii. 68,\n70, 89, 190, 239. Fernandez de San Vicente (Agustin), 1822, Mex. priest\nand candnigo, sent to Cal. as commissioner by Iturbide to superintend the\nchange of govt; skillful in politics and intrigue, a bon-vivant and gambler,\nwhose character was not admired by the friars. He departed in '23, and a few\nyears later was vicar at Sta Fe, N. Mex. ii. 457-70, 483, 496, 550, 591, 597,\n631, 643-4, 661; iii. 11. Fernando, neoph. grantee of Rincon del Alisal '44.\nFernando, at Soledad '27. ii. 623.\nFerrelo (Bartolome), 1542, piloto mayor in com. of one of Cabrillo's vessels\nin the discov. of CaL; com. of the exped. after Cabrillo's death, continuing\nthe voyage to the north, i. 77-81. Ferrer (Antonio), 1825, on the Asia.\niii. 26. Ferrill (Thos J.), 1846, Fauntleroy's dragoons (v. 232,247). Fetz-\nchoror (Christian), 1847, musician of N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Fetzer (John), 1846,\nCo. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336).\nFich (Henry), 1846, owner of S.F. lot; prob. Hen.D. 'Fitch,' q.v. Fick-\nett (S.H.), 1847, nat. of N.Y.; memb. of S. Joaq. pioneers '84. Fidalgo\n(Salvador), 1790, Span, naval lieut, com. of the transports and explor. vessels\nS. Carlos and Princesa, on the Cal. coast and at Nootka 1790-5. i. 444j 506,\n509, 513, 517, 524, 533, 535, 543, list, of auth.; alsoi\/M N. W. Coast, index.\nFiel (W.H.), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons, trans, from Co. K.; killed at S.\nPascual. v. 346. Field (B. Oscar), 1847, nat. of Penn., captured as a boy\nby Ind., and later interpreter'and courier for the govt. Said to have come to\nCal. '47; in Sac. Val. '48; at S.F. from '50. Died at S.F. '64. Bulletin. F.\n(Daniel), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). F. (John), 1847, ditto. F. (Samuel), 1845, overl. immig., perhaps of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv. 579.\nHist. Oal., Vol.. Ht.   47\n 738 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nFife (John), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). F. (Peter), 1847, Co. B,\nditto.      F. (Wm), 1841, Scotch otter-hunter in Sta B. region from '45, and\nErob. several years earlier, iv. 279; v. 317; went to the mines '48, but resumed\nis hunting to '58 and later; murdered by a Sonoran at Sta B. in '66. Fifer,\nsee 'Pfeifer.' Fifield (Ira), 1848, furnished specimens of gold to Gov. Mason;\nprob. same as following. F. (Levi), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in\nSutter's employ '47-8.\nFiguer (Juan), 1772, Span, friar who served at S. Gabriel, San Luis Ob.,\nand S. Diego, dying in 1784. Biog. i. 455; ment. i. 107, 192-3, 196, 272, 299,\n316, 388, 457-9, 654, 106-7. Figueroa (Felipe), soldier at Sta B. '32, wife\nIgnacia Lopez; still at Sta B. in '50. F. (Francisco), 1833, Mex. capt. who\ncame with his brother, the gov., and was appointed contador at Mont, in '34.\niii. 236, 240, 378. In '36 he lived at Mont., age 32, wife Maria de Jesus Palomares, age 18, son Guadalupe b. '36; in '37 involved in the revolt against Alvarado. iii. 513, 523-6; from '39 in charge of his brother's Alamitos rancho\nnear Los Ang. iii. 633, 637. In '44-6 he was a member of the assembly, being\npresident of that body under Flores' administration, and taking some part\nagainst the U.S. iv. 361, 411, 495-6. 521; v. 37-8, 49-50, 264, 321-2. Don\nFrancisco was city treasurer of Los Ang. in '50. F. (Guadalupe), grantee of\nCorral de Tierra '36.\nFigueroa (Jos6), 1833, Mex. brigadier-gen. who had been com. gen. of Son.\nand Sin., and who was gov. and com. gen. of Cal. from Jan. 14, '33, to his\ndeath on Sept. 29, '35. See full account of his arrival, rule, and death, including his troubles with Hijar, Padr6s, and Apalategui, in iii. 234-98, espec. on\nbiog. and character, 234, 296-7; also ment. i. 662; ii. 508, 594; iii. 16, 305,\n414, 613, 633, 652, 669-71; acts and policy in mission and Ind. affairs, iii\n318, 321-36, 339-62, 620; commercial and financial affairs, iii. 368-30; the\nRussians, iv. 161-3. Figuerga is known as the best of California's Mex. governors, and in many respects merits his reputation. He was an intelligent\nman, of good intentions and liberal views; not a model in respect of private\nmorality, and not always to be fully trusted; well versed in the arts of making friends and of gaining popularity by overcoming imaginary obstacles; was\nfortunate in the circumstances under which he was called to rule the country;\nand made no serious mistakes. F. (Manuel), settler at Los Ang. in '79. i.\n461. Filibert (Francisco), 1825, Span, from the Aquiles, in list sent to Mex.\n'28; perhaps not sent away. iii. 51.\nFinch (John), 1838, Engl, tinker and blacksmith who came to Mont, by\nsea, age 28. iv. 119. From '40 he lived at S.F., getting a lot, and keeping\na saloon and bowling-alley at the cor. of Washington and Kearny streets,\nv. 683. He was more commonly known as John 'Tinker'; died Aug. 20, '47.\nFinch, 1847, mr of the Com. Stockton. Findla (James), 1847, overl. immig.\nand carpenter from Mo., who worked at S.F. and became the owner of many\ntown lots in '47-8. v. 556. Went to the mines in '48-9; later in the real estate\nbusiness at S.F., where in '78 he dictated for my use his Statement of Early\nEvents, and where I think he still lives in '85. Findlay (John), 1847, Co.' E,\nMorm. Bat. (v. 469). F. (Wm), 1846, lieut and later capt. of Co. A, Cal.\nBat. v. 361, 434; went east with Stockton or Kearny in '47. v. 454; at Wash,\nas a witness Jan. '48; perhaps the Wm Finlay at S. Jose* '54 accredited to '45.\nAnnals of 8.F., 822.\nFine (J. H.), 1846, nat. of Ky; claimant for Suisun rancho. iv. 674; died\nat Paso de Robles in '79, age 58. F. (Quin?), 1847, blacksmith at Benicia;\nmember of Sonoma council; died in '48. v. 668, 672-3. Fink (Nicholas),\n1836, German shoemaker who came to Los Ang. with a Mex. passp. of '35;\nage 30, and single in '40, when, having a shop in town, he was robbed and\nmurdered, the 3 assassins being executed '41. iv. 118, 280, 629-30.\nFinlay (Thomas), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Finlayson (Duncan),\n1833, agent of the H.B. Co., touched at S.F. on the Dryad, hi.. 382, 404.\nFinley (Asa W.), 1846, overl. immig. with wife and 2 children; served under\nAram at Sta Clara (v. 378); a farmer at S. Jose* for 17 years; later in Linn\nVal., Kern Co., where he was in '79, having 2 sons, 3 married daughters, Mrs\n mi\nFINLAYSON\u2014FITCH. 739\nHenry Pascoe, L. A. Seardsley, and J. P. Wilkes in Kern Co., and 2 daughters in Or. Bahersfield Gazette. Finley, 1844, a half-breed assistant of Laframboise. Yolo Co. Hist. F. (James), 1848, owner of lots at S.I*. F.\n(John), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). F. (John M.), 1848, of firm F.,\nJohnson, & Co., traders at S.F. v. 680. F. (Richard), 1848, miner from\nOr., where he still lived in '82. Finley (S.), 1846, Cal. claim of $15 for a rifle\n(v. 462). Fippard (Chas), 1833, Engl, carpenter from the Catalina, who\nasked for a carta in '34, and was still at Mont. '35. iii. 409.\nFish (Wm), 1834, doubtful name in a Los Ang. list. Fisher, or Norris,\n1818, negro of Bouchard's force, who rem. in Cal. There is no definite record\nof his later career, he being perhaps confounded in such vague allusions as\nexist with the following, ii. 248, 393. F., or Fisar, 1825, negro from Penn.,\nwho came to Sta B. on the Sta Rosa; in '29 at Los Aug., a farmer 35 years\nold, without religion, but of good conduct, iii. 29; ment. by Coronel, for\nwhom he had worked, in '46-7; and perhaps by Foster in '48-9. It is possible, however, that this F. and the preceding were the same. F., 1846, of\nCal. Bat., said to have been attacked by Ind. near Los Ang. inr^. Fremont's\nCourt-martial, 233. F., 1847, mr of the California, v. 576. F., 1848, at\nSutter's Fort from the quicksilver mines.\nFisher (Adam), 1843, named by Baldridgeas a memb. of the Chiles-Walker\nimmig. party. F. (Daniel), 1845, signer of the S. Jose* call to foreigners, iv.\n599. F. (Daniel), 1847, asst quartermaster in Stockton's Bat. Jan. v. 385.\nF. (F.), 1839, captain ment. in Larkin's accts as being at Mont. Aug. \u2022 F.\n(Herman), 1848, German resid. of Sonoma Co. '73-7. Son. Co. Hist. F.\n(Joseph R.), 1846, one of the Mormon col., who rem. in Cal. v. 546. Fisher\n(Mary Ann), 1846, ditto; died in the faith at Mission S. Jose*, v. 546. F.\n(Thomas M.), 1846, son of Wm, age 4, who settled in Sta Clara Co., married\nAnna Hanks in '61, and was still living, in '81, near Gilroy, with 5 children.\nFisher (Wm), 1845, nat. of Mass. who lived many years at Cape S. Lucas,\nL. Cal., marrying Liberata Cesena, trading on the coast, possibly visiting\nUpper Cal. earlier, but apparently coming for the 1st time in '45, when he got\na S.F. lot, and is mentioned in Larkin's corresp. iv. 587, 669, 684. It was\nprob. on this visit that he purchased the Alvires, or Laguna Seca, rancho near\nS. Jose*, for which his heirs were claimants in later years, iii. 712. In '46 he\nbrought his family and settled at Laguna Seca, being also engaged in trade\nat S. Jos6; it was on his rancho that Fremont encamped, v. 6, 660; in Dec.\n'46 memb. of council, v. 664, having declined the office of alcalde, v. 662. In\n'49 he sold his S. Jose* business to Belden, and died in '50. His children were\nMary C. wife of D. Murphy, Thos M., Cipriano W. (died), and Uloga Frico(?),\nas named in Sta Clara Co. Hist. The widow married Geo. H. Ball of N. Y.\nF. (Wm), 1825, mr of the Recovery, iii. 148. F. (Wm), 1830, at Los Ang.\nii. 555. Fishpan (?), (John), 1846, Fauntleroy's dragoons (v. 232, 247).\nFisk (Daniel), 1844, deserter from the Warren. Fiske (F.), 1841, mid. on\nthe U.S. St Louis.\nFitch (Henry Delano), 1826, nat. of New Bedford, Mass., b. 1799, who\ncame to Cal. as mr of Virmond's Mex. brig. Maria Ester, iii. 147, 176. In\n'27 he announced his intention of becoming a Mex. citizen; in '29 was baptized at S. Diego as Enrique Domingo Fitch; and was married at Valparaiso\nin July of the same year to Josefa Carrillo, daughter of Don Joaquin of S.\nDiego. For an account of his romantic elopement, return, and ecclesiastical\ntrial, see iii. 140-4; ii. 551, 562, 569, 615. In '30-1 he was mr of the Leonor,\niii. 49, 147, 383, his home being at S. Diego after his family troubles had been\nsettled; in '32 already applying for lands north of S.F. bay. Sup. Govt St. Pap.,\nviii. 37; sons were born '30, '32, '34; naturalized in '33. He had a store at S.\nDiego; sindico in '35. iii. 615; com. de policia'36. iii. 616; afforded some aid\n\u2014moistened powder, etc.\u2014to the surenos in the political quarrels of '37-8.\niii. 495, 553; in '39-40 presid. of election and juez de paz. iii. 614, 616-17.\nIn '40 Capt. Fitch went to Hon. as sup. of the California, and at the IsL\nbought of Peirce & Brewer for 2,500 hides a half-interest in the Morse, which\nhe brought to Cal., renamed her the Ninfa, and made a trip to Mazatlan in\n 740 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\n'41. iv. 102, 105, 209, 249, 567. Stearns, McKinley, and Temple were his\ngartners in this venture, and Paty a little later. In '41 he was grantee of the\notoyomi rancho, iv. 674; v. 297, 358, later Healdsburg, which was put in\ncharge of his agents, as he still lived at S. Diego, being much of the time at\nsea. Receptor at S.D. '45-6; made a survey of town lands; juez de paz '46-7,\ngrantee of lands at S.F., being also ment. in connection with various matters,\niv. 345, 557, 620; v. 267, 317, 618-20, 659-60, 679. He died at S. Diego in\n'49, and was the last person buried on Presidio Hill. Capt. Fitch was one of\nthe earliest, most prominent, and most popular of the early pioneers; straightforward in his dealings, generous in disposition, frank and cheerful in manner, in physique a very tall man inclined to corpulency. Dana is the only man\nthat has anything unfavorable to say of him, and it is hinted that D., a wild\nyoung sailor disposed to put on airs by reason of his education and high connections, was once rather summarily ejected from Don Enrique's house, when\nhe and his companions applied for grog. I have hundreds of the captain's\nbusiness and personal letters in the collections of Vallejo and Cooper, besides\nan immense vol. of the Fitch, Doc. Hist. Cal., presented by his widow in '75.\nDona Josefa\u2014born at S. D. 1810, and baptized as Maria Ant. Natalia Elijia\nCarrillo, being called Josefa later because her godmother forgot the names,\nand thought that one of them was Josefa!\u2014moved to the Healdsburg rancho\nsoon after her husband's death, and was still living there in '80, dictating for\nmy use in '75 a most interesting NarracUm, besides presenting the doc. cited\nabove, including her marriage certificate and the captain's naturalization papers. There were 11 children, as follows: Henry E. b. '30, Fred. '32, Wm '34,\nJoseph '36, Josefa '37, John B. '39, Isabella '40, Charles '42, Michael '44,\nMaria Ant. Natalia '45, and Anita '48. The last two died in '50-4; Josefa\nbecame the wife of John Grant and a locally famous singer; Isabella married\nJohn Balash; Wm, in '75, had a vineyard on Russian River; John B. was a\nnewspaper man, who visited my Library in '83.\nFitch, 1847, mr of the Armalta. v. 576. F. (Worthington L.), 1847,\nCo. B, N.Y.VoL (v. 499); d. S.F. '50. Fitzhugh (John W.), 1848, immig.\nwhose widow lived at Snelling in '77. S. J. Pion. Fitzpatrick (John), 1836,\nEngl, on a Los Ang. list, age 40. F. (Thos), well-known trapper and guide;\npossibly came to CaL before '40; guide of Bartleson party '41 and Fremont\n'44, but did not come to Cal. then. iii. 392; iv. 268, 437. Fitzsimmons\n(James), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nFlaco (Juan), see John Brown. Flandrew (J.B.), 1848, passp. from Hon.\nFlanning(H.T.), 1845, nat. of N.Y.; on the U.S. Portsmouth; later member of\nS. Joaq. pioneers, iv. 587. Fleet (Wm H.), 1847, lot at S.F. Fleetwood\n(Robert), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Flemming (James), 1829, Irish\n* jack-at-all-trades,' age 40, working for Cooper at Mont. iii. 179; in '36 living with Larkin, age 521 often named in records of '36-8. In '41-4 he appears\nin the Sonoma and Bodega regions. Fletcher, 1579, chaplain of Francis\nDrake's vessel, and author of a narrative of the voyage, i. 85 et seq. F.\n(Philander), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); regnl. Fleury (Ernest de),\n1848, the Baron de Lisle, a French traveller and officer in Mex. under Maximilian; said to have visited Cal. in '48; died in N. Y. '67. Alta.\nFling (Guy Freeman), 1826, nat. of Me, on the Courier '26-8. iii. 176. In\n'31 he came back from the Sandwich Islands to settle permanently, at the age\nof 34, getting a carta from Gov. Victoria, and in '32 joining the comp. extran-\njera at Mont. iii. 221. From that time his name often appears on Larkin's\nbooks and other records. He worked at his trade as blacksmith at Mont., and\nin '36 at the Buenavista rancho, being then only 26 years old, ace. to the\npadron. In '40 he had a shop at Natividad, and is accredited by tradition\nwith having refused to iron the foreign exiles, though John Chamberlainsays\nthis was not so, as Fling was absent at the time. iv. 28. I find no definite\ntrace of him in '41-7, but he was prob. engaged in hunting, as he is said to\nhave\u201ebeen with Geo. Yount in Napa Val, and to have spent much of his\ntime among the Ind. He lived at Sonoma for some years; went to Napa about\n'50, and died in the county infirmary in '70, at the reputed age of 80 years.\n FUNT\u2014FL0GGE. 741\nFlint (Amos E.), 1847, Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 518). F. (Isaac A.),\n1845, overl. immig. perhaps of the Grigsby-Ide party, who prob. went back\neast with Clyman in '46. iv. 579; v. 526. F. (Wm), 1846, doubtful member\nof the Mormon col. v. 547. Flomboy (John), 1844, half-breed Ind. and\noverl. immig. of the Stevens party, ace. to Schallenberger and some of the\ncounty histories, iv. 445. Flood (John), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at\nS.F. '71-4.\nFlores (Amando), 1836, Mex. convict; later one of Murrieta's band. F.\n(Antonio), 1602, piloto of one of Vizcaino's vessels; died on the voy. i. 98,\n104. F. (Bernardo), settler at S.F. 1791-1800. i. 716. F. (Francisco), 1791,\nsurgeon of Malaspiha's exped. i. 490. F. (Francisco), soldier at mission S.\nJose* 1797-1800. i. 556. F. (Gumesindo), 1834, Mex. capt. and brevet lieut-\ncol, who came as a kind of political exile with the H. & P. col. iii. 263. In\n'35-6 maj. and admin, of S. F. iii. 354, 714-15; in '39-42, having been reinstated in his mil. rank, he was com. of the post at Mont. iii. 671; iv. 33,652;\nin '42-6 com. at Sta B.; in '45 leader in an outbreak of the troops, iv. 541,\n641; v. 317, 630. Capt. F. continued to reside at Sta B. until shot and killed\nin '60. His widow and daughter were still at Sta B. in '78. F. (Hermene-\ngildo), killed 1794. i. 454. F. (Isidro), soldier at S. Juan B. before 1800. i.\n558.     F. (Jose\" Bern.), sirviente at Soledad 1791-1800. i. 499.\nFlores (Jose* Maria), 1842, Mex. capt. in the batallon fijo, who came with\nMicheltorena as secretary, iv. 289; in '44 named as instructor of the Sta B.\ndefensores (?). iv. 407; but sent to Mex. as comisionado by the gov. to obtain\naid. iv. 402, 414, 534, 564, 568. Returning in '45, he remained after Michel-\ntorena's departure, and was the commissioner sent by Castro to treat with\nStockton in Aug. iv. 513; v. 41, 268-9, 280. On the revolt of the Californians\nin Sept., Flores was made gov. and com. gen. from Oct., in this capacity directing all the operations of this final campaign of the war, and finally retreating to Sonora in Jan. '47. See v. 37-8, 309-25, 329-56, 365, 389-410,\n563-5. In breaking his parole, Gen. Flores of course committed a most dishonorable act, though much may be said in defence of the general rising against\nthe U.S. In other respects he acted with commendable energy, skill, and patriotism under difficult circumstances, meriting but little of the ridicule and\nabuse of which he has been the object. After leaving Cal. he served in the\nMex. army, being in '49-50 sub-inspector, and in '51 et seq. com. gen. of the\nmilitary colonies of the west; visiting Cal. in '50 to bring his family; but I\nthink his wife, a daughter of A. V. Zamorano, did not leave Cal. He was at\nMazatlan in '55, and is said to have died there in '66, Los Ang. Co. Hist, 24,\nthough a colonel of the same name was serving in Michoacan in '67 against\nMaximilian.\nFlores (Jose* Maria), at S. Jose* '25. ii. 605; in '41, age 48, wife Josefa Sepulveda, child. Miguel b. '23, Sebastian '31, Carmen '27, Jose Maria '32, Juan\nB. '34, Jose* '37, Paula '40, Fernando '41; juez de policfa '43. iv. 685; in '46\njuez de campo at S. F. v. 648. F. (Jose* Maria), soldier at Sta B. from 1788.\nF. (Jose Maria), grantee of Liebre rancho '46, also claimant in '53. v. 632.\nF. (Jose Miguel), maj. at S. Gabriel, 1791-6. i. 664. F. (Jose S.), Mex. convict '29-34. F. (Leandro), soldier in S. F. comp. '19-29; regidor at S. Jose*\n'31. iii. 212, 729; in '41, age 42, wife Romana Martinez, child. Jose* Ant. b.\n'33, Maria Ant. '16, Maria del Sac. '26, Refugio '34; in '43 juez del campo.\niv. 685. F. (M.), 1848, passp. from Hon. F. (Manuel), artilleryman at\nSta B. '24. ii 532. F. (Manuel), in Hidalgo piquete at Mont. '36. F.\n(Miguel), son of Jose* Maria, at S. Jose from '23 to 77, when he gave me his\nRecuerdos Histdricos. v. 137. F. (Teodosio), alcalde of S. Jose1\u2014-and also of\nMont?\u2014in '20. ii. 378, 611; at S. Jose '41, age 52. F. (Victoriano), sirviente\nat S.F. 1777. i 297. Florin (Joseph), 1833, Canadian gardener from Colombia at Los Ang. '36, '40, age 27, 31, and married, iii. 409. One record puts his\narrival in '30.\nFlugge (Chas W.), 1841, German of the Bartleson immig. party who went\n1st to Or., but came down by land to Cal. before the end of the year. iv. 269,\n276, 279. In '42-3 he was employed by Sutter, who had known him before,\n 742. PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX,\nas clerk and adviser, F. being a man of many accomplishments and having\nsome knowledge of law. He was sent by Sutter to conciliate Micheltorena.\niv. 389; got a lot at S.F. iv. 669, 678; was naturalized at the end of '43; and\nin '44 was grantee of a rancho on Feather River, iv. 670-1. He opened a store\nat Los Ang.; used his influence for Sutter and Micheltorena. iv. 490;. and at\nthe end of '45 went to Honolulu, returning on the Don Quixote early in '46.\nHe had a Cal. claim (v. 462), continuing in trade at Los Aug., and serving\nas a messenger from Flores to Stockton in Jan. '47. v. 387. He is mentioned\nwith a wife (?) at N. Helv. in Sept. '47. N. Helv. Diary, 110; perhaps an\nerror. At the end of '48 he left Cal., though McKinley, his .partner, made\nefforts to prevent his departure, and is said to have gone to Germany with a*\nconsiderable sum of money. Though admired for his accomplishments, he had\nquarrelled sooner or later with most of those who were intimate with him,\nsnowing divers eccentricities of conduct. In the winter of '51-2 he returned\nto Los Ang., secluding himself from old friends, acting strangely in other\nrespects, and evidently insane. In Sept. '52 he wandered off into the country\nand was found dead some 12 miles from town. Flundin (Joseph), 1842,\nFrench steward of a hospital in Oakland '77, said to have visited S.F. in June\n'42. iv. 341; S.J.Pion. j Flying (Andrew), 1847, Co. F, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499);\nat Sta B. '71-82.\nFogo (Manuel), 1825, Span, from the Asia; still in Cal. '30. iii 27, 51-2.\nFoisy (M.G.), 1846, Or. pioneer of '44; a printer still in Or. '76, for whom it\nis claimed that he published (?) the Californian at Mont. Hist. Or., i. 467.\nHe may possibly have been a printer on that paper in '46 or '47, but prob.\nnot. v. 293.     Foley (Alfred), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).     F. (Michael),\n1846, Irish, of the CaL Bat. (v. 358); owner of S.F. lot '47. v. 685; said to\nhave been killed in a brawl at the mission a few years later. Folger (Edward\nF.), 1847, at S.F., agent, or perhaps partner, of Gelston & Co.     F. (Wm D.),\n1847, on roll of Soc. Cal. Pion. FoUansbee (S.), 1846, doubtful newsp. ment.\nof a Shasta Co. pion. Follen (Julian), 1845, petitioner for land for a colony;\nperhaps not in Cal. iv. 571. Follett (Wm A.), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v.\n469); in Ariz. '81. F. (Wm T.), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat.; at St George,\nUtah, '82.\nFolsom (Joseph Libbey), 1847, nat. of N. H., graduate of West Point in\n'40, and later instructor in that institution; came to Cal. as capt. U.S.A. and\nasst quartermaster in the N.Y.Vol.; and was chief of the Q.M. department\nstation at S.F., being also collector of the port for a time in '47-9. v. 98,503,\n511-13, 650, 659-60, 673. Capt. F. invested all the money he could raise in\ntown lots, which in a few years made him a rich man. During a trip to the\neast in '49 he was smart and lucky enough to find the heirs of Wm A. Leid-\nesdorff and buy of them for a song their title to the immense Leidesdorff estate in S.F. He thus became one of the wealthiest men in CaL, owning large\nestates in the country, including the Amer. River rancho on which the town\nof Folsom now bears his name, as does Folsom Street in S.F. His reputation\nis that of a most enterprising man of business, an honorable gentleman of superior education and refinement, somewhat formal and haughty in manner.\nHe died at Mission San Jose in '55 at the age of 38. F. (Wm H.), 1847, Co.\nH, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); inN.Y. city '82.\nFont (Jose), 1796, Span, lieut of Catalan volunteers, com. of the comp.\nafter Alberni's death, also com. at S. Diego '99. Left CaL with the CaL Vol.\n1803. i 541, 647-8; ii 5, 18-19, 78, 107, 153. F. (Pedro), 1775-6, Span,\nfriar, prob. of the Quer&aro Franciscans, who was chaplain of Anza's exped.\nto Cal., of which he left an important Diario and map. i. 258-60, 262-4, 267-\n9, 280-6, 330; ii. 44. Pontes (Pedro), sirviente at S.F. 1777. i. 297. For-\nbagh, 1847, at Benicia. v. 672; prob. 'Forbush,' q,r.\nForbes (Alexander), Scotch merchant of Tepic; author of the standard\nwork on California pub. in '39. iv. 150-2. He had never visited Cal., though\nmeditating a visit in '26. iii. 176. It is stated, however, that later, in '46-8,\nhe came to Cal. in con. with the N. Almaden affairs; but I have no definite\nrecord of his presence. He has often been confounded by writers with James\n FORBES-tf ORD. 743\nA. Forbes. F. (Eli B.), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); carpenter at Mont.\n'47-8.     F. (Hector M.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nForbes (James Alex.), 1831, nat. of Scotland, who had lived for some years\nin Span, countries, prob. in Chili or Peru. The first that is definitely known\nof him is that in a trip to the isl. of the S. Amer. coast he was wrecked,\npicked up by the Nelson at or near the Galapagos, and transferred to the\nwhaler Fanny, which brought him, rating as 4th mate, by way of the Marquesas to S.F. in Oct. '31, or possibly '30. iii. 405. In '32 he was acting as a\nkind of clerk or majordomo for P. Viader at Sta Clara; early in '33 asked for\nnaturalization, which he obtained in April '34, and in July married Ana Maria, daughter of Juan C. Galindo, being then 27 years old, and having as witnesses Geo. Ferguson and Jas W. Weeks, who had come with him on the\nFanny. For several years his name does not appear, but he was doubtless engaged in trade and farming at S. Jose*, where from '36 he acted as agent for\nthe H.B.Co., being elector in '38 and sindico in '39, trying in '40\u2014to obtain\na loan of mission sheep in comp. with Dr Marsh, signing bonds for some\nof the Bartleson immig., and, ace. to the padron of '41, having two sons, Carlos b. '37, and Alejandro in '39. iii. 731; iv. 86, 117, 217-18, 275, 684. In'42\nForbes was appointed British vice-consul\u00abat Mont., assuming the office in Oct.\n'43, and performing some acts in his official capacity in the next few years,\nthough not residing at Mont. iv. 384, 479, 563, 651. Grantee of the Potrero\nde Sta Clara '44. iv. 673; in '45-6 at S.F. in charge of the H.B.Co. property\nafter Rae's death, having apparently used his influence against Sutter and\nMicheltorena, being involved in a controversy with Leidesdorff, and obtaining for himself and wife some beach lots in town. v. 486, 590-1, 649, 679-80.\nIn '46 Larkin reported F. to the Wash, govt as a man of moderate property,\nwhose private interests and official position clashed, but who wished the U.\nS. to have Cal. F. asserted at the time, and in later years, that he had nothing to do with schemes for an English protectorate, and it is certain that those\nschemes, as well as the vice-consul's agency, have been greatly exaggerated,\nv. 68, 70, 614. In the troubles of '46-7 he took but slight part. v. 298, 378,\n380, 382. Gov. Mason declined to permit F., as vice-consul, to introduce,\ngoods free of duties. Don Diego was an intelligent man of good education,\nwhose knowledge of Spanish gave him an advantage, though he never lost his\nbroad Scotch accent, and whose record in early times was an excellent one,\nthough many writers have exaggerated his prominence. After the U.S. occupation, he became interested in the New Almaden mines, and was involved\nin the complicated litigation that lasted for years, to the serious detriment of\nhis financial hopes, of his reputation, and especially of his temper. In later\nyears he led a life of retirement, nursing his intense, and perhaps not unfounded, bitterness against all that was American, and died at Oakland in\n*81, at the age of 77. His children, as named by his son in '85, were Carlos\nH., residing at Los Ang. with 10 children, Martha (deceased), James Alex.,\nJr, Michael, Frederick, James Alonzo, Luis Felipe (deceased), Maria Clara,\nJuan Tel&foro, Margaret, Francis H., and Alfred O. James Alex., Jr, was educated at Sta Clara college, has been state translator of the laws, and in '85\nfor some years has been employed as translator and keeper of the archives in\nthe U.S. surveyor-general's office. Though not in charge when my search of\nthe archives was made, he has afforded me aid on several points.\nForbes (John), 1833, Engl, on Larkin's books '33-5. ii\u00a3 409. F. (Robert\nB.), 1825, mr of the Nile. iii. 148. Visiting S.F. again in '70, he delivered a\nlecture which included reminiscences of '25; and in '78 he published his Personal Reminiscences, which describes both the visits and the lecture; still\nliving at Milton, Mass., in '85. F. (Wm), 1835, EngL who worked for Larkin at Mont. '35-6. iii. 413; one of the exiles of '40. iv. 18; perhaps cl. for a,\nSonoma Co. rancho '52. iv. 671. Forbush (Benj.), 1847, from Hon. on the\nEuphemia; at Benicia; perhaps Forbagh. F. (Lorin), 1847, Co. C, Morm.\nBat. (v. 469).\nFord (Henry L.), 1842-4, nat. of Vt or N.H., who prob. came by sea. He\n-claimed to have come in '42; the 1st original record is a certificate of his U.S.\n 744\nHONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\ncitizenship, dated at Mont. April 19, '44. iv. 341. He seems to have been one\nof Capt. Gantt's men in the Micheltorena campaign of '45 (v. 484), and was\nprominent among the Bears in '46, taking part in the stealing of Arce's horses\nand the capture of Sonoma, v. 78, 107, 110, 147. As lieut of the Bear army\nhe commanded in the fight at Olompali, the only one of the revolt, v. 153,\n164-9; went south with Fremont; returned with Maddox in Aug.; and later\nserved in the final campaign as capt. of Co. B, Cal. Bat. v. 184, 282, 289, 361,\n434. In '48 he settled in Tehama Co., where in '51 he married Susan Wilson,\nand in '56 was accidentally shot and killed at the age of 33. Ford's narrative\nof the Bear Flag Revolt, a MS. furnished to me by Rev. S. H. Willey, for\nwhom it was written in '51, is noticed in v. 189. Not much is definitely\nknown of Ford, but he appears to have been a good man of strong prejudices.\nF. (Henry), 1847, perhaps of N.Y.Vol. under another name. F. (John),\n1827, mr of the Favorite, iii 147. F. (Noah E.), 1847, in letter list at S.F.\n'47-8. F. (Patrick), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); a deserter in '48; killed\nby Rogue Riv. Ind. '66.     Forero (Ramon), doubtful name in a S.F. list '35.\nForney (Peter), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Forrest (B.),\n1841, clerk on the U.S. St Louis. F. (French), 1840-1, com. of the U.S. St\nLouis, iv. 36-7, 106; commodore in Confed. navy '62. F. (Richard), 1846,\nlieut on the Portsmouth and Levant. F. (Sam.), 1848, lot at S.F. Forrester (Geo. H. H.), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Forsgreen (John),\n1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).\nForster (John), 1833, nat. of England, who came to Guaymas in '31, and\nin '33 on the Facio-\u2014belonging to his uncle James Johnson\u2014to Cal., returning to Sonora on the vessel as master, and coming back to Los Ang. by land\nthe same year. iii. 365, 382, 389, 397, 509. He made other trips to Son. for\nhis uncle, and in '36 announced Ms intention to remain permanently, claiming\n7 years' residence in Mex. territory and 4kt Cal.; in '37 married Isidora, sister of Pio Pico; in '40-3 at S. Pedro as shipping agent, part of the time capt.\nof the port. iv. 322, 636. In '44 he settled at S. Juan Cap., purchasing the\nex-mission estate in '45, and living there for 20 years, iv. 553, 558, 621, 627;\ngrantee of rancho de la Nacion '45. iv. 621; juezde paz '45-7. iv. 627; v. 623-\n4; in '46 for a time in charge of S. Luis Rey, having trouble with Fremont,\nand aiding Gov. Pico to escape, v. 267, 278,620; grantee of Trabuco. iv. 635;\nhad a CaL claim (v. 462); aided Stockton in the campaign of '47. v. 388. In\n'64 Forster bought the Sta Margarita rancho of Pio Pico, where he spent the\nrest of his life, dying in '84 at the age of 70. Don Juan was a man who was\nliked and respected by all who knew him, that is, by everybody in southern\nCal. and hundreds more, a genial ranchero, famous for the hospitalities of his\nSta Margarita home. He was for many years a man of immense wealth;\nformed several plans for colonization on a grand scale, which were never carried out; but was harassed in the later years by litigation and other troubles;\nand the estate was sold before his death. At his rancho in '74 he gave me a\nnarrative of early experiences; and in '78 dictated his more complete Pioneer\nData, giving also a few original papers. His wife died a short time before his\ndeath. In '46, ace. to the S. Juan padron, there were 6 children: Emerico and\nDolores (perhaps error of copyist), Marcos Antonio b. '40, Francisco '42, Ana\nMaria '43, Juan Fernando '45. Francisco, or ' Chico,' killed by a woman at\nLos Angeles after '80. Mark Antony and John still live in S. Diego Co. '85.\nTwo of Don Juan's brothers, Hugh and Thomas, came to Cal. after '48.\nFort, see 'Ford. * Forsyth (Thomas), 1834, Irish ship-carpenter who came on\nthe Leonor; still at Mont. '37.\nFortuni (Buenaventura), 1806, Span, friar who served 34 years as a missionary in Cal., chiefly at S. Jose* and Solano, dying at Sta B. in '40. Biog.\niii. 659; ment. ii. 138, 159-60, 322, 375,394,505,598-9,623,655; iii 96,318,\n346, 622-3, 658, 660, 719; iv. 63, 66. Fosdick (Jay), 1846, of the Donner\nparty from Hi; died in the mts. v. 530,534, 537. His wife, Sarah Graves, survived, marrying Wm Ritchie in '48, and Samuel Spiers in '56; died near\nWatsonville in 71.\nFoster, 1833, one of Hall J. Kelley's companions in the trip across Mex.,\n FOSTER\u2014FOWLER. 745\nwhom K. denounces as a rascal, and who, as he learned, came to Mont, on a\nwhaler, was ordered away, shipped on a man-of-war, and in trying to desert\nwas drowned in the bay as a punishment for his sins. iii. 409; perhaps Chas\nor Ed. C. described as Amer. at Mont, in '34. F., 1846, of F. & Patterson,\nCal. claim (v. 462). F. (Benj. F.), 1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); a printer\nand part proprietor of the Californian in '48; later foreman in the Alta office\nand connected with the Standard and other S. F. papers; making two trips\nto the Sandw. Isl. He went east and died at Portsmouth, N.H., in '65, at the\nage of 49.\nFoster (Geo.), 1846, a Mo. immig. prob. of this year, who was killed at\nNatividad in Nov. v. 367. He was known as Captain Foster. Possibly came\nearlier, though those who imply this seem to confound him with another man.\nF. (James), 1841, mid. on the U. S. St Louis. F. (John), 1847, apparently\nsold lumber at Mont. F. (John R.), 1848, named by Lancey as a brother of\nthe man killed at Natividad. F. (Joseph), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358),\nenlisting at S. Juan, Oct.; possibly identical with Geo. F. (Joseph), 1847,\nmember of the 4th, and perhaps 1st, Donner relief, v. 538, 541; said to have\nbeen a sailor. F. (Joseph), 1846, Engl, who kept a saloon in S.F. '53-9; lost\na leg in '49; died in '59. Herald; perhaps same as preceding. F. (Joseph\nE.), 1844, overl. immig. of the Stevens party, iv. 445, 453; named at N.\nHelv. '45-6; served in Co. B, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); prob. identical with one of\nthe preceding. F. (Joseph R.), 1846, in the vicinity of Sta Cruz. F. (0.\nH.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358).\nFoster (Stephen Clark), 1847, nat. of Me, b. in -*20; graduate of Yale in\n'40; teacher and medical student in Va, Ala, and La; physician in Mo.; trader\nin N. Mex. and Sonora; come to Cal. as interpreter with the Morm. Bat.\nv. 483. He was alcalde at Los Ang. in '48-9. v. 610, 626-7; memb. of the\nconstit. convention in '49, also prefect; member of the Cal. senate '50-3;\nmemb. of Los Ang. council '51, '58; mayor '54, '56. He married a Lugo, and\nis still living at Los Ang. in '85. He has written to some extent on pioneer\ntopics for the newspapers, ii. 221, 292; and in '77 furnished for my use a\nfragment on Los Angeles in '47-9. He has had much to do with the Span,\narchives of the south, in familiarity with which he is excelled by few, if any.\nHis official record in the early time, and so far as I know in later years, has\nbeen a good one. He was a man of remarkable natural abilities and of fine\neducation. His prominent position in the past as a public man makes it\nnecessary to add that in respect of morality and sobriety his conduct in later\ntimes is not exemplary. F. (Wm M,), 1846, surviving memb. of the Donner\nparty, from Penn. with wife and infant son George, the latter dying in the\nmts. F. was also an active memb. of the 4th relief party, v. 531-5, 540-1. At\nN. Helv. '47; had a furniture store at S.F. '47-8. v. 678; later kept a store\nat the mines, giving his name to Foster's Bar. He died at S.*F. in '74. His\nwife, Sarah A. C. Murphy, was living at Marysville with her brother in '80.\nF. (Wm S.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nFourcade (Richard), 1841, named in Larkin's books '41-8; called also Albert R., and John R. Fouchade. iv. 279. Fourgeaud (G.), 1847, brother of\nVictor J., and overl. immig. at N. Helv.; owner of lot at S.F. F. (Victor\nJ.), 1847, nat. of N.C., physician at St Louis, and overl. immig., with his wife,\nson, and brother, v. 556. He practised medicine at S.F. in '47-8, being a\nschool trustee and otherwise prominent v. 651, 656-7, 680; also owner of\ntown lots, and author of an article on the Prospects of Cal. in the Star of '48.\nHe moved later to Sac, but returned about '63, and died at S.F. in '75 at the\nage of 60. His widow died in '83, age 74. Fourri (Francois le), 1831, from\nN. Mex. in the Wolfskill party, iii. 387.\nFowler, 1845, Amer. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party; a member of the\nBear party murdered by the Californians near Sta Rosa in June 1846. v. 110,\n360-4; called B. Fowler of '45; also George. F. (Henry), 1844, son of Wm.\nnat. of 111. who came overl. to Or. in '43 and to Cal. in the Kelsey party\nwith his father and brother, iv. 444-5. In '45 he worked for Sutter, asked\nfor naturalization, and perhaps settled in Napa. With his father he purchased,\n 746\nPIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nlater, a farm near Calistoga; and in 71-86 a resident of Napa City. F. (James\nE.), 1841, resid. of Sonoma Co. '51-77; nat. of N.Y. Son. Co. Hist. F. (Je-\nrusha), 1846, of the Mormon col. with 4 children, v. 546; rem. in Cal. F.\n(John), 1843, overl. immig. who joined the Bears, v. Ill; went south with\nFremont, but returned with a broken arm in Nov. '46. This is his own statement in a narrative of the Bear Flag given by him at Napa in '78. I cannot\nidentify him, and he is not known to Henry Fowler, though there was\na J. W. Fowler in the Cal. Bat. F. (John S.), 1847, nat. of N. J.; 2d alcalde\nat Sac. '48-9; died at Sac. '60, age 42.\nFowler (Wm), 1844, nat. of N.Y., from HI. to Or. in '43, and to Cal. in\nthe Kelsey party with 2 or more sons. iv. 444 5. He brought a letter of recommendation as a good catholic and carpenter from P. Dimers of the Wala-\nmet to P. Quijas. Worked for a time at Sonoma, after spending some time in\nPope Valley; was at N. Helv. in '47, and finally with his son Henry bought\na farm of Dr Bale near Calistoga, where at the age of 72 he married a 2d wife,\nand died in '65, at the age of 86. F. (Wm, Jr), 1844, son of Wm, who came\nin the same party from Or., and worked as a carpenter at Sonoma, N. Helv.,\nand S. Rafael, iv. 444-5. In Or. he married Rebecca Kelsey, who left him on\narrival in Cal. Application was made to Larkin for a divorce, and despite his\nlack of authority to grant it, she was married by Sutter to another man. As\nI find no record of F. after '46, it is possible that he was the man killed with\nCowie during the Bear revolt. F. (Wm), immig. of the Bartleson party, '41,\ngoing to Or. iv. 269; perhaps the Wm named above. F. (W.), 1843, mr of\nthe Diamond, iv. 565. Fowrklinot (Jacobo), 1844, otter-hunter at Los Aug.,\nprob. 'Frankfort.'\nFox (J.), 1848, passp. from Honolulu. Foxen (Benj.), 1826, Engl, sailor\nwho came on the Courier and left that vessel in '28. iii 176; ii. 573. He was\nbaptized as Wm Domingo, though often called Julian; married Eduarda\nOsuna (or Olivera); was naturalized in '37, when he was 38 years old, and had 3\nchildren, being in trade at Sta B. A few years later he became owner of the\nTinaquaic rancho, iii 656, where he spent the rest of his life, dying in '74 and\nleaving 10 children and a large estate. He was a rough and violent man, often\nin trouble with other rough men and with the authorities, being sentenced to\n4 years in prison in '48 for killing Agustin Davila. v. 611, 613; yet accredited\nwith good qualities, such as bravery and honesty. His three daughters married\nrespectively C. W. Goodchild, F. Wickenden, and John R. Stone. His son,\nWm J. J., born in '33, was in '83 a ranchero in Sta B. Co. Portrait of Benj.\nand his wife in Sta B. Co. Hist., 322.\nFraezher (Geo.), see 'Frazer.' Framier (R.), 1846, Cal. Bat: (v. 358).\nFrance (Joseph), 1846, doubtful memb. of the Mormon col. v. 547. Francis\n(Alex.), 1842, Florida Ind., deserter from the U. S. Cyane '43. F. (Wm),\n1847, lot at S.F. Francisco, neoph. at S. Diego 1775. i 253. Francisco,\n1818, negro of Bouchard's force captured at Mont. ii. 232. Franco (Jose),\nconvict settler 1797. i 606. F. (Juan Jos6), a recruit who came with Jose*\nde la Guerra y Noriega and J. J. de la Torre in 1801. F. (Pablo), convict\nsettler 1798; at Los Ang. '19. i 606; ii 354.' Franec (Wm), 1845, doubtful\nname of an Irishman at Branciforte, age 45, single.\nFrank (Manuel), 1841, 1st frame house at S. Jose* built for. iv. 684.\nFrankfort (Jacob), 1841, German tailor from N. Mex. in the Workman party,\niv. 278-9; at Los Ang. '46; up and down the coast '47-8\/making a trip to\nHon. and back on the Gen. Kearny and Eveline, and obtaining a lot at S. F.\nFranz (Fred W.), 1845, at Mont. iv. 587; lot at S. F. '47. Frapp, '32-40,\ndoubtful name of a trapper chief, iii. 392. Frare (Wm), 1844, Irish, who\ngot a pass for 1 year; prob. same as 'Frere,' q.v. Fraser, see 'Frazer.'\nFrawell'(Ephraim P.), 1833, Phii tailor who deserted from the whaler Hel-\nvetius, and worked at his trade at dif. points round S.F. bay. iii. 409. He was\nmet by Wilkes at Mission S. Jose* in '41; lived from '43 at S. Jose*, where he\ndied about '78; name also written 'Fravel.' Frayer (Henry or Eugene),\n1844, German who got a pass.\nFrazer (Abner), 1845, Amer. carpenter from Or. in the McMahon-Clyman\n FRAZER\u2014FREMONT. 747\nparty, and returned to Or. in '46, where he still lived after '75. iv. 572, 526;\nwritten also 'Frazier.' F. (Alex.), 1827, signs as a witness at Mont. F.\n(Geo. W.), 1833, Amer. trapper with Walker's party, iii. 391; iv. 409. He is\nment. in Mont, records of '34-5; in '40 exiled to S. Bias, but returned, obtaining cartas in '41-2, when he lived near Sta Cruz. iv. 18, 33; in '43 at\nAlviso's; in '45 signed the call to foreigners at S. Jose. iv. 599; applied for\nland at S. Jose* '46; visited N. Helv. '45-8; at Stockton '47-8. Name also\nwritten 'Fraezher,' which was perhaps the correct form. F. (M.), 1836,\nlumberman at S. Rafael, iv. 118. F. (Thos), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v.\n469); in Sutter's employ '47-8; name prob. 'Frazier.' F. (Wm), 1845,\nAmer. farmer from Or. in the McM.-Clyman party; prob. went back '46 with\nAbner F., who was perhaps his brother, iv. 572-3, 526.\nFrederick (J.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Fredingburg (H.), 1848,\npassp. from Honolulu. Freeborn (John), 1847, Co. K, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499);\npassp. from Hon. '48. Freeman, 1837, mr of the Indian, iv. 104. F.\n(Duric), 1844, Amer. who obtained a carta at Mont. F. (Elijah), 1847,\nMorm. Bat. (v. 469); prob. not in Cal. F. (F.),*Co. G, Cal. Bat. (v. 358),\nenlisting at S. Jose, Nov. F. (Isam), 1840, doubtful name of a naturalized\nforeigner at Sta B. F. (Richard), 1846, bought a house of Capt. Fitch at S.\nDiego. F. (Truman), 1844, Amer. age 25, in a S.F. padron. F. (W), 1848,\npassp. from Hon. Freer (Matthew), 1848, hanged at S. Jose* for highway\nrobbery and attempted murder, v. 663-4.\nFremont (John Charles), 1844, nat. of Ga, b. in '13, sometime teacher of\nmathematics and surveyor, lieut of top. engineers from '38, and husband of\na daughter of Thos H. Benton from '41. He is in some respects the most\nfamous of all the pioneers named in this register, and his Californian career\nwas the foundation of his fame. Full details of that career will be found in\nother volumes of this work. His three exploring exped. of '42,' '43-4, and '45,\nin the 2d and 3d of which he reached Cal., are described, with their results,\nin iv. 434-44, 452, 581-5, 679. Exploring and mapping regions before known\nonly to trappers and immigrants, narrating his labors with modesty and full\ncredit to those who preceded and accompanied him, he gained much credit at\nhome and abroad for his skill in the field and for his reports. As the pioneer\nof scientific exploration in the far west, he deserves only praise. The ridicule\nof which he has been the object in this connection resulted mainly from the\ncampaign of '56, in which his achievements as pathfinder were so magnified\nfor effect in the east as to excite the jealousy of western pioneers, a feeling\nfomented by partisans for political purposes. Fremont's acts of Jan.-May '46\nin Cal. are given in v. 1-29, 58-9, 644, 660. Being permitted by Gen. Castro\nto rest his men and animals in the S. Joaquin Valley for a continuation of his\nexploring trip to Or., he forfeited the privilege by marching his party into S.\nJose* and encamping for a week at Fisher's rancho; grossly insulted the alcalde\nwho, in the discharge of his routine duties, served a legal notice on him; and\nfinally marched over the Sta Cruz Mts and down the coast\u2014for Oregon! When\nthe authorities very properly ordered him to leave Cal., he fortified a position\non Gavilan Peak and raised the U. S. flag. This was foolish bravado, as he\nrealized after a day or two of reflection, in connection with Consul Larkin's\nadvice and the sight of military preparations at San Juan; so he ran away in\nthe night. The current version of Castro's broken promise and subsequent\ncowardly bluster is pure fiction, but it has long served its purpose\u2014that of\ncovering Fremont's folly. He was overtaken on the Or. frontier by despatches\nfrom Wash, which required him to remain in Cal. His part in the Bear revolt\nof June-July is recorded in v. 77-190. That most indefensible rising of the\nsettlers, which interrupted negotiations for a pacific change of flag, would not\nhave occurred but for F.'s promise of active support when needed; therefore\nhe must be held responsible, not only for the bloodshed and bitterness of feeling that attended the conflict of '46-7, but for the much more disastrous state\nof affairs that, but for the sheerest good luck, must have resulted. His alleged\nmotives were three fold: 1st, The welfare of Amer. settlers threatened with\noppression and expulsion\u2014a mere pretext, since the danger was wholly imagi-\n 748\nPIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nnary, as F. and the leaders well knew, though a few settlers were led to believe it real; 2d, the necessity of prompt action to save Cal. from England\u2014\nan excuse invented later, which has had a success out of all proportion to its\nmerits, for had England entertained the idea of a protectorate the settlers' revolt would have afforded the best possible occasion for interference; and 3d,\nthe receipt of instructions from Wash, to seize the first opportunity to wrest\nCal. from Mex. In a statement of '85\u2014a MS. furnished by Gen. and Mrs F.\nto Dr Josiah Royce, and by the kindness of the latter added, with the authors'\nconsent, to my collection\u2014he relies mainly on this 3d' plea, and alleges positively, as he and his friends have always implied, that he received such instructions, guardedly expressed by Sec. Buchanan, and more openly by Benton\nin a private letter. This is simply not true. I have the instructions sent from\nWash, in '45, both the original, signed by Buchanan, and the copy written\nby Gillespie from memory on arrival, and they contain not a word to justify\nany but conciliatory measures. The Lieut disobeyed the letter and spirit of his\norders, unless deceived by Gillespie at Benton's instigation. His real motive\nwas a desire to make himself more prominent in the approaching occupation\nby the U.S. than he could be if the whole matter were left to Larkin and the\nnaval officers. Doubtless he drew his inspiration largely from his brilliant\nfather-in-law. He saw several plausible avenues of escape from disgrace should\nthere be no war or should matters otherwise go wrong; but it is likely that\nthe young filibuster was far from anticipating the full measure of success that\ngood fortune was to give his deception. Once committed to the Bear cause,\nhe acted in most respects with commendable energy and consistency; yet it\nmust be stated that he meanly assumed for himself credit for the Bears^war-\nlike acts, in which he took no active part; that never in his Cal. career was he\nin the actual presence of an armed foe; that in his S. Rafael campaign, represented by him as a grand victory, he was completely outwitted by Joaq. de\nla Torre; and that the murder of the Haro brothers and Berreyesa is an ineffaceable stain on his record. This deed F. and his friends have chosen to ignore\nas far as possible, alluding to it as a trivial occurrence incidental to a state of\nwar, falsely representing the Haros as spies, on whose bodies murderous instructions from Castro were found; and finally, F. has the assurance to refer\nto it as the act of his Delawares out on a scout, unknown to him till, later.\nFor his part in the conquest proper, from July '46 to Jan. '47, see v. 231,\n246-53, 266-7, 283, 286-7, 290, 295, 302, 304-S, 357-60, 372-6, 385-410, 412,\n617, 630, 634, 639. At Mont., though Com. Sloat would not adopt his views,\nF. found in Stockton a filibuster after his own heart, willing to incorporate\nthe Gavilan episode and the Bear revolt in the sacred cause of the U.S. As\nmajor of the Cal. battalion, he aided in the occupation of S. Diego and Los\nAng. in Aug., returning north as mil. com. of Cal. Later he reorganized the\nbattalion, and marched south to take part in the final campaign, concluded\nby his treaty of Cahuenga in Jan. '47. In all this period the major and commodore merely overcame obstacles of their own creation, but the former efficiently performed somewhat difficult duties, and merits but little of the blame\nand derision heaped upon him for his methods of obtaining supplies, for his\ndisastrous crossing of the Sta Ines Mountain, and for his cautious approach\nto Los Ang. His policy at Cahuenga deserves no more severe adjective than\nthe slangy one of 'cheeky.' Next we have his proceedings at the capital in\nJan.-May as gov. of Cal. by Stockton's appointment, and his connection with\nthe complicated controversies of the commodore and general, as related in v.\n421-68. In general terms, it may be said of these quarrels that Kearny Was in\nthe right, Stockton in the wrong, and Fremont first right, then wrong. Though\ntechnically disobeying mil orders, F. could not, consistently with the honor\nthat should prevail among filibusters as well as thieves, abandon the chief\nwho had fathered his cause and given him office; but at last his disobedience\nwas renewed in so offensive a form as to move Kearny to wrath and the fullest\nexercise of his authority. Crossing the continent in disgrace, he was condemned by court-martial to dismissal from the army. v. 455-62. The verdict\nwas technically a just one, but the lieut-colonel refused to accept the presi-\n FREMONT\u2014FRINK. 749\ndent's proffered pardon. He had just then no further use for the army; the\ntrial had been a splendid advertisement; and the popular verdict had doubtless been in his favQr. The evidence had been skilfully made to include as\nmuch as possible of such Cal. annals as could be made to appear flattering to\nthe accused and unfavorable to his rivals; but if the accusers had had the\nwish and power to present all the facts in their true light, the popular hero's\ncareer might have been nipped in the bud. Something will be said in vol. vi.\nof his later career so far as it pertains to Cal.; of the rest my study has been\ncomparatively superficial; yet I find no indication of qualities not clearly\nshown in the early record. In a 4th explor. exped. of '48 many of his men\nperished in the snow before reaching N. Mex., but the leader kept on and\nreached Cal. in '49. He accepted an appointment as commissioner of the\nboundary survey, but before beginning work was elected, in '50, to the U. S.\nsenate from Cal., doing no harm during his brief term as senator, which expired in March '51. In '52, spending a year in Europe, he was once put in a\nLondon jail on charges growing out of his Cal. operations of '47. In '53-4 he\nmade a 5th and last exploring tour across the continent between 38\u00b0 and 39\u00b0.\nHe had bought of ex-Gov. Alvarado in '46 the famous Mariposas estate, which\nnow bade fair to make him the richest man in America; and in '56 he was\nnominated for the presidency by the republicans. He had no qualifications\nfor the office, but it was hoped, with much reason, that his fame as 'pathfinder' and 'conqueror of Cal.' would make him an available candidate. At\nthis period appeared many biographic sketches, notably those of Bigelow,\nSmucker, and Upham. Defeated by Buchanan, he lived a year or two in Cal.,\nvisited Europe, and in '61-2 served in the war as maj.-gen. of volunteers; but\nthe govt not appreciating his military genius, he resigned, and devoted himself to grand schemes of speculation in connection with railroads, being temporarily the candidate of a few dissatisfied republicans for the presidency,\nand in '73 sentenced to fine and imprisonment for fraud by a French court.\nIn '78, when reduced to extreme poverty, he was appointed gov. of Ariz.,\nserving for a brief term, and subsequently resuming his speculations, which\nare always on the point of making him rich. In '85 he resides with his wife\nin N. Y. City, a venerable couple with several grown children. Fremont did\nmore than any other to prevent or retard the conquest of Cal., yet his fame\nas 'conqueror' is the corner-stone of his greatness, and in all the structure\nthere are few blocks more solid. He is to be regarded as an adventurer of\nmarvellous good fortune, if it be good fortune for a man of moderate abilities\nto be made conspicuous before the world, or to enjoy opportunities that cannot be utilized. He was, moreover, intelligent, well educated, brilliant within\ncertain limits, of gentlemanly manners, personally magnetic, full of enthusiasm. Abuse has done more for him than eulogy; and doubtless from his\nstandpoint he has been a successful man.\nFrench (Erasmus D.), 1846, Co. C, 1st U. S. dragoons (v. 336); nat of N.\nY., educated as a physician, a miner '48-9, at S. Jose* '50-8, then at Chico\nand the Coso mines; from '69 a farmer in S. Diego, where he still lived in '83,\nage 60, with his wife, C.S. Cowles. S. Bern. Co. Hist. F. (H.), 1847, lieut on\nthe U.S. Columbus. F. (Wm), 1827, Amer. trader of Honolulu at Mont, in\n'27, '30; sup. of the Europe in '36-7, aiding Alvarado in his revolution. Very\nlikely visited Cal. on other occasions, iii. 461; iv. 103, 141. Frere (Alex.\nW.), 1842, Amer. who got a carta, in '32 ace. to one record; named in Cal.\ntill '44. iv. 341. Fresche (Francis), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at S.F.\n'74. Freverdon (Wm), 1848, doubtful name of a lumberman at S. Jose*.\nFrew (Alex.), 1828, trader on the coast; d. before '32.\nFrias (Mariano), Mex. soldier at Mont. '33-6, age 33. Fricher (John),\n1842, Amer. blacksmith at S.F., age 36. Frink (Chris. L.), 1848, at Mont.\nF. (Daniel), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); miner in El Dorado '48; made a\ntrip to Chile and back; lumberman in Sonoma Co. '49-50; later owner of part\nof Nicasio rancho, Marin Co. iv. 672; justice of the peace and assoc. judge;\nmemb. of legisl. '79; married in '52 to Pauline H. Reynolds; living '83 at\nMountain View, Sta Clara Co., with 6 children. Portrait in Sta Clara Co.\n 750 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nHist., 256. Frisbie (Eleazer), 1847, sergt Co. H, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; kept a\nstore at Sonoma '48-50; settled in Solano Co., and lived at Vallejo in '82\nwith his wife, Carrie E. Klink, and 7 children; a brother of John B.\nFrisbie (John B.), 1847, capt. Co. H, N.Y.Vol. v. 504, 667; nat of N.Y.,\nb. in '23; a lawyer, politician, and militia officer in N. Y. After leaving the\nmil. service Capt. F. was a candidate for lieut-gov. in '49; married a daughter\nof Gen. Vallejo; and became a prominent business man of the town of Vallejo,\ninterested in the building of railroads, president of a bank, and a man of considerable wealth; in '60 sent the 1st cargo of wheat to Europe; a member of\nthe legislature in '67. Losing his fortune just before 1880, he moved with his\nfamily to Mexico, where he still resides in '85, being engaged in mining operations. He furnished me his Reminiscences, containing information on Mex. as\nwell as on early times in Cal. Portrait in Solano Co. Hist., 48. Friund\n(Henry J.), 1847, Co. D, N. Y. VoL (v. 499); died before '82. Froelich (Rosa),\n1847, in Amador Co. from '54. Frost (Lafayette N.), 1847, Co. A, Morm.\nBat. (v. 469); d. S. Diego Sept. Fructuoso, grantee of Potrero de S. Carlos\n'37. iii. 678. Frymire (Walter), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Fuentes\n(Jose M.), grantee of Potrero '43. iv. 672. Fuller (Hazel), 1832, Amer. blacksmith, deserter from the whaler Friends; still at Mont. '34. iii. 408.\nFuller (John Casimiro), 1823, Engl, sailor on the Rover; prob. made other\nvisits; well known from about '<27; on Larkin's books at Mont, from '33. He\nhad been baptized at S. Bias, and married\u2014apparently at Sta B\u2014to Concep-\ncion Avila; in '36 at Mont, with wife and a daughter, born in '36 at the Sandwich Isl. In '37 he got a lot at S. F. iii 705; v. 678; but also bought of\nWatson the Beltran house at Mont., retransferred 2 years later; moved to S.\nF. in '38; had a house there in '49. iii. 609, 678; being also sindico. iii 705;\nworked for Dawson at Sonoma '39; in Farnham's list of arrested foreigners\n'40. iv. 17; naturalized '41, being also sindico. iv. 665; from 40 to 45 years\nold in '42, when he had 5 children, 2 of whom were Concepcion and Santiago.\nHis name appears often in S.F. records to '47, when he took part in efforts for\nthe relief of the Donner party, v. 539, and advertised that he would not be responsible for bis wife's debts; and he seems to have died in '49. He was a\nbutcher and cook well known to all the early traders; an alley in the city\nstill bears his name; and his widow and children were still at S.F. in '63.\nFuller (Thos), 1831, Engl, carpenter, landed sick at Mont., and still there\nin '40, age 34. iii. 405. F. (Wm M.), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Voi (v. 499); lot at\nS.F.; claimant in '53 for a Marin Co. rancho. iv. 674. Fulma (Mores), 1846,\ncame to S. Jose\\ Hall: Funk (John), 1847, Co. B, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); in\nShasta Co. '74; doubtful name. Furbush, 1847, came from Hon. on the Eu-\npliemia; prob. 'Forbush,' q.v. Fuster (Vicente), 1773, Span, friar who\nserved chiefly at S. Diego and S. Juan Cap., dying in 1800. See biog. i. 657;\nment. i 194-5, 250-3, 266-7, 300, 302, 377,388,425,458, 575, 577; ii. 109-10.\nGabel (Ludovico), 1843, German sailor from Boston on the Admittance,\nunder the name of Robt Foster, known as ' Bob the fisherman;' d. at Mont.\n'72, Swan. Gabriel (Ralph), 1847, at S.F. to '70. Alta. Gafan (Carlos V.),\n1837, mr of the Veloz Astnriano. iv. 106. Gaitan (Cayetano), at Jamacha\nrancho '36. iii. 611. G. (Jose* M.), Mex. convict '29-35. Gajiola (Jose*\nAnt.), sec. of ayunt. at Mont. '29. ii. 612; clerk at Soledad '36. iii. 690-J;\nsec. at S. Jose '42-3. iv. 684. G. (Valentin), alfe*rez and habilitado at Mont\n'45-6. iv. 652; v. 41. Galbraith (Isaac), 1826, Amer. blacksmith and\nhunter who came with Jed. Smith's party and settled at San Gabriel, ii. 558;\niii. 153, 155-6, 158, 160, 176; a crack shot, and a man of gigantic size and\nstrength. I find no record of him after '29, when his age was 34. Gale\n.(Joseph), 1841-2, mr of the State of Oregon, iv. 568. G. (Joseph), 1831,\ndoubtful member of Young's party, iii. 388.\nGale (Wm Alden), 1810, Boston trader, who 1st visited Cal. as clerk on\nthe Albatross, which did a large business in furs at the Farallones. ii. 93-4.\nIn '22-3 he came back as sup. of the Sachem, the pioneer in the hide trade\nwith Boston, ii 474-5, 478, 492-3, 614. Again he returned in '25-7, still on\n GALE-GAMBLE. 751\nthe Sachem, taking back as wife Marcelina Estudillo, the 1st Cal. woman to\nvisit the 'hub,' who seems never* to have returned to Cal. iii 24, 62, 118,\n148. His next trip was on the Brookline in '29-30; and his last on the Roxana\n'32, when he remained on the coast as agent of Bryant & Sturgis's ships till\n'35, getting a carta in '33. iii. 137-8, 146, 381. He died in^Mass. '41. He was\na most popular trader, famous for the zeal with which he drove his bargains\nin broken Spanish. His most common nickname was Cuatro Ojos, by reason\nof his spectacles; but his name was also translated into Tormenta, ' a gale;'\nand he was sometimes called Cambalache, or 'barter.' Galente (Rafael),\n1847, lot at S.F. Gali (Francisco), 1584, Span, voyager down the Cal. coast;\ni. 94-6. Galiano (Dionisio), 1792, Span. com. of the Sutil and Mexicana in\nan explor. exped. to Cal. and the N.W. Coast; killed at Trafalgar, i 490.\n506-9; see also Hist. N. W. Coast, i.\nGalindo (Bautista), soldier at S.F.'37; at S. Jose'41, age 27, wife Alvisa (?)\nMoreno. G. (Cris6stomo), at S. Jose* '41, age 67, wife Jacoba Bernal,\nchild. Francisco b. '24, Antonio '26, Jose* '29, Agustin '31, Juan '39. His\ndaughter Ana Maria married J. A. Forbes; and the family home was at\nMilpitas; grantee and cl. of S. Jose* mission land. v. 665. The full name was\nJuan C. See also Jose* Jesus and Juan. G. (Eusebio), b. -at S.F. 1802; soldier in S.F. comp. '28-9; ment. in '40. iv. 23; juez de paz at Sta Clara '45.\niv. 683. Still at Sta Clara in '77, when he gave me some historical Apuntes.\nG. (Francisco), son of Crisostomo or Jose* Jesus; in Alameda Co. '78. G.\n(Francisco), Span, not required to quit Cal. in '30. iii 52. G. (Jos6), soldier of S.F. comp. '37-43. iv. 667. G. (Jose*), soldier of S.F. comp. '38-9.\nG. (Jose* Ant.), grantee of Laguna de la Merced and Sauzalito '35. iii 712-13;\ncorp. S.F. militia '37; killed Jose* Peralta at S.F. in '38. G. (Jose* de Jesus),\ndied at Milpitas in '77, at the reputed age of 106; his son Francisco was then\na resid. of Oakland; and his daughter Juana was the wife of Jose* M. Alviso\nand later of Jose Uridias, still living in '77. Jose* Jesus may have been Cris6s-\ntomo, q.v., whose age in '77 would have been 103. G. (Juan), corporal in\nS.F. comp. '19-29; very likely Juan Crisdstomo, q.v. G. (Leandro), regidor\nat S. Jose* '22. ii. 604; militiaman and elector at S.F. '37. iii. 705; lot at S.F.\nmission '40. iv. 706; in '42 at S.F., age 55, wife Dominga Alaman, child.\nSeferino b. '30, Maria '33, Antonio '35, Francisco '38, Gregoria '39, Genaro\n'40, and Mariano '41; militia corporal '44; juez de campo and grantee of a lot\n'46. v. 648, 684. G. (Manuel), 1825, Span, officer on the Constante. iii. 26.\nG. (Nasario), son of Leandro; soldier, corp., and sergt of S.F. comp. '32-43.\niii. 567, 667, 678; in '55 near mission S. Jos6, age 40. G.- (Nicolas), settler\nat S.F. 1791-1800. i 716. G. (Rafael), soldier of S.F. comp. 1797-1800. i\n556; also '34-7, perhaps another man. Galista (Jose* Ant.), Mex. clerk at\nMont. '36, age 50, wife Andrea Jimeno, child. Dario b. '22 at Mont., Valentin '24, Domitila '27, Jose* '29, Felipe '31, Maria G. '33, Jose* Ant. '36.\n^Gallagher (John), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); an Irish farmer in Sonoma Co. '71-83, when he was at Bodega. Gallant (Victor), 1846, Co. E,\nCal. Bat. (v. 358), enlist, at Sonoma, Oct. Gallardo (Anastasio), Mex. convict '29-35. G. (Felix), at Los Ang. '36. iii. 491; and '46. v. 312; 2-of the\nname in '46. G. (Jose Ant.), a settler at Brancif. 1797. i. 569. G. (Juan),\nsoldier killed by Ind. at the Colorado 1781. i 359-62. G. (Juan), Mex.\nshoemaker, and leader in the Apalategui revolt of '35. iii. 282-6; still at Los\nAng. to '46, when he was alcalde, iii. 504, 564; v. 50,143, 625-6; claimant in\n'52 for land granted '38. G. (Rafael), at Los Ang. from '36; juez de paz '43.\niv. 633; regidor '47. v. 626. G. (Simon), at Los Ang. '48. Gallego (Carlos), settler on the Colorado, killed 1781. i 359-62. G., trader forbidden to\nhold raffles 1798. i 642. G. (Pablo), at Sonoma '44, age 35. Gallegos,\ndrowned at Sta B. '30. ii. 576. Galusha (Elon A.), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol.\n(v. 499); d. at Rochester, N. Y., before '83. Galway (James), 1847 (?), said to\nhave come-with his parents at the age of 5; page in the convention of '49;\nwith Walker in Nic; lieut in war of '61-5; editor of Sta Cruz Journal; d. in\n'70. Sta Clara News, Sept. 24, '70.\nGamble (Wm), 1841, a young naturalist sent out from PhiL by Nuttall to\n 752 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\ncollect specimens; came from N. Mex. in the Workman party, iv. 278-9.\nBeing financially crippled, he was employed by Com. Jones in '42 as clerk on\nthe Cyane, and perhaps went away on that vessel; in '44 at Callao; said by\nGiven to have ret. to Cal. about '49. G. (Wm M.), 1845, mid. on the U. S.\nPortsmouth. Gamon (Jose M.), 1844, mr of the Trinidad, iv. 569. G.\n(Thos), 1826, at Mont. Gandara (Pedro), apparently a clerk of Pedrorena\n'40-1. Gann (Nicholas), 1847, overl. immig. with wife Ruth, to whom, in\ncamp at Stockton, Oct., was born the 1st child in S. Joaq., named Wm; at\nGilroy '79-82. Gannon (Thos), 1847,Co. F, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. Sta B.\n'55.     Gansevoort (Stanwix), 1845, mid. on U.S. Portsmouth.\nGantt (John), 1843, member of the Chiles-Walker immig. party, iv. 392-\n4, 400. In earlier times said to have been an officer in the U.S. army. Capt.\nG. commanded Sutter's force in Micheltorena's service '44-5; and after the\ncampaign made a contract to attack Ind. horse-thieves for a share of the recovered animals, iv. 480, 485-6, 506-7, 516-17, 543. In Sept. '46 Bryant\nfound him ill at Dr Marsh's rancho, and it is likely that sickness prevented\nhis taking part in the troubles of '46-7. In '47 he wrote from Sonoma asking\nan appointment as sub-Ind. agent, and from Yount's place in Napa, proposing\nto build a saw-mill on his ' mountain tract;' in '48 of firm G. & Hannah at\nNapa; in '49 mining on Feather River; died in Napa Val. later in '49.\nGaraycoechea (Jose*), at S. F. 1795. i. 700. Garce*s (Francisco T. H.),\n1774, Span, friar of Quere*taro college, and missionary in Sonora from '68; with\nAnza in his exped. to Cal. 1774-6; the 1st to explore the Tulare valley and\nthe route from Mojave to S. Gabriel; later missionary at the Colorado pueblos,\nwhere he was killed by ftie Ind. in 1781. i 221-3, 258-62, 273-8, 354-67,\n573, and list of auth. ii. 43-4.\nGarcia (Anastasio), a desperado who killed Joaq. de la Torre and several\nother men in the Sta B. region '55. G. (Anselmo), at S. Jose* '47. G.\n(Antonio), at Los Ang. '46. G. (Bernardino), son of Francisco, age 19 in\n'41, when he enlisted in the S.F. comp. at Sonoma, iv. 667. He was the desperado, ' Four-fingered Jack,' who killed Cowie and Fowler in '46. v. 161-2;\nalso ment. at Natividad. v. 370; Cal. claim of $1,375; I think he was hanged\nin later years. G. (Bibiana Romero de), widow at J. Jose* '41, age 21, child.\nJose* Ant. b. '34, Francisco '36. G. (Bruno), settler at Los Ang. 1796. ii. 350.\nG. (Carlos), ditto 1813.     G. (Carmen), Cal. claim $2,152 (v. 462).\nGarcia (Diego), 1787, Span, friar, who served chiefly at S.F. and retired in\n'97. Biog. i 713; ment. i 388, 474, 498-500, 575, 577. G. (Dionisio), Mex.\nsold, at Mont. '36, age 37; owner of S. F. lots '39-46. v. 676, 682. G.\n(Eugenio), soldier at Sta B. '32. G. (Faustino), at Mont. '47. G. (Felipe),\nSpan. sold, of the Mont. comp. before 1780; had a garden at Mont, about\n1815. ii. 209; his wife was Petra Lugo (or Rincon), and they had 20 children.\nG. (Felipe Santiago), regidor at Los Ang. 1789-90. i 461; perhaps same as\npreceding. G. (Felipe Santiago), son of preceding, b. at Mont. 1782; in '35,\n'46, juez de campo. iii. 674; v. 637; in'36 at Mont., wife Jacinta Fernandez,\nchild. Jose* de Jesus b. '22, Antonia '25, Manuel Estevan '27, Encarnacion\n'29. In '54 he gave Taylor, Discov. and Founders, ii 25, his recollections;\nCal. claim in '46 of $1,042 (v. 462); still living after '60. G. (Felipe), in Los\nAng. region '46, age 25. G. (Francisco), maj. at Sta B. 1811-1820. ii. 364.\nG. (Francisco), Span, invalido of Sta B. comp. in '28-9, age 60. iii. 51. G.\n(Francisco), soldier of S. F. '34-5. G. (Francisco), Mex. at Mont. '36, age\n34, wife Josefa Gonzalez, child. Bernabe* b. '23, Pedro '25, Jose '26, Epitacio\n'28, Lugarda '30, Bonifacia '31, Maria Jesus '33, Micaela'34; grantee of\nranchos in Mont, and Sta Clara '42, '45. iv. 655,673; juez at S. Feliciano '45-\n6; iv. 625, 634, 637. Cal. claims of $14,625 and $2,170 in '46-7. (v. 462); still\nin Mont. Co. '50. G. (Francisco), at Los Ang '46. G. (Francisco), one of\nthe Jack Powers*gang hanged near S. Luis Ob. about '55; ment. in '46. v. 162;\nperhaps confounded with Bernardino. G. (Gabriel), at the S. Pascual fight\n*46. v. 352; a soldier at Sta B. before '37. G. (Hilarion), maj. at S. Diego\n'30. -ii. 549; alfei-ez at Sta B. '39-46. iii 583; iv.*642; v. 35.\nGarcia (Inocente), son of Felipe, b. at Los Ang. 1791; jsoldier in Mont.\n GARCIA\u2014GAREOLO. 753\ncomp. from 1807, serving in the escolta of S. Miguel and Soledad; from'13\ntrader and soap-maker; maj. of S. Juan B. '22-3. ii 624; ment, at Mont. 28-\n30 ii 612; iii. 41; took part in Alvarado's revolt of '36, and in Ind. exped.\nof '37-9. iii. 457, 460. 469; iv. 75; admin, of S. Miguel '37-45. iii. 555, 587,\n685; iv. 659; arrested by Fremont '46. v. 375-6. He went to the mines in 48;\nand for years supposed himself to be owner of a rancho near S. Luis Ob., but\nlost it. His wife was Maria del Carmen Ramirez, and there were many children. In '78 living at S. Luis in poverty, strong in body and mind, though 88\nyears old, and of good repute. He gave me his Hechos Histdricos, a MS. full\nof interesting details of the old soldier's life and observations, u. 232, 338-9,\n386. In '85 I have not heard of his death. G. (Jacinto), soldier at b.F.\n'27-40.     G. (Jesus), at Los Ang. '46.     G. (Joaq.), sent to Mex. 30. in. 85.\nGarcia (Jose*), 1800, Span, friar who served at S. Luis Rey, and retired m\n1808. Biog. ii. 108; ment. i 577; ii. 159-60. G. (Jose), settler at Los Ang.\n1808. ii 350. G. (Jose), soldier at S.F. '28-33. G. (Jose*), sent as prisoner\nto Sonora '37. iii 638. G. (Jose), came in '36 from S. Amer.; flogged for\nforgery at Mont. '37; clerk at S. Jose '41-2. iv. 684-5; ment. in 46. v. 321;\nsaid to have been killed at Natividad. v. 372. G. (Jose Ant), 1st death at\nSta Clara, i 306. G. (Jose Ant.), petitioner for lands for N. Mex. colony\n'45. iv. 572, 635, 637. G. (Jose Dolores), ment. at Sta B. 48, in con. with\nthe Canon Perdido. v. 588. G. (Jose\" E.), son of Jose Maria, worked at Sta,\nB. for Capt. Bobbins '45; served under Carrillo and Flores 46. v. 400; took\npart in hiding the cannon in '48; and in '78 gave me his Episodios. G. (Jose\nManuel), lots at S.F. '39. G. (Jose Maria), nat. of Sonora, of Span, parentage; sindico at Sta B. '31-2. iii 653, 212; maj. and admin, of Sta B. 34-b.\niii 346, 353, 657-8; alcalde in '34. iii. 654. His wife was Maria Ant. Ayala.\nG. (Jose Miguel), militiaman at S.F. '37; at S. Jose '41, age 21, wife Rafaela\nMiranda, child. Guadalupe b. '39. G. (Jose* Norberto), murdered at S. Juan\nB. '44. iv. 662. G. (Juan), soldier at S.F. 1797-1800. i 556. G. (Juan),\nsoldier at Mont. '36, age 26. G. (Juan and Juan Jose*), at Los Aug. 46.\nG. (Juan B.), soldier of S. F. comp. '34-42. G. (Julian), at Los Ang. 46;\nS. Luis Ob. '58. G. (Luis), at Brancif. '30. ii 627; at S. Jose 41, age 28.\nG. (Luz), comisionado at Brancif. '15. ii. 390; invalido '28, wife Rosalia Vazquez, child. Rufino, Antonio, Jose* Maria.\nGarcia (M.), grantee of S. Miguel rancho '46. v. 637. G. (Manuel), 1822,\nmr of the S.F. de Paula, ii. 457, 474. G. (Manuel), at Los Ang. 46. G.\n(Marcelino), 1844, one of the Bat. fijo. iv. 289, 405; in '77 at Salinas City,\nwhere he gave me his Apunte sobre Micheltorena. G. (Matias and Miguel),\nat Los Ang. '46. G. (Maximo), soldier of the piquete de Hidalgo at Mont.\n'36, age 45. G. (Miguel), grantee of S. Miguel '46. G. (Norberto), at Salinas '36, age 35, wife Maria Victoria Gomez, child. Marfa Francita b. 20,\nRita '23, Jose* '25, Juan Jose '28, Guadalupe '31, Teodora '34. G. (Pascual),\nsoldier at Sta B. before '37. G. (Pascual), at La Brea '36, age 49, wife Juliana Sanchez. G. (Pedro), 1842, lieut of the batallon fijo. iv. 2S9. | G.\n(Pedro Gonzalez), armorer and instructor 1792-5. i 615, 684. G. (Rafael),\nsoldier of S. F. comp. '23-33; at S. Rafael '24. ii. 598; grantee of Tamales\nand Baulinas '36. iii 713; grantee of land in Mendocino '44. iv. 672; raid on\nthe Ind. '45. iv. 541, 679. He died in '66 in Marin Co., age 75. G. (Rafael),\nat Los Ang. '46; soldier at Sta B. '32. G. (Ramon), at S. Jose '41, age 27.\nG. (Reyes), in piquete de Hidalgo at Mont. '36. G. (Rosalio), son of Felipe;\nwent to Chili to avoid mil. service. G. (Salvador), Span, sailor of the Asia;\nrem. in Cal. iii 51-2. G. (Tomas),-soldier at Sta B. before '37. G. (Tn-\nfiou), grantee of Atascadero '42. iv. 655.\nGarcia Diego (Francisco), 1833, Mex. friar of the Zacatecanos, who served\nat Sta Clara to '35, being prefect of the northern missions, and in '41 came\nback as bishop of Cal., dying in '46. Biog. v. 632-3; ment. iii 318-24, 328-\n36, 338, 347-8, 351-2, 726; iv. 63-5, 195^6, 219, 332-8, 372-4, 424-7, 519,\n554, 565, 619, 640. Gar<\"k(Chas and John), 1848, at Mont. Gardner (Geo.\nW.), 1844, mr of the Nantucket iv. 567. G. (Wyman), 1840, at Mont. (?).\nG., 1848, worked for John Williams on Butte Cr. Gareolo (Valentin), lieut\nHist. Cal., Vol.. m.   48\n 754\nPIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nin Cal. '45 (?). Garfias (Manuel), 1842, Mex. lieut in the batallon fijo '42-5.\niv. 289; grantee of S. Pascual '43. iv. 635; rem. in Cal., and took part in the\nwar against the U.S. '46-7, going to Mex. with Flores. iv. 513; v. 41, 49, 316,\n391, 407. He came back to CaL, and was county treasurer of Los Ang. '50-1;\nin later years U.S. consul at Mazatlan, where he still lived, perhaps, in '77.\nG. (Salvador), Span, at S. Jose* '41, age 41, wife Crecencia Cibrian, child. Salvador b. 31, Ascension '36, Jose* Jesus, '34, Felicidad '29, Encarnacion '30,\nCarmen '38, Josefa '40. Garibay (Gertrudis), accused of murder at Mont.\n'34. iii 673. Gainer (Philip), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). G. (R.),\n1848, landed at Sta B. (?). G. (Wm A.), 1847, ditto, made bricks and dug\na well at S. Diego.\nGarner (Wm Robert), 1824, nat. of London, b. in 1803, who deserted from\nan English whaler at Sta B., the date being often given as '26. ii. 526. In '29\nhe was refused naturalization; in '31 married a daughter of Manuel Butron;\nin '32 joined the comp. extranjera at Mont. iii. 221. He was a lumberman,\nand appears on Larkin's books from '33; in '36-7 was a lieut of Graham's\ncomp. in Alvarado's service, iii 458-9, 512; and in '39 was naturalized, then\nliving at S. Juan B. His part in the Graham affair of '40 is recorded in iv. 5-\n6, 10, 12, 21, 27, he being the man who revealed the plot of Graham and his\nassociates. It is not quite clear whether he simply acted in good faith as a\nMex. citizen, was prompted by hostility to G., or was entrapped by Castro\ninto confession for self-protection. Continuing his lumber business for a few\nyears, in '44-8 he kept a boarding-house at Mont., being also at times clerk,\npoliceman, translator, auctioneer, and alcalde's sec, besides serving apparently in the campaign against Micheltorena. iv. 495; v. 637. He went to the\nmines with Colton, and with his sons made several mining trips, and then\nmoved to S. Luis Ob., from which point, in '49, he made an exped. against\nthe Ind. of the interior and was killed with 6 of his men. His son Jose* C., b.\nabout '32, in a letter of '75, gave me some information about his father; also\nto the S. Jos6 Pion. of '78, when he lived at S. Jose*, as he does still, perhaps,\nin '85. In their anger at the affair of '40, Graham and his friends accused Garner not only of treachery in that matter, but of having been an Australian\nconvict, murderer, and desperado; but in the absence of proofs, it is well to\njudge the man's character by his Cal. record, which is in every respect better\nthan that of his accusers. He is said to have been of a good family, and was\nan intelligent man of some education.      Garnica del 'Castillo,' q.v.\nGarra, Ind. chief at Pauma '46. v. 567-8. Garraleta (Antonio), clerk at\nSta B. mission '39. iii. 657. G. (Jose* Ant.), lieut of the frontier comp.,\nsometimes visiting S. Diego; killed in '41 by his wife. iv. 619. Garrick\n(Peter), 1834, Engl, carpenter at Mont, in Spear's service; written Garruk\nand Garrenk. Garriger (Solomon), 1846, Co. E, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), enlisting\nat N. Helv. Oct. Garter (David), 1848, doubtful name. Garue (Wm),\n1834, nat. of Sto Domingo, from Hon.; cooper at Los Ang. '36. iii. 412.\nGasquet (Louis), 1845, French consul at Mont. '45-7. iv. 385, 587, 590; v.\n34, 60, 232-3, 364. Gastelum (Francisco J.), at Los Ang. '39-45. Gaten\n(H.), 1846, Co. B, artill., Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Gautier (Julian), 1843, cl. at\nLos Ang.; his widow at Sonoma, Dec. Gavitt (John), 1847, lot at S.F.\nGay (Geo.), 1832, Engl, deserter from a whaler, iii. 408; went to Or. in '35,\nand came back in '37 in the cattle exped. iv. 85; see Hist Or., i 98.\nGeddes (Paul), see Green (Talbot H.). Gehringer (Andrew), 1847, Co.\nH, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); miner in '48-50; Sta Clara farmer '51-63; in '63-83\nnear Concord, Contra Costa. Geiger (Wm), 1841, N.Y. teacher, age 24,\nwho came from Hon. on the Thos Perkins, iv. 104, 569; later in the year at\nN. Helv. Gelabert (Wm), 1846, Span, in U.S.N.; settled later at Stockton,\nwhere he died in '82, leaving a wife and 3 children. Gelston (Roland), 1847,\nmr of the Whiton, and a S. F. merchant of G. & Co. in '47-9; owner of town\nlot and building; in '53 claimant for lands in Sac. and S.F. v. 581, 676, 678,\n683. Gendreau (Francois), 1844, Canadian in Sutter's employ '45-8; com.\nof an Ind. comp. in '46. iv. 453; v. 360. He, or his son Joseph, was in the 2d\nDonner relief '47. v. 540. His wife was a Walla Walla Ind., and their child\n GENDREAU\u2014GILBERT. 755\nwas buried at S. Jose* Mission in Dec. '44. His name is often written Gendran,\nGendron, Geandreau, and even Jondro. Genks, 1846, named at N. Helv.\nGenling (Joaquin), doubtful name of a juez in Mont. dist. iv. 653. Gennon\n(John), 1847, named by Lancey as a member of Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. Genoa\ny Aguirre (Fermin), 1817-18, sup. of the Hermosa Mexicana. ii. 282-3, 424.\nGeorge (J.), 1848, from Hon. on the Julian.\nGerardo (Rafael), maj. at Sta B. 1793-4. ii. 120. Gerke (Henry), 1847,\nGerman immig. at N. Helv. and S.F. in Oct. v. 556; lot-owner at S.F. '47-8.\nv. 656; later a well-known vineyardist in Tehama Co., where he still lived in\n'80. German (Antonio), juez de campo at La Brea and grantee of Juristac,\niii. 674, 676, 711-12, being 50 years old in '36, wife Maria de la Luz Pefia,\nchild. Antonio b. '18, Juan '20, Jose '22, Luis '24. In early times he had been\na soldier at Sta B. G. (Cayetano), at Los Ang. '46; cl. for the rancho in '53.\nG. (Faustino), brother of Antonio, at Mont. '26. ii. 612; juez de campo '31,\n'35. iii. 672, 674; grantee with Ant. of Juristac '35. iii. 712; in '36 at La\nBrea, age 48, wife Maria Ant. Garcia, age 40. Faustino, like his brother, lost\nall his land under the manipulations of Amer. sharpers, and died in poverty\nat S. Juan in '83, at the age of 95, leaving his widow, aged 87, but no children. G. (John), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). G. (Juan), vecino\nof S. Diego, killed in '26. ii. 549. G. (Jose* de los Santos), son of Antonio,\nb. at Sta B. '23; in '78 at Tres Pinos, S. Benito Co., engaged in raising cattle\nwith his brother Luis C. German. The two gave me their recollections of Californian Sucesos, which, on several points, have proved valuable material for\nhistory, iv. 359, 463; v. 167. G. (Manuel), soldier at Sta B. before '37; at\nLos Ang. '30-48. Ger6nimo, Ind. alcalde at Soledad '26. ii 623. Gervasio (Jos6), soldier of S.F. comp. '37-42. Gessen, 1845, a German hi the\nsouth, iv. 490. Gettinger (Peter), 1847, Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 518).\nGeurron (J.A.), 1846, Co. G, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Gholston (Wm C), 1846,\nCo. K, 1st dragoons; killed at S. Pascual. v. 346.\nGibbins, 1840, at Mont. Gibbon (L.), 1841, mid. on U. S. St Louis.\nGibbs (John), 1845, overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv. 579, 587; of\ncommittee repres. the immig. before Castro, iv. 606; prob. of the Bears, v.\n110; settled in Napa; at N. Helv. Nov. '47. G., 1845, Amer. at Brancif.,\nage 40. Gibson, 1842, purser with Com. Jones, iv. 308. G. (Horatio\nGates), 1847-8 (?), lieut in 3d U.S. artill.; at S. Diego, S.F.,and other points\nin Cal. to '61; colonel in war of '61-5; in '77 in com. of Fort Wardsworth, N.\nY.; president of eastern assoc. of pioneers. I find no original record of such\nan officer before'49. G. (Joseph), 1831, Amer. trapper and tailor of 'Ha-\nquinsor' (Arkansas!), from N. Mex. with Jackson or Wolfskill. iii. 387, 405;\nat Los Ang. and S. Pedro '34-6; 44 years old in '36 and single. G. (Marion),\n1845, Amer. farmer from Or. in the McM.-Clyman party, iv. 572, 587; in the\nmines with Job Dye '48; died at a date not recorded. G. (Samuel), 1845,\nAmer. immig. from Or., prob. in the McM.-Clyman party, and possibly identical with the preceding, iv. 578, 587. He took a prominent part in the proceedings of the Bears, being sergt. v. 110, 153, 163-4, 168; went south with\nFremont, remaining with Gillespie at Los Ang. and S. Diego, ranking as capt.\nin the Cal. Bat., wounded at S. Pascual, and serving under Stockton in the\nfinal campaign, v. 326-7, 340, 343-7, 360, 386, 434. In '48 he mined on\nFeather River in partnership with G.P. Swift, and was drowned in the winter\nof '48-9. Bidwdl.     G. (Thos), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).\nGifford (James), 1846, applicant for timber-land near S. Diego. Gift\n(Geo. WM 1848, nat. of Tenn.; mid. on the U.S. St Mary; left navy in '52;.\nbanker at Sac. from '55; lieut in confed. navy from '61; newspaperman at S.\nRafael and Napa till his death in '79, leaving a wife and 4 children. Gil y\nTaboada (Luis), 1801, Mex. friar of S. Fern, college, who served at many\nmissions, being founder of S. Rafael, and died at S. Luis Ob. '33. Biog. iii.\n680-1, ment. ii. 29, 121, 131, 135, 137, 159, 329-30, 337, 351, 355, 364, 366,\n387, 394, 425, 562, 618, 623, 625, 627, 655. Gilbert (Albert), 1830, from N.\nMex. to buy cattle; in trouble with the authorities; went to Hon. on the\nVolunteer in '32.\n 756 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nGilbert (Edward), 1847, N.Y. printer, and Kent Co. H, N.Y.Vol. v. 504.\nHe made a census of S.F. and wrote an article on the town published in the\nStar* v. 647, 656; was a candidate for alcalde, and declined the collectorship.\nV. 575, 652, 659; but seems to have acted as Collector Folsom's deputy. He\ntook a prominent part from '48 in public affairs; was editor of the Alta from\nits beginning in Jan. '49. v. 659; was a member of the constit. convention;\nand in Nov. '49 was elected as the 1st congressman from Cal. One of his editorial articles drew out a letter which led him to challenge Gen. Jas W.\nDenver, by whom he was killed in a duel near Sac. in '52 at the age of 33.\nHe was regarded as a man of unusual ability and promise. G., 1848, at\nMont.; of firm Newell, Brady, & G. G. (James), 1845, at N.Helv. in Sutter's service '45-6. G. (John), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). G. (Wm),\n1846, said to have been steward on the U.S. Savannah; at Stockton '79.\nGilchrist (Edward), 1846, surgeon on the Congress and Cyane; justice of\nthe peace at Mont.; acted as surg. of the Cal. Bat. v. 231, 361, 637-8. Gil-\ndea (Wm B.), 1845, Amer. physician who came overl. in the Swasey-Todd\nparty; died at N.Helv. Jan. '46. iv. 576, 580, 587. Gili (Bartolome*), 1791,\nSpan, friar, who served chiefly at S. Antonio and retired in '94. Biog. i. 689;\nment. i 496, 500, 523-4, 576, 597. Gill (James), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v.\n358); enlisting at S. Juan Oct.; lot at S.F. '47.\nGillespie (Archibald H.), 1846, nat. of Penn. and lieut. of marines U.S.N.,\nwho was sent in Oct. '45 from Wash, to Cal. as a bearer of a duplicate of\nsecret instructions to Larkin, with whom he was to cooperate, as was Fremont, in carrying out those instructions. He crossed Mex., destroying his\nofficial despatch after committing its contents to memory, and arrived at Mont,\nin April '46 on the Cyane via Honolulu, thence proceeding to the Oregon\nfrontier to overtake Fremont, v. 24-9, 200, 636, 644. The original of his despatch is now in my possession, and also the copy written by him from memory at Mont. Fremont claims to have received a very different despatch, and\nthere is a bare possibility that Gillespie deceived him. In the various events\nof May-July, G. took an active part, being made adjutant of the Cal. Bat. at\nits 1st organization, v. 79-80, 101-2, 127, 177, 184, 247, 252-3. Going south\nin July, he was left at Los Ang. in com. of the garrison, and by his unwise\npolicy caused the people to revolt and drive him out in Oct. v. 286, 306-15,\n319. Joining Stockton at S. Diego, he was sent with a reenforcement to meet\nKearny, and was wounded in the fight at S. Pascual in Dec. v. 328-9, 340,\n343-7. Ranking as major of the battalion, G. commanded a division of Stockton's army, and was again wounded at the S. Gabriel in Jan. '47. v. 360, 386,\n391-5. Declining the secretaryship of state under Fremont, he was relieved\nfrom duty in CaL, and reported to Com. Biddle in May. v. 433, 437,440,445,\n450. He went east overland with Stockton, and testified for Fremont at the\ncourt-martial; also in the Cal. claims investigation, v. 453-6. He seems to\nhave returned overland to Cal. in '48, and to have spent much of his later life\nhere, though for some years previous to '61 he was in Mex., perhaps as sec.\nof legation. He was never prominent after '49, having to a certain extent ' lost\nhis grip' in the battle of life. He died at S.F. in '73, at the age of 60.\nGillespie (Chas V.), 1848, bro. of Arch. H., nat. of N. Y., who came on\nthe Eagle from China with his family, a cargo of merchandise, and 2 Chinese\nservants. He advertised in the Star as a merchant and conveyancer; and was\nmade notary public and judge of election, v. 648, 652,680. He also made inquiries for a rancho, and wrote, ' One of my favorite projects is to introduce\nChinese immigrants into this country.' He took a prominent part under Howard in settling the Leidesdorff estate. In '85 he still lives in S.F., where he\nhas been well known as a lawyer and searcher of records. In '75 he contributed for my use a statement on the Vigilance Committee and other topics of\nearly S.F. life; and later gave me some items about early buildings in the\ncity. Mrs G. organized a sabbath-school in '48, and has since been prominent\nin church affairs, v. 657. G. (James), 1828, mr of the Telemachus. iii. 149;\na Mass. man who was lost with the same vessel near Mazatlan. Forbes' Pers.\nRemin., 90.     G. (J.), 1848, mr of a vessel, or sup.     Gillingham (Henry),\n GILLINGHAM-GIVEN. 757\n1847, musician Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); owner of S.F. lots '48. Gilman (G.\nD.), 1848, from Honolulu; of firm Wetmore & G. at S.F. '48-9.\nGilroy (John), 1814, Scotch sailor, and the 1st foreigner to settle permanently in Cal., being left sick at Mont, by the Isaac Todd. ii. 204, 248, 272,\n382, 393. His real name was John Cameron, but having run away from home\nas a minor, he changed it to avoid being arrested and sent back. His parents\nmoved to England when John was very young; and indeed, he often claimed\nto be a native of Sunderland, Engl. In Sept. '14 he was baptized at S. Carlos\nby P. Sarria as Juan Antonio Maria Gilroy. In '18 Capt. Guerra, at Sta B.,\nsent to the viceroy his petition as an 'Amer. cooper' for permission to remain\nand marry in Cal., which was granted in '19; and in '21 he was married at S.\nJuan B. to Maria Clara de la Asuncion, daughter of Ignacio Ortega. The\nsame year he accompanied Capt. Arguello in his famous exped. 'to the Columbia | as guide, or rather, interpreter, for Amer. intruders were to be met\nand talked to. ii 444-5. The next we hear of him was in '33, when he obtained naturalization, producing certificates that he was a soap-maker and\nmillwright of good character, with wife and 4 children, having also some livestock on the S. Isidro rancho. This rancho was granted the same year to the\nOrtegas; G. owned a league of it, on which he built an adobe house and spent\nthe rest of his life. His name appears on Larkin's books from '34, when his\nage was given as 45. In '35 he was aux. alcalde at' Los Ortegas.' iii. 674; by\nthe padron of '36, age 40, wife age 28, child. Nicodemus b. '26, Miguel '28.\niv. 117; age 46 in '40; not arrested in the Graham affair; often named in records of most years; said to have been sent to Fremont's Gavilan camp in '46.\nv. 18. In '51 for the 1st time Gilroy wrote to his family in England, and I\nhave the original reply\u2014presented by Valentin Alviso\u2014of his brother Alex.\nCameron, tanner, at Newton Heath, near Manchester, dated June 29, '52.\nAlex, is glad to learn that he has a brother living, for father, mother, and the\nother brothers are all dead. John Gilroy was an honest, good-natured old\nsailor-ranchero, well liked by everybody, much too fond of his grog and cards,\ncareless and improvident, and as powerless in the hands of land-lawyers as\nwere the natives themselves. He lost all his lands and cattle, but he lived to\nsee his old rancho the site of a flourishing town, which bears his adopted\nname, Gilroy; and he died, as poor as when he landed in Cal. more than half\na century before, in '69, at the age of about '75. I have no definite record of\nhis sons since '48. 'Juanita' (McPherson) has given many items on G.'s early\nlife, obtained from himself, in the Sta Clara Argus and other papers. Gilt\n(Henry), 1840, at Brancif.; prob. 'Hill.'\nGines, executed at Purisima '24. Gingery, 1847, in Sutter's employ '47-\n8; millwright and blacksmith. Gios (Jose), sirv. S.F. 1777. i 297. Girard\n(A.), 1846, lieut in com. of Co. B, artill., Cal. Bat., v. 361, enlisting at S.F.\nOct. G. (Wm), 1846, came to S. Jose. Hall. Giraudeau, 1841, French\nviniculturist at Los Aug.; named by Mofras. Giribet (Miguel), 1785, Span,\nfriar who served at S.F. and S. Luis Ob., retiring in 1800. Biog. i 689; ment.\ni 388, 422, 469, 473-4, 575, 577. Gitt, 1847, a physician named in the N.\nHelv. Diary '47-8.\nGiven (Isaac L.), 1841, nat. of Ohio and civil engineer, who, on a visit to\nthe Missouri River region in '40, heard of Cal., and failing to reach Independence in time to join the Bartleson party, went to Sta Fe*, and with 4 of\nhis comrades joined the Workman-Rowland party, or in a sense originated\nthat party, v. 278-9. His 1st work in Cal. was to survey the Rowland rancho.\nIn '42 he came north to apply for land for himself; explored the Sac. Val.\nwith Capt. Merritt and others; visited Napa and Russian Riv.; and ret. to\nMont, to get naturalization. Here he found letters from home which caused\nhim to go east as clerk on the Dale. He came back in '49 by the Panama route,\nworked as a surveyor at Sac, and was later engaged for many years in mining operations. His wife is Mary A. Thomes, sister of Rob. H. Thomes, a\npioneer of '41. In '79-85 Maj. Given resides at Oakland, and his Immigrant\nof '41 is a MS. narrative of much value and interest. Given, 1847, mr of\nthe Mt Vernon, v. 579,\n 758 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nGlande (Giovanni), 1827, Ital. trader still at Mont. '29, age 25. iii. 176.\nGleason (James H.), 1846, trader at Mont. '46-9; owner of S.F. lot. He came\nfrom Hon. on the Don Quixote, and was agent for Paty & Co.; one record has\nit that he died in '60.      G. (John), 1848, roll of Soc. Cal. Pion.\nGlein (Carlos F.), 1844, German blacksmith who came from Mazatlan on\nthe California, settling at S.F., obtaining naturalization and a town lot the\nsame year, and having a blacksmith shop at the cor. of Montgom. and Pacific\nstreets from '45 to '49 and later, iv. 453, 563, 669; v. 684; also owner of a\nSonoma Co. rancho in '47; made a trip to Honolulu in '48. Later for many\nyears a dealer in hardware in S.F., where he still lives in '85. Gliddon\n(Geo. R.), 1846, sup. of the Barnstable, at S.F., Sonoma, Petaluma, and N.\nHelv. '46-8. Glines (James H.), sergt-major of Morm. Bat. v. 477; did not\ncome to Cal. Gloria (Jacinto), at S. Juan Cap. 1776. i 303. Gloss (John),\n1847. Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nGlover (Aquilla), 1846, memb. of 1st Donner relief. v. 538; owner of S.F.\nlots '47-8. v. 685. G. (Wm), 1846, member of the Mormon colony with\nwife and 3 children, v. 546. He was the owner of S.F. lots, member of the\ntown council and of the school committee in '47. v. 648, 656, 682; a mason and\nbuilder; also com. for settling the affairs of Brannan & Co.; a miner in '48,\nbeing one of those who furnished Gov. Mason specimens of gold. He went a\nlittle later with his family to Utah, where he still lives in '85 at Farmington.\nHis Mormons in Cal. is an important source of information on its topic, and\nhe has also sent me valuable items about early buildings in S.F. G. (R. 0.),\n1841, purser on the U.S. St Louis. Glynn (James), 1847, com. of the U.S.\nPreble, v. 580.\nGoche (Wm), 1838, Fr. shoemaker from N. Mex., age 31, at Los Ang. '40.\niv. 119. Goddard (Nicodemus), 1824, Amer. shoemaker on the Sachem, v.\n526; at Sta B. '40, age 31, single and catholic. Godey (Alexis), 1844, nat.\nof Mo., of Fr. Canadian parentage, a hunter in Fremont's 2d, 3d, and 4th\nexped. iv. 437, 453, 583. He is named in connection with several of F.'s operations in '46. v. 4, 15, 22, 24; went south and remained with Gillespie, was\nfor a time in charge at S. Luis Rey, and took part in the fight at S. Pascual, ranking as lieut in the Cal. Bat. v. 314, 347, 353, 360. He went east\nwith his party but came back in '49; married a sister of A. F. Coronel, and\nbecame a farmer and sheep-raiser, like his old associate, Kit Carson. As late as\n'78 he was still living in southern Cal. Gooway (J. M.), 1847, from Or. on\nthe Henry. Goff (Daniel), 1840, one of the exiles to S. Bias, who did not\nreturn, iv. 18. Golden (Edward), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Goldsmith (Sam.), 1845, doubtful member of Fremont's party, iv. 583; said to\nhave died in Valparaiso in '69, leaving a fortune. Nev. Gazette. Goldwaite\n(Richard M.), 1847, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Albany, N.Y., in '82. Go-\nlovnin (V. M.), 1818, Russian visitor and author of Voy. of the Kamchatka.\nii. 251, 291, 317-18, 383, 416.\nGomez, killed at Mont. '31. iii 673. G. (Ambrosio), sec. Of ayunt. at\nMont. v. 636-7. G. (Felipe), at S.F. '37-44; owner of S.F. lot '40. iii 706;\nage 57 in '44. G. (Felipe), son of Rafael, trader at Mont., and sometime\npostmaster, to '85. G. (Francisco), 1769, Span, friar with the 1st division of\nthe 1st exped.; one of the party discovering S.F. bay; at S. Diego and Mont.\n'70; retired in '71. Mention i 127, 136, 140, 147, 151, 167, 175-6, 178. G.\n(Francisco), at Sta Cruz 1794. i. 496. G. (Francisco), Mex. teacher at Mont.\n'45.      G. (Guillermo), policeman at Mont. '46. v. 637.\nGomez (Jose* Joaquin), 1830, Mex. trader who came on the Leonor; customs officer and comisario subalterno at Mont. '31-2. iii 224-5, 376, 672; in\n'34 regidor and builder of the Peor es Nada. iii. 383, 673; in '35 regidor,\ncomisionado to secularize S. Carlos, and grantee of Los Verjeles. iii. 354, 673,\n679, 680; in '36 member of the dip., being then 48 years old, having a wife\nand children in Mex. iii. 426, 454, 460, 469. From '40 his rancho of Verjeles\nis often mentioned, being on the way from Mont, to S. Jos6; here Larkin was\ncaptured in '46, and the fight of Natividad was in the vicinity; he was also\ngrantee of Tucho in '43. ii. 616; iv. 134, 212, 453, 656; v. 4, 14, 364. In '46\n GOMEZ\u2014GONGORA. 759\nDon Joaquin was reported to the govt at Wash, by Larkin as a man of property and character, friendly to the U.S.; in '48 Los Verjeles was advertised\nfor sale for the benefit of creditors. He had a son and a daughter, Dolores, who\ncame to Cal. after his arrival. The latter married and died at Mont, after '78.\nG. (Jose* Maria), soldier in S.F. comp. '19-26; killed by Ind. '29. iii. 110. \\\nGomez (Jose Miguel), 1842, Mex. priest who served as curate at Purisima in\n'42-4 and at S. Luis Ob. in '44-56; claimant for S. Simeon rancho. iv. 371,\n421, 426, 647-8, 656-7, 659; v. 638-9. G. (Juan), soldier of S.F. comp. '19.\nG. (Juan), 1834, mr of the Natalia, and of the Leonidas '36. iii. 265-7, 383;\niv. 104. G. (Juan), son of Rafael, resid. of Mont, and S.F. in '75-85, who\ngave me the privilege of copying a col. of his father's Doc Hist. Cal. G.\n(Manuel), Mex. sergt of artill. at S. F. and Mont, from '16; lieut from '19;\nleft Cal. in '22. Biog. ii. 470; ment. ii 225-32, 247, 263, 371, 422, 451, 454,\n461. G. (Nicolas), one of the mission guard at S. Juan Cap. 1776. i. 303.\nG. (Pedro), executed at Sta Cruz '47 for killing his wife. v. 641. G. (Rafael),\nconvict settler at S. Jose 1798-1808. i 606, 638; ii. 192.\nGomez (Rafael), 1830, Mex. lawyer who came to Cal. as asesor, or legal\nadviser of the govt, a relation of Joaquin, ii. 607, 677; ii 46, 54. As a supporter of Gov. Victoria, or rather by his legal opinions in the criminal cases\nof '31, he excited considerable opposition among the Californians, and tried to\nescape after V.'s downfall; but failed and was not molested, iii. 190-2, 195,\n213, 660-1; grantee of Sta Rosa in '31. iii 713, 721; iv. 160; supports Zamorano '32. iii. 222-3; action in P. Mercado's case '33. iii. 324; supports Figueroa '34. iii. 277; but resigned his office. He was grantee of Tularcitos in '34.\niii. 679; regidor at Mont. '35. iii. 673; memb. of the dip. in '36, also appointed agent in Mex., but did not go. iii 426, 454; being at this time 36\nyears old; wife Josefa Estrada, child. Felipe b. '33, Maria Isabel '34, Juan '35.\nHis Diario de Cosas Notables de '36 (erroneously accredited to his son in list\nof auth.) I have found to be a very useful document, iii. 422. A few years\nafter '36, at his rancho of Tularcitos, he was accidentally killed by being entangled in the reata of a horse he was trying to drive away from his grain.\nDon Rafael was a man of good character and a lawyer of much ability, who\ncame to Cal. in reality as a kind of political exile. G. (Teodoro), soldier at\nSoledad 1791-1800. i. 499. G. (Vicente), 1825. Mex. guerrillero chief m\nthe war of independence; a fiend known as El Capador, who, however, behaved well enough in Cal. during his stay of a few months, iii. 16.\nGomez (Vicente Perfecto), 1842, son of Jose Joaquin and nat. of Guadalajara, who came to Cal. as a clerk with Gov. Micheltorena. In '44 he was, or\nat least claimed later to have been, the grantee of the Panocha Grande rancho. iv. 655, 672. This grant, rejected by the courts, was the foundation of\nthe famous McGarragan claim to the New Idria quicksilver mines; and Don\nVicente is the villain of Bret Harte's Story of a Mine. He was also the\nunsuccessful claimant for Tucho. iv. 656. In '45 he was sec. of the juzgado at\nMont. iv. 653; aided Manuel Castro in Nov. '46. v. 366; had a Cal. claim of\n$11,500, of which $500 was paid (v. 462); and in '47-8 was for a time in\ncharge of S. Antonio* mission, v. 640. As a witness in later land litigation he\nmet with some severe criticism, much of it doubtless undeserved; and though\nan intelligent clerk and good penman, knowing little English, he had a hard\ntime in the later years to pay his grog bills. In '75-6 he worked for me in the\nLibrary and various archives, doing much faithful service. Many were the\nstories he told of old times in Cal.; his fellow-laborers were instructed to\nwrite out his yarns; and the result is a large vol. of MS. called Gomez, Lo Que\nSale, full of interest, and by no means devoid of historic value. He died at\nMont, in '84 at the age of about 60, a better man in several respects than he\nhas been given credit for. He had no family.\nG6ngora (Jose* Ant.), son of Jose* M., b. 1778 at S. Antonio; ment. in '22.\nii 614; sergt of S. Diego comp. '25-8. ii. 543; in '42-3 juez at S. Diego, iv.\n619-21. G. (Jose* Maria), soldier of S.D. comp. 1771; corp. of the guard at\nS. Antonio \"73; sergt from '75; ment. in connection with Anza's exped. '76.\ni. 269-71, 287. In '79 Gov. Neve reported against his promotion; and in '82\n 760 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nhe was retired as an invalido and went to Loreto. His wife was Rosalia Max-\nimiana Verdugo, married in '76, died '79 at S. Antonio. Gonnefgen (John\nA.), 1840, copy of his German passport of '24 made at Los Ang. by Fink '40.\nGonzalez, soldier poisoned at Sta B. 1796. i. 670. G. (Alejo Ant.), of\nthe S.D. guard. 1775. i. 250. G. (Bernardo), settler at S. Jose* 1791-1800.\ni. 716; wife Monica, child. Petra and Antonia. G. (Cirilo), sirv. at Sta\nClara 1776. i 306. G. (Diego), 1781, Span, lieut in com. at Mont. '81-5,\nand S.F. '85-7; an incompetent officer, of bad conduct, sent to the frontier\nin '87 and dropped from the rolls in '93. i 340-2, 466-70, 484, 678; ii. 44.\nG. (Dionisio), 1842, Mex. capt. of the batallon fijo with Micheltorena. Nothing is recorded of him in Cal. iv. 289. G. (Felipe), at Brancif. '45, age 24,\nwife Maria Soria, child Antonio. G. (Francisco), 1797, Span, friar who\nserved at Sta Cruz and retired in 1805. i. 498, 577; ii 154-5, 159-60. G.\n(Francisco), settler at S. Jose* 1791-1800; regidor in 1803. i 716; ii. 134.\nG. (Francisco), soldier of S.F. comp. '19-24; also '37-40, perhaps another.\nG. (Francisco), corp. of the guard at Sta Ines '24. ii. 582. G. (Francisco),\nat Brancif. '28-30, wife Maria Engracia, child. Felipe, Margarita, and Natividad. ii. 627. G. (Fran.), at S. Felipe rancho, Mont., '36, age 30. G. (Fran.),\nsaid to have been drowned '44-5. G. (Francisco), Cal. claim of $15,850,\n'46^7 (v. 462). G. (Jacinto), sindico at Sta B. '28. ii 572. G. (Jose*),\nsoldier of S.F. comp. '23-32.     G. (Jose* Ant.), at Sta Clara 1776. i. 306.\nGonzalez (Jose* Maria de Jesus), 1833, Mex. friar of the Guadalupe college\nat Zacatecas, a nat. of Guadalajara, b. in 1803, coming to Cal. with the\nother Zacatecanos in '33. He served at S. Jose* mission '33-42, being president\nand vice-prefect of the northern missions in '38-43. iii 318, 577, 593, 724; iv.\n61, 64, 372, 680. From '43 he served at Sta B. iv. 426, 643. From '46 he was\nthe bishop's vicar, and after the bishop's death the same year was governor\nof the diocese, v. 565, 634; thus being the chief ecclesiastical authority in\nCal. until the coming of Bishop Alemany in '50, and later vicar; president of\nthe Sta B. college of Franciscans '58-72; died at Sta B. in '75, the last survivor of the Cal. missionaries, a man respected and beloved by all from the\nbeginning to the end of his career; one of the few Zacatecanos who in ability,\nmissionary zeal, and purity of life were the equals of the Span. Fernandinos.\nGonzalez Rubio was his full name. . G. (J. M. J.), com. de policia Sta Ines\n'35. iii. 291. G. (Juan), at Brancif. '28, wife Eusebia Pinto. G. (Juan),\nat Brancif. '30. ii. 627; maj. and admin, of Sta Cruz '34-9. iii. 346, 694-5;\njuez in '42. iv. 663; in '45, age 40, wife Maria Ana Rodriguez, both nat. of\nCal., child. Ramona b. '23. Melania '29, Francisca '30, Petra '33, Juana '35,\nTomasa '38, Refugia '40, Rosa '36, Pedro '38, Gabriela '42. G. (Juan Jose*),\nsoldier in S.F. comp. '23-33; grantee of Pescadero, Sta Cruz, '33. iii. 678.\nG. (Juan Pablo), officer in Mont, custom-house '27.\nGonzalez (Leandro), juez de campo at Sta B. '34; admin, and maj. of the\nmission '40-3. iii. 657-8; iv. 643; his wife was Josefa Guevara, with 4 child,\nbefore '37; still at Sta B. '50. G. (Macedonio), Mex. half-breed alferez on\nthe L. Cal. frontier from about '36; a famous Ind. fighter, who took some\npart with the surenos in the troubles of '37-40, being once arrested and sent\nto Sonoma, iii. 549, 606-7; iv. 68-9. In later years he lived in Cal., and was\nin S. Diego Co. '64, age over 70. G. (Manuel), settler at S. Jose* and S.F.\nfrom 1777; alcalde of S. Jose* '85. v. 297, 312, 350, 478; wife Gertrudis Ace-\nbedo, child. Francisco, Romualdo, Antonia, in '93. G. (Manuel), settler at\nLos Ang. '14. ii. 350. G. (Manuel), at Sta B. '37. iii 657; perhaps still\nthere in '52. G. (Manuel), executed at Mont, for murder '42. iv. 653-4, 686.\nG. (Mauricio), son of Rafael, appointed guarda of Mont, customs '29, but did\nnot come from Mex. till '40. iii 136; iv. 31; grantee of Cholam, S. Luis Ob.\niv. 655; with Micheltorena in '45. iv. 511. In '77, living at Mont, with his\nwife, the daughter of Manuel Crespo, he gave me his Memorias, and a col. of\nPapeles Originates, that had belonged to his father; still living in '85. G.\n(Miguel), 1825, Mex. capt. of artill., comandante de armas at Mont. '26-8, a\nbad fellow, if we credit the Californians, often in trouble, and finally sent\naway in '30. His daughter, Hdefonsa G. de Herrera. was more or lessaiamous\n GONZALEZ\u2014GORDON. 761\ncharacter at Mont, iii 39-41; also ii. 576, 605, 608, 610-11, 614, 624, 674;\niii 15 44, 93, 121, 437. His full name was Gonzalez de Avila. G. (Pablo),\nof'terna for contador '27. iii 63. G. (Pedro), 1791, surg. in Malaspina's\nexped. i. 490. * -,,...\nGonzalez. (Rafael), 1833, Mex. admin, of customs and sub-comisario at\nMont '33-4, having been appointed in '29, but coming to Cal. with Figueroa\nin '33. iii 46, 136, 237-8, 240, 376-7, 437, 672. His Diario is an important\nrecord of '32-3. He had been a lieut in the war of independence, and was an\nignorant man of good character. In '35 he was alcalde at Mont. iii. 673, 441;\nalso governor's sec. iii 463; and grantee of S. Justo, ii 678, being then 48\nyears old, wife Carmen Sierra, a Mex. He was arrested in the troubles of '37.\niii. 513; comandante de celadores at the custom-house '37-46. iv. 339,97,210,\n357 377, 431, 577; v. 570; member of the junta '39-43, being also delegate to\nthe consejo general of '46. iii 590, 604; iv. 294-5, 360, 460; v. 45, 61; grantee\nof S. Miguelito in '41, being cl. in '53. iv. 656; had a Cal. claim of $26,200.\nLarkin reported him as a man of property and influence. He died at Mont.\nin '68, at the age of 82. His Doc. Hist Cat. were given me by his son Mau-\nricio; his daughter, Ana G. de Castanares, was a woman with a will. in. 437-\n8. G. (Rafael), 2d alcalde at S. Juan B. '35. iii. 692. G. (Rafael), son of\nRaf. Gerardo, b. at Sta B. in 1797, sold, of the Sta B. comp. '16-27. ii. 223,\n235, 237-8, 337, 429, 508, 536. In '29-32 he was alcalde of Sta B., and again\nin '35 and '45. ii 572; iii 78, 212, 653-4; iv. 642; admin, and maj. of S.\nBuen. '38-42. iii 660-1; iv. 644-5. His wife was Antonia Guevara, and there\nwere 3 child, before '37. In '78 he was still living at Sta B., where he gave\nme an interesting narrative of his early Experiencias. G. (Rafael G.), Mex.\nsoldier before 1800; wife Tomasa Quinteros. G. (Ramon T.), clerk of C^lis\nat Los Ang. '40; at Sta Ine*s '44. iv. 426*; perhaps at S. Luis Ob. '50.\nGonzalez (Teodoro), 1825, Mex. who lived at Mont, from his arrival;\nlicensed to hunt otters '33. iii. 374; in '36 regidor and acting alcalde during\nthe troubles with Gov. Chico. iii. 439, 675; grantee in '36 of Rincon de la\nPuente and Sur Chiquito. iii. 678; being then 30 years old, wife Guadalupe\nVillarnel de Rico, the mother of Francisco Rico. Alcalde in '37; at Buenavista '40; juez de paz '42-3; aux. de policia in '46. iii 525; iv. 24, 637, 653-\n4, 656. He became a man of wealth and good standing in Cal.; and in '78,\nthough his memory was failing with age, gave me some information about the\nRevoluciones de Cal. His death occurred a few years later. His sons Mariano\nand Alfredo were prominently connected with the Monterey and Salinas R.\nR., and in '85 reside in S.F. with their mother. G. (Tiburcio), at Mont. '36,\nage 28, nat. of Cal., wife Cruz Espinosa, child. Ramonaand Jose*. Gonzalvo\n(M.), 1848, passp. from Honolulu.\nGoodhue, 1843, mate of the Admittance, died at sea on the passage home\n'45. Goodsell (J.), 1846, on the Cyane, acting commandant's clerk. Good-\nsneed (Galen), 1824, sailor and mate on the Rover '24-6. Goodwell (James\nF.), 1847, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). G. (James T.), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol.\nGoodwin, 1847, mr of the Evdine from Hon., with wife. v. 578. G. (Andrew),\n1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). G. (Isaac), 1846, one of the Mormon\ncol., with 6 children, his wife dying on the voyage, v. 546; nat. of Conn., and\na mason who built a house for Larkin. Sent east to report to Brigham Young\non Cal. prospects; interviewed in Utah '78 by Codman. Round Trip, 198-201.\nGoodyear (Andrew), 1847, nat. of Conn, and overl. immig.; at Benicia from\n'49; still living in '79. G. (Miles), 1847, trapper and trader at Los Aug.,\nwith a Cal. claim of $1,800 (v. 462); a nat. of Conn, who died in '49; perhaps\na brother of Andrew.     Goosebfh, 1809, mr of the Coniach. ii. 81.\nGordon, 1844, officer on H.B.M.S. Modeste. G. (A. J.), 1846, nat. of Mo.\nand overl. immig.; prob. son of Joseph; perhaps the G. at N. Helv. from\nBenicia '47; in Sonoma Co. from '48; in Mendocino '77. G. (Benj.), 1848,\nin the mines on Amer. Riv.; at S. Jose* '50. G. (B.H.), 1846, married a\ndaughter of Ed. Pyle; father of John M. G. of Los Gatos in '80. G. (Gilman),\n1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). G. (G. van), 1846, nat. of Mich.; in S.\nLuis Ob. '66-83.     G. (Ira van), 1846, nat. of Penn. and overl. immig., prob.\n 762 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nwith Harlan, whose daughter Rebecca he married in '41; one of Aram's men\nat Sta Clara; lot at S.F. '47; after several changes of residence and employment, became a farmer from '68 in S. Luis Ob., where he still lived '83. By\nsome authorities he has been accredited to '43. iv. 393, 400. Either identical\nwith or a brother of the preceding or following. G. (John van), 1846, perhaps same as G., at N. Helv. May; not of '43. iv. 393, 400. G. (John),\n1845, com. of H.B.M.S. America, iv. 562. G. (Jacob), 1846, overl. immig.\nwith Young, v. 529, with family; perhaps went to Or.; perhaps one of the\nvan G.'s. G. (Joseph), 1846, overl. immig. ment. by Bryant; with fam.;\nperhaps went to Or. or back east. v. 528-9. G. (Julian), 1844, in Sonoma\ndist. '44-6; age 45 in '46. G. (Jemima), 1847, owner of S. F. lot. G.\n(Nicholas), 1845, blacksmith at Mont. '45-8. iv. 587. G. (Robert), 1846,\ncame from Hon. on the Elizabeth; in '47-8 editor of the Californian at S.F.,\nand judge of election, v. 650, 658; at Sac. '48-9, active in politics.\nGordon (Wm), 1841, nat. of Ohio, who became a Mex. citizen in N. Mex.,\nwhere he married Maria Lucero, and came to Cal. in the Rowland-Workman\nparty, iv. 277-9. In '42 came north to Sonoma, original passp. in my col.;\nand in '43 was grantee of Quesesosi rancho on Cache Cr., becoming the pioneer\nsettler of Yolo Co. Here he lived till about '66, then moved to Cobb Valley,\nLake Co., where he died in '76, at the age of 75. His wife died in '44, her\nsister being the wife of Cyrus Alexander; and in '55 G. married Elizabeth\nCorum. One of his daughters, Mrs Sarah Ingraham, died in Gordon Val. '68;\nanother, Isabel, was the wife of Nathan Coombs. 'Uncle Billy' had been a\ntrapper in his early years, and continued to be fond of the hunt in Cal.; a\nrough, uneducated, honest, and hospitable man. In '43-6 his place on Cache\nCr. was a general rendezvous for settlers and hunters, and is oftener mentioned than any other place except Sutter's Fort and Sonoma. It was in the\nvicinity of the modern town of Fremont. Portrait Yolo Co. Hist, 26; ment.\niv. 573, 672; v. iii. 672. Gorgonio, neoph. who killed his wife at S. Buen.\n'17. ii. 424. G. (Jose*), grantee of Purisima, Sta Clara, in '40. iii. 712.\nGorgy (D.), doubtful name of a Russian owner of land near Bodega '37. ii. 638.\nGorman (Geo.), 1843, at Mont. G. (John), 1831, Irish, from Hon. with\na letter from P. Short, iii. 405; joined the comp. extranjera in '32. iii. 221;\ngot a lot in '35; in '36 at Hartnell's rancho, age 50 and single. Gormly (Martin F.), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); claimant for a Marin Co. rancho. iv.\n674; mr of the Bostonian, and killed by explosion of the Secretary in '54.\nGoss, 1847, on the Currency Lass from Hon.\nGould, 1848, mr of the Mary Frances. G. (John C), 1847, Co. C, Morm.\nBat. (v. 469). G. (John R.), 1846, assisted in printing the Mont. Californian. v. 293.      G. (Samuel), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 489).      Gouldin,\n1847, doubtful name, Alameda Co. '55-78. Goulet (G.), 1845, in Sutter's\nemploy '45-6; and Geo. Goutler had a Cal. claim of $60 for shoeing horses\n(v. 462). Gourville (Jean), 1836, Fr. laborer at Los Verjeles rancho, age 27.\nGoycoechea (Felipe), 1783, Mex. lieut and com. of the Sta B. comp. 1784-\n1802, being brevet capt. from 1797; habilitado gen. of Cal. in Mex. 1802-5;\ngov. of L. Cal. 1806-14, where he died at Loreto. A prominent and able officer. Biog. ii. 116-17; ment. i list of auth., 396, 461-3, 464-6, 484, 501-2,\n517, 521-2, 532, 537, 542, 573, 583, 588-94, 639; ii. 28, 30, 32-3, 36, 111,\n154-6, 186, 188, 665, 669.\nGrable (Benj.), 1841 (?), nat. of Ohio; d. S. Luis Ob. '76. iv. 279; date of\narrival prob. a misprint in Cal. Christ. Adv., Jul. 30, '76. Grady (Thomas),.\n1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Graf (Joseph), 1848, overl. immig.\nwith wife, who settled at Nicolaus; a teamster. Graff (Geo. J.), 1847, Co.\nE, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); at S.F. '74-82. Grafton (Ed. C), 1845, mid. on the\nU.S. Portsmouth; acting lieut Co. C, Stockton's bat. '46-7. v. 385.      Graham,\n1848, from Or. with Martin; supposed to have been killed by Ind. the same\nyear at Murderers bar. G. (Chas K.), 1847, mid. on the U. S. Columbus;\nmaj.-gen. in war of '61-5; surveyor of port of N. Y. '79. G. (Geo.), 1847,\nCo. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); passp. from Hon. '48.\nGraham (Isaac), 1833-5, nat. of Ky, and for many years a trapper in the\n GRAHAM\u2014GRALBATCH. 763\ngreat basin and N.Mex., whence he is generally said to have come to Cal. in\n%3   iii 388, 409. I have found no details of his arrival, which was very likely\nin '34 or '35. In '36 he had a distillery and drinking-place at Natividad, and\nfrom the loafers about his place, chiefly deserting sailors, raised a comp. of\n' riflemen ' to support Alvarado in his revolution, going south m that cause in\n'37   See full details in iii. 454-9, 491, 524, 685. In '38 he was condemned to\n8 months in the chain-gang for killing cattle on Gomez' rancho. Mont. Arch.;\nand in '39 he and Naile tried to organize a comp. to cross the mts eastward.\nIn '40  with a dozen of his associates and enough other foreigners to make up\nthe number of 47, G. was sent to S. Bias on a charge of plotting against the\ngovt; but with 18 of the exiles came back the next year. iv. 2-41, 95, 116,\n348   The current versions of this affair, as fully explained elsewhere, have but\na slight foundation in truth; the exiles were for the most part foreigners of\nthe worst class, who had come to Cal. in defiance of the laws; and while the\ndefinite charges of conspiracy could not be proved, the arrest was only technical, and in the case of a few, an outrage, for which Gov. Alvarado was\nwilling that Mex. should pay damages. Statements that Alvarado broke his\npromises to G., and that the prisoners were brutally treated, have no better\nfoundation than the absurd ravings of Farnham and the complaints of the\nvictims hungry for damages. After his return, G., with Majors and others,\nbought the Sayante rancho near Sta Cruz, built a saw-mill, and engaged also\nto some extent in tanning. His name appears constantly on Larkin s books.\nHe made desperate efforts to get damages from Mex. through the U. S. govt\nfor his exile; it is a popular tradition that he succeeded in getting $36,000,\nand possibly he did in later years get a small sum, but I find no definite evidence to that effect, iv. 40-1. In'43 he offered his support and that of his\n\u25a0associates\u2014without their knowledge\u2014to Gov. Micheltorena, who declined at\nfirst   iv 356; but he finally went south with Sutter's force in defense of the\ngov'in '44-5; iv. 472, 478, 483, 486, 507. In '45 he induced a young American'woman to live with him, her mother making an effort through Consul\nLarkin and the alcalde to oblige him to marry, but apparently without success; though G. claimed that she was his wife, and she so appears m the padron of '45, when G. was 46 years old. I have much of the original corresp. connected with the scandal. At this time 20 of G.'s foreign fellow-citizens signed\na petition to the prefect for his expulsion from the community, as a dissolute,\nlawless, quarrelsome corruptor of the public peace and morals. I think the\nwoman left him in '49, about the time that some of his children by a former\nmarriage came to Cal. The case of Graham vs Roussillon in '46 was the 1st\ntried by a jury in Cal. v. 289. After the U.S. occupation, G. continued to live\non his Sta Cruz rancho, for which he was the claimant, iv. 656; and died at\nS. F. in '63 at the age of nearly 70. Two of his daughters, very respectable\npeople, live in Sta Cruz Co. '85; and his brother also resided in Cal. for many\nyears. 'Respecting Graham's character, much is said in my narrative of the\nevents of '\u00a30. But for the unmerited praise that has been so profusely accorded\nhim, and his own never-ending abuse of better men, it might be in doubtful\ntaste to dwell on the man's true character. In N. Mex. and on the plains,\nwhere he was well known by Nidever, B. D. Wilson, Job Dye, and others, he\nhad the worst of reputations, amply justified by his career in Cal. At the best,\nhe was a loud-mouthed, unprincipled, profligate, and reckless man, whose only\ngood qualities seem to have been the personal bravery and prodigal hospitality of his class, with undoubted skill as a hunter, and a degree of industry.\n\/     Graham (John), 1791, Boston boy of Malaspina's exped. who died at Mont.,\ncalled Groem. i 491.      G. (John), 1841, lieut on the U. S. St Louis.     G. (Lawrence P.), 1848, brevet major 2d U. S. drag., in com. of a dragoon battalion\nfrom Mex. arriving at the end of Dec.; mil. com. of the southern dist in '49.\nv. 522, 618.     G. (Wm), 1841, doubtful name at S. Jose*. Bidwell     Grajera\n(Antonio), Mex. lieut in com. of the S. Diego comp. 1793-9; capt. from '98;\nconduct far from exemplary; left Cal. Jan. 1800, and died at sea 3 days after\nsailing. Biog. i 676; ment. i 522, 532, 538, 543, 563, 588-94, 630, 634, 653,\n656, 730.     Gralbatch (Wm), 1825, Engl, sailor and cooper who landed at\n 764 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nMont. ii. 609; iii. 29. In '29 he kept a shop with Geo. Allen and applied for\nnaturalization, age 26; a memb. of the comp. extranjera in '32. iii. 221; on\nLarkin's books from '33. In '36 he lived at S. Isidro rancho, being then single,\nbut married before '40. I find no later record than Oct. '41; generally called\nGray batch or Gray back, but I have his autographs. Grambis(Fred.), 1847,\nchief musician N. Y. Vol. v. 503; d. before '82. Grams (Philip), 1847, Co.\nK, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); died at Milwaukee, Wis., '80. Granados (Fran.), 1846,\naux. de policia. Mont. v. 637. Grant, 1844, off. on H.B.M.S.Modeste. G.\n(B.), 1845, doubtful name of the Grigsby-Ide immig. party, iv. 579; prob.\nwent to Or. G. (James), 1825, Engl, waterman, age 25, protestant and single; in Mont. dist. '25-9. iii 29.     G. (Thos), 1832, got a carta, iii. 408.\nGraves (Franklin W.), 1846, member of the Donner party from Hi, accompanied by wife Elizabeth, 3 sons, and 6 daughters. The father, mother, and\none son\u2014Franklin W., Jr, age 5\u2014died in the Sierra, v. 528, 530, 534, 537.\nEight of the children survived. Jonathan B., age 7, and Elizabeth, Jr, died\nnear Sutter's Fort in '47. v. 530, 534. Wm C. was, in '80-1, a blacksmith at\nCalistoga, and in '84 writes me from Merrimac, Plumas Co.; he also wrote for\nthe newspapers a narrative of Crossing the Plains in '46. v. 530, 534, 536,\n541. Eleanor married Wm McDonald in '49, and in '81 lived at Knight's Vai,\nSonoma, with 8 children, v. 530, 534. Mary Ann married Ed. Pyle in '47,\nand J. T. Clarke in '52, and in '81 lived at White River, Tulare, with 5 children.\nLovina married John Cyrus in '56, and in '81 lived near Calistoga with 5\nchildren. Nancy married R. W. Williamson in '55, and in '81 lived at Los\nGatos, also with 5 children. A married daughter, also a survivor, was Mrs\n'Fosdick,' q.v.      G. (Hiram), 1848, at S.F. ace. to his later testimony.\nGray (Andrew F. V.), 1846, lieut on the U.S. Congress; com. of the force\nsent by Stockton to Kearny's relief at S. Pascual; served as S.'s aide in the\nfinal campaign of '47; went east overland with despatches; and testified at the\nFremont court-martial in Wash. v. 328, 350, 385, 420, 456. G. (Alonzo),\n1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). G. (E.), 1847, mr of the Antonita. v. 576.\nG. (E. L.), 1846, from Hon. on the Euphemia; perhaps same as preceding.\nG. (G. R.), 1841, lieut on the U.S. St Louis. G. (G.L.), 1847, at Hon. from\nCal. twice, 1st on the Currency Lass, 2d on the Gen. Kearny. G. (James\nA.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); nat. of Penn.; and memb. of 1st Cal.\nlegisl. '49-50; resid. at Salinas City '82. G. (John B.), 1847, came from Va\nwith letters from Fauntleroy and Minor to Larkin; at N.Helv. '48, interested\nin mines. G. (L. C), 1847, trader on the coast '47-8 from Honolulu on the\nGen. Kearny, Louise, and Undine; owner of S.F. lot. v. 679; at Benicia '49-\n50, and perhaps the S. C. Gray whose lecture in Benicia is published in the\nSolano Co. Hist, 146; still living, I think, in '85. G. (Robt), 1788, mr of the\nWashington, sighting the Cal. coast on his way north, i 445, 499; see Hist.\nN. W. Coast. G. (W*n), 1837, lumberman and militiaman at Sonoma. G.\n(Wm D.), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nGrayson (Andrew J.), 1846, nat. of La, and overl. immig.\u2014being at the\nstart in com. of a small party\u2014with wife and child, living for a time in the\nUpper Sac. Val. v. 528. Active in raising men for the Cal. Bat., in which he\nranked as lieut; but remained in the north, and took part in the campaign\nagainst Sanchez; v. 359, 361, 383. MrsG. seems to have remained at Sonoma,\nwhere she is named as a witness in Jan. '47. In '47-8 G. obtained lots at Benicia and S.F., where he kept a little stationery shop in the City Hotel, v.\n672, 680; also acting as Capt. Folsom's agent at Corte Madera, Marin Co.,\nand soon founding\u2014on paper\u2014the town of Graysonville on the S. Joaq. Riv.\nIn these days, though a gambler and associate of Lippincott, McDougal, and\nother like characters, he was regarded as a man of good abilities and character. In '50 he settled at S. Jose* and gave his attention to the study of ornithology, in which branch, and as an artist, he became widely known to scientific men in all parts of the world. In '57 he went with his wife to Mex., and\ndied at Mazatlan in '69 at the age of 50. His descrip. and paintings of Pac.\ncoast birds have as yet, unfortunately, remained unpublished. His widow\nreturned to Cal., married Dr G. B. Crane, and was still living at St Helena\n GRAYSON\u2014GREEN. 765\nin '77, as she is, I think, in '85.     G. (Ned), 1846, at S. Jose* '54. Annals of\nS.F., 822; perhaps the preceding or his son.\nGreen (Alfred A.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. v. 513, 610; a nat. of New Brunswick, who after a brief experience in the mines became a somewhat prominent lawyer at S.F., being at one time memb. of the legislature, and well\nknown in connection with the pueblo land question, Santillan claim, and vigilance committee. In '78 he gave me a narrative of the Adventures of a 47er,\ncontaining many interesting details of early S.F. annals; still living in b.h.\n'82 and I think in '85. There is some confusion in the records between him\nand H.A. Green, at Sonoma in '47-8. G. (Alonzo), 1848 (?), doubtful date\nof a Sonora settler. G. (Cambridge), 1832, one of Young's trappers, who\nkilled a man named Anderson, and is said to have been imprisoned at Los Ang.;\nalso had a brother in the same party, iii. 388. G. (Daniel S. or C.), 1846,\nsurgeon on the U. S. Dale; in confed. service '61-5. G. (Ephraim), 1847,\nCo. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Sutter's and in the mines '48. G. (Francis),\n1836, Amer. age 40, in a Los Ang. list; perhaps at Sta Cruz '39. G. (Geo.\nW.), 1829, on the Brookline. iii. 138-9; living in Mass. '72. G. (Harry),\n1848, named by Glover as a Mormon who went to Utah '49. G. (Henry A.),\n1844 (?), a lumberman and builder\u2014possibly the G. at Sta Cruz 39\u2014named\nin various records of '44-6 at Mont, and Sta Cruz. iv. 455; Cal. claim of If 7b\n(v. 462). In '47 he was at Sonoma, being a member of the town council, v.\n668, and employed in preparing material, under a contract with Larkin, for\nhouses which were erected at Benicia in '48. v. 671-3. There was a Mrs G.,\nperhaps his wife, at Sonoma in '47. G. (H.F.A.), 1848, at Mont., ace. to\nconsulate arch. G. (Hugh W.), 1847, purser on the U. S. ^dependence.\nG. (Jacob), 1846, Swiss trapper at N. Helv. '46-7; Cal. claim $25 (v. 462 ;\nment. by Ward in '48. G. (J.L.), 1848, owner of a S.F. lot. G. (James),\n1847, doubtful member of N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at S.F. '74. G. (James), 1831,\nperhaps of Young's party, iii. 388. G. (James M.), 1845, nat. of Conn., who\ncame on a whaler, iv. 587; long a resid. of Hon., and mr of vessels running\nto Cal.; memb. of firm C. A. Williams &Co.; also ship-chandler atb.i.;\ndied in Stockton insane asylum '68. Newspapers. G. (John), 1847, Co. C,\nMorm. Bat. (v. 469). G. (John D.), 1847, resid. at Sta Cruz, ace. to the\ncounty hist. G. (Judson), 1846, overl. immig. with Steph. Cooper. G.\n(Lewis), 1846 (?), at Los Ang. '59-76. G. (Michael), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S.\ndragoons (v. 336).     G. (T.C.), 1847, at N. Helv. aSPSBL\nGreen (Talbot H.), 1841, nat. of Penn., and overl. immig. of the Bartleson\nparty, iv. 268, 270, 275, 279. Early in '42 he entered Larkin's service at\nMont, as clerk; and in May '43 made a contract to carry on L.'s business for\none year for $400 and 5 per cent of the profits. This arrangement was continued to the end of '45, and in Jan. '46 G. made a contract for 3 years to take\nthe business, with $10,000 worth of goods, for one third of the profits.^ v. 5o-\n6. I have much of his business corresp. In '44 he got a renewal of his passport, possibly naturalization; in '46 served on the 1st jury, v. 289, and was\ngrantee of land near Mont. v. 637; and in '46-7 was collector of the port,\nhaving also a Cal. claim of $10,855, and obtaining a lot at S.F. v. 289, 433,\n467, 570, 572. He made a trip to Mazatlan, and contributed items for the\nCalifornian. In '48 visited the mines. From Jan. '49 he was a member of the\nS.F. firm of Melius & Howard, a prosperous and popular man of business, member of the town council, and taking an active part in political affairs. He\nmarried the widow Montgomery, of the Stevens immig. party of '44, by whom\nhe had a son, in '85 state librarian at Sac, his mother, now Mrs Wallis, being\na resident of Mayfield. In '51 Green, being then a prominent candidate for\nmayor, was recognized and denounced as Paul Geddes of Penn., a defaulting bank clerk, who had left a wife and children in the east. There is no\nagreement about the circumstances of the discovery. The charge proved true,\nbut G. protested his innocence, and went east via Panama for the avowed,\npurpose of clearing his reputation, being escorted to the boat by a large company of prominent citizens. There are several confused versions of his later\nlife. I have his letter to Larkin in '53, in which he expresses shame and pen-\n 766 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nitence for the deception he had practised; says he has lost $3,200 from his\ntrunk, and is 'penniless and destitute, with spirits broken and energy gone;'\nbegs L., 'for God's sake,' to send him his share of the proceeds of the Cal.\nclaims and other debts; confesses that he has deceived Thompson; but intends\nto buy a small farm in Tenn. Some day he will send a full history of his life.\nIn '54 he visited Cal. and was seen by Wm F. White\u2014whose Grey's Picture\nof Pion. Times, 124-31', contains a good account of G.'s life\u2014and in '55 he\nwrites to Larkin from N. Y. that he had settled with Mr H. (Howard ?); that\nMr B. (Brannan) had settled the Penn. affair; and that he is about to start\nfor Tenn. He is understood to have rejoined his 1st wife and to be still living\nin '85. In the S. J. Pion. of Apr. 21, '77, it is stated that G. had been for\nsome time asst sec. of the U.S. senate, and that he visited Cal. in '76. Lieut\nMaddox accused Green of dishonorable conduct in '46-7, and there are some\nslight indications that his Penn. defalcation was not his only transgression;\nbut his Cal. record, as a whole, wa3 excellent.\nGreen (Theodore P.), 1846, lieut on the U.S. Congress. G. (Wm), 1840,\none of the S. Bla3 exiles, arrested in the south, iv. 14, 18. G. (Wm G),\n1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. S. Rafael '71. Greenman (J. D.), 1848,\npassp. from Honolulu. Greenock, 1846, ment. by Revere as the frontier\nsettler on a journey from Napa Val. to Clear Lake. I think there may be\nsome connection between this name and 'Guenoc,' that of a Lake Co. rancho\ngranted in '45 to Geo. 'Rock.' Guenoc is still the name in use.\nGreenwood (Caleb), 1844, trapper and mountaineer, who, with his two\nsons, Britain and John, by a Crow wife, guided the Stevens immig. party\nacross the plains; and performed like service for other parties in '45-6, being\nsent to Ft Hall to divert the Or. immig. to Cal. They served in Sutter's force\n'45; Bryant met the old man in Lake Co. '46, when he claimed to be 83 years\nold; Britain was with the 2d Donner relief of '47, and lived in Mendocino Co.\n'84; S. S. Greenwood, apparently one of the 3, is said to have been a nat. of\nNova Scotia, to have come with Fremont, and to have been justice of the\npeace and assessor at Sac, where he died in '78. John served in Co. E, Cal.\nBat. (v. 358), and had a trading-post in Greenwood Val. '48. It is impossible\nto distinguish between the 3, or to locate any one of them at any definite\ntime. iv. 445, 453-4, 486, 539, 575, 579.\nGregory (John), 1844, Engl, in Cal. '44-6; came back in '55; in Sonoma\nCo. '61-80 with wife and 3 child. Son. Co. Hist, 691. G. (Robert), 1846, Co.\nK, 1st U.S. drag., killed at S. Pascual. v. 346. G. (Thos), 1848, at S. F.\nfrom Honolulu. Gregson (James), 1845, Engl, who came to Phil, as a boy,\nand overl. to Cal. in the Grigsby-Ide party, with his wife, Elizabeth Marshall,\nand her two brothers, mother, and sister, v. 579, 587. In '45-8 he worked as\na blacksmith for Sutter, serving in the Sac garrison during the Bear revolt,\nv. 79; and later in Co. B, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), being perhaps at the, Natividad\nfight, and taking part in the southern campaign of '46-7. Returning, he resumed work for Sutter, got a lot at S.F. v. 685, and was at work at the famous mill when gold was discovered. Mrs G. is mentioned in '47 as passenger\non the 1st steamboat to Sac v. 579. In '50-80 he lived in Green Val., Sonoma\nCo., with 9 children. His daughter, Annie, b. Sept. 3, '46, married Robert\nReid of S. Luis Ob.; another, Mary Ellen, b. '48, married McChristian. Prob.\nstill alive in '85. I have a MS. Statement from him. Portrait in Son. Co. Hist,\n509. G. (Wm), 1834, Amer., age 29, in Spear's service at Mont. Gremell,\n1848, in list of letters, S.F. Grems, 1821, mr of the Sigloe{1), at Sta B. ii.\n440. Grey (Wm), 1837, in S.F. militia. G. (Louisa C.), 1848, wife of\nW.L.G., d. Stockton '79, age 31; named as 1st Amer. child bom in Sonoma.\nGrien (Carl), 1844, blacksmith et Mont. Griffin, 1847, from Honolulu\non the Euphemia; in '48 mr of the Ariel, v. 576. G. (John S.), 1846, asst\nsurg. U. S. A. from '40, prob. nat. of Ky, who came with Kearny from N.\nMex., being present in the fights of S. Pascual, S. Gabriel, and the Mesa. v.\n336-7, 385. His Journal of '46-7 is one of the best authorities extant, and is\nsupplemented by his original Doc. Hist. Cal in my collection. He was stationed at S.D. and Los Ang. in charge of the mil. hospital; visited the mines\n m\nGRIFFIN\u2014GRIMES. 767\non leave of absence in '49, became interested with Vallejo and Frisbie in Napa\nlands, and was stationed at Benicia till '52, when he was transferred to the\nsouth; went east in '53, and in '54 resigned and settled at Los Ang., where he\nhas since resided and practiced medicine down to '85.      G. (M.), 1847, at S.\nF. from Honolulu. G. (Peter K.), 1844, Amer. at Mont., getting a pass for\na year. G. (Sam. P.), 1846, mid. on the U.S. Savannah; serving in garrison\nat S. Jose*, v. 378, where he applied for land.\nGriffith (Calvin C), 1845, nat. of N.C., who came with his parents in the\nGrigsby-Ide party, iv. 579, 587. He served with the Bears; v. 110, and in the\nCal. Bat. (v. 358), later becoming a miner and farmer. In'81 he lived at Rutherford, Napa Co., with his wife, Lydia Lensibaugh, mar. in '55, and 7 children.\nG. (F.G.), 1846, in Cal. Bat., and named in a list of Bears; perhaps a brother\nof Calvin. G. (James A.), 1845, overl. immig. of Grigsby-Ide party, with\nwife, Elizabeth R., and one or more sons. Bonds given by Yount Nov. 19th.\niv. 579, 587. The family settled in Napa Val.; Cal. claim of $1,000 for repairing barracks (v. 462); died in Sonoma '68. G. (Jonathan), 1846, one of the\nMorm. Col. with wife and 2 children, v. 546; lot at S.F. '47; Mrs G. and son\nat Mont. '48. G. did not go to Utah. G. (Thomas), 1846, doubtful name of\na Bear; possibly a son of James A. G. (Joseph), doubtful name of a trapper\nin S. Joaq. Val. in very early times.  Mont Co. Hist, 29.\nGrigsby (Franklin F.), 1845, Co. E, Cal. Bat. '46-7 (v. 358); prob. a son\nof John and immig. of '45. G. (Granville W.), 1845, ditto. G. (John), 1845,\nnat. of Tenn., came to Cal. from Mo. in the immig. party that bears his name,\nwith his family, iv. 578-81, 587. He was one of the most active in fomenting the\nBear revolt of '46; was for a few hours leader at Sonoma on June 14th; com. the\nguard that took the prisoners to N. Helv.; and after the U. S. occup. was in\ncom. of the Sonoma garrison, being capt. of Co. B, Cal. Bat. v. 110, 114-19,\n164, 168, 175, 184, 242-3, 296, 298. After the reorganization of the battalion\nin Nov. Capt. G. com. Co. E, in the southern campaign, v. 358-61. He had a\nCal. claim (v. '462); and in '47 is mentioned in connection with political affairs\nat Sonoma, v. 433, 609. He settled in Napa, where he continued to live till\nabout '72, when he went to Texas, and died in Mo. '76, at the age of 70. There\nis a strange lack of information about him and his family after '46. Two of\nthe name, perhaps his sons, have been mentioned; his daughter was the wife\nof Wm Edgington; and he had a brother Jesse in Cal. I have copies of a small\ncol. of Grigsby Papers furnished by the Sonoma Pion. Soc Grijalva (Juan\nPablo), 1776, Mex. sergt with Anza's exped.; served at S.F. '76-86; alf. of S.\nDiego comp. '86-96; retired as lieut '96-1806, the date of his death. His\ndaughters married Ant. Yorba and Pedro Peralta. Biog. ii 104; ment. i 258,\n262-76, 286-7, 296-7, 359, 362, 452, 472-3, 547, 553, 647, 652-3, 663; ii 57.\nG. (Luciano), at Los Ang. in '33.\nGrimes (Eliab), 1838, nat. of Mass.; lieut on a privateer in the war of\n1812; later for 20 years a well-known merchant of Honolulu, of firm E. & H.\nGrimes, iv. 141. In '38 he visited Cal. on the Rasselas, of which he was\nowner, and went to Boston, iv. 105, 117, 119. His next visit was on the schr\nCalifornia in '42, at which time he selected a rancho in the Sac. Val., which,\nafter he had returned from a trip to Hon. on the Fama, was granted to him\nin '44. iv. 672. From this time Capt. G. may be regarded as a permanent resid.\nof S~.F., though he made another trip to Hon. on the Don Quixote in '47. He\nhad a lot and house, was a well-known trader, and was a memb. of the legisl.\ncouncil in '47. v. 433, 653, 678, 680. G. & Sinclair had a Cal. claim for horses\n(v. 462). For some years he made 'Kent Hall' his home while in town, and\nkept there a case of extra fine liquors, which nothing would induce' the old\nman to open for convivial purposes but a story that could arouse his interest;\nhence there was a continual rivalry in yarn-spinning among the younger merchants. As a boat was going up the Sac, after the gold excitement, the occupants were asked who was left at S.F., and ' nobody but old Grimes' was the\nreply; but ' old Grimes' died in Oct. '48, at the age of 69. G. (Hiram), 1847,\nnephew and partner of Eliab at Honolulu; partner of Wm. H. Davis in '45-\n6; came to Cal. in Feb. '47 on the Don Quixote; and again on the Euphemia\n 768\nPIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nin July with his wife and child. Often named in S.F. annals of '48-9; claimant for several ranchos. iv. 672-3; still in Cal. '54. G. (A. J. and B.), 1847-\n8, doubtful mention; prob. confounded with the preceding.\nGrimshaw (Wm Robinson), 1848, nat. of N.Y. city, b. in 1826 of Engl,\nparents; sailor on the Isaac Walton, and after arrival on the tender Anita,\nU.S.N.; also mr of the launch Susanita, on the trip up the Sac v. 580. He\nworked as book-keeper for Brannan & Co. at Sac. in '48-9; and from Nov. '49\nwas partner of Wm Daylor in a store or Ind. trading-post on the Cosuranes.\nDaylor having died in '50, G. married his widow in '51, and continued to\nreside on the rancho, where in '72 he wrote for me his Narrative. This is not\nonly an interesting sketch of his own life and adventures, but one of the\nbest accounts extant of the events of '48-50 in the Sac region. Still living in\n'80, with 7 children, Wm R., Jr, Thos W., Emma (Mrs W. D. Lawton of S.F.),\nGeorge, Francis, Frederick, and Walter. Grinnell, 1848, from Hon. on the\nStarling. G. (Chas C), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. before '82.\nGriswold (Theodore), 1847, at N.Helv.; lot at S.F.; named in '48.\nGroem, 1791, see ' Graham.' i 491. Groh (Jacob), 1847, Co. F, 3d artill.\n(v. 518). Grogan (Alex.), 1848, from Valparaiso with letter from Atherton;\nclerk for C. L. Ross at S.F. '48-9; still in S.F. after '80. Grove (Wm), 1848,\nlieut of S.F. guards. Grovecot, 1846, perhaps in Sta Clara. Gro.ver (Sam.),\n1816, Mass. sailor bapt. at S. Carlos, ii 276-7. Grow (Wm), 1847, sergt Co.\nH, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; at Yreka '78; at Deadwood, Dakota, '83. Guadalupe\n(Jose* M.), soldier at S. Miguel 1797. i 560. Guat (Santiago), 1836, juez de\nde campo at Mont. iii. 678; prob. James 'Watt.' Guchapa, Ind. chief at\nS. Miguel 1804. ii. 150.\nGuerra (Antonio Marfa), son of Jose* de la G. y N., b. '25; reg. and sec. of\nayunt. '49; memb. of the Cal. senate in '53, several times mayor of Sta. B.,\nholding other local offices; in the war of '61-5 a capt. of Cal. volunteers serving in Ariz. He is said to have been one of the ablest of the family; but in\nlater years the loss of his palate and of his eyesight obliged him to lead a life of\nretirement. He never married, and died at Sta B. in '81 at the age of 56.\nG. (Bautista), 1831, from N. Mex. with Wolfskill. iii. 387. G. (Francisco),\nson of Jose* de la G. y N., b. '18; ace to the padron of '32 there were two\nFranciscos; from '43 member of the junta, elector at Sta B. '45, taking a somewhat prominent part in political and mil. affairs in '46-7, and involved in\nthe imaginary Sta B. revolt of '48. iv. 361, 522, 540; v. 38-9, 404, 586. He\ntook no pains to conceal his hostility to Amer., \"but after the change of flag\nwas mayor of Sta B. for several years from '51. He inherited a rancho, but\ndied poor in '78. His 1st wife was Maria Asuncion Sepulveda, by whom he\nhad Francisco, Jr (county assessor of Sta B. in '82), and Maria Antonia; the\n2d wife was Concepcion Sepulveda, sister of the 1st, and her children were\nJuan, Osbaldo, Jose*, Hercules, Pablo, Anibal, Anita (Mrs F. W. Thompson),\nErlinda, Rosa, and Diana. There were also two natural children legitimated.\nG. (Joaquin), son of G. y N., b. '22; once sheriff; no family; d. before '70.\nGuerra (Jose* Antonio), son of G. y N., b. 1805; cadet in the Sta B. comp.\n'18-28. ii 572, 576; accomp. his father to Mex. '19; sindico '29 and alcalde\n'33. ii 572; iii'654; elector in '34. From '35 a memb. of the dip., taking a\nprominent part in support of Alvarado's govt in '36-7. iii 291, 426, 454\u20145,\n461, 506; in '37-40 capt. of the port of Sta B., being made capt. by Vallejo,\nand at times acting as mil. com. iii 583, 601-2, 651, 654; iv. 98; vocal of the\ndip., and grantee of Los Alamos '39. iii. 585, 655. Prop, for sub-prefect '41.\niv. 641; admin, at Purisima '41-2. iv. 647-8; where there were serious charges\nagainst him by P. Abella and others. In '43 he was capt. of the port, and in\n'44 receptor, iv. 431-2, 640, 642; and in '44-6 a memb. of the assembly, being in '45 leader in an outbreak at Sta B. iv. 410, 497-8, 541, 559; v. 37-8,\n142, 264, 280, 321-2. In '48 took part in the affair of the lost cannon at Sta\nB. v. 588. In later years he was several times sheriff Of S. Luis Ob., holding\nthat office\u2014or his son\u2014in '69. He had the whim of signing his name Jose*\nNoriega, as he had no right to do. Don Jose* Antonio's record was, in several\nrespects, not of the best, though there is nothing very bad to be said of him.\n GUERRA\u2014GUERRA Y NORIEGA. 769\nHis wife was Maria Concepcion Ortega, and his children\u20146 of them born before '40\u2014were Jose Ant. J., Ramon (sheriff of S. Luis Ob.), Alejandro, Gui-\nllermo, Dolores, Catarina, Sola (?), Cristina, and Juana. G. (Juan J.), son\nof G y N., b. about 1810, educ in England; later at the Mont, school under\nHartnell and P. Short; died in '33, unmarried; ment. i 432. I have a long\nletter, in good English, written by him in '28 from Stonyhurst College, Engi\nG. (Maximo), said to have been exiled in '29, and again in '39. iii 78, 84^6,\n580 G. (Miguel), son of G. y N., b. '23, wife Trinidad Ortega, child. Gas-\npar, Ulpiano, Leon, Maria (wife of Alex. S. Taylor), Josefa, Olimpia, Joaquina,\nand Paulina. Died at Sta B. in '78. M      **\u00ab\nGuerra (Pablo), son of G. y N., b. '19, educated in Hartnell s school at\nMont., where he is ment. in the padron of '36. His baptismal name was Pablo\nAndres Antonio Maria Saturnino; and in '40 he is called PabloGaspar. \u2022From\n'38 he was vista, and from '42 contador and acting administrator of the Mont.\ncustom-house, iii 598; iv. 97, 309, 339, 353, 357, 364, \u00a377, 431, 556, 570,590;\nin '44 grantee of Nicasio rancho. iv. 672; in '45 elector de partido. iv. 515,\n540, 651. In '46 Don Pablo was active against the Amer., trying to reconcile\nthe hostile factions of his people, and favoring an Engl, protectorate, v. 43-4,\n61, 68-9. On the raising of the U. S. flag he went south; served as Castro s\ncommissioner to Stockton, v. 235, 268-9; and after Castro's departure returned to Mont., where he was arrested in Nov. on the outbreak of Flores\nrevolt, and kept a prisoner till Feb. '47. v. 363. He was alcalde of Sta B. in\n'47, and was suspected of complicity in a revolutionary movement in 48. y.\n631, 586. His next public service was as memb. of the constit. convention in\n'49; and subsequently he was state senator for several terms, acting lieut-gov.,\nU.S. marshal, and district judge from '64 to within a short time before his\ndeath, in '74. Don Pablo was by far the most prominent of the Guerra family,\nexcept his father; a man of good ability and education; of gentlemanly manners, though somewhat haughty and overbearing; a good speaker in Spanish\nand English; and one whose family name gave him an influence in the south\ngreater than he could otherwise have acquired. It has been customary to eulogize him far beyond his merits; he was a politician of not the best type,\ntrimming his sails adroitly to catch the breeze of popularity, and changing\nsomewhat abruptly from secessionist to union man in the race for office; yet\nhis record in office seems always to have been an honorable one. In private\nlife also he is reported to have been liberal and honest, though health and\nproperty were largely sacrificed to his fondness for brandy and cards. He\nmarried Josefa Moreno in '47 at S. Carlos; his children were Francises, (Mrs\nDibblee), Delfina, Ernina, Paulina, and a son whose name I do not find.\nGuerra y Noriega (Jose de la), 1801, nat. of Spain, b. Mar 6, 1779, son of\nJuan Jose* de la G. (died 1820) and Maria Teresa de Noriega (died 1815), both,\nand especially the mother, of old and distinguished Span, families. In boyhood he wished to be a friar, a freak that caused his parents much sorrow;\nbut soon he went to Mex. to be a clerk in the store of his uncle, Pedro Noriega.\nIn 1798 he left the store\u2014much to the displeasure of Don Pedro, who afterwards relented and gave him much aid\u2014and became asst in the office of\nHabilitado gen. Carcaba, by whose influence he was enrolled as cadet m the\narmy and attached to the S. Diego comp. Respecting this and most other\nparts of his life I have more original corresp. than I have room to utilize. In\n1800 he was promoted to alfe*rez of the Mont, comp., and came to Cal. on the\nConcepcion in Aug. 1801. At Mont, he was habilitado, and acting com. much\nof the time, in 1802-6, being mentioned in con. with many minor affairs, u.\n50, 78,132-3, 135, 140, 150, 153, 155; having in 1804, with permission of the\nking, married Antonia, daughter of Raimundo Carrillo, with the condition\nthat she and her children should not be entitled to montepio unless he were\nkilled in battle. In 1806 he was promoted to lieut of the Sta B. comp., and\nsent to S. Diego as habilitado in 1806-9, being knocked down m a quarrel with Lieut Ruiz, which greatly alarmed his friends as likely to interfere\nwith his rapid promotion, ii 85, 99-100, 117, 540. From 1808 he received\nlarge consignments of goods from his uncle Pedro in Mex., the sale of which\nHist. Cal., Vol. III.  49\n 770 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\ngreatly improved his financial condition, ii. 186. In 1810 he was sent to Mex.\nas habilitado gen. of the Cals, but being arrested by insurgents at S. Bias, was\nunable to reach the capital, and returned to Cal. in '11, taking his position at\nSta B., and continuing his commercial operations, though going to S. Diego\nagain as habilitado in '13-15. ii. 98, 188-9, 197-8, 341, 419-21. From '15 he\nwas com. at Sta B., taking part in the arrest of foreign smugglers, in defensive operations against Bouchard, having a quarrel with P. Senan, and being\npromoted to Capt. iu '18. ii. 222-5, 235-42, 275, 284-5, 317, 332, 361, 382,\n405, 416, 424. In '19 he was sent again to Mex. as repres. of the Cal. companies to obtain supplies, and prob. with a hope of getting an appointment as\ngov., returning in 20 after accomplishing very little, though all that was possible, ii. 260-2, 265, 354, 422. He was busied, besides his official duties, in\n'21-2 in obtaining ranchos, quarrelling with the friars on the subject, and getting a grant of Cone jo in '22. ii. 441, 566, 569-70, 580. In '22 he was a candidate for gov., and but for his Span, birth and Can6nigo Fernandez' consequent opposition, would have been chosen; being also favored by the friars\nfor congressman, ii. 451, 453-4, 465-8. There is no truth in the statement of\nWilkes, U.S. Explor. Exped., v. 173, on this matter, and but little in that of\nPetit-ThoUars, Voy., ii. 90; though his disappointment may have had an influence on Don Josh's later policy between Mexicans and natives. Mention in\n'23-5, including his acts in suppressing the Ind. revolt of '24. ii. 495, 510,530,\n533, 536-7, 561, 576; iii. 27. He was elected dip. to congress in '27, and\nagainst the advice of many went to Mex. in '28, but was not given his seat,\nreturned in '29, and was for some time, as a Span., nominally suspended from\nhis command, ii 570-1, 574-5, 676; iii 33-4, 51-2, 61, 127; iv. 343. In '29-\n30 he bought a schr, perhaps had another built, and bought the cargo of a\nwrecked vessel, iii. 140, 146. He did not join the movement against Victoria\nin '31. iii 205, 210; controlled the policy of Carlos Carrillo in congress, iii.\n214; and in all these years acted as a kind of treasurer and confidential adviser of the friars\u2014sindico apost61ico; accused in '34 of being engaged in a\nconspiracy against the govt. iii. 250, 257-8. In the sectional troubles of '36-8\nCapt. G. was a firm supporter of Alvarado's cause, though personally a friend\nof Carrillo. Alvarado wished to make him com. gen., and did grant him the\nS. Julian or Nacional rancho. iii 436, 492, 510, 533, 550, 582, 650-1. In '39\nhe made vain attempts to collect his back pay, being still com. at Sta B. iii.\n584, 651; and having to his credit, including extra allowances, 51 years, 9\nmonths, and 1 day of mil. service on May 10th. In '40 he asked for retirement\nbecause he could not get the $12,000 due him, nor the promotion to which he\nwas entitled, and because, of his ailments and age of 62. He finally retired\nfrom the mil. service on April 1, '42. Ment. in '40-2. iii. 655; iv. 199, 632,\n640-1; ment. '44-6. iv. 403, 408, 530; v. 282. Though not friendly to the U.\nS., he kept quiet for the most part, and did not indulge in any offensive partisanship. In later years he was claimant for several ranchos. iv. 643, 655-6;\nliving quietly at Sta B., and being a man of great wealth, most of which his\nsons managed to squander even before their father's death. He died in '58,\nleaving over 100 direct descendants. None of the pioneers here registered\nexerted for so long a period so wide and good an influence as Capt. de la\nGuerra. He was a man of excellent character and conduct throughout his\ncareer, though no great or brilliant achievements can be placed to his credit,\nthough he had the advantage of rich and influential friends from the first, and\nthough his Span, birth prevented his reaching the highest rank; yet his honest and efficient performance of each duty, his well-balanced judgment, his\ndignified conservatism, command admiration. At Sta B. he was known as the\npatriarch, to whom the people were wont to apply as a matter of course to\nsettle their controversies; and he was famous for his charities. No man in Cal.\never came so near, by peaceful, legitimate means, absolute control of his district. He did not purchase popularity at the cost of independence, for many\nwere his controversies, even with the friars, though their life-long friend and\na devout churchman. The Guerra, Doc. Hist. Cal, copies of which I was permitted to make by the kindness of Mr Dibblee, executor of the estate, are the\n m\nGUERRA Y NORIEGA\u2014GULNAC. 771\nmost extensive and valuable family archives in Cal. except those of Vallejo.\nIn person, Don Jose* was short and stout, with a flat nose and an ugly face.\nHis intimate friends in their letters were fond of applying nicknames. Gen.\nCarcaba and the leading friars, used such endearing epithets as corcobado,\nchato maldito, chatoflojo, etc. On account of pride in his wife's family he had\na fondness for her name, and was as often called Capt. Noriega as by his\nproper name; in the case of his sons this became ridiculous affectation. His\nwife, Maria Antonia Carrillo, died in '43. His 5 sons have been named in this\nlist, being for the most part prominent citizens of good enough abilities and\ncharacter, yet hardly what a union of the two best families of Cal. should\nhave produced. The daughters, noted for beauty and intelligence, were 4, all\nof whom eventually married foreigners. Teresa de Jesus, b. 1809, married W.\nE. P. Hartnell, and still lives in '85, having furnished for my use valuable\ndocuments of the family archives and a Narrative of personal recollections.\nMaria de las Angustias, b. 1815, married Manuel Jimeno Casarin, and later\nDr J. D. Ord; and she also is living in '85, her Ocurrencias being one of the\nbest personal narratives in my collection. Ana Maria, b. '20, married Alfred\nRobinson and died in '55. Maria Antonia, b. '27, married Cesario Lataillade,\nand later Gaspar Orena, a Span, with whom she still lives at Sta B. in '85.\nGuerrero y Palomares (Francisco), 1834, Mex. who came from Tepic, I\nthink, in the H. & P. colony, at the age of 23. iii 263; but possibly in *28, as\nper Soc Cal. Pion. rolls and Lancey. He perhaps obtained a S.F. mission lot\nin '36; was elector '37, '39. iii. 705, 590; receptor and admin, of customs\nfrom '39 to '44. iii 700; iv. 98, 375, 431, 483, 670; in '39-41 juez de paz and\nalcalde, iii. 705-6; iv. 247, 665; grantee of several town lots and the rancho\nde los Putos. iv. 669, 673, 676, 682. In '42 he was 31 years old, wife Josefa\nde Haro, age 17, and one child; in '44 grantee of Corral de Tierra rancho; in\n'45-6 sub-prefect at S.F., being often mentioned in local annals of the north,\niv. 667; v. 17, 129, 239, 241, 295, 455, 644, 648; in '49 again sub-prefect. He\ncontinued to reside at the mission, where in '51 he was murdered, and where\nhis widow still lived in '80. A street in S.F. bears his name. Don Francisco\nseems to have been a kind-hearted, genial man, of much intelligence, and good\ncharacter. G. (Jose* M.), at Los Ang. '46. G. (Jose* Vicente), ditto; sindico '41; 2d alcalde '48. v. 626. G. (Joaquin), soldier killed on the Col.\n1781. i 363. G. (Matias), teacher at Mont, about '15. ii 427; sec. at S.\nJose* '24. ii 605. G. (Pedro), ment. in '29-31. iii 68-9, 208. Guescote\n(Fran.), armero of S.F. comp. '42; perhaps 'Westcot.' Guest (John), 1846,\npassed mid. on U.S. Congress, and act. lieut on the Warren; capt. in Stockton's bat. v. 350, 386; commodore in '72; d. '79, in com. of Portsmouth navy-\nyard. Gueval (P.), 1848, passp. from Hon. Guevara (Antonio), in revolt\nat Sta B.; sent to Mex. '29-30. iii 78, 85. G. (Canute), at Sta B. before '37;\nwife Rafaela Lugo, 3 children.\nGuibal (Eugene), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); in S. Joaquin '71-5; d.\nat Gilroy '83. Guilcost (Wm), 1826, mr of the Maria Teresa, iii. 148.\nGuild (H.M.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); carpenter at Mont. '48. Guile\n(Wm), 1847, musician Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Guillen (Antonio), guard\nat S. Diego 1803. ii. 13. G. (Isidoro), son of Eulalia Perez de G., sergt of\nSta B. comp., made alf. in '39. iii. 583, 650; juez de paz at S. Jose '41-3. iv.\n684-6. Guillon (Chas F.B.), 1847, asst surg. on the U.S. Columbus. Guirado (Bernardino), trader at Los Ang. from '39; supervisor in '58-9. G.\n(Rafael), 1833, Mex. trader from Sonora, owner and sup. of the Leonidas, who\nsettled at Los Aug., age 32; in '35-6 regidor. iii 283, 635-6; in '39 clerk at\nS. Gabriel, iii. 645; owner of S. F. lot in '47. v. 684; coroner in '52; died at\nLos Ang. in '72.\nGulnac (Wm), 1833, nat. of N.Y., who had lived long in L. Cal., and who\ncame on the Volunteer, via Honolulu, with his family, settling at S. Jose*, iii.\n409; iv. 86, 117. He was naturalized in '34; in '38 owner of S. F. land, and\nemployed to survey S. Jose* town lands, iii. 705, 730; in '39 regidor, and possibly arrested in '40. iii. 731; iv. 17, 120. In the padron of '41, age 40, wife\nIsabel Cesena, child. Jose* Ramon b. '26, Juan Panfilo '31, Carlos Maria '33,\n 77* PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nSusana '34, Isabel '36, and Luisa '38. In '44-5 he joined Sutter's army, somewhat reluctantly, and was grantee of the French Camp rancho, sold to Weber.\niv. 462, 486, 671, 674; signed the S. Jose* call to foreigners in '45. iv. 599; on\nthe 1st jury '48; and died in '51. Two of the sons, Carlos and Juan, served\nwith Fauntleroy's dragoons in '46 (v. 232, 247); and another, Pedro, is named\nin '43.     Gunn, see ' Gann.'\nGutche (Valentin), 1848, in Sutter's employ. Guthrie, 1845, apparently\none of Fremont's men. iv. 583. G. (Alfred), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499);\ndoubtful; at S.F. '74. G. (Dexter), 1846, overl. immig. from 111., who lived\nin Napa Val. till his death by suicide in '81. G. (R.), 1846, one of Fauntleroy's dragoons, v. 332, 347. G. (Wm), 1847, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at\nCoulterville '82.\nGutierrez, carpenter at S. Juan Cap. 1797. i 658. G. (Cirilo), at S. Juan\nCap. '46, age 51, wife Ana M. Romero, child Pablo, b. '38. G. (Fran.),\nsergt Catalan vol. 1796. i 540. G. (Fran.), 1825, Span. prob. from the Asia,\niii. 27. G. (Joaquin), soldier at Mont. '36, age 20; juez aux. Mont, dist '42.\niv. 653; cl. for Potrero de S. Carlos. '52. iii. 678. G. (Jose* M.), Mex. at\nBrancif. '45, age 40, wife Guadalupe. G. (Jose* de Jesus Maria), 1833, Mex.\nfriar of the Zacatecanos, who served at Solano, S.F., and S. Antonio till '45,\nafter which I find no record of him; prob. left Cal. iv. 680-1; iii. 318, 322,\n353-4, 392, 399, 553, 660, 686-8, 713, 719. G. (Juan), 1842, sub-lieut of the\nbatallon fijo '42-5. iv. 289. G. (Manuel), Span, who came to Cal. before\n1790; on the Dominguez rancho, Los Ang. dist. from 1811. ii. 350, 353, 386;\nment. '19. ii 292; alcalde of Los Ang. '22-3. ii. 559; in '28-30, 80 years old,\nclaiming exemption from expulsion as a Span. iii. 51-2. G. (Manuel)-, Span,\nwho came in '21, age 43 in '28, claimed exemption, iii 51-2; had a vineyard\nat Los Ang.; alcalde at S. Pedro '36. iii 635; at Sta Ine's '42. iv. 646.\nGutierrez (Nicolas), 1833, Span. capt. in Mex. army, who came with Gov.\nFigueroa and was prom, the same year to lieut-col. He was comisionado for\nthe secul. of S. Gabriel in **34-6; acting com. gen. Oct. 8, '35, to Jan. 2, '36,\nand from that date gefe pol. and com. gen. to May 3d; mil. com. in the south\nduring Chico's rule; again gov. and com. gen. on Chico's departure from Sept.\n6th to his own overthrow by Alvarado on Nov. 4, '36. See his rule and the\nrevolution, iii. 445-66, with biog. 448; ment. iii. 236, 240, 258, 281, 284-5,\n288, 298-300, 346, 414-20, 422, 431, 433, 442, 644-5; iv. 83, 102, 112, 141,\n164. Gov. Gutierrez was an easy-going, faithful officer, of ordinary abilities\nand not very strict morals, the current charges against whom in justification\nof the revolt have but slight foundation in fact. Nothing is known of his\nlater career. G. (Octaviano), Mex. artill. corp. at Sta B. from '24. ii. 532;\nlieut in '39. iii 583, 651; in '46 juez de paz, v. 635, and again in '49; claimant\nfor the Laguna rancho '53. iv. 642. G. (Pablo), Mex. grantee of rancho in\nYuba Co. '44. iv. 671; in Sutter's employ '44-5; made plans with Bid well to\nseek for gold on Bear Riv., but B. says he was captured and hanged by Castro\nin the Micheltorena campaign. Sutter tells a similar story; but I know nothing further of the matter. G. (Romualdo), 1804, Span, friar who served at\nSta In6*s, and retired on account of ill health in 1806. Biog. ii. 29; ment. ii.\n122, 159-60. G. (Tomas), grantee of land at S. Juan Cap. '41. iv. 626; in\n'46 at S. Juan, age 63, wife Maria Ant. Cota, child. Luis b. '33, Ignacia '34,\nFrancisco '37, Petra '39, Mariano '41, Ramona '45. Guy (Omnes), 1842, Fr.\nsawyer at Sta Cruz who was naturalized in '44. iv. 341. Guzman, settler at\nBrancif. 1797. i 569. G. (Laureano), 1842, fifer in the batallon fijo '42-5.\niv. 289.      G. (Manuel), 1829, mex. convict, pardoned in '34.\nGwinn (Frank), 1841, blacksmith from N. Mex. in the Workman-Rowland\nparty; went back the next year. iv. 278. Gyzelaar (Henry), 1816, mr. of\nthe Lydia, arrested at Sta B. ii. 275-8, 362-3, 382. In '18 he came back as\nmr of the Clarion with a warning against Bouchard, ii 222, 291. In 22-3 he\nreturned again as mr of the pioneer Boston trader Saclvem, and remained in\nCal., ii. 474-5, 478, 492-3, being drowned in '25 or '26 in trying to cross Russian River, iii. 29.\n m\nHAAG\u2014HALLECK. 773\nHaag (Fred.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Haan (Matthew J.), 1846,\nfrom Hon. on the Elizabeth; trader at Sonoma '47, in partnership with Fred. G.\nBlume, and later Victor Prudon; owner of S.F. lots. v. 680. Hace, 1831,\nperhaps of Young's trappers, iii. 388. Hacker (Wm), 1846, bugler Co. C,\n1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Hackett (Pat.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v.\n499). Haenck (Tadeo), 1791, apothecary with Malaspina. i 490. Hage-\nman (Chas K.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Hagemeister, 1817, Russ.\ngov. of Alaska who visited Cal. on the Kutusof '17-18. ii. 216, 251, 283, 291,\n315-18, 373, 383. Haggerty (John K.), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518);\na miner in '48. Hagler (Henry),. 1843, German ship-carpenter and millwright with Stephen Smith from Baltimore, iv. 395, 400. He worked at Bodega; in '47-8 in charge of the farm of his brother-in-law F. G. Blume; seems\nto have spent his life in Sonoma Co.; died at Bodega in '73. His name was\nperhaps Hegelar.\nHaig (A.), 1822, mr of the Snipe, ii 474. Haight (Jacob), 1846, artill.\nof Stockton's bat., killed at the S. Gabriel, Jan. '47. v. 395. H. (Sam. W.),\n1847, sutler of N.Y.Vol. (v. 503); often named in commercial records of '47-\n8, being interested at Benicia; d. S.F. '56. Hails (R. C.), 1846, nat. of Tenn.\nand overl. immig.; several times memb. of the legisl. from Napa and Solano\ndown to '78, when he was 62 years old. Haines (John), 1837, named in\nLarkin's books; in Sutter's employ '44; also ment. at N. Helv. '46. Hair-\nbird (John), 1846, doubtful memb. of the Mormon col. v. 547.\nHale (Horatio), 1841, on the Cowlitz; of scientific corps U. S. ex. ex. iv.\n218, 241-2, 246, 250. Haler (Lorenzo), 1845, one of Fremont's men in '48-9,\nand perhaps in '45. iv. 583; v. 453. Halee, 1842, doubtful name at S. F.\nHaley (John), 1828, Irish cooper at S. Pedro from an Engl, vessel; in '29-30\nat S. Gab., age 34. ii. 558; written ' Geli' Hall (Basil), 1847, owner of S.F.\nlot. v. 678. H. (Chas), 1832, Boston trader at Los Ang. '33-6; d. before\n'62. iii. 408. H. (James), 1826, mate on the Rover. H. (James), 1831 (?),\nmate of a trader, perhaps same as preceding; visited S.F. '81 from Me. H.\n(James), 1844, disabled Amer. sailor aided by the consul; sailed on the Nantucket H. (James), 1848, at Mont., perhaps J. T. H. (J.T.), 1846, mr of\nthe Barnstable and Elizabeth '46-8, perhaps 2 men. v. 576-7. H. (John),\n1822, mr of the Lady Blackwood, author of notes on Cal. harbors, ii. 474; iv.\n151. H. (John or Chas), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); for many years a\nminer in Nev., where he died in '77, leaving a widow and daughter. H.\n(John T.), 1847, mr of the Malek Adhel. H. (R.R.), 1847, boatswain on the\nColumbus. H. (Willard P.), 1847, memb. of congress from Mo., who came\nas guide (?) with the Morm. Bat. v. 483; served in Co. C, Cal. Bat. (v. 358);\nwent east with Kearny, v. 452; and testified at Wash, in the Fremont court-\nmartial, v. 456.\nHalleck (Henry Wager), 1847, nat. of N.Y., graduate of West Point, and\nlieut of engineers U. S.A., who came with Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. to inspect\nPacific coast fortifications, v. 518-20. Besides attending to his duties as engineer office?, being soon brevetted captain, he went down the coast to take\npart in the military operations at Mazatlan and in L. Cal.; prepared a report\non Cal. land titles; and acted in '48-9 as govt secretary and auditor of revenues. In '49 he was an active and influential member of the constitutional\nconvention; and in '50-4 acted as inspector of light-houses on the Pac coast.\nThen he resigned his commission, and in '54-60 was a member of the law firm\nof Halleck, Peachy, & Billings in S.F., taking- part as counsellor in many of\nthe great land suits, acting as a kind of director of the New Almaden mines,\nacquiring a vast estate, and in '60-1 serving as major-gen. of militia. In '61\nhe went east and was commissioned major-gen.; commanded the dept. of Mo.\nin '61-2; was the highest miL authority at Wash, as senior general, and later\nas chief of staff in '62-5; commanded for a time at Richmond; was in '65-9\ncom. of the dept. of the Pacific; and from '69 of the dept of the South until\nhis death at Louisville, Ky, in '72, at the age of 56. No analysis of Gen. Hal-\nleck's character is called for here; his reputation is national, though he was\nessentially a Californian; and the positions held by him are sufficient to show\n 774 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nhis abilities. He was a cold-blooded, generally unpopular man; plodding\nrather than brilliant in all his efforts; arousing bitter enmity as well as profound admiration. He was the author of several professional works and translations, and his treatises on military, mining, and international law are re \u2022\ngarded as of standard value. His wife was a daughter of John C. Hamilton,\nand survived him with a son. H., 1847, brother of H.W., said to have been\nin the Q.M. dept., and to have died at Mont. '48. It may be that there is an\nerror in the date of death, and that this was Jabez Halleck, who was collector, harbor-master, and com. of deeds in '49.\nHaller (John J.), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. Halloran (Luke), 1846, memb.\nof the Donner party, who died before reaching Cal. v. 531. Halls (John),\n1847, surveyor at S. F., Mont., and N. Helv. '47-8. v. 683.      Halpin (Michael),\n1846, Irish bugler of Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Halsey, 1846, mr\nof the Caroline, v. 576.\nHam (Hiram), 1847, owner of S. F. lot. H. (R.S.), 1848, early settler\nand alcalde at Sonora. H. (Zacarias), 1831, with Wolfskill from N. Mex.;\nsaid to have been drowned in the Col. a little later, iii 387.      Hamel (Wm),\n1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518); died in '84. Swan. Hamell (Dr), 1847,\ndoubtful name at N-. Helv. Haines (John), 1844 (?), named at Soquel. iv.\n453; in '45 signed the S. Jose* call to foreigners, iv. 599; ment. in '46. v. 641;\nmemb. of Sta Cruz council '48. v. 642; alcalde in '49; claimant of Arroyo del\nRodeo'53. iii 677. Hamilton, 1847, of firm H. & Foster, Mont. H., 1845,\none of Fremont's men. iv. 583. H. (Geo. W.), 1846, of Cal. Bat. (v. 358);\nlumber dealer at Mont. '48; at S. Jose* '50. H. (James), 1847, Co. A, N. Y.\nVol. (v. 499); d. at Jackson, Amador Co., '58. H. (J.R.), 1846, act. mid.\non the Dale; lieut confed. navy '61-5. H. (Mary), 1846, one of the Mormon\ncol., perhaps with family, v. 546; Mary Sparks was her daughter.\nHamlen (Mortimer J.), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Hamley (Geo.\nW.), 1846, mrof the Stonington. v. 578,580; bearer of despatches from Stockton to Fremont in Jan. '47. v. 401; and in Dec witness at Wash., D. C; in\n'53 cl. for Guejito rancho. v. 621. His name is written in many ways, but I\nhave his autograph. Hammer (Robert), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d.\non Amer. Riv. '49. Hammond (Francis A.), 1847, from Hon. on the Currency Lass; kept a shoe-shop in S.F. '48. v. 685. H. (Thos C), 1846, lieut\nCo. K, 1st U.S. dragoons, v. 336, 341, 343; died of his wounds at S. Pascual.\nv. 343-7. Hampton (Wade), 1841, Amer. gunsmith in Workman-Rowland\nparty from N. Mex. iv. 278; at Los Ang. '42; returned via Mazatlan in '43,\nand was mysteriously killed on the way. Given.\nHance (Wm), 1838, Amer. sailor, who deserted from the Sarah and Caroline, perhaps in '36. iv. 118; arrested, but not exiled, in '40. iv. 17; got a pass\nin '41, being then a lumberman near Monterey. In '42 he signed an appeal on\nthe sufferings of the arrested party; in '44 got his pass renewed, living at S.\nF., age 35. Hancock (Chas), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). H. (Geo.\nW.), 1847, Co. C, ditto. H. (Levi W.), 1847, musician Co. E, Morm. Bat.,\nbeing also poet, preacher, and spiritual director of the battalion, v. 477,485,\n488, 493-4; in Utah '82. Hand, 1841, mr of the Hamilton, iv. 566. H.\n(Chas S.), 1847, at Benicia '47-8. v. 673. H. (Patrick), 1847, sergt Co. F.\n3d U.S. artill. v. 519. Handerick (James), 1847, owner of S.F. lots. v. 679.\nHandford, 1847, mr of the Jdven Guipuzcoana. Handley (Wm), 1837, mr of\nthe Loriot. iv. 105.      Hands, 1848, arrested at S. Jose\\ v. 662.\nHanks (Ephraim), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). H. (Ebenezer),\n1847, sergt ditto, v. 477. H. (Julian), 1845, mr of the Maria Teresa, v.\n587, 579; perhaps came earlier; at S. Jose* from '46, being member of the\ncouncil, v. 664; in '49 memb. of the constit. convention, a nat. of Conn, age\n37. He went later to L. Cal. Hanley (James), 1835-7, mr of the Clementine.\niii. 382, 442; iv. 102. Hann (Wm), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. Hanna, 1848,\nmr of the Lady Adams, v. 579. Hannah (Dolphus), 1845, doubtful overl.\nimmig. iv. 578. Hanner (Joseph), 1842, Amer. from N. Mex. at Los Ang.\n'42-3. Hannoah (Baptiste), 1848, d. at N. Helv. Hanns (H.), 1848, at\nHon. from S.F. on the Julian.     Hansen (Christian), 1840, mrof the Catalina\n m\nHANSEN\u2014HARMON. 775\n'40-2. iv. 192, 564; lieut in Mex. navy. Hanson (Geo. M.), 1846 (?), miner\nin early times, and later publisher of newspapers; perhaps an immig. of '46,\ndied in Lake Co. '78. Hanton (Matthew O.), 1847, Co. G, N.Y. Vol. (v.\n499). Harbin (James M.), 1846, overl. immig. (v. 526), who settled in Yolo\n'47, and about '57 at the springs in Lake that bear his name; sometimes accredited to '44. iv. 446; cl. for land in Napa and Yolo; d. Lake Co. '77. H.\n(Joshua), 1846, Co. E, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), enlisting at Son., Oct. H. (Matthew), 1844, son of J. M., and overl. immig. of the Stevens party, iv. 445,\n453. He went south and was one of the prisoners at Chino. v. 313-14; later\na resid. of Napa and Lake, and about '75 went to Mexico to engage in stock-\nraising. Harcourt (Geo.), 1846, Fauntleroy's dragoons (v. 232, 247); Co. G,\nCal. Bat. (v. 358).\nHardcoop, 1846, Belgian of the Donner party, who died before reaching\nthe Sierra, v. 531-2. Hardie (James A.), 1847, lieut 3d artill. U.S.A.,\nmajor N.Y.Vol. v. 574; in com. of S.F. garrison '47-8. v. 513, 515, 649, 659;\nowner of town lots. In the war of '61-5 a brig.-gen.; d. Wash. '76. Harding, 1846, doubtful name at Los Ang. H., 1847, mr of the Thos H. Benton.\nH. (Francis), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. H. (James), 1846, Co. G, Cal. Bat.\n(v. 358). H. (Thomas), 1845, Amer. sailor of the Tasso and Vandalia, aided\nby the consul, v. 587. Hardmont (Wm), 1847, Co. I, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499),\nat S. Jose '50; d. before '82. Hardy, 1848, com. of the U.S. Ohio. v. 579.\nH. (Daniel), 1848, newspaper record.      H. (H. C), 1848, owner of S.F. lot.\nHardy (Thomas M.), 1843, Canadian who possibly came earlier or had\nbeen naturalized in some other Mex. province, iv. 400; grantee this year of\nRio de Jesus Maria on the Sac. near mouth of Cache cr.; in '44 named in several records as carpenter and translator in Sonoma district, age 43. iv. 448;\nin '45-8 often named in N. Helv. Diary as visiting Sutter's Fort. I have an\noriginal letter in Span, of May '46. The Bear captors of Vallejo and Prudon\nspent the night at H.'s place, v. 120. He was unpopular with the settlers,\nperhaps because of his sympathy for the Mex. Had a Cal. claim for\nhorses; in the gold mines May '48; and a little later in '48 or '49 he\nwas drowned in Suisun Bay, perhaps accidentally. His property was sold by\nthe public administrator, and as late as '70 the sons of John Hardy\u2014claimed\nto be identical with Thos M.\u2014were trying in the courts to overthrow the\ntitle of J. M. Harbin and other holders under the administrator's sale and\nU.S. patent to the rancho. H. (Thos), 1847, at Benicia; perhaps same as\npreceding. H. (Wm H.), 1845, landed at Sta Cruz from a whaler, v. 587;\nworked for Larkin and others as a carpenter and lumberman, building a\nschooner '46; of H. & Jenkins '48; still at Sta Cruz '80. Hare (Henry),\n1836, Engl, clerk with Jas Watson at Mont., age 26, and single.\nHargrave (Wm), 1844, Amer. immig. from Or. in the Kelsey party, iv.\n444-5, 453; settling in Napa as a hunter. He was prominent in the Bear revolt, v. 78-9, 95, 104, 110, 119; and later served in the south as lieut of Co.\nC, Cal. Bat. v. 361, 283. He is occasionally ment. in divers records of '45-8.\nIn '78 he still lived in Napa, where he dictated for my use an interesting narrative of California in '46. Harlan (Geo.), 1846, overl. immig. from Ind.\nwith wife\u2014Elizabeth Duncan\u20142 sons, and 2 daughters, v. 528-30. He lived\nat S.F., and later in Contra Costa, dying in Sta Clara '50, and his wife in '48.\nH. (Elisha), 1846, son of Geo., in same party. H. (Joel), 1846, son of Geo.,\nb. Ind. '28; in '49 married Minerva, daughter of Wm Fowler; lived at many\ndif. places, and from '82 in Amador Val., where he died in '72, leaving a\nwidow and 7 children. Portrait in Contra Costa Co. Hist, 78. Harlem (P.\nW.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Harley (Henry), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol.\n(v. 499); d. near Sac. after '70.\nHarmand, see 'Harmon.' Harmes (Henry), 1847, owner of S. F. lot.\nH. (Wm), 1847, ditto. Harmon (De Witt J.), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v.\n499); at Murphy's, Calav. Co., '71-4. H. (Ebenezer), 1847, Co. C, Morm.\nBat. (v. 469). H. (Jacob), 1847, owner of lot at S.F. v. 685; in '48 had a\ngarden at the mission, and a wife, Elenora, who obtained a divorce in '49. He\ndied at S.F. '50, leaving a widow anil 2 children, Mary Ann and Jacob. The,\n 776 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nwidow married Michael Foley in '50, and died at Sta Clara '60. H. (Lorenzo\nF.), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. H. (Oliver N.), 1847, Co. E,\nditto; home missionary at Hoytsville, Utah, '82.\nHarnden, 1847, mr of the Naslednik. v. 579. Harner (Joseph), 1843,\nAmer. tailor from N. Mex., who had a shop at Mont., where he worked at\nhis trade, sold grog, and smuggled in a small way. Died in '44 of small-pox,\nleaving property worth about $2,000, of which the consul wrote to his mother,\nDolly H. of Va. Harnes (Henry), 1847, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Harness (Wm), 1846, at N. Helv. Jan.-March.\nHaro (Francisco de), 1819, Mex. sub-lieut of the S. Bias infantry comp.\nin Cal. ii. 253, 371. In '21 accomp. Arguello on his trip to the north, ii. 445;\nand in '22-3 served as sec of the govt and dip. ii. 461-3, 486, 676. In '24 2d\nin com. of the exped. against revolted neophytes, ii. 531-2; and the same\nyear retired from mil. service, ii. 675 (error in ii. 585); elector de partido '27.\nii. 584, 592; iii. 33; land grants in '29. ii. 595; iii. 75; suplente of the dip.\n'30-1. iii. 50, 187; vocal '33-4. iii. 246, 249-50. In '35 and '38 he was alcalde\nat S.F., and elector in '37. iii 703-5; in '41-4 sec. of the juzgado, and owner\nof town lots. iv. 665-6, 669, 676, 683. In '42, age 50, apparently a widower\n(his wife had been a daughter of Jose* Sanchez), child. Francisco and Ramon\nb. '27, Rosalia '28, Natividad '29, Prudencio '31, Carlota '33, Dolores '36, Jesus Felipe '40, Alonzo. The oldest daughter, Josefa, b. '25, was the wife of\nFran. Guerrero, and cl. for the ranchos granted to her father and brothers.\nRosalia became the wife of A. A. Andrews, and later of Chas Brown, iv. 669.\nIn '46 Don Francisco was at times acting sub-prefect, inspector of election,\nand candidate for alcalde, v. 295, 648. He died in '48. His twin sons, Francisco and Ramon, were militiamen at S.F. in '43; were granted, or permitted\nto occupy,, the Potrero in '44. iv. 673; Ramon, or 'Chico,' was involved in\nthe Libbey assault of '45 (iv. 569); and both were murdered by Fremont's\nmen at S. Rafael in June '46. v. 171-4.      H. (Ignacio), at Sonoma '44, age 20.\nHarper (Thos W.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. Sta B. '56. Har-\nran (Geo. and Joel), 1847, lots at S.F., prob. 'Harlan,' q. v. Harriens (David),\n1826, mr of the Cyrus; also in '30. iii. 146. Harrington (John), 1847, Co.\nD, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Harris* 1847, in prison at N. Helv. for stealing horses.\nH., 1847, from Hon. on the Currency Lass. H. (Austin), 1848, passed mid.\non the U.S. Independence. H. (Geo. Aug.), 1826, trader who had a quarrel\nwith Dav. Spence. H. (Geo. C.), 1846, on the Sarah Parker ace to Swan.\nH. (Henry), 1846, of the Mormon col., joining at Hon., and somewhat prominent by reason of his suit against Brannan. Annals of S.F., 750. At S.F.\n'47-8; owner of town lots. v. 685. His wife was Mary , and their only\nchild, Henry Wm, died in '48. H. (James), 1830, shipwrecked sailor of the\nDanube; still at Sta B. '36. iii 180. H. (John), 1844, Engl, at Mont. H.\n(John D.), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. v. 685. H. (J. H.), 1848, subscribes for\na ball at Mont. H. (Robert), 1847, captain's clerk on the Columbus; perhaps\nsame as preceding. H. (Robert), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). H.\n(Silas), 1847, Co. B, ditto; a Utah farmer '81; mail-carrier '48.\nHarris (Stephen), 1847, Q. M. sergt N.Y. Vol. v. 503; with wife and 2\ndaughters. One of the latter died at S.F. in Aug.; the other was born on the\nvoy., and christened Alta California at Rio Janeiro with much ceremony, v.\n512, getting a S.F. lot in '48, as her father had in '47; candidate for council\nin '47. v. 650; still in Cal. '54. H. (Stephen A.), 1848, owner of S.F. lot;\nleft CaL in'50 and d. '67. His lot was claimed in '54 by Stephen, whose grantees\nheld it from '64; and the heirs of Stephen A., in '70-9, were unable to recover the\nland in the courts. H. (Mrs S. E.), 1845, at Sonoma '77; maiden name not\ngiven. H. (Wm), 1844, Amer. sailor put ashore by the Vandalia; shipped\nby the consul on the C. W. Morgan. H. (Wm), 1846, Fauntleroy's dragoons\n(v. 232, 247).     H. (Wm A.), 1847, asst surg. on the Independence '47-8.\nHarrison (Ed. H.), 1847, Q.M. clerk of N.Y.Vol. and of the dept at S.F.;\na prominent man from '48* school trustee, president of public meetings, owner\nof lots, and collector of the port. v. 575, 650-1, 656-7, 659, 678, 685; apparently of DeWitt & H., a well-known S.F. firm.     H. (G.), 1847, mid. on the\n HARRISON\u2014HARTNELL. 777\nU.S. Columbus. H. (Henry A.), 1848, had a store in S.F.; memb. of council '49; died in N. Y. '57. H. (H.H.), 1841, mid. on the U. S. St Louis.\nH. (Isaac), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Sandy, Utah, '81. H.\n(Israel), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. H. (N.B.), 1846, mid. and act. master of\nthe U.S.Portsmouth; sent by Montgomery to Sloat with despatches, v. 228;\nat Mont. '48. H. (Thos), 1846, doubtful mention; a Mrs Russell is also said\nto have come in '46 with her father and mother named Harrison. Harron\n(James), 1847, Co. D, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); at Sentinel, Fresno, '83. Harsh\n(Dan.), 1847, in Napa Val.\nHart, 1839, mr of the Flibberty-gibbet iv. 103-4. H. (Henry L.), 1847,\nCo. A, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. in L. Cal. '48. H. (James S.), 1847, Co. E,\nMorm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. H. (Jerome), 1847, Co. G, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499);\nd. in Shasta '52. H. (John), 1829-30, mr of a vessel on the coast. H.\n(John),.1847, Co. D, ditto; at S.F. '71-4; d. before '82. H. (Joseph), 1846,\nCo. G, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); enlisted at S. Jose, Oct. Hartcell (David), 1847,\nCo. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 518). Hartman (Henry), 1847, owner of S.F. lot,\nwho had a tin-shop in '48. v. 684. Hartnell (Horatio Nelson), see ' Hart-\nwell.' H. (Jack), 1834, at Mont. H. (Wm A.), 1846, celador of Mont.\ncustom-house, v. 570.\nHartnell (Wm Edward Petty), 1822, nat. of Lancashire, Engl., b. 1798,\nwho, after a resid. of several years in S. Amer., came to Cal. on the John Begg,\nas member of the firm McCulloch, H., & Co., agents of Begg & Co. of Lima,\nand of the Brothertons in Liverpool anft Edinburgh. This firm made a contract to take mission produce for 3 years from '23, and for some years did a\nlarge business, ii 474-9, 564, 591, 603, 659; iii 24, 28. In '24 he was baptized at S. Carlos, the name Edward being added at that time (the ' Paty'\nof ii. 475 is prob. an error); and in '25 married Maria Teresa de la Guerra.\niii. 27, 29. His business was prosperous down to '26, and some loans were\nmade to the govt; but in '27-9 there came reverses that caused him to go to\nS. Amer. in '29 to close the partnership, leaving him with a heavy burden of\ndebt, iii 49, 57-8, 71, 118,121-2, 127-8, 138,147, 176. In '30 he was naturalized, and in '31 undertook the life of a ranchero at Alisal in partnership with\nthe Soberanes. In '32 he com. the comp. extranjera at Monterey in support of\nZamorano. iii 221-5, 672; and in '33-6 acted as Cal. agent of the Russian\ncomp. iv. 162-4; grantee in '34 of the Alisal, or Patrocinio, rancho, ii. 616,\nwhere with Father Short he established a kind of college, called \"sometimes\nSeminario de S. Jose*, iii. 317, 670, 677-8. In '35-6 he was regidor. iii. 293,\n673, 675; his children then being Guillermo Ant. b. '27, Adalberto '32, Jose*\n'34, and Matilde '36, one or two having died and others perhaps not living at\nthe college, where there were then 13 students. He was also collector of taxes\nand customs in '36-7, and employed to make a padron of the district, iii. 672;\niv. 96, 116; but about this time the school was given up as unprofitable, and\nH. found it difficult to support his family. In '39-40 he served by Alvarado's\nappointment as visitador general of missions, at a salary of $2,000, his faithful efforts for reform being recorded, with his reports, in iii 600-1, 620, 624-\n8, 645, 657-8, 661, 664, 666, 683, 685, 688, 691, 718, 720, 725, 728; iv. 9, 55-\n62, 194-5. Visited by Douglas '41. iv. 212; interpreter in '42 for Com. Jones'\ninvestig. of the Graham affair; in '43 an officer of customs, iv. 377, tithe collector, court clerk, and teacher; in '44, 1st officer, inspector, interpreter, and\nacting admin, of the custom-house, having also an interesting corresp. with\nWyllie on plans of Engl, colonization, iv. 403, 430-1, 451-2, 654; ment. in\n'45. iv. 515, 559; being still in the custom-house '45-6, somewhat unfriendly\nto the U.S. until he lost all hope of an Engl, protectorate, v. 7, 9, 61, 235,\n570. After the change of flag he was appointed by Stockton surveyor and\nappraiser of customs, being elected councillor, serving on the 1st jury, and\nmaking a trip to Honolulu in Dec. v. 289, 293, 637. In '47-50 H. was employed by the U.S. authorities as official interpreter and translator, v. 609, in\nwhich capacity he rendered most important services, both in connection with\nlegal and land matters and the constit. convention. Later he was county\nassessor and held other positions, being claimant for two ranchos. iv. 643; iii\n 778 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\n676; dying in '54 at the age of 56. Hartnell was a man who enjoyed and\nmerited the respect and friendship of all who knew him, being perfectly\nhonest and straightforward in all his transactions, of most genial temperament, and too liberal for his own interests. In some directions he was a man\nof rare ability, being a master of the Spanish, French, and German languages\nbesides his own. He was not a good business manager, lacking application,\nmethod, and energy, and being always in financial trouble; but in any clerical or subordinate capacity he was most reliable and efficient. In the later\nyears he drank to excess. Besides the original records of the Convention of '49\nand the valuable Diario del Visitador Gen. '89-40, I have hundreds of his\nletters in various private archives; and indeed, his family doc. form more than\none vol. of the Vallejo collection, which should bear his name. His correspond \u25a0\nents were men of education and standing in many parts of the world. His\nwidow still lives at Salinas in '85, at the age of 76, being still owner of the\nAlisal rancho. She gave me a personal Narrativa. There were 20 sons and 5\ndaughters ace to her own statement. In '40 there had been 13, of whom 9\nwere living. Besides the 4 named above, I find the following in the Sta B. Co.\nHist.: Juan, Uldarico, Pablo, Alvano (?), Nathaniel (died), George, Frank,\nBenjamin, Teresa, Anita, Magdalena, and Amelia. There was also an Este* van.\nRamon (perhaps Jose*) was majordomo at S. Juan in '40; Wm A. was customhouse guard in '45-6. Most of the sons seem to have inherited the father's\nweaknesses rather than his abilities; but several became respectable citizens.\nHartwell (Lorenzo Nelson), 1834, Amer. sailor from the Catalina at S.\nDiego, iii. 412; still there in '40, naturalized and married. Called generally\nHoratio and Lawrence Hartnell, but I have his authograph of '38. H.\n(Wm), 1834, Engl., age.36, testifies in favor of John Reed. Hartwig, 1847,\na naturalist at N. Helv. in June. Harvan (Wm), 1846, doubtful name at\nLos Ang.      Harvey (Thos), 1831, mate of the Catalina.\nHashagen, 1847, mr of the Clementine, v. 577. Haschal (A. G.), 1846,\none of the Mormon col. v. 546; lot at S.F. '47; did not go to Utah; perhaps\n'Haskell.' Thales Haskell is also named. Haskell (Geo.), 1847, Co. B,\nMorm. Bat. (v. 469).      H. (J. G.), 1847, owner of S.F. lot.      H. (John W.),\n1847, Co. F, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. Sta B. '78. Hasking (Henry), 1847, at\nHon. from S.F. on the Julia. Haslitt (Geo.), 1845, perhaps one of Fremont's\nmen. iv. 583, 587; in Sonoma Co. '74; a Cherokee Ind.      Hassard (J. G.),\n1848, passp. from Hon. Hassel (H.), 1848, ditto. Hastie, 1848, from Hon.\non the Sagadahoc\nHastings (Lansford W.), 1843, nat. of Ohio, b. '19, a lawyer who com. a\nparty crossing the plains to Or. '42, and came to Cal. '43 in com. of the immig.\nparty that bears his name. iv. 389-92, 400, 444. His views were those of a\nfilibuster, but he found that the time had not come for a successful movement;\nso he went back in '44, by sea and across Mex., to publish a worthless book\ncalled an Emigrant's Guide, and to attract settlers and prospective revolutionists by lectures and other methods, iv. 396-9, 355-6, 2, 6, 20, 26. In '45\nhe returned with another party overland to Cal. iv. 585-6; but in the spring\nof '46. after the settlers' revolt had been postponed, went with Clyman's party\nto Salt Lake in search of more immig., and thus missed the Bear movement.\nv. 526, 529; but returned in the autumn with Harlan's party, by H.'s new cutoff, which proved so fatal to the Donners, in time to serve as capt. of Co. F,\nCal. Bat. v. 529-30, 359, 361. Before going east, however, he and Bid well had\nlaid out the new town of Sutterville, reported at the time to be intended for\na Mormon town, v. 58; and indeed, H. was an agent for the Mormons in the\nsecular phases of their enterprise, v. 548; selecting a site at Montezuma,\nSolano, where some time in '47-8 he built an adobe house, still standing in '80,\nand established a ferry across the S. Joaquin, v. 552. In '47-8 he also practised law at S.F., being the owner of town lots. v. 579, 645, 678, 681. In March\n-April '48 he was trying to recruit a battalion of volunteers to put down an\nimaginary revolt in the south; in May was elected school trustee at S.F.; in\nJuly married Charlotte Catherine, daughter o#f Hopeful Toler,-at Sac, and in\nSept. was appointed judge of the northern district. In '49 he was a member\n m\nHASTINGS\u2014HAY. 779\nof the constit. convention, utilizing his geographical acquirements in the fixing\nof a boundary. He lived at or near Sac. till '57; then went to Arizona; came\nback on a visit in '64; and is said to have died in Brazil about '70. He was an\nintelligent, active man, never without some grand scheme on hand, not overburdened with conscientious scruples, but never getting caught in anything very\ndisreputable. H. (Sam. J.), 1841, mr of the Tasso '41-4. iv. 569. Haswell\n(Robert), 1788, Engl, mate of the Washington in voy. to N. W. coast, the 1st\nAmer. vessel to enter Cal. waters. H. kept a diary which was furnished me\nby hi3 daughter, Mrs John J. Clark, who died at Roxbury, Mass., in '83, at the\naS6Hatch (James B.), 1842, mr of the Barnstable '42-3, '44-5; possibly on the\ncoast before, iv. 341, 563, 101; iii. 381; also mrof the Loo Choo in '47. v. 511.\nH (J W.), 1848 (?), killed accidentally at Napa '79. H. (Melthah), 1847,\nCo C Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Panguich, Utah, '82, H. (Orin), 1847, ditto,\nat Bountiful, Utah, '82. H. (Prince G.), 1847, in S.F. list of letters. H.\n(Sam. B.), 1843, at Sta Cruz. Hathaway (Humphrey), 1838, came on a vessel com. by Capt. Howland, and worked as a carpenter at Mont. On Larkm's\nbooks '38-43; in Farnham's list of arrests in '40; left Mont.\u2014and his debts\u2014\non the Rajah in '43. iv. 17, 119. H. (James M.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v.\n499)- d Downieville '51. H. 1848, from Hon. on the Sagadahoc. Hatler\n(Alex )' 1847, owner of S.F. lots. v. 685.      Hatton (Wm), 1826, on the Rover.\nHauff (Ernest), 1847, musician N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at S.F. '71-4; in Mendocino Co. '83. Haughty (Michael), 1847, Co. I, ditto. Haulstorn (Alex.),\n1830 doubtful name in a business account. Haun (John S.), 1846(?), nat. of\nMo.;' in Sta Clara Co. '76; perhaps son of Wm. H. (Wm), 1846, settler at\nSta Clara with wife, Lavinia Whisman, the latter still living in '80. Haust\n(Joseph), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. Havey (John), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v.\n499); at West Point, Calaveras Co.,'71-82. f&Mi        \u201e\nHawes (Horace), 1847, nat. of N. Y., who visited Cal. from Hon. on the\nAngola, en route to Tahiti, where he had been appointed U.S. consul. In 49\nhe came back and was prefect at S.F., where he spent the rest of his life as a\nprominent lawyer and legislator. He was the author of an important treatise\non the Cal. mission cases, and of many other well-known briefs, political\npamphlets, and speeches; also of the S.F. consolidation bill of '56 and registry\nlaw of '66; a member of the assembly for two terms, and of the state senate\nin '63-4. Hawes was a self-made man, a shrewd lawyer, a man of powerful\nmind, original in his views and methods, but full of conceit, suspicious by\nnature, always unpopular, and eccentric to the verge of insanity in his later\nyears. He became a millionaire, and by his will of '71\u2014the year of his death\nat the age of 58\u2014left the bulk of his estate for the foundation of Mount Eagle\nUniversity and a Chamber of Industry, making but a comfortable provision\nfor his heirs and relations. But the heirs, in a suit that is one of the causas\ncelebres of Cal., succeeded in breaking the will on the ground of the testator's\ninsanity, and thus defeated his plans for the public good and his own permanent fame. His 2d wife, married in '58, was Catherine Coombs, who survived\nhim with a son, Horace, who died in '84, and a daughter, Caroline, who married James, the son of Alfred Robinson, and is still living in '85.\nHawk (Nathan), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); overland mail-carrier\nin '48, being employed by Brannan. H. (Wm), 1847, ditto; at Salt Lake\nCity '81. Hawkhurst, 1837, perhaps one of the men employed to drive cattle to Or. iv. 85. Hawkins, 1848, lieut with Gen. Lane, Sta Fe* to Or. via\nS Diego. Coutts. H. (Benj.), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in S. F.\nletter list '48. H. (John A. or P.), 1847, perhaps of N. Y. Vol. under another\nname (v. 499); d. at S. F. H. (Sam.), 1845, doubtful name of an overl.\nimmig. iv. 578. H. (Wm), 1830 (?), trapper of Ashley's comp., said to have\nhunted in the S. Joaquin Val. in very early times, and again in '52. Mont.\nCo. Hist, 29. H. (Zacarias), 1845, doctor and overl. immig. prob. to Or.,\nand not Cal. iv. 578. Hawley (Jos.), 1842, mr of the whaler Hague 42, 44;\niv. 566.     Haws (Alpheus P.), 1847, sergt Co. D, Morm. Bat. v. 477.\nHay, 1847, Scotchman, of H. & Dickson, S.F. traders at the 'Beehive\n 780 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX,\nstore '47-50; owner of town lots. v. 675,684; left Cal. after '50. H. (G.C.),\n1848, treasurer of S.F.; called 'Dr'; perhaps same as preceding. Hayden\n(Geo. W.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Hayes, 1845, Amer. immig.\nfroin Or. in the McM.-Clyman party; prob. went back in '46; but may have\nbeen the H.' wounded at Natividad. iv. 572; v. 526,367. H., 1848, at Mont.\nfrom Hon. on the S. Francisco. H. (Elias), 1833, Amer. at Mont. '33-6; in\n'34-5 making shingles for Abel Stearns, iii. 409. H. (Jacob), 1846, one of\nthe Mormon col. v. 546; did not go to Utah; d. before '80; called also 'Hayse.'\nH. (James), 1846, at Mont, as a kind of policeman; in the Cal. Bat., wounded\nat Natividad in Nov. v. 367; also called John. H. (Wm B.), 1847, mid. on\nthe U.S. Dale; died at sea in '49. Hayt (Elisha), 1848, doubtful name at\nMont.; prob. * Hyatt.' Haywood (Philip H.), 1846, mid. on the Independence;\nlieut in Stockton's bat. '47. v. 386, 391-5.\nHealy, 1845, on the Sterling at Mont. Hearn (Thos), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.\nVol. (v. 499). Heartstene (H.T.), 1842, lieut U. S. N., sent east by Com.\nJones with despatches, iv. 313. Heath (Chas), 1843, nat. of N. Y., who got\na carta in Oct., living at Sta Cruz. iv. 400, 356; ment. at N. Helv. '45-7; in\n'47 owner of S.F. lot, and builder of a ferry-boat at Benicia. v. 671,673, 678.\nH. (Rich. W.), 1846 (?), came as quartermaster U.S.A., and later had a ferry\non the Stanislaus. Tinkham. H. (Russell), 1847, doubtful mention at S.\nBuen. H. (W.), 1848, passp. from Hon. Heathcoat, 1847, possibly of N.\nY.Vol. under another name. Heathcote (Theodore), 1846, sergt Co. C, 1st\nU.S. dragoons; in '48 ordnance sergt at Los Ang.\nHeceta (Bruno), 1775, Span. capt. and com. of the Santiago in explor. voy.\nto Cal. and the N. W. coast, i 241, 247-8, 280, 330.     Hecox (Adna A.),\n1846, nat. of Mich., b. 1806, and overland immig. with wife, Margaret M.\nHamer, and 3 children, v. 529. Remaining at Sta Clara during the winter\u2014\u25a0\nthat is, ' taking an active part in the war with Mexicans'\u2014he went to the\nSta Cruz region, where he built a saw-mill, and worked as carpenter and\nbuilder; went to the mines for a short time in '48; alcalde at Sta Cruz '48-9.\nv. 642; later justice of the peace; county treasurer '61-3; from '70 in charge\nof the Sta Cruz light-house till his death, in '83. He was a methodist, and one\nof the first who preached protestant sermons in Cal. v. 641. His narr. of his\nearly life, overl. trip, and experience in Cal., was published in the S. Jos\u00a3\nPioneer of '77, and was embodied by Willey in the Sta Cruz Co. Hist. His\ntestimony on events connected with the 'war' in '46-7, like that of so many\nother immigrants, has little value. His widow survived him, with the following child.: Mrs M. E. Stampley of Carson, Nev., Mrs C. M. Brown of S.F.,\nand Adna H. Hecox of S. Luis Ob., all pioneers of '46, and of those born in\nCal. Mrs M. Longley of Sta Cruz, Mrs A. Rigg, Laura J., and Orville S. Portrait of Adna A. in Sta Cruz Hist, 44. He was an active and respectable man\nof business.     Hedges, 1844, mr of the Monmouth, iv. 567.\nHeeney (Robert), 1846, marine on the U.S. Dale; one of Marston's men in\nthe Sanchez campaign of '47; slightly wounded, v. 381.     Hefferman (Chas),\n1847, Co. F, N. Y.Vol. (v. 499); in the mines '48; died at S.F. before '82.\nHeft (Geo.), 1816, sailor on the Lydia. ii. 275. Hegarty (Peter), 1845,\nsigner of the S. Jose* call to foreigners, iv. 599; on the 1st S.Jose* jury'48. Hegel\n(Fred.), 1841, named in Larkin's accts '41-2. iv. 279; said to have been in the\nBodega region '48-9; perhaps some confusion or relationship bet. him and\n'Hagler;' also *Hugel,' q.v. Hehn (Henry), 1847, musician of N.Y.Vol.\n(v. 499). Heil (Fred.), 1842, passp. at Mont.; perhaps ' Hegel' or ' Hugel.'\nHeinrich (Chas), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 299); in the mines '48; later a\ntrader at Sac, where he still lived in '82; nat. of Germany, b. '24; wife from\n'50, Sarah Neubauer. Heinricks (Ed.), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336).\nHeitleman, 1847, from Mazatlan with letters from Talbot & Co.\nHeleno, grantee of Cosumnes rancho '44. '   Helmstadler (James), 1847, Co.\nB, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Hembkey (Conrad), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons\n(v. 3\u00a76). Hemen (James), 1828, Irish sailor, age 40, at Mont. '28-9. Hem-\nenror (M. W.), 1846, doubtful name at Los Ang.      Hemerle (John), 1846, Co.\nC, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336).     Hempstead, 1847, mr of the Corea. v. 577.\n HEMPSTEAD\u2014HERMOSILLO. 781\nHempstead (Sidney C), 1831, trader on the coast. Hen(Wm), 1846, doubtful name. Hittell, and Soc Cal. Pion. roll. See' Haun.' Henderson (And. J.),\n1846, asst surg. on the U.S. Portsmouth; at N.Helv. and Sonoma in Bear\ntimes, v. 126, 128, 300; surg. of Stockton's bat. '47. v. 385. H. (Christian),\n1846, Fauntleroy's dragoons (v. 232, 247). H. (James), 1842, lieut U.S.N.\nMaxwell H. (Levin), 1846, sailor in navy, on sentry duty at Mont.; deserts\nwith his escaping prisoners. H. (Moses), 1847, in S.F. letter list. H. (T.),\n1848, passp. from Hon. H. (Wm,) 1826, mr of the Olive Branch '26-7. iii\n148, 154. H. (Wm), 1870, doubtful name in Farnham's list; perhaps 'Anderson,'q.v. H. (W. T.), 1848, nat. of Tenn., arr. S.F.June; perhaps same\nas T. above; in '50 slayer of Joaq. Murieta; in Fresno '80. Hendricks\n(Joseph), 1844, at Sonoma, age 54. H. (Wm), 1848, barber at S.F. v. 682.\nH. (Wm D.), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Richmond, Utah, '82.\nHendrickson (Henry), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Vallejo '74. H.\n(James), 1847, Co. C, Morm Bat. (v. 469). Hendy (James), 1846, marine on\nthe Congress, wounded at the S. Gabriel, Jan. '47. v. 395. , Henge (T.), 1848,\npassp. from Hon.\nHennet, 1829, mr of the John Coleman, iii 147. Henriquez (Antonio),\nartisan at Sta Cruz, 1795. i 496. H. (Abraham), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill.\n(v. 518). Henry (Dan.), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Monte, Utah,\n'82. H. (Francis), 1844, Irish sailor of the Vandalia, arrested at Mont.\nH. (James), 1844, Scotch sailor on the Vandalia; prob. same as preceding,\niv. 453. Known as ' Scotch Harry;' at Mont, and Sta Cruz '45-6; in Fallotfs\ncomp. at S. Jose*; then served 2 years on the Portsmouth and Cyane. In '48\nkept a shop at Mont.; in the mines '49-52; traveled 10 years in dif. parts of\nthe world; went to Frazer River, and died in the Sonoma Co. hospital '76. His\nnarr. was pub. in the Stockton Indep. of July 14, '76, but no reliance can\nbe put in details. H. (James), 1847, Co. E, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499). H.\n(Robert), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. v. 683. Henschel (H. L), 1848, German\ncustom-house broker in S.F. from '52 to '68, the year of his death; left a wife\nand two daughters. Henshaw (Geo.), 1841, overl. immig. of the Bartleson\nparty, who went back in '42. iv. 266, 270, 275. H. (Hiram), 1846, doubtful name in list of Cal. claimants (v. 462).\nHensley (Samuel J.), 1843, nat. of Ky, and overl. immig. of the Chiles-\nWalker party, iv. 392, 394, 400. He had been a trapper and had spent some\nyears in N. Mex. In '44 he was naturalized, got a grant of the Agua de Nieves rancho, iv. 670, and entered Sutter's service as supercargo of the launch;\nsigning the order for Weber's arrest, iv. 483. He served as commissary in\nSutter's army during the Micheltorena campaign, iv. 485-7, 517. Returning\nto the north, he took charge of Hock farm and attended to Sutter's general\nbusiness, being often named in the N. Helv. Diary. In '46 he was prominent in\nfomenting the Bear revolt, v. 80,104, 127-8,170; was capt., and later major,\nof the Cal. Bat. in the south, v. 309, 328, 356, 360, 386,391-5, 435; had a Cal.\nclaim (v. 462); and a S.F. lot. v. 685. Going east with Stockton in '47, he\ntestified at the Fremont court-martial, v. 454, 456; but returned to Cal. in\n'48, and after a brief experience in the mines opened a store at Sac. in partnership with Reading. From '50 he engaged in navigation of the Sac. river, and\na little later was one of the founders of the Cal. Steam Nav. Co., of which he\nbecame president. His residence for many years was at S. Jos6, and he died\nat Warm Springs, Alameda Co., in '66, at the age of 49. Of his career and\nthat of his fellow-filibusters in '46 enough is said elsewhere; otherwise Maj.\nHensley's record is that of an honest and successful man of business, of strong\nwill and well-balanced mind, generous, temperate, and brave. His wife was\nHelen, daughter of E. O. Crosby, who survived him with a son and daughter.\nHenysey (James), 1842, Scotch sawyer in a S.F. list.\nHerbert (Thos), 1842, Engl, lumberman at S.F., age 33, Herd (Henry),\n1834, Amer. in Mont. dist. '34-7. iii 412. Heredia (Bernardo), settler at S.\nJose from 1791; in '95 owner of Chupadero rancho; in 1803 regidor at S. Jose*,\ni 683, 716; ii 134. Herman (Jacob), 1845, overl. immig. iv. 578, 587; lived\nat S.F. mission '46-9 with a family; d. before '55. Hermosillo (Nicolas),\nleader of a revolt at Los Ang. and S. Diego '46. v. 308, 329.\n 782 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nHernandez (Antonio), saddler instructor 1792-6. i, 615, 684. H. (Antonio), soldier in S.F. comp. '19-35. H. (Cornelio), at S. Jose* '49, a soap-\nmaker. H. (Domingo), a Mex. convict whose term expired in '35. H.\n(Dom.), nat. of Cal. and a noted desperado and murderer from '45-6; sentenced\nto be hanged on one occasion, but saved by the breaking of the rope, only to\nbe hanged by vigilantes in later years. Some of his brothers and sisters are\nsaid to have been criminals; but there is little definite information about any\nof them. H. (Encarnacion), soldier murdered at Mont. '34. iii 673. H.\n(Felipe), convict settler of 1798; alcalde of Branciforte 1805; grantee of Laguna de Calabazas '33. i 606; ii. 156; iii. 677. H. (Jose*), convict settler of\n1798, pardoned 1803, grantee of Rinconada de los Gatos '40. i 606; ii. 156; iii\n712. H. (Juan), convict settler of 1798. i. 606. H. (Juan), regidor at S.\nJose* '22; stabbed by Mojica. ii. 604-5. H. (Juan Ant.), at S. Jose* '41, age\n58. H. (Juan Maria), Mex. at S. Jose* '41, age 65, wife Francisca Lorenzana,\nchild. Pedro b. '20, Jose* Jesus '25; grantee of Ojo de AgUa '35. iii. 712. H.\n(Juana), poisoned her husband '43. iv. 364. ' H. (Mariano), at S. Jose* '41,\nage 29, wife Rosario Bernal, child. Fernando b. '37, Maria '38, and 2 others;\ngrantee of Puerto in '44. iv. 672. H. (Santiago), soldier of S.F. comp.\n'39-43. iv. 667. H. (Simon), soldier in the Hidalgo piquete at Mont. '36,\nage 32. H. (Tomasa), Cal. claim $100 (v. 462). Hernano (Antonio), ment.\nof his lawsuit '47. v. 663.\nHerrera (Dolores), 1840, nat. of N. Mex., at S. Luis Ob. to '83. H. (Ignacio), took church asylum '30. ii. 660. H. (Jose*), corp. of S.F. comp. prom, to\nsergt 1811 for braveryin Ind. exped. ii 91. Still sergt '20-4. H. (Jose* Maria),\n1825, Mex. sub-comisario at Mont., who was involved in controversies with\nGov. Echeandia and was sent to Mex. for alleged complicity in the Solis revolt, ii. 551, 607, 614, 648; iii 14, 33, 38, 59-85, 117, 125, 159. In '34 he\ncame back in the same capacity with the H. & P. colony; was in new troubles\narising from the amours of his wife, Ildefonsa Gonzalez; and was again exiled\nin '36 because he refused to support the Alvarado govt. iii. 261-7, 377, 436-\n9, 672; iv. 96. See also biog. ment. in iii. 466. He was a man of much ability\nand good education, to whom the California ts, without much apparent reason,\ngive a bad character. In '36 he was 33 years old, and had 2 children at Mont.,\nVicente b. '33, and Eulalia b. '35. H. (Jose* M.), regidor at Los Ang. '36-8;\nage 33 in '39; served under Castro '47. iii. 481, 509, 564-5, 636; v. 363. H.\n(Tomas). grantee of S. Juan Cap. del Camote '46. v. 637; still a ranchero in\nS. Luis Ob. '60, having held several local offices after '48. H. (Trineo),\nMex. at S. Miguel rancho, Mont., '36, age 28, wife Antonia Garcia, child\nTeresa b. 32.\nHerriot (Adam), 1846, at Sta Cruz. Herron (James C.), 1845, mid. on -\nthe U.S. Portsmouth. H. (Walter), 1846, one of the Donner party from HI.\nv. 530, 532. He came in advance over the mts with Reed; served in the Cal.\nBat., Co. B; got a S.F. lot in '47, and aided O'Farrell as a surveyor at Stockton; but I find no later record of him. Hersey (Stephen), 1832, mr of the\nNewcastle, iii. 383. Herven (Jon.), 1840, doubtful name of Farnham's list,\niv. 17. Hescock (Isaac), 1845, doubtful name of an Amer. in the Brancif.\npadron, age 65, in the family of Isabel Patterson (?). Hess, 1845, at N.\nHelv., prob. overl. immig. of Grigsby-Ide party, iv. 578-80. His daughter\nNancy married John Chamberlain in Jan. '46, and all the fam. went to Or.\nHetherington (Wm E.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Hense (Sam.\nE.), 1846, sailor in the navy; in Amador Co. '52-79, the date of his death.\nHewen (Jon.), 1840, in Farnham's list.' Hewes, 1847, mr of the Iris. v. 578.\nHewitt (A.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); perhaps at N. Helv. '48; see\nalso 'Huet' of '45. H. (Geo:), 1839, Amer. sailor and otter-hunter in Sta B.\ndist. '39-41. iv. 119, 24. Hewlett (Palmer B.), 1847, lieut Co. I, N.Y.Vol.\nv. 504; later militia gen.; in Sonoma Co. '71-82. Heydenrich (Wm), 1847,\nCo. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Heyerman (A.), 1847 (?), doctor said to have left\nthe Clementine; at N. Helv. May '48, on his way to the mines; also said to\nhave lived at Petaluma from '45 (?) to '52, and to have returned in '73. Hey-\nland (John), 1847, Co. A, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499).     Heyward (James), 1847,\n HEYWARD\u2014HIGUERA. 783\nnephew of Com. Shubrick, at Mont, with letters to Larkin; returned to Hon\nolulu '48.     Heywood (Chas), 1847, lieut on the U.S. Independence.\nHibler (Geo.), 1845, Amer. immig. from Or. in McM.-Clyman party, iv.\n572, 526; prob. went back in '46. Hickenlooper (Wm F.), 1847, Co. A,\nMorm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. Hickey, 1818, com. of an Engl, vessel at Mont,\nii 291. Hickman (Thos), 1842 (?), German butcher in Alameda '70-8. iv. 341.\nHickmot (John), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Hicks (Harry), 1833,\nAmer. in Mont. dist. '33-5; also called George, iii. 409. H. (Henry), 1839,\nnegro cook on the California. H. (Joseph), 1833, Amer. tailor on the Leonor;\nat Sta B. '36; perhaps-same as Harry, iii 409. H. (Joseph), 1846, one of\nthe Mormon col. who remained in Cal.; owner of S.F. lot '47; died before 80.\nv 546, 678. H. (Joseph Henry), 1841, built a house for Prudon at Sonoma;\nprob. same as Harry and Joseph of '33. H. (Wm), 1843, nat. of Tenn.,\noverl. immig. from Mo. in Walker-Chiles party, iv. 392, 400; at Sutter's Fort\n'47; claimed a land grant on theCosumnes, iv. 671, where the town of Hicks-\nville was named for him, and where he died in '84, at the age of 67. His wife\nwas a Mrs Wilson, who died a few years before him. Hicky, 1847, at N.\nHelv.; prob. Hicks.      Hidalgo (Miguel), at Mont, and Los Ang. '35. iii 285.\nHigares (Francisco), 1833, named as a Dutch shoemaker from the U.S. at\nLos Ang. in '36, age 29. iii. 409. Higgins, 1846, in Pt Reyes region. Marin\nCo. Hist. H., 1848, from Australia with his family. El Dorado Co. Hist.\nH., 1848, with Buffum in the mines. H., 1848, deserter arrested at S. Jose*.\nv. 663. H. (Edward), 1847, at work on Larkin's house at Benicia '48. v.\n673. H. (Edward), 1846, act. lieut U.S.N., and capt. Stockton's bat. '46-7;\nlater capt. in merchant marine N. Y., and officer in confed. navy; in '75 agent\nof P.M.S.S.Co. at S. F., where he died in that year. v. 386. H. (Isaac),\n1848, in S.F. letter list. H. (James), 1841, mid. on the U.S. St Louis. H.\n(James), 1830, one of Young's party, iii. 174. H. (John), 1830, Irish trapper of Young's party from N. Mex., where he had been naturalized, iii 180,\n388. At Sta B. in '36, age 39, and single, being often a companion of Nidever\nin hunting tours. From '37 named on Larkin's books at Mont.; in '40 a lumberman on Carmelo Creek, where he was arrested and sent to S. Bias. iv. 18,\n23; never came back. H. (Nelson), 1847, capt. Co. D, Morm. Bat. v. 477;\nwith wife and 4 children, but did not reach Cal. v. 477, 482. H. (N.D.),\n1847, servant to officer of Morm. Bat. (v. 469). H. (Silas G. j, 1847, Co. C,\nN.Y.Vol. (v. 499).     H. (W.D.), 1848, passp. from Hon,\nHiguera, ment. in 1793-1808. i 617, 640; ii. 192. H. in Mont, revolt\n'37. iii. 525. H. (Antonino), in S. Jose* district '41, age 38, wife Josefa\nAlviso, 5 children named, but all called Alviso in the padron. The date of\nthis man's death, in '46, is the turning-point in litigation for the Livermore\nrancho now in progress '85. Some papers of my col. bearing on the case\u2014in\nwhich Antonino's name seems to have been rather clumsily forged before the\npapers came into my hands\u2014were introduced as evidence. H. (Antonio),\nsoldier of S.F. comp. '19-22; at S. Mateo '35. H. (Bernarda Soto de), widow\nat S. Jose* '41, age 52, child. Joaquin b. '15, Jose* Ant. '18,. Ramona '22, Juan\nMaria '25, Dominga '32, Encarnacion '36. H. (Bernardo), in Los Ang. dist.\n'19-43; grantee of Rincon de los Bueyes. ii. 355,565; iv. 635. H. (Dolores),\narrested at Los Ang. '45. iv. 541. H. (Doroteo), at Los Ang. '46. H.\n(Este*van), soldier of S. F. comp. '19-30; militiaman '37. H. (Francisco),\nsoldier of S.F. comp. '19-24; elector '27; drowned in '30. ii. 592, 594. H.\n(Fran.), soldier of S. F. comp. '37-42. H. (Fran.), son of Bernardo; at S.\nPascual '46. v. 352; claimant of Rincon de Bueyes '52. iv. 635. H. (Fulgen-\ncio), son of Jose*; soldier of S.F. comp. '19-30; alf. of militia at S. Jose* '37.\niii. 732; grantee of Agua Caliente, Alam. Co., '39. iii. 711; in '41 living at his\nrancho, age 42, wife Clara Pacheco, child. Albino b. '24, Tomas '26, Narciso\n'29, Gabriel '31, Jose* Jesus '32, Fernando '35, Leandro '37, Francisca '22,\nMaria L. '27, Maria de los Ang. '36. H. (Gregorio), at Los Ang. '39, prob.\nson of Bernardo, age 29.\nHiguera (Ignacio), settler at S. Jose* 1790; majordomo in 1805, killed by\nInd., but ment. in 1807. i 478; ii 34, 135.     H. (Ignacio), soldier of S. F.\n 784 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\ncomp. '30-40; at Sonoma in '44, age 33. H. (Ignacio), soldier of S.F. comp.\n'35-6; sergt '39-40. iii. 702; encargado of the contra costa '39. iii. 705. H.\n(Ignacio), soldier of Mont. comp. '36, age 24. H. (Ignacio), maj. at Sta B.\n1799-1801. ii 120. H. (Ignacio), soldier at Sta B. before '37. H. (Jer6n-\nimo), at S. Jose* '41, age 23, wife Rosario Felix, one child. H. (Joaquin),\nsettler at Los Ang. 1790; alcalde in 1800. i. 461, 661; ii. 349. H. (Joaquin),\nregidor, alcalde, and juez de campo at S. Jose* at dif. times '20-46. ii. 378,\n604-5; iii. 729; iv. 662, 684; Cal. claim '46-7 (v. 462); claimant for Pala, Sta\nClara Co., '52.\nHiguera (Jos6), soldier of S.F. comp. '19-41; perhaps the man who settled\nin Napa. H., at S. Jose* '41, age 66, wife Ramona Garcia, child. Florencio\nb. '36, Encarnacion '18 (?), Miguel '37, Rita '40. H. (Jose*), grantee of Tularcitos and Llano del Abrevadero '21-2, and of Pala '35. ii. 594, 664, 712-13;\nAntonia H. et al. were claimants. H. (Jose*), perhaps the same; the distrib.\nof his estate took place in March '46, and I have the orig. expediente in Pico\n(Ramon), Doc. Hist. Cal., i 107-24, which shows the following heirs: Ful-\ngencio, Valentin, Mariano, 5 minors whose guardian was Mariano (prob.\ntheir father by a daughter of Jose*), Mrs Robert Livermore, wife of Lazaro H.,\nFlorentino Archuleta, and Antonio Mesa, each receiving 133 cattle, 88 vines,\nand 10 fruit-trees. It was in these papers that the name of Antonino was\nfraudulently introduced, as noted above. H. (Jose*), ment. in '46. v. 235.\nH. (Jose* Ant.), son of Manuel; at S. Jose* '41, age 52, wife Ambrosia Pacheco,\nchild. Ricardo b. '22, Juan '24, Miguel '26, Leonardo '27, Isidro '29, Fernando\n'33, and Encarnacion '31. H. (Jose* Maria), at Salinas rancho '36, age 50,\nwife Maria de Jesus Cota, child. Juan b. '14, Tomas '18, Pilar '19, Bias '21,\nJos\u00a3 '26, Encarnacion '28, Gertrudis '31, Manuel '33, and Luisa '35.\nHiguera (Juan), in '31 comisionado of S. Juan B., and regidor of Mont,\niii. 212, 307, 672, 692; juez aux. '42. iv. 6\u00a33; at S. Jose* '50. H. (Juan), of\nSta Cruz, killed at Los Ang. '45. iv. 492. H. (Juan), at Los Ang. '39,\nage 45. H. (Juan Jose*), soldier at S. Jose* mission 1797-1800. i 556. H.\n(Juan Jose*), juez at S. Juan B. '42. iv. 661. H. (Juan Jose*), at Los Ang.\n'19, '25. ii 354; iii. 7. H. (Lazaro), at N. Helv. '47; his wife was an\nHiguera, daughter of Jose*. H. (Leonardo), in Los Ang. revolt '46. v.\n308; Cal. claim of $12,072 (v. 462); age 37 in '39. H. (Manuel), soldier\nand settler at S. Jose* and S. Juan B. before 1800. i 477, 558; in 1793 named\nin S. Jose* padron as a soldier, wife Antonia Arredondo, child. Ignacia,\nAna Maria, Gabriela, Jose* Joaquin, and Jose* Ant. H. (Manuel), inva-\nlido of S.F. comp. '19-29, perhaps the same. H. (Manuel), at S. Jose*\n'41; age 32, wife Maria N. Mesa, child. Antonio M. b. '30, Jose* Jesus '32,\nJose* Balfino '37, Jose* Maria '40, Argentina '34, Maria Ant. '36. H. (Manuel), at Los Ang. '46. H. (Mariano), at Los Ang. '39-46. H. (Mariano),\nat S. Jose* '41, age 26, wife Maria Antonia Higuera, child. Emilio b. '39,\nJose* '41, Rosario '32, Maria Ascension '34, Ines '38. H. (Marta Frias\nde), cl. of Entre Napa rancho.\nHiguera (Nicolas), soldier of S.F. comp. '19-23; alcalde on the frontier and\ngrantee of Entre Napa and Carneros ranchos '36. iii. 705, 711, 722; at N.Helv.\n'48. H. (Policarpo), soldier at Sta B. before '37. H. (Salvador), soldier\nand settler at Sta Cruz and S. Jose 1791-1800. i 495, 556, 716. H. (Secundum), at Los Ang. '46. H. (Tomas), soldier of S.F. comp. '30-2. H. (Valentin), resid. of Sta Clara region! from '41, grantee of Pescadero rancho '43.\niv. 672; juez de paz, suplente, '46, at S. Jose* '46. v. 662; died '79, age 70.\nHijar (Carlos N.), 1834, nephew of Jose* M., with whom he came in the colony\nin '34, and again in '45; and in '77, then a resident of S. Jose*, gave me his\nrecollections of California in '34- H. (Jose* Maria), 1834, a wealthy and influential Mex. of Jalisco who joined J. M. Padres and others in organizing the\nCal. colony that bears their name. He also got an appointment as gov.; bub\nGov. Figueroa refused to recognize his title, the colony was a failure, and H.\nwas sent to Mex. in '35 on a charge of conspiracy, which was but very slightly\nfounded in fact. iii. 259-69, 272-91, 344-5, 383, 613, 652, 670. Nothing is\nknown of his experience in Mex.; but in '45 he was sent back to Cal. as a\n HIGUERA-HINCKLEY.. 785\ncommissioner of the govt to prepare for resisting the U.S. He died at Los\nAng  very soon after his arrival, iv. 526-31, 631. He was an honorable man\nof many accomplishments and frail health, with little fitness or fondness for\npolitical wrangles.     Hilgers (Gerard), 1846, at Mont.; owner of S.F. lot 47.\nP   Hill, 1848,called majorat Mont.      H., 1847, at N. Helv ; brother of Tom\nHill,  Delaware Ind.     H., 1848, mr of the Rhone, v. 580.     H\u25a0 P*W\nAntonio), 1823, nat. of Mass., who came from Hon. on the Rover, and settled\nat Sta B  ii. 495, 573; iv. 117. He was baptized byP Ripoll m  25, m. 29\nbeing then 26 years old; and soon married Rafaela Ortega being naturalized\nin '29. Robinson, Life in Cal., 89, describes him as 'fe, sort of factotum for the\nwhole town, carpenter or mason by turns as his services were needed.   In 36\nhe had 6 children. In '45 he leased tbe Sta B. mission   iv. 553, +558, 644; m\n'46 was the grantee of La Goleta rancho, having some trouble with the Flores\ngovt   v. 317, 330, 632, 644; regidor in '49; went east in  60 on a visit; and\ndied'at Sta B. in '65. A son, Ramon J., was assemblyman and court interpreter, dving in '84. One of his daughters married Dr Nicholas Den, and another,\nSu anl, married T. W. More iS '53.     H. (Henry de Jesus , 1840, German\nwho got a pass, in June; perhaps Jos. Henry.     H. (Henry)  1847, owner of*\nS F Tot- nat. of Va, and memb. of the constit. convention in 49.      H. (John),\n1846, sailor of the navy, on sentry duty at Mont ; deserts with his prisoners.\nH. (John), 1847, later policeman.      H. (John E.), 1847, Co  D, JN.l.voi.\n\u00a3 499.); d. at Pendleton, Or., '82.     H. (Joseph HenryU834, German from\nMex. in the H. & P. col. iii 412; at Sta Cruz '42-3.     H.   Thos),1845; Delaware Ind. in Fremont's party, who distinguished himself by bravery on\nseveral occasions, iv. 583; v. 367, 371, 400.     H (Thos J ), 1847, Co AN\nY Vol (v. 499); at S.F. '71-82.     H. (Wm Luther), 1831, nat. of N.Y. and\npartner of Louis Bouchet in a Los Ang. vineyard; died this year, making his\nwill on the Catalina in July. There was a property of $406 for ^father,\nPeter Hill. iii. 405.     Hilton (Benj.), 1847, Co. D, N. Y. Vol. (v   499); d.\nMont. '47.     H. (Giknan), 1845, one of the men lost on the Warrens launch.\niv 587; v. 384.     Hilts, 1848, mate of the Isaac Walton from N.Y. Grimshaw.\n' Hina (Jack), 1847, owner of S.F. lot.     Hinckley, 1847, mr of the Alice, v.\n576.     H., 1848, mr of the Starling, v. 400.      H., 1848, from Hon. on the\nCurrency Lass.     H. (Azra E.), 1837, Co. B  Morm. BA (v. 469); a Utah\nfarmer '81      H. (F. G.), 1842, in Dwinelle's list; wife Susana Suart (?);\ndoubtless a confused ref. to Capt. Wm S.     H. (Sam. A.), 1844, Amer. who\nrec'd naturalization in June. iv. 453.     H. (Thomas), 1831-2, mr or sup. of\nthe Crusader, iii 382. He was a brother of Wm S., a partner of Henry A.\nPeirce at Honolulu, and died in Cent. America on his voy. home.     H. (Wm\nCrawley), 1847, nat. of Mass., from Valparaiso on the Georgiana; mr of the\nProvidence in '47-8, to Tahiti, Hon., Mazatlan, then up the Sac. from Sta\nCruz with a cargo of goods, converting the vessel-temporarily into a country\nstore; at S.F. from '49 to '72, when he gave me an autobiog. sketch, v. 58U.\nHinckley (Wm Sturgis), 1830, nat. of Mass., nephew of Wm Sturgis, for\nseveral years a trader at Honolulu, and mr of the Volunteer, going to the U.\nS iii 85, 149, 170, 179. In '33-4 he came again as sup. of the Don Quixote,\nand in '34-5 mr of the Avon. iii. 381-2. After rendering aid to Alvarado in\nhis revolution of '36, for which he was poetically and otherwise sharply criticised by Mexicans, his vessel having been wrecked, apparently, he went to\nHon. on the Quixote, iii 466-1, 487; iv. 82, 103, 116  141. In '37-8 he was\nmr of the Diana or Kamamalu, being arrested at S\u00bbF. for smuggling, still a,\nconfidential friend of the gov., and from this time interested m business with\nNathan Spear and Leese at S.F., obtaining and occupying a lot on Montgomery\nSt. iii 549, 699,705, 709-10; iv. 699. In'39 he was mr and owner of the Corsair,\nbeing again in trouble with the revenue authorities, also grantee of town lot.,\niii. 705; iv. 103, 130; v. 681. In '42, dating his permanent residence from 40,\nhe was naturalized and married; in '44 was alcalde, getting more lots. iv. bob,\n676, 679,683; in '45-6 capt. of the port, having much controversy withl^eides-\ndorff and Forbes, escaping arrest by Fremont's men as a Mex. oihcial by^deatn\nin June '46, at the age of 39. iv. 593, 666; v. 3, 131, 136, 178, 649, 681. His\nHist. Oal., Vox., m.   50\n 786\nPIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\n1st wife went east in '37, iv. 101, and died in\n'40; his 2d wife was\nSusana, daughter of Ignacio Martinez, who, after H.'s death, married Wm M.\nSmith in '48. I have no record of children. Capt. Hinckley was a handsome,\njovial, intelligent man, immensely popular with the natives, somewhat reckless in the 'use of'his tongue when under the influence of liquor. If there was\nanything he liked better than contraband trade it was probably practical\njoking. Some of his jokes, like the one of Christmas night at S. Juan in '37,\nare not exactly adapted to print; and for others space is lacking; but I may\nnote how, in an interview with Gov. Alvarado on matters of state, he disposed\nof an over-inquisitive secretary who came in too often to snuff the candle, by\nfilling the snuffers with powder; also how Gen. Vallejo avenged himself for\nsome prank by mounting H. on a bear-hunting horse at Sonoma. The horse\nmade it very lively for the mariner, who returned on foot with tales of encounters with grizzlies not wholly credited by the listeners. Hinds (R. B.),\n1837-9, surgeon in Belcher's exped.; author of Regions of Vegetation, Botany\nand Zoology of the exped. iv. 143-6. Hinton, see 'Hoornbeck.' Hintz\n(Herman), 1847, owner of S.F. lot.\nHipwood (Thos), 1847, sergt Co. F, N. Y. Vol. v. 504; killed in L. Cal.\n'48. Hitchcock, 1844, guide of the Stevens immig. party, iv. 475-6. Ace.\nto Schallenberger he had no family, the boy generally called H., Jr, being Patterson. Mrs P. of that party with 3 children was apparently H.'s daughter.\nHe claimed to have visited Cal. 11 years before, and had possibly been one of\nWalker's party in '33. H. (Isaac), 1847, Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 518); in\nthe mines '49; in Salinas Val. '77-80; d. at Sta Rita, from an accident, in '81,\nat the age of 64. H. (John C), 1847, Co. E, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499). H. (R.\nB.), 1845, lieut on the U. S. Savannah. H. (Rufus), 1848, overl. immig.,\nwho kept a boarding-house at N.Helv. in '48, with son and 2 daughters; later\nkept a hotel on the Amer. Riv. and at Green Springs, where H. and wife died\nof small-pox. One of the daughters, Mrs Lappeus, was in Or. '72; the other\ndead. Hitt (Calvin), 1848, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Winona, Minn., '82.\nHoar (John A.), 1843 (?), prob. error in a list of pioneers; in S. F. '54.\nHoarde (John), 1833, said to have been a member of Walker's party, iii.\n391. Hoban (Chas F.), 1847, nat. of N. Y., from Honolulu on the Com.\nShubrick; Brannan's clerk at Mormon Isl. '49; d. S.F. '63, age 43. Hobson\n(Joseph), 1848, nat. of Md, perhaps came on the Lady Adams from Callao;\nmemb. of constit. conven. in '49. H. (Wm L.), 1847, from Valparaiso with\nletters from Atherton; at Hon. as sup. of the Maria Helena; of S. F. guard\n'49. Hodges (Hiram B.), mr of the Monmouth. Hoen (Francis), 1845,\noverl. immig. of the Swasey-Todd party, iv. 576, 587; for a time in Sutter's\nemploy; in '46 owner of S.F. lots and candidate for treasurer, v. 295, 684-5;\nkept a cigar-store; still in S.F. '54.\nHoeppner (Andrew), 1844, German long in Russian employ at Sitka, where\nhe married a half-breed wife. The exact date and manner of his coming to\nCal. are not known, but he was here in '45. iv. 453. Lived at Yerba Buena\nand Sonoma '45-9; a musician and man of many accomplishments, besides defeating Vioget in an eating-match, as Davis relates. In '47 he had great expectations from his warm springs of Annenthal, near Sonoma, as advertised in\nthe Star. v. 667. Markof visited him in '45 and Sherman in '47. In '48 he was\n2d alcalde at Sonoma, v. 668; and is named at N. Helv. on his way to the\ngold mines. About '49 he left his wife and went to Hon. and Chile, where he\nis said to have died about '55. Hoffheins (Jacob), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat.\n(v. 469). Hoffman (Chas), 1847, perhaps of N.Y.Vol. under another name.\nH. (Geo. W.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). H. (Henry), 1847, Co. F, 3d\nU.S. artill. (v. 528). H. (Henry A.), 1847, ditto; corporal, v. 519. Hoff-\nstetter(John J.), 1847, died at N. Helv.; property sold at auction. Hoit\n(John), 1846, Co. G, Cal. Bat. (v. 358).\nHolbrook (Washington), 1848, sup. of the Sabine; came back on the Elizabeth from Hon.; negotiates for lot at S.F. v. 681. Holdaway (Shadrach),\n1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Provo. Utah, '82. Holden (Dr), 1848,\nwith Gen. Lane from N. Mex. for Or.; in S. Diego region Dec.     H. (W. S.),\n HOLDEN\u2014HOPPER. 787\n1848, passp. from Hon. Holland (F. S.), 1847, at Benicia. v. 673. H.\n(J.), 1847, in S.F. letter list. Hollingsworth (John McHenry), 1847, lieut\nCo. I, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; memb. of the cohstit. conven. '49; at Georgetown, D.\nC. '74-82. H. (Z.), 1846, an overl. immig. with Russell, at Sonoma; killed\nby Ind. in the mines '48; left a family in Solano, consisting of Harriet (later\nMrs Anderson), John D., Hezekiah S., Joseph B., Wm T., and Sarah E.\n(later Mrs Duncan). Holloway (Adam), 1847, doubtful dace; veteran of the\nMex. war; at S. Jose '52-79; brewer and chief of fire dept; left a family at\nhis death in '79; also accredited to '46. H. (M.), 1846, came to Sta Clara\nCo. (?). Holly (Gray), 1834, named in Larkin's accts. Holman (James D.),\n1848, left Cal. a week after the disco v. of gold; d. at Portland, Or., '82. H.\n1847, lieut of Morm. Bat. (?); prob. 'Holmes.'\nHolmes, 1848, Conn, mechanic in the mines. H., 1841; surgeon of U.S.\nex. ex. (?). H. (H. P.), 1846, in Sonoma Co. '52-77; doubtful date of arrival.\nH# (John Andrew Christian), 1827, Boston trader, sup. and mr of the Franklin, Maria Ester, and Catalina '27-32. iii. 147-8,. 176-7, 381. He died in\nMarch '32 between Acapulco and Callao. His wife Rachel came from Hon. to\nCal. the same year to meet him, but only to hear of his death; and she soon\nmarried Thos O. Larkin, a fellow-passenger on the Newcastle, iii. 408. H.\n(Jonathan), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat., and presid. of a party on the return in\n'48, after working as shoemaker at N. Helv. v. 496. Holstein (W.), 1845,\nmr of the Maria, iv. 567. Holt (John), 1846, veteran of 1812, sailor in the\nnavy, in Stockton's bat., at S. Gabriel '72, age 81. Los Ang. Express. H.\n(Wm), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Holton (Benj. D.), 1847, Co. F,\n3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). Hommitch (John), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nHoney (Wm), 1847, owner of S.F. lot.\nHood (Frisbie), 1848, negro steward on the Isaac Walton; at Mokelumne\nHill '52. Grimshaw. H. (Wm), 1846, Scotch carpenter at S.F. '47-8, of H.\n& Wilson; owner of lots and a house, v. 650, 684-5; in Sonoma Co. '50-77.\nHook (Henry), 1831, writes to Cooper from Sta Fe*; connected with the Globe,\nand had apparently been in Cal. H. (Solomon), 1846, one of the Donner\nparty who survived; a son of Mrs Elizabeth Donner. v. 530, 534. W. C.\nGraves tells me he saw H. in Lake Co. in '63-4. H. (Wm), 1846, brother\nof Sol., who died in the Sierra, v. 530, 534. Hooker, 1841, sec. of Sir Geo.\nSimpson. Hooker (Wm), 1840, sent to Mont, from Branciforte; written\n'Guca.' Hooper (Simon), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). H.\n(Wm M.), 1833, from Boston, with a letter from Childs to Larkin. iii. 409;\nwent to Hon. in '45, and returned in '48; prob. the same who advertised as a\nmerchant at S. F. '48-9; of the firm Cross, Hobson & Co. Hoornbeck (A.\nT.D.), 1848, known as Francis Hinton; died at S. Luis Rey '70. Hoover\n(Westley), 1846, overl. immig. with a family, who settled at S. Jose*, where\nhe served on the 1st jury in '48. v. 529. H., 1846, at N. Helv. in charge of\na launch in Feb.; Sutter mentions him as a scientific man who superintended\nhis farm for several years, and who was thought to be living at Sta Clara in\n'76; perhaps Westley, though he could not have been an immig. of 46.\nHope (Alex. W.), 1848, nat. of Va, who had been surg. in U.S.A.; at Los\nAng. '48-56, where he died; memb. of 1st Cal. senate. H. (Gerard), 1834,\nIrish hatter of H. & Day at Mont. '34-6, age 30. iii 412. H. (John), 1833,\nnamed in Larkin's accts '33-4; perhaps the same. Hoppe (Jacob D.), 1846,\nnat. of Md, and overl. immig.; owner of town lots, proprietor and editor of\nthe Californian, and candidate for alcalde in '47-8. v. 652,658, 685; projector\nof the new town of Halo Chemuck. v. 674; went to the mines, was a memb. of\nthe constit. convention of '49, and settled at S. Jose*, where he made a fortune in trade and lost it by speculation. Claimant of Ulistac rancho. v. 674;\nkilled by the explosion of the Jenny Lind in '53, at the age of about 40. He\nwas an enterprising and popular man, against whom nothing appears.\nHopper (Chas), 1841, nat. of N. C, a hunter who came with the Bartleson\nparty, but went back as guide with part of the comp. in '42. iv. 270-1, 275-6,\n279, 342. In '47 he came back overl. to Cal. with his family, v. 556, and bought\na Napa farm, where he spent the rest of his life, dying in '80, at the age of 81,\n 788 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nand leaving 5 children. Hopperfs Narrative in my col. was written from conversations with H. by R. T. Montgomery in '71. Portrait in Menefee's Hist.\nSketch-book, 128. H. (James), 184, in Sta Clara Val. '60. Hittell. H.\n(John), 1848, on 1st S. Jose jury. H. (Thomas), 1847, nat. of Mo., and\noverl. immig. with his wife, \"Minerva Young; in Sta Cruz region '47-8; in the\nmines '48-9. From '49 at dif. places in Sonoma Co., being in '80 a rich landowner with 7 children. Portrait in Sonoma Co. Hist, 384. H. (Wm), 1847,\nCo. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. Los Ang. '47.\nHorden (Stephen), 1844, doubtful name of an Amer. in S.F. list. Horn\n(Wm), 1846, settler in Sta Clara Val. with fam.; Cal. claim (v. 462). Horn-\ndell (Joseph), 1847, Co. B, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at St Louis, Mo., '82. Horner\n(John M.), 1846, one of the Mormon col. from N. J. with wife. v. 546; settled\nas a farmer at mission S. Jose\\ with a variation of mining experience in '48.\nIn partnership with his brother, who came in '49-50; he took a prominent part\nin the early annals of Alameda Co. By agriculture, trade in farm produce, and\nland speculations, the Homers became rich and extended their operations to\nthe peninsula of S.F., where their name is preserved in Horner's Addition.\nThey lost their property in '54, and from that time lived on their Alameda\nifarm till '80, when they went to the Sandwich Islands. Horra (Antonio de\nla Concepcion), 1796, Span, friar who served at S. Miguel for a very brief\nterm, and was sent away by Pres. Lasuen in '97 on a charge of insanity. In\nMex. he made a long report against the Cal. friars, and the investigation of\nhis charges formed one of the causas celebres of mission annals, i. 560-1, 567,\n587-97. Horry (Irwin), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. H. (James), 1848, servant of Brooks' party in the mines; killed by Ind. in Bear Valley. Horsely\n(Joseph), 1833, at Mont. '33-4; also called Horseman. Horton, 1847, mr of\nthe Triad, v. 580. H. (Wm), 1840, in Farnham's list of arrested foreigners.\niv. 17. Hoseir (E.), 1848, in S.F. letter list. Hoskihs (Henry), 1847, Co.\nE, Morm. Bat. (v. 469.)     Hotchkiss (H.), 1848, passp. from Hon.\nHouck (James), 1845, Amer. immig. from Or. in the McM.-Clyman party,\niv. 572; about 10 days after arrival at Sutter's Fort he was charged with an\nattempt at rape, and nothing more is known of him. Hough (H.), 1845,\npurser's clerk on the Savannah. Houghtailing, 1847, at Hon. from S.F.\nHoughton (Sherman O.), 1847, sergt of Co. A, N.Y. Vol. v. 503. A nat. of N.\nY., who became a prominent lawyer of Sta Clara Co., being mayor of S. Jose\\\ncounty recorder, and member of congress '71-5. His 1st wife was Mary M.\nDonner, who died in '60 leaving one daughter, Mary M.; the 2d wife was Eliza\nP. Donner, who still lived in '85 with 7 children, Eliza P., Sherman O., Clara\nH., Chas D., Francis J., Stanley W., and Herbert S. (died 76). Portrait of S.\nO. H. in Sta Clara Co. Hist, 32. Houptman (Wm), 1840, German who got\npassports in '40 and '44, the former in Mex., so that he may have come later,\niv. 120. House (James), 1844, at Sonoma, age 50. H. (Joseph), 1846,\ncame to S. Jose*. Hall. Houston (Thos B. or T.), 1846, act. mid. on the U.\nS. Dale; died '63, as lieut, at Naples.\nHow (Oliver H.), 1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Howard (Wm), 1848,\nSwedish sailor on the U.S. St Mary, who quit the service at S.F., went to\nthe mines, and in '50 settled in Sonoma Co., where he still lived in '80, at a\nR.R. station bearing his name; wife from '55 Caroline Kolmer of '46; 9 children. Portrait in Sonoma Co. Hist., 296. H. (Wm Davis Merry), 1839, nat.\nof Boston, sent to sea by his mother with a view to needed discipline, who\ncame to Cal. as a cabin-boy on the California, iv. 117, 119; and worked#fora\nwhile as clerk for Stearns at Los Ang. He went east in '40, and came back in\n'42 as sup. of the California. At Honolulu, on the way, he married Mary\nWarren, adopted daughter of Capt. Grimes, a native of Hon. and daughter of\nWm Warren, q.v., who was returning on the vessel from Boston, where she\nhad been educated. In '43-5 H. acted as sup. of the Vandalia and California.\niv. 564, 569, 640; and in '45 opened a store at S.F. with Henry Melius, buying the H.B.Co. establishment. In '46-9 Melius & H. were the leading firm\nin town, and after the gold excitement did an immense business, having\nbranches at Sac. in charge of Brannan, and at S. Jose* under Belden's care,\n HOWARD\u2014HUDSON. 788\nboth being partners in the interior business, as was Talbot H. Green in the\ncity. The firm was dissolved in '50, and H. retired a rich man. See mention\nof H. in various minor matters, he being a member of the council, and admin,\nof the Leidesdorff estate, v. 240, 321, 359, 539, 648-52, 678; cl. for the S.\nMateo rancho. v. 660. After a visit to the east in '53 his health failed, and\nhe died in '56, at the age of about 37. Howard was a large man, of fine personal appearance; jovial, generous, and humorous; fond of practical jokes,\nlate suppers, and private theatricals; but always attentive to business. He\nhad no political ambitions, but was fond of helping his friends into office.\nAmong ail the pioneer traders of S.F. there was probably no better man, nor\nmore deservedly popular. A. street in the city bears his name. His 1st wife\ndied in '49, leaving one child, who died; and his 2d wife, Agnes Poett, married in '49, survived him, marrying his brother George, and later a man named\nBowie. A son by the 2d wife was still living in '80.\nHowe (Elisha W.), 1848, nat of R. I., who came by sea and went to the\nmines; in S. Luis Ob. '50-83; married Gabriela Estudillo, and had 6 children.\nH. (Franklin), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). H. (Henry), 1848,\nin Sonoma, as he stated later. Howell, 1848, from Honolulu. H. (Chas),\n1848, mining at Rose Bar. H. (Isaac), 1846, nat. of N.Y., and overl. immig., settling in Napa Co. with his family. In '69 he moved to S. Luis Ob.,\nwhere he died in '78, at the age of 80; known as Father Howell; left a widow\nand 7 children, one or more of whom came with him in '46. A son is ment. at\nN. Helv. in '48; the widow died in '83, also aged 80; two of the sons were\nJohn and Joseph. H. (John), 1846, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); at Sonoma and N.\nHelv. '47-8; perhaps son of Isaac. H. (T.C.D.), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat.\n(v. 469); in '82 a farmer at Clifton. Id. H. (Wm), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat.\n(v. 469). Howes (Horan), 1847, Soc. Cal. Pion. roll. Howland (Henry S.),\n1837, mr of the Com. Rodgers '37-8. iv. 103. H. (Wm), 1848, sailor on J.\nWalton.\nHoxie, 1847, mr of the S. Boston, v. 550. Hoyer (Cornelius), 1842, mr\nof the Fama '42-Z, and perhaps '41; at Hon. '36. iv. 141, 565; passp. from\nHon. '48. Hoyt (Aug. A.), 1846, Fauntleroy's dragoons (v. 232, 247); Co.\nF, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). H. (C), 1847, at Mont. '47-8. H. (Daniel C), 1847,\nCo. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). H. (Henry P.), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat; (v.\n469); d. on the return journey. H. (R.C.M.), 1846, leased land and house\nat Mont.; Taber & H., hotel-keepers at Mont. '47-8; at S. Jose* '50.\nHubbard, 1845, apparently one of Fremont's men; v. 453, 583, 587; at N.\nHelv. Feb. '46; in F.'s exped. of '48, when he died. H. (Charles), 1834, German and naturalized Mex.; mr of the Peor es Nada '34-5, and of the Soledad\n'43. iii. 383, 412; iv. 568. H. (Geo. G), 1847, lieut Co. K, N.Y.Vol. v.\n504; a printer; memb. of legisl.'49; d. in 111. before '60. H. (JohnE.),\n1848, nat. of Chile, who came with his parents to S.F. at the age of 6; liquor-\ndealer at Vallejo'79; d. t Vallejo '85. H. (T. W.), 1845, nat. of N.Y.;\ncame at age of 5; messenger in assembly '55. H. (W. H.), 1847, rented a\nhouse at Sonoma. Hubbell (Ezekiel), 1801, mr of the Miterprise. ii. 2.\nHuber (Henry), 1841, overl. immig. of the Bartleson party, iv. 270, 275, 279;\ngrantee of Honcut rancho '45, for which he was an unsuccessful claimant in\n'53. iv. 671; ment. at Sutter's Fort '46; owner of lots at S.F. '47-8. v. 676. I\nthink he is the man who for 15 years or more, down to '85, has kept a well-\nknown liquor-store at S.F. Hubert (Nicholas), 1844, deserter from the\nWarren.     Huchas (Heinrich), 1847, musician N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).\nHuddart (John M.), 1847, lieut Co. F, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; d. at the Sandw.\nIsl. before '60. Hudgekison (David), 1847, contract to haul lumber at N.\nHelv. Dec. Hudson (A. J.), 1845, at S. Luis Ob. '68-83. S. Luis Ob. Co.\nHist, 388. H. (Benj.), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). H. (David), 1845,\nnat. of Mo., b. '20, overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv. 578, 587, with\nhis brother, Wm, and sister, Mrs York; settled in Napa Val., where\u2014but for\nhis service with the Bears, v. 110, later in the Cal. Bat. (v. 356), and a brief\nmining experience in the mines '48\u2014he lived till '73. Then he moved to a\nfarm in Coyote Val., Lake Co., where he lived in '81 with wife\u2014Francis\n 790 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nGriffith, married in '47\u2014and 6 children, Rodney J. b. '50, Lavonia, Elbert,\nElla, Ada, Bertha (died), and Robert L. Prob. still alive in '85. In '72, at\nCalistoga, he wrote his Autobiography for me. Portrait in Lake Co. Hist, 188.\nSix of his brothers and sisters came to Cal., sooner or later. H. (Edward),\n1847, owner of S;F. lot. v. 682; still in S.F. '52, a carpenter.      H. (Hiram),\n1847, laborer and watchman at Mont. H. (James T.), 1845, a trader at S.\nPedro.      H. (John T.), 1805-6, mr of the Tamana. ii 24.      H. (Martin),\n1848, nat. of Va, brother of David, and overl. immig. with wife and 5\nchildren; settled in Guilicos Val., Son. Co., '48-9 and lived there until his\ndeath in '71, at the age of 64. His widow, Elizabeth McAlroy, and 7 children\nwere living in '80. The sons who came in '48, and were still living in '80, were\nMichael E, John W., David A., and Matthew T. H. (Thos), 1844, said to\nhave come to Sta Clara Val. iv. 453; at Mont. '45; in '46-7 of Co. B, Cal.\nBat. (v. 358), serving also a courier in Oct. '46; at Mont. '47-8. H. (T. F.),\n1848, settler in Sonoma Co.; at Sta Rosa '77. H. (Wilford), 1847, Co. A,\nMorm. Bat. (v. 469); at Sutter's Fort in '48 when gold was discovered. H.\n(Wm), 1845, brother of David, overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party,\napparently with a family, iv. 579, 587; at Sta Rosa from '46, in which year\nhis daughter Mary, later Mrs McCormick, was. born. His wife is credited\nwith having furnished some material for the famous Bear flag. v. 148. He\ndied in '66, leaving a large family. H. (Wm L.), 1841, com. of the U.S.\nPeacock in U.S. ex. ex. iv. 241.\nHudspeth (Benj. M. or N.), 1846, lieut, and later capt., Co. A, Cal. Bat. v.\n361. I find nothing more about him. H. (James M.), 1843, nat. of Ala, who\ncrossed the plains to Or. in '42, and came to Cal. in the Hastings party, iv.\n390, 400. He worked for Stephen Smith at Bodega for a while, iv. 396; and\nsubsequently visited various parts of Cal., working as a lumberman at Sauza-\nlito, and hunting in the Sac. Val.; served, perhaps, as a 2d lieut of Gantt's\ncomp. during the Micheltorena war of '44-5; and in the spring of '46 went\neast to the Salt Lake region with Hastings and Clyman to aid in diverting\nimmig. and prospective filibusters from Or. to Cal. v. 526, 529. He returned in the autumn, v. 530, and served as lieut of Co. F, Cal. Bat., in '46-7.\nv. 361, 435. After the war he bought land in Sonoma, and w6rked with\nO'Farrell as surveyor at Benicia\u2014where he owned a lot, v. 672, as also at S.\nF., v. 679\u2014Napa, and other places; in the mines '49-50; later a farmer in\nSonoma Co.; memb. of legislature '52-5; and still living in '85, at the age of\n63. His wife, from '54, was Matilda Fuller, and he had no children. Portrait\nin Son. Co. Hist, 160.\nHuefner (Wm), 1847, Co. C, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); ment. at Sonoma, where\nhe took part in theatrical performances, and at N. Helv.; resid. of S. F. and\nfor a long time marshal of the pioneer society to '82; but I think died before\n'85. Huerstel (Laurent), 1844 (?), in S.F. '81, said to have arrived in '44.\nSoc. Cal. Pion. roll. iv. 453. Huet, 1845, Amer. farmer from Or. in McM.-\nClyman party, who prob. went back in '46. iv. 572, 526; perhaps 'Hewitt.'\nHuff (Columbus), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518); in Napa '48.\nHugel (Fred.), 1837, German who had been in Cal. 5 years when applying\nfor a pass in '42. iv. 118; at Sutter's Fort '46; in '47 bought land of Rufus in\nSon. Co.; perhaps 'Hegel,' q.v. Hugenin (Dan. 0.), 1846, mid. on the U.\nS. Portsmouth; lost on the Warren's launch, iv. 587 r v. 384. Hughes (H.,\nM.), 1839 (?), in Sonoma Co. '74-7. H. (John), 1847, Co- D, N. Y. Vol. (v.\n499). H. (Wm), 1845, one of Fremont's men. iv. 583; Cal. claim '46-7 (v.\n462). He was a nephew of Cyrus Alexander, and Also in the exped. of '48.\nH. (Wm), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). H. (Wm O.), 1836, on Larkin's\nbooks '36-7; perhaps 'Hewes.' Huguee, 1845, mr of the Medicis. iv. 567.\nHuie (Geo. W.), 1847, physician said to have come with Lieut Thompson of\nthe U.S.N.; joined by his family '49 at S. F.; at Petaluma '53-68, and later\nat S.F., where he died in '77.\nHulett (Sylvester), -1847, lieut Co. D, Morm. Bat. v. 477; in'82 at Manti,\nUtah. Hull, 1844, mr of the Georgia, iv. 566. H. (Isaac), 1848, passp.\nfrom Hon.     H.'(Joseph), 1848, nat. of Ohio, who came to Or. in '45, and to\n HULL\u2014HUTCHINSON. 791\nCal. on the discov. of gold; joined by his family '49; from '50 on a Sac. farm,\nwhere he still lived in '80 with wife and 4 children. H. (Joseph B.), 1843,\ncom. of the U.S. Warren '43-7; in com. at S.F. '46-7, succeeding Montgomery, iv. 569; v. 284, 289, 380, 434, 539, 581, 649, 659.\nHumphrey, 1840, at Mont.; Larkin urged to use his influence to start him\nfor home. H. (Benj. F.), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). H. (Geo. L.),\n1847, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Coulterville '74. H. (Isaac), 1848, nat.\nof Ga, at Sutter's Fort when gold was discovered; having been a miner in Ga,\nhe hastened to the mill, made a rocker, and thus became the pioneer in a new\nindustry. Ment. in N. Helv. Diary in April. Died at Victoria in '67- H.\n(Wm), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Coulterville '71-4; perhaps confounded with Geo. L. H. (W.), 1848, passp. from Hon. Humphries, 1840,\nmr of the Columbia '40-1. iv. 102-3, 564.      H. (Stephen), 1848, in S.F. list.\nHunnewell (James), 1830, a well-known Boston trader in business at Hon.\nfor some years. The only evidence I have that he ever came to Cal. is a letter\nof Oct. '30, in which he hopes to visit the country ' again;' but in '33 he was\nin Mass. and intended to stay there. He. died in '69. He may have visited\nCal. before '20. Hunsacker (Abraham), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469);\nlater sergt; in '82 a bishop at Brigham City, Utah. H. (Daniel), 1847,\noverl. immig. from Mo. with his family; ment. at ft. Helv. in Aug. with news\nof approaching immigration, v. 556. Settled at Benicia, and later in Contra\nCosta, where he was treasurer of the county. Of his sons who came in '47,\nHarrison K. was at one time deputy sheriff of Contra Costa; James C. was\nsheriff, and lost on the Brother Jonathan; and Nicholas, also sheriff, was a\nminer at Park's Bar in '48, and a resid. of S. Diego '74.\n\u2022Hunt, 1813, agent of Astor's fur company, on the Pedler. ii. 271. H.\n(Gilbert), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). \u2022 H. (Jefferson), 1847, capt. Co.\nA, Morm. Bat., and also preacher, v. 477-80, 488, 493; had a project for\nraising a new battalion, v. 496. He was accomp. by his wife and 4 sons,\nHiram, John, Joseph, and Martial; and three daughters, Jane, Harriet, and\nMary; but it is doubtful if all the family came to Cal. In later years Capt.\nH. came back to Cal. and represented S. Bernardino in the legisl. of '55.\nH. (Martial), 1847, son of Capt. H., Co. A, Morm. Bat.; in '81 at Snowflake,\nAriz. H. (Timothy Dwight), 1841, protestant clergyman who came from\nHonolulu in Nov., and was employed for a time as city chaplain. .In '55 he\nwas in Cal. as the agent of the Amer. Home Miss. Soc. v. 657.\nHunter (Barry), 1846, doubtful name in a Los Ang. list.     H. (Benj. F.),\n1846, lieut on the U. S. Portsmouth; at N.Helv. June. v. 102; acting capt. of\nCo. C, Stockton's bat. '46-7. v. 385. H. (Edward), 1847, Co. B, Morm.\nBat. (v. 469); in '82 a bishop in Utah. H. (Jesse D.), 1847, nat. of Ky, and\ncapt. Co. B, Morm. Bat. v. 477; in com. of S. Diego garrison, v. 488, 617.\nInd. agent for southern Cal. at S. Luis Rey from Aug. v. 492, 568, 621-2.\nHis wife died at S.D. in '47. v. 490. He remained in Cal., went to the mines\nin '48, but returned to the south to act again as Ind. agent. He died at Los\nAng. in '77, at the age of 73, leaving 7 grown children with families. H.\n(Wm), 1847, musician of Morm. Bat., Co. B. (v. 469). Huntington (Dimick\nB.), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 499); at Salt Lake City '55. Huntley\n(Ezra), 1847, Co. K, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499). Huntsman (Isaiah), 1847, Co. B,\nMorm. Bat. (v. 469); in Utah '81.\nHuppertz (Gerard), 1834, succeeded Sill & Co. as baker at Sta B.     Hurst,\n1847, at N. Helv. from S.F., Oct. Hurtado (Joaquin), 1791, piloto in Malas-\npina'sexped. i. 490. Huse (Sam. E.), 1846, gunner on the U.S. Congress, and\nin com. of a gun in Stockton's campaign of '46-7; in Amador Co. from '51;\ndied at Yount in '79. Hutcheon (Walter), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499);\nd. Brooklyn, N.Y., '80. Hutcheson, 1848, sentenced to corporal punishment\nby court-martial. Hutchins, 1846, mr of the whaler Columbus. Hutchinson (G.N.), 1846, in the U.S.N.; drowned in '78 at Vallejo, where he was mr\nof the navy-yard yacht Freda, and had lived for 20 years.\nHutchinson (Jacob A.), 1846, overl. immig. with family, who in '49 settled on the Cosumnes River, and soon started on a prospecting tour, from\n 792 PIONEER REGISTER AND INDEX.\nwhich he never returned. H. (Jacob A., Jr), 1847, son of the preceding;\nliving on the Cosumnes with family in '80; perhaps date of arrival should be\n'46, or that of his father '47. The H. brothers are named as having bought\nIsbel's claim in S. Joaq. '48. H. (Joseph), 1846, Fauntleroy's dragoons (v.\n232, 247). H. (Wm A.), 1848, advertised for a lost rifle at S.F. Hutt-\nmann (Francis), 1847, mr and sup. of the Matilda, Primavera, and Callao in\n'47-8; made advances of money to Fremont, about which there was much\ntrouble later, v. 441, 465-6, 576. Hutton (James D.), 1847, surveyor of\npueblo lands at S. Jos6; appointed official surveyor of the southern dept, but\nthe appointment was withdrawn on account of charges in connection with his\nS. Jose work. v. 665. Huxley (J. Mead), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Voi (v. 499);\nat S.F. '54; officer in the war of '61-5; died before '82.\nHyatt (Elisha), 1846, one of the Mormon col. with wife and son. v. 546;\nexcommunicated at S. F.; and in Oct. at Mont., making tubs, etc. Hyde\n(Geo.), 1846, nat. of Penn., who came on the U.S. Congress as Com. Stockton's\nsec. For a time, in Aug., he was alcalde at S. Jos6. v. 294-5, 662; then came\nto S.F., where he was 2d alcalde with Bartlett, and 1st alcalde from June '47\nto March '48, having much trouble in his administration of the office, as fully\nexplained in v. 648-52, 680. There seems to have been but slight foundation\nfor the many and bitter charges against him. He was a lawyer, of good abilities and character. He was somewhat prominent in city politics in '49 and\nthe few years following; and has resided in S. F. ever since to '85, being in\nthe real estate business. In '78 he gave me a valuable statement of Historical\nFacts, including not only his own controversies, but many other points of interest connected with early S. F. annals. Hyde (Wm), 1847, sergt Co. B,\nMorm. Bat., being also an elder and preacher, and a capt. of 50 on the return,\nv. 477, 488, 490-1, 493.\nTo be Continued at the End op Vol. TV.\n      ","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Includes a pioneer register and index from page 732 with a note in page 792 \"To be continued at the end of Vol. IV.\"<br><br>Other copies : http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/oclc\/12786421","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Books","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier":[{"value":"F851 .B216","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"II-0025-V20","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0376061","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"English","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"San Francisco : The History Company","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images please contact\u00a0digital.initiatives@ubc.ca.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source":[{"value":"Original Format: University of British Columbia. Library. I.K. BARBER LIBRARY. F851 .B216","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/subject":[{"value":"Indians of North America","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Indians of North America--Bibliography","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Indians of Central America","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Mexico--History","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Central America--History","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"British Columbia--History","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Pacific States","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Mexico--History","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Central America--History","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"The works of Hubert Howe Bancroft. Volume XX. History of California : Vol. III. 1825-1840","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}